Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-12 PL-CRC-2024-000015 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehab, Final EA, from HDOTOda, Michelle From: Honolulu Planning <HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 9:15 AM To: Honolulu Planning Cc: Sun, Robert Subject: Notice of Availability for Hakalau Final EA Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Aloha mai kakou, HDOT wishes to inform you that the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation has been published in the July 8, 2024 Environmental Notice. The document is available at ERP's website at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc Library/2024-07-08-HA-FEA-Hakalau-Stream-Bridge-Rehabilitation.pdf. If you commented on the Draft EA, a summary of responses can be found in Table 4-2 of the Final EA. To access and review the Final EA, please visit the ERP's website. We thank you very much for your continued participation. HDOT Project Manager: Mr. Robert Sun, c/o e-mail: HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com 601 Kamokila Boulevard, #609, Kapolei, HI 96707 NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. 1 JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR KE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 KA `OIHANA ALAKAU 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 June 28, 2024 EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DIRECTOR KA LUNA HO'OKELE Deputy Directors Na Hope Luna Ho'okele DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE CURT T. OTAGURO ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.20776 TO: JAMES KUNANE TOKIOKA, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM THROUGH: MARY ALICE EVANS, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FROM: EDWIN H. SNIFFEN 4rek DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (FEA) AND ANTICIPATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. BR- 019-2(075) HAKALAU, HILO MOKU, ISLAND OF HAWAII The Hawaii Department of Transportation transmits the FEA for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project for publication in the next available edition of The Environmental Notice. We have determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the project, pursuant to the significance criteria specified in the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 11-200.1-13. We hereby issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, as documented in the enclosed FEA. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Holly Yuen at (808) 692-7548, or by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. Enclosure From: webmaster(ahawaii.gov To: DBEDT OPSD Environmental Review Program Subject: New online submission for The Environmental Notice Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 1:44:57 PM Action Name Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Type of Document/Determination Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact (FEA-FONSI) HRS §343-5(a) Trigger(s) • (1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds Judicial district North Hilo, Hawaii Tax Map Key(s) (TMK(s)) Right -of -Way; (3) 2-9-002:023; (3) 2-9-002:025; (3) 2-9-002:039; (3) 2-9-002:080; (3) 2-9-002:999; (3) 3- 1-001:001; (3) 3-1-001:002; (3) 3-1-001:003; (3) 3-1-001:004; (3) 3-1-001:005; (3) 3-1-001:006; (3) 3-1- 001:777; (3) 3-1-001:999. Action type Agency Other required permits and approvals NEPA Categorical Exclusion; DA Permit pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 or Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10; Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation; Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) Essential Fish Habitat coordination; ESA Section 7 consultation; National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation; Coast Guard Bridge Permit Exception; Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Federal Consistency Review coordination; Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA); Response Action Memorandum (RAM); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for storm water discharges related to construction activities; CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) blanket certification (pending DA permit); Community Noise Permit; Community Noise Variance; HRS Chapter 6E-8 Review; HRS Chapter 195D Conservation of Aquatic Life, Wildlife, and Land Plants Review; Shoreline Certification; Shoreline Setback Variance; Conservation District Use Permit; Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP); Grading, Grubbing, and Stockpiling Permit; Solid Waste Management Plan; USDOT Act Section 4(f) Exemption concurrence; Special Management Area (SMA) Permit Proposing/determining agency Department of Transportation Agency contact name Holly Yuen Agency contact email (for info about the action) holly.yuen@hawaii.gov Email address for receiving comments HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com Agency contact phone (808) 692-7548 Agency address 601 Kamokila Boulevard Room 688 Kapolei, Hawai`i 96707 United States Map It Is there a consultant for this action? Yes Consultant WSP USA Consultant contact name Allen Kam Consultant contact email Allen.kam@wsp.com Consultant contact phone (808) 566-2230 Consultant address 1001 Bishop Street Suite 2400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 United States Map It Action summary The Proposed Action has two main components: (1) soil remediation so that public use of Hakalau Beach Park and surrounding areas can be restored; and (2) bridge rehabilitation to allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge and increase its resilience to extreme natural hazards. Because roadway pavement damage is anticipated during construction, a third project component is also proposed: (3) road resurfacing on Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road, coupled with formalizing a permanent maintenance easement for Old Mill Access Road. The project area lies within Hakalau Gulch, which is currently undeveloped, including the County's Hakalau Beach Park and private properties surrounding the state-owned Hakalau Stream Bridge. The park has been closed to the public since 2017. The area has stream and shoreline access, contains the ruins of Hakalau Sugar Mill, and is lush with vegetation. Reasons supporting determination See Chapter 5 of the FEA. Attached documents (signed agency letter & EA/EIS) • RUSH-HWY-DS-2.20776-FEA-for-Hakalau-Stream-Bridge-part-1-signed.pdf • 20240628.HakalauFEA.pdf Shapefile • The location map for this Final EA is the same as the location map for the associated Draft EA. Action location map • Shapefile-emailed-separately.zip Authorized individual Allen Kam Authorization • The above named authorized individual hereby certifies that he/she has the authority to make this submission. Final Environmental Assessment Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hawaii Belt Road, North Hilo, Hawaii Island State of Hawaii Department of Transportation July 2024 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT No. BR -019-2(075) HAWAII BELT ROAD, NORTH HILO, HAWAII ISLAND July 2024 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Hawaii Belt Road, North Hilo, Hawaii Island Submitted Pursuant to the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Title 11, Chapter 200.1, Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules by the: Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Ms. Holly Yuen, Project Manager Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Boulevard, #688 Kapolei, HI 96707 (808) 692-7548 This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the foreseeable primary, secondary, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project's implementation and commits to specific measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. This EA also contains a record of consultation activities conducted to date as part of project planning. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) proposes two primary actions: (1) remediate lead -contaminated soils around the bridge; and (2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure. HDOT also proposes road resurfacing on Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road, coupled with formalizing a permanent maintenance easement for Old Mill Access Road. The project is intended to restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park and the surrounding area and allow continued unrestricted operation and increase the bridge's resilience to extreme natural hazards. Hakalau Stream Bridge would not be widened, and its traffic capacity would not increase. HDOT has reviewed comments received on the Draft EA and has determined that the project is not likely to have a "significant" effect in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343 and Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-200.1-13. Therefore, HDOT is issuing a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) for the project, which is documented in Chapter 4 of this EA. July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Purpose of This Document and Naming Conventions 1-1 1.2.1 Purpose of This Environmental Assessment (EA) 1-1 1.2.2 Naming Conventions Used in this Document 1-4 1.3 Project Purpose and Need 1-5 1.3.1 Restore Public Use to Hakalau Beach Park and Surrounding Areas 1-5 1.3.2 Allow Continued Unrestricted Operation and Increase Resilience of the Bridge 1-5 1.4 Proposed Action 1-6 1.4.1 Soil Remediation 1-6 1.4.2 Bridge Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestles 1-11 1.4.3 Road Resurfacing and Permanent Maintence Easements 1-12 1.5 Other Alternatives Considered 1-16 1.5.1 No Action Alternative 1-16 1.5.2 Soil Remediation Alternatives 1-17 1.5.3 Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives 1-20 1.6 Project Cost 1-25 1.7 Project Schedule 1-25 1.8 Permits and Approvals 1-25 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION 2-1 2.1 Physical Geography and Soils 2-1 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2-1 2.1.2 Potential Impacts 2-3 2.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-3 2.2 Land Use 2-3 2.2.1 Existing Conditions 2-3 2.2.2 Potential Impacts 2-4 2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-4 2.3 Hazardous Materials 2-12 2.3.1 Existing Conditions 2-12 2.3.2 Potential Impacts 2-16 2.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-16 2.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources 2-17 2.4.1 Regulatory Context 2-17 2.4.2 Existing Conditions 2-17 2.4.3 Potential Impacts 2-24 2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-25 2.5 Cultural Resources 2-26 2.5.1 Existing Conditions 2-26 Page i July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.5.2 Potential Impacts 2-28 2.5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-28 2.6 Biological Resources 2-29 2.6.1 Regulatory Context 2-29 2.6.2 Existing Conditions 2-30 2.6.3 Potential Impacts 2-32 2.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-37 2.7 Surface Water Resources and Wetlands 2-38 2.7.1 Existing Conditions 2-38 2.7.2 Potential Impacts 2-39 2.7.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-40 2.8 Parks and Recreational Resources 2-45 2.8.1 Existing Conditions 2-45 2.8.2 Potential Impacts 2-46 2.8.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-46 2.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 2-46 2.9.1 Existing Conditions 2-46 2.9.2 Potential Impacts 2-52 2.9.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-52 2.10 Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic 2-53 2.10.1 Existing Conditions 2-53 2.10.2 Potential Impacts 2-53 2.10.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-54 2.11 Natural Hazards and Sea -Level Rise 2-56 2.11.1 Existing Conditions 2-56 2.11.2 Potential Impacts 2-57 2.11.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-61 2.12 Public Services and Utilities 2-61 2.12.1 Existing Conditions 2-61 2.12.2 Potential Impacts 2-61 2.12.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-61 2.13 Noise 2-61 2.13.1 Regulatory Context 2-62 2.13.2 Existing Conditions 2-62 2.13.3 Potential Impacts 2-62 2.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-63 2.14 Air Quality 2-64 2.14.1 Existing Conditions 2-64 2.14.2 Potential Impacts 2-65 2.14.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-66 2.15 Social and Economic Conditions 2-66 2.15.1 Existing Conditions 2-66 2.15.2 Potential Impacts 2-66 2.15.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 2-66 2.16 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 2-67 2.16.1 Secondary Impacts 2-67 Page ii July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.16.2 Cumulative Impacts 2-67 CHAPTER 3: CONSISTENCY WITH GOVERNMENT PLANS AND POLICIES 3-1 3.1 State of Hawaii Plans and Controls 3-1 3.1.1 Hawaii State Plan 3-1 3.1.2 Hawaii Statewide Federal -Aid Highways 2045 Transportation Plan 3-3 3.1.3 Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii 3-3 3.1.4 Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan 3-4 3.2 County of Hawaii Plans 3-5 3.2.1 County of Hawaii General Plan 2005 3-5 3.2.2 Hamakua Community Development Plan 3-7 CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 4-1 4.1 Early Consultation 4-1 4.2 Draft EA 4-3 4.3 Final EA 4-5 4.4 RAA and RAM 4-5 4.5 Regulatory Coordination 4-6 4.5.1 Federal Coordination 4-6 4.5.2 State and Local Coordination 4-10 CHAPTER 5: FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 5-1 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES CONSULTED 6-1 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDICES EARLY CONSULTATION, REGULATORY COORDINATION AND CORRESPONDENCE, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (RAA) REPORT FOR LEAD IMPACTED SOIL AT HAKALAU BEACH PARK AND RESPONSE ACTION MEMORANDUM (RAM) FOR LEAD IMPACTED SOIL AT HAKALAU BEACH PARK ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT WETLAND DELINEATION TECHNICAL REPORT Page iii July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Project Location 1-2 Figure 1-2: Project Area Map 1-3 Figure 1-3: View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge Deck (looking south) 1-4 Figure 1-4: Profile View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge (looking west) 1-4 Figure 1-5: Existing Bridge Elevation (Profile) Plan with Bent Numbers 1-8 Figure 1-6: Extent of 2016, 2020, 2022 Soil Testing and Results 1-9 Figure 1-7: Proposed Soil Remediation Areas 1-10 Figure 1-8: Proposed Bridge Elevation (Profile) Plan 1-13 Figure 1-9: Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle 1-14 Figure 1-10: Drilling Platform Construction Access Plan 1-15 Figure 1-11: Example of a Temporary Drilling Platform 1-16 Figure 1-12: Hybrid Trestle 1-24 Figure 2-1: Soils in the Project Area 2-2 Figure 2-2: State Land Use Districts 2-5 Figure 2-3: Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii 2-6 Figure 2-4: County Zoning Map 2-7 Figure 2-5: County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map 2-8 Figure 2-6: Special Management Area Map 2-9 Figure 2-7: Tax Map Key Map 2-10 Figure 2-8: Hazardous Materials Sites Identified by HEER Office 2-13 Figure 2-9: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Soil Sampling Test Results 2-15 Figure 2-10: Historic Properties 2-19 Figure 2-11: Site 26591 — Feature J, Stone Stairs 2-20 Figure 2-12: Site 26591 — Feature K, Concrete Flume Supports 2-21 Figure 2-13: Site 26591 — Feature L, Concrete Foundation and Seawall 2-21 Figure 2-14: Site 26591 — Feature L, Remnants of Former Crane 2-22 Figure 2-15: Site 26591 — Feature M, Raised Concrete Ford on Old Mill Access Road 2-22 Figure 2-16: Site 30187 — Old Mamalahoa Highway 2-23 Figure 2-17: Vegetation Communities 2-34 Figure 2-18: Hakalau Watershed 2-41 Figure 2-19. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Habitat Types 2-42 Figure 2-20. Wetland Delineation and Waters of the U.S. 2-43 Figure 2-21: Viewpoint 1— View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from Old Mamalahoa Highway 2-47 Figure 2-22: Views of Project Area 2-48 Figure 2-23: Viewpoint 2 — View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from the Hilo -side shoreline (Looking Mauka) 2-49 Figure 2-24: Viewpoint 3 — View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from Hakalau Stream Ford (Looking Makai) 2-50 Figure 2-25: Viewpoint 4 — View of Hakalau Gulch from Hawaii Belt Road (Looking Mauka) 2-51 Page iv July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-26: Viewpoint 5 — View of Hakalau Bay from Hawaii Belt Road (Looking Makai) 2-52 Figure 2-27: Roadway Network in the Project Area 2-55 Figure 2-28: Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map 2-58 Figure 2-29: Flood Zone Map 2-59 Figure 2-30: SLR Exposure Area Map 2-60 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1-1: Soil Remediation Alternatives Summary 1-18 Table 1-2: Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary 1-21 Table 1-3: List of Pernits and Approvals by Agency 1-26 Table 2-1: Tax Map Keys in Project Area 2-11 Table 2-2: Hazardous Materials Sites Identified by HEER Office 2-12 Table 2-3: Historic Site Significance, Impacts, and Proposed Treatment 2-24 Table 2-4: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species That May Occur in Project Area 2-31 Table 2-5: Threatened and Endangered Animal Species That May Occur in Project Area 2-31 Table 2-6: Construction Equipment Noise Levels 2-63 Table 2-7: National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 2-65 Table 4-1: Summary of Early Consultation Comments and Responses 4-3 Table 4-2: Summary of Draft Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses Error! Bookmark not defined. Page v July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AIS Archaeological Inventory Survey ALISH Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best management practices BSR Biological Survey Report CatEx Categorical Exclusion C-EHMP Construction environmental hazard management plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIA Cultural impact assessment County County of Hawaii CRC Cultural Resources Commission CWA Clean Water Act CWRM Commission on Water Resource Management CY Cubic yard CZM Coastal Zone Management CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DA Department of Army DAR Division of Aquatic Resources dBA A -weighted decibels DEM Department of Environmental Management DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EHMP Environmental hazard management plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FDA Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact General Plan County General Plan HAER Historic American Engineering Record HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HDOH Hawaii Department of Health HDOT Hawaii Department of Transportation HEER Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response HHF Historic Hawaii Foundation Page vi July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes HSTP Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation KPC Kealamahi Pacific Consultants MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/kg milligrams of lead per kilogram MOA Memorandum of Agreement MUS Management unit species NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHO Native Hawaiian Organization(s) NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OPSD Office of Planning and Sustainable Development PIFWO Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office of the USFWS PIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office of the NMFS ppb parts per billion The project Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project RAA Remedial Alternatives Analysis RAM Response Action Memorandum RFD Request for Determination RHA Rivers Harbors Act SCAP Stream Channel Alteration Permit Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act sf square feet SHPD State Historic Preservation Division SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIHP State Inventory of Historic Places SLR Sea -level rise SLR-XA Sea -level rise exposure area SMA Special Management Area SSV Shoreline setback variance State State of Hawaii TMK Tax Map Key USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USDOT Act 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page vii July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment WQC Water Quality Certification Page viii July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Name Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Proposing Agency State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) Determining Agency HDOT Landowner State of Hawaii; County of Hawaii; various private land owners General Location Hakalau, North Hilo, Hawaii Island Hakalau Stream Bridge is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W Tax Map Keys Right -of -Way; (3) 2-9-002:023; (3) 2-9-002:025; (3) 2-9-002:039; (3) 2-9- 002:080; (3) 2-9-002:999; (3) 3-1-001:001; (3) 3-1-001:002; (3) 3-1- 001:003; (3) 3-1-001:004; (3) 3-1-001:005; (3) 3-1-001:006; (3) 3-1- 001:777; (3) 3-1-001:999. Project Area Roughly 15 -acres encompassing the entire length of Hakalau Stream Bridge, plus approximately an additional 100 feet on Hawaii Belt Road on either end of the bridge. The project area also extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge, including most of the County of Hawaii's (County) Hakalau Beach Park property on the makai side. On the mauka end, the project area continues along just the paved portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road. The construction staging area is estimated to be about 1.3 acres and located in the area makai of the bridge. The selected contractor will determine the exact boundaries of the staging area while avoiding historical properties (i.e., the Hakalau Mill) or potential wetlands. Existing Uses of the Project Area The project area lies within Hakalau Gulch, which is currently undeveloped, including the County's Hakalau Beach Park and private properties surrounding the state-owned Hakalau Stream Bridge. The park has been closed to the public since 2017. The area has stream and shoreline access, contains the ruins of Hakalau Sugar Mill, and is lush with vegetation. Proposed Project The Proposed Action has two main components: (1) soil remediation so that public use of Hakalau Beach Park and surrounding areas can be restored; and (2) bridge rehabilitation to allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge and increase its resilience to extreme natural hazards. Because roadway pavement damage is anticipated during construction, a third project component is also proposed: (3) road resurfacing on Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road, coupled with formalizing a permanent maintenance easement for Old Mill Access Road. Based on conceptual engineering, the total cost of the Proposed Action is estimated at approximately $70 million (in 2022 dollars). The soil remediation portion of the project is estimated at over $8 million, and the proposed bridge rehabilitation is estimated at $60 million. These costs will be refined as engineering details are developed. July 2024 Page ES -1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment State Land Use Designation Conservation (Limited & Resource Subzones), Agricultural, and Urban. County Zoning A20a (Agricultural); MG -5a (General Industrial); RS -7.5 (Single -Family Residential). Special Management Area Partially within the Special Management Area (SMA). Anticipated Determination Finding of No Significant Impact (FON SI) pursuant to Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). Anticipated Impacts ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM PERMANENT IMPACTS • Land Use A shoreline certification by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) will be required to support the SMA permit application, which may revise shoreline parcel ownership. A shoreline setback variance (SSV) may also be required by the County. HDOT will coordinate with the County Planning Department regarding SMA and SSV requirements. • Hazardous Materials The proposed soil remediation would be beneficial as it would remove soils with the highest concentrations of lead contamination in the project area in agreement with the Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) reports approved by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office for this project. The proposed soil remediation would reduce future impacts to human health and the environment. HDOT will also coordinate with the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation to post signage in accordance with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Subchapter 3, Section 13-5-22 P-8 Signs, which is clearly informing the public of the presence of lead in the areas proposed for remediation and will also install and maintain signage for areas not proposed for remediation. • Historic Resources The replacement of the Hakalau Stream Bridge's (Site 09090) historic steel trestles with concrete bents would result in loss of character -defining features and a loss of historic integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Because of the anticipated effect on Hakalau Stream Bridge, a finding of "Adverse Effect" is anticipated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and a finding of "Effect, with Proposed Mitigation Measures" is also anticipated under HRS Chapter 6E-8 for the State review of the project's impacts to historic properties. FHWA and HDOT would prepare a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to stipulate measures that will adequately mitigate these impacts. As a result, the project would result in no significant adverse impact on historic properties under HRS Chapter 343. Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187) will be used to facilitate access to the soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation areas during construction. The anticipated impacts to the site would be related to normal wear and tear and are considered negligible. Those minor impacts to the road surface would be mitigated by roadway repaving which is already proposed as part of the project. At this time, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. In the unlikely event that the cobble rock walls are damaged during the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge, they would be repaired in Page ES -2 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment coordination with SHPD. No further work is proposed for Site 30187 at this time. • Parks and Recreational Resources The Proposed Action would result in beneficial impacts to recreational resources by enabling the re -opening of Hakalau Beach Park and stream and shoreline access to the public. Upon completion of soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation work, HDOT will repave the existing roads in the project area to facilitate vehicular access to Hakalau Beach Park. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The project's construction duration is anticipated to be roughly 2.5 years for both the bridge rehabilitation work and soil remediation work. The following construction impacts and mitigation measures may occur for approximately that length of time. • Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Management During construction, hazardous materials will be encountered in lead - impacted soils and vegetation. The main human exposure pathway is through contact with contaminated soil but exposure could occur from dust, surface water runoff, and leaching. Exposure may also occur from contact with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems via fugitive dust from construction activities. The potential exposure to contaminated materials that are disturbed during construction presents a health and safety concern mainly to construction workers because access to the area is and will remain restricted to public until Hakalau Beach Park is reopened. Contaminated soil and vegetation will be removed and disposed of at permitted off-site facilities, either on -island or on the mainland. HDOT and its contractor will be responsible for preparing and implementing a Construction — Environmental Hazard Management Plan (CEHMP) in conformance with the guidelines established by the HDOH HEER office to manage identified environmental hazards posed by known or suspected environmental contaminants at a site, and to provide clear procedures for how to manage these environmental hazards safely. With the CEHMP in place and followed, risk to construction workers should be minimal. HDOT and its contractor will also be responsible for preparing a solid waste management plan in coordination with the County Department of Environmental Services prior to the start of construction. No further significant short-term impacts are anticipated. • Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project will be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. If any potential historic properties are identified during construction activities, all activities will cease and State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) will be notified pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-280-3. If human remains are encountered, all earth moving activities in the area will stop, the area will be cordoned off, and the SHPD and Police Depailaient will be notified pursuant to HAR § 13-300-40. In addition, in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains, the completion of a burial treatment plan, in compliance with HAR §13-300 and HRS §6E-43, is recommended. No significant impacts are expected. • Biological Resources July 2024 Page ES -3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Although temporary construction duration impacts to flora are unavoidable with the proposed vegetation clearing and earthwork, no significant permanent adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated with the Proposed Action. No botanical resources of concern were identified in the project area, and to the extent feasible the project will use native plants for restoring vegetation and landscaping, increasing the presence of native species. Although construction activities have the potential to impact various protected wildlife that may be present in the area, HDOT is consulting with multiple natural resource agencies and will incorporate measures mandated by federal and state agencies into the project to avoid and minimize impacts to protected species. The contractor may request the option to work at night to expedite the construction schedule. Construction mitigation measures include ceasing construction if waterbirds are present and avoiding nighttime construction activities during the seabird fledging season (September 15 to December 15). If construction is required during the Hawaiian hawk breeding season (March to September), a preconstruction survey will be conducted. HDOT will require contractors to conduct frequent and regular watch for the presence of green sea turtles, hawksbill turtle, and Hawaiian monk seals to avoid direct interaction with these animals. The selected contractor will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during construction. BMPs for work in aquatic environments will also be incorporated into the project design to minimize the degradation of water quality and minimize the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife resources. HDOT will also obtain a Department of Army (DA) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the proposed in -water work, which will call for aquatic BMPs. With these mandated mitigation measures, BMPs, and regulatory controls in place, no significant impacts on biological resources are anticipated during construction. • Visual and Aesthetic Resources During construction, views of the valley will be temporarily altered by soil remediation and vegetation clearing. These impacts, however, are only temporary as HDOT and its contractor will restore the soil and vegetation in the project area to its pre -construction state. No significant impacts are anticipated. • Traffic No significant traffic operational impacts or public safety concerns are anticipated with the proposed work. During construction, traffic control plans and construction phasing plans would be implemented to minimize potential traffic delays. No complete bridge closures are anticipated. Lane closures on Hawaii Belt Road may alter traffic patterns, driver behavior, and travel times. Truck traffic associated with construction activities will access Hawaii Belt Road and local roads, but these construction vehicles will avoid commuter peak periods to minimize traffic impacts. The public will be kept informed of planned construction activities and lane closures. • Noise Construction activities would involve heavy machinery and vehicles that at times may exceed the maximum levels allowed by community noise control regulations. The contractor will obtain a Community Noise Permit and will be required to comply with its terms and conditions. A Community Noise Variance will also be obtained if night, weekend, or holiday construction is needed. No significant impacts are anticipated with adherence to the restrictions in the Community Noise Permit and Community Noise Variance. Page ES -4 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment • Air Quality Air quality impacts during construction generally consist of fugitive dust (airborne particulate matter) and mobile source emissions from construction equipment. Airborne, visible fugitive dust generated during construction would be controlled at the project site by the contractor in accordance with the provisions of HAR Chapter 11-60.1-33, Fugitive Dust. Measures to address health and safety concerns associated with potential exposure to airborne lead due to the disturbance of contaminated materials during construction will be addressed by the CEHMP for this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. HAR 11-200.1-18(d) EA Content Requirements 1) Identification of the applicant or proposing agency. See Section 1.1, Introduction. 2) For applicant actions, identification of the approving agency. This project is an agency action. See "Determining Agency" in this Executive Summary and Section 1.1, Introduction. 3) List of all required permits and approvals (state, federal, and county) and, for applicants, identification of which approval necessitates chapter 343, HRS, environmental review. See Section 1.8, Permits and Approvals, and Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination. 4) Identification of agencies, citizen groups, and individuals consulted in preparing the Final EA. See Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination, and Appendix A. 5) General description of the action's technical, economic, social, cultural, historical, and environmental characteristics. See Chapter 2, Affected Environment, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation. 6) Summary description of the affected environment, including suitable and adequate regional, location, and site maps such as Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Floodway Boundary Maps, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, or state sea level rise exposure area maps. See Chapter 2, Affected Environment, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation. 7) Identification and analysis of impacts and alternatives considered. See Chapter 2, Affected Environment, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation. 8) Proposed mitigation measures. See Chapter 2, Affected Environment, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation. 9) Proposing agency or approving agency anticipated determination, including findings and reasons supporting the anticipated FONSI, if applicable. See Chapter 5, Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact. 10) Written comments and responses to comments received, if any. See Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination, and Appendix A. July 2024 Page ES -5 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Introduction The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project (the project). Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W. Hakalau Stream Bridge is an aging steel -trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road roughly 180 feet above Hakalau Stream and spans roughly 775 feet across Hakalau Valley. See Figure 1-1: Project Location and Figure 1-2: Project Area Map. The project is listed as a system preservation project (HS 4) in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (federal fiscal year 2022-2025), which programs federal funds for transportation improvements. 1.2 Purpose of This Document and Naming Conventions 1.2.1 Purpose of This Environmental Assessment (EA) HDOT proposes to remediate lead -contaminated soils surrounding the Hakalau Stream Bridge to restore public use of the Hakalau Beach Park and to rehabilitate the substructure of the bridge. See Figure 1-3: View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge Deck (looking south) and Figure 1-4: Profile View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge (looking west). The project requires an environmental review in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 because it would use State of Hawaii (State) and County of Hawaii (County) lands and use State funds. HDOT is responsible for preparing this EA document, which must comply with HRS Chapter 343 and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 11, Chapter 200.1. HDOT anticipates that the project would not have a "significant" effect in accordance with HRS Chapter 343 and HAR 11-200.1-13. Therefore, an EA process was selected for the environmental review. If, during the consideration of comments received on this Final EA, HDOT determines that a significant impact would occur, HDOT will either revise the project to avoid or mitigate the impact's severity or start preparing an environmental impact statement. Because federal funds administered by the FHWA would be used to construct the project, the project is considered a federal action and must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federally mandated environmental review process. To comply with NEPA, a Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) is anticipated for the project and will be documented separately from this HRS Chapter 343 EA. This EA provides supporting documentation for compliance with NEPA and other federal environmental regulations, the coordination for which is ongoing. Other federal laws that apply include Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Section 106), and Section 4(1) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act (USDOT Act). These federal reviews—which have the potential to affect decision-making, including requiring avoidance and mitigation measures—are identified and addressed where relevant throughout this EA. See Appendix A-1, Pre -Draft Environmental Assessment Coordination and Consultation, for early consultation comments, which informed the preparation of this EA. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence, for correspondences with regulatory agencies. July 2024 Page 1-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 1-1: Project Location Hakalau HAWAII COUNTY Project Location 441. 404. .114. 1 HAWAII COUNTY Ito n Frrirsti571751; Source: Esri 2023; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Page 1-2 July 2024 0 cas • cip a) Wcip • M"i W ca Final Enviro Project Area Map Source: Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 1-3: View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge Deck (looking south) Source: Google Maps 2011 Figure 1-4: Profile View of the Existing Hakalau Bridge (looking west) Source: ASM Affiliates 2023 1.2.2 Naming Conventions Used in this Document The project is located in Hakalau, a small unincorporated community on the east coast of Hawaii Island, governed by the County. The bridge is located at roughly the 15.3 -mile mark on Route 19 (Hawaii Belt Road). Although Hawaii Belt Road is also called Mamalahoa Highway, this EA defaults to the name "Hawaii Belt Road" to avoid confusion with Old Mamalahoa Highway, which is a separate route that intersects Hawaii Belt Road and also serves this community. This EA uses the terms "Hakalau Stream Bridge" and "Hakalau Bridge" interchangeably to refer to the state-owned bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Page 1-4 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Road over Hakalau Stream. When referring to the County -owned bridge by the same name on Old Mamalahoa Highway, this EA clearly identifies it as the "County" bridge. The terms "Hakalau Valley" and "Hakalau Gulch" may also be used interchangeably to refer to the valley encompassing the area below the State's Hakalau Stream Bridge. This EA generally uses the standard directional terms north, south, east, and west in relation to Hakalau, as well as commonly used local directional conventions. For example, the direction of travel along Hawaii Belt Road in the vicinity of Hakalau going "north" is in the direction "toward Honokaa" (a town north of Hakalau), while the direction heading "south" refers to "toward Hilo" (the city located south of Hakalau). The Hawaiian terms "mauka/makai" are also used interchangeably with "west/east." Relative to Hakalau, "mauka" ("toward the mountains") refers to the "west" direction, while "makai" ("toward the ocean") refers to the "east" direction. 1.3 Project Purpose and Need The purposes of the project are the following: • Restore public use of Hakalau Beach Park and surrounding areas. • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge and increase its resilience to extreme natural hazards. The remainder of this section describes the need associated with each project purpose. 1.3.1 Restore Public Use to Hakalau Beach Park and Surrounding Areas Hakalau Stream Bridge is a historic steel -trestle bridge that was painted with lead-based paint. This lead paint has contaminated the soil around the bridge and Hakalau Beach Park, which is below and adjacent to the bridge. In 2000, the lead paint was removed from the Hakalau Stream Bridge, so it would not continue to further contaminate the environment. However, lead remains in the surrounding area, including at Hakalau Beach Park. Exposure to lead -contaminated soils can have detrimental effects on human health. For this reason, Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017, after initial lead testing was conducted and the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge was determined. Because of this contamination, soil remediation for lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to officially reopen to the public. HDOT seeks to eliminate the lead contamination in the remediation area to protect human health and the environment to the greatest extent possible to minimize the possibility of continued reexposure to lead when the beach park is restored for public use. 1.3.2 Allow Continued Unrestricted Operation and Increase Resilience of the Bridge The existing substructure of the aging steel -trestle bridge is nearing the end of its useful life due to steel corrosion and scour conditions that undermine its foundations. Recent bridge inspections have revealed extensive corrosion at select internal joints and heavy corrosion on several towers. The structural integrity of the existing bridge is threatened further by various degrees of scour/scour potential observed at the in - stream footings located at Bents 7, 8, and 9. Figure 1-5: Existing Bridge Elevation (Profile) Plan with Bent Numbers is a profile drawing of the existing bridge and shows these numbered "bents" (or legs) of the steel trestles that support the bridge superstructure. A scour assessment of the Hakalau Stream Bridge conducted in January 2011 recommended a Scour Critical Bridge Rating of 3, which means the bridge is "scour critical" with "unstable" foundations. A March 2021 July 2024 Page 1-5 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Post Event Inspection Report estimated that the downstream footing of Bent 8 (located by the north/Honokaa-side bank of the stream) was undermined by approximately 20 percent (or up to 7 inches). The inspection also documented up to 11.6 feet of exposed footings at Bents 7, 8, and 9, along with heavy scaling, spalling, cracking, and failed patches. This Hakalau Bridge Bent 8 Repair Project is anticipated to be completed before the proposed rehabilitation work; however, even with this maintenance and repair work on Bent 8, the trestle bridge will continue to deteriorate. With advancing deterioration, the substructure will eventually become unstable, and the bridge will likely require full closure to all vehicular traffic. Therefore, this project, which contemplates the rehabilitation of the bridge's entire substructure, is necessary to ensure future continued safe operation of the bridge. In addition, because of its location and the impacts of climate change, the bridge is highly susceptible to damage during extreme natural hazards such as tsunamis, high winds, seismic events (earthquakes), heavy rainfall, and flooding with debris loading. Replacing the existing steel bents and concrete foundations with new concrete bents and foundations will make the bridge more robust and able to withstand these extreme conditions better than steel trestles. 1.4 Proposed Action The Proposed Action has two main components: (1) soil remediation and (2) bridge rehabilitation, including design measures to increase resilience to natural hazard events. Because roadway pavement damage is anticipated during construction, a third component is also proposed: (3) road resurfacing on Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road, coupled with formalizing a permanent maintenance easement for Old Mill Access Road. The roughly 15 -acre project area encompasses the entire length of Hakalau Stream Bridge plus an additional, approximately 100 feet on Hawaii Belt Road on either end of the bridge. See Figure 1-2: Project Area Map. The project area also extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge, including most of the County's Hakalau Beach Park property on the makai side. On the mauka end, the project area continues along just the paved portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road. The project area includes active construction areas with anticipated ground disturbance, as well as additional construction staging and foot -access areas. HDOT assumes no vegetation removal or ground disturbance would be needed to reach the project area. The staging area would temporarily occupy approximately 1.3 - acre of the 3.18 -acre beach park. The selected contractor will determine the exact boundaries of the staging area while and will avoiding historical properties (i.e., the Hakalau Mill) or potential wetlands. 1.4.1 Soil Remediation HDOT proposes to remediate the lead -impacted soils in the project area prior to conducting other work in the valley. In the Remedial Alternatives Analysis Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park (RAA) prepared for this project, HDOT, guided by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), identified the degree and extent of lead contamination, and evaluated soil remediation alternatives (KPC 2023a). See Figure 1-6: Extent of 2016, 2020, 2022 Soil Testing and Results. The RAA report, which was prepared in cooperation with the HDOH Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office, is the basis for the proposed soil remediation described below. See Appendix B, Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park. Consistent with the RAA report and the subsequent RAM approved by HDOH, HDOT proposes to remediate all areas that exceed 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of lead in soil by removing up to 24 inches of contaminated soil and replacing it with up to 24 inches of clean fill. Up to an estimated 7,623 cubic yards [CY] of soil would be replaced in a roughly 2.4 -acre proposed remediation area (roughly 103,000 square feet [sf]). See Figure 1-7: Proposed Soil Remediation Areas. Actual depths of clean fill Page 1-6 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment would correspond to actual soil removal depth; the area would be regraded to match preconstruction conditions. Any associated vegetation would be removed and replaced with new vegetation, except for large trees, which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The clean soil would be used to re -level the site and allow for revegetation, drainage, and grading. At the Old Hakalau Sugar Mill site, soil remediation depths likely would be shallower to avoid disturbance of potential subsurface historic features. Of this soil proposed for remediation, about 3,811 CY of soils (in a roughly 43,000 sf area) with lower levels of lead contamination are anticipated for disposal on -island at West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, a qualified on -island disposal site. The soils in the County property (Hakalau Beach Park) meet this standard for on -island disposal, but soils in other locations, particularly in the HDOT right-of-way and some private parcels, do not meet this standard and may require off -island disposal. About 123 CY of material (in a 13,278-sf area) with higher levels of lead contamination are anticipated to be disposed of on the mainland. Prior to the disposal of any soil or vegetation, HDOT will prepare and submit a solid waste management plan for the project to the County Department of Environmental Management (DEM). While no remediation is anticipated in areas with lead levels below 200 mg/kg, during the remediation work, HDOT's contractor would evaluate the soil at the currently anticipated boundaries of remediation to determine the exact extent of soil removal that is needed. Signage warning the public of the potential hazard would be installed to deter access to surrounding areas that are not tested or remediated; fencing is not proposed around untested and unremediated areas on steep slopes. The Proposed Action was selected from multiple soil remediation alternatives presented in the RAA and RAM. See Section 1.5.2, Soil Remediation Alternatives. The RAA demonstrated that this Proposed Action would best achieve substantial risk reduction according to multiple evaluation criteria. See Table 1-1: Soil Remediation Alternatives Summary. Although the implementation cost estimate for this alternative was the highest of all remedial alternatives evaluated in the RAA and RAM, estimated at $8.1 million in the October 2023 RAM, the RAA and RAM conclude that this alternative is cost-effective and provides the most overall protection of human health and environment, long-term and short-term effectiveness, permanent reduction of toxicity, lead mobility, and volume of lead contamination in the remediated areas, thus reducing the likelihood of lead -impacted soil from becoming exposed in the future. After completion of remediation, Hakalau Beach Park is not anticipated to need additional controls, such as an environmental hazard management plan (EHMP) with HDOH oversight to manage the hazardous conditions indefinitely. Hakalau Beach Park could be reopened for use by the public, with no additional monitoring or maintenance stipulations needed for site workers and construction workers within the remediated area. For protection of construction workers and the environment during construction, a construction environmental hazard management plan (C-EHMP) is being prepared for the project to identify and mitigate potential lead exposures during the soil remediation work. The RAA suggests that the Proposed Action would satisfy State regulators (HDOH) and the community the best. For these reasons, HDOT has determined that the Proposed Action would best meet the project's purpose and need of restoring public use of Hakalau Beach Park and surrounding areas. Section 1.5.2, Soil Remediation Alternatives; Section 2.3, Hazardous Materials; and Appendix B, Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park, present additional information about the RAA methodology and conclusions, lead testing results, and HDOH coordination. The subsequent RAM (also included in Appendix B) provides additional information on this Proposed Action. See Appendix B for copies of correspondence with the HEER office regarding the RAA and RAM, including their approval of the RAA and RAM. July 2024 Page 1-7 Existing Bridge Elevation (Profile) Plan with Bent Numbers 772'-0" out to out of steel 0 £I'oNwas Z oN Ingv X b ZL'oNwag X `l 'oN wag X P X Ol 'ON )ua8 6 'ON luag B 'ON wag L 'oN wag 9'ON wag 6 IN wee m L v N o O m I l l l l l l l l l l l l l c0OC- N O $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ma L 'oN we8 0 X X 0 • V C 'ON web ”0-,561 \\ / I \\ // I \\ / I \ 1 / x._1• „.._.1 x. I/ / • \\ / �\ 1 / �\ 1 „0-,99I /I\ /I\ /I\ /1\ /1 1 \ / 1 \ / \ / 1 \ / 1 x'- *,- K'-- x--- 1 // \\ I / \\ 1 / \\ I / \ \ /1\ /I\ /I\ /I\ /1 \/.1 •\/_j \/_JJII \/ I \/ // \ / \X I \ I % W \ %X\ I J ”0-dL1Art ' r c O / /� /* � l * /\ l / • / \1/ \1/ \I/ \I/ \I „0-,111 „0-,E9I \ / 1 \ / 1 \ / 1\ // I TD \ / 1 \ / 1 \ / I \ i F\ /Xs.- F\ 1 i I Y/ p, / \ 1/ \ I/ \I/\ Z 'ON wag 'ro O 'oN web L'oNlogy v o `x1 ti L ”0-,g01 NO 0 0 P O O O O O O 4> ▪ V N -r Scale: I" = 40'-0" Source: KSF Inc. 2023. 0 O cas• • --I • cat W VJ • ca M"i Y W � Final Enviro Extent of 2016, 2020, 2022 Soil Testing and Results E a3 ewide GIS Pro rth 2013; USGS, Hawaii S a) O O 0 N aS N O N U a E 0 0 0 0 0 E U a LL co -o mapped data prepared for HDOT Final Enviro Proposed Soil Remediation Areas a> bA Sources: Modified from KPC 2023a and 2023b; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 1.4.2 Bridge Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestles After the completion of soil remediation work, HDOT proposes to rehabilitate the existing Hakalau Bridge substructure to address the deterioration of the steel trestles and the scour conditions that are undermining the foundations of the bridge. The proposed bridge rehabilitation would involve replacing all seven existing bridge steel trestles with new, entirely concrete trestles and installing new bridge foundations. The use of concrete would allow the bridge to remain in operation without restrictions (such as vehicle weight limits) and make it possible to design the bridge to be more resilient to extreme natural hazards. Specifically, concrete trestles are proposed to replace the steel trestles because (1) the steel rivet technology used to construct the original railroad bridge trestles is no longer available; (2) implementing bolted steel member technology to emulate the look of rivets is costly because of intricate construction sequencing, lack of qualified contractors, and the need for proprietary equipment; (3) costs associated with maintaining concrete versus steel structures are more feasible, especially in a marine environment where steel is extremely prone to corrosion; and (4) concrete trestles allow for new, safer, and more robust foundations that can be designed to withstand tsunami loads and other extreme natural hazards. The concrete trestles would be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing trestles but would have a larger footprint surrounding each existing trestle. The existing trestles would remain in place until the new trestles are completed. See Figure 1-8: Proposed Bridge Elevation [Profile] Plan and Figure 1-9: Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle. Upon completion of the new trestles, the existing trestles would be disassembled. The structural integrity of the existing bridge would not affect construction of the new trestles, because they would be independent structures. Thus, the degree of corrosion on the existing steel members becomes less critical, as long as the existing bridge remains satisfactory to support the anticipated traffic loads until construction of the new substructure is complete. The new foundations for the concrete trestles would be designed for a 1 00 -year storm event. In addition, the rehabilitated Hakalau Bridge would be designed for a 200 -year check storm, meaning it would be designed not to fail during a super flood event. Concrete trestles would be installed using drilled shafts up to 6 feet in diameter. These drilled shafts would be constructed on both dry land and in the stream bed. No ex -situ fill will be placed in the stream bed. The annular space around the drilled shafts, as well as the depressions remaining after the removal of the existing footings will be allowed to fill in naturally with stream sediment. No armoring of the stream bed is proposed. During construction of the drilled shafts, multiple temporary drilling platforms may be installed to support the drill rig. These drilling platforms would be needed both on land and in the stream, next to each bridge footing. Construction details regarding these temporary drilling platforms, any associated access, and drill rig support system will be determined at the contractor's discretion or based on the contractor's means and methods. In some cases, depending on the topography, the contractor may excavate temporary construction access roads to the drilling platforms. See Figure 1-10: Drilling Platform Construction Access Plan and Figure 1-11: Example of a Temporary Drilling Platform. While no disturbance of Old Mamalahoa Highway's cobble rock walls is anticipated, should damage occur to the rock wall, the contractor will make repairs to match preconstruction conditions or better. Because the existing bridge deck is in good condition, it would remain in place and would not be widened. No work is proposed on the bridge railings or any other part of the bridge superstructure, which would remain largely intact with minimal repairs. The existing highway right-of-way is sufficient to accommodate the new bridge trestle towers and foundations. Only work on Hakalau Bridge's substructure is necessary at this time. The difference in expansion between the existing and proposed trestles is shown in Figure 1-9: Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle. Construction of Hakalau Bridge's concrete trestles would be conducted incrementally to allow for continued safe operation. No long-term full highway or bridge closure is anticipated. The project may cause July 2024 Page 1-11 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment disruptions in normal traffic patterns, but construction phasing and traffic control plans would be developed prior to construction, which would result in only limited traffic impacts to bridge users. Night work may be conducted to expedite the construction schedule. There may also be occasional 24-hour single -lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations or loads. Lane closures may require temporary illuminated signs or beacons for nighttime safety purposes only, but no new streetlights are proposed. Temporary best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize potential soil erosion into Hakalau Stream. Post -construction BMPs, including structural controls (e.g., erosion control matting) and nonstructural controls (e.g., plant establishment), would be implemented to ensure the project area is stabilized after the soil remediation work is completed. Because Hakalau Stream is not located within a regulatory floodway or Special Flood Hazard Area, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) No -Rise criteria do not apply. This Proposed Action would meet the project's purposes and needs of continuing unrestricted operational access to the Hakalau Bridge and increasing its resilience to extreme natural events. 1.4.3 Road Resurfacing and Permanent Maintence Easements From the south side of the valley, Old Mamalahoa Highway descends into the valley floor roughly 180 feet below. During its descent, a portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway travels underneath the south side of the steel -trestle bridge. As it reaches the bottom of the valley, Old Mamalahoa Highway travels over the County's Hakalau Stream Bridge before turning makai and continuing as the Old Mill Access Road into Hakalau Beach Park. The paved Old Mill Access Road crosses Hakalau Stream once over a ford, and travels between Bents 5 and 6 on the south side of the State bridge, before reaching the park. Another spur of the access road splits from Old Mill Access Road just before the ford and continues partially paved along the north bank of the stream until just past the State bridge. See Figure 1-2: Project Area Map. Pavement damage on these roads within the valley is anticipated to occur during soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation work. Therefore, after completion of soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation work, HDOT proposes to repair and resurface Old Mamalahoa Highway, Old Mill Access Road into the County's Hakalau Beach Park, and the beach park's parking area, as needed. This resurfacing may include a stream ford, where Hakalau Stream washes over Old Mill Access Road. But for the first two components of the project, HDOT would not contemplate this third project component. Because Old Mamalahoa Highway is a County -owned roadway, HDOT will coordinate with the County Department of Public Works regarding work on Old Mamalahoa Highway. Old Mamalahoa Highway on the north side of the valley would not be resurfaced because it is closed to traffic. Old Mill Access Road currently traverses private properties. HDOT would coordinate with private property owners to formalize any necessary easements for Old Mill Access Road and the spur road on the northern side of the stream. HDOT plans to maintain these roads, which would both allow ease of access to Hakalau Stream Bridge for HDOT maintenance work and facilitate vehicular public access to the beach park. Page 1-12 July 2024 Final Enviro Proposed Bridge Elevation (Profile) Plan 0 x $k 777 D" an M aR cf stmt £; vN;ua&t t ll G iv Ei.n zi U C $ R I I 1 1 1 l 1 I 1 1 I 1 11 '0N IvaP C nN• 9 'op/ wag ',IN 1077' 1 � d d Ou Drilled Shaft, Tell g 4 1 a Source: KSF Inc. 2023 r~ -I 0 0 .M� CtCCS Final Enviro Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle CrN it Quarter -Height Tower 0 J Existing Steel Trestles Proposed Concrete Trestles Full -Height Tower O • ti Y .r" N 7' • czs 773 a Final Enviro Drilling Platform Construction Access Plan 20 MO 73 Z V91 'lN9b GO i�l' i j � SII E( '0N !u A L( 'ON,lla9 7 / ooZ 09>/ 7 X09! A nN {ua8 7 L �� A 01 N 1u97 '81-1- Jnag 3, P o 9 0 9 '09 4909 3, J '0N )u0g 3, 9 '0N luag 3, • 9091093, ^ S nN Peg i )/Jew _ ale1N /591 LI 09 09 L E `i Road ti/ • CI\ F 5 weaJ)S J IJV j c O 7 E • '0N 1998'E 1 Pi b b Y _" 0 '00 11)08 3, CC existin g 00/? SIR d 0Z 09 ^ ! 'ON Ingo' 091 08( 000 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PLAN ti w 5) Source: KSF Inc. 2023 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 1-11: Example of a Temporary Drilling Platform Image provided by KSF Inc. Note: Pipe piles are installed then cut to the correct elevation. Steel beams are placed on top of them, and the decking is installed to create a working platform for equipment such as a drill rig. 1.5 Other Alternatives Considered 1.5.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would leave the site "as is" with no soil remediation and no improvements to the Hakalau Stream Bridge substructure. Without soil remediation, the lead contamination from the lead paint that was removed from the aging steel bridge would remain in the environment surrounding the bridge. Hakalau Beach Park and the area around the bridge would remain contaminated by unsafe, elevated levels of lead, and the beach would remain officially closed to the public. The lead -impacted soil would remain unsafe for human exposure. Based on the elevated level of lead concentrations, the unmitigated lead -impacted soil poses an unacceptable risk to current and future park users and maintenance workers. This lead contamination would also continue to make the flora and fauna in the area unsafe for human consumption. HDOT and the County would need to maintain warning signs in the area to inform the public of the hazard posed by lead contamination. In addition, the access gate would need to be maintained and locked at all times. There are likely unforeseen complications and costs with keeping the park closed, such as security issues associated with trespassing and other unwanted activity. However, closing this popular park permanently is likely to be undesirable and unacceptable to the residents or the County. Page 1-16 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Although the bridge superstructure is in suitable condition for continued long-term use, frequent and ongoing maintenance and repairs on the bridge substructure would be necessary to keep the aged steel - trestle bridge operational. Due to advanced corrosion and deterioration of the existing steel members and scour that is undermining the concrete footings, the bridge would likely require weight restrictions in the near future. Eventually, the substructure will become unstable, and the bridge will likely require full closure. The deteriorating bridge substructure would also pose a danger to the portions of Old Mamalahoa Highway and the Old Mill Access Road, which both pass under the bridge. Although pedestrian access to the park would still be possible using the stairway at the top of the hillside on the Hilo side of Hakalau Valley/Gulch and unsanctioned use of the area by the general public may continue, the lack of vehicular access combined with hazardous lead contamination conditions in the valley means that Hakalau Beach Park would effectively remain permanently closed to public use as a recreational area. The existing bridge is also not capable of withstanding tsunami loads, high winds, seismic events, heavy rainfall, and flooding with debris loading. The Hakalau Stream Bridge could suffer failures similar to what occurred during the 1946 Alaskan tsunami when multiple steel -trestle bridges on the Hamakua Coast failed. Bridge failure under such catastrophic conditions would disrupt emergency and recovery operations and access along the Hamakua Coast, necessitating emergency action to replace the bridge. Under such emergency conditions, a comprehensive analysis to design a more resilient bridge would be unlikely. The No Build Alternative would not achieve the purpose and need of the project to restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park and surrounding areas or to allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge and increase its resilience to extreme natural hazards. Therefore, this alternative is not considered further in this EA. 1.5.2 Soil Remediation Alternatives As described in Section 1.4.1, Soil Remediation, Kealamahi Pacific Consultants (KPC) prepared an RAA, which the HEER office approved on May 23, 2023. KPC also prepared the subsequent RAM dated October 2023. The RAA and RAM identified and evaluated multiple remedial action alternatives to determine which were most feasible to restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park and the surrounding stream area. This EA recaps only the most feasible soil remediation alternatives identified and evaluated in detail in the RAA and summarized in the RAM. These alternatives are the on-site isolation and containment (encapsulation), off-site disposal, and institutional controls alternatives summarized below. These alternatives are consistent with the HEER Technical Guidance Manual and the Hawaii State Contingency Plan (HAR 11-451-8(c)). See Table 1-1: Soil Remediation Alternatives Summary and the following discussion for a comparison of these alternatives adapted from the RAA and RAM. See Appendix B, Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park, for a full discussion of soil remediation alternatives considered, including methods such as chemical immobilization of lead in the soil which the RAA did not evaluate in detail. See Appendix B for copies of correspondence with the HEER office. July 2024 Page 1-17 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Table 1-1: Soil Remediation Alternatives Summary Evaluation Criteria Proposed Action: Removal of Soil Exceeding 200 mglkg for Lead and Replacement with Clean Fill No Action: No Remediation; Entire Site Restricted Alternative: On -Site Isolation and Containment (Encapsulation) Alternative: Removal of Soil Exceeding 800 mglkg for Lead and Replacement with Clean Fill. Soil Cap for Soil between 200 mglkg and 800 mglkg Alternative: Institutional and Engineering Controls: Partial Reopening, Restricted Area protection h human health and the human t environment* • O ® ® O Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements* • 0 0 e a Long-term effectiveness and permanence* • O O ® O Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment* • O ® ® O Short-term effectiveness* • • • • • Implementability* ® • ® ® • Cost** $8.1 Million $0.10 Million $1.81 Million $3.81 Million $0.25 Million State regulator acceptance* • O O 0 e Community acceptance* • O e o e Meets purpose and need of project • O 0 e a O Satisfies the criterion to a low degree or does not satisfy the criterion in a timely manner ® Satisfies the criterion to a moderate degree in a timely manner • Satisfies the criterion in a timely manner Sources: *KPC 2023a. Data from RAA Table 8-1, Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives. **KPC 2023b. Data from Table 6-3, Cost Summary Table. 1.5.2.1 On -Site Isolation and Containment (Encapsulation) This soil encapsulation alternative would involve covering the soil with geotextile material to produce a visible barrier between the clean and impacted soils. In areas where this option would be impracticable (for example, because of steep slopes or areas of intense vegetation/trees on the Hakalau southern embankment), fencing and signs would need to be maintained to restrict access. Lead toxicity in the area would not be reduced, but the potential for the public and site workers (such as landscapers) to encounter it would be Page 1-18 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment reduced but not eliminated. This alternative would also reduce the likelihood of the lead affecting surface water resources. Because the lead would remain on site, an EHMP would be needed and project -specific C-EHMPs would be needed for each future repair and construction activity at the site indefinitely, which would make future site management costly and onerous. However, the RAA concludes that the lead would remain potentially mobile through erosion and surface runoff, because this soil cap is vulnerable to scouring from flooding. Because the park is located in an area that can experience torrential rains and associated flooding, the site would need to be maintained to ensure the containment soil cap is not breached. Similarly, this alternative may also not protect against lead mobilization during future seismic or climatic events (e.g., tsunami, flooding, or sea -level rise). Because this alternative may result in continued reexposure to elevated lead levels, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this project to restore public use in lead -impacted areas and to eliminate the lead contamination in the remediation area to protect human health and the environment to the greatest extent possible. This alternative is not considered further in this EA. 1.5.2.2 Removal of Soil Exceeding 800 Mg/Kg and Replacement with Clean Fill. Soil Cap for Soil between 200 Mg/Kg and 800 Mg/Kg In contrast to the Proposed Action to remove soils exceeding 200 mg/kg, this alternative would remove soils with only the highest levels of lead exceeding 800 mg/kg. Similar to the Proposed Action, that soil would be replaced with up to 24 inches of clean fill. Soils between 200 and 800 mg/kg would be encapsulated on site, similar to the encapsulation alternative described in Section 1.5.2.1, On -Site Isolation and Containment (Encapsulation). Both the replacement with clean fill and the reduction of lead mobility through the soil cap would offer reduce lead toxicity but would not eliminate the lead as thoroughly as the Proposed Action. The estimated volume of lead -impacted soil to be removed would be substantially lower than in the Proposed Action, making this option less costly. However, similar to the encapsulation alternative, this alternative may not protect against lead potentially mobilizing during future seismic or climatic events (e.g., tsunami, flooding, or sea -level rise), leaving contamination above 200 mg/kg in the remediation area. Because this alternative would leave this lead contamination on site, visitors and workers may continue to be vulnerable to reexposure to elevated lead levels. Similar to the encapsulation alternative, an EHMP and project -specific C-EHMPs would be needed indefinitely. Because of the possibility of continued reexposure to elevated lead levels, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this project to restore public use in lead -impacted areas and to eliminate the lead contamination in the remediation area to protect human health and the environment to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, this alternative is not considered further in this EA. 1.5.2.3 Institutional and Engineering Controls Under this alternative, no remediation work would be performed. However, unlike the No Action Alternative, the park would be reopened and all areas where lead concentrations exceed 200 mg/kg would be allowed to overgrow with vegetation to prevent the public from direct exposure to the soil. To prevent unintentional exposure, a healthy grass cover would be maintained, and any bare soil areas would be seeded and covered with jute netting to prevent direct exposure. A site-specific EHMP would be prepared to outline areas of lead contamination on the site to facilitate awareness and restrict work areas for future maintenance workers. Maintenance work, such as lawn mowing, would be conducted only where lead concentrations are below commercial/industrial environmental action levels. Signage warning the public of the hazards and some fencing would be installed to deter trespassing and access to areas with higher contamination levels. July 2024 Page 1-19 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment This alternative would leave the lead contamination in place on public and private land with no encapsulation and is believed to be not acceptable to the public. Similar to the No Action Alternative, there are likely to be unforeseen costs such as security and other issues associated with trespassing or other unwanted activity, as well as the associated potential cost to human and environmental health. The lead - impacted soil will need to be managed, including periodic inspections and documentation of the grass surface for exposed soil areas of erosion to protect the site from erosion. Such exposed areas may allow contaminated soil to wash into areas used by the general public and into Hakalau Stream and the Pacific Ocean. Visitors and workers may continue to be vulnerable to reexposure to elevated lead levels; site workers may be required to wear respirators due to the elevated levels of lead in some areas. The EHMP would need to be updated periodically, and project -specific C-EHMPs would be needed indefinitely. The effectiveness of this alternative would need to be reviewed periodically. Because of the possibility of continued reexposure to elevated lead levels, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this project to restore public use in lead -impacted areas and to eliminate the lead contamination in the remediation area to protect human health and the environment to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, this alternative is not considered further in this EA. 1.5.3 Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives HDOT is committed to retaining steel bridges along the Hamakua Coast to the extent that it is fiscally responsible and can be maintained for the long term. Unfortunately, due to the advanced state of corrosion at Hakalau Stream Bridge, retaining this existing steel bridge is not feasible. Recent bridge inspections have indicated that the existing steel members are nearing the end of their useful life because of extensive corrosion, and they cannot be salvaged or repaired. The condition of the bridge superstructure and existing reinforced concrete abutments is adequate, and the bridge can remain in long-term use if the substructure is rehabilitated. Table 1-2: Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary presents a high-level comparison of the bridge substructure rehabilitation alternatives considered in this EA with each alternative described below. With the exception of the New Bridge Alternative, the bridge geometry would generally remain the same in most alternatives, with the existing bridge length of approximately 775 feet and approximate height of 180 feet above Hakalau Stream. The bridge would continue to be configured with two travel lanes, one in each direction. The existing bridge deck would remain and not be widened, and bicyclists and pedestrians would continue to share the lanes with vehicular traffic. The existing posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour would remain unchanged. In contrast, under the New Bridge Alternative, different bridge dimensions and configurations could be accommodated. Page 1-20 July 2024 Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary Other Bridge Alternatives Construct a New Bridge Yes o Z o Z 48 months O = s = = o 0 N K> c o .,9- Hybrid Trestle ON ON ON 36 months Medium $70 Million $3 Million Steel Trestle O Z O Z O Z 48 months = O c = o N K3 $5 Million Historic Rehabilitation ON Yes ON 48 months o O O1� 2 O L0 i � $ 15 Million No Action Alternative ON N/A; Deterioration will continue. Q Z N/A None $15 Million Proposed Action: Concrete Trestle CO Q1 i ON Yes 24 months Medium $60 Million = 0 N ER Satisfies Project Purpose and Need? Preserves Historic Character? Feasible to Construct?* Estimated Construction Duration* Estimated Construction Cost* Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost* *Source: Information provided by KSF Inc. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 1.5.3.1 Historic Rehabilitation The Historic Rehabilitation Alternative would replace the existing steel -trestle bridge members one for one with similar materials (i.e., steel) of approximately the same dimensions. The existing highway right-of- way is sufficient to accommodate the new trestle towers and foundations. This alternative would be designed following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly the Standards for Rehabilitation, which would likely result in a finding of "No Adverse Effect" for federal and state historic reviews. The replacement of individual steel members is extremely time consuming and costly, because the structural integrity of the bridge must be maintained during the removal and replacement process and only a limited number of beams can be removed at any one time. Each steel member would be custom designed and placed for each bent, such that the order in which work progresses is critical. Furthermore, the bolted technology used to emulate the look of the original riveted steel trestles is a slow construction process that would require proprietary equipment to manufacture and install. Only a few qualified contractors can perform such work. Extensive shoring would be required to support the existing bridge during construction. Due to the extensive corrosion, it is difficult to determine in advance whether struts can be adequately secured to the existing members. The time between the last inspection and the start of construction—even if it is just a year or two—could result in considerable changes to the structural integrity of the trestles. This uncertainty exponentially increases the risks associated with this construction method because changing site conditions caused by accelerated corrosion could result in significant changes to the construction approach. If a location is deemed to have insufficient structural capacity, a temporary tower may need to be constructed to bypass the deficient area. Each temporary tower would need to be customed designed per location and would require additional footings for support. The process for design, approval, permitting, and construction (including manufacturing, shipping, and site work) of each temporary tower would significantly increase the construction cost (over $10 million per tower) and project duration, which would further delay the full rehabilitation of the bridge and would expose the trestles to continued degradation. For the foregoing reasons, this construction method would not be feasible, and the initial costs associated with this construction method would be high. See Table 1-2: Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary. Long-term maintenance costs would also be substantial. A steel -trestle bridge in a coastal marine environment is subject to constant salt spray and would require significant vigilance to maintain. Routine inspections for all steel members and joints would need to be conducted every two years. Regular inspections for in -stream scour conditions would also be needed. Maintenance activities—including cleaning, sandblasting, and painting the entire structure—would need to be done approximately every 25 years. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need of increasing the bridge's resilience to extreme natural events. The bridge foundation could not be designed to withstand tsunami loads without significant changes to the appearance of the trestle layout. Without these changes to the bridge foundation, the bridge would remain susceptible to suffering a repeat of the failure that occurred during the 1946 Alaskan tsunami. Failure of the bridge under such circumstances would require emergency action to replace the bridge, likely without consideration for potential impacts to the natural environment. 1.5.3.2 Rehabilitation with New Steel Trestle The Steel Trestle Alternative proposes to use new steel members to construct new trestle towers that would be offset from the existing towers (similar to Figure 1-9: Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle), such that the footprint of the new steel towers would extend outside the footprint of the existing towers. This would allow the existing towers to remain in place during construction of the new towers. The existing highway right-of-way is sufficient to accommodate the new trestle towers and foundations. Page 1-22 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment This design would require beams of longer spans, and consequently, much larger steel members than the existing steel beams. These larger steel beams would increase the weight of each full -height tower by a factor of two, from approximately 1 million pounds to 2 million pounds. The additional cost associated with this increased steel requirement is approximately $10 million per full -height trestle. Costly manufacturing, shipping/transportation, and specialized site construction are all considered in the steel cost. This alternative would retain the existing bridge in its current configuration until completion of construction, at which point the existing bridge trestles would be disassembled and removed from the site. The structural integrity of the existing bridge would not affect construction of the new towers because they are independent structures. Thus, the degree of corrosion on the existing steel members is less critical, as long as the existing bridge is deemed satisfactory to support the anticipated traffic loads until the construction of the new substructure is complete. Similar to the Historic Rehabilitation Alternative, this Steel Trestle Alternative could use the bolted technology to emulate the look of the original riveted steel trestles, but this construction method is slow and costly. However, a steel -trestle bridge in a coastal marine environment is subject to constant salt spray and would require significant vigilance to maintain. Routine inspections for all steel members and joints would need to be conducted every two years. Regular inspections for in -stream scour conditions that would affect the bridge foundations would also be needed. Maintenance activities—including cleaning, sandblasting, and painting the entire structure—would need to be done approximately every 25 years. Therefore, given the maintenance requirements, the difficulty and cost of constructing with steel, and its inability to withstand extreme natural hazard events as well as a concrete substructure, this alternative does not meet the project's purpose and need. Both the initial costs of construction and the long-term maintenance costs of this alternative would be substantial. See Table 1-2: Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary Because this alternative is also a steel -trestle bridge in a coastal marine environment subject to constant salt spray, routine inspection and maintenance requirements would be considerable. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable and is not evaluated further in this EA. 1.5.3.3 Rehabilitation with New Hybrid Trestle The Hybrid Trestle Alternative would construct the five main full -height trestle towers that would be situated in the main valley (channel and floodplain) as hybrid towers—with concrete on the lower portions and steel on the upper 60 feet of each tower. See Figure 1-12: Hybrid Trestle. The quarter -height trestle towers closest to the abutments at each end of the bridge would be constructed entirely of steel. The lower portion of the towers would consist of approximately 5 -foot square concrete columns with 5 -foot -thick concrete tie beams at roughly 35- to 40 -foot spacing. Note that this lower portion of the hybrid tower would not have a traditional trestle look. In profile, the concrete columns would be tapered similar to the shape of the existing steel towers. Similar to other alternatives, the footprint of these new hybrid trestle towers would also be offset from and extend beyond the footprint of the existing towers. This larger trestle footprint would allow the existing towers to remain in place during construction of the new towers. The existing highway right-of-way is sufficient to accommodate the new trestle towers and foundations. This alternative would allow the bridge foundation to be designed to withstand tsunami loads and other extreme natural hazards. However, the upper sections of the towers that are made of steel would require significant vigilance to maintain because they would be subject to constant salt spray. Routine inspections for all steel members and joints would need to be conducted every two years. Regular inspections for in - stream scour conditions would also be needed. Maintenance activities—including cleaning, sandblasting, and painting the entire structure—would need to be done approximately every 25 years. July 2024 Page 1-23 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 1-12: Hybrid Trestle Full -Height Tower Quarter -Height Tower { Ceterlire Bridge Existing Centerline art,te Exksffrrg 0 ©j © 0 4 5upar$1rua tine ��.__ 4 14) 0 i to Remain��� steer Bent Cap to Remain MISteel Bent Cap priPrAr Steel Trestle rirppr Stet!? TreoY All WI4b1. Itg'‘r Oriflerl Shaft Cap, ryA Corcrete Cafmme4 rYtt 1 1 I 1 I 1 r Berwald Tie 11 Beamq rya I i 4 Dr Nod snaTt To. p1 `� I ----------------- 1 i l I, l i 1 I 1 I l Drilled Shalt Cap,Tya -- DrlAed Shaft, Typ I i �uT — a I 1 l -- a I Note: Existing trestle not shown. This alternative, therefore, would not meet the project's purposes and needs of continuing unrestricted operational access to the bridge and increasing the bridge's resilience to extreme natural events. The steel -trestle portion of each hybrid tower would be fastened by using bolted technology to emulate the look of rivets, similar to the Historic Rehabilitation and Steel Trestle Alternatives. The Hybrid Trestle Alternative would also retain the existing bridge in its current configuration until completion of construction, at which point the existing bridge trestles would be disassembled and removed from the site. The structural integrity of the existing bridge would not affect construction of the new hybrid towers, because they would be independent structures. As long as the existing bridge is deemed satisfactory to support the anticipated traffic loads until rehabilitation of the bridge is complete, the degree of steel corrosion on the existing bridge is not critical. For this alternative, both the initial costs of construction and the long-term maintenance costs would be substantial. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable and is not evaluated further in this EA. 1.5.3.4 Construct a New Bridge Adjacent to the Existing Bridge The New Bridge Alternative would involve constructing a two-lane bridge adjacent to the existing bridge. Note that a new bridge crossing Hakalau Valley at a completely different location was not considered because of the overwhelming impacts of acquiring and building a bridge through a completely new roadway Page 1-24 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment alignment. The new bridge would be approximately the same span (roughly 775 feet) and width (roughly 40 feet) to match the existing bridge. The bridge would be supported on tower bents up to roughly 180 feet high and could be placed either mauka or makai of the existing bridge. The support towers for the new bridge could be either concrete or steel or a combination of materials as described in the alternatives discussed previously. The existing highway right-of-way would not accommodate the relocated bridge, and considerable right- of-way would need to be acquired for the roadway transitions, bridge, and foundations. The alignment of the roadway approaches along Hawaii Belt Road would need to be modified to transition to the new bridge, which would likely involve significant cuts into the hillside above both sides of Hakalau Stream as well as acquisition of private property for additional roadway right-of-way. The new bridge would be designed in full compliance with current design codes, and it would meet the project's purpose and need of increasing the bridge's resilience to extreme natural events. In addition, enhancements such as pedestrian or bicycle paths could be easily incorporated in the new bridge design. On the other hand, this alternative would not meet the U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly the Standards for Rehabilitation of historic structures. This alternative would retain the existing bridge in its current configuration until completion of construction of the new bridge, at which point the existing bridge would be disassembled and removed from the site. The viability of this alternative depends on the existing bridge continuing to be deemed satisfactory to support the anticipated traffic loads until construction of the new bridge is complete. Because of the continuing degradation of the existing bridge, as well as the significant environmental and real property impacts of constructing a new relocated bridge, this alternative is not considered a viable alternative and is not considered further in this EA. 1.6 Project Cost Based on conceptual engineering, the total cost of the Proposed Action is approximately $70 million (in 2022 dollars). The soil remediation portion of the project is estimated at over $8 million, and the proposed bridge rehabilitation is estimated at $60 million. See Table 1-1: Soil Remediation Alternatives Summary and Table 1-2: Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives Summary. These costs will be refined as engineering details are developed. 1.7 Project Schedule The construction duration would be roughly 2.5 years. The project's milestones are: • Finish Planning and Design Concepts. Summer 2024 • Begin Final Design: Late 2024 • Complete Final Design: Early 2025 • Initiate Construction: Summer 2025 • Construction Completion: Late 2028 1.8 Permits and Approvals Table 1-3: List of Permits and Approvals by Agency, lists approvals and permits that would be required prior to construction of the project. Permits or approvals that may be required due to construction means and methods selected by the contractor or permit conditions that are still unresolved are indicated with an asterisk (*). Coordination and approvals are ongoing. See Chapter 4 for additional information on regulatory permits and approvals. July 2024 Page 1-25 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Table 1-3: List of Permits and Approvals by Agency Agency 1 Permit or Approval FEDERAL FHWA NEPA Categorical Exclusion U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act Section 4(f) Department of the Army (DA); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regulatory Branch DA Permit pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 or Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation; Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) Essential Fish Habitat coordination U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ESA Section 7 consultation State Historic Preservation Officer National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation U.S. Coast Guard *Coast Guard Bridge Permit Exception STATE OF HAWAII Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD) *Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Federal Consistency Review coordination (TBD: may be triggered by USACE Permit and remediation action) Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (NEER) Office Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Response Action Memorandum (RAM) HDOH, Clean Water Branch (CWB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for storm water discharges related to construction activities *NPDES for project discharges related to dewatering activities *CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) blanket certification (pending DA permit) HDOH, Indoor Air and Radiological Branch (IARB) Community Noise Permit *Community Noise Variance (if night, weekend, or holiday construction is needed). Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) HRS Chapter 6E-8 Review DLNR, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) and Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) HRS Chapter 195D Conservation of Aquatic Life, Wildlife, and Land Plants Review DLNR, Land Division Shoreline Certification; Shoreline Setback Variance, if needed DLNR, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) Conservation District Use Permit DLNR, Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) *Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP) COUNTY OF HAWAII Department of Public Works Grading, Grubbing, and Stockpiling Permit Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste Management Plan Department of Parks and Recreation USDOT Act Section 4(0 Exemption concurrence Department of Planning Special Management Area (SMA) Permit Page 1-26 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions of the project site, potential long-term and construction impacts of the project, and the proposed mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those potential effects. The relative impact(s) that would likely remain after mitigation is also described. Each section within this chapter is dedicated to analyzing a specific environmental or social discipline. Short-term potential construction phase impacts are also discussed within each respective section. Existing conditions, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures presented in this chapter have been developed through a review of existing information related to the project areas (see references chapter); studies conducted specifically for the project; coordination with regulatory agencies; and consultation with the general public. 2.1 Physical Geography and Soils 2.1.1 Existing Conditions Thousands of years of waterflow erosion from Mauna Kea Volcano to the shoreline created what is now Hakalau Stream and Hakalau Valley, also referred to as Hakalau Gulch. The gulch stretches from the lower slopes of Mauna Kea to the Pacific Ocean, approximately 3 miles long. At the Hakalau Stream Bridge, the gulch is approximately 775 feet wide (the length of the bridge) and approximately 180 feet deep (the height of the bridge). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey of Islands of Hawaii, State of Hawaii (2019), the underlying soils within the project area categorized as HiloRock Outcrop Complex, consisting of hydrous silty clay loam on the surface, with 35 to 100 percent slopes. This soil consists of lava flows broken into a base of river cobble. See Figure 2- 1: Soils in the project area. HiloRock Outcrop Complex soil is generally comprised of 35 percent basalt rock outcrop and 65 percent Hilo and similar soils. These soils are typically found at elevations of 0 to 1,100 feet, in lava flow gulches along the bottom third mountain flank of Mauna Kea. Hilo Complex soil runoff is classified as "high" and considered "well drained." HiloRock Outcrop Complex soils are not considered prime farmland soils. The stream banks experience frequent erosion during storms and heavy rains, and the stream mouth regularly experiences physical changes. The terrain on either side of Hakalau Stream is relatively flat, consisting of alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, waterworn pebbles, cobbles, and boulders flanked by the steep, nearly vertical gulch edges to the north and south. The mouth of the stream often fluctuates between being open with the surface water connected to the ocean and closed by a rocky sandbar, depending on environmental and weather conditions. When closed by the rocky sandbar, there is a deeper pool in the stream. July 2024 Page 2-1 0 cas• • --I • W• M"i W ca ca ]r" Final Enviro Soils in the Project Area N N N ter" a ti Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.1.2 Potential Impacts The Proposed Action would temporarily alter the topography of the project area. The proposed remediation would involve the removal of all soils that exceed 200 mg/kg of lead up to 24 inches in depth and replacing it with correspondingly same amounts of clean fill. The total amount of soils that would be displaced is estimated at up to 7,623 CY in a roughly 2.4 -acre proposed remediation area, as described in Chapter 1. Vegetation, which helps to stabilize soil, would also be removed and replaced on these impacted areas. Bridge rehabilitation work would require ground disturbance on steep slopes in the valley to create temporary construction access roads and to drill foundations for the new concrete bridge trestles. The C- EHMP would address construction -duration activities on the sloped areas of the gulch. As part of the project, temporary and permanent erosion control measures, and construction BMPs, discussed below, would be implemented to ensure that the project area is stabilized after completion of construction. The proposed soil remediation actions or the hillside disturbance for the bridge trestle foundations should not result in significant adverse changes to the geological stability of the project area, such as increasing its susceptibility to hillside erosion. 2.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures HDOT would implement standard temporary erosion control measures during construction both on the banks of Hakalau Stream that would be disturbed by soil remediation work and also on the hillside areas that would be disturbed by bridge rehabilitation activities. Furthermore, permanent post -construction BMPs, including structural controls (e.g., erosion control matting) and nonstructural controls (e.g., plant establishment), would be implemented to ensure the project area is stabilized after the soil remediation work is completed. With the incorporation of these erosion control measures and BMPs to ensure the project area would be stabilized after completion of construction, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant changes to the geography and soils of the area. The bridge rehabilitation would also strengthen the bridge, making this critical component of Hawaii Belt Road more resilient to such hazards. 2.2 Land Use 2.2.1 Existing Conditions According to the State of Hawaii Land Use Commission's State Land Use Districts, most of Hakalau Valley is designated as Conservation District. See Figure 2-2: State Land Use Districts. The Conservation District mauka of Hakalau Stream Bridge is classified as a "Limited" subzone, while the coastal area makai of Hakalau Stream Bridge is classified as a "Resource" subzone. The Hakalau Beach Park property is classified as urban land use, and the remainder of the project area is classified as agricultural. Only a small portion of the project area is classified as Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH). The ALISH area located on the perimeter of the project area partially overlaps the established HDOT right- of-way for Hawaii Belt Road. See Figure 2-3: Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii. There are no farms or agricultural facilities in the project area. According to the County Zoning designations, Hakalau Valley, excluding the Hakalau Sugar Mill, is zoned A -20a for agricultural use. The coastal Hilo side of Hakalau Beach Park is zoned MG -5a, a General Industrial designation. Toward the peak of the valley slope on the Hilo side, a short section of the project area is zoned RS -7.5 for residential use. However, there are no private residences in the project area. See Figure 2-4: County Zoning Map. The County's Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map similarly specifies the project area as Conservation, Important Agricultural Land, Industrial, Low Density Urban, and Open Area designations. See Figure 2-5: County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. Specifically, the area on the mauka side of the Hakalau July 2024 Page 2-3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Stream Bridge is categorized as Conservation, while most of the area makai of the bridge is Open Area. The makai Hilo side of the project area, which includes remnants of the Hakalau Sugar Mill, is designated as Industrial. On both sides of Hakalau Gulch, the Hamakua Plateau is considered prime important agricultural lands (County of Hawaii 2005a, 2005b). The project area is also located in the Special Management Area (SMA). See Figure 2-6: Special Management Area Map. In addition to the lands makai of the bridge, the SMA extends mauka for approximately 150 feet past the Hakalau Stream Bridge. Pursuant to HRS § 205A28, no development shall be allowed in any county within the SMA without obtaining a SMA permit. See Section 4.5.2: State and Local Coordination for more information about SMA coordination with the County Planning Department. The majority the project area is privately owned. See Figure 2-7: Tax Map Key [TMK] Map and Table 2-1: TMKs in Project Area. The County owns Hakalau Beach Park. HDOT owns the Hawaii Belt Road right- of-way. 2.2.2 Potential Impacts Under the Proposed Action, there would be no long-term changes to existing land use. Properties undergoing soil remediation, involving vegetation removal and replacement of lead -contaminated soil would experience short-term impacts related to the ground disturbance, during which time the property would be unusable for other purposes. See Table 2-1: TMKs in Project Area and Figure 2-7: TMK Map. Where the access roads currently exist, HDOT would work with private property owners to formalize the access easement. No significant impacts on land use are anticipated. A shoreline certification by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) would be required to support the SMA permit application, which may revise shoreline parcel ownership. A shoreline setback variance (SSV) may also be required by the County. HDOT would coordinate with the County Planning Department regarding SMA and SSV requirements. 2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures There would be no long-term adverse impacts on land use; however, there would be beneficial impacts of returning the remediated County beach park property to public recreational use. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are proposed. HDOT would seek a Conservation District Use Permit and SMA permit prior to start of construction; these permit processes are described in Section 4.5.2, State and Local Coordination. HDOT would obtain rights -of -entry from affected property owners prior to construction. Page 2-4 July 2024 0 W• ca ca Final Enviro State Land Use Districts T m Y G O io P X C > O 4 E a 3< c°O ce D 3< O en oay12 ce i 0 N 0 0 0 Source: State of Hawaii Land Use Commission, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. 0 • C.) W VJcip • M"i Y W � caca Final Enviro Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii Source: HDOA, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Final Enviro County Zoning Map a> it bA ..r Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Source: County of Hawaii; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014 Final Enviro County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map V I a> it bA Source: County of Hawaii; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014b; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Final Enviro Special Management Area Map it W Source: County of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu; County of Kauai; County of Maui; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014a; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. 0 • • cat W VJ cip • W � ca ca ]r" Final Enviro Tax Map Key Map Tax Map Keys in Project Area Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner County of Hawaii HDOT Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner Private Landowner HDOT Easement Recordation Proposed No No z () >- z a) >- Yes oN Yes No z Yes z Portion of TMK in Project Area, in Acres (approximate)* 0.5 acres 1.0 acres 0.4 acres 2.4 acres 2.4 acres 0.5 acres 3.2 acres 0.5 acres 1.2 acres 0.1 acres 0.4 acres 0.6 acres Q) U co Total TMK Size in Acres (approximate)* 64.8 acres** 3.0 acres 3.2 acres 3.2 acres** Highway R/W 0.5 acre 4.2 acres 1.2 acres 4.6 acres U co u) co U Q) 16.2 acre** Highway R/W CY C I— 329002023 329002025 329002039 329002080 329002999 331001001 331001002 331001003 331001004 331001005 331001006 331001777 331001999 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.3 Hazardous Materials A hazardous material is any substance that may be hazardous to humans, animals, or plants. They may include pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, and nuclear fuels or low-level radioactive wastes. This section discusses the potential for the presence of contaminated soils or groundwater and other hazardous materials resulting from previous and existing uses in areas where new project construction may disturb such materials. The section also summarizes the measures that would be implemented to avoid adverse impacts from exposure of such materials to the workers and the surrounding community. Existing Conditions 2.3.1.1 Environmental Records Review WSP USA Inc. reviewed the Hawaii Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) office online database of cleanup sites (iHEER) in October 2023, which identified three sites within 0.25 mile of the Proposed Action. See Table 2-2: Hazardous Materials Sites identified by HEER Office and Figure 2-8: Hazardous Materials Sites identified by HEER Office. Table 2-2: Hazardous Materials Sites Identified by HEER Office Site Number, Name, and Location iHEER ID Distance from Project Area (miles) Direction (N, S, W, E) 1 — Hakalau Sugar Mill, 29-2306 Mamalahoa Hwy, Hakalau, HI 96710 277 0.0 Within project area 2 — Hakalau Stream Bridge, MP 15.3 Mamalahoa Hwy, Hakalau, HI 96710 2285 0.0 Within project area 3 — Hakalau Pesticide Mixing and Seed Dipping Site, 29-2306 Mamalahoa Hwy, Hakalau, HI 96710 2284 0.04 Adjacent to project area Source: HDOH 2023 Key: iHEER = HEER office online database Past land uses that may contribute to the presence of hazardous materials in the project area include the cultivation and processing of sugar cane at the former Hakalau Sugar Mill in the project area. Along with the large volumes of wastewater released during sugar cane production, a variety of fertilizers and pesticides may have been used in the production process. The former sugar mill (Site 1) and an associated site connected to former mill operations (Site 3) were identified as sites of concern during the review of HEER files. Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site 2) is included in HEER as a site of concern due to long-term application of lead-based paint on the steel bridge. Page 2-12 July 2024 0 • W• Y W � ca Final Enviro Hazardous Materials Sites Identified by HEER Office Source: Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.3.1.2 Remedial Alternatives Analysis and Response Action Memorandum KPC, on behalf of HDOT, recently completed an RAA in cooperation with HDOH, which was reviewed and approved by HDOH in May 2023 following public review and comment. KPC, also on behalf of HDOT, subsequently prepared a RAM in October 2023 specifying (1) how soil remediation would be conducted and (2) the monitoring required (including soil testing) following completion of soil remediation. Both the RAA (KPC 2023a) and the RAM (KPC 2023b) have undergone separate public review processes under HDOH and have been accepted by HDOH; see Appendix B, Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park. The RAA identified the primary source of contamination in the project area as lead -impacted surface and subsurface soils released into the environment from paint used in historical bridge maintenance activities. Based on soil samplings in 2016, 2020, and 2022, the Hilo -side (south) embankment of the HDOT right- of-way contained the highest lead concentrations. See Figure 2-9: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Soil Sampling Test Results. The areas shaded red under the bridge include areas characterized as "gross contamination" with lead levels exceeding 1,000 mg/kg. The highest results in the right-of-way were 25,000 mg/kg of total lead (KPC 2023a, 2023b). Based on site observations of cyclical stream sediment transport as discussed with HDOH staff and documented in the RAM, it is unlikely that lead in beach and river sediments pose a human health risk to beachgoers and fishermen. Surface water samples were collected from the wetland located on the Hilo side of the project area, one of which was located adjacent to the base of the trestles. These samples contained low concentrations of lead that were below the reporting limit, indicating that there is no impact to surface water or to groundwater. See Figure 2-9: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Soil Sampling Test Results. Therefore, no soil remediation is proposed in the stream or adjacent wetland. 2.3.1.3 Bioaccumulation Assessment Element Environmental, on behalf of HDOT, also recently also prepared the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation — Biota and Plant Tissue Bioaccumulation Assessment in June 2023 (Element Environmental 2023). This assessment documents the existing lead bioaccumulation conditions in flora and fauna in the project area. The report's findings indicate that both plant and aquatic animal samples in the area exhibited elevated lead levels that exceeded the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) action level for lead of 10 parts per billion (ppb) in food intended for babies. In general, lead concentrations in plant tissues decreased with increased distance from the bridge. Lead concentrations measured in plant tissues sampled upstream of the bridge were an order of magnitude lower than plants collected near the bridge. Lead concentrations in shellfish and prawns exceeded the FDA action level but were an order of magnitude lower than in plant tissues. The report recommended no further sampling of flora or fauna at this time. The report's primary recommendation was to provide signs informing the public of lead levels detected in the plant and fruit at the site. The report also observed that the lead concentrations detected in shellfish samples during this study are likely indicative of background concentrations of lead. Page 2-14 July 2024 Final Enviro 2016, 2020, and 2022 Soil Sampling Test Results it W Sources: Lead sampling mapped data prepared for HDOT and KSF by KPC; modified from KPC 2023a and 2023b; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Potential Impacts Under the Proposed Action, the soil remediation would remove the highest concentrations of lead contamination in the project area in agreement with federal and state requirements. With soil remediation, these lead levels should decline. Lead testing would be conducted after the conclusion of soil remediation and revegetation to document post -construction lead levels. Following soil remediation and confirmation that lead levels in the remediated areas have declined to safe levels, Hakalau Beach Park would be reopened to the public. The removal of hazardous materials from the project area would reduce future impacts to human health and the environment from exposure, which would be a benefit of the Proposed Action. Contaminated soil and vegetation would be removed and disposed of at a permitted off-site facility. Where elevated levels of lead contamination exist, remediation would involve removal and disposal of contaminated soil and vegetation at a permitted mainland facility. Where lead levels are lower, the contaminated soil would be removed and disposed of at a permitted local facility, the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, in coordination with the County DEM. HDOT would prepare and submit a solid waste management plan to DEM prior to the disposal of any soil and vegetation. HDOT would also coordinate with the County Department of Parks and Recreation to post signage clearly informing the public of the presence of lead in the readily accessible, flatter areas proposed for remediation, and would also install and maintain signage for less accessible, steeper areas not proposed for remediation. Signage informing the public of the potential hazard would also be installed to deter trespassing and access to areas that are not proposed for remediation; fencing is not proposed around the unremediated areas, which would be on steep slopes and areas that are difficult to access. After soil remediation is completed, testing and monitoring of the project site would be conducted in accordance with the RAM. No permanent significant impacts would be expected. During construction, hazardous materials would be encountered in lead -impacted soils while excavating for bridge trestle foundations and found in materials disturbed during bridge rehabilitation, demolition activities, and soil remediation work. The main human exposure pathway is through contact with contaminated soil, but exposure could occur from dust, surface water runoff, and leaching. Exposure could also occur from contact with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems via fugitive dust from construction activities. The potential exposure to contaminated materials that are disturbed during construction presents a health and safety concern mainly to construction workers. Because access to the area is and would remain restricted until Hakalau Beach Park reopens, human health and safety concerns to the general public are not expected during construction. HDOT and its contractor would be responsible for preparing and implementing a C-EHMP in conformance with the guidelines established by the HDOH HEER office. The purpose of a C-EHMP is for management of identified environmental hazards posed by known or suspected environmental contaminants at a site and to provide clear procedures for how to manage these environmental hazards safely. With the C-EHMP in place and followed, risk to construction workers would be minimal. No further significant short-term impacts would be anticipated. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because soil remediation to address known lead contamination is a primary purpose of this project, lead - specific BMPs would be specified as part of the C-EHMP to be developed in coordination with the subcontractor selected to do this work. The C-EHMP protects workers and the environment from lead exposure, including airborne lead. Additional construction BMPs shall be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA and HDOT Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by HDOT (2021). Furthermore, the 2005 HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control would be followed. With these Page 2-16 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment measures in place, no significant impacts are anticipated. After construction is completed, HDOT proposes to conduct monitoring and testing of soil, flora, and fauna in the area on a periodic basis to monitor lead bioaccumulation. 2.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources Regulatory Context Section 106 of the NHPA requires actions that are federally funded, authorized, or implemented to consider the effect of such actions on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Under NHPA Section 106, the federal agency—in this case, FHWA—is responsible for assessing the effects of the project on all significant historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE). At the State level, Chapter 6E-8 of the HRS places similar responsibilities on State agencies to evaluate their projects. The HRS Chapter 6E-8 review of potential project impacts on historic properties is conducted with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), a division of the DLNR. Under HRS Chapter 6E-8, the proposing state or local agency—in this case, HDOT—carries the same burden to identify historic properties within the project study area (HAR 13-275-5), assess their significance (HAR 13-275-6), and evaluate the project's impacts (HAR 13-275-7). Hawaii State Statutes define "historic property" as any building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including heiau and underwater sites that are over 50 years old. Although the State law has a broader definition than the NHPA of what is considered a historic property, only those resources that meet the definition of "significant," as defined by Chapter 13-275-6(b) of the HAR, are protected by HRS 6E-8. This EA refers to those properties that are considered eligible for the NRHP or meet the Significance Criteria (protected under Section 106 and HRS 6E-8) as "significant historic properties" to distinguish them from those that are considered historic because they are over 50 years old. The remainder of this section discusses the impact to historical and archaeological resources in this regulatory context. In this discussion, the term "project area" is used interchangeably with the term "APE." Existing Conditions This project area located in the traditional ahupuaa of Hakalau Nui and Kamaee is steeped in the history of the sugar plantation era in Hawaii. The Hakalau Sugar Plantation was established in Hakalau Valley in 1878. The plantation's supporting infrastructure in the valley included ditches to carry water, flumes to transport freshly cut cane, and a mill to process sugar. As a result of the sugar industry, much of the project area is a heavily disturbed landscape. The site of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill occupies the southeastern corner of the project area, which was converted into Hakalau Beach Park (currently closed), while other parts of the project area were occupied by supporting infrastructure for the mill including labor camps for mill workers. By the late 19' century, the lands surrounding the project area were planted in sugarcane, and by the early 20th century, a railroad had been built from Hilo to Hakalau and beyond, including the bridge crossing Hakalau Gulch. An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was prepared for this project by ASM Affiliates. See Appendix C, Archaeological Study. In addition to field investigations, the AIS relied on a review of available information, including NRHP listings, a Hawaii Cultural Resource Information System database search, and other primary and secondary sources to identify five "significant historic properties" (i.e., protected under Section 106 and HRS 6E-8) within the APE. See Figure 2-10: Historic Properties. The following information is modified from the AIS. July 2024 Page 2-17 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.4.1.1 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 50-10-16-09070) Site 09070 is the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House located between Hawaii Belt Road and Old Mamalahoa Highway on TMK: 3-2-9-002:039 at 29 2301 Old Mamalahoa Highway, on the Hilo side of the bridge. The house was previously assessed as historically significant for its association with the Hakalau Plantation, for its association with John Munro Ross who managed the Hakalau Plantation from 1905-1946, and for being architecturally significant as an example of a late nineteenth century plantation manager's house in Hawaii. A portion of this property is within the APE, but all buildings in this property are located at least 500 feet from Hakalau Stream Bridge and approximately 20 feet above a sheer cut in the hillside on the makai side of Hawaii Belt Road. 2.4.1.2 Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) (Site 50-10-16-09090) The Hakalau Stream Bridge (State Inventory of Historic Places [SIHP] No. 50101609090) is one of six steel -trestle bridges listed in the NRHP as part of the Multiple Property Documentation Form for "Steel Trestle Bridges in the Hamakua Coast." Hakalau Bridge was determined individually eligible for listing in the NRNP in 2009. Hakalau Stream Bridge was reconstructed in 1953 as a highway bridge as part of a rerouted Hawaii Belt Road. The 775 -foot -long bridge spans Hakalau Stream at a height of roughly 180 feet. The steel trestles and truss spans from the original bridge remain intact with minor modifications for seismic upgrading such as bolted connections, which replaced the original riveted connections during the bridge reconstruction in the 1950s. The original railroad bridge trestles were constructed using riveted connections, which are no longer in use today. After the 1946 tsunami, the trestles were rehabilitated/reinforced using bolted connections to emulate the look of rivets. The bridge is considered a rare remaining example of steel girder and trestle construction and was, for many years, the longest span in the state. The bridge also represents the "work of a master." John Mason Young designed the original railroad line and bridges, and William R. Bartels, of the Territorial Highway Department, engineered their conversion from railroad to highway use in the 1950s. The Hakalau Stream Bridge is also associated with figures significant in the history of the Hawaiian Islands: the Hilo Railroad Company founders, Benjamin Dillingham, Lorrin Thurston, and Mark Robinson. Benjamin Dillingham was a noted businessman who drew up plans for a large sugar mill at Olaa, Lorrin Thurston was the minister to Washington during the former Republic of Hawai`i and a former Interior Minister under the monarchy, and Mark Robinson worked as the former Foreign Affairs for Queen Liliuokalani. Page 2-18 July 2024 0 cas • • cat W VJcip • M"i Y W � caca ]r" Final Enviro Historic Properties Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.4.1.3 Hakalau Sugar Plantation Features (Site 50-10-16-26591) Site 26591 consists of 15 features associated with the former Hakalau Sugar Plantation that are located both above Hakalau Gulch to the east and inside Hakalau Gulch. Six features of the site are present within the current project area but are currently in poor condition: the remnants of the former tramway and stairs (Feature J), the supports for the flume that once crossed Hakalau Stream (Feature K), the foundation of the former Hakalau Mill (Feature L), the access road to the mill site (Feature M), the base of the old smokestack (Feature N), and an old pipe stanchion (Feature 0). See Figure 2-11 through Figure 2-16. Figure 2-11: Site 26591— Feature J, Stone Stairs Stone stairs accessing the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch, view to the northeast. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a Page 2-20 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-12: Site 26591— Feature K, Concrete Flume Supports Site 26591 Feature K, concrete flume supports on the south side of Hakalau Stream. View to the north. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a Figure 2-13: Site 26591 — Feature L, Concrete Foundation and Seawall Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation and sea wall. View to the northwest. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a July 2024 Page 2-21 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-14: Site 26591— Feature L, Remnants of Former Crane Site 26591 Feature L, remnants of the former crane. View to the west. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a Figure 2-15: Site 26591 — Feature M, Raised Concrete Ford on Old Mill Access Road Site 26591 Feature M, raised concrete ford crossing Hakalau Stream. View to the northwest. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a Page 2-22 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-16: Site 30187 — Old Mamalahoa Highway Site 30187 Old Mamalahoa Highway on the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch, in the APE. View to the west. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a 2.4.1.4 Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 50-10-16-30187) Site 30187 is the SIHP designation for the Old Mamalahoa Highway. Two segments of this highway, totaling roughly 1,835 feet, are within the APE. The road segment on the south side of the valley is part of the current access road to Hakalau Beach Park. See Figure 2-16: Site 30187 — Old Mamalahoa Highway; the segment on the north side of the valley is part of the road that was closed in 1978. This highway has previously been determined a significant historic site because of its association with important late nineteenth and early twentieth century events in establishing a regional transportation network that has its roots in antiquity. Character -defining elements of the road that convey its significance are limited to the road alignment, which has not changed since the 1930's, and its cobble and concrete retaining wall. 2.4.1.5 Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) (Site 50-10-16-XXXXX, Temporary Site 1) The Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) that carries the Old Mamalahoa Highway over the Hakalau Stream was previously assessed as eligible for listing in the NRHP as part of the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District. The bridge is considered significant for its association with the Old Mamalahoa Highway which established a regional transportation network in the islands, and the bridge is considered significant because it represents an unusual architectural bridge type (concrete closed spandrel arch). July 2024 Page 2-23 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Potential Impacts Consultation with the SHPD and other Section 106 consulting parties is ongoing. Similarly, the HRS Chapter 6E-8 review process with the SHPD has not yet been completed. The significance evaluations, potential impacts, and treatment recommendations presented below are preliminary findings only. HDOT would provide these findings to SHPD, and SHPD is expected to conduct its HRS Chapter 6E- 8 review responsibilities in conjunction with their Section 106 responsibilities, separate from the requirements of HRS Chapter 343. The anticipated impacts described in this EA are intended to fulfill the impact disclosure requirements of HRS Chapter 343. Of the five identified historic properties within the project area and previously discussed, the Proposed Action is anticipated to result in a Section 106 "Adverse Effect," pursuant to Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.5(c) due to the impacts on Site 09090 Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) and an "Effect, with Proposed Mitigation Measures" under HRS Chapter 6E-8 for the State review of the project's impacts to historic properties. No other impacts on historic properties are anticipated. See Table 2-3: Historic Site Significance, Impacts, and Proposed Treatment. Table 2-3: Historic Site Significance, Impacts, and Proposed Treatment Site No. Site Name Period of Use NRHP Eligibility HRS 6E Significance Anticipated Impacts? Proposed Treatment 09070 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House 1897 to 1974 A, B, C a, b, c No No further work within project area 09090 Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) 1911 to 1974 A, B, C a, b, c Yes Prepare Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement to mitigate impacts 26591 Old Hakalau Mill 1880 to 1974 A, C, D a, c, d Indeterminate; anticipated to be minimal No further work within project area 30187 Old Mamalahoa Highway 1930 to 1974 A, D a, d Indeterminate; unlikely to be impacted No further work within project area #### (T-1) Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) 1930 to 1974 A, C, D a, c, d No No further work within project area; Architectural recordation if future projects have adverse effects. Source: ASM Affiliates 2023a 2.4.1.6 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 50-10-16-09070) A portion of Site 09070 is within the APE, but all buildings in this property are at least 500 feet from Hakalau Stream Bridge and approximately 20 feet above a sheer cut in the hillside on the makai side of Hawaii Belt Road. The bridge rehabilitation and soil remediation work would be conducted only on areas below this property. Therefore, no impacts to the Manager's House property are anticipated. 2.4.1.7 Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) (Site 50-10-16-09090) The Proposed Action would rehabilitate the substructure of the current Hakalau Stream Bridge by replacing the steel bents with concrete bents. This replacement is proposed because the original railroad bridge trestles were constructed using steel riveted technology, which is no longer in use today. After the 1946 tsunami, the trestles were reinforced using a bolted technology to emulate the look of rivets; however, that construction method would be costly if implemented today, because it is a much slower construction process, would require proprietary equipment, and there are only a few qualified contractors who can perform such work. Moreover, the costs of maintaining steel trestles are extremely high compared to Page 2-24 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment maintaining concrete trestles, making the concrete option superior from the standpoint of long-term feasibility and resilience to natural hazards. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the bridge's substructure would be reconstructed but would allow its superstructure to remain intact. Historic characteristics of this bridge will be impacted by the project. The replacement of the historic streel trestles with concrete bents would result in loss of character -defining features and a loss of historic integrity of design, materials, worlananship, and feeling. Therefore, this rehabilitation option would not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, particularly the Standards for Rehabilitation. Because of these proposed changes to Hakalau Stream Bridge, a finding of "Adverse Effect" is anticipated under NHPA Section 106, and a finding of "Effect, with Proposed Mitigation Measures" is also anticipated under HRS Chapter 6E-8 for the State review of the project's impacts to historic properties. It is anticipated that the proposed mitigation measures would adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on this steel trestle bridge. See Section 2.4.4, Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. 2.4.1.8 Hakalau Sugar Plantation Features (Site 50-10-16-26591) Some of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill and plantation features associated with Site 26591 could be impacted by the project. These features inside the current project area are all previously disturbed ruins in poor condition. The anticipated depth of disturbance with soil remediation is up to roughly 24 inches with removal of all vegetation, except where there are conflicts with extant historic features, such as portions of Features L and M (the former mill site and its access road). Soil remediation activities would be conducted around these features to avoid disturbing them as much as possible. Upon completion of construction, the site would be returned to preconstruction conditions. Bridge rehabilitation work may affect Feature K (concrete flume supports), because of their proximity to the proposed drilling platforms needed for construction access during bridge rehabilitation. However, because all features of Site 26591 inside the current project area have been adequately recorded in the AIS, this documentation has adequately mitigated any potential adverse effects to historic properties that may occur during construction. See Appendix C, Archaeological Study. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse effect to the Hakalau Sugar Plantation Features, and no further work is proposed for Site 26591. 2.4.1.9 Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 50-10-16-30187) Site 30187 Old Mamalahoa Highway will be used to facilitate access to the soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation areas during construction. The anticipated impacts to the site would be related to normal wear and tear caused by the use of the roadway by construction vehicles itself and are considered negligible. Those minor impacts to the road surface would be mitigated by roadway repaving which is already proposed as part of the project. At this time, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no further work or mitigation measures are proposed for Site 30187. In the unlikely event that the cobble rock walls are damaged during the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge (State), they would be repaired in coordination with SHPD. 2.4.1.10 Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) (Site 50-10-16- XX, Temporary Site 1) The Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) would be used to facilitate access to the soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation areas during construction. Potential minor impacts to the bridge deck would be mitigated by repaving which is already proposed as part of the project, upon completion of soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation work. The project does not propose to conduct other work on this County bridge; therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures FHWA and HDOT will prepare a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to stipulate to mitigation measures that would adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the Proposed Action on Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site 09090). The following mitigation measures are anticipated to be documented in the Section 106 MOA, as well as in the HRS Chapter 6E-8 review for Hakalau Stream Bridge: July 2024 Page 2-25 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment • HDOT shall prepare a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) document with photography for recordation of Hakalau Stream Bridge as mitigation to address the Adverse Effect caused by the alterations to the bridge. The HAER document shall be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and by a historic preservation professional meeting the U.S. Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR 61) for History, Architectural History, Architecture, or Historic Architecture. • HDOT shall provide funding not to exceed $350,000 for a documentary film to record and interpret the historical and cultural significance of the Hilo Railroad Company bridges, the 1946 tsunami, and the Hamakua coastline communities. The documentary should be prepared by a qualified production company in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Tsunami Museum, and other relevant interested parties, as may be necessary. The documentary shall include interviews of recognized engineering experts, historians, and kupuna with knowledge of the subject matter and area. The video documentary shall be publicly distributed as part of educational outreach. With these mitigation measures, which would be stipulated in the Section 106 MOA and HRS Chapter 6E-8 review for Hakalau Stream Bridge, HDOT has determined that the Proposed Action would result in no significant adverse impact on historic properties under HRS Chapter 343. Project construction workers and all other personnel involved in the construction and related activities of the project would be informed of the possibility of inadvertent cultural finds, including human remains. Should any potential historic properties be identified during construction activities, all activities would cease and SHPD would be notified pursuant to HAR § 13-280-3. Should human remains be encountered, all earth moving activities in the area would stop, the area would be cordoned off, and the SHPD and local police department would be notified pursuant to HAR § 13-300-40. In addition, in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains, the completion of a burial treatment plan, in compliance with HAR § 13-300 and HRS §6E-43, is recommended. No short-term impacts are anticipated. 2.5 Cultural Resources In March 2024, ASM Affiliates prepared a cultural impact assessment (CIA) for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Soil Remediation Project. See Appendix D, Cultural Impact Assessment. The CIA was prepared pursuant to Act 50 and in accordance with the Office of Environmental Quality Control Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, adopted by the Environmental Council, State of Hawaii, on November 19, 1997 (OEQC 1997, 417). Act 50, which was proposed and passed as House Bill No. 2895 and signed into law by the governor on April 26, 2000, specifically acknowledges the State's responsibility to protect native Hawaiian cultural practices. For the CIA, the traditional ahupuaa of Hakalau Nui and Kamaee are considered the study area, while the location of the proposed development activities is referred to as the project area. Existing Conditions Hakalau Nui and Kamaee are located within the traditional subregion of Hilo called Hilo Paliku, an area known for its steep cliffs, lush vegetation, and extensive plateaus cut by numerous valleys and gulches, including Hakalau Gulch. This subregion has and continues to be admired and honored for its natural beauty as demonstrated by the numerous proverbs and indigenous classification system that refer to the plentifulness and diversities in the region's rains, winds, gulches, and valleys. Many traditional moolelo that make explicit reference to the lands of Hakalau and Kamaee recount the visit made by the deity, Hiiakaikapoliopele and her companion, Wahineomao. This story tells us of Malaeakini, the famed ohia lehua grove and also that Hakalau Bay was an ancient surf spot. The story of Ka-miki, on the other hand, tells that Hakalau was named for the area chiefs, a priest, and a skilled warrior (olohe); Hakalau-Tani-a-pii and Hakalau-a-olo were the chiefs; Hakalau-iki was the priest, and Hakalau nui was the expert (olohe) and land administrator (kaula aina) who served under the chief Kolekole. Another moolelo Page 2-26 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment recounts the battle that occurred at Hakalau between the forces of Kahekili of Maui and those of Hawaii Island chief, Kalaniopuu. At the time of the 1848 Mahele Aina, Hakalau Nui Ahupuaa was claimed and awarded to the alii wahine (chiefess), Miriam Kekauonohi. Kamaee was divided into three, possibly four sections with three different alii laying claim. However, each of these alii relinquished their interest as Kamaee, in its entirety, was transferred and incorporated into the inventory of Government Lands. Although there were no kuleana claims awarded within Hakalau or Kamaee, nine Government Land Grants were awarded in Kamaee. The current project area encompasses portions of two of these land grants (Grant No. 1350 to Ioela and Grant No. 1057 to Manuhoa et al.). 2.5.1.1 Forest Resources and Practices The upland forest of Hakalau was used for various purposes. Bird hunters (poe kia manu) harvested the plumage of native birds for crafting royal insignia, while canoe carvers (kalaiwaa) searched for koa (Acacia koa) logs to build canoes. Access to the upland forest was possible through foot trails, some of which followed the boundaries of the ahupuaa. As these practices and resources were limited to the upland region, it is anticipated that the project would not impact the aforementioned resources and practices. 2.5.1.2 Botanical Resources and Horticultural Practices A diversity of botanical resources and horticultural practices in Hakalau were identified. Various cultigens were planted in the region, with the mention of Kapihae Auwai indicating the customary practice of growing taro (kalo) in irrigated terraces (loi). However, there is no evidence of widespread development of loi in Hakalau or Kamaee, suggesting that such practices may have been limited to the river and stream banks rather than the valley floor as seen elsewhere throughout the Hawaiian Islands. 2.5.1.3 Waterways The waterways in Hakalau are significant cultural resources, as demonstrated in the background research. Several rivers and streams in the Hakalau and Kamaee areas were named, including Honohina, Kaulia, Kawelo, Kuamoohua, Hakalau, Kolekole, Waawaa, and Umauma, but only Hakalau Stream is situated within the project area. Given the project area encompasses the lower makai portion of the Hakalau Stream, mitigative measures are further described in the following section. 2.5.1.4 Avian Resources From the consultation process, the noio (Anous minutus) was identified as a valued resource. As specified by the consultant party, the name Hakalau (literally, many perches) may be in reference to the numerous perches along the cliff face created by the noio. Although ASM staff could not confirm if noio are found within the cliffs located in the project area, mitigative measures are provided in the following section. 2.5.1.5 Marine/River Practices and Resources Although the historical background information describing specific marine and river resources is limited, area residents had fishing rights in both the streams and ocean. Several types of oopu (Lentipes concolor) are found in Hakalau Stream. Oopu are migratory and are known to move up and down their river during their lifetime. The CIA also recognized the following marine species: aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), akule and halalu (Selar crumenophthalmus), ama ama (Mugil cephalus), kole (Ctenochaetus strigosus), kumu (Parupeneus porphyreus), moi (Polydactylus sexfllis), Parrotfish (uhu) or (Scarus dubius) and any recognized synonym, ulua (Caranx ignobilis), oio (Albula glossodonta); opihi (Cella trigosata) and limu. In addition, the cultural historical background information noted that river stones from Hakalau Stream have and continue to be used for imu (underground oven) practices. Also, during the battle between Kalaniopuu and Kahekili's forces, river stones were gathered and used as slingstone. As the project area encompasses portions of Hakalau Stream, which connects to the Pacific Ocean, mitigative measures are detailed in the following section. July 2024 Page 2-27 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.5.1.6 Recreational, Access, and Subsistence Uses Coastal Hakalau was and still is a favored recreational area, namely for surfing and fishing. Fishing and gathering of marine resources for subsistence purposes is another cultural practice that was and continues to be carried out in Hakalau. As such, mitigative actions are provided in the following section. 2.5.1.7 Historic -Era Resources (Hakalau Plantation Company, Old Mamalahoa Highway, and Hakalau Stream Bridge) Although large-scale commercial agriculture is not considered a traditional customary practice, the legacy of the Hakalau Plantation Company is a significant part of the area's history. Remnants of this former era can still be found throughout the project area including the foundation of the Hakalau Mill and its associated infrastructure as well as the Hakalau Stream Bridge. As such, mitigative actions are provided in the following section. Even though portions of the Old Mamalahoa Highway would be resurfaced, no cultural impacts are anticipated. Potential Impacts Because there are no changes to the land use or additional structures proposed, the Proposed Action would not have significant permanent impacts on traditional customary practices and valued cultural, historical, or natural resources identified within the project area. Project construction, however, does have the potential to temporarily affect cultural resources. Implementation of the project may impact botanical resources, horticultural practices, and avian resources, as the removal and clearing of vegetation is required for construction access and as part of the soil remediation. Remediation work close to Hakalau Stream and bent replacement within the stream may impact waterways, marine and river practices, and resources. General construction activity, involving the use of noisy, heavy equipment, could disrupt recreational access, subsistence practices, disturb avian resources and historic -era resources associated with the Hakalau Plantation Company and the Old Mamalahoa Highway. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures To mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to the above -identified practices and resources, the following mitigative actions would be implemented. 2.5.1.8 Botanical Resources and Horticultural Practices As requested by some of the interviewees during the consultation process, efforts would be made to minimize the impacts to these valued plant resources (identified above), as well as to reestablish populations of culturally important plant species after the soil remediation has been completed. In areas where ground disturbance is likely as part of the soil remediation, the replanting of traditionally important plant resources would be incorporated into any landscaping plans. HDOT would consult with community leaders to discuss ways in which the community can assist with potential landscaping/out-planting efforts. 2.5.1.9 Waterways Potential impacts to Hakalau Stream would be mitigated by the appropriate installation of temporary stormwater BMPs during construction. The BMPs would be monitored throughout the course of the project to limit the potential for construction runoff into the stream as required by the NPDES permit. Furthermore, there should be no complete damming or blocking of Hakalau Stream to ensure that a continuous flow of the water is maintained throughout construction and that any migrating river species are able to do so without injury. Page 2-28 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.5.1.10 Avian Resources To lessen the potential for impacts to traditionally important avian species, the recommendations of the Biological Survey Report (BSR) prepared for this project would be followed. See Appendix E, Biological Survey Report, and Section 2.6, Biological Resources. In particular, recommendations regarding constraining or limiting construction activities during nesting seasons or other sensitive periods to limit disturbance to any such species would be implemented. 2.5.1.11 Marine/River Practices and Resources Potential impacts to marine/river practices and resources within Hakalau Stream and the nearshore waters of Hakalau Bay would be mitigated by the appropriate installation of construction duration temporary stormwater BMPs. The BMPs would be monitored throughout the course of the project to limit the potential for construction stormwater runoff and construction debris into the stream and ocean. 2.5.1.12 Recreational, Access, and Subsistence Uses The project would result in beneficial impacts on recreational, access, and subsistence uses of Hakalau Gulch and Hakalau Bay, by allowing for the reopening of the County's Hakalau Beach Park. While public access would likely be limited or restricted during any proposed construction activities, reopening the remediated portions of the beach park would allow for continued recreation, access, and subsistence use of the area, as well as allow the community to resume their prior beautification efforts and cultural and ecological awareness programs. 2.5.1.13 Historic -Era Resources (Hakalau Plantation Company, Old Mamalahoa Highway, and Hakalau Stream Bridge) While the documentation presented in the AIS report for this project is meant to mitigate any potential impacts on the Hakalau Sugar Plantation Features, HDOT would require the contractor to limit impacting that site to the extent possible during ground disturbing activities and to reestablish the access roads to the shoreline after the soil remediation is complete. See Section 2.4, Historic and Archaeological Resources. HDOT would also adhere to any agreed -to recommendations or requests provided by the SHPD upon their review of the AIS report, and to any mitigation measures that are recommended/requested by the SHPD and other consulting parties as part of the ongoing Section 106 consultation for the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge and other historic properties in the project area. 2.5.1.14 Other Mitigations HDOT proposes to develop educational and interpretive signage for the project area with input and guidance from the community. For example, such signage could highlight the plantation's heritage, the Hawaiian cultural history, and inform the public of the ways in which they can help protect the valued natural resources in the area. Also, because the gathering of natural resources (flora and fauna) continues to be exercised within the project area, HDOT proposes to conduct monitoring and testing of soil, flora, and fauna to monitor lead bioaccumulation following the completion of construction. 2.6 Biological Resources Regulatory Context Section 7 of the ESA of 1973 requires federal agencies to consider impacts on endangered or threatened species and critical habitat of such species. For terrestrial species, it requires that federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine mammals, regarding the effects of any major construction activity on a listed species or species proposed as endangered, or those effects that could result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (40 CFR 402). HDOT is coordinating with both USFWS and NMFS in fulfillment of Section 7 requirements. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) also protects migratory bird species by making it unlawful to July 2024 Page 2-29 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment pursue, hunt, take, capture, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any migratory bird without authorization from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Specific to the marine environment, the federal Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires federal agencies to consider project impacts to EFH, which are defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and/or growth to maturity," including open water, wetlands, coral reefs, and submerged structures associated with federally managed fish species. The water column and bottom of the Pacific Ocean around the Island of Hawaii are designated as EFH and support various life stages for management unit species (MUS) identified under the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's Pelagic and Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plans. The State's counterpart law to the ESA is HRS Chapter 195D, as amended, under which species are similarly protected. Chapter 195D identifies the protection of endangered species as a State responsibility. Projects conducted within the state must coordinate with the DLNR to avoid adverse impacts to species protected by HRS Chapter 195D. This section discusses the potential impact on biological resources in compliance with the requirements for HRS Chapter 343. Existing Conditions At the headwaters of Hakalau Stream on Mauna Kea, several miles mauka of the bridge and well beyond the project area, the stream is associated with natural areas including the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hilo Forest Reserve, and the Natural Area Reserve System. According to the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources, Hakalau Stream (Parham et al. 2008a) as a whole is ranked "Outstanding" for aquatic resources and recreational resources and ranked "Substantial" for riparian resources. However, much of the project area is a heavily disturbed landscape that accommodated the plantation, mill, and supporting infrastructure. H.T. Harvey & Associates (HTH), on behalf of HDOT, prepared a BSR focusing on vegetation, birds, mammals, and other federal- and state -protected species to obtain a broader understanding of the approximately 14 -acre project area. See Appendix E, Biological Survey Report. The following discussion is based on the BSR. A reconnaissance -level survey (fieldwork) was conducted for the BSR in March 2023. Because most of the project area overlaps the deep Hakalau Gulch with steep slopes flanking its north and south sides, which are not accessible by foot, vegetation on the steep slopes of the gulch was surveyed by scanning with binoculars from the gulch bottom as well as from Old Mamalaoha Highway along the southern hillside. Biologists walked only the accessible areas to document the terrestrial vegetation communities, plants, birds, and mammals observed. The data gathered during this fieldwork reflect the environmental conditions at the time of the survey. 2.6.1.1 Flora Due to historical land uses in Hakalau Gulch, the project area is highly disturbed yet heavily vegetated. The vegetation at the project area can be characterized as a lowland wet forest dominated by alien plant species. Ironwood (Casuarina equisetifblia), African tulip tree (Spathod2-30trigose2-302-30eata), albizia (Falcataria moluccana), and gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis) are some of the common alien tree species seen on the dense forested hillsides. Blue trumpet vines (Thunhergia laurifolia) and golden pothos (Epipremnum pinnatum) climb the tall trees and also the bridge piers. Sword ferns (Nephrolepis sp.) and guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) are some of the nonnative ground vegetation in the project area. Additionally, the Hakalau Beach Park property consists of common ornamental and cultivated species such as banana (musa), papaya (Carica papaya), ti (Cordyli2-30trigose2-30osa), kukui (candlenut) or (Aleurites moluccanus), ulu (breadfruit) or (Artocarpus altilis), coconut (Cocos nucifera), and red ginger (Alpinia purpurata). See Figure 2-17: Vegetation Communities. Page 2-30 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment During the March 2023 fieldwork for the BSR, HTH did not observe any rare native Hawaiian plant species that are state or federally listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing, in the project area (including the four species identified in the Information for Planning and Consultation [IPaC] below). A total of 66 plant taxa were found during fieldwork for the BSR, of which three (about 5 percent) are native (indigenous) and 63 (95 percent) are either Polynesian introduced or alien species. As part of ESA Section 7 consultation, HDOT obtained a list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area or may be affected by the project from the USFWs IPaC online system. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. Four plants were identified in the IPaC report as federally protected species that may occur in the project area. See Table 2-4: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species That May Occur in Project Area. The IPaC report identified no critical plant habitat in or near the project area. Table 2-4: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species That May Occur in Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status* State Status Observed In Project Area Plants Alani Melicope zahlbruckerneri Endangered Endangered No Nanu Gardenia remyi Endangered Endangered No No common name fern Deparia kaalaana Endangered Endangered No No common name fern Microlep2-31trigoseosa var. mauiensis Endangered Endangered No Sources: HTH 2O24a * USFWS 2023a 2.6.1.2 Fauna The USFWs IPaC report identified one terrestrial mammal, seven birds, and one marine animal that are threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area or may be affected by the project (USFWS 2023a). NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) identified two additional marine animals that are threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area or may be affected by the project. See Table 2-5: Threatened and Endangered Animal Species That May Occur in Project Area. The Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) has recently been federally delisted but remains a state -protected species. The USFWS IPaC report showed no critical animal habitat in or near the project area. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. NMFS PIRO identified both marine and terrestrial Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat in this location. During fieldwork for the BSR, HTH did not observe any rare native or indigenous animal or bird species that are state or federally listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing, with the exception of the Hawaiian hawk which was observed flying over the project area outside of the point count timeframes. Point count surveys identified 53 individual birds from nine species. See Appendix E, Biological Survey Report. Although no threatened and endangered species were observed in the project area during the survey, they could occur at the project site. Table 2-5: Area Threatened and Endangered Animal Species That May Occur in Project Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status* State Status** Observed in Project Area Terrestrial Mammals Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus Endangered Endangered No July 2024 Page 2-31 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status* State Status** Observed in Project Area Birds Band-rumped storm petrel Oceanodroma castro Endangered Endangered No Hawaiian Duck (koloa) Anas wyvilliana Endangered Endangered No Hawaiian Coot Fulica americana alai Endangered Endangered No Hawaiian Goose Brenta [=Nesochen] sandvicensis Threatened Endangered No Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis Endangered Endangered No Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Endangered Endangered No Newell's Townsend Shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli Threatened Threatened No Hawaiian Hawk Buteo solitarius n/a (delisted) Endangered Yes* Marine Animals Green Sea Turtle Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment Chelonia mydas Threatened Threatened No Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Endangered No Hawaiian Monk Seal Neomonachus schauinslandi Endangered Endangered No Sources: Table from HTH 2024a *USFWS 2023a; NMFS PIRO 2023 ""DLNR 2023 An online reference provided by the DAR called the Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources documents five native species of oopu (a general name for a type of fish) in Hakalau Stream: Oopu alamoo (Lentipes concolor), Oopu nopili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni), Oopu nakea (Awaous guamensis), Oopu naniha (Stenagobius hawaiiensis) and Oopu akupa (Electri sandwicensis). One of these species, Oopu nakea, is typically found in the middle and lower reaches of streams, but all oopu species would traverse the lower reaches of streams as they travel to and from the ocean. Stream channelization or diversions that cut off this critical access to and from the ocean could eliminate or significantly limit native oopu populations, as well as affect the overall health of the stream, estuary, and marine ecosystems. The Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources (Parham et al. 2008a) also identifies other native fish including other gobies, flagtails and mullet along with introduced guppies and swordtails. Native opae (shrimp), snails, worms, insects, Tahitian prawns (Macrobrachium lar), and crayfish were also identified. The Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources rated the stream to be a relatively high score of 8 out of 10 for "Total Biological Rating," which includes the "Native Species Rating," "Introduced Genera Rating," and "All Species' Score Rating." Potential Impacts Although temporary construction duration impacts to the natural environmental is unavoidable with the proposed earthwork, no significant permanent adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated with the Proposed Action. To the contrary, the proposed soil remediation is anticipated to benefit terrestrial and aquatic organisms in this area by removing the existing lead contamination. If the Proposed Action is not conducted, plants and animals in the project area, including threatened and endangered species that transit or reside in the area, may continue to be exposed to elevated levels of lead. HDOT has been consulting with multiple resource agencies including USFWS, NOAA NMFS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DAR and Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD) Coastal Zone Management (CZM), the Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM), and the County Planning Department to help identify and mitigate any potential impacts to avian and aquatic species as well as to protect stream flow/water quality and coastal resources. The following discussion of potential impacts is therefore also based on regulatory coordination with these resource agencies to date. Page 2-32 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.6.1.3 Flora The Proposed Action to install new concrete trestles would disturb vegetated areas on the north and south hillsides of Hakalau Gulch, and the soil remediation work would disturb an estimated 2.4 acres in the flatter areas along the stream. No botanical resources of concern were identified in the project area. See Figure 2-17: Vegetation Communities. Given the history of vegetation disturbance in Hakalau Gulch over the last century and the ongoing disturbance as a recreational area and beach park, it is unlikely that the Proposed Action would result in an adverse impact on a state or federally protected plant species. 2.6.1.4 Fauna The information provided in Section 2.6.3.2.1, Hawaiian Waterbirds, to 2.6.3.2.8, Hawaiian Hawk, was modified from predominantly two sources: the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Biological Survey Report (HTH 2024a) and information provided by resource agency correspondences for this project. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence, and Appendix E, Biological Survey Report (HTH 2024), for additional information. 2.6.1.4.1 Hawaiian Waterbirds Even though endangered Hawaiian waterbirds (Hawaiian stilt [Himantopus mexicanus knudseni], Hawaiian coot [Fulica alai], Hawaiian duck [Anas wyvilliana], Hawaiian common gallinule [Gallinula galeata sandvicensis]) and the threatened Hawaiian goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis) were not seen during this survey, these taxa occur on Hawaii Island. There are suitable waterbird habitats, such as open water bodies (e.g., Hakalau Stream and a ditch/wetland parallel to it) and open grassy areas in the southeastern portion of the project area overlapping the County Park as well as in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, it is possible for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, including nene, to visit the project area. HDOT consulted with USFWS pursuant to ESA Section 7. As a part of that consultation, USFWS provided measures that would be incorporated into the project to avoid and minimize impacts on waterbirds. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence). (HTH 2024a) July 2024 Page 2-33 0 CCS a) W • .M� ca Final Enviro Vegetation Communities l N Source: HTH 2023a; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.6.1.4.2 Seabirds No specific nighttime surveys were conducted to survey for seabirds in the project area. The endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) and band-rumped-storm-petrel (Oceanodroma castro); and the threatened Newell's Townsend's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) identified are known to have a limited breeding distribution on Hawaii Island on the mountains of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Movement of these seabirds over land, both inland and seaward, usually occurs nocturnally. These species may traverse the project area at night during the breeding, nesting, and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Both the Hawaiian petrel and the Newell's shearwater are known to be affected by sources of artificial light, which can distract the birds and cause them to become grounded. This phenomenon is referred to as "fallout", and it particularly affects fledglings that are leaving the nest for the first time on their way to sea. The seabird fledging season runs from September 15 to December 15. HDOT consulted with USFWS pursuant to ESA Section 7. As a part of that consultation, USFWS concurred with mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project to avoid and minimize impacts on seabirds. See Appendix A- 2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. (HTH 2024a) 2.6.1.4.3 Other Birds Two nonnative avian species, the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), were seen during the survey and are protected under the MBTA but, they are common on Hawaii Island as well as on other main Hawaiian Islands. Thus, it is unlikely that the Proposed Action would have an adverse impact on the population of this species. (HTH 2024a) 2.6.1.4.4 Hawaiian Hoary Bat Although the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) was not surveyed for during this reconnaissance -level survey, there are numerous records for this species on Hawaii Island. Hawaiian hoary bats are known to roost in large (typically greater than 15 -foot -tall) dense -canopy trees, sometimes at the edges of water bodies, such as streams and lakes. Hawaiian hoary bats may hunt for flying insect prey along roadways, gulches, and open areas and occasionally roost in large, dense -foliage trees such as those in Hakalau Gulch within the project area. In fact, given that numerous trees identified in the project area as potential suitable day roosting habitat and the general abundance of Hawaiian hoary bats reported for Hawaii Island, the possibility that the Hawaiian hoary bat utilize the project area cannot be ruled out. HDOT consulted with USFWS pursuant to ESA Section 7. As a part of that consultation, USFWS provided measures that would be incorporated into the Proposed Action to avoid and minimize impacts on the Hawaiian bat. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. (HTH 2024a) 2.6.1.4.5 Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle The Hawaiian green sea turtle or honu (Chelonia mydas) is identified as the Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and is listed as threatened. The IPaC database (USFWS 2023a) identifies honu as either known or expected to be in or near the project area. The range of this Central North Pacific DPS includes the entire Hawaiian archipelago where they complete their life cycle feeding in the main Hawaiian Islands and nesting mainly in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Even though no turtles were observed in the project area during this two-day reconnaissance survey, it is possible that honu sometimes visit the eastern most boundary of the project area that overlaps the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Hakalau Bay and the County Beach Park. However, map guides published by NOAA's Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for honu. HDOT consulted with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, as well as with DLNR pursuant to HRS Chapter 195D. As a part of that consultation, USFWS, NMFS, and DLNR provided measures that would be incorporated into the project to avoid and minimize impacts on the Hawaiian green sea turtle. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. (HTH 2024a) July 2024 Page 2-35 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.6.1.4.6 Hawaiian Hawksbill Turtle The endangered hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are one of the rarest species of marine turtles. Critical habitat has been designated for the species but includes only nesting islands in Puerto Rico. Small numbers of hawksbill sea turtles nest in Hawaii, primarily along the southeastern coast of the Island of Hawaii, with small numbers reported on Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. Their nesting season extends from April through February, with peak egg laying occurring from late July through mid-September. Even though no hawksbill sea turtles were observed in the project area, it is possible that they visit the eastern most boundary of the project area that overlaps the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Hakalau Bay and the County Beach Park. However, map guides published by NOAA- Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for hawksbill sea turtles. HDOT consulted with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7, as well as with DLNR pursuant to HRS Chapter 195D. As a part of that consultation, DLNR provided measures that would be incorporated into the project to avoid and minimize impacts on the hawksbill turtle. See Appendix A-1, Pre -Draft Environmental Assessment Coordination and Consultation, and Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. (HTH 2024a) 2.6.1.4.7 Hawaiian Monk Seal Hawaiian monk seals (Neomonachus schauinslandi) are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago. Hawaiian monk seals spend roughly two thirds of their time in marine waters. Terrestrial habitats are used to haul - out, with preferred haul -out areas that include sandy beaches, sand spits or low shelving rock reefs where they can rest, pup, molt, and have social interactions. Haul -out habitats are generally near adequate foraging habitat; however, virtually all substrates could be used. They are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and were first listed under the ESA as endangered in 1976. Critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal was first designated in 1986 and was most recently updated in 2015. In the Main Hawaiian Islands, designated critical habitat exists in marine habitats between the 200 -meter depth contour line through the water's edge and 5 meters onto terrestrial environments from the shoreline. The essential features of critical habitat include areas for haul -out, nursery grounds for pupping and nursing, and marine foraging areas. The waters fronting Hakalau Bay are designated as critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal. The Project Area is about 600 feet inland from this designated critical habitat. No surveys were specifically conducted for Hawaiian monk seals and no inadvertent sightings of the Hawaiian monk seal were made during this study. However, Hawaiian monk seals have been sighted on the sandy beach area of Hakalau Bay by people frequenting the Hakalau Couty Beach Park. Any potential impacts to Hawaiian monk seal habitat or to individual seals that may visit the beach or rocky shoreline in Hakalau Bay could be avoided and minimized through the use of comprehensive in -water and land based BMPs that would be adopted by the Project. See Section 2.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. 2.6.1.4.8 Hawaiian Hawk Only one native wildlife species, the io or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius), was seen in the project area during fieldwork. The io was on the federal endangered species list for several decades and was delisted in April 2020. Even though the species is no longer federally listed as endangered, the State still considers it an endangered species. Io are known to occur over much of Hawaii Island at all elevations and occupy a variety of habitat types, including native forest, secondary forest consisting primarily of nonnative plant species, agricultural areas, and pastures. They occur at relatively higher densities in the Hamakua region of Hawaii Island, just south of the project area. Furthermore, the project area falls within identified io breeding range on Hawaii Island. to are territorial and are known to defend their territory year-round. They have an extended breeding season with egg laying occurring from March to June, nest building starting several weeks before March, and fledging from July to September. Nests may be reused during consecutive breeding seasons or vacated for a year or more before reuse. Most nesting occurs in native ohia trees (Metrosideros polymorpha), although nesting also occurs in nonnative trees such as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), mango (Mangifera indica), and coconut palm (Cocos nucifera), which occur within the project area. To the extent possible, HDOT would avoid removal of large trees during the io breeding season. If construction activities are required during the breeding season, a Page 2-36 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment preconstruction survey would be conducted. If an active nest is found, HDOT would consult with DLNR to determine the most appropriate course of action and obtain guidance to avoid and minimize potential impacts to this state -protected species. 2.6.1.4.9 Oopu With the proposed construction methods, no significant long-term or adverse impacts to native oopu are anticipated. The Proposed Action does not involve any stream channelization or diversions that may adversely affect native fish populations in Hakalau Stream. Oopu would not be impeded from accessing the ocean during in -stream construction work or after construction. While temporary disturbance of stream habitat would be unavoidable during construction, the work would be limited to an area roughly 30 feet on either side of the existing street trestle footings. The project design would minimize impacts to water quality and restore the stream and wetland to its preexisting condition upon completion of construction. 2.6.1.5 Invasive Species Invasive species are a potential concern particularly during construction because they may be readily transported on construction equipment. Soil and plant material may contain detrimental fungal pathogens (e.g., Rapid Ohia Death [Ceratocystis]), vertebrate and invertebrate pests (e.g., little fire ants [Wasmannia auropunctata], coqui frogs [Eleutherodactylus coqui]) or invasive plant parts (e.g., African Tulip [Spathodea], Octopus Tree [Heptapleurum actinophyllum], Trumpet Tree [Tabebuia], etc.) that could harm our native species and ecosystems. There are several invasive species that occur on Hawaii Island but do not occur on other islands. Precautions would need to be taken during construction to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive species in new locations where they do not yet occur. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because no long-term or significant impact on protected plant or animal species is anticipated with the Proposed Action, and with the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures during construction into the Proposed Action as identified during the project Section 7 consultation, no significant impacts on protected species are anticipated. See Section 2.6.3, Potential Impacts, above and Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence, for more information about avoidance and minimization measures. For example, if waterbirds are present during construction, all activities within 100 feet (30 meters) would cease and the bird(s) would not be approached. If the project involved night work, temporary construction lighting would be configured to be "dark -sky friendly," in compliance with HRS Chapter 201-8.5. Furthermore, HDOT would avoid nighttime work during the nesting and hatching seasons for Green Sea Turtles, which extends from May through December. Contractors would be required to fully shield all outdoor lights so bulbs are only visible from below bulb height and only used when necessary. Contractors would also install automatic motion sensor switches and timers on all outdoor lights or turn off lights when no activity is occurring in the lighted area and avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging season from September 15 to December 15. If construction activities are required during the Hawaiian hawk breeding season from March to September, a preconstruction survey would be conducted. If an active Hawaiian hawk nest is found, HDOT would consult with DLNR to determine the most appropriate course of action and obtain guidance to avoid and minimize potential impacts to this state -protected species. Because of the potential presence of green sea turtles, hawksbill turtle, and Hawaiian monk seals in the water in the lower reaches of Hakalau Stream, as well as along the coastline, HDOT would require contractors to conduct frequent and regular watch for the presence of these species during construction to avoid direct interaction with these animals. Impacts to marine or aquatic species would be avoided by incorporating BMPs such as deploying full -depth silt curtains and sandbags to contain the work area. Such BMPs and are discussed in detail in An Integrated July 2024 Page 2-37 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA, the Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), and the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2021). Also, the Project's proposed in -water work will be conducted under permits obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Water Branch. Additionally, to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during the construction phase, the contractor would implement BMPs to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species at the project site. These BMPs may include the following: • All construction equipment and vehicles would arrive at the work site for the first time in clean condition and free of excess soil and debris; plants or plant parts, including seeds; insects, including eggs; and reptiles and amphibians, including their eggs. Similarly, all construction equipment and vehicles would be cleaned after use on the project site and before leaving the site. This would be particularly important for equipment movement between the project site and the other islands. • All materials imported to the project site, including gravel, soil, rock, and sand, would be certified weed free. Invasive species found on stockpiled materials would be removed either chemically or mechanically. • Only weed -free seed mixtures would be used for hydroseeding and hydromulching on the project site. A qualified botanist would inspect the seeded areas a minimum of 60 days after the hydroseed/hydromulch is applied. Any species of plant other than those intended to be in the hydroseed/hydromulch should be removed. In particular, plant species that are not known to occur on Hawaii Island and are actively being controlled on the island should be removed. • To the extent feasible the project should use native plants for revegetation or landscaping purposes. Potential native plants that are ecologically suitable for landscaping at the project site include species such as koa (Acacia koa), hala (Pandanus tectorius), hapuu (Cibotium menziesii), pilo or hupilo (Coprosma pubens), ieie (Freycinetia arborea), au or pilo (Kadua affinis), kopiko (Psychotria spp.), and kooea (Myrsine spp.). if native plants do not meet landscaping objectives, plants with a minimal risk of becoming invasive may be substituted. Additional information on selecting appropriate plants for landscaping can be obtained from the Plant Pono website (Plant Pono 2024). • Only plants grown on Hawaii Island should be used for landscaping purposes. If locally grown plants are unavailable, then imported plants may be used, but they should be thoroughly inspected or quarantined if necessary to ensure that they are free from invasive pests such as little fire ants and invasive plant seeds and seedlings that could arrive inadvertently. 2.7 Surface Water Resources and Wetlands Existing Conditions Hakalau Stream is a major perennial stream that drains the Hakalau watershed. According to the Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds (Parham et al. 2008b), the Hakalau watershed encompasses an area of approximately 6,016 acres (about 9.4 square miles), stretching about 9 miles inland from the coast, and flows into Hakalau Bay. The primary tributaries of the watershed are Waawaa and Kamaee Streams, which ultimately join the wide, perennial Hakalau Stream. See Figure 2-18: Hakalau Watershed. The stream enters the project area at its western boundary as a braided system meandering around rocky vegetated islands before flowing into the Pacific Ocean. See Figure 2-19: National Wetland Inventory [NWI] Habitat Types. In the project area, the stream ranges in width from about 100 feet to 170 feet and is not channelized with natural bed and banks, except for the concrete bridge footings and remnants of a Page 2-38 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment plantation era flume. Based on historic photos of the gulch, the stream banks have been known to shift naturally during heavy flows. The mouth of the stream often has a rocky bar that forms a deeper pool in the stream but does not stop the flow to the ocean. This porous coastal bar at the mouth of the stream periodically opens, connecting the stream directly with coastal waters. Because the lower portion of the stream in the project area can be characterized as a combination of both tidal and nontidal waters, the stream in this reach is likely under USACE jurisdiction and would require in -water work permits. In HDOH's most recent report on the State's water quality prepared pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 303(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 2022 State of Hawaii Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Hakalau Stream is listed as an impaired waterbody. The stream's identified impairments are murky water and excessive nutrient load, which can affect aquatic life. Marine waters associated with Hakalau Stream are not listed as impaired. The USFWS NWI identifies only one aquatic feature, the Hakalau Stream, within the project area. See Figure 2-19: National Wetland Inventory [NWI] Habitat Types. However, in a report prepared by HTH for this project (HTH 2024b), HTH identified a shallow, narrow (approximately 20 feet wide), wetland measuring approximately 0.35 acre on the Hilo side of Hakalau Stream. See Figure 2-20: Wetland Delineation and Waters of the U.S. and Appendix F, Wetland Delineation Technical Report. The wetland runs generally parallel to the stream and then curves toward (but does not meet) Hakalau Stream at both its mauka and makai termini The wetland partially lies beneath the Hakalau Stream Bridge, between the bridge's Bents 3 and 4. This wetland is anticipated to fit within the definition of "Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)"and therefore be under USACE jurisdiction for in -water work permits. The identified WOTUS within the project area are denoted in Figure 2-20, none of which are navigable WOTUS. Potential Impacts Although the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in long-term, adverse impacts to the Hakalau Stream environment and water quality, the project could temporarily affect surface water resources and wetlands during construction. With the implementation of standard stormwater BMPs, these impacts could be minimized or eliminated, as discussed below. 2.7.1.1 Impacts of Soil Remediation Soil remediation including vegetation removal would be conducted in the areas shown in Figure 1-7: Proposed Soil Remediation Areas, in Chapter 1, which includes stream banks and the relatively flat areas on the valley floor including most of the Hakalau Beach Park property. While no soil remediation is proposed in the stream, the likelihood of displaced soils running into the stream are increased during construction. Stormwater BMPs would be implemented during construction, as described below, to minimize or eliminate soils from entering the stream. While similar BMPs would be implemented to protect the wetland as much as possible, disturbance of the wetland is unavoidable as an approximately 0.05 -acre portion of the wetland is included in the soil remediation area. HDOT would coordinate with the USACE for this construction activity to minimize any impacts during construction. After completion of soil remediation work, the area would be regraded to resemble preconstruction wetland conditions. As a result, there would be no long-term adverse effect to the functions and values of the wetland. Additionally, because the work would remove soils with elevated levels of lead from the project area, the Proposed Action would result in beneficial impacts to surface water resources in the long term. 2.7.1.2 Impacts of Bridge Rehabilitation Work Construction of the new concrete bridge footings could result in temporary impacts to surface water resources as drilling in multiple discrete locations for the new concrete bridge footings and drilling July 2024 Page 2-39 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment platforms are necessary. No ex -situ fill will be placed in the stream bed. The annular space around the drilled shafts, as well as the depressions remaining after the removal of the existing footings will be allowed to fill in naturally with stream sediment. No armoring of the stream bed is proposed. Construction stormwater BMPs and in -stream BMPs would be implemented during construction, as described below that would minimize or eliminate any temporary impacts. No water diversions or stream alterations, temporary or permanent, would be required, and streamflow in Hakalau Stream would be maintained at all times. 2.7.1.3 Impacts of Road Resurfacing While no permanent or long-term impacts are anticipated, resurfacing the access road could result in temporary impacts to surface water resources and wetlands due to stormwater runoff during work. Construction stormwater BMPs and in -stream BMPs would be implemented during construction, as described below, that would minimize or eliminate any temporary impacts. No water diversions or stream alterations, temporary or permanent, would be required, and streamflow in Hakalau Stream would be maintained at all times. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures HDOT is coordinating with USACE to obtain permits authorizing in -water activities in both Hakalau Stream and the adjacent wetland. At this time, HDOT anticipates that the Proposed Action would be covered under a type of USACE Department of the Army (DA) permit called Nationwide Permits (NWP) and that an Individual DA permit would not be necessary. The DA permit(s) would authorize the permanent dredge and fill activities in Hakalau Stream to install the new bridge footings and resurface the access road, as well as authorize the disturbance of the wetland during soil remediation activities and temporary in -water activities. While BMPs to minimize turbidity would be implemented per the contractor's means and methods, such construction BMPs to minimize turbidity and other potential surface water quality impacts shall be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA, the Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2021). In addition, the HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control would be followed. The aforementioned DA permit may specify additional BMPs that would be required during construction to minimize the potential for water quality impacts to the stream. For example, turbidity curtains may be installed downstream of the bridge rehabilitation work area, and perimeter control BMPs may be installed upstream and downstream of roadway resurfacing and lead remediation work areas. Heavy construction equipment such as the drill rig would operate from the drilling platforms and would not enter the Waters of the U.S. Furthermore, as discussed in other sections of this EA, permanent post -construction BMPs, including structural controls (e.g., erosion control matting) and nonstructural controls (e.g., plant establishment), would be implemented to ensure the project area is stabilized after the soil remediation work is completed. With the incorporation of these erosion control measures and BMPs to ensure the project area is stabilized after completion of construction, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant changes to surface water resources. A blanket CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from HDOH is also anticipated with NWP coverage, meaning that an independent Section 401 WQC from HDOH would not be needed. However, if a WQC is needed, HDOT would continue to coordinate with HDOH during the permitting phase. Page 2-40 July 2024 Hakalau Watershed Final Enviro 0 casY • W VJcip • M"i Y W � caca ]r" Final Enviro National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Habitat Types Source: USFWS 2018; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. 0 • ---I • cat W V)cip • M"i Y W � ca Final Enviro Wetland Delineation and Waters of the U.S. 0 CD 0 0 m 0 N L 0 W 0) 0 0 0 CN) N O N 0 t6 0 0) N O N U d E 0 -o 0 a 0 U C LL 0) a 0 m U a 0 (1) >. 0 0 U t6 0 O O 0 0_ 0_ 0 E 0 0 0 0 -o 0 E 0 0 0) N O -o N H E O 0 0 0 0 0 oj 0 O 0M o E U O CID d N N N ti Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment With the proposed BMPs and other anticipated permit requirements that are incorporated into the Proposed Action, no significant impacts to surface water resources including wetlands are anticipated. Therefore, no other avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are proposed for surface water resources. The potential for construction -phase water resource impacts would be associated with erosion and sedimentation generated from the project's land-based earth disturbing activities and stormwater runoff, as well as in -water work to construct new concrete foundations for the new concrete trestles and to remove the existing trestle foundations. 2.7.1.4 In -Water Activities Rehabilitation of the bridge and demolition of existing structures would require equipment in the stream to construct the new concrete bridge trestle footings. Soil remediation work is not anticipated to involve in - stream work but may require equipment in the wetland. If placement of equipment in the stream (i.e., below the stream or wetland's ordinary high-water line) is needed, BMPs, such as turbidity curtains, would be implemented. In addition, the project's construction BMPs would be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA, the Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), and the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State ofHawaii Department of Transportation (2021). In addition, the 2005 HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control would be followed. Any in -water work is also subject to federal and state regulatory controls. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the waters of the U.S., and Section 10 of the Rivers Harbors Act (RHA) requires authorization for any work affecting navigable waters and tidally influenced waterways. Coordination with the USACE would be conducted for DA permit requirements pursuant to CWA Section 404 and RHA Section 10. When work requires a DA permit, a CWA Section 401 WQC from HDOH may also be required to regulate discharges into the waters of the United States. In addition, a Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP) from the state's CWRM is likely to be required for in -water work. HDOT would submit a Request for Determination (RFD) to CWRM upon completion of this HRS Chapter 343 EA process to initiate the SCAP review. 2.7.1.5 Stormwater from Land -Based Activities Storm water runoff and erosion would be mitigated through the use of construction BMPs that would be established before work begins. Because the soil disturbance of the project area would exceed 1 acre, NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities would be required from HDOH. During construction, BMPs would be implemented to prevent debris and polluted runoff from reaching Hakalau Stream or other natural waters. In -water construction BMPs would be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA, the Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), and the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State ofHawaii Department of Transportation (2021). In addition, the 2005 HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control would be followed. Page 2-44 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment The following generally accepted BMPs for land-based stormwater impacts would implemented: • Installing perimeter controls and sediment barriers, such as silt fences • Minimizing disturbed areas • Protecting excavated / stockpiled material, including the covering the stockpiles • Installing storm drain inlet and catch basin protection devices, if needed. • Enforcing proper waste management, including separating recyclable materials In addition, specific measures would be taken to prevent the lead in the soil from entering the stream and the ocean. A C-EHMP would be prepared and implemented to protect both human and environmental health by preventing the spread of lead during construction. 2.8 Parks and Recreational Resources Existing Conditions Hakalau Beach Park is the only park within the project area. The County acquired the Old Hakalau Sugar Mill property, TMK (3) 2-9-002-080, in 2006 and established the Hakalau Beach Park, which officially opened in 2009. In February 2017, however, the County Department of Parks and Recreation closed public access to the park to address safety concerns related to the scour conditions at the County bridge on Old Mamalahoa Highway leading to the park. The elevated levels of lead in the soil also prompted additional evaluation and analysis. The County subsequently repaired the scour conditions on their concrete bridge in 2018 but soil remediation has not yet been completed, and the park is still closed to the public. Public access is currently restricted by a locked gate where the roadway begins to descend into the gulch on the Hilo side. Despite the park closure, however, park visitation and use has continued as visitors reportedly circumvent the locked gate to access the park and stream area. Pedestrian access to the park is also possible via an unrestricted set of steep stairs from Old Mamalahoa Highway at the top of the Hilo side of Hakalau Valley, which leads down to the valley floor approximately 180 feet below. Although the stream itself is not County property, because it is physically contiguous with the beach park, park users also gather and recreate at the stream and on the shoreline, conducting activities such as fishing and other activities similar to the cultural activities described in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources. According to the Hawaii Stream Assessment (State of Hawaii 1990) Hakalau Stream is ranked "Outstanding" for recreational resources. Before the closure of the park in 2017, recreational opportunities there included camping, fishing, swimming, hunting, and scenic views. Hakalau Beach Park elements currently include picnic areas equipped with tables, beach access to rocky shorelines, picturesque vistas, a lush tropical landscape adorned with palm trees and tropical vegetation, a pavilion and a large steel shipping container, an informational sign at the base of the access stairs from Old Mamalahoa Highway and driving and parking areas delineated by concrete barricades. Because the park is located on the site of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill, the park property additionally contains concrete and steel remnants of these damaged, historic structures, such as the remains of a crane to move sugarcane, concrete foundations and walls of various mill structures, a large pipe stanchion, and a concrete sea wall along the coastline surrounding the mill site. In addition to the paved access road and parking area in the middle of the park property, most of the makai portion of the park surrounding the pavilion is also paved with concrete associated with the sugar mill. A square grassy area fronting the park pavilion appears to be unpaved. July 2024 Page 2-45 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Potential Impacts No significant adverse impacts would occur to parks and recreational resources. The project would instead result in a benefit to Hakalau Beach Park and its users. Upon completion of soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation work, HDOT would repave the existing roads in the project area to reestablish public access to Hakalau Beach Park, which would facilitate the reopening of the park by the County. HDOT may opt to post signage in untested or unremediated areas of the park to warn users of possible lead contamination. HDOT would continue to coordinate with the County Department of Parks and Recreation and HDOH to keep park users informed. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures The Proposed Action would enable the reopening of Hakalau Beach Park and stream to the public. To keep park users informed of lingering health risks, if any, HDOT would continue to coordinate with the County Department of Parks and Recreation and HDOH about appropriate signage at the park. 2.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Existing Conditions According to the Hawaii County General Plan, the Hakalau Bay/Gulch area is considered a "Natural Beauty Site." While crossing the Hakalau Stream Bridge, travelers on Mamalahoa Highway experience panoramic views of Hakalau Gulch and the ocean on one hand and the Mauna Kea summit on the other hand. The project area located at the base of the gulch is surrounded by natural features including lush vegetation, a natural, unlined stream, and a classic Hawaii Island black sand beach nestled in a sheltered cove. The historic Hakalau Stream Bridge traversing the gulch provides a reminder of old Hawaii. The existing visual setting of this project area can be divided into five significant viewpoints shown in Figure 2-21 through Figure 2-26. Page 2-46 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-21: Viewpoint 1— View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from Old Mamalahoa Highway Sources: Google Earth 2013 2.9.1.1 Viewpoint 1 Viewpoint 1, perched on the Hilo -side slope of Hakalau Valley along Old Mamalahoa Highway, offers a view of Hakalau Beach Park. It showcases the Hakalau Stream Bridge, spanning Hakalau Stream that winds through the valley floor. Inland on the south side of the valley is a grassy picnic area with tables and lush tropical greenery. Near the shore on the south side of the valley, a concrete seawall separates the Hakalau Stream Bank from the historical remnants of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill. On the other side of the stream lies a classic Hawaii Island black sand beach with a backdrop of lush green foliage. July 2024 Page 2-47 0 • • --I ct W ,TDcip • M"i Y W � caca ]r" Final Enviro Views of Project Area Sources: Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-23: Viewpoint 2 — View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from the Hilo -side shoreline (Looking Mauka) Source: WSP USA, 2014 2.9.1.2 Viewpoint 2 Viewpoint 2 is located in Hakalau Beach Park at the Hilo side of the stream mouth. Looking mauka from this viewpoint, the towering Hakalau Stream Bridge and Hakalau Stream beneath it are prominent features within the valley backdrop. Hakalau Stream navigates through a bed of large volcanic stones as it completes its journey to the ocean here. On the Hilo -side bank of the stream are scattered round volcanic stones and a picnic area adorned with lush tropical greenery and coconut trees. To the Honokaa side of the stream, there is a signature Hawaii Island black sand beach. July 2024 Page 2-49 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-24: Viewpoint 3 — View of Hakalau Stream Bridge from Hakalau Stream Ford (Looking Makai) Sources: Unknown 2.9.1.3 Viewpoint 3 Viewpoint 3 is on the Old Mill Access Road where it crosses over Hakalau Stream, on the mauka side of Hakalau Stream Bridge. This viewpoint provides a makai perspective. The Hakalau Stream Bridge also takes center stage in this view, stretching across the valley. Hakalau Stream winds its way toward the bridge and the open expanse of the ocean, while enveloped by lush tropical foliage on both sides. Page 2-50 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.9.1.4 Viewpoint 4 Viewpoint 4 is at the Hilo -side terminus of Hakalau Stream Bridge while traveling north toward Honokaa along Hawaii Belt Road. To the mauka side, the Hakalau Valley unfolds. Up ahead, Hawaii Belt Road continues its path toward Honokaa. Figure 2-25: Viewpoint 4 — View of Hakalau Gulch from Hawaii Belt Road (Looking Mauka) Source: Google Earth 2011 July 2024 Page 2-51 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Figure 2-26: Viewpoint 5 — View of Hakalau Bay from Hawaii Belt Road (Looking Makai) Source: Google Earth 2011 2.9.1.5 Viewpoint 5 Viewpoint 5 is at the Honoakaa side terminus of Hakalau Stream while traveling south toward Hilo along Hawaii Belt Road. To the makai side, the expanse of the Pacific Ocean is similar to Viewpoint 4. Up ahead, Hawaii Belt Road continues its path toward Hilo town. Potential Impacts No significant impacts on views or view planes are anticipated as a part of the project. During construction, views of the valley would be temporarily altered by soil remediation and vegetation clearing. These impacts, however, are only temporary as HDOT's contractor would restore the soil and vegetation of the gulch to its preconstruction state. Replacing the steel bents of Hakalau Stream Bridge with more modern concrete bents could have impacts on views of the bridge. However, only viewers inside the gulch would observe this change. Users of the bridge travelling on Hawaii Belt Road would not notice any visual changes while traveling over the bridge. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Although the conversion of the bridge's steel bents to concrete bents are anticipated to result in a permanent adverse change in the appearance of the historic bridge, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation steps are being determined and evaluated as part of the NHPA Section 106 historic property review process. HDOT would comply with any and all mitigation measures that result from the NHPA Section 106 historic property review process so no significant impacts on visual and aesthetic resources are anticipated. Page 2-52 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.10 Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic Existing Conditions In the vicinity of Hakalau Stream Bridge, Hawaii Belt Road is a two-lane, undivided principal arterial providing primary regional and subregional access along the Hamakua Coast. Hakalau Stream Bridge carries Hawaii Belt Road over Hakalau Gulch and also over Old Mamalahoa Highway, which has a grade - separate crossing with Hawaii Belt Road. There are no at -grade intersections on Hawaii Belt Road near the Hakalau Bridge's approaches within the project area. The nearest intersection on Hawaii Belt Road is where Old Mamalahoa Highway and Chin Chuck Road intersect Hawaii Belt Road on the makai and mauka sides, respectively, about 1,800 feet from the bridge's south end. Within the project area, there are two other crossings of the stream: the County's Hakalau Stream Bridge that carries Old Mamalahoa Highway and a concrete stream ford that carries the Old Mill Access Road into Hakalau Beach Park. See Figure 2-27: Roadway Network in the Project Area. At this location, Hawaii Belt Road consists of one travel lane in each direction, and traffic is generally free flowing with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Because Hakalau Bridge has many miles leading to it in both directions and because Hawaii Belt Road is generally one lane in each direction with minimal shoulder widths, any unexpected travel disruptions, such as breakdowns or accidents, have the potential to affect the operation of the roadway at and near this location and for miles in either direction. Morning and afternoon peak hours generally occur during weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. During the AM and PM peak hours, it is anticipated that there are more vehicles on Hawaii Belt Road and slowdowns may occur as vehicles enter and exit Hawaii Belt Road via side access roads and driveways. The portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway on the makai side of Hawaii Belt Road south of Hakalau Stream Bridge is a local road that serves a small primarily residential community as well as being the sole access road to Hakalau Beach Park. As Old Mamalahoa Highway approaches Hakalau Gulch, it turns left and heads downhill to pass under Hawaii Belt Road, and ultimately connects with the Old Mill Access Road that leads to the park. This segment of Old Mamalahoa Highway after the left turn in the road is currently closed to traffic by a gate due to the park closure. On the north side of Hakalau Stream, Old Mamalahoa Highway is closed and inaccessible. There is currently no access to that closed portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway between Old Mill Access Road and where Old Mamalahoa Highway restarts in a rural area mauka of—but not intersecting—Hawaii Belt Road approximately 600 feet north of the bridge. Although there are no existing or proposed designated pedestrian or bicycle facilities leading to Hakalau Stream Bridge, Hakalau Stream Bridge provides a raised, grade -separated 3 -foot -wide pedestrian walkway along either side of the bridge. According to the 2003 Bike Plan Hawaii, no bicycle facilities are proposed on Hawaii Belt Road, but two bicycle facilities are proposed on Old Mamalahoa Highway through Hakalau Gulch (HDOT 2003). These proposed bicycle facilities would connect from Waikaumalo north of Hakalau to Kolekole Beach Park south of Hakalau. The alignment of these proposed contiguous bicycle facilities would not utilize Hakalau Stream Bridge on Hawaii Belt Road. Potential Impacts The Proposed Action seeks to rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure and remediate the lead contamination in the soil surrounding the bridge. No modification of the bridge's deck or superstructure is proposed, and traffic operations on Hawaii Belt Road or Old Mamalahoa Highway would not change. Therefore, the project would not be anticipated to result in a change to the overall operation of any roadway in the project area. The Proposed Action would maintain the existing roadway (roadway alignment, capacity, and 55 mile per hour posted speed limit) and traffic (traffic volumes, directional splits, and vehicle composition) attributes on Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge, and Old Mamalahoa Highway. The project would reopen the Hakalau Beach Park to the public which includes reopening the portion of Old July 2024 Page 2-53 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Mamalahoa Highway for vehicles that provides access to the park. HDOT assumes that traffic conditions on Old Mamalahoa Highway with the Proposed Action would be unchanged from pre -2017 traffic closure conditions when the road and park are reopened. Only limited traffic impacts to users of Hakalau Stream Bridge are expected during construction because bridge work would occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. Full closure of the bridge or highway is not anticipated. There may be occasional 24-hour single -lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads during construction. Nighttime lane closures may require temporary illuminated signs or beacons for safety purposes only; no new streetlights are proposed. During construction of the Proposed Action, traffic would be managed to allow for continued safe operation of Hakalau Stream Bridge, as described in Chapter 1. The project may cause disruptions in normal traffic patterns, but there should be only limited traffic impacts to bridge users. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because the Proposed Action would not change roadway operations along Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge, or Old Mamalahoa Highway, there would be no permanent significant impacts on the roadway network or actions that preclude future plans for system enhancements such as future bike facilities. Therefore, no traffic or transportation network mitigation measures are proposed. During construction, traffic control plans and construction phasing plans would be implemented to minimize potential traffic delays. Lane closures on Hawaii Belt Road may alter traffic patterns, driver behavior, and travel times._Bridge rehabilitation work can occur incrementally on different bridge bents to allow for continuous use of the bridge; no complete bridge closures are anticipated. Truck traffic associated with construction activities would access Hawaii Belt Road and local roads, but these construction vehicles would avoid commuter peak periods to minimize traffic impacts. HDOT would routinely inform the public of planned construction activities and lane closures throughout the construction period. As a result, no significant short-term or temporary operational traffic impacts or public safety concerns are anticipated with the Proposed Action. Page 2-54 July 2024 Final Enviro Roadway Network in the Project Area Sources: Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.11 Natural Hazards and Sea -Level Rise Existing Conditions Natural hazards that may occur in this area of Hawaii Island include earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, flooding, and landslides. Wildfires are less likely in this region compared to other parts of the island, due to relatively high precipitation on the windward side of the island. The project area generally experiences earthquakes at the same rate and proportion as the rest of the island and is not more or less prone to their effect. Annually, the state averages about 100 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater, 10 of magnitude 4 or greater, and one of magnitude 5 or greater per year. Typically, people report feeling earthquakes larger than about magnitude 3. Based on the tsunami evacuation zone data prepared by the County and Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, most of the project area falls within the current tsunami evacuation zone. See Figure 2-28: Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map. Hakalau Stream Bridge is elevated well above Hakalau Stream, so vehicular traffic on Hawaii Belt Road and the bridge itself would not be affected in the event of a tsunami, unless the bridge foundations and trestles were undermined. Hurricanes and severe storms, resulting in intense rainfall events and high winds, would have the potential to affect this area similarly to the rest of the county. Similar to other streams in Hawaii, in the event of heavy rainfall, the water level at Hakalau Stream may rise rapidly. However, Hakalau Stream is not located in a regulatory floodway or Special Flood Hazard Area. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the entire project area lies within Zone X, which indicates that the area is outside the 500 -year floodplain as currently defined and is of minimal flood hazard. See Figure 2-29: Flood Zone Map. Extreme storm events also contribute to the likelihood of landslides and road closures. In accordance with the findings of the HDOT Asset and Hazard Assessment tool, the entire project area is designated as having a "very high" susceptibility to rockfall and landslides. The contractor would be responsible for determining and implementing mitigation measures to reduce construction risks and enhance safety. Global climate change and sea -level rise (SLR) can exacerbate impacts of these natural hazards on all infrastructure in the state, particularly in coastal areas and areas prone to flooding. Coastal areas are expected to experience more frequent and severe flooding episodes, which can exacerbate the impacts of natural hazard events such as tsunami and hurricanes or other high wind events. Storm surges can penetrate further inland, increasing the area and population that is vulnerable to hurricane and tsunami hazards. Effective July 2019, the State required all new projects undergoing environmental review under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (also known as HRS, Chapter 343) to consider whether the project is likely to have an adverse effect or be vulnerable to SLR. To help identify potential coastal flooding extents for events under projected future sea level rise conditions, in 2018, the State developed the web -based State of Hawaii Sea Level Rise Viewer (SLR Viewer) to show sea -level rise exposure areas (SLR-XA) in Hawaii with varying assumed depths of SLR. The SLR Viewer was prepared as a companion tool to the 2017 Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report (Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission 2021). The SLR Viewer provides map data illustrating future projections of hazard exposure and evaluate vulnerabilities stemming from sea level rise. While other SLR scenarios are presented in the SLR Viewer, any references to the SLR-XA in this EA assumes the 3.2 -foot SLR scenario unless otherwise noted. In Hawaii, there is accepted guidance to use 3.2 feet of global mean SLR as a planning target for 2100. Some portions of the project area would experience the impacts of SLR-XA identified on the SLR Viewer. Because this anticipated SLR means that more of Hakalau Valley would be inundated in the future, these inundated areas are assumed to be the future condition for this EA, with or without the Proposed Action. Page 2-56 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment The additional inundation area with a 3.2 -foot SLR is anticipated to be an expansion of the existing streambed that approximates its current ordinary high-water mark and high tide line and would not significantly encroach upon the County's Hakalau Beach Park or other streamside properties. See Figure 2-30: SLR Exposure Area Map. Potential Impacts The Proposed Action would not adversely affect the project area's vulnerability to natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, flooding, or tsunami. To the contrary, the bridge rehabilitation would strengthen the bridge, making it more resilient to such hazards. The rehabilitated bridge would be designed to meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications, which includes seismic provisions. In the event of flooding or a tsunami, the rehabilitated bridge would provide a safer and more reliable evacuation route for the surrounding areas compared to the aging existing bridge. The Proposed Action itself would not have any bearing on precipitation patterns, frequency and degree of heavy rains, or SLR anticipated with climate change. The Proposed Action would not significantly affect the susceptibility of Hakalau Stream Bridge and the project area to hillside erosion. During construction, there may be increased wildfire ignition sources due to the presence of construction vehicles and workers, but due to the wet conditions typical of the Hamakua Coast, significant impacts from wildfires are unlikely. The proposed soil remediation and lead abatement actions would potentially increase the likelihood of erosion within the affected area. However, temporary BMPs would be implemented during construction to minimize potential soil erosion. Furthermore, post -construction BMPs, including structural controls (e.g., erosion control matting) and nonstructural controls (e.g., plant establishment), would be implemented to ensure the project area is stabilized after the soil remediation work is completed. The project area is not located in a regulatory flood zone; therefore, FEMA No -Rise criteria do not apply to this project, and a flood study is not required for the Proposed Action. Soil Remediation would reduce long-term lead exposure risk to the project area and community in an extreme storm or flooding event. Such events would disturb soil and expose more lead. The Proposed Action to remediate lead -contaminated soil would ensure clean soils, removing the spread of lead in the environment during a storm or flood event. July 2024 Page 2-57 0 • W• ccs ca M"i Y W � ca ]r" Final Enviro Tsunami Evacuation Zone Map Sources: County of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu; County of Kauai; County of Maui; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2014b; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Flood Zone Map Final Enviro Sources: FEMA, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2021; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. SLR Exposure Area Map Final Enviro Sources: FEMA, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2017; Google Earth 2013; USGS, Hawaii Statewide GIS Program 2013. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the project area's vulnerability to natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, flooding, or tsunami, no avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are proposed other than the BMPs previously discussed. Construction BMPs would be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii, by the FHWA, and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2021). In addition, the HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control would be followed. 2.12 Public Services and Utilities Existing Conditions There are no residences or businesses in the project area. Basic utilities such as electricity and potable water are not available at Hakalau Beach Park and in the undeveloped Hakalau Gulch. Hakalau Beach Park, which is currently closed to the public, does not have restrooms or shower facility accommodations. The Hakalau area is served by essential emergency responders, such as fire, police, and ambulance services, despite its somewhat isolated location. The North Hilo Police Station is located in Hilo, roughly 14 miles from Hakalau, and there are also stations in Laupahoehoe and Honokaa, 10 and 28 miles from Hakalau, respectively, that could serve the Hakalau area. The Hawaii County Fire Department stations are located in Hilo approximately 13 miles and 15 miles away, both of which would serve the Hakalau area. Potential Impacts No changes to essential public services and utilities are proposed. Early consultation comments indicate that there are no concerns regarding potential impacts to essential emergency services such as police and fire response. The proposed bridge rehabilitation efforts would facilitate safe, long-term access to public services, utilities, and infrastructure for the nearby Hakalau community and all surrounding areas on the Hamakua Coast. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because public facilities, services, and utilities would not be significantly impacted by the Proposed Action, no additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are needed. Construction logistics would be coordinated with public utility providers to avoid or minimize any potential service disruptions. Early consultation comments indicate that there are no concerns regarding potential impacts to essential emergency services such as police and fire response. 2.13 Noise Noise, or sound, is any change in air pressure that the human ear can detect, from barely perceptible to levels that can cause hearing damage. In the human ear, these changes in air pressure are translated to sound. The greater the change in air pressure, the louder the sound. For example, a quiet whisper in the library creates a relatively slight change in the room air pressure, whereas air pressure changes are much greater in the front row of a rock music concert. This section discusses how noise is evaluated (its definition, transmission characteristics, and measurement) and provides typical noise levels for reference. The physical surroundings between the source and the receiver influence the attenuation of point and line sources. For example, interactions of sound waves with the ground often result in slightly higher attenuation (called "ground absorption effects") than the reduction factors given in the preceding paragraph. Other July 2024 Page 2-61 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment factors affecting the attenuation of sound with distance include existing structures, topography, dense foliage, ground cover, and atmospheric conditions (such as wind, temperature, and relative humidity). Regulatory Context Under the criteria identified by 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction, as well as HDOT's Highway Noise Policy and Abatement Guidelines (HDOT 2016), A "Type I" noise project includes the construction of a highway in a new location or the physical alternation of an existing highway which substantially changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes. Only such Type I noise projects are required to complete a quantitative analysis of potential noise impacts by federal regulations. Because the Proposed Action does not meet the definition of a Type I noise project, a noise analysis is not required per 23 CFR §772.5. Therefore, the following discussion of potential noise impacts is only a qualitative assessment of noise resulting from the project. Existing Conditions Existing and future noise -sensitive land uses and activities located in the vicinity of the project area include residences in Hakalau and Hakalau Beach Park. Old Mamalahoa Highway goes through the small, quiet residential community of Hakalau, which is located primarily on the Hilo side of the bridge. The residences closest to the bridge are located approximately 150 to 200 feet from the bridge on properties resting above Hawaii Belt Road at both the Honokaa and Hilo ends of the bridge. The closed portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway on the Honokaa end of the bridge is aligned around one residential property, but currently carries no traffic. Hakalau Beach Park is located below and adjacent to the Hakalau Stream Bridge. No other noise - sensitive land uses are located within the project area. All residences in the project area are defined as FHWA and HDOT Activity Category B (residential) and the outdoor uses at the beach park are defined as Activity Category C (parks). Category B and Category C activities have an exterior noise abatement criteria (NAC) of Leq(h) 66 A -weighted decibels (dBA). Under HDOT policy, a noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the NAC, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. "Approach" means within 1 dBA less than the NAC, and "substantially exceed the existing noise levels" means an increase of at least 15 dBA. Based on the roadway's posted speed limit in the project area, the off-peak free-flow traffic conditions, and proximity of noise -sensitive land uses, it is reasonable to assume that the existing worst -hour traffic noise levels for noise -sensitive areas near the project are below the HDOT NAC. The existing roadway alignment of Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge, and Old Mamalahoa Highway would remain unchanged for the near future. No foreseeable future actions or developments that could affect noise -sensitive land uses in the area are known. The posted speed limits, anticipated traffic volumes, and vehicle percentages on Hawaii Belt Road and Old Mamalahoa Highway would remain the same as existing conditions. Potential Impacts No significant impacts to noise levels are anticipated as a result of this project. Consistent with the existing conditions, the Proposed Action would maintain the existing roadway alignment, capacity, and 55 -mile - per -hour posted speed limit on Hawaii Belt Road and Hakalau Stream Bridge. The project would not result in any change in traffic volumes, directional split, or vehicle composition on Hawaii Belt Road compared to existing conditions. The primary noise source in the area, traffic from Hawaii Belt Road, would remain similar to existing traffic noise levels with future worst -hour traffic noise levels without the project similar to existing conditions and below the HDOT NAC. Page 2-62 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Although the Proposed Action would reopen the Hakalau Beach Park, which would mean reopening the south portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway that provides access to the park, because of the low speeds (25 miles per hour and below), limited vehicular traffic (anticipated to be unchanged from pre -2017 traffic closure conditions), and low vehicular delay within the Hakalau community, any changes in traffic noise in the residential area along Old Mamalahoa Highway and at outdoor areas at the park are not expected to be noticeable. Worst -hour noise levels with the Proposed Action are anticipated to be below the HDOT NAC and not result in a substantial increase over existing conditions. As stated in Chapter 1, the anticipated construction duration is roughly 2.5 years. Construction of the project would involve the use of heavy machinery that could cause temporary noise impacts to adjacent noise - sensitive land uses. The soil remediation work would involve haul trucks for transportation of soil and other construction materials but are only temporary. The bridge rehabilitation work would involve a variety of heavy construction equipment to construct new trestle towers and remove the existing trestle towers; the soil remediation work including vegetation removal would require similarly noisy heavy equipment. Noise generated by construction equipment required can reach levels from the mid-70s dBA to the mid-90s dBA at 50 feet. Table 2-6: Construction Equipment Noise Levels presents a range of noise levels for various construction equipment anticipated to be used during construction of the project. Equipment noise levels vary depending on the make and model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment, and other variables. The noise levels listed below are based on published measurements taken at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment. Because construction equipment noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance, at 100 feet the noise levels would be about 6 dBA less than the levels shown in the table. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be approximately 12 dBA less than shown in the table. Intervening structures or topography can act as a noise barrier to further reduce noise levels. Table 2-6: Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Decibels (dBA) Equipment Decibels (dBA) Standard Construction Equipment Light Impact Equipment Truck 75-90 Jack Hammer 1 81 - 98 Saw 72-81 Jumping Jack 81 - 97 Light Tower 62-72 Heavy Impact Equipment Cold Planer 79-88 Paving Machine 86-88 Hoe rams 95 -106 Roller 63-70 Vibratory Sheetpile driver 90 - 100 Striping machine 75-86 Auger Drill Rig 84 - 85 Concrete Truck 75-88 Drill Rig Truck 79 - 84 Backhoe/Loader 72-83 Compressor 74-87 Generator 71-82 Crane 75-87 Source: USDOT 2006 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Overall, the existing noise environment would not be significantly impacted by the project. Furthermore, the bridge rehabilitation work would be conducted incrementally, as described in Chapter 1. This construction method would minimize the potential for noise disruptions from roadway traffic to the surrounding environment and community. Therefore, no long-term noise mitigation measures are necessary. Construction activities would involve heavy machinery and vehicles that at times may exceed the maximum levels allowed by community noise control regulations for daytime within Class C Zoning Districts July 2024 Page 2-63 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment (agriculturally zoned areas or similar). The HDOH maintains community noise control standards that apply to construction noise (HAR Section 11-46). Construction work would not be allowed to exceed the stipulated noise limits unless a variance is granted by the HDOH. Noise control measures during construction would be required to minimize impacts on existing noise -sensitive land uses. A Community Noise Permit would be obtained for construction activities performed during standard work hours (Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., and holidays). A Community Noise Variance would be obtained to restrict noisy equipment to minimize and mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding community during nighttime, weekend, and holiday hours. General abatement measures, including design considerations, source control, and community relations, are recommended as guidelines in developing construction plans that consider the adverse impacts of construction noise for this project. The aforementioned measures can be incorporated into site-specific construction plans to minimize noise impacts to sensitive receivers along the project corridor, and additional noise emission limits could be developed as well. Construction hours would be set in the Community Noise Permit and Community Noise Variance, and noise level criteria could be decided upon and adhered to during construction. 2.14 Air Quality Existing Conditions As required by the 1977 Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for seven major air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PMio), particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. The State has also established its own standards for these pollutants and hydrogen sulfide. The National and State AAQS are periodically reviewed and revised. See Table 2-7: National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Based on the latest year of available ambient air monitoring data (2022), the State is in attainment of all National and State AAQS. The HDOH Clean Air Branch has 10 air monitoring stations on the Island of Hawaii, though it does not operate any stationary air monitoring sites near the project location. The closest station to the project area is located in Hilo, approximately 13.5 miles away from the project area. The pollutants/parameters monitored at this location are PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide. No exceedances of the national or state AAQS were recorded during 2020, 2021, or 2022, the most recent three years of available data (HDOH 2021, 2022, 2023). Page 2-64 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Table 2-7: National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant 1 Standards Hawaii State 1 Federal Primarya (Health) 1 Federal Secondaryb (Welfare) Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 9 ppm 35 ppm - 8 Hour 4.4 ppm 9 ppm - Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour - 100 ppb ----- Annual Mean 0.04 ppm 53 ppb 0.053 ppm PMio 24 Hour 150 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 - Annual (Arithmetic) 50 pg/m3 - - PM2.5 24 Hour - 35 pig/m3 35 pg/m3 Annual (Arithmetic) - 12 pig/m3 15 pg/m3 Ozone 8 Hour Rolling Average 1 157 pig/m3 (0.08 ppm) 1 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 1 Hour - 75 ppb 3 Hour 0.5 ppm - 1,300 pg/m3 (0.5 ppm) 24 Hour Block Average 0.14 ppm - - Annual Average 80 pg/m3 (0.03 ppm) - - Lead 3 Months (Arithmetic) 1.5 pg/m3d 0.15 pg/m3 0.15 pg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 25 ppb - - Source: Notes: HDOH 2023a a Primary Standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. b Secondary Standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. c Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual -----standard effective December 17, 2006. However, the state still has an annual standard. d The state standard is based on calendar quarter. Key: tag/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns PMio = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns Potential Impacts The Proposed Action would not change the alignment of Hawaii Belt Road or Hakalau Stream Bridge, add traffic capacity, or result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speeds, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions. The Proposed Action would reopen the portion of Old Mamalahoa Highway that provides access to the park, but due to the low speeds (25 miles per hour and below) and limited vehicular traffic (similar to pre -2017 traffic closure) the increase in emissions compared to existing conditions would be negligible. As such, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to generate any notable air quality impacts or contribute to any air quality concerns during its use and would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the state or national AAQS. As stated in Chapter 1, the anticipated construction duration is roughly 2.5 years. Air quality impacts during construction generally consist of fugitive dust and mobile source emissions from construction equipment July 2024 Page 2-65 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment (haul trucks for transportation of soil and other construction materials) and are only temporary. These air emissions would occur only during construction activities. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are proposed for any of the alternatives, because no violation of the state or national AAQS is anticipated. Fugitive dust is airborne particulate matter of usually large particle size that is generated by construction vehicles operating around construction sites and from material blown from uncovered haul trucks, stockpiles, and exposed areas. The emission rate for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities is difficult to estimate accurately because its generation varies greatly depending upon the type of soil, the amount and type of dirt -disturbing activity, the moisture content of exposed soil, and wind speed. Airborne, visible fugitive dust generated during construction of the Proposed Action would be controlled at the project site by the contractor in accordance with the provisions of HAR Chapter 11-60.1-33, Fugitive Dust. For example, frequent watering would control fugitive dust at construction sites. In addition, wind screens may be used in areas near residences and commercial districts, as well as limiting the areas of disturbance at any given time. Landscaping would be reestablished as early as possible to limit fugitive dust. To prevent haul trucks from tracking dirt onto paved streets, stabilized entrances or road cleaning may be appropriate. State regulations further stipulate that open -bodied trucks be covered at all times when in motion if they are transporting wind -erodible materials. Measures to address health and safety concerns associated with potential exposure to airborne lead due to the disturbance of contaminated materials during construction would be addressed by the C-EHMP for this project. 2.15 Social and Economic Conditions Existing Conditions Old Mamalahoa Highway on the south side of the bridge goes through the small, quiet community of Hakalau. There are no residences or commercial areas within the project area. In the vicinity of Hakalau Stream Bridge, outside the project area, there is a small residential area on the Hilo side of the bridge along Hanamalo Loop and Opihi Point Place and on the Honokaa-side of the bridge is Lai Nani Oceanfront Estate development, near Umauma Stream. These areas are low density and generally consist of single-family residences. These homes are well above the proposed work areas for both soil remediation and bridge rehabilitation. Potential Impacts There are no residents or businesses in the project area that would be directly affected by the Proposed Action. Members of the community surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge would all benefit from the Proposed Action, as would all Hawaii Island residents and visitors who wish to visit Hakalau Beach Park, once the soil is remediated and the park is reopened. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Because the project would not impact any residence or business, no proposed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are proposed with respect to socioeconomic conditions. Page 2-66 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 2.16 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Secondary Impacts Secondary impacts, or indirect effects, are effects that are caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed from distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Such efforts may include growth -inducing impacts and other effects related to changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, and other natural systems. The Proposed Action does not add park infrastructure that may result in secondary impacts on the resident population, land use patterns, public facilities and infrastructure, and the natural environment. Visitation at Hakalau Beach Park may return to pre -2017 levels, but the impacts related to that park visitation have been incorporated into the analysis in this EA. Park usage is not expected to exceed 2017levels. Construction of the project is expected to generate short -ter 11 construction employment for a limited number of workers. It is anticipated that local contractors on Hawaii Island or within the state of Hawaii would likely be used for construction of the project, with some of the soil disposal potentially conducted on the mainland instead of on Hawaii Island. Thus, construction workers would have minimal, if any, effect on the island's residential population or housing demand. The Proposed Action is needed to remediate the soil in Hakalau Valley and restore use of the beach park to the public. The bridge rehabilitation would not result in any change in use of roadway facilities or traffic volume increases. Therefore, no secondary effects of increasing infrastructure demands are anticipated, and no other off-site improvements or additional use of public funds and resources are needed. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are effects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of a project when added to past, present, and reasonably near future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The Proposed Action is a complete, independent project that would not result in commitments for other projects, nor would it result in cumulative, considerable impacts on the environment. No other existing or planned transportation projects are in the immediate vicinity of Hakalau Valley, with the exception of the Hakalau Bridge Bent 8 Repair Project, which is planned by HDOT as a stop -gap measure to keep the bridge operational until the entire bridge substructure can be rehabilitated. The Bent 8 Repair Project would be completed prior to the start of the Proposed Action; therefore, no cumulative impacts, such as traffic impacts, that would result in higher than anticipated traffic congestion during or after construction are anticipated. This Proposed Action at Hakalau Bridge is one of several separate bridge rehabilitation projects proposed for steel bridges on Hawaii Belt Road along the Hamakua Coast. They include four other similar steel - trestle bridges (Kapue Bridge, Paheehee Bridge, Kolekole Bridge in South Hilo district; Nanue Bridge in North Hilo district) and one steel stringer bridge in the town of Hilo, Wailuku Bridge. These other bridges would be rehabilitated with similar materials and retain their historical integrity as steel bridges. Because of the advanced steel damage at Hakalau which makes rehabilitation with steel not feasible, only Hakalau Bridge is proposed to be rehabilitated with concrete instead of steel. Additionally, steel construction for Hakalau Bridge would not meet the project's purpose and need of increasing the bridge's resilience to extreme natural events. The bridge foundation could not be designed to withstand tsunami loads without significant changes to the appearance of the trestle layout. Without these changes to the bridge foundation, the bridge would remain susceptible to suffering a repeat of the failure that occurred during the July 2024 Page 2-67 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 1946 Alaskan tsunami. Failure of the bridge under such circumstances would require emergency action to replace the bridge, likely without consideration for potential impacts to the natural environment. Therefore, while multiple bridges along the Hamakua Coast would be rehabilitated in the foreseeable future, the Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation project would not result in adverse cumulative impacts on the combination of historic properties on Hawaii Belt Road. No cumulative impacts that result in significant impacts of public utilities and services such as water and electricity or emergency services are anticipated. No long-term or cumulative adverse impacts on water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, or park resources are anticipated other than what is previously disclosed above. Page 2-68 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 3: CONSISTENCY WITH GOVERNMENT PLANS AND POLICIES This section describes state and local government plans and policies that are directly relevant to this project. A brief discussion follows each policy description to illustrate the project's consistency. 3.1 State of Hawaii Plans and Controls Hawaii State Plan The Hawaii State Plan, which is a long-range comprehensive plan that includes an overall theme, goals, objectives, policies, priority guidelines, and implementation mechanisms. The Hawaii State Plan acts as a roadmap for long-term state development, setting goals, policies, and priorities. It also aids in resource allocation, enhances coordination among federal, state, and county plans and programs, and establishes a systematic approach to integrate major State and County activities. Relevant Hawaii State Plan objectives and policies are listed below with discussion. 3.1.1.1 Physical environment—scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources (a) Planning for the State's physical environment shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of enhancement of Hawaii's scenic assets, natural beauty, and multi-cultural/historical resources. (b) To achieve the scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Promote the preservation and restoration of significant natural and historic resources. (4) Protect those special areas, structures, and elements that are an integral and functional part of Hawaii's ethnic and cultural heritage. (5) Encourage the design of developments and activities that complement the natural beauty of the islands. Discussion: One of the purposes of this project is to restore public access to Hakalau Park by remediating the lead contamination. The other purpose is to rehabilitate the historic Hakalau Stream Bridge. While rehabilitation would result in alterations to the historic character of the bridge, the Section 106 MOA should set forth design parameters that the design would adhere to as closely as practicable. 3.1.1.2 Facility Systems—Transportation (a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to transportation shall be directed towards the achievement of the following objectives: (1) An integrated multi -modal transportation system that services statewide needs and promotes the efficient, economical, safe, and convenient movement of people and goods. (2) A statewide transportation system that is consistent with and will accommodate planned growth objectives throughout the State. (b) To achieve the transportation objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: July 2024 Page 3-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment (1) Design, program, and develop a multi -modal system in conformance with desired growth and physical development as stated in this chapter. (6) Encourage transportation systems that serve to accommodate present and future development needs of communities. (10) Encourage the design and development of transportation systems sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the quality of Hawaii's natural environment. Discussion: Rehabilitating the Hakalau Stream Bridge would ensure that its structural integrity can withstand the increasing threat of natural disasters. Should the Hakalau Stream Bridge fail, the transit system would be affected island -wide as Hawaii Belt Road is the only road that provides uninterrupted access along the Hamakua Coast. Impacts to bridge operations would disrupt the efficient, economical, safe, and convenient movement of people and goods. 3.1.1.3 Socio -cultural advancement—health (a) Planning for the State's socio -cultural advancement with regard to health shall be directed towards achievement of the following objectives: (2) Maintenance of sanitary and environmentally healthful conditions in Hawaii's communities. (3) Elimination of health disparities by identifying and addressing social determinants of health. (b) To achieve the health objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: (6) Improve the State's capabilities in preventing contamination by pesticides and other potentially hazardous substances through increased coordination, education, monitoring, and enforcement. Discussion: By remediating the lead -contaminated soil, a hazardous substance, overall lead levels should decrease in the Hakalau Gulch. Reducing lead levels would promote healthful conditions in Hakalau Gulch. 3.1.1.4 Socio -cultural advancement—leisure (a) Planning for the State's socio -cultural advancement with regard to leisure shall be directed towards the achievement of the objective of the adequate provision of resources to accommodate diverse cultural, artistic, and recreational needs for present and future generations. (b) To achieve the leisure objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (3) Enhance the enjoyment of recreational experiences through safety and security measures, educational opportunities, and improved facility design and maintenance. (4) Promote the recreational and educational potential of natural resources having scenic, open space, cultural, historical, geological, or biological values while ensuring that their inherent values are preserved. (5) Ensure opportunities for everyone to use and enjoy Hawaii's recreational resources. (10) Assure adequate access to significant natural and cultural resources in public ownership. [L 1978, c 100, pt of §2; am L 1986, c 276, §22] Page 3-2 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Discussion: Once the lead -contaminated soil is remediated and bridge rehabilitation is complete, the County could reopen Hakalau Park to visitors. At the park, visitors would be able to enjoy scenic views, natural areas, recreational activities, and visit the historic old mill site. Hawaii Statewide Federal -Aid Highways 2045 Transportation Plan The 2022 Draft Hawaii Statewide Federal -Aid Highways 2045 Transportation Plan (HSTP) establishes the framework to be used in the planning of Hawaii's transportation system (HDOT 2022). The goals and objectives identified in the HSTP provide the keys to the development of an integrated, multimodal transportation system for the safe, efficient, and effective movement of people and goods throughout Hawaii. Relevant goals, objectives and strategies include the following: INFRASTRUCTURE: Provide a high-quality, well-maintained multimodal system. • Maintain the multimodal transportation system in a state of good repair. Manage transportation assets effectively and efficiently. • Modernize transportation infrastructure. Prepare infrastructure to accommodate new technologies. RESILIENCY: Anticipate and adapt to climate change, storms, pandemics, and other disruptions. • Enhance resiliency of transportation systems to the impacts of climate change, public health crises, and other disruptions. Adapt to climate change, storms, pandemics, and other disruptions. Facilitate robust, resilient, and sustainable supply chains and goods movement systems. Improve system resiliency to public health crises. • Improve emergency preparedness, response, and evacuation measures. Anticipate and prepare for system emergencies Discussion: The Proposed Action includes the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge to ensure that highway infrastructure remains in a state of good repair. Additionally, the replacement of the bents would allow the bridge to withstand the impacts of earthquakes, tsunami, and flooding, the likelihood of which would increase with climate change. Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii In conjunction with the development of the HSTP 2035, the HDOT updated the Regional Long -Range Land Transportation Plans for the District of Hawaii using a future horizon year of 2035 and retitled it as the Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plans for the District of Hawaii (HDOT 2014a, 2014b). While the HSTP discussed above has since been updated to reflect a 2045 horizon, the district plans have not yet been updated from the 2035 horizon. Nevertheless, the 2035 Hawaii District report found that Hawaii County prioritized the following transportation goals, such as: • Improve capacity and system efficiency by addressing congestion • Maintain and improve safety for all modes • Expand and increase Hawaii's economic vitality through the efficient movement of people, goods, and services • Preserve and maintain the existing transportation system • Provide modal integration (complete streets) and improve transit service July 2024 Page 3-3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment • Support evacuation and emergency access/egress during incidents The report then identified system preservation and maintenance projects as one of the solutions to the County's transportation meeting the above goals, stating: "Bridges are also important assets and can be critical infrastructures on the island. Multiple subprograms are in place to manage and maintain the island's bridge inventory. Bridge needs can arise when a specific facility is found to be structurally deficient, or when a bridge requires attention through its regular maintenance cycle. When bridge needs are identified, system preservation solutions are addressed through one of the specific subprograms that manage: • Bridge replacement • Rehabilitation • Preventative maintenance • Seismic retrofit" Discussion: The Proposed Action would ensure the continued safe, reliable operation of the transportation system. Additionally, the project would also serve as preventive measures to ensure the bridge's structural integrity in the event of an earthquake or tsunami. Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan The Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan: Charting a Course for the Decade of Action (2020-2030) (Sustainability Plan), revised June 2021, serves as a guide for the future long-range development of the state (State of Hawaii 2021). The Sustainability Plan promotes the growth and diversification of the state's economy, the protection of the physical environment, the provision of public facilities, and the promotion of and assistance to socio -cultural advancement. Relevant Sustainability Plan goals, objectives, and policy are listed below with discussion and analysis. Sustainable Development Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. This sustainability goal's targets include: • Improving the sustainability and equity of all existing and future infrastructure Discussion: The project includes the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge to ensure that this bridge infrastructure can be sustained into the future. The Proposed Action would not only fortify the bridge supports due to wear, but also ensure the bridge's structural integrity in the event of an earthquake, tsunami, or flood. Sustainable Development Goal 15 Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. The objective... is to maintain continued thriving ecosystems on land and end all threats to land degradation and biodiversity loss. Targets to achieve this goal address: • Protecting biodiversity by reducing degradation of natural habitats... Page 3-4 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Discussion: The project includes the remediation of the lead -contaminated soil in Hakalau Gulch. Soil remediation is anticipated to reduce the degradation of the gulch ecosystem, thereby potentially protecting biodiversity. 3.2 County of Hawaii Plans County of Hawaii General Plan 2005 The County General Plan (General Plan) is the policy document for Hawaii Island that guides long-range comprehensive development in a way that fosters healthy community vison and values. The plan examines numerous study areas (economic, energy, environmental quality, flooding and natural hazards, historic sites, natural beauty, natural resources and shoreline, housing, public facilities, public utilities, recreation, transportation, and land use) and sets forth goals, policies, and specific actions within each study area. The General Plan was published in February 2005 and is currently being updated. Relevant Hawaii County General Plan policies are listed below along with discussion and analysis. 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. 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. (c) Maintain a continuing program to identify, acquire and develop viewing sites on the island. (d) Access easement to public or private lands that have natural or scenic value shall be provided or acquired for the public. (h) Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefully considering the effects of proposed construction during all land use reviews. (i) Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of natural beauty. STANDARDS The following standards provide guidelines for designating sites and vistas of extraordinary natural beauty that shall be protected. (b) Coastline areas of striking contrast, e.g., Laupahoehoe Point. (c) Vistas of distinctive features. Discussion: Once the lead -contaminated soil is remediated and bridge rehabilitation is complete, the County could reopen Hakalau Park to visitors. At the park, visitors would be able to enjoy scenic views and natural areas. The new bridge bents, though slightly larger, would be constructed in the same place that the existing bents are now, thus preserving mauka and makai views in the gulch. NATURAL RESOURCES AND SHORELINES GOALS July 2024 Page 3-5 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 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 Hawaii'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 Hawaii's open space, watersheds, shoreline, and natural areas. (f) Ensure that alterations to existing land forms, 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. POLICIES (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 general public. (i) Encourage an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawaii's resources by protecting, preserving, and conserving the critical and significant natural resources of the County of Hawaii. (j) Encourage the protection of watersheds, forest, brush, and grassland from destructive agents and uses. (k) 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. STANDARDS The following shall be considered for the protection and conservation of natural resources. (a) Areas necessary for the protection and propagation of specified endangered native wildlife, and conservation for natural ecosystems of endemic plants, fish, and wildlife. (b) Lands necessary for the preservation of forests, park lands, wilderness, and beach areas. (c) Lands with a general slope of 20 percent or more that provide open space amenities or possess unusual scenic qualities. (f) The Coastal Zone and SMA as defined by statute and in accordance with the adopted objectives and guidelines. Discussion: A portion of the remediation area is located within the SMA. The Proposed Action would reduce the lead contamination creating a safer and healthier environment for flora and fauna in the area. Some construction activity would occur on the slopes of the gulch; however, after work is completed, the slopes would be returned to their original condition. RECREATION GOALS (a) Provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities for the residents and visitors of the County. (b) Maintain the natural beauty of recreation areas. POLICIES (b) Improve existing public facilities for optimum usage. (c) Recreational facilities shall reflect the natural, historic, and cultural character of the area. (1) Public access to the shoreline shall be provided in accordance with an adopted program of the County of Hawaii. Page 3-6 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment (s) Consider alternative sources of funding for recreational facilities. STANDARDS (f) Parks for General Use: • Centered around a major natural asset, such as a sandy beach, a prime forest, or a volcanic feature and includes historic sites whenever feasible. • Designed to accommodate users from throughout the County. • Beach parks provide opportunities for swimming/sunbathing, surfing, camping, fishing, boating, nature study, and other pastimes. Every section of the island should be adequately served. Facilities depend on size and intensity of use but should include restrooms with showers; picnic facilities; a defined tent camping area when allowed; drinking water; adequate parking; pavilions of various sizes; and lifeguard facilities. • Facilities include trails and unimproved roads; designated hunting and fishing areas; designated conservation areas for nature study and other passive activities; and wilderness camp sites. Discussion: The Proposed Action would reopen Hakalau Park, thereby allowing public access to the shoreline and the ruins of the historic Hakalau Sugar Mill. This project is partially funded by the FHWA as well as the state. TRANSPORTATION GOALS (a) Provide a system of roadways for the safe, efficient, and comfortable movement of people and goods. (b) Provide an integrated State and County transportation system so that new major routes will complement and encourage proposed land policies. POLICIES (a) Encourage the programmed improvement of existing roadways by both public and private sectors. (d) Support the development of programs to identify and improve hazardous and substandard sections of roadway and drainage problems. (g) There shall be coordinated planning of federal, state, and county street systems to meet program goals of the other elements such as historic, recreational, environmental quality, and land use. Discussion: The Proposed Action would improve Hakalau Stream Bridge, which carries Hawaii Belt Road, a primary transportation arterial, and would allow the continued safe, efficient, and comfortable movement of people and goods. Additionally, HDOT is coordinating with the FHWA and the County Department of Public Works to ensure that its Proposed Action is aligned with other historic, recreational, environmental quality, and land use considerations at this site, including the historic mill site, beach park recreational opportunities, and shoreline access. Hamakua Community Development Plan The Hamakua Community Development Plan (County of Hawaii 2018) highlights the values, vision, and community objectives of the Hamakua Community using preliminary policy and recommended actions. Relevant Hamakua Community Development Plan policies and objectives are listed below along with discussion and analysis. SECTION 4: PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES July 2024 Page 3-7 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Objective 4: Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources — Protect and nurture Hamakua's social and cultural diversity and heritage assets, including sacred places, historic sites and buildings, and distinctive plantation towns. Section 4.7.4, Policy 44 — Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawaii and identify these sites with interpretive signage and/or other appropriate methods. Discussion: The project would remediate the lead -contaminated soils that surround the historic former Hakalau Sugar Mill site. The project would also rehabilitate the steel trestle bridge. HDOT is coordinating with the SHPO to ensure that its remediation and bridge rehabilitation activities with appropriate mitigation measures do not adversely impact any historic resources. SECTION 5: STRENGTHEN INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES Community Objective 6: Develop and improve critical community infrastructure, including utilities, healthcare, emergency services, affordable housing, educational opportunities, and recreational facilities to keep our ohana safe, strong, and healthy. 3.2.1.1 Section 5.3, Policy 67 — Improve / replace substandard bridges in the Hamakua Planning Area Discussion: The project would rehabilitate Hakalau Stream Bridge, which is nearing the end of its useful life because of steel corrosion and scour conditions undermining its foundations. Rehabilitating Hakalau Stream Bridge to address these conditions would continue to provide a safe, reliable transportation corridor for Hawaii County roadway users. The Hakalau Stream Bridge carries Hawaii Belt Road, which is a primary arterial in the Hawaii County transportation network. The project would also restore public use to the County -owned Hakalau Beach Park, which is a recreational facility currently closed to the public. The project would remediate the soil in the area surrounding Hakalau Beach Park to address the public health hazard posed by the lead contamination. Page 3-8 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS AND COORDINATION This chapter summarizes public and agency consultation and coordination activities associated with this project that have been conducted to date. Early consultation and coordination activities included meetings and correspondence with government agencies and the affected communities. 4.1 Early Consultation In preparation for the Draft EA, in November 2022, HDOT sent early consultation letters to 36 parties to request input on environmental concerns, designs and alternatives, community outreach strategies, and identify studies or issues for further study. The private property owners who received these letters were the owner(s) of record as of November 2022. A list of letter recipients follows below. An asterisk (*) appears next to those entities and individuals that responded to the letter. Two asterisks (**) appear next to commentors who were not on the mailing list for the November 2022 early consultation letters but sent in response letters. • Elected Officials o The Honorable Laura Acacio, State Legislature, Senate District 1 o The Honorable Mark M. Nakashima, State Legislature, House District 1 o The Honorable Heather L. Kimball, County Council District 1 • Federal Agencies o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o U.S. Coast Guard o USGS Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center • State of Hawaii Agencies o Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) o DLNR, Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) o DLNR, Historic Preservation Division o DLNR, Hawaii Island Burial Council o DLNR, Land Division* o DLNR, Aha Moku Advisory Committee o DLNR, Engineering Division** o DLNR, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR)** o DLNR, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)** o Department of Hawaiian Home Lands o Office of Hawaiian Affairs o Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) o HDOH, Clean Water Branch o HDOH, Clean Air Branch o HDOH, Environmental Health Administration o HDOH, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office o HDOH, Safe Drinking Water Branch o HDOH, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch* o Department of Agriculture o Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism o Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD)* o University of Hawaii, Environmental Center and Water Resources Research Center (WRRC)* • County of Hawaii Agencies o Civil Defense Agency July 2024 Page 4-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment o Department of Environmental Management* (DEM) o Department of Parks and Recreation o Department of Planning Cultural Resources Commission Chair o Department of Public Works o Department of Research and Development o Department of Water Supply o Fire Department* o Police Department* o Planning Department • Utilities o Hawaiian Telcom o Hawaiian Electric Company* o Spectrum • Community Groups and Other Interested Parties o National Trust for Historic Preservation o Hakalau Neighborhood Watch o Historic Hawaii Foundation o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee, Dr. Dawn Keeney o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee, Ms. Crystal Kua o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee Ms. Desiree Moana Cruz o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee, Ms. Nicolette Hubbard o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee, Ms. Rhonda Pollard o Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee Mr. Robert Nishimoto o Conservation of Biodiversity Program, Pacific Southwest Research Station o University of Hawaii at Hilo, Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Sciences Program • Individuals and private landowners as of November 2022 o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o Private owner of TMK o JoAnn Kane** 2-9-002:023 2-9-002:025; 3-1-001:002, 004 2-9-002:039 2-9-002:064 2-9-006:021 3-1-001:001, 003 3-1-001:005 3-1-001:006 By the response deadline, HDOT received 11 early consultation comment letters. See Appendix A-1, Pre - Draft Environmental Assessment Coordination and Consultation. HDOT summarized these comments and indicated where the comment was addressed in this EA. See Table 4-1: Summary of Early Consultation Comments and Responses. Page 4-2 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-1: Summary of Early Consultation Comments and Responses Commentor Comment Response State of Hawaii DLNR Land Division Provided no objections to the project. N/A State of Hawaii DLNR - Engineering Division Provided information and references regarding flood zones and flood hazards. See Section 2.11 State of Hawaii DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources Provided comments regarding habitat and species and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the project to incorporate, as appropriate. See Section 2.6 State of Hawaii DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife Provided comments regarding habitat and species and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the project to incorporate, as appropriate. See Section 2.6 State of Hawaii DOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Provided general agency comments regarding the management of hazardous waste; management of solid waste; and regulation of underground storage tanks, dated November 26, 2018. See Section 2.3 University of Hawaii, WRRC Clarified the Environmental Center has been discontinued. WRRC no longer has the capacity to review environmental documents. N/A. Remove from EA mailing list. County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Comment(s) were focused on lead -contaminated soil and proposed treatment, handling, disposal, and other potential project approaches to management of this material. See Section 2.3 County of Hawaii Fire Department No comments or concerns expressed. N/A County of Hawaii Police Department No comments or concerns expressed. N/A Hawaiian Electric Company No objections to the project. Asked for continued coordination from HDOT as the project progresses. N/A JoAnn Kane (private citizen) Expressed opposition to any bypass road on Old Mamalahoa Highway through Hakalau Beach Park and related concerns about negative impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. See Chapter 1 for project description. A bypass road is not proposed. 4.2 Draft EA The Draft EA was published in the April 22, 2024, issue of The Environmental Notice, initiating the 30 - day public comment period. A complete mailing list for the notice of availability of the Draft EA is presented in Appendix A-1, Environmental Assessment Coordination and Consultation. By the response deadline, HDOT received seven comment letters. See Appendix A-1, Draft Environmental Assessment Coordination and Consultation. HDOT summarized these comments and indicated where the comment was addressed in this EA. See Table 4-2: Summary of Draft Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses. July 2024 Page 4-3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-2: Summary of Draft Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses Commentor Comment Response County of Hawaii Police Department No comments or concerns expressed. N/A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Identify any navigable Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) See Figure 2-20 and Section 2.7.1 There were no navigable WOTUS identified within the project area. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Include a clear line indicating the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). See Figure 2-20 and Appendix E, Figure 7 for the OHWM lines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Include the amount and type of fill that would be placed below the OHWM. See Section 2.7.2.2 - No ex -situ fill will be placed in the stream bed. The annular space around the drilled shafts, as well as the depressions remaining after the removal of the existing footings will be allowed to fill in naturally with stream sediment. No armoring of the stream bed is proposed. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Include a description and plans of structures or work below the mean higher -high water mark. See Section 2.7.2.2 - Bridge rehabilitation would require equipment in the stream to construct the new bridge trestle footings. In Figure 2-8 The OHWM is shown at the base of the trestles. See Section 1.4.1 - No soil remediation is proposed below the OHWM. Hawaiian Electric Company No objections to the project. Asked for continued coordination as the project progresses. N/A State of Hawaii DLNR Engineering Division No comments or concerns expressed. N/A State of Hawaii DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Provide clear dimensions of the existing and proposed trestles. The Final EA should show the difference in expansion from the existing to the final bridge trestle dimensions. See Figure 1-9: Rehabilitation with New Concrete Trestle showing existing and proposed trestle dimensions. State of Hawaii DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Include staging areas in a figure or site plans in the Final EA. See Figure 1-2: Project Area Map. The staging area would temporarily occupy approximately 1.3 -acre of the 3.18 -acre beach park. The selected contractor will determine the exact boundaries of the staging area while and will avoiding historical properties (i.e., the Hakalau Mill) or potential wetlands. State of Hawaii DLNR - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Proposed revegetated areas shall give preference to endemic/indigenous Hawaii plants. Proposed tree removal in accordance with HAR §13-5-22 (P-12) See Section 2.6.4 Selection of native plants for revegetation is being obtained from the Plant Pono website. Page 4-4 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment State of Hawaii DLNR - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Include a figure that identifies the HDOT ROW in relation to the proposed improvements or structures. Include proposed new concrete trestles and bridge foundations. See Figure 1-2: Project Area Map. In response to the proposed new concrete trestles and bridge foundations, these are within the ROW. State of Hawaii DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Proposed signages in the Conservation District will need to be compliant with the HAR subchapter 13-5- 22 P-8 Signs (B-1). Please revise Section 4.5.2.3 of the DEA. See revised Section 4.5.2.3 - The proposed signs will be constructed in accordance with HAR § 13-5-22 P-8 Signs (B-1). State of Hawaii DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Will a SCAP be required for the proposed project? See Table 1.3. A SCAP has been anticipated and confirmed by CWRM in their Comment Letter to the DEA. State of Hawaii DLNR - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Have the streambed soils beneath the steel bents tested for lead? Are there mitigation measures to prevent the release of contaminants during removal of Hakalau Stream Bridge steel bents? See Appendix B, Section 3.4.1 - Sampling of the streambed soil was impractical due to extensive scouring. However, based on site observations of cyclical stream sediment transport as discussed with HDOH staff and documented in the RAM, it is unlikely that lead in beach and river sediments pose a human health risk to beachgoers and fishermen. During removal of the bridge steel bents, BMPs will be implemented to prevent release of any contaminants. See Section 2.7.3. State of Hawaii DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Will there be stream water collected and sampled from areas around the new trestles? Please clarify. See Appendix B — Surface water samples were collected, one of which was located in the area of proposed trestles. State of Hawaii DLNR - Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Please include a HRS 6E determination letter. HDOT has been working with SHPD to coordinate both a NHPA Section 106 and HRS 6E Review. State of Hawaii DLNR — Hawaii District Land Division There are no additional comments. N/A State of Hawaii DLNR — Commission on Water Resource Management A SCAP from the CWRM will be required. HDOT is in consultation with CWRM to prepare and submit the SCAP in conjunction with the Final EA. 4.3 Final EA This Final EA will be announced in The Environmental Notice. A copy of the Final EA will also be sent to the State Documents Center. 4.4 RAA and RAM Public comments on the proposed remedial action described in the Final RAM were accepted during the 30 -day public comment period from June 30 to July 29, 2023. A public notice including the accessibility of the Final RAM, contact information, and commenting period was published in the Hilo Tribune -Herald on June 30, 2023. The public Fact Sheet and Final RAM were available to the public through the HDOH HEER office website (http://hawaii.gov/doh/heer) during the public comment period. July 2024 Page 4-5 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Eight individuals identified their preferences via email sent to the HDOH HEER office project manager, Mr. Thomas Gilmore. Six of the eight individuals supported the alternative consistent with the Proposed Action in this EA, and two individuals supported other alternatives. The RAM was finalized in October 2023 based on alternatives identified in the RAA, dated May 2023. See Appendix B, Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park and Response Action Memorandum (RAM) for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park. 4.5 Regulatory Coordination Because the project would involve the use of federal funds through FHWA, the project must comply with certain federal environmental laws and regulations, as well as state regulatory requirements. The following coordination and consultation activities are being conducted to coordinate these compliance efforts. Federal Coordination The following federal permits and approvals have been or are being obtained to support the Proposed Action. 4.5.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion The NEPA process is required when a federal agency proposes to take a major federal action. These federal actions, which are defined at 40 CFR 1508.1, may be "categorically excluded" (CatEx) from a detailed environmental analysis when the federal action normally does not have a significant effect on the human environment. FHWA has determined that a NEPA CatEx is appropriate for this Proposed Action under 23 CFR 771.117. The CatEx documentation for this project will be completed separately from this HRS Chapter 343 EA and will cite to the additional federal permits and approvals in progress for this Proposed Action. 4.5.1.2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act The NHPA requires that actions that are federally funded, authorized, or implemented consider the effect of such actions on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Such resources are called historic properties. The Section 106 process involves coordination and consultation with the SHPO, and other agencies and organizations that have an interest in or is mandated to protect historic properties. In addition, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is afforded the opportunity to comment on actions that may adversely affect historic properties. An Archaeological Study was prepared to support the Section 106 consultation. See Appendix C, Archaeological Study). Consultation with the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties is ongoing. Because an adverse effect is anticipated under Section 106, FHWA, HDOT, and other consulting parties will develop a Section 106 MOA to stipulate the mitigation measures to address those project impacts in a satisfactory manner. The Section 106 MOA will be completed prior to finalizing the NEPA CatEx. The following consultation and coordination activities were conducted in fulfillment of Section 106. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. • Letter dated May 10, 2022, from HDOT on behalf of FHWA to SHPO to initiate Section 106 consultation, consult on the APE, and request information on properties eligible for the NRHP from SHPO. • Letter dated August 9, 2022, from HDOT to Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO), individuals and families with cultural and lineal ties to the project area, and knowledgeable stakeholders inviting them to participate in Section 106 consultation for the project. Page 4-6 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment • Letter dated September 14, 2022, SHPD comments to HDOT's May 10, 2022, initiation letter. • Letter dated September 14, 2022, Historic Hawaii Foundation (HHF) comments on HDOT's August 9, 2022, letter. • Letter dated September 28, 2022, County of Hawaii Cultural Resources Commission (CRC) comments on HDOT's August 9, 2022, letter. • Letter dated November 21, 2023, from HDOT to SHPO acknowledging SHPD's letter dated September 14, 2022, and notifying them of revised APE boundaries. • Letter dated September 26, 2023, from HDOT to HHF in response to HHF's letter dated September 14, 2022. • Letter dated October 18, 2023, from HDOT to CRC in response to CRC's letter dated September 28, 2022. • Letter dated January 4, 2024, from HDOT to NHO, individuals, and families with cultural and lineal ties to the project area, and knowledgeable stakeholders notifying them of revised APE boundaries. It is anticipated that the project will result in an "Adverse Effect" as a result of the impact to Hakalau Stream Bridge. Some minimal impacts may occur to the Old Mamalahoa Highway. A Section 106 MOA will be prepared to document mitigation measures that FHWA and HDOT agree to implement. 4.5.1.3 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act requires that FHWA and other Department of Transportation agencies avoid the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: • There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land; and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or • FHWA determines that the use of the property will have a de minimis impact. There are six Section 4(f) properties in the project area, some of which may be affected by the Proposed Action: one publicly owned park (Hakalau Beach Park) and five historical sites: Hakalau Stream Bridge (State), Hakalau Stream Bridge (County), Old Hakalau Sugar Mill, Old Mamalahoa Highway, and the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House. A Section 4(f) programmatic evaluation must be documented for the anticipated adverse impact to the historic Hakalau Stream Bridge, and a Section 4(1) exception must be documented for the proposed use of a publicly owned park. No other Section 4(f) use is anticipated. HDOT anticipates that FHWA will render an Adverse Effect determination under NHPA Section 106 for Hakalau Stream Bridge (State). A Section 4(f) historic bridges programmatic evaluation form is required when there is a Section 106 Adverse Effect finding involving a historic bridge, to document that there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the anticipated adverse impacts on a historic property. The Section 106 consultation has commenced and will culminate in the preparation of a Section 106 MOA. See Section 4.5.1.2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. HDOT will also request FHWA's approval of a Section 4(f) temporary occupancy exception for the use of the publicly owned Hakalau Beach Park to conduct soil remediation and construction staging. The following coordination has been conducted with the County Department of Parks and Recreation to document FHWA's decision regarding Section 4(f) uses. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. July 2024 Page 4-7 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment • August 4, 2023: HDOT preliminary email to County Department of Parks and Recreation to inform them of the project and the intent to conduct Section 4(f) coordination for the proposed use of Hakalau Beach Park. • November 21, 2023: FHWA letter to County Department of Parks and Recreation to request their review and approval of proposed use of Hakalau Beach Park. • December 22, 2023: County Department of Parks and Recreation concurred with FHWA's determination that the Proposed Action meets the criteria for a temporary occupancy exception. After the completion of Section 106 consultation and development of an MOA, HDOT will prepare a historic bridge programmatic evaluation form and officially submit it with the supporting Section 4(f) documentation listed above to request FHWA's approval of the Programmatic Evaluation and 4(f) Exception. 4.5.1.4 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the ESA requires that federally funded actions not jeopardize any species listed as threatened or endangered, or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The following consultation and coordination activities have been conducted to date with the USFWS and NOAA NMFS pursuant to Section 7. See Appendix A-2, Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence. • USFWS Section? Correspondence o July 21, 2023: USFWS letter generated by the online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system, which provided a list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project area or may be affected by the Proposed Action (Project Code: 2023-0014325). • September 25, 2023: FHWA effect determination letter to USFWS Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (PIFWO) requesting concurrence that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" federally listed species in the project area. o October 3, 2023: USFWS PIFWO responded that by incorporating conservation measures, adverse effects to federally listed species are extremely unlikely to occur (discountable) or are not measurable (insignificant). Because impacts from the project would be discountable or insignificant, USFWS concurred that the Proposed Action "may affect but are not likely to adversely affect" the Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian gallinule, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian petrel, Hawaii DPS of the band-rumped storm petrel, Newell's shearwater, green sea turtle, and four federally listed plant species. The USFWS also requested to be informed of the type of Army Corps permit that the project would be obtaining to comply with CWA, Section 404. • NMFS Section 7 Correspondence o July 18, 2023: Letter from HDOT to NOAA NMFS Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO) (emailed on July 20, 2023) requesting a list of threatened and endangered species and critical habitats within the vicinity of the project to enable an appropriate determination for this project under Section 7 of the ESA. o July 20, 2023: Email reply from NMFS PIRO noting that the Central North Pacific green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal may be present in the project area. Additionally, both marine and terrestrial Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat are present at this location. If stressors such as turbidity, exposure to contaminants, elevated noise, or exposure to waste move beyond coastal waters (approximately 10 -meter depth contour), then pelagic species would also need to be considered. Page 4-8 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment o September 26, 2023: FHWA effect determination letter to NMFS requesting concurrence from NMFS PIRO that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Central North Pacific green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal, and that there would be no destruction or adverse modification to Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat. NMFS has not yet responded to FHWA effect determination letter. 4.5.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS. As stated in the FHWA effect determination letter to USFWS (dated September 25, 2023), the IPaC list dated July 21, 2023, did not identify any migratory birds of conservation concern pursuant to the MBTA. 4.5.1.6 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 United States Code [USC] 1801), as amended, requires agencies which fund, permit, or undertake activities that may adversely affect EFH to consult with NMFS/PIRO regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH and respond to NMFS recommendations. EFH are defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning breeding, feeding, and/or growth to maturity," including open water, wetlands, coral reefs, and submerged structures associated with federally managed fish species. Actions outside EFH, such as upstream/upslope activities, must also be reviewed. An adverse effect is defined as any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, including direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Coastal waters including the water column and the bottom of the Pacific Ocean around all islands of Hawaii are designated as EFH that support various life stages for MUS identified under the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's Pelagic and Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plans. According to NMFS, the MUS and life stages found in these waters include eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults of Bottomfish, Crustacean, and Pelagic MUS. Specific types of habitats considered as EFH include coral reef, patch reefs, hard substrates, artificial substrates, seagrass beds, soft substrates, lagoons, estuaries, surge zones, deep - slope terraces, and pelagic/open oceans. The potential environmental stressors of concern related to this project include sedimentation and turbidity, and the introduction of chemical contaminants and nutrients. Increased sedimentation and turbidity can cause smothering of benthic species and block sunlight necessary for species that rely on photosynthesis. Heavy metals, which is the main contaminant of concern for this project (lead), are known to bioaccumulate. The following coordination activities were conducted with the NMFS/PIRO regarding EFH consultation: • May 31, 2023: FHWA, on behalf of HDOT, requested EFH consultation with NMFS. • June 30, 2023: NMFS responded in an email suggesting incorporating certain BMPs for the work and inquiring about any coordination with the EPA. If no coordination has occurred with EPA, NMFS suggested that FHWA coordinate with EPA prior to remediation of soils. • July 27, 2023: FHWA confirmed that NMFS's BMP recommendations would be incorporated into the work and that the HDOH HEER office was consulted in preparing the RAM. FHWA's responses further explained that on July 6, 2023, Thomas Gilmore of the HDOH HEER office confirmed in an email to HDOT that EPA allows HDOH to conduct reviews on their behalf, knowing that HDOH' s remediation requirements are as stringent, if not more stringent, than those of EPA. July 2024 Page 4-9 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 4.5.1.7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Army Permit The USACE Regulatory Program regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and structures or work in navigable waters of the United States, under Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Such in -water activities require a DA permit from the U SALE. Section 404 of the CWA regulates discharge of dredge and fill material in the waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Because the project requires in -water work resulting in discharges regulated under Section 404, it requires an NWP that authorizes categories of activities meeting certain permit conditions. Section 401 of the CWA separately directs states to establish WQC programs. In Hawaii, the Section 401 WQC is administered by the HDOH Clean Water Branch. A blanket Section 401 WQC coverage is anticipated with the NWP. RHA requires the Secretary of the Army (via the USACE) to administer a regulatory permit program to protect navigable and tidally influenced waters in the development of harbors and other construction and excavation. Section 10 of the RHA (33 USC Sec. 403) requires authorization from the USACE prior to construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the U.S. Even if a structure or work on the structure is outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the U.S., a Section 10 permit may still be required if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. It is anticipated that this project will require a Section 10 permit from the USACE. HDOT will coordinate with the USACE to confirm the proposed in -water work is covered by one or more NWPs. Upon review of a project, the USACE issues a verification letter pursuant to the applicable NWP(s). Some activities authorized by NWPs require preparation of a preconstruction notification to the District Engineer to ensure that activities authorized by these NWPs have minimal individual and cumulative adverse impacts on the aquatic environment. 4.5.1.8 U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Exception The U.S. Coast Guard regulates the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of bridges over navigable waterways in the United States. The U.S. Coast Guard regulates work on bridges to ensure waterways remain navigable within reason. Projects intending to modify or construct a bridge over a navigable waterway must apply for a U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit. Any work on a bridge over a tidal waterway in which the waterway is not used or susceptible to use for interstate or foreign commerce and the boats using the waterway are less than 21 feet in length may be subject to exception under 23 USC § 144(c)(2). The project bridge is over a tidal waterway used only by recreational vessels. FHWA, on behalf of HDOT, consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard on May 31, 2023, regarding permit exception. On June 7, 2023, the U.S. Coast Guard expressed concurrence with permit exception under 23 USC § 144(c)(2). State and Local Coordination In addition to the requirements of HRS Chapter 343 which are fulfilled by this current EA, the following State and local permits and approvals will be obtained for the Proposed Action. 4.5.1.9 Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E-8 Similar to NHPA Section 106 described above, HRS Chapter 6E-8 requires State and local agencies to evaluate the impact of their projects on historic properties. The AIS prepared to support the NHPA Section 106 consultation will also be used to support the HRS 6E-8 review. See Appendix C, Archaeological Study. Page 4-10 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment Pursuant to HRS Chapter 6E-8, HDOT will provide its preliminary assessments of potential impacts to archaeological historic properties to SHPD. The anticipated impacts on historic properties described in this EA are preliminary findings intended to fulfill the impact disclosure requirements of HRS Chapter 343. SHPD is expected to conduct its HRS Chapter 6E-8 review responsibilities separate from the requirements of HRS Chapter 343. The HRS Chapter 6E-8 review process with the SHPD has not yet been completed. Therefore, the significance evaluations, potential impacts, and treatment recommendations presented below should be considered as preliminary findings only. SHPD is expected to conduct its HRS Chapter 6E-8 review responsibilities in conjunction with their Section 106 responsibilities, separate from the requirements of HRS Chapter 343. Nonetheless, the anticipated impacts described in this EA are intended to fulfill the impact disclosure requirements of HRS Chapter 343. 4.5.1.10 Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 195D HRS Chapter 195D, the State counterpart law to the federal ESA, provides for the protection of aquatic life, wildlife, or land plant species that are indigenous to Hawaii. The following coordination was conducted with the DLNR in accordance with HRS Chapter 195D: • Letters dated March 3, 2023, (emailed on April 4, 2023) from HDOT to DLNR-DOFAW and DLNR- DAR requesting input under HRS Chapter 195D, regarding threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, and any other input or concerns regarding the Proposed Action. • HDOT received a letter dated March 31, 2023, from DLNR-DAR in response to the letters dated March 3, 2023. DLNR-DAR'S response highlights the possibility of Hawaiian monk seals, endangered hawskbill turtles and green sea turtles, entering the project area. Further DLNR-DAR comments address concerns that construction activities do not alter or inhibit the natural hydrology of Hakalau Stream. • HDOT received no response from DLNR-DOFAW in response to the letter dated March 3, 2023. 4.5.1.11 Conservation District The use of Conservation District lands is regulated by HAR Title 13 Chapter 5 and HRS Chapter 183C. These rules and regulations identify land uses that may be allowed by discretionary permit as well as impose fines for violations. The Conservation District has five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, General, and Special. The first four subzones are arranged in a hierarchy of environmental sensitivity, ranging from the most environmentally sensitive (Protective) to least sensitive (General). The Special subzones defines a unique land use on a specific site. The Proposed Action would occur within the Limited and Resource Conservation District subzones. In an email, dated, July 27, 2023, OCCL noted that the project will require a Site Plan Approval P-8 (Structures and Land Use) and P-7 (Signs) or an emergency Conservation District Use Application due to the public health hazard created by the lead -contaminated soils. The proposed signs will be constructed in accordance with HAR Subchapter 13-5-22 P-8 Signs (B-1). Upon completion of the HRS 343 process, HDOT will commence a Site Plan Approval application. 4.5.1.12 Coastal Zone Management Act In 1972, the U.S. Congress enacted the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to ensure that federal actions (including activities performed by a nonfederal entity requiring federal permits, licenses, or other form of federal authorization) within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone are carried out in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs. Each federal agency July 2024 Page 4-11 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment carrying out or permitting an activity subject to the Act will provide a consistency determination to the relevant state agency designated under Section 1455(d)(6) of this title at the earliest practicable time. OPSD administers HRS Chapter 205A, the state's CZM law, pursuant to the federal CZMA. Hawaii's coastal zone includes the waters from the shoreline to the makai limit of the State's jurisdiction and all lands excluding those lands designated as forest reserves. As a result, the project is within the CZM area and is subject to consistency with the objectives and policies of the Hawaii CZM Program. The purpose of HRS Chapter 205A is to "provide for the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the Coastal Zone." In addition, in -water work is anticipated for this project. As a result, the USACE is being consulted for an NWP. According to an email from the CZM Program Office dated March 2, 2023, the project is exempted from an individual CZM Consistency Review triggered by the use of federal funds. However, depending on the NWP permit conditions imposed by the USACE to authorize in -water work, a CZM Consistency Review may be performed. 4.5.1.13 Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback In establishing the SMA in 1975, the Hawaii state legislature found that: "it is the state policy to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii," and, therefore, that "special controls on developments within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanent losses of valuable resources and the foreclosure of management options, and to ensure that adequate access, by dedication or other means, to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided." (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 205A, Part 11) County authorities administer SMA permits and related shoreline setback provisions. The authority in Hawaii County is the County Planning Department. As the project is located within the SMA, upon completion of the HRS 343 process, HDOT will commence the SMA permit process with the County. A shoreline certification by the state DLNR would be required to support the SMA permit application, which may revise shoreline parcel ownership. An SSV may also be required by the County. HDOT will coordinate with the County Planning Department regarding SMA and SSV requirements. 4.5.1.14 Hawaii Act 50, Cultural Practices Hawaii Act 50 (approved in 2000) sought to "promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups" and requires the proposing agency/applicant under Chapter 343 HRS to consider cultural practices in a CIA. HDOT completed a CIA in compliance with this Act. See Appendix D, Cultural Impact Assessment. 4.5.1.15 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Section 402 of the CWA requires an NPDES permit for point source discharges, including storm water discharges associated with construction activities. The permit is mandatory for construction activities that disturb one or more acres and discharge storm water from the project site to waters of the U.S. The project is expected to require an NPDES permit from HDOH. Page 4-12 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 4.5.1.16 Stream Channel Alteration Permit The Hawaii CWRM requires a SCAP for any work within a stream that may "obstruct, diminish, destroy, modify, or relocate a stream channel; change the direction of flow of water in a stream channel; place any materials or structures in a stream channel; or remove any material or structure from a stream channel." The project is anticipated to require a SCAP because of the proposed in -stream work. HDOT will submit an RFD to CWRM upon completion of this HRS Chapter 343 EA process to initiate the SCAP review. 4.5.1.17 Solid Waste Management Plan The County DEM requires a solid waste management plan be completed for any project that requires the preparation of an EA. A solid waste management plan should describe any waste that may be generated by a project, how waste will be organized on site, means and location of disposal, and any impacts on County - operated waste management facilities. As stated in Chapter 1, HDOT will prepare and submit a solid waste management plan for this project to the County DEM prior to disposal of any soil or vegetation. July 2024 Page 4-13 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 5: FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with HRS Chapter 343 and HAR 11-200.1-19, HDOT is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. This assessment is based on an evaluation of project impacts in relation to the "Significance Criteria" specified in HAR 11-200.1-13. The Significance Criteria appear below in italics, followed by a discussion of the Proposed Action in relation to the specific criterion. The nature of the project's potential impacts and committed mitigation measures is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this EA. 1. Irrevocably commit a natural, cultural, or historic resource — While natural, cultural, and historic resources would be affected by the Proposed Action, the mitigation measures incorporated in the Proposed Action would minimize project impacts to acceptable levels. The Proposed Action in previously disturbed areas would remove roughly 2.4 acres of vegetation and soil to remediate lead - contaminated soils and to reconstruct the substructure of Hakalau Stream Bridge. A biological survey conducted for the project indicates that areas directly affected by the project do not contain plant species of concern or any critical habitat, and appropriate mitigation measures would be in place to avoid and minimize interactions with protected birds and animals that may enter the project area during construction. HDOT has consulted with the USFWS, NMFS, DLNR, and other interested parties, to identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to protect species of concern and in -stream resources. With identified mitigation measures, no adverse impacts to stream and coastal resources are anticipated. Regarding historic properties, the project requires rehabilitation of the existing Hakalau Stream Bridge, which is eligible for the NRNP. An "Adverse Effect" under Section 106 and an "effect, with agreed upon mitigation measures" under HRS Chapter 6E-8 is anticipated. However, a Section 106 MOA is being prepared to memorialize mitigation commitments for this impact in consultation with interested stakeholders, therefore, no significant impacts are excepted pursuant to HRS Chapter 343. See Section 2.6, Biological Resources, Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 2.4, Historic Resources for details. 2. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment — The project would not curtail beneficial uses of the environment. On the contrary, the soil remediation portion of the Proposed Action would enhance the health of the existing natural environment for all future users of the project area. The bridge repairs would extend the life of the bridge and improve its long-term resilience to extreme natural hazards and would benefit all future users of Hawaii Belt Road and Hakalau Stream Bridge. Future visitors to Hakalau Beach Park and the surrounding areas would regain access to a safer park that has been remediated to remove the existing lead contamination. See Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 2.8, Parks and Recreational Resources, for details. 3. Conflicts with the State's environmental policies or long-term environmental goals established by law — The project is consistent with the environmental goals and objectives of the State, as demonstrated in Chapter 3 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies. 4. Have a substantial adverse effect on the economic welfare, social welfare, and cultural practices of the community or State — The project would not have an adverse effect on the economic or social welfare nor the cultural practices of the community or State. Rather, the project would support the social welfare of the community by providing a more reliable transportation system and allowing Hakalau Beach Park to reopen with a healthier, safer environment after soil remediation is complete. See Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 2.15, Social and Economic Conditions, for details. July 2024 Page 5-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 5. Have a substantial adverse effect on public health — The project would not adversely affect public health. On the contrary, the project would improve public health by removing and remediating lead - contaminated soil around the bridge. 6. Involve adverse secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities — The project would not be expected to cause secondary impacts as it would not change land use or increase roadway capacity. As discussed in Section 2.16.1, Secondary Impacts, visitation at Hakalau Beach Park may return to pre -2017 levels before the park was closed to the public. However, the Proposed Action does not add park infrastructure that may induce development of the area or lead to population growth. Potential secondary effects to the terrestrial and aquatic environments from accidental introduction of sediments, contaminants, construction -related debris, or invasive species would be managed by conservation measures, such as those described in Section 2.6, Biological Resources, and Section 2.7, Surface Water Resources and Wetlands, which intend to minimize the potential for siltation, spills, and contamination. 7. Involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality — The project would not result in a substantial degradation of environmental quality, as demonstrated in Chapter 2. The project would remove existing vegetation and soils to address public health concerns related to the existing lead contamination in the area and also to allow for the replacement of the deteriorating bridge trestles. The project area is previously disturbed by sugar plantation operations, and fieldwork identified no botanical concerns. Although temporary construction duration impacts with the proposed earthwork are unavoidable as discussed in Section 2.6, Biological Resources, the soil remediation portion of the project would result in an overall improvement in environmental quality in Hakalau Gulch. 8. Be individually limited but cumulatively have substantial adverse effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions — As discussed in Section 2.16, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, the Proposed Action is a complete, independent project and would not result in commitments for other projects, nor would it result in cumulative, considerable impacts on the environment. 9. Have a substantial adverse effect on a rare, threatened, or endangered species or its habitat — The project would not adversely affect any species of concern or associated habitat. See Section 2.6, Biological Resources. No rare, threatened, or endangered species was observed in the project area during a field survey, with the exception of one state listed Hawaiian hawk that transited the area. The Proposed Action is not likely to result in a substantial adverse effect on any plant species that is state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, a candidate species for listing, a rare native plant species, or a native plant species of concern. Appropriate mitigation measures would be in place to avoid and minimize interactions with protected birds and animals that may enter the project area during construction. HDOT has consulted with the USFWS, the NMFS, DLNR, and other interested parties, to identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to protect species of concern including native, in -stream fish. Other general avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are also incorporated into the Proposed Action and would be implemented during construction. 10. Have a substantial adverse effect on air or water quality or ambient noise levels — The project would not lead to any violations of state or national AAQS. The project would comply with State environmental regulations and standards. For in -water work, BMPs that have been either preapproved or coordinated with regulatory agencies will be used to minimize the potential for water quality impacts to the stream. Although there would be short-term construction noise impacts, overall, no long-term adverse noise impacts are anticipated due to the project. See Section 2.7, Surface Water Resources and Wetlands, Section 2.13, Noise, and Section 2.14, Air Quality. Page 5-2 July 2024 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment 11. Have a substantial adverse effect on or be likely to suffer damage by being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a floodplain, tsunami zone, sea -level -rise exposure area, beach, erosion prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters — The project area is in the Coastal Zone, Conservation District, SMA, tsunami zone, and the SLR exposure area. However, it is not in a regulatory floodplain. While the Proposed Action is located on the coastline and an estuary, no coastal processes would be affected by the project, and no ecological impacts are anticipated in the stream and estuary, as discussed in Section 2.6, Biological Resources. Also as discussed in Section 2.1, Physical Geography, and Section 2.11, Natural Hazards and Climate Change, the Proposed Action would not affect the susceptibility of Hakalau Stream Bridge and the project area to possible hillside erosion and natural hazards such as tsunami, earthquakes, flooding, and coastal erosion. Instead, the purpose of the project is to strengthen the bridge, making the transportation network more resilient to such hazards. BMPs would be implemented to prevent hillside erosion related to the construction of work trestles and access roads to conduct bridge rehabilitation work on the steep hillsides. 12. Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and view planes, during day or night, identified in county or state plans or studies — The Proposed Action would have minimal impacts on identified views/vistas of the bridge from the beach area, as discussed in Section 2.9, Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Although the conversion of the bridge's steel bents to concrete bents are anticipated to result in an adverse change in the appearance of the historic bridge from the beach area, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are being evaluated as part of the historic property review process. Views of the lush vegetation in the valley would be temporarily altered during construction until the replanted vegetation is established. Input from the community and other stakeholders would continue to inform the project's final design to ensure that the appearance of the rehabilitated bridge would be consistent with its geographical, cultural, and historical context. 13. Require substantial energy consumption or emit substantial greenhouse gases — The Proposed Action would not result in substantial energy consumption. There may be a short-term increase in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during the project's construction; however, when completed, the project would not change traffic patterns and would not increase traffic. No changes to traffic -related energy consumption or greenhouse gases are anticipated. July 2024 Page 5-3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES CONSULTED ASM Affiliates. 2023a. An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Project. Prepared by Amy Ketner, Lauren M.U. Kepaa, and Matthew R. Clark. (Draft dated June 2023.) ASM Affiliates. 2023b. Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Project. Prepared by Kaui Lopes, Halena Kapuni-Reynolds, and Lokelani Brandt. (Draft dated June 2023.) Big Island Now. 2017. "Update: Cruisin' Hakalau Beach Park with Tita Nui." Updated February 20, 2017. Original February 17, 2017. Accessed December 2023. https://bigislandnow.com/2017/02/17/crusin-hakalau-beach-park-with-tita-nui/. ControlPoint Surveying, Inc. 2022. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Topographic Survey. March 2022, reprojected August 2023. County of Hawaii. 2005a. General Plan. February 2005, as Amended. County of Hawaii Planning Department. Accessed November 2023. https://www.planning hawaiicounty.gov/general-plan- community-planning/gp/plan. County of Hawaii. 2005b. General Plan: Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map. County of Hawaii Planning Department. Accessed August 2023. https://geoportal.hawaii. gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::hawaii-county-lupag/about. County of Hawaii. 2018. Hamakua Community Development Plan. Ordinance No. 2018-78. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showdocument?id=305702&t=638088491805867283 . County of Hawaii. Not dated. Tax Record Search Engine and Mapper. County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Office. Accessed January 2024. https://www.hawaiipropertytax.com/. County of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu; County of Kauai; County of Maui; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Special Management Areas (SMA)" [Shapefile]. Published February 07, 2014 (2014a). https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/52e57c74fd4342558611f060f3fd9b27_21/explore. (Downloaded June 13, 2022). County of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu; County of Kauai; County of Maui; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "TMK Parcels for the State of Hawaii" [Attribute Data Only]. Published November 09, 2015. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/1 eb5fa03038d49cba930096ea67194e0_5/explore. (Downloaded December 16, 2023). County of Hawaii; City and County of Honolulu; County of Kauai; County of Maui; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Tsunami Evacuation Zones" [Shapefile]. March 11, 2014 (2014b). https://geoportal.hawaii. gov/datasets/db829ab4b 17a44649eadf0db0f73 79ab_2/explore. (Downloaded August 18, 2022). County of Hawaii; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "County Zoning - County of Hawaii" [Shapefile]. Published February 07, 2014 (2014a). https://geoportal.hawaii. gov/datasets/e81 bcaf8 da9a4140a09aa922ef9 18ea4_2/explore. (Downloaded June 25, 2022). July 2024 Page 6-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment County of Hawaii; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Hawaii County LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide)" [Shapefile]. Published February 07, 2014 (2014b) https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/073ebcf44e0343e5be9c765c65ff39f8_22/explore. (Downloaded September 25, 2023). Element Environmental. 2023. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation — Biota and Plant Tissue Bioaccumulation Assessment. Aiea, Hawaii. Esri. 2023. "Topographic" [basemap]. Scale Not Given. Accessed April 2023. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id-673 72ff42cd145319639a99152b 15bc3 . FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Not dated. Flood Map Service Center Online Mapper. Last updated January 22, 2024. Accessed October 2023. . FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Coastal Flood Zones with 3.2 feet of Sea Level Rise" [Shapefile]. Published October 02, 2017. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::1-coastal-flood-zone-with-3-2-ft-sea-level-rise- hawaii-island/explore. (Downloaded November 14, 2023). FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Flood Hazard Areas (DFIRM)" [Shapefile]. Published March 18, 2021. https://geoportal.hawaii. gov/datasets/HiStateGIS:: flood-hazard-areas-dfirm-statewide/explore. (Downloaded September 21, 2023). Giambelluca, Thomas W., Qi Chen, Abby G. Frazier, Jonathan P. Price, Yi-Leng Chen, Pao -Shin Chu, Jon K. Eischeid, and Donna M. Delparte. 2013. "Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai`i." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94, 3 (2013): 313-316. doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS- D-11-00228.1 Hakalau Kuleana. 2022. Hakalau Our Home. Accessed August 2022. https://www.hakalauhome.com/ Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Not dated. Invasive Species Profiles. Accessed October 2023. https://d1nr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/. Hawaii Life: Real Estate Brokers. 2020. "When Sugar Was King — The Heyday of the Hamakua Coast." Hawaii Life. January 1, 2020. Accessed January 30, 2024. https://www.hawaiilife.com/blog/sugar-king-heyday-hamakua-coast/. Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. 2017. Geospatial Data Portal. Accessed 2023 https://geoportal.hawaii.gov Hawaii Tourism Authority. Not dated. The Hawaiian Islands. Hamakua Coast. Accessed August 2022. https://www. gohawaii. com/islands/hawaii-big-island/regions/hamakua-coast HDOA (Hawaii Department of Agriculture); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii" [Shapefile]. Published February 02, 2014. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::alish/explore. (Downloaded September 21, 2023). July 2024 Page 6-2 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment HDOD (Hawaii Department of Defense). 2023. Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Evacuation Zones Online Mapper. Accessed October 2023. https://dod.hawaii.gov/hiema/public- resources/tsunami-evacuation-zone/ HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2017. Lead in Hawaiian Soils: Questions and Answers. Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) Office. January 2017. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2020a. State of Hawaii Annual Summary 2020 Air Quality Data. Hawaii Department of Health Clean Air Branch. December 2021. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2020b. State of Hawaii 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network 5 - Year Assessment. State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Emergency Management Division, Clean Air Branch. July 2020. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2021. State of Hawaii Annual Summary 2021 Air Quality Data. Hawaii Department of Health Clean Air Branch. December 2022. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023a. State of Hawaii Annual Summary 2022 Air Quality Data. Hawaii Department of Health Clean Air Branch. September 2023. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023b. Environmental Health Administration. EHA Connect, Remediation Sites. October 2023. https://ehaconnect.org/. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023c. Fact Sheet: Lead -Impacted Soil Response Action for Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii. Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) Office. Accessed November 2023. https://health.hawaii . gov/heer/files/2023/06/HakalauFactSheet20230614.pdf. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023d. "Hakalau Stream Park." Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) Office. Accessed November 2023. https://health.hawaii.gov/heer/hakalau-stream-park. HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023e. "Hawaii Department of Health requests public comments on soil remediation plan for lead contamination near Hakalau Stream Bridge and within Hakalau Beach Park." Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) Office. June 14, 2023. Accessed November 2023. https://health.hawaii.gov/heer/files/2023/06/HakalauBeachParkPublcNotice20230614 . HDOH (Hawaii Department of Health). 2023f. Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) 2023. iHEER Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, Environmental Health Portal. Accessed November 2023. https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/iheer#!/site/2285/details/view HDOH (Hawaii, Department of Health). 2022. 2022 State of Hawaii Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report: Integrated Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Congress; Pursuant to Chapter 303(d) and Chapter 305(d), Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). February 14, 2022. Accessed November 2023. https://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/files/2022/02/IR- 2022-public-comment-update.pdf. HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). 2003. Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan. Highways Division. Accessed December 2023. July 2024 Page 6-3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment https://highways.hidot.hawaii.gov/stories/s/Bicycle-Planning/v4zn-nbn4#bike-plan- hawai%CA%BBi-2003 HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). October 2021. Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). 2014a. Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii. Highways Division. Accessed December 2023. https://hidot.hawaii. gov/highways/files/2014/09/Regional-Federal-Aid-Highways-203 5 - Transportation -Plan -for -the -District -of -Hawaii Yong 1.pdf HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). 2014b. Statewide Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan. Highways Division. Accessed December 2023. https://hidot.hawaii. gov/highways/files/2014/09/Statewide-Federal-Aid-Highways-2035- Transportation-Plan Yong.pdf HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation). 2022. Draft Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan. November 2022. Accessed March 2024. https://hidot.hawaii.gov/administration/files/2022/12/HawaiiStatewideTransPlan Draft compress ed.pdf HDOT (Hawaii Department of Transportation) 2005. Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 209 Temporary Water pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control. https://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/files/2013/01/209A Water Pollution Dust and Erosion Co ntrol Print.pdf Hibbard, Don. 2009. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for "Hakalau Plantation Manager's House." May 12, 2009. Accessed October 2023. https://historichawaii.org/2014/02/14/129-2301-old-mamalahoa-highway-hakalau-plantation- managers-house Historic Hawaii Foundation. 2014. Hakalau Stream Bridge. February 14, 2014. https://historichawaii.org/2014/02/14/hakalau-stream-bridge/. HTH (H.T. Harvey & Associates). 2023a. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Biological Survey Report. March 2024. HTH (H.T. Harvey & Associates). 2023b. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Wetland Delineation Technical Report. March 2024. KPC (Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC). 2023a. Remedial Alternatives Analysis Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii. Prepared for Hawaii Department of Transportation and KSF inc. May 2023. KPC (Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC). 2023b. Response Action Memorandum for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii. Prepared for Hawaii Department of Transportation and KSF Inc. October 2023. July 2024 Page 6-4 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment KSF Inc. 2023. Preliminary Structural Engineering Drawings. Honolulu, Hawaii. Leineweber, Spencer. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for "Hakalau Stream Bridge." Revised 2009. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science benthic habitat mapping surveys. Accessed October 2023. https://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/voyager/. NMFS PIRO (National Marine Fisheries Service—Pacific Island Regional Office). 2023. Personal Communication. Email correspondence to HDOT, July 20, 2023. NPS (National Park Service). 2021. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Volcanoes. Last updated February 1, 2021. Accessed October 2023. https://home.nps.gov/havo/learn/nature/volcanoes.htm. Parham, James E., Glenn R. Higashi, Eko K. Lapp, Darrell G.K. Kuamo'o, Robert T. Nishimoto, Skippy Hau, J. Michael Fitzsimons, Dr. Daniel A. Polhemus, and William S. Devick. 2008a. Hakalau, Hawaii (DAR Watershed Code: 82032) in the Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources. State of Hawaii, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Sources. Accessed December 2023. https://hawaiiwatershedatlas.com/ha_hilo.html. Parham, James E., Glenn R. Higashi, Eko K. Lapp, Darrell G.K. Kuamo'o, Robert T. Nishimoto, Skippy Hau, J. Michael Fitzsimons, Dr. Daniel A. Polhemus, and William S. Devick. 2008b. Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources. State of Hawaii, Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Sources. Accessed March 2024. https://hawaiiwatershedatlas.com/. Plant Pono. 2024. Plant Pono Website. Accessed March 2024. https://plantpono.org/. State of Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. 2021. State of Hawaii Sea Level Rise Viewer. Version 1.12. Prepared by the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PaclOOS) for the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. Accessed October 2023. http://hawaiisealevelriseviewer.org. State of Hawaii, DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), CWRM (Commission on Water Resource Management); DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), DAR (Division of Aquatic Resources); USGS (United States Geological Survey); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Streams" [Shapefile]. Published April 09, 2014. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::streams/explore. (Downloaded August 16, 2022). State of Hawaii, DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), CWRM (Commission on Water Resource Management); NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Watersheds" [Shapefile]. Published April 09, 2014. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/cfelf5708d944a15 ada695fc18f423a0_8/explore. (Downloaded September 20, 2023). State of Hawaii, DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), DOFAW (Division of Forestry and Wildlife). State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Species Fact Sheets. Accessed November 2023. https://d1nr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/hswap/fact-sheets/ July 2024 Page 6-5 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Asset and Hazard Assessment Online Mapper. Accessed October 2023. https://hidot.hawaii.gov/resilience.State of Hawaii, Land Use Commission. State Land Use District Boundary Maps. Accessed October 2023. https://luc.hawaii.gov/ State of Hawaii, Land Use Commission; Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "State Land Use Districts" [Shapefile]. Published February 07, 2014. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/HiStateGIS::state- land-use-districts/explore. (Downloaded May 17, 2023). State of Hawaii. 1990. A Preliminary Appraisal of Hawaii's Stream Resources. A Cooperative project. State of Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management and the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. Prepared by the Hawaii Cooperative Park Service Unit; the Western Region Natural Resources and Research Division and the National Park Service. Report R84. December 1990. https://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/cwrm/publishedreports/R84 HSA.pdf State of Hawaii. 2018. Hawaii State Plan Update. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. March 2018.https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/spb/Hawaii State Plan Update.pdf State of Hawaii. 2021. Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan: Charting a Course for the Decade of Action (2020 — 2030). Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. June 2021. https://hawaii2050.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-Hawaii-2050-Sustainability- Plan-web-1.pdf State of Hawaii. November 1997. Office of Environmental Quality Control. Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts Adopted by the Environmental Council, State of Hawaii. State of Hawaii. 2022.Various Maps. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Accessed August 2022. https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/various-maps/ United States Census Bureau. DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Accessed August 2022. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ United States Census Bureau. P1: Total Population. Accessed August 2022. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ United States Census Bureau. S1901: Income in the Past 12 Months (In 202 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars). Accessed August 2022. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). "Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Island of Hawaii Area, Hawaii" [Shapefile]. Published June 08, 2020. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (Downloaded September 23, 2022). United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey of Islands of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. 2019. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). How's My Waterway?, Waterbody Report: Hakalau (Assessment Unit ID: HI8-2-32). Accessed August 2022. https://mywaterway.epa.gov/ July 2024 Page 6-6 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. SoilWeb. Accessed August 2020. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/ University of Hawaii System News. "Native waterfall -climbing fish threatened by climate change, human activity." October 27, 2023. Accessed November 2023. https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2023/10/27/native-waterfall-climbing-fish-threatened-by-climate- change-human-activity/ USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). April 2016. An Integrated Storm water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii, by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Departmment of Transportation. Practitioners Guide. USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. FHWA-HEP-06-015. USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). December 2018. The Stormwater Practitioners Guide. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023a. IPaC official species list for "Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation." Project Code: 2023-0014325. July 21, 2023. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). "Wetlands" [Shapefile]. Published May 01, 2018. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. (Downloaded May 31, 2023). USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. National Water Information System: Web Interface. Hydrological Unit 20010000. Accessed August 2022. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/ USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2017. Hawaii Volcano Observatory. About Earthquakes in Hawaii. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/about earthquakes.html USGS (United States Geological Survey); Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. "Coastline" [Shapefile]. Published September 05, 2013. https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/045b1 d5147634e2380566668e04094c6 3/explore. (Downloaded 2023). July 2024 Page 6-7 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX A EARLY CONSULTATION, REGULATORY COORDINATION AND CORRESPONDENCE, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A-1 Early Consultation DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR HIGHWAY DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 VIA EMAIL: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 November 25, 2022 Email address Addressee Address 1 Address 2 City, State Zip Dear Addressee Subject: Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 Scoping and Pre -Assessment Consultation Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau, Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Project No. BR -019-2(075) JADE T. BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Directors ROSS M. HIGASHI EDUARDO P. MANGLALLAN DAVID J. RODRIGUEZ EDWIN H. SNIFFEN IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.9901 The Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division (HDOT) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project, located along Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) near Hilo on the Island of Hawaii. HDOT is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with HRS Chapter 343, Hawaii's environmental impact statement law, to evaluate and disclose the project's potential environmental impacts and identify any potential permitting requirements. At this time, we are seeking input on the project, as well as information related to any environmental, social, or economic concerns related to the project or project area. Please refer to the enclosed project location map. and must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. FHWA anticipates preparation of a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 771.117 of Title 23 (23 CFR 771.117). Project Overview HDOT is proposing this project to bring the bridge into compliance with current safety standards, facilitate safe park use and access, as well as to allow for continued use of this vital transportation link. This project proposes the following improvements: • • Remove or remediate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; Rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and Upgrade the bridge railings. Addressee November 25, 2022 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.9901 Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, remediation is needed for the surrounding areas beneath the bridge. Remediation may involve removal or encapsulation of lead contaminated soils or implementation of controls to prevent access to lead contaminated areas. Soil removal activities could disturb up to 24 inches of vegetation and topsoil. A combination of these solutions may be incorporated as an overall solution. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation would be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents (similar to Kolekole Bridge, another historic steel trestle bridge on the Hamakua Coast that has been previously reconstructed with concrete bents). Replacing the steel bents with concrete bents would allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. The concrete bents would be installed using drilled shafts up to six feet in diameter. Refer to the enclosed figures for an illustration of a typical tower and bent at Hakalau Stream Bridge and a sketch of the proposed design. Bridge railings would be upgraded to meet current safety standards. During construction, a temporary trestle bridge may be used to support the drill rig for the drilled shafts. Best Management Practices will be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. HDOT is reaching out to you as well as other City, State, federal agencies, and the surrounding community to gather project input. We are interested in any information you may have related to the project, including any design concerns, as well as any environmental or social concerns within the project area. Also, we would like to know if you have any recent or upcoming projects planned in the area, or if there are any there are any specific permitting issues or considerations that you would like to bring to our attention. We would appreciate receiving such information in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. The information will assist us in preparing the Draft EA. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our Project Manager, Ms. Holly Yuen, at (808) 692-7548, Technical Design Services Section, Design Branch, Highways Division or by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. The project team looks forward to working with you, and greatly appreciates your participation. Sincerely, HENRY KENNEDY Acting Engineering Program Manager Design Branch, Highways Division Enclosures Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A-2 Regulatory Coordination and Correspondence Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Section 106 DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR HIGHWAY DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 May 10, 2022 VIA HAWAII CULTURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEM TO: SUZANNE D. CASE, CHAIRPERSON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ATTN: ALAN S. DOWNER, Ph.D. ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION FROM: KAREN CHUN tt r,ki �- ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER DESIGN BRANCH, HIGHWAYS DIVISION JADE T. BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Directors ROSS M. HIGASHI EDUARDO P. MANGLALLAN EDWIN H. SNIFFEN IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.8083 SUBJECT: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) SECTION 106 INITIATION, REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) CONCURRENCE HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION HAKALAU AHUPUAA, HILO MOKU, HAWAII ISLAND FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. BR -019-2(075) TAX MAP KEYS (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2-9- 002:023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; AND (3) 2-9-006:021 On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), The State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation (HDOT) is initiating consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (2006), for the subject bridge rehabilitation project. In addition, HDOT seeks information that SHPO may have on Native Hawaiian organizations (NHO) and potential consulting parties. Lastly, HDOT requests SHPO's concurrence on the proposed APE, pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 800.4(a)(1). This proposed federally funded State project is considered a federal action and undertaking, as defined by 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). Effective May 1, 2016, FHWA issued a Delegation of Authority authorizing the HDOT and local public agencies to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with SHPO, NHO, and qualified consulting parties per 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(4). SUZANNE D. CASE, CHAIRPERSON May 10, 2022 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.8083 The FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Overview of the Undertaking The proposed bridge work can be divided into 3 major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park (see attached figure). Areas shown in red in the figure will be capped with a concrete layer about 8 to 12 inches in thickness. Prior to placing the concrete cap, all the vegetation will be removed. Approximately 10 to 14 inches of the topsoil will be disturbed. Other marked areas, where lead levels are lower, the soil will be stabilized and left in place. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents (similar to Kolekole Bridge, another historic steel trestle bridge on the Hamakua Coast that has been previously reconstructed with concrete bents). Concrete bents will replace steel because the steel rivet technology used to initially construct the bridge no longer exists. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the substructure will be reconstructed, but will allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. Bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety standards. Please refer to the figures for an illustration of a typical tower and bent at Hakalau Stream Bridge and a sketch of the proposed design. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts. A temporary trestle bridge may be used to support the drill rig. The construction duration will be no longer than two years. Primary access to perform this work will be from the access road in the park. There should only be limited traffic impacts to bridge users, as bent replacement can occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. APE Hakalau Stream Bridge carries Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) over Hakalau Stream at Milepost 15.3 on the island of Hawaii. The APE (see attached figure) includes locations where construction activities would occur, staging and storage areas, and access. It includes the construction limits and the areas identified for remediation. The APE extends to both ends of the bridge, inland of the bridge, and past the mouth of the stream on the Hilo side of the stream. The APE is approximately 15 acres while the active construction area is approximately 7 acres. Consultations In addition to consulting with SHPO, consultations with NHO currently listed on the United States Department of Interior, Office of Native Hawaiian Relations' NHO List, with an applicable SUZANNE D. CASE, CHAIRPERSON May 10, 2022 Page 3 HWY-DS 2.8083 interest in the APE, has been undertaken at the same time as our consultation with your agency. The following agencies, organizations, individuals are being contacted by formal letter: • State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), SHPD • State of Hawaii, DLNR, SHPD, Hawaii Island Burial Council • State of Hawaii, DLNR, Aha Moku Advisory Committee • State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands • State of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs • Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission • Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs • Association of Hawaiian Homestead Lands • Au Puni 0 Hawaii • Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement • Friends of lolani Palace • George K. Cypher Ohana • Hawaiian Civic Club of Hilo • Hawaiian Community Assets, Inc. • Historic Hawaii Foundation • Hui Huliau Inc. • Kamehameha Schools • Kanu 0 Ka Aina Learning Ohana • Koolau Foundation • Kuaaina Ulu Auamo • Kuloloia Lineage — I Ke Kaio Kuloloia • Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii • Na Kuauhau 0 Kahiwakaneikopolei • Na Kupuna Moku 0 Keawe • Nanakuli Housing Corporation • Nekaifes Ohana • Ohana Keaweamahi • Order of Kamehameha I • Partners in Development Foundation • Paukukalo Hawaiian Homes Community Association • Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts • The I Mua Group • The Makua Group • The Mary Kawena Pukui Cultural Preservation Society The Section 106 notice/advertisement will also be included in The Hawaii Tribune Herald. NHO and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to cultural and/or historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed APE will be asked to provide a response within 30 days of notification. In addition, other individuals and organizations with demonstrated legal, economic, or historic preservation interest will also be asked to respond to the Section 106 notice/advertisement. Upon receipt of responses to the initial consultation, additional efforts such as meetings, site visits and conference calls will be conducted as necessary to address the Section 106 requirements. Request for Information Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.3(f) in consultation with SHPO, we are interested if your agency is acquainted with any NHO or Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to cultural and/or historic property knowledge of and/or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed project area, we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information within the 30 days of notification. SUZANNE D. CASE, CHAIRPERSON May 10, 2022 Page 4 HWY-DS 2.8083 Per 36 CFR Section 800.2(a)(4)(c)(5), we request the names of individuals and organizations who have demonstrated their legal, economic, and historic preservation interest to SHPO on the proposed subject undertaking. As the office of record for this undertaking, we also request SHPO provide us with a copy of the correspondence initiated by interested parties who has approached SHPO to request consulting party status for this undertaking. In addition to providing us with information on NHO, we ask for your concurrence on the proposed APE. We would appreciate all responses in writing within 30 days from date of receipt to Ms. Holly Yuen, the HDOT Project Manager, Technical Design Services Section, Design Branch, Highways Division at (808) 692-7548 or by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. Attachments Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Location Map Photo of Hakalau Bridge and surrounding area from 2021 Inspection Report View of Bridge from near ocean shore Close up of bents showing steel towers and concrete pedestals View underneath the bridge 1 -� N a> CC 0 as E ro ro T a - ru ° m) •: 113 O7 ra r6 2 qJ E r o u 0_ o res a) 0 (13 c,I) a c ra 0 ro u 0 J A 772'0" out to out of steel 55 A ti „9-,9 '_' „9-,9 „0-,6 11111 ,,0-,6 00? 091 091 Z .oN 'ln9V St n0 d El UN 4,e8 931 r 31 DA, lue8 /1 roN Pee 01 roN lue8 031 001 09 09 4- 2 bN ue8 far'I�. � )'Jew t l Je,!BM �t I"I L 9 bN1008 5._ 1l II II 11 11III 0 tiN lue8 b vN /ue8 - �I.�.L I I ... 6JPw - -4-- — �. ARA OP —,,'' I1 J,4�--- E roN 11188 1moi 1 j`I-“' tiNPee-LII y 1 VN 4096 0Z 06 09 09 — — 011 r1 oal 0b1 091 091 000 1 x ti Lr 0i Date: Nov. 2021 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z out to out of steel 09 4199 E! UN 11108 0/ 09 auee VN 4008 01 09 41108 6 'ON lee B 09 Pee L bN lee 9 nN 11108 0 09 lue8 b W/ 11108 E roN lue8 Z 99 auee VN 4096 ti ,a 0 0 0 0 N 4 0 M- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0IC m 1 a o 0 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U SHEET No. S1J OF (, SHEETS NV 500/ '10-50-Z1 0141 100 011101313 1/J13 10105-2014511010 161IId30N00 LZ-Ol-n\Ot9 1091100-03d-030 00005 50 015 nMMrH-YZI'010bo\ONMONO 00\Z 3MM 00111W0 111 NNXYm DI IMMO 111 011.0.1 LIMOS HOW G Concrete Beam E U h J W Date: Nov. 2021 1 oI- SHEET No. S1.2 OF ITV lffl 'IZ-6O—LI 30IL 101d 0M7A313 03Id 00I0S-21SH\SIH3S TflI N0O '410 LO\$100—Z3d—ddM $0005 tlM MLS RIMftl4 YZItto—IE NMONO 00\Z 7VIVN SNIMWO 111 NNMYm MOH 111 011.0.1 LIMOS DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR HIGHWAY DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 August 9, 2022 VIA EMAIL: planning@hawaiicounty.gov Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair Cultural Resources Commission Planning Department - County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Bell: Subject: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau Ahupuaa, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Tax Map Keys: (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; and (3) 2-9-006:021 JADE T. BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Directors ROSS M. HIGASHI EDUARDO P. MANGLALLAN EDWIN H. SNIFFEN IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.8838 On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation (HDOT) would like to invite you to participate in the consultation for the subject bridge rehabilitation project. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended 2006) has been initiated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the subject project. The proposed federally funded State project is considered a federal action and undertaking, as defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 800.16(y). Effective May 1, 2016, FHWA issued a Delegation of Authority authorizing HDOT and local public agencies to conduct NHPA Section 106 consultations with the SHPO, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO), and other consulting parties per 36 CFR, Section 800.2 (c) (4). The FHWA will remain responsible for all findings and determinations charged to the agency during the Section 106 process. Overview of the Undertaking The proposed bridge work can be divided into three (3) major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair August 9, 2022 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.8838 Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Where high levels of lead contamination extend to greater depths, remediation could involve capping the contaminated soil with a concrete layer about 8 to 12 inches thick. The placement of the concrete cap will involve removal of all vegetation and disturbance of approximately 10 to 14 inches of topsoil. Where lead levels are lower or present in high concentrations only at shallower depths, the soil may be removed and disposed of at a permitted facility or stabilized and left in place. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents, similar to the rehabilitation of Kolekole Bridge, another historic steel trestle bridge on the Hamakua Coast that has been previously reconstructed with concrete bents. Concrete bents will replace steel because the steel rivet technology used to construct the bridge initially no longer exists. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the substructure will be reconstructed but will allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts. A temporary trestle bridge may be used to support the drill rig. Please refer to the figures for an illustration of a typical tower and bent at Hakalau Stream Bridge as well as a sketch of the proposed design. The bridge will not be widened, but the bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety standards. The construction duration will be no longer than two (2) years. Primary access to perform this work will be from the privately owned access roads along the stream bank. There should only be limited traffic impacts to bridge users, as bent replacement can occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. Lane closures will be required for work on the bridge railings. Consultations Consulting parties during the Section 106 process include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, NHO, and if applicable, local governments and applicants for federal assistance, permits, licenses and other approvals. NHO and/or Hawaiian Descendants NHO and Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to, cultural and/or historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE) are asked to provide a response to this letter within thirty (30) days of notification. Other Individuals and Organizations Individuals and organizations with legal, economic, or historic preservation interest are requested to respond within thirty (30) days of notification to demonstrate your interest in the proposed undertaking and provide intent to participate in the Section 106 process. Your participation is subject to FHWA approval. Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair August 9, 2022 Page 3 Request for Comment on the APE We invite you to comment on the proposed APE. HWY-DS 2.8838 Hakalau Stream Bridge carries Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) over Hakalau Stream at Milepost 15.3 on the island of Hawaii. The APE (see attached figure) includes locations where construction activities would occur, staging and storage areas, and access. It includes the construction limits and the areas identified for remediation. The APE extends to both ends of the bridge, inland of the bridge, and past the mouth of the stream on the Hilo side of the stream. The APE is approximately 15 acres. Identification of Historic Properties within the APE We welcome any infonnation you may have on historical and cultural sites that have been recorded or which you may have knowledge of within the proposed APE. In addition, if you are acquainted with any persons or organization that is knowledgeable about the proposed APE, or any Native Hawaiian descendants with ancestral, lineal or cultural ties to cultural and/or historical property knowledge of and/or concerns for, and cultural or religious attachment to the proposed project area, we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information within thirty (30) days of notification. Conclusion On behalf of FHWA, HDOT by way of this letter is notifying you of the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project. Should you want to participate in the Section 106 process, we request your written intent. In addition, please include your comments on the proposed APE. We also request any information you may have on the historic and cultural sites that have been recorded within the APE or any other historic or cultural sites nearby about which you may have knowledge. Lastly, should you know of any persons or organizations who may have cultural affiliations to the project area, we would appreciate receiving their names and contact information. We would appreciate all responses in writing within thirty (30) days from date of receipt to Ms. Holly Yuen, HDOT Project Manager, Technical Design Services Section, Design Branch, Highways Division by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Yuen at (808) 692-7548. Sincerely, 4/K For KAREN CHUN Engineering Program Manager Design Branch, Highways Division Enclosures Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Location Map w+E 5 Photo of Hakalau Bridge and surrounding area from 2021 Inspection Report View of Bridge from near ocean shore Close up of bents showing steel towers and concrete pedestals View underneath the bridge N vo- Z '0N 7099 09::..:.: 000 081 0 091 Road £l oN 1099 1, '19 OZl 001 11111 09 111 " 'HHg{g1...1. 1 OZ 0[ oN luag vw,: T i 772'0" out to out of steel =M111 4o�R ! / -o9 40,92g,, "",1.1,411•11:1.L ll 1.Ll oR 999z V `{'.II �' Jale9 6 �_ 11J�,^9 9 .oN 100/8 ...°1111--1-'-' fff i: d� 4'0/„ II�Y Y I I 1 ill S °o9 N2g V 1 L�� b 'oN luag � J �a 900: Ub.4 IU nith-1 OZ £ 'oN luag v11, 09 Z °oN luag-A�RRr.... , Ue0_NS ne(e/ey E 3 O oy Lra ioti .. kl— R II O ll ... 0Z1 0t/ V Q Date: Jun. 2022 Scale: As Noted N��0No2� 772'0" out to out of steel °oN 4099 £l 'oN /099 01 -011 1999 -0N 1098 01 'oN 100/9 0 00 0 6 0oN /oa9 h a 8 ON 1099 9 'ON 1008 9 °ON 1099 oN 1008 b 0N 1099 9 ON /0,0/5 - 00 ON 1098 1,N 1099 ON /090' „0-960/ „0-,891 „0-,122 0-,121 0 ,1Z1 0-9221 0-121 0,991 „0-,JCZ1 o e. o d SIJ OF 00 SHEETS (w0/ nm /o/ow awe 30,e xnonn3 rvme mws-asu 1enia,,Nao 0IN39 srvao zz-/i-9oAovo ioAumo-e30-aea arms 0/e 015 nenvilov/ ono-//Vervioarvo ooAz 3wvu owMvaa N (wd , 'zz-+i-vo 3wu 1md oma n3z3 a3ia zoos-asu\zdnid3aNaa 5,138 zrvaz zz-e1-90\0vD Muioa-,,d-ada anms 01,0-9z\zNiazrvo oo\z 3wvu s1,11.0 Bch grid i imu ily DAVID Y. ICE GO\'ERN OR OF HAWAII September 14, 2022 959 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION KAKUHIHEWA BUILDING 601 KAMOKILA BLVD., STE 555 KAPOLEI, HI 96707 George Abcede Highway Administrator State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 513 Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813 Email: George.Abcede@hawaii.gov Electronic Transmittal Only, No Hard Copy to Follow Dear George Abcede: SUZANNE D. CASE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ROBERT K. MASU DA FIRST DEPUIY M. KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR- WAIER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1CAIIOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS IN REPLY REFER TO: Project No.: 2022PR00590 Doc No.: 22095H07 Archaeology Architecture SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Review — Initiation of Consultation and Request for Concurrence with the Area of Potential Effects Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Ref. No. HWY-DS 2.8083, Federal Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Hakalau Ahupua`a, Hilo District, Island of Hawai`ii TMK: (3) 3-1-001:001, (3) 3-1-001:002, (3) 3-1-001:003, (3) 3-1-001:004, (3) 3-1-001:005, (3) 3-1-001:006, (3) 3-1-001:777, (3) 3-1-001:999, (3) 2-9-002:023, (3) 2-9-002:025, (3) 2-9-002:039, (3) 2-9-002:064, (3) 2-9-002:080, (3) 2-9-002:888, (3) 2-9-002:999, and (3) 2-9-006:021 The State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) received a letter dated May 10, 2022 from the State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation (HDOT) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to initiate the Section 106 process and to request the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO's) concurrence with the Area of Potential Effects for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project on the island of Hawai`i. The SHPD received this submittal on May 6, 2022 (HTCRTS Submission No. 2022PR00590.001). The proposed HDOT project will receive funding from the FHWA and has been determined a federal undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y). The proposed project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Pursuant to the Programmatic Delegation of Authority (May 2016), the FHWA has delegated Section 106 consultation to HDOT. The project is also subject to historic preservation review under Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §6E-8. According to HDOT's letter, the proposed bridge work can be divided into 3 major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge, 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure, and 3) upgrading the bridge railings. Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Areas shown in red in the figure accompanying HDOT's letter will be capped with a concrete layer about 8 to 12 inches in thickness. Prior to placing the concrete cap, all the vegetation will be removed. Approximately 10 to 14 inches of the topsoil will be disturbed. Other marked areas, where lead levels are lower, the soil will be stabilized and left in place. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents. Concrete bents will replace steel because the steel rivet technology used to initially construct the bridge no longer exists. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the substructure will be reconstructed, but will allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. Bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety George Abcede September 14, 2022 Page 2 standards. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts. A temporary trestle bridge may be used to support the drill rig. Primary access to perform this work will be from the access road in the park. There should only be limited traffic impacts to bridge users, as bent replacement can occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. Hakalau Stream Bridge carries Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) over Hakalau Stream at Milepost 15.3 on the island of Hawaii. The HDOT states the Area of Potential Effects (APE) includes locations where construction activities would occur, staging and storage areas, and access. It includes the construction limits and the areas identified for remediation. The APE extends to both ends of the bridge, inland of the bridge, and past the mouth of the stream on the Hilo side of the stream. The APE is approximately 15 acres while the active construction area is approximately 7 acres. Based on the information received, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has no objections to the APE as it is defined. In response to HDOT's request for a contact list of potential consulting parties, the SHPD recommends HDOT refer to the Native Hawaiian Organization Notification List provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior and maintained by the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations. This can be referenced online at: https://www.doi.gov/hawaiian/NHOL. Additionally, SHPD recommends expanding consultation to the National Trust for Historic Preservation by reaching Elizabeth Merritt at emerritt@savingplaces.org. HDOT has requested a copy of correspondence submitted to SHPD by interested parties who have requested consulting party status for this undertaking. To date, SHPD has only received correspondence also submitted to HDOT on September 14, 2022 via email from Historic Hawai`i Foundation (HHF) (Email Correspondence; Kiersten Faulkner [HHF] to Kate Ramos and Holly Yuen [HDOT]). The SHPD requests a copy of HDOT's response to HHF. The SHPD looks forward to continuing the Section 106 process for the proposed project. The SHPD requests a description of the vegetation that will be removed and the methods that will be implemented, as well as a detailed description of all proposed ground disturbance during the undertaking. Additionally, the SHPD requests more information regarding the temporary trestle bridge which may be used to support the drill rig, such as how it will be constructed, and the dimensions of any ground disturbance required. Please submit all forthcoming information and correspondence related to the subject project to SHPD via HICRIS to Project No. 2022PR00590 using the Project Supplement option. The HDOT and the FHWA are the offices of record for this undertaking. Please maintain a copy of this letter with your environmental review record for this undertaking. Please contact Stephanie Hacker, Historic Preservation Archaeologist IV, at Stephanie.Hacker@hawaii.gov or at (808) 692-8046 for matters regarding archaeological resources or this letter. Aloha, /{l m ✓owee` Alan S. Downer, PhD Administrator, State Historic Preservation Division Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc: Holly Yuen, HDOT (Ho11y.Yuen@hawaii.gov) Meesa Otani, FHWA (Meesa.Otani@dot.gov) HISTORIC HAWAII FOUNDATION 680 Iwilei Road Suite 690, Honolulu HI 96817 • (808) 523-2900 • preservation@historichawaii.org • www.historichawaii.org September 14, 2022 Ms. Holly Yuen HDOT Project Manager Design Branch, Highways Division Hawai`i Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 Via Email: holly.yuen@hawaii.gov RE: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau Ahupuaa, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Tax Map Keys: (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; and (3) 2-9-006:021 Reference: HWY- DS 2.8838 Dear Ms. Yuen: Thank you for referring the above mentioned project to Historic Hawai`i Foundation (HHF) under Section 106 of the National Preservation Act (NHPA). HHF received HDOT's letter of August 9, 2022 opening consultation (received on August 9, 2022 vie email), containing the scope of work and attached exhibits. HHF accepts the invitation to participate in the consultation for the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge and efforts to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse effects on historic properties. HHF participated in earlier emergency repair discussions in April 2021 and agreed at that time to the proposed scope of repairs subject to stated conditions of "in-kind" work (Refer HHF email August 16, 2021 to James Fu). Historic Hawai`i Foundation is a statewide nonprofit organization established in 1974 to encourage the preservation of sites, buildings, structures, objects and districts that are significant to the history of Hawai`i. HHF Comments to Hawai`i DOT Section 106 Consultation, re Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation September 14, 2022 Page 1 of 3 HHF is a consulting party to the Federal Highway Administration and its state and local partners pursuant to the implementing regulations of the NHPA at 36 Part 800.2(c)(5) as an organization with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking and a concern for the effects on historic properties. Area of Potential Effect HHF agrees with the APE as shown in the exhibit provided in the August 9 consultation letter. Identification of Historic Properties Hakalau Bridge is one of six (6) steel trestle bridges on the Hamakua Coast which are listed on both the Hawai`i and National Registers of Historic Places. According to the Multiple Property listing document: "The Hakalau Stream Bridge is significant under Criteria A, B, and C. Criterion A is applicable for the bridge's association with the Hilo Railroad Company. Criterion B is applicable for the bridge's association with three founders of the Hilo Railroad Company. Criterion C is applicable since the bridge is a representative example of early twentieth-century engineering technology as well as a source for information about early twentieth-century steel manufacture and construction." (p. 8-384) "In 1946, the railroad lines were devastated by a tsunami. Hakalau Stream Bridge and four other bridges were retained and reconstructed when the rest of the steel trestle bridges were disassembled... In 1953, Hakalau Stream Bridge was widened for use as a highway bridge with members from the disassembled railroad bridges. The reconstruction follows the original trestle design, however bolted rather than riveted connections were utilized. A concrete deck, sidewalks and rail were added to facilitate automobile and pedestrian traffic." (p. 8-386. Emphasis added) Due to Hakalau Stream Bridge's eligibility and listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the Secretary of the Interior's (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation provide the relevant standards: • Standard No. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. • Standard No. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. In 2014, FHWA and HDOT issued a historic bridges inventory which describes the significance and eligibility of the Hamakua Coast's steel trestle bridges as "high preservation value." Included in the description is the proposed treatment: "The bridge's original materials must not be obscured by alterations or additions. The quality of the original workmanship must remain apparent, particularly from a technical rather than aesthetic HHF Comments to Hawai'i DOT Section 106 Consultation, re Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation September 14, 2022 Page 2 of 3 standpoint, with substantial evidence of the builder's labor and skill. The bridges must retain a high degree of historic feeling and their associations must be apparent to the informed or casual observer" (p. 1-24). Historic Hawai`i Foundation Comments HHF does not agree that the replacement of the historic steel trestle bents with concrete is an appropriate treatment for this high value historic bridge. • The replacement of character -defining features would be an adverse effect. • The proposed replacement of the steel trestles is not consistent with the earlier discussions and agreements in 2021 regarding emergency repairs to several of the steel trestle bridges in advance of more "permanent repairs." The notes in the Project Information issued in November indicate that Section 106 consultation began on October 13, 2021. • The National Register nomination document for the Hakalau Bridge indicates that the reconstruction after the 1949 tsunami utilized "bolted rather than riveted connections." This is not consistent with the current proposed rehabilitation which states that concrete bents will replace the steel trestles because "the steel rivet technology used to construct the bridge initially no longer exists." Please explain. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this undertaking under the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. Historic Hawaii Foundation looks forward to continuing consultation to resolve the outstanding issues and avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project. Very truly yours, Kiersten Faulkner Executive Director HHF Comments to Hawai'i DOT Section 106 Consultation, re Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation September 14, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Mitchell D. Roth Mayor September 28, 2022 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Ms. Holly Yuen HDOT Project Manager Design Branch, Highways Division Hawai' i Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 Via email: holly.yuen@hawaii.gov Dear Ms. Yuen, Geraldine Bell, Chair Natalie Kurashima, Vice Chair Matthew Clark Kilohana Hirano Roberta "Ku `ulei" Keakealani Kealohanuiopuna Kinney Nicole Lui Scott Mahoney Aaron Spielman SUBJECT: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) T1VHK(s): (3) 3-1- 001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2- 9- 002: 023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; and (3) 2- 9- 006: 021 Location: Hakalau Ahupua'a, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island FILE No.: PL -INT -2022-002650 In response to your August 9, 2022, invitation to participate in the consultation for the subject bridge rehabilitation project, the Cultural Resources Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Section 1-71 on September 21, 2022. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended 2006) has been initiated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the subject project and by way of this letter, the County of Hawaii Cultural Resources Commission is stating intent to participate in the Section 106 process. The Hakalau Stream Bridge is a steel girder and trestle bridge with the total length of 775 feet, a 261 -feet height over the stream bed, and a roadway width of 28 feet. The superstructure of the bridge is composed of a concrete deck on steel girders, and the substructure is composed of c.1911 steel railroad trestle supports with masonry (lava -rock) abutments. The Hakalau Stream Bridge is significant for its association with the Hilo Railroad Company and three of its founders. It is also a representative example of early 20th -century engineering technology, as well as a source for information about early 20th -century steel manufacture and construction. This bridge is built over the Hakalau Stream and is listed on the Hawaii Registry of Historic Places, SHPD Historic Site Number 10-16-9090. Noting its Preservation Status: Preservation recommended in AIS, BTP, or Section 106 document, Source: Leineweber 2009. Condition noted as Excellent (no alterations, no erosion, no disturbance). 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission, Rules 1-5 www.cohplanning,dept.com Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning(a)co.hawaii.hi.us Ms. Holly Yuen, HDOT Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 2 September 28, 2022 As pertains to the invitation to comment on the Area of Proposed Effect (APE). • The Cultural Resource Commission recommends revisiting the APE boundary in order to comprehensively address the following natural and cultural resource items of public trust concern. • Hakalau Stream has been identified in the Hawaii Island Stream Assessment as having no dam diversions and the persistence of an estuary at the mouth of the stream; Hakalau Stream is an ungaged stream with high flow and tied to at least one USFWS wildlife refuge; several tributaries also feed into Hakalau Stream. • The APE should capture all downstream effects of lead contamination and any hydrodynamic impacts to stream, wetland or estuarine related resources. Sureties for remediation of chemical contamination should be of utmost concern in furtherance of public trust duties. For example, bioaccumulation of contaminants, including lead, should be investigated and quantified on the natural resources of the area (floral and faunal); especially since gathering of fish, `opihi, fruit, ferns and similar resources continues, a testing and monitoring component should be developed for continuing any contaminant remediation post -construction. Any impact to stream flow, habitat and morphology, or similar impacts to the estuary should be modelled prior to undertaking substructure or other repairs including construction within the streambed or floodway. A flood study including hydrodynamic modelling should also be considered. • The stream is ranked Outstanding for recreational resources. Recreational resource opportunities for Hakalau Stream include camping, fishing, swimming, hunting and scenic views. The APE boundary should capture all such recreational, traditional and customary practices in the area, including gathering and subsistence activities such as fishing, harvesting, traditional and customary rights, ceremony and recreation. • The stream is ranked Outstanding for aquatic resources and ranked Substantial for riparian resources. Water quality information exists. As of last survey, 60% native forest exists and at least three species of threatened and endangered birds exist as well as palustrine wetlands identified by the USFWS and an estuarine system identified by CZM. One or more of the following special areas are associated with the Hakalau Stream: Natural Area Reserve System, plant sanctuary, Recovery Habitat for Waterbirds, private preserves, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hilo Forest Reserve, estuary (identified by CZM), wetlands, priority aquatic sites, high quality streams. • At least five different species of `O`opu likely inhabit the stream. Per the Hawaii Stream Assessment, native "indicator" species documented as observed (circa 1980) in HakalauSstream include: `O`opu alamo'o (Lentipes concolor), `O`opu nopili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni) and `O`opu nakea (Awaous guamensis). The latter, `O`opu nakea should be expected to be found in the middle and lower reaches of streams. Areas of slow, deep waters with gravel or fine sediment are key habitat for them. Riffles at stream mouths are critical spawning grounds. A major ecological requirement for 'o'opu is the need to pass through a stream mouth at two times during the individual's life. The most important factor for the existence of'o'opu in streams is that access to and from the ocean Ms. Holly Yuen, HDOT Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 3 September 28, 2022 is maintained. Stream channelization or other diversions can eliminate or significantly limit native fish populations within a stream. As pertains to Identification of Historic Properties within the (ultimate) APE. • Hakalau Mill Site is located along the southern side of the mouth of Hakalau Stream on TMK: 3- 2-9-002:080. Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is located on TMK: 3-2-9-002:039 at 29-2301 Old Mamalahoa Highway (SIHP No. 50-10-16-09070); immediately adjacent to the August 9, 2022, proposed Area of Potential Affect (APE). The CRC recommends including this property in the APE or justifying its exclusion in writing. • The Hawaii Stream Assessment included no extent of survey coverage for archaeological resources and little or no information exists to assist prediction of what historic sites might be located in unsurveyed areas of the stream; low survey coverage exists as to historic sites that may be associated with Hakalau Stream. • The Cultural Resources Commission recommends investigation, survey and documentation of pre -contact Hawaiian production systems, pre -colonial indigenous agriculture systems and traditional agriculture such as lo'i kalo and other ancient/historic subsistence, cultural or religious areas/sites within the vicinity of the Hakalau Bridge. Small(er) valleys such as Hakalau may have smaller lo'i and loko'ia sites that were cumulatively representative of resilience, sustainability and religious practices of pre -contact Hawaiians; the riparian and estuarine areas have been important locations for Native Hawaiians since antiquity and contemporary use continues. Additionally, flume and older bridge foundations associated with the plantation era are likely present within the area and should be investigated, surveyed and documented. As pertains to NHO and/or Hawaiian descendants, or other individuals and organizations. • The Cultural Resources Commission recommends contacting Richard A. MacKenzie, wetland/research ecologist and James Akau who perform research in this watershed, Hui Loko and the Hakalau Homeowner Association. The Cultural Resources Commission also recommends a pedestrian survey of sufficient radius, during peak days and times in order to better identify affected persons, cultural practitioners, organizations, properties and resource connected practices within the area. • Complete the analysis outlined in Ka Pa'akai to ensure that proposed uses of land and water resources are pursued in a culturally appropriate way, including the identity and scope of "valued cultural, historical, or natural resources" in the petition area. At this time the CRC is unable to determine the extent to which resources including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights will be affected or impaired by the proposed action. • The Cultural Resources Commission concurs that Since HDOT is proposing work in the Hakalau Stream in close proximity to nearshore waters, HDOT should consult closely with OPSD-CZM, the Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM), Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). and the Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) to help mitigate any potential impacts to avian and aquatic species as well as to protect stream flow/water quality standards. Ms. Holly Yuen, HDOT Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 4 September 28, 2022 The Cultural Resources Commission is hopeful that combined efforts will represent a significant and measurable restoration effort for the public trust resources enjoined under this project. Finally, the Commission was not furnished with details as to the bridge railing replacements being upgraded for "safety standards" and therefore could not determine if these upgrade(s) will be sympathetic to the historic nature of the bridge. The CRC requests said information be provided at your earliest convenience. The CRC also concurs with the comments and concerns provided to your office by the Historic Hawaii Foundation in their September 14, 2022, transmittal letter and urges resolving the outstanding issues and avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Kevin Sullivan at levin.sullivan@hawaiicounty.gov. Mahalo, Geraldine Bell Cultural Resources Commission Chair Cc: State Historic Preservation Officer Historic Hawai'i Foundation KS:klt \\coh01\planning\publicAwpwin6o\Cultural_Resources_Commission\Projects\Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation TMK 31001001, 002, 003, 004, 999\Hakalau Bridge Repairs_CRC Response.docm JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR KE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 KA `OIHANA ALAKAU 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 November 21, 2023 TO: DAWN N. S. CHANG, CHAIRPERSON AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DI RECTOR KA LUNA HO'OKELE Deputy Directors Na Hope Luna Ho'okele DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.2453 ATTENTION: ALAN S. DOWNER, Ph.D., ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION FROM: ROBIN K. SHISHIDO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION FOR HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) SECTION 106 REQUEST FOR REVISED AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) CONCURRENCE HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION HAKALAU AHUPUAA, HILO MOKU, HAWAII ISLAND FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. BR -019-2(075) HICRIS PROJECT NO. 2022PR00590 The Hawaii Department of Transportation requests the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO) concurrence on the revised APE pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 800.4(a)(1). Revised Area of Potential Effects In the State Historic Preservation Division's letter dated September 14, 2022 (Docket No. 2209SH07), the SHPO had no objections to the APE as it was originally defined. The general shape and extent of the APE remain unchanged, but refinements have been made on the Hilo side of the gulch to include Old Mamalahoa Highway road so that it now encompasses approximately 14.45 acres. As before, the APE includes locations where active construction (including soil remediation) would occur, as well as staging, storage, and construction access. The APE still extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge and approximately 100 feet beyond each abutment along Hawaii Belt Road. The active construction area has not changed. See Attachment 1 for a revised APE map with the active construction area. We would appreciate a written response within 30 days from date of receipt to Holly Yuen via email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. If you have any questions, please contact Holly Yuen, Project Manager at (808) 692-7548 or by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. Enclosure Attachment 1 - Revised APE JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 Ms. Kiersten Faulkner Executive Director Historic Hawaii Foundation 680 Iwilei Road, Suite 690 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Dear Ms. Faulkner: Subject: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 September 26, 2023 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Response to September 14, 2022 Letter Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau Ahupuaa, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DIRECTOR Deputy Directors FORD N. FUCHIGAMI DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.2285 The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) is in receipt of your letter dated September 14, 2022, in response HDOT's August 9, 2022 invitation to participate in Section 106 of the NHPA for the subject project. HDOT requested the following information: 1) Your demonstrative interests in the proposed undertaking and provide intent to participate in the Section 106 process that is subject to Federal Highway Administration approval, 2) Comments on the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE), 3) Information you may have on historical and cultural sites within the designated APE, and 4) Contact infoiination of persons or organizations who may have cultural affiliation to the project area. HDOT also shared its updated description of the undertaking to install concrete bents instead of in-kind steel trestle replacement. In your September 14, 2022 letter, Historic Hawaii Foundation (HHF) provided the following information in response to the above: 1) HHF is a non-profit organization to encourage the preservation of historic sites that are significant to the history of Hawaii, 2) Agrees with the APE, and 3) Identified the Hakalau Bridge as a historic property in the proposed APE. Ms. Kiersten Faulkner September 26, 2023 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.2285 HHF did not provide information on other persons or organizations it may know who may have affiliations to the project area. HHF also provided the following additional comments: "...the proposed replacement of the steel trestles is not consistent with the earlier discussions and agreements in 2021 regarding emergency repairs to several of the steel trestle bridges in advance of more `permanent repairs ", it does not agree that the replacement of the historic steel trestle bents with concrete is an appropriate treatment for this high value historic bridge, and its opinion that that replacement of character -defining features would be an adverse effect." In response: HDOT acknowledges that there has been a design change. The original railroad bridge trestles were constructed using riveted technology, which is no longer in use today. Any structurally sound trestles that survived the tsunami were modified, redesigned, retrofitted, and reinforced using bolted technology to emulate the look of rivets. The construction method would be costly if implemented since it is a much slower construction process, would require proprietary equipment, and there are only a few qualified contractors who can perform such work. Replacing the existing steel members in-kind would involve intricate construction sequencing, custom -manufactured steel members, and extensive shoring. A major risk associated with this type of work is the unknown structural integrity of the existing steel members due to the advanced state of corrosion. If the existing members were structurally sound, incremental replacement of steel beams could be accomplished by affixing new members to existing members until all members have been replaced. However, in the case of Hakalau Bridge, the deficiencies would not be known until construction has already begun. Degradation conditions can change quickly, and even within the estimated two-year construction duration, continued degradation of the steel members will occur. If temporary support towers are needed to bypass deficient areas, the construction cost and duration would increase significantly. Each temporary support tower would need to be custom-designed per location and would require additional footings for support. The process for design, approval, permitting, and construction (including manufacturing, shipping, and site work) would cost over $12 million per tower (over $60 million for five towers) and further delay the full rehabilitation of the bridge for years, allowing corrosion to accelerate as more and more of the surface becomes exposed to salt spray. Notification of Reduced Area of Potential Effect The project APE has been reduced slightly from approximately 15 acres to approximately 14 acres within the originally defined APE. The general shape and extent of the APE remain unchanged, but refinements have been made to the interior boundaries to better match existing topographic features. As before, the APE includes locations where active construction (including soil remediation) would occur, as well as staging, storage, and construction access roads. The APE extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge and approximately 100 feet beyond each abutment along Hawaii Belt Road. See the enclosed Attachment 1 for a revised APE map. Ms. Kiersten Faulkner September 26, 2023 Page 3 Notification of Revised Undertaking Bridge railing upgrades have been removed from the project scope. HWY-DS 2.2285 Encapsulation of lead -contaminated soil is no longer being proposed on this project. In addition, the maximum depth of excavation for removal of contaminated soil has been increased from approximately 14 inches to 24 inches. Soils with lead contamination exceeding acceptable limits (200 milligrams of lead per kilogram of soil) will be remediated to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to reopen to the public. HDOT proposes to remove all soils for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation will be removed and replaced with new vegetation. Contaminated soil and vegetation will be disposed of at a permitted off-site facility. Continued Consultation If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Mr. Henry Kennedy, Engineering Program Manager, Design Branch at (808) 692-7550 or email at henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov. Sincerely, 7'"e7 HENRY KENNEDY Engineering Program Manager Design Branch Enclosure JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR KE KIA`AINA DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU`AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 KA `OIHANA ALAKAU 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair County of Hawaii Planning Department Cultural Resources Commission Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Bell: Subject: October 18, 2023 EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DIRECTOR KA LUNA HO'OKELE Deputy Directors Ka Hope Luna Ho`okele DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.2373 National Historic Preservation Section 106 Consultation: Approval to Participate and Response to September 28, 2022 Letter Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau Ahupuaa, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) is in receipt of your letter dated September 28, 2022 in response to HDOT's August 9, 2022 invitation to participate in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the subject project. We welcome your participation in the subject's Section 106 process. In your letter, the Cultural Resources Commission (CRC) provided the following comments: Comment 1. The Cultural Resource Commission recommends revisiting the APE boundary in order to comprehensively address the following natural and cultural resource items ofpublic trust concern. Thank you for your suggestion to revisit the APE boundary to address natural and cultural resource items of public trust concern. Please note that the APE is a term specific to Section 106 consultations under the NHPA concerning historic properties, the Federal definition for which is provided in 36 CFR 800.16(d). Refinements have been made to the APE to reflect the revised project description and to match existing topographic features better. We have reduced the APE from the originally defined 15 acres to approximately 14 acres within the original APE. See Attachment 1 for the revised APE map. As before, the APE includes locations where active construction (including soil remediation) would occur, as well as staging, storage, and construction access roads. The APE extends approximately 600 feet mauka to include the Old Mill Access Road crossing mauka of the bridge. It also extends roughly 200 to 500 feet makai of the edge of the Hawaii Belt Road right-of-way. Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair October 18, 2023 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.2373 Please note that impacts to recreational, natural, or cultural resources in the project area will be addressed separately in HDOT's Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which is currently being prepared pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343. A copy of your comment letter and this HDOT response letter will also be included in the EA, which will evaluate the project's direct and indirect impacts on natural, recreational, historical, and cultural resources. Comment 2. The Cultural Resource Commission 1) recommends including the Hakalau Plantation Manager 's House in the APE; 2) notes that the Hawai 'i Stream Assessment included no extent of survey coverage for archeological resources; and 3) recommends including an investigating pre -contact Hawaiian production systems, pre -colonial indigenous agricultural system, and traditional agriculture, cultural or religious areas/sites within the vicinity of the bridge. Thank you for this information regarding historic properties and that the Hawaii Stream Assessment included little information. The Hakalau Mill Site and a portion of the site with the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (TMK: 3-2-9-002:039) is within the APE. HDOT has prepared an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) for the project which identifies historic sites in the Project Area; as well as a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) that will look at indigenous cultural practices. Both the AIS and CIA will be included as an Appendix to the EA. Comment 3. CRC recommends 1) contacting additional individuals and organizations, as well as conduct a pedestrian survey to identify additional parties; 2) complete a Ka Paakai Analysis, and 3) consult with additional agencies. Thank you for suggesting these additional potential consulting parties. HDOT will send Section 106 consultation invitation letters to Mr. Richard MacKenzie (United States Forest Service in Hilo), Mr. James Akau, Hui Loko, and the Hakalau Homeowner Association. As stated above, HDOT is preparing the CIA that will be included in the EA. This CIA will include a Ka Paakai analysis. The CIA will also identify additional individuals and organizations potentially affected by this project, so HDOT feels that a pedestrian survey would be duplicative. Please note that Mr. Akau was already interviewed for the CIA. Additionally, HDOT confirms that coordination with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development — Coastal Zone Management, the Commission on Water and Resource Management, the Division of Aquatic Resources, and the Division of Forestry and Wildlife is either in progress or will be conducted during the Environmental Assessment. Comment 4. The Commission was not furnished with details as to the bridge railing replacements being upgraded for "safety standards" and therefore could not determine if these upgrade(s) will be sympathetic to the historic nature of the bridge. The CRC requests said information be provided at your earliest convenience. HDOT Response 4: Please note that upgrades to the bridge railing have been removed from the project scope. Comment S. The CRC also concurs with the comments and concerns provided to your office by the Historic Hawaii Foundation in their September 14, 2022, transmittal letter and urges resolving the outstanding issues and avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project. Ms. Geraldine Bell, Chair October 18, 2023 Page 3 HWY-DS 2.2373 HDOT Response 5: HDOT provided a written response addressing Historic Hawaii Foundation's (HHF) concerns in a letter dated September 26, 2023. The CRC will also receive a copy of this response letter to HHF. Notification of Reduced Area of Potential Effect (APE) The project APE has been reduced slightly from approximately 15 acres to approximately 14 acres within the originally defined APE. The general shape and extent of the APE remain unchanged, but refinements have been made to the interior boundaries to better match existing topographic features. As before, the APE includes locations where active construction (including soil remediation) would occur, as well as staging, storage, and construction access roads. The APE extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge and approximately 100 feet beyond each abutment along Hawaii Belt Road. See Attachment 1 for a revised APE map. Notification of Revised Undertaking Bridge railing upgrades have been removed from the project scope. Encapsulation of lead -contaminated soil is no longer being proposed for this project. In addition, the maximum depth of excavation for removal of contaminated soil has been increased from approximately 14 inches to 24 inches. Soils with lead contamination exceeding acceptable limits (200 milligrams of lead per kilogram of soil) will be remediated to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to reopen to the public. HDOT proposes to remove all soils for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation will be removed and replaced with new vegetation. Contaminated soil and vegetation will be disposed of at a permitted off-site facility. Continued Consultation If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact our Engineering Program Manager, Mr. Henry Kennedy, Design Branch at (808) 692-7550 or email at henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov. Sincerely, For HENRY KENNEDY Engineering Program Manager Design Branch Enclosures JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR KE KIA'AINA DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 KA `OIHANA ALAKAU 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 January 4, 2024 Ms. Kiersten Faulkner, Executive Director Historic Hawaii Foundation 680 lwilei Road, Dole Office Building Tower, Suite 690 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Dear Ms. Faulkner: EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DI RECTOR KA LUNA HO'OKELE Deputy Directors Na Hope Luna Ho`okele DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.25498 Subject: Revised Area of Potential Effect (APE) Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau Ahupuaa, Hilo Moku, Hawaii Island Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) TMK nos. (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; AND (3) 2-9-006:021 On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation would like to notify you of the revised project APE pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 800.4(a)(1). Revised Area of Potential Effects The general shape and extent of the APE remain unchanged, but refinements have been made on the Hilo side of the gulch to include Old Mamalahoa Highway road so that it now encompasses approximately 14.45 acres. As before, the APE includes locations where active construction (including soil remediation) would occur, as well as staging, storage, and construction access. The APE still extends approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge and approximately 100 feet beyond each abutment along Hawaii Belt Road. The active construction area has not changed. See Attachment 1 for a revised APE map with the active construction area. If you have any questions, please contact our Project Manager, Robert Sun, Design Branch, Highways Design Section at (808) 692-7578 or by email at robert.sun@hawaii.gov. Sincerely, HENRY KENNEDY Engineering Program Manager Design Branch Attachment Attachment 1 - Revised APE Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Section 4(0 From: Yuen, Holly Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:32 PM To: Messina, Maurice <Maurice.Messina@hawaiicounty.gov>; James Komata <James.Komata@hawaiicounty.Rov> Cc: Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov> Subject: RE: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and lead remediation project - 4F contacts Good afternoon Maurice and James, The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), is planning the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project. The purpose of the project is to: • Restore full public use to Hakalau Beach Park by removing or remediating lead -contaminated soils in the area surrounding the bridge; • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge by rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and • Increase resilience of the bridge to extreme natural events. As Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017 due to lead contamination, HDOT plans to remediate the area surrounding the bridge, including contaminated soils at the park. Previous soil testing has indicated that lead levels in the park are in the medium to high range (200-800 mg/kg). HDOT intends to remove all lead contaminated soil down to a depth of up to 24 inches and dispose of it offsite. Excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil, and vegetation will be re-established in areas where it currently exists. A secondary use of the park during construction is for storage of material and staging of construction equipment while the bridge substructure is being reconstructed. The bridge's steel support towers are exhibiting signs of severe corrosion, so HDOT plans to reconstruct the substructure with concrete bents. The construction duration for the bridge bent reconstruction and the lead remediation is anticipated to be no longer than two years. Upon completion of the project, the intent is to restore full public access to Hakalau Beach Park, Old Mamalahoa Highway, and the Old Mill Access Road. HDOT plans to submit Section 4(f) exception requests for use of the County park for the two aforementioned purposes under the following exemptions: - Lead abatement under 23 CFR 744.13(g) - Construction staging / Temporary occupancy under 23 CFR 774.13(d) — note: duration of temporary occupancy will be shorter than the anticipated two-year overall project duration The documents are currently in preparation and will be submitted shortly. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions and/or concerns. Thank you, Holly 1 From: Lee, Rob <rob.lee@hawaii.gov> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 10:53 AM To: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov> Cc: Messina, Maurice <Maurice.Messina@hawaiicounty.gov>; James Komata <James.Komata@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and lead remediation project - 4F contacts Holly, Please try forwarding your 4F notices/ submittals to the County of Hawaii, Dept. of Parks & Recreation Dept. (County P&R). Maurice Messina is the director of the County P&R and James Komata is their project planner/ engineer if I have his title correctly? Cool, very knowledgeable, and great guys to work with all the time! Below is their e-mail contacts in which they are cc'd in this e-mail. Maurice.messina@hawaiicounty.gov James.Komata@hawaiicounty.gov Thanks, Rob 2 �1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Federal -Aid Division November 21, 2023 Mr. Maurice Messina, Director County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 Hilo, HI 96720 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3-229 PO Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Phone: (808) 541-2700 FHWA-Hawaii.Intake@dot.gov In Reply Refer To: HDA -HI Subject: Section 4(0 of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act Request for Concurrence with Mitigation and Temporary Occupancy Exception Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Dear Mr. Messina: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), is planning the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project at Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, Milepost 15.3 on the Island of Hawaii. We request your review and approval of the proposed actions which would occur partially on County -owned property at Hakalau Beach Park, TMK (3) 2-9-002:080. Project Overview The purposes of the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project are: • Restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park by removing and remediating lead - contaminated soils in the area surrounding the bridge; • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge by rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and • Increase resilience of the bridge to extreme natural events. Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is a steel trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, over Hakalau Stream at a height of roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level at the top edges of Hakalau Gulch (see enclosed Attachment 1). The bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge, including Hakalau Beach Park which lies below and adjacent to the bridge. For this reason, Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017. A series of soil samples taken over multiple years determined that the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge exceeds State of Hawaii acceptable limits. HDOT proposes to remove all soils exceeding 200 2 mg/kg (shown in enclosed Attachment 2) for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation including large trees in this area would also be replaced with new vegetation. Contaminated soil and vegetation would be disposed at a permitted off-site facility. Due to the deterioration of the bridge's steel trestles and scour conditions undermining the foundations of the bridge, rehabilitation of the bridge's substructure requires replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents (enclosed Attachment 3, Project Plans). In -water work would be required as a part of this project, including drilling of shafts in the stream bed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. It is also anticipated that the Project would be authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authority of a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Avoidance and minimization measures required by the permit would be incorporated into project plans. The construction duration would be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. The night time lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes, but the lights would be for road sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination) and should not be visible from the beach. Section 4(0 of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act Since the proposed project is federally funded, consideration under Section 4(0 of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is required. Section 4(0 of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 stipulates that the FHWA and other USDOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land; and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or • The Administration determines the use of the property will have a de minimis impact. The law, codified in 49 U.S.C. § 303 and 23 U.S.C. § 138, is implemented by the FHWA through regulations in 23 C.F.R. Part 774. Identified Section 4(0 Property The FHWA has evaluated the subject project in relation to the requirements of Section 4(f) and identified Hakalau Beach Park (TMK (3)2-9-002:080) as a publicly owned park and recreation area subject to these requirements. The FHWA understands that Hakalau Beach Park is currently closed for public access because of the soil contamination discussed above. Temporary impacts to approximately 1.3 acres of the 3.18 -acre Hakalau Beach Park would occur for construction staging, and approximately 1.1 acres would be required for lead contamination remediation, 3 including the temporary construction staging area. Staging areas would be located in the flat, open areas of the park. No permanent physical features of the park, such as utilities or the beach pavilion, would need to be temporarily or permanently removed. If any signage, picnic tables, or other items are damaged during construction, the project would replace these items in like kind Project construction actions at Hakalau Beach Park are depicted on Attachment 4 (enclosed). The FHWA is aware that the park property is also home to historic properties related to the former Hakalau Sugar Mill site, which are shown on enclosed Attachment 5. These remnant features would not be affected by the project. The proposed soil remediation activities proposed in the park property would remove and replace soil surrounding these features, and contractors would be instructed to avoid damage to these features. Coordination is on-going with the State Historic Preservation Division and other potential stakeholders to complete the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process for this project. The County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation was also notified of the Section 106 consultation in a letter from HDOT dated August 9, 2022. Any tree or other vegetation removed during construction would be replaced with vegetation approved by the park owner, the County of Hawaii (County). HDOT would coordinate with the County to develop a mutually agreeable revegetation / landscaping plan. During construction, work areas would be demarcated with temporary protective fencing. The following table identifies the affected Section 4(f) property and the corresponding affected area (in acres): Temporary Construction and Mitigation Areas in Section 4(f) Pronert Tax Map Key Owner Total TMK Area (acres)* Affected Area (acres) (3)2-9-002:080 County of Hawaii 3.18 acres Mitigation: 1.1 acres for soil removal Temporary Occupancy: 1.3 acres for construction staging Total Property Area: 1.3 acres *Source: County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Office website, August 2023. Previous Coordination with Hawaii County HDOT has coordinated with the County multiple times over the years to collaborate on the development of the soil remediation plan and the closure of the County Park. Most recently, specific to the proposed project, HDOT has conducted the following coordination with the County: • As part of the project's Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 process, HDOT sent a Pre -Assessment Consultation letter dated November 25, 2022 to multiple County of Hawaii departments including the Department of Parks and Recreation. No response was received from the Department of Parks and Recreation. 4 • HDOT sent an email on August 4, 2023, describing the project's Section 4(f) requirements and the upcoming submission of an exception request. No public meetings have been held for this project, but a public meeting would be conducted to solicit comments on the draft EA. Request for Agreement with Temporary Occupancy and Mitigation Activities The FHWA has identified various exceptions to the requirements for a Section 4(f) approval. One such exception, identified in 23 CFR §774.13(d), is temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). To use this exception, the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. Duration of occupancy must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land. The duration of the construction activities for the portion of the Project at the Hakalau Beach Park is temporary, estimated at approximately 22 months, as compared to the scheduled 24 month duration of the entire Project. There would be no change in ownership of the land. 2. Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) property are minimal. The proposed construction staging area would temporarily occupy approximately 1.3 acres of the 3.18 -acre park. Because this park is officially closed to the public currently, this temporary use is a minor scope of work with no effect on public recreational access. 3. There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property, on either a temporary or permanent basis. There would be no permanent adverse physical impacts to the property. The use of the property as a staging area would facilitate the repairs to the bridge and the soil remediation, so that this park and the public access road can be officially re -opened. The recreational activities, features, and attributes of the property would be maintained or replaced in like kind, so that recreational users can again officially utilize the park once the project has been completed and official use of the park has been restored. 4. The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the property must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. All areas disturbed by the Project would be restored to preconstruction conditions or better. No park facilities would be removed for construction staging. Any park items 5 such as signage or picnic tables that are damaged by construction would be replaced with equipment of similar type and function if preferred by the park owner. 5. There must be documented agreement of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(0 resource regarding the above conditions. With this letter, we are seeking your written concurrence that the proposed temporary occupancy meets the above conditions. The FHWA requests concurrence from the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation, as the official with jurisdiction, that the proposed project satisfies the conditions described above and meets the criteria for a temporary occupancy exception under Section 4(0 of the USDOT Act of 1966 for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project. If you concur, please help to facilitate this project by signing the concurrence line below and returning a copy via email to meesa.otani@dot.gov. We would greatly appreciate your assistance by responding within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Meesa Otani, Environmental Engineer, at (808) 541-2316 or by email at meesa.otani@dot.gov. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Liatemd for Richelle M. Takara, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures cc: Holly Yuen, HDOT Allen Kam, WSP Digitally signed by MEESA T. OTA N I Date: 2023.11.21 10:47:38 -10'00' Concurrence The County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation. as owner and manager of I l,tkal lir Beach Park. concurs that the 1 iakalau Stream Bridge Rehahilitation Project Incctti the criteria for a teillporary occupancy exception uncia Section 4( 1) of the 1. - Department ot. 1 rtiisportati(+n Act of 1966 for the Hakalau I.3cach Park Mi1tic7 Maurice' Messina rector County of 1Ia\vaii Department of Parks aiiil Recreation a/ D to 'await e t 'oat a 1 V O O E 0 0 z s x of x wo y� 19HK-01 -22M STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION INDEX TO DRAWINGS DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET HONOLULU, HAWAII PLANS FOR HAWAII BELT ROAD HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. OOXX-00-00X DISTRICT OF NORTH HILO ISLAND OF HAWAII TO MILE POST ATTACHMENT 3 APPROVED: 0 DIR. OF TRANSPORTATION w 3LVO 3NOHd A9030VNVIN A9 031\191S30 ZZOZ 'AON 9989-££6 (808) H-ANH 'ONI 'SY Hd /0 73-6/-01. 3111101d TN1110I11 1001000 10013d 00-00-110000 [00100-101-00 010 0010001-00000-0000N10000 000'0 '317,11 00100/0 (we o33 -arm 3n11lose am ars NV, ,ams-asav-CO vMO 10va100-,3rae ars mm>aa-agora-snows,o aavz 3rvdti sti11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 o 9 ,9 0 ,6 1M1 „9 ,9 x 0 cn 0 N Lto � i®® 0-,6 � Nz 6 E w o _ <c."4k `LIN 1 T, o g Mp on TWX - 2 o � E °uN 7n9v 6uiieag U STREAM BRIO( Pro!. Na Xk is Noted -IEET No. SIJ OF h 2 v � DEf o ,V El 'oN juag N i A o, 1--1-1-j El °uN ,lua8 Li I 11 i II L J �i 1 1 1 an 11 oN lua8 7) ri Ol ON ivag 1 I I'1; I1 'V 6 'uN luag 1_] L J_ ho 0 m h '9 '6'N luag 1--1'1--1 1111 0 0 o 0 A L °uN ,lua8 N -H E 9 °uN ueg I 1 1 1I �r -L Concrehl (Beyond, Concrete Col (Beyond) 5 ,N 4ua8 v II' 6 'uN luag d 11 111 h 0IT- E 'uN ,1u;8 N I E °uN lua8 1 11 I 7 v l °uv lua8 v l ON lu9b 6uueag :1 _ G Tr I' A ii II O h „.2 ,,, 1 Imo, (we o33 -arm 3n11lose am ars NV, ,ams-asav-CO vMO 10va100-,3rae ars mm>aa-agora-snows,o aavz 3rvdti sti11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 0 ti 7 2' 0" out to out of steel p0. z 0009 V -;i - � E/ 'aN 1199 4 I I O I I Z/ °1N 1199 0-1_ 1 J L , FP //o9 1199 7, 0/ 'oN 1199 2222 " 06/ 00/ 09 ::.09 Ob 1 r. OZ Mill Rodd � s °1N 1199 8 °1N luag L °oN 1199 7, Jew JaJeM 0 N999 90!U9 ,1A1 4199 '1N 1199 7 o-LI=0 91— fi, °1N 1199 of NEW JB/BM 0,9 l .. OE .BTS Ob 09 99a �Ty• 09/ 08/ DOE CD 2 FOUNDATION PLAN 0 0 Scale: As Noted 0, 1„ sz-i.-m ,nu 10,e sm°en, Nnd 1.0105, ° X0, U -Y1-00 MO Awoo-arae as nna;a°-,L otiobzV,NIODNo ooAz ,NdN ewN. 0 aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 ` ,a , v , , , , , , , , ,Lido { \ \\ \ _ @ „, }/(\N(l ct4 c S < : o § - : zm�<> • Elev.148.O 111 Q\\) \ 1 STREAM BRID Proi. Na Xa s Noted IEET No. S13 01 #= vS , . \ c m mg \kb \ ' 7 » w maf ,D,:�' Z\ _ ^ 4,_.\ E 2 /( \« eo o Zzw ma> -� - -� � o z z c c m - Hybrid Polymer Concrete (HPC) Overlay from Edge of Curb to Edge of Curb o oo 1 1 I \ .- \\\ 9 o ma �» 0 0. Ago ~ V \' t /» q) ` Q© :w mz& _ Q§ ?® h A > m mz>; :� - - - % ° \usi / 3® 2 /« 7 ;m ms>\\ «4 - • ( \> _V A ,m maf - , - - - \ 6n_\\ ■ _ / rw ma> > \$\ \ i zw mz&/§&55 e/\ \j\ 4%a �^ % \ Z !w mn& !w <J :_=J - - \\ \\ c / \/ \ \/ \ : 2§ ii{ 3 \ \'\'\'\'\'\'\'CP ,N i'\ aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 Downstream TYPICAL BENT ELEVATION Scale: As Noted (we ase 'ss—arm u rma 0. A333 a31a Lasas—asuViia .ss ss—si—mAass 1oAu100,3rae ars mm>nu—sLors--0ZVows,O aaAz 3rvvu swN.vaa aaamsaa 10,1 1730 4. Fieldwork Figure 52. Site location map. 54 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Soil Remediation Project Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A -2c Endangered Species Act Section 7 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Endangered Species Act Section 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 Phone: (808) 792-9400 Fax: (808) 792-9580 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0014325 Project Name: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation July 21, 2023 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened and endangered species, as well as designated critical habitat that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and that may be affected by project related actions. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please contact the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (PIFWO) at 808-792-9400 if you have any questions regarding your IPaC species list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may adversely affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological 07/21/2023 2 Evaluation, similar to a Biological Assessment, be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation are described at 50 CFR 402.12. Due to the significant number of listed species found on each island within PIFWO's regulatory jurisdiction, and the difficulty in accurately mapping ranges for species that we have limited information about, your species list may include more species than if you obtained the list directly from a Service biologist. We recommend you use the species links in IPaC to view the life history, habitat descriptions, and recommended avoidance and minimization measures to assist with your initial determination of whether the species or its habitat may occur within your project area. If appropriate habitat is present for a listed species, we recommend surveys be conducted to determine whether the species is also present. If no surveys are conducted, we err on the side of the species, by regulation, and assume the habitat is occupied. Updated avoidance and minimization measures for plants and animals, best management practices for work in or near aquatic environments, and invasive species biosecurity protocols can be found on the PIFWO website at: https://www.fws.gov/office/pacific-islands-fish-and-wildlife/library. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that a listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http:// www. fws. gov/endang ered/es a-library/index. Non-federal entities can also use the IPaC generated species list to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We recommend HCP applicants coordinate with the Service early during the HCP development process. For additional information on HCPs, the Habitat Conservation Planning handbook can be found at https:// www. fws. gov/sites/default/files/documents/habitat-conservation-planning-handbook-entire.pdf. Please be aware that wind energy projects should follow the Service's wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds. Listed birds and the Hawaiian hoary bat may also be affected by wind energy development and we recommend development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for those species, as described above. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers can be found at: ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers ■ http://www.towerkill.com ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/comtow We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation actions that benefit threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act in accordance with section 7(a)(1). Please include the Consultation Tracking Number associated with your IPaC species list in any 07/21/2023 request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Please feel free to contact us at PIFWO_admin@fws.gov or 808-792-9400 if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally listed species and federally designated critical habitat. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List 07/21/2023 1 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 (808) 792-9400 07/21/2023 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: Project Name: Project Type: Project Description: 2023-0014325 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge - Maintenance Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W. The proposed bridge work can be divided into 3 major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. The construction duration will be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@19.89939305,-155.12949768013715,14z Counties: Hawaii County, Hawaii 07/21/2023 3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 13 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries', as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereas semotus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/770 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws. gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6477.pdf STATUS Endangered 07/21/2023 4 BIRDS NAME STATUS Band-rumped Storm -petrel Oceanodroma castro Endangered Population: USA (HI) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1226 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck Anas wyvilliana No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7712 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Hawaiian Coot Fulica americana alai No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7233 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Hawaiian Goose Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1627 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6925.pdf Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6746 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2082 General project design guidelines: https://i pac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Newell's Townsend's Shearwater Pu f finus auricularis newelli No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2048 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Threatened 07/21/2023 5 REPTILES NAME STATUS Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened Population: Central North Pacific DPS No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6929.pdf FLOWERING PLANTS NAME Alani Melicope zahlbruckneri There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7338 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7060.pdf Nanu Gardenia remyi No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5835 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf STATUS Endangered Endangered FERNS AND ALLIES NAME STATUS Deparia kaalaana Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9612 Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4737 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 07/21/2023 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Private Entity Name: Malie McClellan Address: 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 City: Honolulu State: HI Zip: 96813 Email malie.mcclellan@wsp.com Phone: 8085611324 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration Name: Meesa Otani Email: meesa.otani@dot.gov Phone: 8085612316 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Federal -Aid Division September 25, 2023 Earl Campbell, Ph.D. Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm 3-122, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Subject: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau, Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Federal -aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Dear Dr. Campbell, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3-229 Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Phone: (808) 541-2700 FHWA-Hawaii.Intake@dot.gov In Reply Refer To: HDA -HI The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation (HDOT), is planning the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project at Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, Milepost 15.3 in Hakalau on the Island of Hawaii. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the FHWA is requesting concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species: the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat or `ope`ape`a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus); Hawaiian Seabirds, including the endangered Hawaiian petrel or `ua`u (Pterodroma sandwichensis), the endangered Hawai`i Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the band-rumped storm -petrel or `ake`ake (Oceanodroma castro), and threatened Newell's Townsend's shearwater or `a`o (Puffinus auricularis newelli); Hawaiian Waterbirds, including the endangered Hawaiian coot or 'alae ke`oke`o (Fulica americana alai), endangered Hawaiian stilt or ae`o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and endangered Hawaiian (=koloa) duck (Anas wyvilliana); the threatened Hawaiian Goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis); the threatened Green Sea Turtle or honu (Chelonia mydas); flowering plants including the endangered Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) and the endangered Nanu (Gardenia remyi); and ferns and allies including the endangered Deparia kaalaana, and the endangered Microlepia strigose var. mauiensis. Description of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project includes the following: • Restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park by removing or remediating lead -contaminated soils in the area surrounding the bridge; 2 • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge by rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and • Increase resilience of the bridge to extreme natural events. Hakalau Stream Bridge is a steel trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, over Hakalau Stream at a height of roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level at the top edges of the gulch. The bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge including Hakalau Beach Park which lies below and adjacent to the bridge. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017 because the area surrounding the bridge is in need of remediation. See enclosed Attachment 1 for a map of the Project Area and enclosed Attachments 2A and 2B for photos of the project site. A series of soil samples taken over multiple years determined that the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge exceeds State of Hawaii acceptable limits. Lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to reopen to the public. Approximately 2.5 acres are proposed for remediation (areas shown in red and yellow in the enclosed Attachment 3, map of lead remediation areas). According to the Remedial Action Alternative Analysis (RAA) prepared for this project (May 2023), HDOT proposes to remove all soils exceeding 200 mg/kg for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation including large trees in this area would be replaced with new vegetation. Where high levels of lead contamination exist, remediation could involve removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a permitted mainland facility. Where lead levels are lower, the contaminated soil may be removed and disposed of at a pennitted local facility. Due to the deterioration of the bridge's steel trestles and scour conditions undermining the foundations of the bridge, rehabilitation of the bridge's substructure requires replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents (See enclosed Attachment 4, Project Plans). In -water work would be required as a part of this Project, including drilling of shafts in the stream bed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. The construction duration would be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. The night time lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes, but the lights would be for road sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination) and should not be visible from the beach. Coordination with USFWS The following species are included in the USFWS's Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) official species list downloaded on July 21, 2023 (see enclosed Attachment 5). • the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat or `ope`apea (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) 3 • Hawaiian waterbirds, including the endangered Hawaiian coot or 'alae ke`oke`o (Fulica americana alai), the endangered Hawaiian stilt or ae`o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and endangered Hawaiian (=koloa) duck (Anas wyvilliana); • Hawaiian seabirds, including the endangered Hawaiian petrel or `ua`u (Pterodroma sandwichensis), the endangered Hawai`i Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the band- rumped storm -petrel or `ake`ake (Oceanodroma castro), and threatened Newell's Townsend's shearwater or `a`o (Puffinus auricularis newelli); • the threatened Hawaiian goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis); • the threatened Green Sea Turtle or Honu (Chelonia mydas); • Flowering plants including the the endangered Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) and the endangered Nanu (Gardenia remyi); and • Ferns and allies including the endangered Deparia kaalaana, and the endangered Microlepia strigose var. mauiensis. According to IPaC, no critical habitat is located within the project area. The IPaC list did not identify any migratory birds of conservation concern, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Species Act (MBTA) at this location. The IPaC list also provided links to general project design guidelines for all wildlife species and most plant species listed above. These guidelines provide an assessment of potential project impacts, along with avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures for these species. Biological Survey Report H.T. Harvey & Associates (HTH) prepared a draft Biological Survey Report (June 2023). In the Biological Survey Report, HTH presented the findings of reconnaissance -level botanical and wildlife (birds and mammals) surveys to document species and biological issues of concern, including the presence of any species that are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, candidate species for listing, or sensitive habitats. The report also identified the potential impacts of implementing the proposed project and conservation measures that may be considered for inclusion into the planning and design phase, if any listed species, candidate species, or sensitive habitats are found in the biological study area (BSA). Potential Impacts, Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures for ESA -Listed Species Based on the recommendations in the IPaC project design guidelines and HTH's Biological Survey Report report, the following potential impacts may occur to ESA -listed species. However, with certain avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures in place, also discussed below, these impacts may be avoided and minimized. Hawaiian Hoary Bat Although the Hawaiian hoary bat was not surveyed for during this reconnaissance -level survey, there are numerous records for this species on Hawaii Island. Hawaiian hoary bats may hunt for flying insect prey along roadways, gulches, and open areas and occasionally roost in large, dense -foliage trees (typically greater than 15 -foot -tall) such as those in Hakalau Gulch within the 4 BSA. Given that numerous trees identified in the Project Area are potential suitable day roosting habitat and the general abundance of Hawaiian hoary bats reported for Hawaii Island, the possibility that the Hawaiian hoary bat utilizes the Project Area cannot be ruled out. The lead remediation action of this Project requires the removal of several acres of soil and vegetation in Hakalau Gulch that may include large trees. Although the elimination of these trees will likely reduce the number of trees available for bats to roost, the abundance of other tall trees in the region make it unlikely that the Project would result in an adverse effect to bats. To avoid and minimize potential direct impacts to the Hawaiian hoary bat, HDOT commits to the following measures: • Do not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants greater than 15 feet tall during the bat birthing and pup rearing season, June 1 to September 15. • Do not use barbed wire for fencing. Hawaiian Seabirds No specific night-time seabird surveys were conducted in the Project Area, but Hawaiian seabirds may traverse the project area at night during the breeding, nesting, and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Outdoor lighting attracts seabirds and could result in seabird disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality. Night work is not anticipated during construction, but night time lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes to provide sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination). In the unlikely event that night work is needed, the following measures would be incorporated into the project to avoid or minimize potential impacts to Hawaiian seabirds: • Fully shield all outdoor lights so bulbs are only visible from below bulb height and only used when necessary. • Install automatic motion sensor switches and timers on all outdoor lights or turn off lights when no activity is occurring in the lighted area. • Avoid nighttime construction during the seabird -fledging period (September 15 to December 15). Hawaiian waterbirds Even though endangered Hawaiian waterbirds (Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian duck, and also the Hawaiian common gallinule) were not seen during this survey, these taxa are known to occur on Hawaii Island. The project area has suitable waterbird habitats, such as open water bodies (e.g. Hakalau Stream, ditch). Therefore, it is not out of the realm of possibility to encounter endangered Hawaiian waterbirds in the Project Area. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to Hawaiian Waterbirds: • In areas where waterbirds are known to be present, post and enforce reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. • Because water resources are located within or adjacent to the project site and in -water work will be conducted, incorporate the following applicable aquatic BMPs, based on USFWS's "Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments" (April 2022) into the project design. These BMPs are described below under "Additional Best Management Practices." 5 • A biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology will conduct Hawaiian waterbird nest surveys, where appropriate habitat occurs within the vicinity of the proposed project site, prior to project initiation. Surveys will be performed again within 3 days of project initiation and after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • If a nest or active brood is found: o Contact the USFWS within 48 hours for further guidance. o Establish and maintain a 100 -foot buffer around all active nests and/or broods until the chicks/ducklings have fledged. Do not conduct potentially disruptive activities or habitat alteration within this buffer. o Have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology present on the project site during all construction or earth moving activities until the chicks/ducklings fledge to ensure that Hawaiian waterbirds and nests are not adversely impacted. Hawaiian goose (Nene) Although nene were not seen during this survey; they are known to occur on Hawaii Island. There is suitable habitat in the project area, such as open grassy areas in the southeastern portion of the Project Area overlapping the County Park. Therefore, it is possible that nene may visit the Project Area. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to nene: • Do not approach, feed, or disturb nene. • If nene are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with nene nesting behavior survey for nests in and around the project area prior to the resumption of any work. Repeat surveys after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 feet of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150 -foot radius after work begins. • In areas where nene are known to be present, post and implement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. Green Sea Turtle The Hawaiian green sea turtle (or honu) Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is listed as threatened. Even though HTH observed no turtles in the BSA during their two- day reconnaissance survey, it is possible that honu sometimes visit the eastern most boundary of the Project Area that overlaps the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Hakalau Bay and the County Beach Park. Map guides published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (NOAA PIFSC) do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for honu. Additionally, no night work is anticipated during construction, and the illuminated signs and/or beacons required for night time lane closures should not be visible from the beach. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to honu: 6 • No vehicle use on, or modification of, the beach/dune environment during the sea turtle nesting or hatching season (May through December), or on beaches where sea turtles are known to bask. • Do not remove or destroy native dune vegetation. • Incorporate applicable Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments into the project design. • A biological monitor familiar with sea turtles will conduct a visual survey of the project site to ensure no basking sea turtles are present prior to start of work. o If a basking sea turtle is found within the project area, cease all mechanical or construction activities within 100 feet until the animal voluntarily leaves the area. o Cease all activities between the basking turtle and the ocean. • Remove any project -related debris, trash, or equipment from the beach or dune if not actively being used. • Do not stockpile project -related materials in the intertidal zone, reef flats, or stream channels. As mentioned above, no night work is anticipated; however, should it be required, additional coordination will be conducted with resource agencies to agree upon appropriate conservation measures, including the following: • Avoid nighttime work during the nesting and hatching season, which extends from May through December. • Minimize the use of lighting and shield all project -related lights so the light is not visible from any beach. - If lights can't be fully shielded or if headlights must be used, fully enclose the light source with light filtering tape or filters. • Construction activities adjacent to the beach will be required to reduce ambient outdoor lighting such as: - reducing the height of exterior lighting to below 3 feet and pointed downward or away from the beach; and - minimize light intensity to the lowest level feasible and, when possible, include timers and motion sensors. Flora The IPaC lists four plant species that are either known or expected to be on or near the BSA: • M. zahlbruckneri is a long-lived perennial tree in the Rutaceae family. It is medium sized, about 30 to 36 feet tall. No individuals are known to occur in the Hakalau Project Area and the closest designated critical habitat for this species is about 20 miles to the south of the Project Area (USFWS 2020). • G. remyi or nanu is a tree species in the Rubiaceae family ranging from 10 to 43 feet in height. Historically, one plant was reported on the private lands of Hakalau Nui (about 15 miles inland of the Project Area) in 1977 and with a few individuals in the Laupahoehoe area. However, all these plants are believed to now be extirpated (USFWS 2022a). No nanu plants have been reported to occur in Hakalau Gulch, and none were seen during the two-day reconnaissance survey for this Project. 7 • D. kaalaana is a small fern in the Athyriaceae family with decumbent (ground creeping) to erect rhizomes and fronds up to 12 inches long. The species is restricted to the rocky banks of perennial streams and wet forest. D. kaalaana historically occurred in the Kaumana and Papaaloa areas on the Big Island, and also on Kauai and Maui. There are no known wild individuals of this species. • M strigosa var. mauiensis or palapalai is a terrestrial fern in the Dennstaedtiaceae family. This is a medium-sized fern with fronds less than 40 inches long. It is known to typically occur in mesic and wet forests from 1,400 to 6,000 feet on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. In the last 5 to10 years, the only population on Hawaii Island was observed in 2004 in the Waiakea and Piihonua areas. During its field survey, HTH did not identify any of these four endangered plant taxa or other rare native plant species in the Project Area. Given the history of vegetation disturbance in Hakalau Gulch over the last century since the sugar plantation times and the ongoing disturbance as a recreational area and beach park, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on any plant species that is state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, a candidate species for listing, a rare native plant species, or a native plant species of concern. The BSA encompasses a highly disturbed area, and all but three plant species found in the BSA — hala, moa, and water primrose — are non-native. Removal of any of these three plant species is not expected to have an adverse effect on species' populations locally or regionally as these native species are known to have a widespread distribution on Hawaii Island and the State. The Project Area also consists of nearly vertical hill slopes that could not be surveyed by foot and were scanned using binoculars. There is a small possibility that an endangered plant species or other rare native plant species occur on the steep wet hillsides of the Project Area. However, because the Project does not propose to disturb the steep slopes, the Project is not likely to adversely affect these federally protected plant species. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or conservation measures are specifically proposed for federally -listed plant species. Additional Best Management Practices HDOT will implement the following applicable BMPs including those from the USFWS "Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments" (April 2022): • Construction staff will be informed of the potential presence of threatened and endangered species, including being provided materials to assist in species identification and appropriate actions if a species enters the work area. • Good housekeeping practices and erosion control device(s) will be employed at the job site to prevent debris and soil from leaving the site. • Authorized dredging and filling -related activities that may result in the temporary or permanent loss of aquatic habitats will be designed to avoid indirect, negative impacts to aquatic habitats beyond the planned project area. • Turbidity and siltation from project -related work will be minimized and contained within the project area by silt containment devices and curtailing work during flooding or adverse tidal and weather conditions. These BMPS will be maintained for the life of the construction period until turbidity and siltation within the project area is stabilized. 8 • All project construction -related debris and sediment containment devices will be removed and disposed of at an approved site. • A litter -control plan will be developed and implemented to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native species. • All project construction -related materials and equipment (i.e., dredges, vessels, backhoes, silt curtains, etc.) to be placed in an aquatic environment will be inspected for pollutants including, but not limited to; marine -fouling organisms, grease, oil, etc., and cleaned to remove pollutants prior to use. Project -related activities will not result in any debris disposal, non-native species introductions, or attraction of non-native pests to the affected or adjacent aquatic or terrestrial habitats. • Invasive species controls will be maintained to ensure that all materials transported from off-site are free of such species. • Project construction -related materials (e.g., fill) will not be stockpiled in, or in close proximity to aquatic habitats and will be protected from erosion (e.g., with filter fabric, etc.) to prevent materials from being carried into waters by wind, rain, or high surf. • Fueling of project -related vehicles and equipment will take place away from the aquatic environment. A contingency plan to control petroleum products accidentally spilled during the project will be developed. The plan will be retained on site with the person responsible for compliance with the plan. Absorbent pads and containment booms will be stored on-site to facilitate the clean-up of accidental petroleum releases. • All deliberately exposed soil or under -layer materials used in the project near water will be protected from erosion and stabilized as soon as possible with geotextile, filter fabric or native or non-invasive vegetation matting, hydro -seeding, etc. Request for Concurrence With the implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described above, the FHWA has determined that the Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat or `opeape`a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus); Hawaiian Seabirds, including the endangered Hawaiian petrel or `ua`u (Pterodroma sandwichensis), the endangered Hawai`i Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the band-rumped storm -petrel or `ake`ake (Oceanodroma Castro), and threatened Newell's Townsend's shearwater or `a`o (Puffznus auricularis newelli); Hawaiian Waterbirds, including the endangered Hawaiian coot or 'alae ke`oke`o (Fulica americana alai), endangered Hawaiian stilt or ae`o (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and endangered Hawaiian (=koloa) duck (Anas wyvilliana); the threatened Hawaiian Goose or nen e (Branta sandvicensis); the threatened Green Sea Turtle or honu (Chelonia mydas); flowering plants including the endangered Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) and the endangered Nanu (Gardenia remyi); and ferns and allies including the endangered Deparia kaalaana, and the endangered Microlepia strigose var. mauiensis. We request your concurrence with our may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination. We respectfully request your response within 60 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Meesa Otani, Environmental Engineer, at (808) 541-2316 or by email at meesa.otani@dot.gov. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Digitally signed by MEESA T. OTANI Date: 2023.09.25 16:45:16 -10'00' for Richelle M. Takara, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures cc: Holly Yuen, HDOT, HWY-D 9 OI•YAKOZMYAIA:i 1- 0 Ld —) 0 a_ WITACIMI4M111 Z.MMIIMFROM akalau cream Bride Rehabilitatio `ote: Imo•e o brl..e over a room a vea Maaalaga_ai 0 - ATTACHMENT 2A — SITE PHOTOS Excerpted from Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) Hakalau Stream Bridge crossing Hakalau Gulch (looking inland) Source: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) Hakalau Stream Bridge Aerial View (looking upstream) Source: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) ATTACHMENT 2B — SITE PHOTOS Excerpted from Biological Survey Report (HT Harvey, June 2023) Photo 1. Southeastern Slope of Hakalau Bridge BSA with Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland Note: Gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis) and coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) on the ridgeline and creeping smartweed (Persicaria chinensis) smothering slopes. Photo 2. Small Grove of Polynesian Trees at the Base of the Southeastern Slope Note: Note the kukui (Aleurites moluccanus), and ulu (Artocarpus altilis) trees in the center surrounded by a Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and other mixed alien herbs. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates June 2023 ATTACHMENT 2B — SITE PHOTOS (continued) Excerpted from Biological Survey Report (HT Harvey, June 2023) Photo 3. View of Open Streamside Parkland on the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream, Viewed from the Northern Bank Note the canopy of coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), hala trees (Pandanus tectorius), and common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) with an open, herbaceous understory. Photo 4. Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland in the Southwestern Portion of the Hakalau Bridge BSA Note: Roadside dominated by Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and paca ferns (Diplazium esculentum). Ridgeline of mixed alien trees. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates June 2023 x of x wo y� 19HK-01 -22M STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION INDEX TO DRAWINGS DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET HONOLULU, HAWAII PLANS FOR HAWAII BELT ROAD HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. OOXX-00-00X DISTRICT OF NORTH HILO ISLAND OF HAWAII TO MILE POST ATTACHMENT 4 APPROVED: 0 DIR. OF TRANSPORTATION w 3LVO 3NOHd A9030VNVIN A9 031\191S30 ZZOZ 'AON 9989-££6 (808) H-ANH 'ONI 'SY Hd /0 73-6/-01. 3111101d TN1110I11 1001000 10013d 00-00-110000 [00100-101-00 010 0010001-00000-0000N10000 000'0 '317,11 00100/0 (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 o 9,9 0 ,6 IMAI ,9 x 0 ,, 0 N � i®® 0-,6 � 7-1 Nz 6 E „� N No o N w O - 22 Q RWNNc =4 � ` T, O g nn - LL 2 o � E °9N 7n9V 6uiieag U STREAM BRIO( Pro!. Na Xk is Noted -IEET No. SIJ OF h 2 V � DEf 3 0 ,V El 'oN 4Uag g c o, 1--1-1-j El °9N xag LL I I i Ii Li 1 1 1 an 11 oN 4U98 ri 0l 'oN 4uag I I I1; I1 'V 6 'oN 4999 LLI J_ ho 0 m h '9 oN 4999 1--1'1--1 1111 0 0 o 0 A L °oN 4998 N -H E 9 °9N4 egg I 1 1 1 �r -L Concrehl (Beyond, Concrete Col (Beyond) 5 °9N 4998 C 6 '9N 4999 d 11 111 h 0 E'oN 4999 N T I I E °oN 4U98 1 11 I v Av l °ov 4999 v l ON INQV 6Uueg :1 G Tr I` A ii O h rrrf a oI 1 I,,, (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 0 ti 7 2' 0" out to out of steel p0. z 0009 V -;i - � E/ 'aN 1199 4 I I O I I Z/ °1N 1199 0-1_ 1 J L , FP //o9 1199 7, 0/ 'oN 1199 2222 " 06/ 00/ 09 ::.09 Ob 1 r. OZ Mill Rodd � s °1N 1199 8 °1N luag L °oN 1199 7, Jew JaJeM 0 N999 90!U9 ,1A1 4199 '1N 1199 7 o-LI=0 91— fi, °1N 1199 of NEW JB/BM 0,9 l .. OE .BTS Ob 09 99a �Ty• 09/ 08/ DOE CD 2 FOUNDATION PLAN 0 0 Scale: As Noted 0, 1„ sz-i.-m ,nu 10,e sm°en, Nnd 1.0105, ° X0, U -Y1-00 MO Awoo-arae as nna;a°-,L otiobzV,NIODNo ooAz ,NdN ewN. 0 aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 ` ,a , v , , , , , , , , ,Lido { \ \\ \ _ @ „, }/(\N(l ct4 c S < : o § - : zm�<> • Elev.148.O 111 Q\\) \ 1 STREAM BRID Proi. Na Xa s Noted IEET No. S13 01 #= vS , . \ c m mg \kb \ ' 7 » w maf ,D,:�' Z\ _ ^ 4,_.\ E 2 /( \« eo o Zzw ma> -� - -� � o z z c c m - Hybrid Polymer Concrete (HPC) Overlay from Edge of Curb to Edge of Curb o oo 1 1 I \ .- \\\ 9 o ma �» 0 0. Ago ~ V \' t /» q) ` Q© :w mz& _ Q§ ?® h A > m mz>; :� - - - % ° \usi / 3® 2 /« 7 ;m ms>\\ «4 - • ( \> _V A ,m maf - , - - - \ 6n_\\ ■ _ / rw ma> > \$\ \ i zw mz&/§&55 e/\ \j\ 4%a �^ % \ Z !w mn& !w <J :_=J - - \\ \\ c / \/ \ \/ \ : 2§ ii{ 3 \ \'\'\'\'\'\'\'CP ,N i'\ aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 Downstream TYPICAL BENT ELEVATION Scale: As Noted (we ase 'ss—arm u rma 0. A333 a31a Lasas—asuViia .ss ss—si—mAass 1oAu100,3rae ars mm>nu—sLors--0ZVows,O aaAz 3rvvu swN.vaa aaamsaa 10,1 1730 ATTACHMENT 5 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 Phone: (808) 792-9400 Fax: (808) 792-9580 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0014325 Project Name: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation July 21, 2023 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened and endangered species, as well as designated critical habitat that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and that may be affected by project related actions. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please contact the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (PIFWO) at 808-792-9400 if you have any questions regarding your IPaC species list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may adversely affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological 07/21/2023 2 Evaluation, similar to a Biological Assessment, be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation are described at 50 CFR 402.12. Due to the significant number of listed species found on each island within PIFWO's regulatory jurisdiction, and the difficulty in accurately mapping ranges for species that we have limited information about, your species list may include more species than if you obtained the list directly from a Service biologist. We recommend you use the species links in IPaC to view the life history, habitat descriptions, and recommended avoidance and minimization measures to assist with your initial determination of whether the species or its habitat may occur within your project area. If appropriate habitat is present for a listed species, we recommend surveys be conducted to determine whether the species is also present. If no surveys are conducted, we err on the side of the species, by regulation, and assume the habitat is occupied. Updated avoidance and minimization measures for plants and animals, best management practices for work in or near aquatic environments, and invasive species biosecurity protocols can be found on the PIFWO website at: https://www.fws.gov/office/pacific-islands-fish-and-wildlife/library. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that a listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http:// www. fws. gov/endang ered/es a-library/index. Non-federal entities can also use the IPaC generated species list to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We recommend HCP applicants coordinate with the Service early during the HCP development process. For additional information on HCPs, the Habitat Conservation Planning handbook can be found at https:// www. fws. gov/sites/default/files/documents/habitat-conservation-planning-handbook-entire.pdf. Please be aware that wind energy projects should follow the Service's wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds. Listed birds and the Hawaiian hoary bat may also be affected by wind energy development and we recommend development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for those species, as described above. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers can be found at: ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers ■ http://www.towerkill.com ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/comtow We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation actions that benefit threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act in accordance with section 7(a)(1). Please include the Consultation Tracking Number associated with your IPaC species list in any 07/21/2023 request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Please feel free to contact us at PIFWO_admin@fws.gov or 808-792-9400 if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally listed species and federally designated critical habitat. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List 07/21/2023 1 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 (808) 792-9400 07/21/2023 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: Project Name: Project Type: Project Description: 2023-0014325 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge - Maintenance Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W. The proposed bridge work can be divided into 3 major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. The construction duration will be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@19.89939305,-155.12949768013715,14z Counties: Hawaii County, Hawaii 07/21/2023 3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 13 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries', as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereas semotus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/770 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws. gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6477.pdf STATUS Endangered 07/21/2023 4 BIRDS NAME STATUS Band-rumped Storm -petrel Oceanodroma castro Endangered Population: USA (HI) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1226 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck Anas wyvilliana No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7712 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Hawaiian Coot Fulica americana alai No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7233 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Hawaiian Goose Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1627 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6925.pdf Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6746 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2082 General project design guidelines: https://i pac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Newell's Townsend's Shearwater Pu f finus auricularis newelli No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2048 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6939.pdf Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Threatened 07/21/2023 5 REPTILES NAME STATUS Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened Population: Central North Pacific DPS No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6929.pdf FLOWERING PLANTS NAME Alani Melicope zahlbruckneri There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7338 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7060.pdf Nanu Gardenia remyi No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5835 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf STATUS Endangered Endangered FERNS AND ALLIES NAME STATUS Deparia kaalaana Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9612 Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4737 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 07/21/2023 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Private Entity Name: Malie McClellan Address: 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 City: Honolulu State: HI Zip: 96813 Email malie.mcclellan@wsp.com Phone: 8085611324 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration Name: Meesa Otani Email: meesa.otani@dot.gov Phone: 8085612316 In Reply Refer To: 2023-0014325-S7-001 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 Honolulu, Hawai`i 96850 Meesa Otani U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawai`i Federal -Aid Division 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rin 3-229 Honolulu, HI 96850 U.N. PIMA & R71.11I.IVE SERV ICE October 3, 2023 Subject: Informal Consultation Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Hakalau, Island of Hawai`i Dear Meesa Otani: Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2023, requesting our concurrence with your determination that the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project, at Hawai`i Belt Road, Route 19, Milepost 15.3 in Hakalau on the Island of Hawai`i, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species (there are no areas designated as critical habitat in the area): • The `ope`ape`a or endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinerus semotus) • The nene or threatened Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis) • The ae`o or endangered Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), 'alae ke`oke`o or endangered Hawaiian coot (Fulica americana alai), 'alae 'ula or endangered Hawaiian gallinule (Gallinula galeata sandvicensis), and koloa or endangered Hawaiian duck (Anas wyvilliana), collectively referred to as Hawaiian waterbirds • The `ua`u or endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), ake`ake or endangered Hawai`i DPS of the band-rumped storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro), and the `a`o or threatened Newell's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), collectively referred to as Hawaiian seabirds • The threatened green sea turtle or honu (Chelonia mydas) • Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) (endangered) • Nanu (Gardenia remyi) (endangered) • Deparia kaalaana (endangered) • Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis (endangered) PACIFIC REGION 1 IDAHO, OREGON, WASHINGTON, AMERICAN SAMOA, GUAM, HAWAI`I, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 'PARTIAL Meesa Otani 2 Proposed Action The purpose of the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project (project) includes the following: • Restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park by removing or remediating lead - contaminated soils in the area surrounding the bridge; • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge by rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and • Increase resilience of the bridge to extreme natural events. Hakalau Stream Bridge is a steel trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, over Hakalau Stream at a height of roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level at the top edges of the gulch. The bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge including Hakalau Beach Park which lies below and adjacent to the bridge. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017 because the area surrounding the bridge is in need of remediation. A series of soil samples taken over multiple years determined that the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge exceeds State of Hawai`i acceptable limits. Lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to reopen to the public. Approximately 2.5 acres are proposed for remediation. According to the Remedial Action Alternative Analysis (RAA) prepared for this project (May 2023), HDOT proposes to remove all soils exceeding 200 mg/kg for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation including large trees in this area would be replaced with new vegetation. Where high levels of lead contamination exist, remediation could involve removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a permitted mainland facility. Where lead levels are lower, the contaminated soil may be removed and disposed of at a permitted local facility. Due to the deterioration of the bridge's steel trestles and scour conditions undermining the foundations of the bridge, rehabilitation of the bridge's substructure requires replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents. In -water work would be required as a part of this Project, including drilling of shafts in the stream bed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. The construction duration would be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. The nighttime lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes, but the lights would be for road sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination) and should not be visible from the beach. The following best management practices for work in aquatic environments will be incorporated into the project design to minimize the degradation of water quality and minimize the impacts to Meesa Otani 3 fish and wildlife resources including those from the USFWS "Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments" (April 2022): • Construction staff will be informed of the potential presence of threatened and endangered species, including being provided materials to assist in species identification and appropriate actions if a species enters the work area. • Good housekeeping practices and erosion -control device(s) will be employed at the job site to prevent debris and soil from leaving the site. • Dredging and filling in the marine or aquatic environment will be designed to avoid or minimize the loss of special aquatic site habitat (beaches, coral reefs, wetlands, etc.) and the function of such habitat shall be replaced. • Authorized dredging and filling -related activities that may result in the temporary or permanent loss of aquatic habitats will be designed to avoid indirect, negative impacts to aquatic habitats beyond the planned Project Area. • Turbidity and siltation from project -related work will be minimized and contained within the Project Area by silt containment devices and curtailing work during flooding or adverse tidal and weather conditions. These BMPS will be maintained for the life of the construction period until turbidity and siltation within the Project Area is stabilized. • No project -related materials (fill, revetment rock, pipe, etc.) will be stockpiled in the water (intertidal zones, reef flats, stream channels, wetlands, etc.) or on beach habitats. • All project construction -related debris and sediment containment devices will be removed and disposed of at an approved site. • All debris removed from the marine/aquatic environment will be disposed of at an approved upland or ocean dumping site. • A litter -control plan will be developed and implemented to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native species. • All project construction -related materials and equipment (i.e., dredges, vessels, backhoes, silt curtains, etc.) to be placed in an aquatic environment will be inspected for pollutants including, but not limited to; marine -fouling organisms, grease, oil, etc., and cleaned to remove pollutants prior to use. Project -related activities will not result in any debris disposal, non-native species introductions, or attraction of non-native pests to the affected or adjacent aquatic or terrestrial habitats. • Invasive species controls will be maintained to ensure that all materials transported from off- site are free of such species (see enclosure -Invasive Species Biosecurity Protocols). • Project construction -related materials (e.g., fill) will not be stockpiled in, or in close proximity to aquatic habitats and will be protected from erosion (e.g., with filter fabric, etc.) to prevent materials from being carried into waters by wind, rain, or high surf. • Fueling of project -related vehicles and equipment will take place away from the aquatic environment. A contingency plan to control petroleum products accidentally spilled during the project will be developed. The plan will be retained on site with the person responsible for compliance with the plan. Absorbent pads and containment booms will be stored on-site to facilitate the clean-up of accidental petroleum releases. • All deliberately exposed soil or under -layer materials used in the project near water will be protected from erosion and stabilized as soon as possible with geotextile, filter fabric or native or non-invasive vegetation matting, hydro -seeding, etc. • No contamination (trash or debris disposal, non-native species introductions, attraction of nonnative pests, etc.) of adjacent habitats (reef flats, channels, open -ocean, stream channels, Meesa Otani 4 wetlands, beaches, forests, etc.) shall result from project -related activities. This will be accomplished by implementing a litter -control plan and developing a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan (https://www.fws.gov/policy/A1750fwl.html) to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native species. • Any under -layer fills used in the project shall be protected from erosion with stones (or core- loc units) as soon after placement as practicable. • Any soil exposed near water as part of the project shall be protected from erosion after exposure and stabilized as soon as practicable with native or non-invasive vegetation. Biological Survey Report H.T. Harvey & Associates (HTH) prepared a draft Biological Survey Report (June 2023). In the Biological Survey Report, HTH presented the findings of reconnaissance -level botanical and wildlife (birds and mammals) surveys to document species and biological issues of concern, including the presence of any species that are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, candidate species for listing, or sensitive habitats. The report also identified the potential impacts of implementing the proposed project and conservation measures that may be considered for inclusion into the planning and design phase, if any listed species, candidate species, or sensitive habitats are found in the biological study area (BSA). The results of the survey are outlined under specific species below. Effects to Federally Listed Species Hawaiian Hoary Bat Although surveys did not occur for the Hawaiian hoary bat during the survey, there are numerous records for this species on Hawai`i Island. Hawaiian hoary bats may hunt for flying insect prey along roadways, gulches, and open areas and occasionally roost in large, dense -foliage trees (typically greater than 15 -foot -tall) such as those in Hakalau Gulch within the BSA. Given that numerous trees identified in the Project Area are potential suitable day roosting habitat and the abundance of Hawaiian hoary bats reported for Hawai`i Island, we expect that the Hawaiian hoary bat may be present and exposed to project -related activities. The remediation action of this Project requires the removal of several acres of soil and vegetation in Hakalau Gulch that may include large trees. Elimination of these trees will likely reduce the number of trees available for bats to roost. However, the project is unlikely to result in adverse effects to the bats because tall trees and roosting habitat are abundant and the species is not known to be habitat limited. Additionally, the following avoidance and minimization measure will be implemented to protect the Hawaiian hoary bat: • Avoid disturbing, removing, or trimming woody plants greater than 15 -ft tall during the bat birthing and pup rearing season, from June 1 to September 15. • Avoid use of barbed wire. If bats are present during construction, we expect human presence and disturbance will cause them to leave the site. We expect that these disturbances be short term and intermittent and would not result in measurable disruptions of their normal behaviors, nor would there be reductions in the reproductive success or fitness of the bats. Therefore, effects of the project on feeding, transiting, and roosting bats are expected to be insignificant. Meesa Otani 5 Because woody plants greater than 15 ft tall would not be removed, pups that are unable to fly are extremely unlikely to be injured or killed. Barbed wire will not be used and it is extremely unlikely that Hawaiian hoary bats are at risk from entanglement with barbed wire. Therefore, effects to the Hawaiian hoary bat from vegetation removal and barbed wire use are discountable. Hawaiian Seabirds No specific night-time seabird surveys were conducted in the Project Area, but Hawaiian seabirds may traverse the Project Area at night during the breeding, nesting, and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Outdoor lighting attracts seabirds and could result in seabird disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality. Night work is not anticipated during construction, but nighttime lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes to provide sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination). In the unlikely event that night work is needed, the following measures would be incorporated into the project to avoid or minimize potential impacts to Hawaiian seabirds: • Fully shield all outdoor lights so bulbs are only visible from below bulb height and only used when necessary. • Install automatic motion sensor switches and timers on all outdoor lights or turn off lights when no activity is occurring in the lighted area. • Avoid nighttime construction during the seabird -fledging period (September 15 to December 15). The project will implement Service -recommended avoidance and minimization measures to avoid adverse effects to Hawaiian seabirds. Hawaiian seabirds traversing the area at night are unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian seabirds are insignificant. Hawaiian waterbirds Even though endangered Hawaiian waterbirds (Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian duck, and also the Hawaiian common gallinule) were not seen during this survey, these taxa are known to occur on Hawai`i Island. The Project Area has suitable waterbird habitats, such as open water bodies (e.g. Hakalau Stream, ditch). Therefore, it is not out of the realm of possibility to encounter endangered Hawaiian waterbirds in the Project Area. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to Hawaiian Waterbirds: • In areas where waterbirds are known to be present, post and enforce reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. • Because water resources are located within or adjacent to the project site and in -water work will be conducted, incorporate the following applicable aquatic BMPs, based on USFWS's "Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments" (April 2022) into the project design. These BMPs are described below under "Additional Best Management Practices." • A biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology will conduct Hawaiian waterbird nest surveys, where appropriate habitat occurs within the vicinity of the proposed project site, prior to project initiation. Surveys will be performed again within 3 days of project initiation and after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). Meesa Otani 6 • If a nest or active brood is found, contact the USFWS within 48 hours for further guidance, establish and maintain a 100 -foot buffer around all active nests and/or broods until the chicks/ducklings have fledged, avoid potentially disruptive activities or habitat alteration within this buffer, have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology present on the project site during all construction or earth moving activities until the chicks/ducklings fledge to ensure that Hawaiian waterbirds and nests are not adversely impacted. Based on the proposed project design and implementation of Service -recommended avoidance and minimization measures, Hawaiian waterbird nests, chicks, and fledglings would not be injured or killed, and adults would not be kept from the nests. Hawaiian waterbirds are unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian waterbirds are insignificant. Hawaiian goose (Nene) Although nene were not seen during the survey; they are known to occur on Hawai`i Island. There is suitable habitat in the Project Area, such as open grassy areas in the southeastern portion of the Project Area overlapping the County Park. Therefore, it is possible that nene may visit the Project Area. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to nene: • Do not approach, feed, or disturb nene. • If nene are observed loafing or foraging within the Project Area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with nene nesting behavior survey for nests in and around the Project Area prior to the resumption of any work. Repeat surveys after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 feet of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150 -foot radius after work begins. • In areas where nene are known to be present, post and implement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. Service -recommended avoidance and minimization measures for the nene will be implemented. Because project personel will not interact with nene and a biologist will be on site if nene occur during the breeding season, project personnel are unlikely to step on or crush nests. Additionally, because reduced speed limit signs will be used, nene and their nests are unlikely to be run over and killed by vehicles. Nene present and exposed to any project -related work may temporarily leave the area or be flushed from their nest, but because the project will bring a biologist on site if nene are present during the breeding season to create buffer zones around nests, nene and their nests are unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to the nene are discountable. Green Sea Turtle The Hawaiian green sea turtle (or honu) Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is listed as threatened. Even though HTH observed no turtles in the BSA during their two day reconnaissance survey, it is possible that honu sometimes visit the eastern most boundary of Meesa Otani 7 the Project Area that overlaps the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of Hakalau Bay and the County Beach Park. Map guides published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (NOAA PIFSC) do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for honu. Additionally, no night work is anticipated during construction, and the illuminated signs and/or beacons required for nighttime lane closures should not be visible from the beach. The following measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid any impacts to honu: • No vehicle use on, or modification of, the beach/dune environment during the sea turtle nesting or hatching season (May through December), or on beaches where sea turtles are known to bask. • Do not remove or destroy native dune vegetation. • Incorporate applicable Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments into the project design. • A biological monitor familiar with sea turtles will conduct a visual survey of the project site to ensure no basking sea turtles are present prior to start of work. o If a basking sea turtle is found within the Project Area, cease all mechanical or construction activities within 100 feet until the animal voluntarily leaves the area. o Cease all activities between the basking turtle and the ocean. • Remove any project -related debris, trash, or equipment from the beach or dune if not actively being used. • Do not stockpile project -related materials in the intertidal zone, reef flats, or stream channels. • As mentioned above, no night work is anticipated; however, should it be required, additional coordination will be conducted with resource agencies to agree upon appropriate conservation measures, including the following: • Avoid nighttime work during the nesting and hatching season, which extends from May through December. o Minimize the use of lighting and shield all project -related lights so the light is not visible from any beach. • If lights can't be fully shielded or if headlights must be used, fully enclose the light source with light filtering tape or filters. o Construction activities adjacent to the beach will be required to reduce ambient outdoor lighting such as: • reducing the height of exterior lighting to below 3 feet and pointed downward or away from the beach; and • minimize light intensity to the lowest level feasible and, when possible, include timers and motion sensors. Based on the proposed project design and implementation of Service -recommended avoidance and minimization measures, Hawaiian sea turtle nests, eggs, and hatchlings would not be injured or killed, and adults would not be kept from the nests. Hawaiian sea turtles are unlikely to be measurably disrupted from their normal behaviors. Therefore, effects to Hawaiian sea turtles are insignificant. Flora The IPaC lists four plant species that are either known or expected to be on or near the BSA: Meesa Otani 8 • M. zahlbruckneri is a long-lived perennial tree in the Rutaceae family. It is medium sized, about 30 to 36 feet tall. No individuals are known to occur in the Hakalau Project Area and the closest designated critical habitat for this species is about 20 miles to the south of the Project Area. • G. remyi or nanu is a tree species in the Rubiaceae family ranging from 10 to 43 feet in height. Historically, one plant was reported on the private lands of Hakalau Nui (about 15 miles inland of the Project Area) in 1977 and with a few individuals in the Laupahoehoe area. However, all these plants are believed to now be extirpated (USFWS 2022a). No nanu plants have been reported to occur in Hakalau Gulch, and none were seen during the two-day reconnaissance survey for the Project. • D. kaalaana is a small fern in the Athyriaceae family with decumbent (ground creeping) to erect rhizomes and fronds up to 12 inches long. The species is restricted to the rocky banks of perennial streams and wet forest. D. kaalaana historically occurred in the Kaumana and Papa`aloa areas on the Big Island, and also on Kaua`i and Maui. There are no known wild individuals of this species. • M strigosa var. mauiensis or palapalai is a terrestrial fern in the Dennstaedtiaceae family. This is a medium-sized fern with fronds less than 40 inches long. It is known to typically occur in mesic and wet forests from 1,400 to 6,000 feet on the islands of Hawai`i, Maui, and Oahu. In the last 5 tol0 years, the only population on Hawai`i Island was observed in 2004 in the Waiakea and Pi`ihonua areas. These plants or other rare native plant species were not observed in the surveys that occured in the Project Area. Given the history of vegetation disturbance in Hakalau Gulch over the last century since the sugar plantation times and the ongoing disturbance as a recreational area and beach park, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would result in adverse effects on any plants that are federally listed. The BSA encompasses a highly disturbed area, and all but three plant species found in the BSA — hala (Pandanus tectorius), moa (Psilotum nudum), and water primrose (Ludwigia peploides) — are non-native. Removal of any of these three plant species is not expected to have an adverse effect on species' populations locally or regionally as these native species are known to have a widespread distribution on Hawai`i Island and the State. The Project Area also consists of nearly vertical hill slopes that could not be surveyed by foot and were scanned using binoculars. There is a small possibility that an endangered plant species or other rare native plant species occur on the steep wet hillsides of the Project Area. However, because the Project does not propose to disturb the steep slopes, the Project is not likely to adversely affect these federally protected plant species. Based on the proposed project design and condition of the habitat where work would occur, it is extremely unlikley that there would be adverse effects to federally listed plants, and the effects are considered discountable. Conclusion We have reviewed our data and conducted an analysis of the potential consequences to ESA listed species from your project actions. By incorporating the conservation measures listed above, adverse effects to federally listed species are extremely unlikely to occur (discountable) or are not measurable (insignificant). Because impacts from the proposed project are discountable or insignificant, we concur with your determination that the proposed actions may Meesa Otani 9 affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian goose, Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian gallinule, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian petrel, Hawaii DPS of the band-rumped storm petrel, Newell's shearwater, green sea turtle and 4 federally listed plant species. There is no designated critical habitat in the Project Area. Please inform us the type of Army Corps permit you are obtaining in order to comply with Clean Water Act, Section 404, under the authorities of which the Service has additional oversight responsibilities. Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (2) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this letter; or (3) if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. We appreciate your efforts to conserve threatened and endangered species. If you have any questions, please contact, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Jay Nelson at jay_nelson@fws.gov. Sincerely, LINDSY ASMAN Digitally signed by LINDSY ASMAN Date: 2023.10.03 10:59:39 -10'00' Island Team Manager Maui Nui and Hawai`i Island cc: Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office Administrative Staff Enclosure: Invasive Species Biosecurity Protocols Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Endangered Species Act Section 7 National Marine Fisheries Service JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR HIGHWAY DESIGN BRANCH, ROOM 688A BRIDGE DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 611 CADASTRAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 600 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688A HIGHWAY DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 609 HYDRAULIC DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 636 TECHNICAL DESIGN SECTION, ROOM 688 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 July 18, 2023 Mr. Michael Tosatto Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands Regional Office National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NMFS/PIRO 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Dear Mr. Tosatto: Subject: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Section 7, Endangered Species Act Informal Consultation Request for Species List EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DIRECTOR Deputy Directors FORD N. FUCHIGAMI DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.1653 The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project, located along Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) near Hilo on the island of Hawaii. The FHWA is providing funding for these improvements. Therefore, the FHWA requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal requirements including Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (Section 7). On behalf of FHWA, HDOT would like to request a list of threatened and endangered species and critical habitats within the vicinity of the project to enable an appropriate determination for this project under Section 7 of the ESA. Letters to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall be transmitted under the HDOT letterhead. All determination letters regarding the findings will be transmitted under the FHWA letterhead. Project Overview Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" north, 155°07'47.00" west. This steel trestle bridge is 775 feet long with a deck width of roughly 38 feet. Please refer to the enclosed map of the project location and photos of the bridge. Mr. Michael Tosatto July 18, 2023 Page 2 HWY-DS 2.1653 The proposed bridge work can be divided into three major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, remediation is needed for the surrounding areas beneath the bridge. Remediation may involve removal or encapsulation of lead contaminated soils or implementation of controls to prevent access to lead contaminated areas. Soil removal activities could disturb up to 24 inches of vegetation and topsoil. A combination of these solutions may be incorporated as an over-all solution. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the substructure will be reconstructed, but will allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts with concrete caps, some of which will be within the streambed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Refer to the enclosed figures for an illustration of a typical tower and bent at Hakalau Stream Bridge and a sketch of the proposed design. The bridge will not be widened, but the bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety standards. The project area, including the construction staging area and foot access areas, is shown in blue on the Project Area figure. This area will extend beyond the roadway right-of-way area under the bridge and along an existing privately owned access road. Primary access to perform the work on the bridge substructure will be from the access roads along the stream bank. There should be only limited traffic impacts to bridge users, as bent replacement can occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. Work on the bridge deck will be limited to the bridge railings and will require single lane closures for worker safety. The construction duration will be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. Should night work be required, additional coordination will be conducted with resource agencies to agree upon appropriate conservation measures such as shielding outdoor lighting. Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. BMPs for in -water and land-based construction will be implemented in accordance with "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii", by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2008). In -water BMPs may Mr. Michael Tosatto July 18, 2023 Page 3 HWY-DS 2.1653 include deployment of full -depth silt curtains, sand bags with or without a plastic lining, or some other means to contain the work area. Because there is in -water work, HDOT is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and anticipates obtaining a Nationwide Permit from USACE with a blanket Water Quality Certification from the Department of Health. Species and Habitat Information Request We request that your office provide any pertinent information concerning threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat in the project area. We also request that your office share with us any specific or general concerns you may have regarding the project. Should you have any questions, please contact our Project Manager, Ms. Holly Yuen, at (808) 692-7548 or by email at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov. We look forward to working with you on this needed repair and maintenance project. Sincerely, HENRY KENNEDY Engineering Program Manager Highways Design Branch Enclosures From: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 3:06 PM To: Uyeda, Pamela K. Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation; Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) - Section 7, Endangered Species Act Informal Consultation Request for Species List Pam, Please see below. Let me know next steps. Thanks, holly From: Jamie Marchetti - NOAA Federal <jamie.marchetti@noaa.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 2:19 PM To: Hashimoto, Dawn M <dawn.m.hashimoto@hawaii.gov> Cc: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Chuck Wheeler - NOAA Federal <chuck.wheeler@noaa.gov>; Ron Dean - NOAA Federal <ron.dean@noaa.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation; Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) - Section 7, Endangered Species Act Informal Consultation Request for Species List Hello, Thank you for reaching out regarding your project. Based on the current location provided, the species that may be present and need to be considered as a part of the action are the Central North Pacific green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal. Additionally, both marine and terrestrial Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat is present at this location. If stressors such as turbidity, exposure to contaminants, elevated noise, or exposure to waste move beyond coastal waters (-10m depth contour), then pelagic species would also need to be considered. For a full list of ESA -listed species in Hawaii, please see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacific- islands/endangered-species-conservation/marine-protected-species-hawaiian-islands. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks, Jamie Marchetti On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:49 AM 'Hashimoto, Dawn M' via _NMFS PIR ESHESA <efhesaconsult@noaa.gov> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached letter with enclosures regarding the subject project. Thank you, Dawn Hashimoto State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Design Branch 2 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Federal -Aid Division September 26, 2023 Ms. Sarah Malloy Acting Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands Regional Office National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NMFS/PIRO 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176 Honolulu, HI 96818 Subject: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Hakalau, Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Federal -aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Dear Ms. Malloy: 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3-229 Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Phone: (808) 541-2700 FHWA-Hawaii.)ntake©dot.gov In Reply Refer To: HDA -HI The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), is planning the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project (the "Project") at Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, Milepost 15.3 in Hakalau, near Hilo on the Island of Hawaii. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the FHWA is requesting concurrence from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Island Regional Office (NMFS/PIRO) that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the threatened Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), and that there will be no destruction or adverse modification to Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat that is present at this location. Description of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project includes the following: • Restore public use to Hakalau Beach Park by removing or remediating lead -contaminated soils in the area surrounding the bridge; • Allow continued unrestricted operation of the bridge by rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and • Increase resilience of the bridge to extreme natural events. 2 Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is a steel trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road, Route 19, over Hakalau Stream at a height of roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level at the top edges of Hakalau Gulch. The bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge, including Hakalau Beach Park which lies below and adjacent to the bridge. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, Hakalau Beach Park has been closed to the public since 2017 because the area surrounding the bridge is in need of remediation. A series of soil samples taken over multiple years determined that the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge exceeds State of Hawaii acceptable limits. See enclosed Attachment 1 for a map of the Project Area and enclosed Attachments 2A and 2B for photos of the project site. A series of soil samples taken over multiple years determined that the degree of lead contamination in the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge exceeds State of Hawaii acceptable limits. Lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe to reopen to the public. Approximately 2.5 acres are proposed for remediation (areas shown in red and yellow in the enclosed Attachment 3, map of lead remediation areas). According to the Remedial Action Alternative Analysis (RAA) prepared for this project (May 2023), HDOT proposes to remove all soils exceeding 200 mg/kg for an estimated depth of up to 24 inches and replace it with clean fill. Any associated vegetation including large trees in this area would be replaced with new vegetation. Where high levels of lead contamination exist, remediation could involve removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a permitted mainland facility. Where lead levels are lower, the contaminated soil may be removed and disposed of at a permitted local facility. Due to the deterioration of the bridge's steel trestles and scour conditions undermining the foundations of the bridge, rehabilitation of the bridge's substructure requires replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents (See enclosed Attachment 4, Project Plans). In -water work would be required as a part of this Project, including drilling of shafts in the stream bed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. It is also anticipated that the Project would be authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authority of a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Avoidance and minimization measures required by the permit would be incorporated into project plans. The construction duration would be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. The night time lane closures may require illuminated signs and/or beacons for safety purposes, but the lights would be for road sign visibility and delineation only (i.e., minimal illumination) and should not be visible from the beach. Coordination with NMFS HDOT submitted a Request for Species List (HWY-DS 2.1653 dated July 18, 2023) to NMFS via email on July 20, 2023. HDOT received email correspondence from Jamie Marchetti of NMFS PIRO on July 20, 2023. A copy of this email is enclosed (Attachment 5). NMFS PIRO's 3 email stated that the species that may be present and need to be considered as a part of the proposed action at Hakalau Stream Bridge are the threatened Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi). Additionally, both marine and terrestrial Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat is present at this location. NMFS PIRO also stated that if stressors such as turbidity, exposure to contaminants, elevated noise, or exposure to waste move beyond coastal waters (approximately the 10 meter depth contour), then pelagic species would also need to be considered. NMFS PIRO also provided the website for a full list of ESA -listed marine species in Hawaii under NOAA jurisdiction. Potential Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization Measures for ESA -listed Marine Species FHWA has reviewed the full list of ESA -listed marine species under NOAA jurisdiction. Although no turtles or monk seals were observed during a two-day reconnaissance survey conducted for this project in March 2023, FHWA has determined that the Central North Pacific DPS of the green sea turtle, hawksbill turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal may occur in the Project Area. FHWA has also determined that given the nature of the work proposed on land and within Hakalau Stream, no other ESA -listed marine species is likely to be present or need to be considered for this project. Furthermore, no pelagic species need to be considered, as potential stressors such as turbidity, exposure to contaminants, elevated noise, or exposure to waste is not anticipated to move beyond coastal waters with the proper implementation of construction BMPs. The project does not include any activities in the sandy beach area of Hakalau Stream or Bay; no dune vegetation is proposed to be removed. Because the proposed action does not impact a coastal beach, the proposed Project is not anticipated to lead to the loss of any turtle or monk seal habitat. The proposed action involves in -water work around the foundations of the bridge in Hakalau Stream; while this in -water work area is located near the coastline, it is not in marine waters. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to the Central North Pacific green sea turtle, hawksbill turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal, the HDOT will implement the following measures during construction: • Contractors will be required to keep constant vigilance for the presence of ESA -listed marine species during all aspects of the permitted action. A responsible party, i.e., permittee/site manager/project supervisor, will designate a competent observer to search/monitor work sites and the areas adjacent to the authorized work area for ESA - listed marine species. • Prior to the start of work near the beach, a biological monitor familiar with sea turtles and Hawaiian monk seals will conduct a daily visual survey of the project area, including prior to resumption of work following any break of more than one-half hour. • All work will be postponed or halted when ESA -listed marine species are within 50 meters of the proposed work, and work will begin/resume only after the animals have voluntarily departed the area. If listed species are noticed in the area after work has 4 already begun, that work may continue only if, in the best judgement of the project supervisor, there is no way for the activity to adversely affect the animal(s). • Turbidity and sediment from project -related work will be minimized and contained within the project area through the appropriate use of effective sediment containment devices and the curtailment of work during adverse tidal and weather conditions. All silt fences, curtains, and other structures will be installed properly and maintained for the life of the construction period until the impact area is permanently stabilized, self-sustaining, and/or turbidity levels, elevated due to construction, return to ambient levels. • Vehicle use on, or modification of, the beach/dune environment during the sea turtle nesting or hatching season (May through December), or on beaches where sea turtles or monk seals are known to bask will be prohibited. • Native dune vegetation will not be removed or destroyed. • Any project -related debris, trash, or equipment from the beach or dune will be removed if not actively being used. • Project -related personnel will NOT attempt to disturb, touch, ride, feed, or otherwise intentionally interact with any protected species. • All objects lowered to the bottom in an aquatic setting will be lowered in a controlled manner. Additional applicable BMPs for work in aquatic environments will be incorporated into the project design, as discussed further below. Additional BMPs and Avoidance and Minimization Measures In addition, non -species-specific BMPs will be implemented, including the following: • BMPs for in -water and land-based construction will be implemented in accordance with "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii", by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2008). In -water BMPs may include deployment of full -depth silt curtains, sand bags with or without a plastic lining, or some other means to contain the work area. Because there is in -water work, HDOT is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and anticipates obtaining a Nationwide Permit (NWP) from USACE with a blanket Water Quality Certification from the State of Hawaii Department of Health. • Construction staff will be fully briefed on the potential presence of threatened and endangered species, including being provided materials to assist in species identification and appropriate actions if a species enters the work area. • Good housekeeping practices and erosion -control device(s) shall be employed at the job site to prevent debris and soil from leaving the site. o The project manager or heavy equipment operators will perform daily pre -work equipment inspections for leaks. All heavy equipment operations will be postponed or halted should a leak be detected and will not proceed until the leak is repaired and the equipment cleaned. Appropriate materials to contain and clean potential spills will be stored at the worksite and be readily available. 5 o Project -related materials and equipment placed in the water will be free of pollutants. o The contractor will prevent litter/trash from the construction site from entering the water. o Fueling of land-based vehicles and equipment will take place away from the water, preferably over an impervious surface. A contingency plan to control petroleum products accidentally spilled during the project will be developed. The plan will be retained on site with the person responsible for compliance with the plan. Absorbent pads and containment booms will be stored on-site to facilitate the clean-up of accidental petroleum releases. o Stockpiling, storage, and equipment staging will utilize appropriate BMPs to reduce the potential surface runoff from entering aquatic habitats. No stockpiling or storage will be placed in the intertidal zone, reef flats, stream channels, or river channels. Any heavy equipment placed in water will be temporary and use the appropriate BMPs. o A litter -control plan will be developed and implemented to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native species. o Invasive species controls will be maintained to ensure that all materials transported from off-site are free of such species. o All deliberately exposed soil will be protected from erosion and stabilized as soon as possible with geotextile, filter fabric or native or non-invasive vegetation matting, hydro -seeding, etc. Again, no night work is anticipated during construction. The illuminated signs and/or beacons required for night time lane closures should be minimal and not be visible from the beach. However, should night work be required, additional coordination will be conducted with resource agencies to agree upon appropriate conservation measures, including the following: • Avoid nighttime work during the turtle nesting and hatching season. • Minimize the use of lighting and shield all project -related lights so the light is not visible from any beach. o If lights cannot be fully shielded or if headlights must be used, fully enclose the light source with light filtering tape or filters. • Construction activities adjacent to the beach will be required to reduce ambient outdoor lighting such as: o reducing the height of exterior lighting to below 3 feet and pointed downward or away from the beach; and o minimize light intensity to the lowest level feasible and, when possible, include timers and motion sensors. Request for Concurrence With the implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures described above, the FHWA has determined that the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the threatened Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), and that there will be no destruction or adverse modification to Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat that is present at this location We request your concurrence with our may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination. We respectfully request your response within 60 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Meesa Otani, Environmental Engineer, at (808) 541-2316 or by email at meesa.otani@dot.gov. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Digitally signed by `��@S �L MEESA T. 0 Date: 2023.09.209.2 6 12:07:26 -10'00' for Richelle M. Takara, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures cc: Holly Yuen, HDOT, HWY-D 6 ReIffaiffi 1- 0 Ld —) 0 a_ MGM i Z.MMIIMFROM akalau cream Bride Rehabilitatio `ote: Imo•e o brl..e over a room a vea Maaalaga_ai 0 - ATTACHMENT 2A — SITE PHOTOS Excerpted from Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) Hakalau Stream Bridge crossing Hakalau Gulch (looking inland) Source: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) Hakalau Stream Bridge Aerial View (looking upstream) Source: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Archaeological Inventory Survey (ASM Affiliates, June 2023) ATTACHMENT 2B — SITE PHOTOS Excerpted from Biological Survey Report (HT Harvey, June 2023) Photo 1. Southeastern Slope of Hakalau Bridge BSA with Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland Note: Gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis) and coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) on the ridgeline and creeping smartweed (Persicaria chinensis) smothering slopes. Photo 2. Small Grove of Polynesian Trees at the Base of the Southeastern Slope Note: Note the kukui (Aleurites moluccanus), and ulu (Artocarpus altilis) trees in the center surrounded by a Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and other mixed alien herbs. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates June 2023 ATTACHMENT 2B — SITE PHOTOS (continued) Excerpted from Biological Survey Report (HT Harvey, June 2023) �I}�I}�I}IIIIIIIII I\III\III\III,h�,\il\�,� Photo 3. View of Open Streamside Parkland on the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream, Viewed from the Northern Bank Note the canopy of coconut palms (Cocos nucifera), hala trees (Pandanus tectorius), and common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) with an open, herbaceous understory. Photo 4. Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland in the Southwestern Portion of the Hakalau Bridge BSA Note: Roadside dominated by Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and paca ferns (Diplazium esculentum). Ridgeline of mixed alien trees. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates June 2023 x of x wo y� 19HK-01 -22M STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAYS DIVISION INDEX TO DRAWINGS DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET HONOLULU, HAWAII PLANS FOR HAWAII BELT ROAD HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. OOXX-00-00X DISTRICT OF NORTH HILO ISLAND OF HAWAII TO MILE POST ATTACHMENT 4 APPROVED: 0 DIR. OF TRANSPORTATION w 3LVO 3NOHd A9030VNVIN A9 031\191S30 ZZOZ 'AON 9989-££6 (808) H-ANH 'ONI 'SY Hd /0 73-6/-01. 3111101d TN1110I11 1001000 10013d 00-00-110000 [00100-101-00 010 0010001-00000-0000N10000 000'0 '317,11 00100/0 (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 o 9,9 0 ,6 IMAI ,9 x 0 ,, 0 N � i®® 0-,6 � 7-1 Nz 6 E „� N No o N w O - 22 Q RWNNc =4 � ` T, O g nn - LL 2 o � E °9N 7n9V 6uiieag U STREAM BRIO( Pro!. Na Xk is Noted -IEET No. SIJ OF h 2 V � DEf 3 0 ,V El 'oN 4Uag g c o, 1--1-1-j El °9N xag LL I I i Ii Li 1 1 1 an 11 oN 4U98 ri 0l 'oN 4uag I I I1; I1 'V 6 'oN 4999 LLI J_ ho 0 m h '9 oN 4999 1--1'1--1 1111 0 0 o 0 A L °oN 4998 N -H E 9 °9N4 egg I 1 1 1 �r -L Concrehl (Beyond, Concrete Col (Beyond) 5 °9N 4998 C 6 '9N 4999 d 11 111 h 0 E'oN 4999 N T I I E °oN 4U98 1 11 I v Av l °ov 4999 v l ON INQV 6Uueg :1 G Tr I` A ii O h rrrf a oI 1 I,,, (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 0 ti 7 2' 0" out to out of steel p0. z 0009 V -;i - � E/ 'aN 1199 4 I I O I I Z/ °1N 1199 0-1_ 1 J L , FP //o9 1199 7, 0/ 'oN 1199 2222 " 06/ 00/ 09 ::.09 Ob 1 r. OZ Mill Rodd � s °1N 1199 8 °1N luag L °oN 1199 7, Jew JaJeM 0 N999 90!U9 ,1A1 4199 '1N 1199 7 o-LI=0 91— fi, °1N 1199 of NEW JB/BM 0,9 l .. OE .BTS Ob 09 99a �Ty• 09/ 08/ DOE CD 2 FOUNDATION PLAN 0 0 Scale: As Noted 0, 1„ sz-i.-m ,nu 10,e sm°en, Nnd 1.0105, ° X0, U -Y1-00 MO Awoo-arae as nna;a°-,L otiobzV,NIODNo ooAz ,NdN ewN. 0 aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 ` ,a , v , , , , , , , , ,Lido { \ \\ \ _ @ „, }/(\N(l ct4 c S < : o § - : zm�<> • Elev.148.O 111 Q\\) \ 1 STREAM BRID Proi. Na Xa s Noted IEET No. S13 01 #= vS , . \ c m mg \kb \ ' 7 » w maf ,D,:�' Z\ _ ^ 4,_.\ E 2 /( \« eo o Zzw ma> -� - -� � o z z c c m - Hybrid Polymer Concrete (HPC) Overlay from Edge of Curb to Edge of Curb o oo 1 1 I \ .- \\\ 9 o ma �» 0 0. Ago ~ V \' t /» q) ` Q© :w mz& _ Q§ ?® h A > m mz>; :� - - - % ° \usi / 3® 2 /« 7 ;m ms>\\ «4 - • ( \> _V A ,m maf - , - - - \ 6n_\\ ■ _ / rw ma> > \$\ \ i zw mz&/§&55 e/\ \j\ 4%a �^ % \ Z !w mn& !w <J :_=J - - \\ \\ c / \/ \ \/ \ : 2§ ii{ 3 \ \'\'\'\'\'\'\'CP ,N i'\ aervmsaa 10,1 (.1.401717175 1730 Downstream TYPICAL BENT ELEVATION Scale: As Noted (we ase 'ss—arm u rma 0. A333 a31a Lasas—asuViia .ss ss—si—mAass 1oAu100,3rae ars mm>nu—sLors--0ZVows,O aaAz 3rvvu swN.vaa aaamsaa 10,1 1730 Attachment 5 - July 20, 2023, email from NMFS PIRO From: Jamie Marchetti - NOAA Federal <jamie.marchetti@noaa.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 2:19 PM To: Hashimoto, Dawn M <dawn.m.hashimoto@hawaii.gov> Cc: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Chuck Wheeler - NOAA Federal <chuck.wheeler@noaa.gov>; Ron Dean - NOAA Federal <ron.dean@noaa.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation; Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) - Section 7, Endangered Species Act Informal Consultation Request for Species List Hello, Thank you for reaching out regarding your project. Based on the current location provided, the species that may be present and need to be considered as a part of the action are the Central North Pacific green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and the Hawaiian monk seal. Additionally, both marine and terrestrial Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat is present at this location. If stressors such as turbidity, exposure to contaminants, elevated noise, or exposure to waste move beyond coastal waters (-10m depth contour), then pelagic species would also need to be considered. For a full list of ESA -listed species in Hawaii, please see: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacific- islands/endangered-species-conservation/marine-protected-species-hawaiian-islands. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks, Jamie Marchetti On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:49 AM 'Hashimoto, Dawn M' via _NMFS PIR ESHESA <efhesaconsult@noaa.gov> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached letter with enclosures regarding the subject project. 1 Thank you, Dawn Hashimoto State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Design Branch 2 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) From: Otani, Meesa (FHWA) Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:37 PM To: Richard Hall - NOAA Federal <richard.hall@noaa.gov> Cc: Yuen, Holly <Holly.Yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Takiue, Harry H <harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>; Shelton, Gregory (FHWA) <gregory.shelton@dot.gov>; Sean Hanser - NOAA Federal <sean.hanser@noaa.gov>; Gerry Davis <gerry.davis@noaa.gov>; Malia Chow - NOAA Federal <malia.chow@noaa.gov>; David Delaney - NOAA Federal <david.delaney@noaa.gov> Subject: RE: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Hi Richard, Sorry, I forgot to include the attachments. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks! Meesa From: Otani, Meesa (FHWA) Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:35 PM To: 'Richard Hall - NOAA Federal' <richard.hall@noaa.gov> Cc: Yuen, Holly <Holly.Yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Takiue, Harry H <harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>; Shelton, Gregory (FHWA) <gregory.shelton@dot.gov>; Sean Hanser - NOAA Federal <sean.hanser@noaa.gov>; Gerry Davis <gerry.davis@noaa.gov>; Malia Chow - NOAA Federal <malia.chow@noaa.gov>; David Delaney - NOAA Federal <david.delaney@noaa.gov> Subject: RE: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Hi Richard, Thank you for your email from June 30, 2023 regarding the Hakalau Stream Bridge project. PIRO offered specific conservation recommendations. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) accepts the conservation recommendations made by PIRO and proposes to implement the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize and reduce impacts to water quality under NMFS jurisdiction and avoid potential adverse effects to EFH during construction: • Work shall be conducted during the dry season (May through October) when possible. Work shall be suspended during periods of heavy rain or when storms are forecasted. • All debris and vegetative undergrowth shall be removed from the project site and disposed of at an appropriate upland location. • All materials used to divert stream flow during construction shall be removed from the project area when work is completed. 1 • All equipment shall be inspected prior to the beginning of work each day to ensure the equipment is in good working condition, and there are no contaminant leaks (e.g., oil, fuel). Work shall be stopped if leaks occur, and equipment shall not be used until all necessary repairs are made and equipment is cleaned. Equipment shall be stored in appropriate staging areas designed to be preventative in terms of containing unexpected spills when equipment is not in use or during fueling. In addition, the project's Construction BMPs shall be implemented in accordance with the documented approach, "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii", by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2008). In addition, the HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control will be followed. PIRO's email also expressed concerns regarding what steps the FHWA will take to remediate the presence of lead in the soil and whether FHWA has coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the project's lead removal plan. To develop the lead removal plan, HDOT prepared a Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA) report dated May 2023, in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office, which is the primary regulator for work of this nature in Hawaii. The report evaluated the data collected and the associated human health and/or environmental hazards and provided a detailed analysis of the remedial alternatives being considered for the project. The RAA report stated that the preferred alternative — the removal of all soil that exceeded 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill — was selected because it offered overall protection of human health and the environment in the short and long term. The RAA report was approved by the HDOH HEER Office on May 23, 2023 (Letter 201713 -TG). On July 6, 2023, Thomas Gilmore of the HDOH HEER Office confirmed in an email to HDOT that EPA allows HDOH to conduct reviews on their behalf, knowing that HDOH's remediation requirements are as stringent, if not more stringent than those of EPA. Copies of this letter and email from HDOH HEER are attached. Based on the implementation of the proposed BMPs and minimization measures, as well as the coordination conducted with HDOH for lead removal and remediation, the FHWA believes there will be no more than minimal adverse effects to EFH and managed species. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! From: Richard Hall - NOAA Federal <richard.hall@noaa.gov> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 9:17 AM To: FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro <FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro@dot.gov> Cc: Yuen, Holly <Holly.Yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Takiue, Harry H <harry.h.takiue@hawaii.gov>; Shelton, Gregory (FHWA) <gregory.shelton@dot.gov>; Sean Hanser - NOAA Federal <sean.hanser@noaa.gov>; Gerry Davis <gerry.davis@noaa.gov>; Malia Chow - NOAA Federal <malia.chow@noaa.gov>; David Delaney - NOAA Federal <david.delaney@noaa.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Rezantes, On May 31, 2023, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) received a request for essential fish habitat consultation (EFH) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the proposed Hakalau 2 Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project on the island of Hawaii, which will be conducted in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). After reviewing the consultation documents, we have determined that there may be adverse effects to EFH. We are providing conservation recommendations under the EFH provisions within Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act). Adherence to these conservation recommendations would help ensure that these unaddressed adverse effects are avoided and minimized. Project Description The proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge rehabilitation work consists of three major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil beneath the structure and extends into Hakalau Beach Park. Remediation may involve removal or encapsulation of lead contaminated soils or implementation of controls to prevent access to lead contaminated areas. Soil removal activities could disturb up to two feet of vegetation and topsoil. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts with concrete caps, some of which will be within the streambed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety standards. The equipment that will be required for actions to be undertaken will include a backhoe, excavator, crane, concrete pump truck, and drill rig. The construction is expected to take up to two years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. Essential Fish Habitat The marine water column from the surface to a depth of 3,280.8 feet (1,000 meters) from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ (200 nautical miles), and the seafloor from the shoreline out to a depth of 2,296.6 feet (700 meters) around each of the Hawaiian Islands, have been designated as EFH. As such, the water column and bottom of the Pacific Ocean around the island of Hawaii are designated as EFH, and support various life stages for the management unit species (MUS) identified under the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's Pelagic and Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plans. The MUS and life stages found in these waters include eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults of Bottomfish, Crustacean, and Pelagic MUS. Specific types of habitats considered as EFH include coral reef, patch reefs, hard substrates, artificial substrates, seagrass beds, soft substrates, lagoons, estuaries, surge zones, deep -slope terraces, and pelagic/open oceans. Baseline Environment In referencing the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science benthic habitat mapping surveys (Battista et al. 2007; see https://www.pacioos.hawaii.edu/voyager/), shows that the marine environment near the stream mouth is rock/boulder substrate with 90 —100 % turf algae covering. Stressors The potential environmental stressors of concern related to this project include sedimentation and turbidity, and introduction of chemical contaminants. The broad adverse effects to EFH due to the proposed activities are described below. Sedimentation and Turbidity 3 Increased sedimentation and turbidity can cause smothering of benthic species and block sunlight necessary for species that rely on photosynthesis. For corals, sedimentation has been shown to reduce species diversity, change growth patterns, and reduce growth and survival (Rogers 1990). Coral reef organisms are easily smothered by sediment (Golbuu et al. 2003), and minimal rates of sediment can affect multiple life stages of coral. For fish, sedimentation is less likely to cause significant impacts because of their mobility, but some effects are still possible. Fish may be displaced from their normal home range which could result in negative intra- and interspecies interactions and impact fitness, leading to lower reproductive success and a lower ability to find prey or avoid predators (Kjelland et al. 2015). Introduction of Nutrients and Chemical Contaminants In general, the impacts from contaminants in the marine environment is dependent on how long the chemical components persist and their tendency to bio -accumulate in the food web (van Dam et al. 2011). Some pollutants are environmentally persistent and can take years or even decades to biodegrade (Minton 2017). Increases in nutrients, pollutants and contaminants to the marine environment can reduce fitness and cause mortality of exposed organisms. Increase of land- based runoffs and discharges can subject benthic communities to adverse exposures and potential degradation of condition. Heavy metals, which is the contaminant of concern for this project (lead), are known to bioaccumulate and can undergo food chain magnification and cause trophic effects (Baby et al. 2010). When they are present in the substrate they can be spread in dissolved and particulate form and made bio -available by activities such as dredging, excavation, and stirring soft sediment (Goossens and Zwolsman 1996). When not properly maintained, equipment could release contaminants (oil, fuel, etc.) into the marine environment. FHWA-proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) The following measures have been incorporated into the overall design and construction methods for the proposed action to minimize and reduce impacts to water quality under NMFS jurisdiction: For all project related construction, BMPs shall be implemented in accordance to the documented approach, "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii", by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2008). In addition, the HDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Section 209 Temporary Water Pollution, Dust, and Erosion Control will be followed. In addition, in the documents submitted for the consultation, the FHWA provided a thorough list of BMPs which will be incorporated into the overall design and construction methods for the proposed action to minimize and reduce impacts to water quality under NMFS jurisdiction. Adherence to those BMPs during the proposed activities will be effective in addressing many of NMFS concerns about potential adverse effects. Conservation Recommendations PIRO offers the following conservation recommendations to the FHWA pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 so that potential adverse effects from the proposed project activities are avoided and minimized. Conservation Recommendation 1: Conduct work during the dry season when possible; stop work during storms or heavy rains. Conservation Recommendation 2: All debris and vegetative undergrowth should be removed from the project site and disposed of at an appropriate upland location. Conservation Recommendation 3: All materials used to divert stream flow during construction must be entirely removed from the project area when work is completed. 4 Conservation Recommendation 4: Inspect all equipment prior to beginning work each day to ensure the equipment is in good working condition, and there are no contaminant (e.g., oil, fuel) leaks. Work must be stopped until leaks are repaired and equipment is cleaned. Equipment should always be stored in appropriate staging areas designed to be preventative in terms of containing unexpected spills when equipment is not in use or during fueling. While the conservation recommendations above address most of NMFS' concerns with the project methods, we also have concerns about what steps the FHWA will take to remediate the presence of lead in the soil. as this was not specifically explained in the documents submitted. We would like to know if the FHWA has coordinated the methods for lead removal with the Environmental Protection Agency, and if you did, if you can share the particular steps that would be undertaken to accomplish that. If coordination with the EPA has not taken place, NMFS suggests that the FHWA should consider undertaking that step prior to beginning the project. Conclusion PIRO appreciates the coordination that the FHWA has provided on this consultation. We have provided EFH conservation recommendations that, when implemented, will ensure that many potential adverse effects to EFH are avoided and minimized. Please be advised that regulations (Section 305(b)(4)(B)) to implement the EFH provisions of the Magnuson - Stevens Act require that Federal activities agencies provide a written response to this letter within 30 days of its receipt. A preliminary response is acceptable if more time is needed. The final response must include a description of measures to be required to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse effects of the proposed activities. If the response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, an explanation of the reason for not implementing the recommendations must be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the activities. We are committed to providing continued cooperation and subject matter technical expertise if needed to the FHWA to help your office achieve the project goals and sufficiently comply with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act. Thank you for coordinating on this proposed project. Feel free to contact me 808-725-5018 or at richard.hall@noaa.gov with any questions or comments. Referencesa Baby, J., J. S. Raj, E. T. Biby, P. Sankarganesh, M. V. Jeevitha, S. U. Ajisha, S. S. Rajan. 2010. Toxic effect of heavy metals on aquatic environment. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 4(4):939-952. Battista, T., B. Costa, and S. Anderson. 2007. Shallow -water benthic habitats of the main eight Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 61, Biogeography Branch. Silver Spring, MD. Golbuu Y, S. Victor, E. Wolanski, and R. H. Richmond. 2003. Trapping of fine sediment in a semi -enclosed bay, Palau, Micronesia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 57(5):941-949. Goossens, H. and J. J. Zwolsman. 1996. An evaluation of the behaviour of pollutants during dredging activities. Terra et aqua, 62:20-28. Kjelland, M. E., C. M. Woodley, T. M. Swannack, and D. L. Smith. 2015. A review of the potential effects of suspended sediment on fishes: potential dredging -related physiological, behavioral, and transgenerational implications. Environ. Syst. Decis. 35:334-50. Minton, D. 2017. Non -fishing effects that may adversely affect essential fish habitat in the Pacific Islands Region. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final Report for contract AB -133F -15 -CQ -0014. 5 Rogers, C. S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 62: 185-202. van Dam J. W., Negri A. P., Uthicke S., and Mueller J. F. 2011. Chemical pollution on coral reefs. Ecological impacts of toxic chemicals. p. 187-211 On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:39 PM 'FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro' via _NMFS PIR ESHESA <efhesaconsult@noaa.gov> wrote: Aloha, Please see the attached: • BR -019-2(075) Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehab_EFH Consultation FHWA Letter.pdf • BR -019-2(075) Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehab_EFH Consultation FHWA Letter Attachments.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Mahalo, Kaha'a Rezantes Construction Program Manager Programs and Project DeliveryTeam Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division Office Richard Hall Fishery Policy Analyst, Pacific Islands Regional Office NOAA Fisheries 1 U.S. Department of Commerce Office: (808) 725-5018 www.fisheries.noaa.gov 6 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 195D JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 March 3, 2023 TO: DAWN CHANG, CHAIRPERSON DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ATTENTION: BRIAN NEILSON ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES FROM: HENRY KENNEDY )W17 /t4°"` ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER HIGHWAYS DESIGN BRANCH SUBJECT: HAWAII REVISED STATUTES (HRS) CHAPTER 195D COORDINATION HAWAII BELT ROAD, HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEDERAL -AID PROJECT NO. BR -019-2(075) EDWIN H. SNIFFEN DIRECTOR Deputy Directors DREANALEE K. KALILI TAMMY L. LEE ROBIN K. SHISHIDO JAMES KUNANE TOKIOKA IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-DS 2.0942 The Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways (HDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project, located along Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) near Hilo on the island of Hawaii. HDOT requests your office's input on the proposed project related to HRS Chapter 195D resources. Specifically, we are interested in: (a) threatened and endangered species that may be present in or pass through the project area; (b) the presence of identified critical habitat for any species in the area; and (c) any other input or concerns you have regarding the proposed project. FHWA is providing funding for these improvements. Because federal funding is involved, federal -level reviews and coordination such as those required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are also being conducted with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). DAWN CHANG, CHAIRPERSON March 3, 2023 Page 2 Overview of the Proposed Project HWY-DS 2.0942 Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" North, 155°07'47.00" West. The bridge is 775 feet long with a deck width of roughly 38 feet. Refer to the enclosed map of the project location and photos of the bridge. The proposed bridge work can be divided into three (3) major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. Hakalau Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Although the lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, remediation is needed for the surrounding areas beneath the bridge. Remediation may involve removal or encapsulation of lead contaminated soils or implementation of controls to prevent access to lead contaminated areas. Soil removal activities could disturb up to 24 inches of vegetation and topsoil. A combination of these solutions may be incorporated as an over-all solution. The bridge's substructure rehabilitation will be performed by replacing bridge steel bents with concrete bents. By replacing the steel bents with concrete bents, the substructure will be reconstructed, but will allow the superstructure to remain largely intact with minimal repairs. The concrete bents will be installed using six-foot diameter drilled shafts with concrete caps, some of which will be within the streambed. A temporary trestle bridge, which may also require in -water foundations, may be used to support the drill rig. Refer to the figures for an illustration of a typical tower and bent at Hakalau Stream Bridge as well as a sketch of the proposed design. The bridge will not be widened, but the bridge railings will be upgraded to meet current safety standards. The project area, including the construction staging area and foot access areas, is shown in blue on the Project Area figure. This area will extend beyond the roadway right-of-way area under the bridge and along an existing privately owned access road. Primary access to perform the work on the bridge substructure will be from the access roads along the stream bank. There should be only limited traffic impacts to bridge users, as bent replacement can occur incrementally to allow for continued use of the bridge. Work on the bridge deck will be limited to the bridge railings and will require single lane closures for worker safety. The construction duration will be no longer than two (2) years. No night work is anticipated during construction; however, there may be 24-hour lane closures on the bridge to reduce vibrations and/or loads while the foundations are curing. Should night work be required, additional coordination will be conducted with resource agencies to agree upon appropriate conservation measures such as shielding outdoor lighting. DAWN CHANG, CHAIRPERSON March 3, 2023 Page 3 HWY-DS 2.0942 Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize the potential for impacts to water quality. BMPs for in -water and land-based construction will be implemented in accordance with, "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation BMPs for Use in the State of Hawaii", by the Federal Highway Administration and Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction BMPs Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2008). In -water BMPs may include deployment of full -depth silt curtains, sandbags with or without a plastic lining, or some other means to contain the work area. Because there is in -water work, HDOT is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and anticipates obtaining a Nationwide Permit from USACE with a blanket Water Quality Certification from the Department of Health. Existing Environment in Project Area The area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge is largely undeveloped. As explained above, the soil around the bridge is contaminated with lead. Hakalau Beach Park is makai of the bridge on the Hilo (southern) side of the stream. The bridge is approximately 300 feet from the opening of Hakalau Stream into the ocean. According to NOAA's designated critical habitat for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (HMS), the bridge is approximately 600 feet from its critical habitat boundary. There appears to be no other critical habitat for federally -listed species on or adjacent to the project area. Although the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory indicates an area mapped as a "freshwater pond" roughly 200 feet downstream of the bridge (see attached wetlands map), given our understanding of site conditions, we assume that the stream in this reach is tidal. Please see enclosed figures for the location of the bridge in relation to the freshwater pond and HMS habitat. Your Requested Input To assist us in our assessment, we request that your office provide pertinent information or concerns regarding the likely impact of this project on species protected by HRS Chapter 195D. We also request that your office share with us any specific or general concerns you may have regarding the project. We would appreciate all responses in writing within thirty (30) days from date of receipt to Ms. Holly Yuen, Project Manager, at holly.yuen@hawaii.gov or by U.S. Postal Service to Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways, 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 688, Kapolei, Hawaii 96707. Please include the reference letter number noted above on your response. Enclosures Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Location Map W Photo of Hakalau Bridge and surrounding area from 2021 Inspection Report View of Bridge from near ocean shore Close up of bents showing steel towers and concrete pedestals View underneath the bridge (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 o 9,9 0 ,6 IMAI ,9 x 0 ,, 0 N � i®® 0-,6 � 7-1 Nz 6 E „� N No o N w O - 22 Q RWNNc =4 � ` T, O g nn - LL 2 o � E °9N 7n9V 6uiieag U STREAM BRIO( Pro!. Na Xk is Noted -IEET No. SIJ OF h 2 V � DEf 3 0 ,V El 'oN 4Uag g c o, 1--1-1-j El °9N xag LL I I i Ii Li 1 1 1 an 11 oN 4U98 ri 0l 'oN 4uag I I I1; I1 'V 6 'oN 4999 LLI J_ ho 0 m h '9 oN 4999 1--1'1--1 1111 0 0 o 0 A L °oN 4998 N -H E 9 °9N4 egg I 1 1 1 �r -L Concrehl (Beyond, Concrete Col (Beyond) 5 °9N 4998 C 6 '9N 4999 d 11 111 h 0 E'oN 4999 N T I I E °oN 4U98 1 11 I v Av l °ov 4999 v l ON INQV 6Uueg :1 G Tr I` A ii O h rrrf a oI 1 I,,, (. o33 -arm ,N11110, smaan3 N,e L0105,, \ U -a1-00 MO 10vu100,3rae as mm;au-,L otiobzvwoo,o 3rvdti ati11.0 aervmsaa 10,1 1730 Downstream TYPICAL BENT ELEVATION Scale: As Noted (we ase 'ss—arm u rma 0. A333 a31a Lasas—asuViia .ss ss—si—mAass 1oAu100,3rae ars mm>nu—sLors--0ZVows,O aaAz 3rvvu swN.vaa aaamsaa 10,1 1730 aka au tream Bride Rehab! itatio JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR 1 KE KIAAINA SYLVIA LUKE LIEUTENANT WVERNOR 1 KA HOPE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET, ROOM 330 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 Date: 03/31/23 MEMORANDUM TO: Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator FROM: SUBJECT: DAR #AR6351 Troy Sakihara , Aquatic Biologist DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FIRST DEPUTY M. KALEO MANUEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR- WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS Environmental Review, HRS Chapter 195D Coordination, Hawaii Belt Road, Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) Request Submitted by: Henry Kennedy, Engineering Program Manager Hakalau Stream Bridge, Route 19, Hawaii Belt Road, Hawaii Island Location of Project: Brief Description of Project: The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), Highways, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing a Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project on Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) in the Hilo district on Hawaii Island. The proposed project activities include removing, remediating or encapsulating lead contaminated soils around the bridge, rehabilitating the bridge's deteriorating substructure, and upgrading bridge railings. In -water work is proposed near the mouth of Hakalau Stream and approximately 600 feet from a critical habitat boundary for the Hawaiian Monk Seal as designated by NOAA. Construction of new concrete bents will require some six-foot diameter drill shafts with concrete caps to be within the streambed. Comments: ❑ No Comments ❑x 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: Apr 3, 2023 Brian J. Neilson DAR Administrator DAR# AR6351 Brief Description of Project A temporary trestle bridge may require in -water foundations to support the drill rig. The project is anticipated to take no longer than two years to complete. No night work is expected. However, should night work be required, additional conservation measures and coordination with resource agencies will be conducted (e.g., shielding outdoor lighting). Best Management Practices (BMP) are to be implemented throughout construction to minimize potenital impacts to water quality. In -water and land-based construction BMPs will be in accordance with "An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii" by the FHWA and HDOT Practitioners Guide (2016) or the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the HDOT (2008). In -water BMPs may include deployment of full -depth silt curtains, sandbags with or without plastic lining, or other methods to contain the work area. In addition, in -water work will be in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and HDOT expects to obtain a Nationwide Permit from USACE and a blanket Water Quality Certification from the Department of Health. The US Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory indicates an existing freshwater pond approximately 200 feet downstream of the Hakalau Bridge. However, it is assumed to be tidal and estuarine based on site conditions. DAR# AR6351 Comments Comments in regards to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 195D resources: Considering the proximity of critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal to the project area, as designated by NOAA Fisheries, and the continually changing and fluctuating physical profile of Hakalau stream mouth, it is important to recognize the possibility of Hawaiian monk seals entering the stream mouth and lower reach of Hakalau stream, and within the project area under the bridge beyond the designated critical habitat boundaries. As it has been stated, the "freshwater pond" indicated by the US Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory is regularly influenced by tides with frequent open connection to the ocean, which is considered estuarine habitat by DAR. Observations of Hawaiian monk seals occupying this area have been reported in the past. Further, endangered hawksbill turtles and green sea turtles may also enter the stream mouth and the indicated "freshwater pond" during high tides or when there is open connection to the ocean. Frequent and regular watch, particularly during planned in -water work or activities along the stream bank, should therefore be maintained for the possible presence of any of these species to avoid direct interaction or impacts to such, especially as they can be inconspicuous. General comments: Hakalau stream experiences continuous physical changes in habitat due to natural fluctuations in environmental conditions and weather, and may occasionally be closed off to the ocean at the mouth. However, regular connectivity of stream and marine habitat is critical to the survival of native species and the health of the stream, estuarine and marine ecosystems. In particular, all native freshwater stream animals in Hawaii depend on an oceanic larval stage and recruit back into the streams as developed larvae and fry. The successful transition through these life stages depends on stream connectivity to the ocean. While not anticipated by what is proposed, the DAR would still like to ensure that construction activities do not alter or inhibit the natural hydrology of Hakalau Stream, which is known to harbor all of Hawaii's native freshwater stream animals. Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Comment Letters Subject: HRS 343 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Draft EA Sent: 4/23/2024, 11:37:10 AM From: Liu, Rouen<rouen.liu@hawaiianelectric.com> To: Honolulu Planning Cc: Sun, Robert; Kuwaye, Kristen; Nagata, Sarah; Demichelis, Dina L. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged HDOT Project Manager: Mr. Robert Sun, c/o e-mail: HonoluluPLanning@wsp.com 601 Kamokila Boulevard, #609, Kapolei, HI 96707 Mr. Sun, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project. Hawaiian Electric Light Company has no objection to the project. Should Hawaiian Electric Light have existing easements and facilities on impacted property or within the State's right-of-way, we will need continued access for maintenance of our facilities. We appreciate your efforts to keep us apprised of the subject project in the planning process. As the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project comes to fruition, please continue to keep us informed. Thank you, Rouen Liu Permits Engineer Hawaiian Electric Company From: Honolulu Planning <HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:21 AM To: Honolulu Planning <HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com> Cc: Sun, Robert <robert.sun_.@hawaii.gov> Subject: HRS 343 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Draft EA [This email is coming from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when opening attachments or links in suspicious email.] Aloha, HDOT wishes to inform you that the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation has been published in the April 23, 2024 Environmental Notice. The document will be available at ERP's website at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/Doc Library/2024-04-23-HA-DEA-Hakalau-Stream-Bridge-Rehabilitation.pdf. To access and review the Draft EA, please visit the ERP's website. The statutory 30 -day comment period will end on May 22, 2024. If you would like to submit comments, please send them to HDOT using the contact information below. We thank you very much for your continued participation. HDOT Project Manager: Mr. Robert Sun, c/o e-mail: HonoluluPLanning@wsp.com 601 Kamokila Boulevard, #609, Kapolei, HI 96707 NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR 1 KE KIA'AINA SYLVIA LUKE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 1 KA HOPE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI `AINA LAND DIVISION P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 April 26, 2024 MEMORANDUM DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (Kendall.l.tucker@hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGRAhawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife (rubyrosa.t.terrago@hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRMCa�hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba@hawaii.gov) X Land Division — Hawaii District (gordon.c.heitCa�hawaii.gov) X Aha Moku Advisory Committee (leimana.k.damate(a�hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator RA'11.6 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation LOCATION: Hakalau, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; Right -of -Way; TMKs: (3) 2-9-002: 023, 025, 039, 080, 999, and (3) 3-1-001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999 APPLICANT: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above -referenced subject matter. The DEA was published on April 23, 2024, by the State Environmental Review Program (formerly the Office of Environmental Quality Control) at the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in the periodic bulletin, The Environmental Notice, available at the following link: https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/The Environmental Notice/2024-04-23-TEN.pdf Please submit any comments by May 21, 2024. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Darlene Nakamura directly via email at darlene.k.nakamura@hawaii.gov. Thank you. BRIEF COMMENTS: As indicated in the Draft EA, a Stream Channel Alteration Permit from the Commission on Water Resource Management will be required for the subject project. Attachments ( ) ( ) ( ) (xx) Signed: Print Name: Division: Date: We have no objections. We have no comments. We have no additional comments. Comments are included/attached. Dean Uyeni Commission on Water Resource Management 05/14/2024 JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR 1 KE KIA'AINA SYLVIA LUKE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 1 KA HOPE KIA'AINA FROM. TO' FROM: STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI `AINA LAND DIVISION P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 April 26, 2024 MEMORANDUM DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (Kendall.l.tucker@hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGR@hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife (rubyrosa.t.terrago@hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRMCa�hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kuba@hawaii.gov) X Land Division — Hawaii District (gordon.c.heitCa�hawaii.gov) XAha Moku Advisory Committee (leimana.k.damate(a�hawaii.gov) Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator RA'11.6 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation LOCATION: Hakalau, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; Right -of -Way; TMKs: (3) 2-9-002: 023, 025, 039, 080, 999, and (3) 3-1-001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999 APPLICANT: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above -referenced subject matter. The DEA was published on April 23, 2024, by the State Environmental Review Program (formerly the Office of Environmental Quality Control) at the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in the periodic bulletin, The Environmental Notice, available at the following link: https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/The Environmental Notice/2024-04-23-TEN.pdf Please submit any comments by May 21, 2024. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Darlene Nakamura directly via email at darlene.k.nakamura@hawaii.gov. Thank you. BRIEF COMMENTS: Attachments ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. ( y/) We have no additional comments. ( ) Comments are included/attached. Signed: t? -sr Print Name: Division: Date: Carty S. Chang, Chief Engineer Engineering Division May 20, 2024 Mitchell D. Roth t fat or April 26, 2024 County of Hawai ' i POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi'olani Street • Hilo, Ha\\all 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2389 Robert Sun, Project Manager State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Boulevard #609 Kapolei, HI 96707 HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com Benjamin T. Moszkowicz Police Chief Reed K. Mahuna Depulr Police Chief Dear Mr. Sun: SUBJECT: HRS 343 HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITATION DRAFT EA Staff has reviewed your request for comments regarding your proposed project. The Hawaii Police Department has no concerns as it relates to traffic and public safety on this project. Should you need further assistance, you may contact Captain Reynold Kahalewai, Honokaa district commander at (808)775-7533 or by email at reynoId.kahalewai@hawaiicounty.gov. Sincerely, KENNETH A.K. QUIOCHO ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF AREA I OPERATIONS 22HQ1471 Count is an Fqual Opportunrt) Provider and 1 mplo)er" JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR I KE KIA'AINA SYLVIA LUKE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR [ KA HOPE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI 'AINA LAND DIVISION P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 April 26, 2024 MEMORANDUM 3-//11/2,1 DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources(Kendall.l.tucker(cr�hawaii.gov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGRAhawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife(rubvrosa.t.terragoCa�hawaii.gov) _Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRM(c .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) XAha Moku Advisory Committee (leimana.k.damate a(�hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator R"se�G 7uy� SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation LOCATION: Hakalau, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; Right -of -Way; TMKs: (3) 2-9-002: 023, 025, 039, 080, 999, and (3) 3-1-001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999 APPLICANT: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above -referenced subject matter. The DEA was published on April 23, 2024, by the State Environmental Review Program (formerly the Office of Environmental Quality Control) at the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in the periodic bulletin, The Environmental Notice, available at the following link: https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/The Environmental Notice/2024-04-23-TEN.pdf Please submit any comments by May 21, 2024. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Darlene Nakamura directly via email at darlene.k.nakamura(cr�hawaii.gov. Thank you. BRIEF COMMENTS: Attachments ( )/We have no objections. (� We have no comments. ( ) We have no additional comments. ( ) Comments are incl- =resat Signed: Print Name: Ki ---0k 0A) C. /7/if Division: Lct iv2SiUn Date: .� /5- 2-e-1 PSD OW1S10N JOSH GREEN GOVERNOR KE KIA'ANA LIEUTENANT SYLVIALUKE �5 A�,O: 30 �1�,,,, �Ej L RES vIMA I 1 I 202q APR 2 b A I I; 0 4 4 �RA1. Fi[� y} TE OF HAWAIIKA MOKU AINA O HAWAII S�p,TE OF "DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA'OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI `AINA LAND DIVISIONDEPT. nF ANO &sem .ATTLFSAEORESOURCES . L, N fl 24 -14 DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF N AND NATURAL RESOURCES L ` '9J 4LtSSK(I�ON WATER RESOURCE OFi ('..�E 0 Cook -' rfS�V AND COASTAL LANLS P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 April 26, 2024 MEMORANDUM TO: DLNR Agencies: X Div. of Aquatic Resources (Kendall.l.tucker.hawaii.aov) _Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation X Engineering Division (DLNR.ENGRa.hawaii.gov) X Div. of Forestry & Wildlife (rubvrosa.t.terrago cc hawaii.gov) Div. of State Parks X Commission on Water Resource Management (DLNR.CWRMa.hawaii.gov) X Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands (sharleen.k.kubaahawaii.00v) X Land Division — Hawaii District (gordon.c.heit hawaii.00v) XAha Moku Advisory Committee (leimana.k.damate cc hawaii.gov) FROM: Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator Rus11e14 7`uyG SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation LOCATION: Hakalau, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; Right -of -Way; TMKs: (3) 2-9-002: 023, 025, 039, 080, 999, and (3) 3-1-001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999 APPLICANT: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above -referenced subject matter. The DEA was published on April 23, 2024, by the State Environmental Review Program (formerly the Office of Environmental Quality Control) at the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in the periodic bulletin The Environmental Notice, available at the following link: https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/erp/The Environmental Notice/2024-04-23-TEN.pdf Please submit any comments by May 21, 2024. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Darlene Nakamura directly via email at darlene.k.nakamura(a.hawaii.gov. Thank you. BRIEF COMMENTS: Attachments ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. (We have no - dditional ments. ( V) Comment` ir}cli d/gtted. Signed: Print Name: Division: Date: 1<avi ahn .Marc 5 1111421 JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR 1 KE KIA'AINA SYLVIA LUKE UEUTENANT GOVERNOR 1 KA HOPE KIA'AINA REF: OCCL: KS MEMORANDUM STATE OF HAWAI'I 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA 'OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI 'AINA OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 TO: Robert Sun, Project Manager Department of Transportation THROUGH: Russel Tsuji, Administrator Land Division, DLNR DAWN N.S. CHANO CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSK)N ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RYAN KP. KANAKA'OLE FIRST DEPUTY DEAN D. UYENO ACTING DEPUTY DRECTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDUFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS COR: HA 24-158 MAY 1 4 2024 FROM: Michael Cain, Administrator 5 -die -a"` Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, DLNR SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge No. 001 0001 9030841 0 Locate near milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) Por. Hakalau and Kamaee & Wailua Govemment Tract, North Hilo, Island of Hawaii TMK(s): (3) 2-9-002:023 & 025, (3) 1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, & 006 The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) has received Land Division's memo regarding the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation project. It appears portions of the proposed 15 -acre project area lie within the Limited and Resource Subzones of the State Land Use Conservation District. Based on the information provided, it appears the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project is an identified land use that may be applied for pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-5-22 P-6 PUBLIC PURPOSE USES (D-1) Not for profit land uses undertaken in support of a public service by an agency of the county, state, or federal govemment, or by an independent non-govemmental entity, except that an independent non- governmental regulated public utility may be considered to be engaged in a public purpose use. Examples of public purpose uses may include but are not limited to public roads, marinas, harbors, airports, trails, water systems and other utilities, energy generation from renewable sources, communication systems, flood or erosion control projects, recreational facilities, community centers, and other public purpose uses, intended to benefit the public in accordance with public policy and the purpose of the conservation district. This requires the filing of a Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) for a Board permit along with all required and requested information or attachments. Applications can be found at REF: OCCL: KS COR: HA 24-158 https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/forms-2/. To allow, modify, or deny the proposed use would be at the discretion of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). OCCL offers the following comments on the DEA for the Final EA: • Please provide clear dimensions of the existing steel trestles and the proposed concrete trestles. The Final EA should show the difference in expansion from the existing to the final bridge trestle dimensions. • Please include the staging area in a figure or site plans in the Final EA. • The proposed revegetated cleared areas shall give preference to plant materials that are endemic or indigenous to Hawaii. The introduction of invasive plant species is prohibited in the Conservation District. Additionally, proposed tree removal as part of the soil remediation work may require replacement on a one-to-one basis. Please see HAR § 13-5-22 P-11 TREE REMOVAL (B-1). • The OCCL requests the Final EA include a figure that identifies the HDOT right-of-way (ROW) in relation to proposed improvements or structures. This should include proposed new concrete trestles and bridge foundations. • Proposed temporary and permanent signs in the Conservation District will need to comply with HAR § 13-5-22 P-7 SIGNS (B-1). Please revise Section 4.4.2.3 of the DEA. • It appears the Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM) did not provide early consultation comments. Will a Stream Channel Alteration Permit (SCAP) be required for the proposed project? • Have the streambed soils been tested for potential lead contamination around the steel bents? Is there proposed mitigation to prevent the potential release of contaminants during the removal of Hakalau Steam Bridge steel bents? Will there be stream water collected and sampled from areas around the new trestles? Please clarify. • As a state agency, HDOT is responsible for HRS 6E compliance. To help facilitate the processing of a CDUA for the project, please include a HRS 6E determination letter with the application. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, contact Kariann Stark of the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands at (808) 587-0380 or at kariann.starkhawaii.gov. C: HDLO/CWRM County of Hawaii -Planning Subject: HRS 343 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Sent: 5/1/2024, 11:00:16 AM From: Rojek, David J CIV (USA)<David.J.Rojek@usace.army.mil> To: Honolulu Planning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Aloha, The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) received your request for comments on the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation in Hakalau, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii The Corps' regulatory authorities are based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 10 of the RHA of 1899 prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the U.S. (WOTUS) without a Department of the Army (DA) permit. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOTUS without a DA permit. For projects that are being developed, we ask that you identify areas that may fall within the Corps jurisdiction as WOTUS such as streams, rivers, and wetlands. If you determine that your project would need a permit from the Corps, then we would require an application to be provided. We must also evaluate the project for any impacts to resources such as threatened or endangered species, historic properties, and/or essential fish habitat, and consult if necessary. If applying for a permit, include detailed plans/drawings of the proposed project where streams or wetlands are present. Include a clear line indicating the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in your plans and also include the amount and type of fill that would be placed below the OHWM. To comply with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, all work in, over, or under tidally influenced waters requires a Corps permit. Please include a description and plans of structures or work below the mean higher -high water mark (MHHWM)/high tide line of tidally influenced waters. A permit is not required form the Corps if all work being done is located in uplands. Please visit https://www.poh.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permits/Nationwide-Permits/ to find more information about our program. Email permit applications to CEPOH-RO@usace.army.mil, as we have gone paperless. Feel free to contact me with any further questions. Mahalo! David Rojek Biologist, Regulatory Branch US Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District 808-835-4599 US Army Corps of Engineer JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR 1 KE KIA`AINA SYLVIA LUKE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 1 KA HOPE KIA'AINA STATE OF HAWAII 1 KA MOKU'AINA '0 HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES KA `OIHANA KUMUWAIWAI 'AINA LAND DIVISION P.O. BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 May 22, 2024 WSP USA Attn: Mr. Allen Kam 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Design Branch Technical Design Section Attn: Ms. Holly Yuen 601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 688 Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 Dear Mr. Kam and Ms. Yuen: DAWN N. S. CHANG CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT via email: HonoluluPlanning@wsp.com via email: holly.yuen@hawaii.gov SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation located at Hakalau, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii; Right -of -Way; TMKs: (3) 2-9-002: 023, 025, 039, 080, 999, and (3) 3-1-001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999 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, (b) Commission on Water Resource Management, (c) Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands, and (d) 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@hawaii.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Ra 77c-ty Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administrator Enclosures cc: Central Files Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL CORRESPONDENCE; REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (RAA) REPORT FOR LEAD IMPACTED SOIL AT HAKALAU BEACH PARK AND RESPONSE ACTION MEMORANDUM (RAM) FOR LEAD IMPACTED SOIL AT HAKALAU BEACH PARK From: Gilmore, Thomas <thomas.gilmore@doh.hawaii.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:24 PM To: Yuen, Holly Subject: Hakalau Attachments: 201713 TG DOT -H Hakalau Stream Bridge Remedial Alternative Report V3 Final Concurrence.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Aloha Holly, attached is a letter of approval for the Remedial Alternatives Study. There is a public comment period that is ongoing currently for the solution that DOT -H has chosen. I am willing to talk with any parties involved (EPA, NMFS etc.). THE DOH HEER office is the primary regulator for work of this nature going forward. We are independent of EPA and our limits are as strict if not stricter than EPA cleanup guidelines. Please contact me with any questions you might have. Thomas Gilmore I Remedial Project Manager Department of Health 1 Hazrd Evaluation & Emergency Response Office 1582 Kamehameha Ave Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 586-4353 1 JOSH GREEN, M.D. GOVERNOR OF HAWAI'I KE KIA'AINA 0 KA MOKU`AINA'0 HAM! STATE OF HAWAI'I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH KA `OIHANA OLAKINO P. 0. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378 May 23, 2023 Mr. Harry Takiue Department of Transportation - Highways 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Sent Via e-mail to: harrv.h.takiue*hawaii.jxov Facility/Site: Hakalau Stream Bridge iHEER site id 2285 KENNETH S. FINK, MD, MGA, MPH DIRECTOR OF HEALTH KA LUNA HO'OKELE In reply, please refer to: File: 201713 - TG Subject: Review of Remedial Alternatives Analysis Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii Final May 2023 Report Dear Mr. Takiue: The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office has received and reviewed the Remedial Alternatives Analysis Report for Lead Impacted Soil at Hakalau Beach Park dated May 2023 and approves the report with no comments. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Thomas Gilmore of the HEER Office at Thomas.gilmore@doh.hawaii.gov or (808) 586-4353. Sincerely, r Thomas Gilmore Remedial Project Manager Site Discovery, Assessment, and Remediation Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office e -cc: Mr. Scott Moncrief, KPC, LLC. From: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:20 PM To: Uyeda, Pamela K. Cc: Kennedy, Henry; Kam, Allen; Gary Iwamoto Subject: RE: [External] Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Attachments: Hakalau Pam, I talked to DOH/HEER and they have reviewed and approved the lead removal report from Kealamahi. They also confirmed that EPA allows DOH to review on their behalf knowing that DOH's requirements are more stringent. Please see attached DOH email. Please prepare a written response for NMFS. Thanks, holly From: Uyeda, Pamela K. <Pamela.Uyeda@wsp.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:49 PM To: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov>; Gary Iwamoto <Garyl@ksfinc.us> Cc: Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Allen Kam <allen.kam@wsp.com> Subject: RE: [External] Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Holly, Do you need any additional information from Gary? I'll let you work this out with him since WSP is not overseeing Kealamahi's work. Thanks, Pam From: Gary Iwamoto <Garyl@ksfinc.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:58 AM To: Uyeda, Pamela K. <Pamela.Uyeda@wsp.com> Cc: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov>; Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov>; Kam, Allen <Allen.Kam@wsp.com> Subject: Re: [External] Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Pam, No, not specifically. The DOH has people from EPA on staff and do their own "EPA Review". It is similar to what Caltrans does with the FHWA review. Thanks, Gary Sent from my iPhone On Jun 27, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Uyeda, Pamela K. <Pamela.Uyeda@wsp.com> wrote: Gary, Was EPA consulted during the development of the lead remediation plan? Thanks, Pam From: Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:30 AM To: Uyeda, Pamela K. <Pamela.Uyeda@wsp.com> Cc: Kennedy, Henry <henry.kennedy@hawaii.gov> Subject: FW: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Pam, Please see question below from NMFS re lead remediation. Thanks, holly From: Kasamoto, Kevin <kevin.kasamoto@hawaii.gov> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 3:49 PM To: FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro <FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro@dot.gov>; Yuen, Holly <holly.yuen@hawaii.gov> Cc: Rezantes, Kahaa (FHWA) <Kahaa.Rezantes@dot.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Hi Meesa, I think this is Holly's portion of the project. I have cc'd her in this email. Thanks. From: Otani, Meesa (FHWA) <meesa.otani@dot.gov> on behalf of FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro <FHWA- Hawaii.Enviro@dot.gov> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 2:44 PM To: Kasamoto, Kevin <kevin.kasamoto@hawaii.gov> Cc: Rezantes, Kahaa (FHWA) <Kahaa.Rezantes@dot.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter Hi Kevin, Do you have a response for the below concern from NMFS? Thanks! Meesa From: Richard Hall - NOAA Federal <richard.hall@noaa.gov> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2023 1:09 PM To: FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro <FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro@dot.gov>; Rezantes, Kahaa (FHWA) <Kahaa.Rezantes@dot.gov> Cc: Sean Hanser - NOAA Federal <sean.hanser@noaa.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Hakalau Stream Bridge - EFH Letter This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Rezantes, NMFS is trying to finalize our EFH response for the Hakalau Stream Bridge consultation. The next level reviewer of our response wanted to ask you to respond to a concern he raised. I copied his remarks from the email he sent, can you provide a response? Thanks for your attention to this request for additional information. I have a little concern over the fact that they are remediating the presence of lead in the sediment around the bridge. I didn't see them talk about engaging with the EPA to correctly come up with a plan to remove this contaminant. On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:39 PM 'FHWA-Hawaii.Enviro' via _NMFS PIR ESHESA <efhesaconsult@noaa.gov> wrote: Aloha, Please see the attached: 1. BR -019-2(075) Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehab_EFH Consultation FHWA Letter.pdf 2. BR -019-2(075) Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehab_EFH Consultation FHWA Letter Attachments.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Mahalo, Kaha'a Rezantes Construction Program Manager Programs and Project DeliveryTeam Federal Highway Administration Hawaii Division Office Richard Hall Fishery Policy Analyst, Pacific Islands Regional Office NOAA Fisheries 1 U.S. Department of Commerce 3 Office: (808) 725-5018 www.fisheries.noaa.gov NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. 4 REMEDIAL ALTE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR L IMPACTED SOIL AT HALALAU BEACH PARK, HAKALAU, HAWAII Hawaii State Department of Transportation Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis This page was intentionally left blank. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT For LEAD IMPACTED SOIL AT HAKALAU BEACH PARK, HAKALAU, HAWAII Prepared For: Hawaii State Department of Transportation Prepared For: KSF Inc. 615 Piikoi Street, Ste 300 Honolulu, Hawaii 96734 Prepared By: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC. 111 Hekili Street, Ste A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 October 2022 Updated April 2023 Final May 2023 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis This page was intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Purpose 1 1.1 Purpose 1 2 Background 3 2.1 Site Description 3 2.2 Climate 3 2.3 Soils/Geology 3 2.4 Surface Water 3 2.5 Groundwater 3 2.6 Historic Land Use 4 2.7 Current/Future Land Use 5 3 Magnitude and Extent of Contamination 6 3.1 X -Ray Fluorescence: HDOH 2016 6 3.2 Paint and Soil Sampling: ESI 2016 7 3.3 Soil Sampling: EQI February and November 2020 7 3.4 Soil Sampling: KPC Spring 2022 (April 18-20 and May 10-12) 8 3.4.1 Sediment Sampling from Stream Bank 8 3.4.2 Delineation Sampling North and South Stream Bank Benches Results 9 3.4.3 Groundwater Sampling Results 9 3.4.4 Surface Water Sampling Results 10 4 Environmental Hazard Evaluations 21 4.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern 21 4.2 Exposure Setting 21 4.3 Potential Human/Ecological Receptors 22 4.4 Exposure Pathway Analysis 22 4.4.1 Direct Contact Pathways 22 4.4.2 Air Exposure Pathways 23 4.4.3 Surface Runoff and Sediment Exposure Pathway 24 4.4.4 Groundwater Exposure Pathway 24 4.5 Environmental Hazard Evaluation Summary 26 4.5.1 COPC Sources and Release Mechanisms 26 4.5.2 Pathways and Exposure Routes 26 4.5.3 Potential Receptors Current and Future Land Use 26 4.5.4 Complete Exposure Pathways 26 4.5.5 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways 26 4.5.6 Exposure to Lead Leaching 27 5 Establishing Alternatives 29 5.1 Potential ARARs and TBC Criteria 29 5.1.1 Potential Chemical -Specific ARARs and TBCs 29 5.1.2 Potential Location -Specific ARARs and TBCs 29 5.1.3 Potential Action -Specific ARARs and TBCs 30 5.2 Remedial Action Objectives 30 5.3 General Response Actions 30 6 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives 31 i Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis 6.1 Alternative 1: Recycle or Reuse 31 6.2 Alternative 2: Destruction or Detoxification 31 6.3 Alternative 3: Separation, concentration, or volume reduction 31 6.4 Alternative 4: Immobilization of Hazardous Substances 31 6.5 Alternative 5: On-site or off-site disposal, isolation, or containment 33 6.5.1 Alternative 5a: On-site isolation and containment 35 6.5.2 Alternative 5b: Removal of all soil that exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill 36 6.5.3 Alternative 5c: Removal of soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. Soil cap for soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg but is below 800 mg/kg 40 6.6 Institutional Controls or Long -Term Monitoring 42 6.6.1 Alternatives 6a: No Action 42 6.6.2 Alternatives 6b: Institutional and Engineering Controls 42 7 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 44 7.1 Overall Protectiveness 44 7.2 Compliance with ARARs 48 7.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment 48 7.4 Long -Term and Short -Term Effectiveness 52 7.5 Implementability 52 7.6 Estimated Costs 53 8 Preferred Alternative 56 9 References 58 ii Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis FIGURES Figure 1-1: Site Location and Tax Map Key Parcels: Hakalau Beach Park 2 Figure 2-1: Hakalau sugar mill and town 4 Figure 2-2: Aftermath of 1946 Tsunami. Facing South. 5 Figure 3-1: 2016 and 2020 DU and Sample Results Hakalau 15 Figure 6-1: Alternative 5a or 5b, Removal 200+ mg/kg and Capped Soil Areas 38 Figure 6-2: Removal of Soil Over 800 mg/kg, Cap 200 mg/kg 41 TABLES Table 1-1: TMK and Landowner 2 Table 3-1: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Combined Soil Sample Results 11 Table 3-2: Hakalau Beach Park Southern Bank 19 Table 4-1: Conceptual Site Exposure Model 28 Table 6-1: HDOT and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 800 mg/kg 34 Table 6-2: Hawaii County and Privately Owned Parcels 34 Table 6-3: Alternative 5a: No Removal, Cap Only, Cubic Yards 35 Table 6-4: DUs which Failed TCLP (2016) and Require Mainland Disposal 36 Table 6-5: Alternative 5b, Soil Removal 200+ mg/kg, Clean Fill, Cubic yards 37 Table 6-6: Alternative 5c — Soil Removal 800+ mg/kg, Clean Fill Cubic Yards 40 Table 7-1: Alternatives Analysis - Protectiveness 46 Table 7-2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment Comparison 50 Table 7-3: Cost Comparison 54 Table 8-1: Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives: Hakalau RAA 56 APPENDICES Appendix A: Laboratory Analytical Reports Appendix B: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Batch Test Leaching Method Results Appendix C: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and To - Be Considered (TBC) Criteria Appendix D: Remedial Alternative Cost Comparison Appendix E: Treatability Study iii Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Alternatives Analysis LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements bgs below ground surface c-EHMP Project -specific Construction Environmental Hazard Management Plan COC Contaminant of Concern COPC Contaminants of Potential Concern CSM Conceptual site model CY Cubic yard(s) DU Decision Unit EAL Environmental Action Level EHMP Environmental Hazard Management Plan EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency HDOH State of Hawaii Department of Health HDOH TGM State of Hawaii Department of Health Technical Guidance Manual HDOT State of Hawaii Department of Transportation HEER Hazardous Evaluation and Emergency Response Kd LBP mg/kg Desorption coefficient (SPLP test results) Lead -Based Paint Milligram per kilogram RAA Remedial Alternatives Analysis RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RSL Regional Screening Levels SCP SPLP State Contingency Plan Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure TBC to -be -considered TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TMK Tax Map Key USDA NRCS USEPA United States Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service - United States Environmental Protection Agency iv Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 1 Introduction and Purpose The site is located at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii on the Hamakua Coast approximately 14 miles north of Hilo HI. The site is used as a public park for general recreation, swimming, surfing, and fishing (Figure 1-1). The site includes the Hawaii County Tax Map Key (TMK) (3) 2-9-002 Parcel 080, which is owned by the County of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) owns an easement under the Hakalau Bridge that extends out ten feet on either side of the bridge which is TMK (3) 2-9-002 Parcel 999. The access road transits across two privately owned triangular parcels which straddle the stream. Table 1-1 lists the TMKs and landowners of the properties in this project. The park and surrounding area are located below the Hakalau Stream Bridge. This steel girder and trestle bridge lie 250+ feet above the park area. The bridge was originally constructed in 1911, and lead-based paints (LBPs) were frequently applied to the structure throughout the 20th Century (Historic Hawaii 2022). Lead-based paint flaked off and may have been spilled during application. The lead paint was removed from the bridge in 2000, but the area below the bridge now has lead -impacted soil. 1.1 Purpose Lead -impacted soil has been documented at Hakalau Beach Park with potential impacts on human health. Several site investigations were conducted in 2016, 2020, and 2022 to identify and delineate the extent of lead -impacted soil within Decision Units (DUs) at the site. Triple phosphate treatment was also tested in 2022. This report evaluates existing data and associated human health and/or environmental hazards and provides an analysis of potential remedial alternatives at the site. 1 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 Figure 1-1: Site Location and Tax Map Key Parcels: Hakalau Beach Park Kalaoa Holualoa n. ,169,1 +1230m Hawaii Hawaei Volcanoes National Park Ala Kahakal 'National wsronc nail Hilo 331001008 3 1777 331001003 329002888 Hakalau Beach 33/001004 331001002 329006021 329002025 nc" 329006020 Tax Parcels County of Hawaii Parcel HDOT ROW Parcel � 006(12' 329006008 32 09 16007 5006 ;29002023 329002064 lzerirnk 329 12 Table 1-1: TMK and Landowner TMK Landowner 329002080 County of Hawaii 329002999 State of Hawaii Department of Transportation 331001002 Maria and Steven Wolf 331001001 Marian Land Company 329002025 Maria and Steven Wolf 2 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 2 Background 2.1 Site Description The site is located in a steep gulch and is bisected by the wide and rocky Hakalau Stream which opens to the Pacific Ocean. A paved road descends into Hakalau Gulch and crosses Hakalau Stream via a stabilized channel crossing and becomes gravel/dirt/rock. The southern embankment includes the County of Hawaii Park parcel. This parcel is open and grassy, with a concrete -floor pavilion, and the partial walls from the former Hakalau Sugar Mill. Another dirt/rock road serves the northern embankment. The area under the Bridge is rocky with tall grasses. 2.2 Climate The site is located on the Hamakua Coast of Hawaii Island on the windward side of the island. This area experiences higher than average rainfall than most of Hawaii. The average annual rainfall for the site is approximately 138 inches. March is the wettest month with over 15 inches of rainfall and June is the driest with approximately 8 inches (Giambelluca et al 2013). Temperatures have minimal variances with an average low of 65 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit and average highs of 79 to 84 degrees Fahrenheit (NOAA 2019). 2.3 Soils/Geology The site is located adjacent to the Hakalau Stream mouth. Soils are identified by the United States Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) as Hilo Rock Outcrop, consisting of hydrous silty clay loam on the surface (USDA NRCS 2019). This soil consists of lava flows broken into a base of river cobble. The stream banks experience frequent erosion during storms and heavy rains. 2.4 Surface Water Hakalau Stream bisects the site. This is a 29 mile long, wide freshwater perennial stream with a braided channel. It is part of a nine square mile watershed. The stream is not channelized and the banks shift during heavy flows. The mouth of the stream often has a rocky bar which forms a deeper pool in the stream but does not stop the flow to the ocean. A former seawall is angled on the southern edge, but it is now undermined and surrounded by cobbles. Hakalau County Park attained the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) water quality parameters for enterococci in 2022 (HDOH 2022). 2.5 Groundwater The site is located below the Underground Injection Line according to the HDOH Safe Drinking Water Branch (HDOH SDWB 2019). Groundwater is not a source of drinking water. The site is primarily at sea level to approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. 3 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 2.6 Historic Land Use The parcels targeted for remedial action alternatives are below Hawaii Belt Road in the Honomu-Kahua ahupua'a. Figure 2-1: Hakalau sugar mill and town. Railroad bridge with train, flume system. Source: Hakalau Home 2022 The site itself had been agricultural. In 1881 the Hakalau Sugar Mill was built at the southern embankment. Hakalau Gulch Camp (worker housing) on the northern embankment (Marian Land Parcel) is visible on topographic maps by 1915 and in 1925 photos. The current bridge was previously a railroad bridge that was constructed in 1911. It is identified by the State Historic Preservation Office as SHPD Historic Site Number 10- 16-9090 (Historic Hawaii 2022). The bridge had multiple layers of lead-based paint applied to the metal structure throughout the 20th century. The associated plantation flume ran parallel to the bridge, and it's possible that this metal support structure also was a contributing source of lead-based paint (Figure 2-1). The mill, railroad, flume, and the Hakalau Gulch Camp were destroyed in the 1946 tsunami (Figure 2-2). The mill reopened the following year, but the housing was not reconstructed. The railroad was converted to a highway in the 1950s, and the flume was not rebuilt. The company merged, and the mill remained in operation until 1974 (Hakalau 4 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives Home 2022). The main structure was demolished by 1979, but the foundation outline still appears on topo maps until 1992. The seawall and portions of the former plantation structure remain on-site today. Figure 2-2: Aftermath of 1946 Tsunami. Facing South. Seawall still present on-site. Source: Hakalau Home 2022 2.7 Current/Future Land Use The site is currently a public County of Hawaii -managed park, which is used for general recreation, surfing, and fishing (Figure 1-1). The site is anticipated to remain a public park. 5 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 3 Magnitude and Extent of Contamination Previous site investigations on bridges along the Hamakua Coast identified that lead- based paint flakes and arsenic could be a concern in the HDOT Highways right of way below the bridges. Multi -increment soil sample investigations in 2016 identified lead -impacted soils in 15 of the 19 DUs at the site. One DU was paved and not sampled. Only four DUs met the HDOH Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Branch (HEER) Unrestricted Land Use (residential land use) Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for total lead (HDOH revised Fall 2017). Follow-up sampling in 2020 and 2022 expanded the DU areas and included additional depth profiles. See Table 3-1 for 2016, 2020, and 2022 combined soil sample results at Hakalau Beach Park. The sampling confirmed that the southern embankment HDOT ROW contained the highest lead concentration sample results. The area under the Hakalau bridge had lead concentrations that exceeded the gross contamination levels (<1,000 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) in soil beginning from surface soil to a depth of 12 -inches below ground surface (bgs). The highest results in the ROW were 25,000 mg/kg of total lead. Ultimately every DU in the HDOT ROW exceeded both the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use and the construction/trench worker action level of 800 mg/kg of total lead. Levels that exceed the construction trench worker EAL require a Construction EHMP while working on the site and may require additional PPE and monitoring equipment. The areas of exceedance were not confined to the ROW. Lead -impacted soil was found in the adjacent properties (Figure 3-1), primarily upstream on the southern embankment. In total approximately 6,000 sq. feet on the Northern Embankment and approximately 43,000 sq. feet on the southern embankment both the unrestricted land used EAL and the 800 mg/kg lead EAL for Construction/Trench Workers. Impacts decreased at greater distances from the bridge. Total lead remained between 200 mg/kg and 800 mg/kg even 80 to 100 feet from the bridge in the northern embankment. Lead - impacted soils were found approximately 225 ft from the bridge on the southern embankment. The County of Hawaii park area DUs were between 200 mg/kg and 800 mg/kg within the primary park area. No DUs exceeded 800 mg/kg. Lead -impacted soils covered an area of approximately 43,000 sq ft of the parcel (the majority of the park space). Some DU depth profiles in the County of Hawaii parcel met the HDOH Tier I EALs for unrestricted land use. 3.1 X -Ray Fluorescence: HDOH 2016 In 2016, the HEER Office performed a surface soil site investigation to evaluate the impacts of LBP and sugar plantation activities at the site. HDOH used an X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer to screen for lead, arsenic, and mercury in a single composite soil sample. This single -exposure DU was located directly below Hakalau 6 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives Bridge and represented the most probable location of the lead -impacted soil. Thirty (30) increments of soil were collected from the top 2 to 3 inches of soil within this DU. The DU was approximately 120 -feet long by 30 -feet wide. Sixteen (16) XRF measurements were taken from the combined incremental soil samples and averaged. The average lead concentration was 196 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg] and the average arsenic concentration was less than 8.7 mg/kg. Mercury was not detected in any of the XRF measurements (HDOH, 2016). 3.2 Paint and Soil Sampling: ESI 2016 Due to high levels of LBP found at other locations on the Hamakua Coast, ESI tested paint chips that were found on the bridge footings and steel girders (ESI, 2016). Greyish - black paint chips were collected from the base of four (4) of the steel girders. Lead concentrations ranging from 89 to 510 mg/kg and arsenic concentrations ranging from 61 to 110 mg/kg were found. Red and black paint chips on the rocks beneath the bridge were also tested, and lead was detected in the red paint at 11,000 mg/kg, and in the black paint at 2,700 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected in the red paint at 130 mg/kg and was not detected in the black paint (ESI, 2017a). Additional multi -incremental soil samples were collected from nine DUs in Spring 2016 and twelve more DUs in Fall 2016 (Table 1-1) at depths of 0 to 3 inches bgs and 3 to 6 inches bgs. The 2016 soil sample results found exceedances for lead, with results as high as 25,000 mg/kg directly below the bridge. Nine DUs exceeded the HDOH Construction/Trench Worker Direct Exposure EAL of 800 mg/kg for lead, and eight exceeded the HDOH Gross Contamination EAL of 1000 mg/kg for lead. As a result of the high lead exceedances, soil from seven DUs was analyzed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (KPC 2022). TCLP is a soil sample extraction method for the assessment of the toxicity of heavy metals or other compounds in contaminated soil media. The method incorporates an extraction fluid with a pH that simulates the acidic conditions that soil if it were disposed of in a permitted landfill. If TCLP is detected at concentrations that exceed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste criteria (in the case of lead it is 5 mg/L), the material is classified as hazardous waste and must be disposed of in the continental United States as there are currently not any landfills in Hawaii that can accept this type of waste. TCLP analysis results for three of the DUs exceeded the RCRA listed hazardous waste criterium of 5 mg/L (DU -1B, 11A, and 21A) Figure 1-1. All of these are located on the southern embankment, under the middle girder (KPC 2022). However, it is estimated that DU2 could also fail TCLP based on the high total lead concentrations. 3.3 Soil Sampling: EQI February and November 2020 In 2020, DUs were added to identify the extent of lead -impacted soil. DU depths were extended to 12 inches bgs unless refusal occurred. 7 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives Due to the number of DUs, DUs with similar 2016 sample results (above 200 mg/kg and above 800 mg/kg) were consolidated into larger DUs. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 summarized data from all sampling events and include the former DU and revised DU numbers. Data summary tables and laboratory reports are presented in Appendix A. As presented in Table 3-1, the southern bank bench of the HDOT ROW under the Hakalau Bridge exhibited the highest lead concentration sample results even to depths of 12 inches bgs. Sample results for total exceeded the gross contamination levels (<1,000 mg/kg). In general, the concentration of lead dropped as depth increased, but not at all of the DUs. The DUs upstream of the HDOT ROW on the southern embankment saw an increase in total lead concentrations (Table 3-1). Additional sampling also found that soil under the northern embankment, under the girder exceeded the HDOH Construction/Trench Worker EAL for 800 mg/kg for lead. 3.4 Soil Sampling: KPC Spring 2022 (April 18-20 and May 10-12) Concerns about the extent of impacts along both banks of the stream valley floor, shoreline, and the leachability of lead -impacted areas transferring to groundwater and surface water were addressed in the 2022 sampling. The purpose of the 2022 sampling was to determine where soil at the site no longer exceeded the unrestricted land use EAL of 200 mg/kg for lead. Sampling had been planned for 2021, however, it was delayed due to COVID and right of entry documentation to access private land areas in the vicinity of the project area. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected along the northern bank as well as upstream at the southern embankment. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 the vertical and horizontal extent of the lead -impacted soil had not been established further upstream and downstream of the bridge on the northern stream bank nor upstream of the bridge on the southern stream bank 3.4.1 Sediment Sampling from Stream Bank During this mobilization, sediment sampling had been proposed along both sides of the stream bank (KPC, 2022). When KPC arrived to perform the first of two sampling events in April 2022, extensive scouring, associated with a heavy rain event days preceding the sampling had removed all fine sediment associated with the planned sediment DUs and only large cobble and boulder -sized material remained on the banks. As a result of the high stream discharge rate following the rain event, the vast majority of the sediment formerly along the banks of either side of the stream mouth had been transported out into Hakalau Bay. KPC discussed this event with Mr. Thomas Gilmore (HDOH HEER Remedial Project Manager) who visited the site on April 18, 2022, while KPC was conducting sampling on the northern bank of the Hakalau Stream. Mr. Gilmore concurred that sampling for sediment was not practicable since there was longer fine sediment available to sample in the four planned DU locations on either side of the stream. 8 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives KPC returned approximately one month later on May 10, 2022, to complete the sampling activities and observed that the sediment in the planned sediment sampling DUs still had not fully returned to its former position. Coarse cobble and boulder -sized sediment made up the bulk of the stream shoreline in these areas, while the gravel -sized sediment was still in the littoral region of the bay and was only beginning the regress into the mouth of the stream. Based on the April and May 2022 observations it was apparent that the fine sediment is displaced from the mouth of the stream into Hakalau Bay following high rainfall events, then constant wave action winnows the fine sediment particles out of the slug of new sediment entering the bay and slowly pushes the remaining courser sediment back in the mouth of the stream over days/weeks. The rate that sediment returns into the mouth of the stream depends on the wave conditions and a large portion of the fine sediment formerly in the estuary likely remains offshore and the vast majority of the material originally transported into the bay is redeposited is medium to coarse gravel and cobble sized material. This cyclical process is repeated perhaps a couple of times per year on the scale that we observed, and several times per year on a smaller scale that acts to continuously winnow out the fine sediment (including fine lead particles in the sediment) from the mouth of the stream. Based on these observations it is unlikely that there is a complete exposure pathway to human receptors (beachgoers, fishermen) posed by lead in the beach and river sediments. 3.4.2 Delineation Sampling North and South Stream Bank Benches Results As shown in Figure 3-1 the vertical and horizontal extent of the lead -impacted soil had not been established on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge on the northern stream bank and in the upstream direction of the southern stream bank. The purpose of the 2022 sampling events was to identify the limits of the contamination "hot zone" to the point where concentrations of total lead in soil fall below the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). The results showed a drop-off in total lead concentrations approximately 225 feet upstream along the southern stream bench and 125 feet along the northern stream bench. The goal was to identify the limits of contamination, where soil met HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (Figure 3-2). In the 2022 sampling event, no DU exceeded 800 mg/kg of total lead. Three DUs exceeded the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (Table 1-2). 3.4.3 Groundwater Sampling Results The plans to collect a groundwater sample from within the highly contaminated zone represented by DUs 32 and 33 using an auger and a gas -powered direct push rig were abandoned based on the observation of the sub -surface cross-section of the southern stream bank adjacent to these DUs. On May 10, 2022, a steep stream bank resulted from high volumes of water scouring the southern bank exposed a 4 -foot cross-section that exhibited that a thin veneer of a coarse gravel layer mixed with sand and silt extend from 9 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives the surface to about 8-12 inches below the upper surface layer. This unit was underlain by rounded large cobble to small boulder -sized rock unit from the base of the described upper layer to the base of the stream bank cross-section where it was covered by other course sediments that made up the rest of the stream bank sediment. This type of geologic unit would not allow a boring to be installed using the available drilling methods and in lieu of the temporary monitoring well, an additional surface water sample collected from the slow meandering stream that passes through the southern side of the steam where the DUs with the highest lead concentrations were found this portion of the stream bench was conducted as a proxy to evaluate the potential soil groundwater leaching effects. This is described in greater detail below. 3.4.4 Surface Water Sampling Results In accordance with the Final SAP, Addendum samples were collected from surface water at two locations from the small stream flowing along the base of the southern embankment that supports the access road down the side of Hakalau Valley (KPC, 2022). An additional location was added at the approximate midpoint where the stream passes through the highly contaminated zone (DUs 32 and 33). DU sample from the stream was conducted following the HEER Technical Guidance Manual (HDOH TGM) and the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-54 (HDOH, 2014). This tributary stream has a width of approximately 6 feet and a depth of approximately 3 feet and runs parallel to the southern wall of the valley, then cuts north and discharges into the Hakalau stream, close to the public beach area. Because this stream passes through the most contaminated areas identified, a sample was planned to be collected in the SAP where the stream turns north and discharged into the main course of Hakalau stream just before where an open concrete dip stream crossing is present in the access roadway connecting to the park, As described above, this point was selected to assess the potential that lead in the soil may be leaching into the surface water as it passes through this highly contaminated zone as described above. These surface water DUs and presented as 202249, 202250, and 202251 in Figure 3-2. A total of three (3) surface water samples were collected and tested for total lead concentration (mg/L). Concentrations of lead in the water samples were all below the laboratory method reporting limit. Results indicate that there is likely no impact on the surface water body via lead mobilizing from soil to groundwater and groundwater then discharging to surface water. This is supported by the results of the Batch Test Leaching Model (HDOH, 2007), presented in Section 4.4.4 of this document, which concluded that the mobility of lead in the soil was very low based on the result of the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) results of the ISM samples collected from the DUs with the highest concentration of lead (DUs 32 and 33). 10 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 Table 3-1: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Combined Soil Sample Results at Hakalau Beach Park MEMEN Lead results below HDOH Tier 1 EAL Unrestricted Land Use (200 mg/kg) Previous Sample ID Sample Date Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL Unrestricted Land Use (200 mg/kg), Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg) but below Current Use Description Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL above Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg), but below gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) 1 Lead results above gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) 2016 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results mince Current Use Description Owner 1 D1J-1 2016 0-3 25,000 Area around the bents 4 and 5 under the bridge on the south side stream. HDOT 1 DU -1D 2016 0-3 23,700 23,600 7,880 1 DU -1T 2016 0-3 1 DU -1B 2016 3-6 32/33 1 DU -1B 2020 6-12 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 2 DU -2 2016 0-3 10,200 Between the road and stream around bent 6 HDOT 2 DU -2B 2016 3-6 9,480 32/33 2 DU -2B 2020 6-12 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 3 DU -3a 2016 0-6 69.4 Southern stream bank HDOT 4a DU -4a 2016 0-6 3.81 Northern stream bank. HDOT Observed scour in Feb. 2020 4a DU -9+ 2016 0-6 2.8 4a DU -10+ 2016 0-6 2.52 4b DU -4b 2016 6-18 2.99 5 DU -5 2016 0-3 3,730 Northern stream bank. Areas around the bridge HDOT 34 5 DU -5 2020 0-6 221* 34 5 DU -5 2020 6-12 918* bents. 34 6 DU -6 2016 0-3 282 Northern bank: Access road between Bents 9-10 HDOT 7 DU -7 2016 0-3 2,530 Road on S. Embankment, between Bents 5 and 6. HDOT 7 DU -7B 2016 3-6 Refusal 33 7 DU -7B 2020 6-12 3,538* 8 DU -8 2016 0-3 1,850 Vegetated area on S. embankment south of the access road to park area. Wolf Property 32 8 DU -8 2020 3-6 13,500* 8B 8 DU -8 2020 3-6 2,680** 7,510* 32 8 DU -8 2020 6-12 8B 12+ Refusal 11 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 11 DU -11A 2016 0-3 8,820 Narrow DU south of DU1 HDOT 11 DU -11B 2016 3-6 Refusal 32/33 11 DU -11B 6-12 r 3,538*; 7510* 12 DU -12A 2016 0-3 1,410 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. 12 DU -23A 2016 0-3 0 12 DU -24A 2016 0-3 , 8' 12 12 DU-12A/B, 24A/B 2016 4-6 738** 12 DU -12B 2016 3-6 773 13 DU -13A 2016 0-3 357 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. 13 DU -13B 2016 3-6 372 14 DU -14A 2016 0-3 57 Driveway area, acceptable for public use Marian Land Co. 14 DU -14B 2016 3-6 93.4 15 DU -15A 2016 N/A/,Paved�" `'` Paved drainage swale. Marian Land Co. 15 DU -15B 2016 N/A Paved 16 DU -16A 2016 0-3 339 Park area. Heavy use by public. County of Hawaii 16 DU -16B 2016 3-6 348 37 16 DU -16B 6-12 368* 17 DU -17A 2016 0-3 232 Grassy area south of park. County of Hawaii 17 DU -17B 2016 3-6 161 4 37 17 DU -17B 2020 6-12 368* 18 DU -18A 2016 0-3 104 Grassy Park area at mouth of Hakalau stream. County of Hawaii 18 DU -18B 2016 3-6 226 38 18 DU -18B 2020 6-12 764* 19 DU -19A 2016 0-3 28.4 Grassy strip west of DU 18. Acceptable for public. County of Hawaii 19 DU -19B 2016 3-6 14.1 20 DU -20A 2016 0-3 760 Vegetated area west of DU -8. Wolf Property 20 DU -20B 2016 3-6 570 20 20 DU -20A and DU20B 2020 3-6 1,640** 20 6+ Refusal 21 DU -21A 2016 0-3 5,080 2,720 Directly below bridge south HDOT ROW 21 DU -21B 2016 3-6 32 21 DU -21B 2020 6-12 3,538*; 7510* bank. 22 DU -22A 2016 0-3 3,830 2,870; 13,500* 7,510* Wolf Property: Area between driveway and stream. HDOT/ Wolf Property 32 22 DU -22B 2016/2020 3-6 32 22 DU -22B 6-12 12 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner APotential high use. 26 2020 0-3 I 1,320** Southern bank upstream of DU22 Wolf Property 3+ Refusal 6-18 27 2020 0-3 1,680** Refusal Southern bank upstream of DU26 Wolf Property 27 3+ 34 2020 0-6 221* Northern bank: renumbered from DU35 in 2020 SAP HDOT 34 2020 6-12 202239 2022 0-6 490 Northern bank: adjacent to bridge downstream Marian Land Co. 202239 2022 6-12 737 202240 2022 0-6 131 Northern bank: downstream from DU 39 Marian Land Co. 202241 2022 0-6 386 Northern bank: adjacent to ROW upstream Majority Wolf Property 202241 2022 6-12 360 202242a 2022 0-6 99 Northern bank: upstream of 41. Wolf Property 202242b 2022 0-6 76.8 (arithmetic mean) Northern bank: upstream of 42A. Wolf Property 202243 2022 0-6 146 Southern bank: streambank Wolf Property 202244 2022 0-6 402 Southern bank: across from 43. Wolf Property 202244 2022 6-12 339 202245 2022 0-6 83.7 (arithmetic mean) Southern bank: upstream of 44 Wolf Property Notes DU9 and DU10 are replicates of DU4. * = 2020 sampling event — February ** = 2020 sampling event - November 13 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives This page was intentionally left blank. 14 a) C f6 Q d C L 0 U t. U Q m- l flTz N E (6CD This page was intentionally left blank. Figure 3-2: 2022 DU and Sample Results This page was intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 Table 3-2: Hakalau Beach Park Southern Bank Results above 800 ma/ka for Lead 2020/2022 DU Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL Unrestricted Land Use (200 mg/kg), but below Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg) Depth (in) Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL above Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg), but below gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) Current Use Description Lead results above gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) NA Not sampled 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner HDOT ROW DUs 1 DU -1 0-3 25,000 Area around the bents 4 and 5 HDOT DU -1D 0-3 23,700 DU -1T 0-3 23,600 DU -1 B 3-6 7,880 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 32/33 DU -1B 6-12 2 DU -2 0-3 10,200 9,480 Between the road and stream around bent 6 HDOT DU -2B 3-6 32/33 DU -2B 3,250*; 3,360*; 6-12 2 960* 7 DU -7 0-3 2,530 Road on South stream bank, between Bents 5 and 6. HDOT DU -7B 3-6 Refusal 33 DU -7B 6-12 3,538* 11 DU -11A 0-3 8,820 Refusal 3,538*; 7510* Narrow DU south of DU1 HDOT DU -11B 3-6 32/33 DU -11B 6-12 21 DU -21A 0-3 5,080 2,720 3,538*; 7510* Directly below bridge south bank. HDOT ROW DU -21B 3-6 32 DU -21B 6-12 22 DU -22A 0-3 3,830 2,870; 13,500* Wolf Property: Area between driveway and stream. Potential high use. HDOT/ Wolf Property 32 DU -22B 3-6 32 DU -22B 6-12 7,510* PRIVATELY OWNED PARCELS DUs 8 DU -8 0-3 Vegetated area On southern stream bank south of the access road to park area. Wolf Pro pert p y 32 DU -8 3-6 8B DU -8 3-6 32 DU -8 6-12 8B 12+ Refusal 19 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 12 DU -12A 0-3 1,410 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. DU -23A 0-3 1,040 DU -24A 0-3 DU -20A 0-3 760 DU -20B 3-6 570 20 20 DU -20A and DU2OB 3-6 ranVegetated area west of DU -8. Wolf Property 20 6+ Refusal 22 DU -22A 0-3 3,830 Wolf Property: Area between driveway and stream. Potential high use. HDOT/ Wolf Property 32 DU -22B 3-6 2,870; 13,500* 7,510* 32 DU -22B 6-12 26 0-3 1,320** Southern stream bank upstream of DU22 Wolf Property 3+ Refusal 6-18 27 0-3 1,680** Southern bank upstream of DU26 Wolf Property 27 3+ Refusal *DU10 consists of a sample duplicate, and triplicate. For the purposes of this table, the highest total lead sample result is identified. 2016/2017/2019: Year Sampled 20 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 4 Environmental Hazard Evaluations 4.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Lead paint was used for decades on the Hakalau Bridge and may have been used on the Hakalau Plantation Flume (destroyed in 1946). Other bridges in the Hamakua Coast have also been identified as sources of lead-based paint which have flaked off and been deposited below the structure on the valley floor. Initial studies performed at Hakalau Beach Park assessed lead, arsenic, and mercury as chemicals of potential concern (COPC). Sampling identified lead as the chemical of concern (COC). Lead-based paints were used as a corrosion -inhibiting coating on the Hakalau Bridge for decades until removed in 2000. During previous analyses, lead was found to exceed the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for construction/trench worker direct exposure scenario of 800 mg/kg for lead within multiple DUs (Table 3-2) for a total area of approximately 46,550 sq. ft. Approximately 103,390 sq. ft. were found to be above the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). Lead is persistent in the environment and accumulates in soils and sediments through deposition. Once absorbed into the body, lead may be stored for long periods in mineralizing tissue (e.g., teeth, bones, etc.). The stored lead may be released again into the bloodstream, especially in times of calcium stress (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, osteoporosis, etc.) or calcium deficiency. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproduction and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen -carrying capacity of the blood. The lead effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological in children and cardiovascular effects (e.g., high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.) in adults. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ. Ecosystems near point sources of lead demonstrate a wide range of adverse effects including losses in biodiversity, changes in community composition, decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates. 4.2 Exposure Setting Hakalau Beach Park is a public County of Hawaii Park. However, some portions of private parcels (TMKs) adjacent to the County and HDOT-owned parcels have been used as defacto extensions of the parking area as they are readily accessible to park users but are not owned by the County of Hawaii. 21 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives The park was closed in 2017 due to concerns about lead -impacted soil and previously served as a park, fishing area, and general recreation site. 4.3 Potential Human/Ecological Receptors A conceptual site model (CSM) provides a framework regarding potential sources of contamination, types of contaminants, contaminated media, exposure and migration pathways, and receptors. The CSM (Table 4-1) was used in the preparation of the Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA). Based on the results of the document review, the following are identified as potential human receptors: • On-site construction workers — including personnel involved in repair or construction/ trenching during future site activities; and • On-site landscapers/site workers — personnel who may maintain landscaped areas and may mow, weed whack, and perform general site maintenance (trash pickup, re -seeding, shrub trimming). • General Public/Site Users — Including individuals of all ages, who may camp, recreate, or otherwise use the park setting and may potentially dig, touch, drive, lie, or be exposed to lead -impacted soil or dust. • Ecological Receptors — including native and non-native birds, and mammals that may nest, loaf, hunt, or transit across the site (AECOS, 2019). 4.4 Exposure Pathway Analysis Direct exposure to lead -impacted soil is a potential exposure pathway to human receptors at the site via the following pathways: • Direct Contact: Incidental ingestion or dermal contact with soil; • Air: Inhalation of fugitive dust; • Surface Runoff and Sediment Exposure: Contaminants bourn by water or revealed by erosion; and • Groundwater Exposure: Contaminants leaching from soil or impacting flowing groundwater. 4.4.1 Direct Contact Pathways Direct contact with soil may result in incidental oral ingestion and/or dermal absorption of lead. Dermal absorption is not considered a pathway at the site, as lead at the site is not organic. Direct contact exposure may occur for the following groups: • Construction/Trench Workers and Landscaping/Site Workers: may experience direct contact with lead -impacted soils during trenching, construction, and landscaping activities. The HDOH construction/trench worker exposure scenarios are set equal to assumptions used in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (USEPA 2016) for consistency with screening levels for occupational exposure assumptions. The exposure rate reflects projects that may require the same workers returning frequently to the same site 22 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives (construction workers in utility trenches). The HDOH TGM uses a total exposure duration of seven years for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens. An exposure frequency of 20 days (4 weeks) per year for 7 years yields a total of 140 days total exposure. Construction workers may receive 140 days (roughly 6 months) of exposure in a single year and never visit the site again. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates lead exposure by using blood - lead modeling, such as the Integrated Exposure -Uptake Biokinetic Model which recommends that soil lead levels less than 400 mg/kg are generally safe for residential use (HDOH 2017). • General Public: The primary concern is that on a regular basis, some people may unintentionally swallow very small amounts of contaminated soil, especially young children who are unaware of the hazards and may be exposed to contaminated soil through normal play activities. Lead enters the body through normal hand-to- mouth activity. Also, residual dirt on plants grown in lead -contaminated soil and on hands after digging or outside work may contribute to lead exposure through accidental ingestion of soil particles. Direct contact with lead -impacted soil is a concern as 20% to 70% of ingested lead is absorbed. • Ecological Receptors: Ecological receptors including birds, mammals, and aquatic species may come into contact with the impacted soil through walking, loafing, digging, or directly in sediments. 4.4.2 Air Exposure Pathways Inhalation of lead dust is another route of exposure, and almost all inhaled lead is absorbed into the body (ATSDR 2005). Lead particles can be absorbed from fugitive dust particles. The generation of fugitive dust may occur through disturbance of affected soil; such as wind or construction activities. Dust particles may be inhaled, may settle on human skin and be ingested (hand to mouth), and/or may settle on vegetation ingested by humans. Construction/Trench Workers and Landscaping/Site Workers: may inhale fugitive dust during normal construction, landscaping, or maintenance activities. Total lead results in the HDOT ROW exceed 1,000 mg/kg for lead. This level is above the construction/trench worker scenario of 800 mg/kg and only trained personnel familiar with risks associated with exposure to lead should be allowed to conduct activities such as trenching, grading, and drilling operations. If the soil in these areas is disturbed, site workers would potentially require respirators based on air monitoring results. • General Public: may inhale dust while camping, driving, digging (children), sitting/lying, or crawling (children). • Ecological receptors: Ecological receptors including birds, mammals, and aquatic species may come into contact with the dust through walking, loafing, nesting, or digging. 23 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 4.4.3 Surface Runoff and Sediment Exposure Pathway Surface runoff is part of the current conceptual exposure site model. Upstream and ROW DUs along the southern embankment had exceedances of the gross contamination EAL of 1,000 mg/kg. These include the 2016 DU 22 and 2a and the 2020 DU27. Likely, the shoreline itself does not have exceedances as the soils have been scoured. The exposed shoreline area did not have enough soil to sample. In 2016 the shoreline results were below the HDOH Tier 1 EALs of 200 mg/kg. The stream banks shift during storms. If extensive flooding, scouring, or high waves (tsunami or hurricane) causes extensive erosion of surface soil from the impacted DUs they may migrate to Hakalau Stream. Sediment may accumulate in the adjacent marine environment and be available for contact with various receptors. Recreational users of the marine environment (swimmers, surfers, fishermen) may come into direct contact with sediment and be exposed through oral ingestion and/or dermal absorption. Ecological receptors may live directly in the impacted sediment and may be exposed to COC through feeding within the sediment. As a secondary transport mechanism, COC may bioaccumulate in ecological receptors (i.e., fish, shellfish), then ingested by human receptors. 4.4.4 Groundwater Exposure Pathway To assess the potential environmental/groundwater leaching pathway, the SPLP analysis was conducted on a soil sample collected from DU32 and DU 33, and the SPLP value was 4.32 mg/L and the method reporting limit (MRL) is 0.03 mg/L (Appendix B). The SPLP assists in the determination of the mobility of both organic and inorganic analytes present in liquids, solids, and wastes. The results of the SPLP test are used to determine the Desorption Partitioning Coefficient (Kd), which is important to understanding how mobile the lead in the soil is and whether it poses a potential risk to ecological receptors in the vicinity of the park (e.g., vertebrate and invertebrate organisms). EPA Method 1312 SPLP West extraction procedure was used on the Hakalau soil samples from DU32 and DU33. West refers to the pH of the extraction fluid that is made by adding 60/40 weight percent of sulfuric and nitric acids to reagent water until the pH is 5.00 +1- 0.05 used to determine the leachability of a site that is west of the Mississippi River. This method's pH is higher than the EPA methods extraction fluid for sites east of the Mississippi River (4.20 +/- 0.05). The result of the SPLP was inputted in the Batch Test Leaching Model (HDOH, 2007), and used to determine the relative mobility of lead in the soil. The Batch Test Leaching Model uses a combination of SPLP results and the total lead concentration in the sample to calculate a desorption coefficient (Kd). The calculated desorption coefficient is greater than 20 (Kd>20), so the contaminant is considered not significantly mobile and is unlikely to pose a leaching hazard to groundwater. If it was less than 20, then an estimated concentration in groundwater should be calculated and compared to the HDOH Tier 1 EAL The Kd value calculated by this model for the soil sample was 2,500, which is much greater than Kd 20 (Appendix B). 24 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives This result demonstrates that the lead present in the soil is strongly bound to the soil and is considered immobile (soil is weathered volcanic alluvial sediments including gravel, sand, and clay). Thus, there is a low likelihood that the lead concentrations in the soil at the park pose a risk to ecological receptors (e.g., aquatic organisms) as a result of lead leaching from the soil into rainwater and sediments or impacting the groundwater as it flows toward the stream and ocean that form the northern and eastern perimeter of the park. 25 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 4.5 Environmental Hazard Evaluation Summary The exposure pathway analysis described in the previous section identifies various exposure pathways (direct and indirect) where lead -impacted soil may pose a risk to human and ecological receptors. The conceptual site exposure model provides a graphical comparison of release mechanism, pathways, and exposure routes to potential current and future receptors at the Site (Table 4-1). 4.5.1 COPC Sources and Release Mechanisms The primary source of the COPC at Hakalau Beach Park is lead -impacted surface and subsurface soil from lead released into the environment from lead-based paint used in historical bridge maintenance activities. Lead -impacted soil present at the site has been shown to exist at concentrations above the HDOH Tier EALs for gross contamination (1000 mg/kg). Total concentrations vary across the site and include portions that are at or below HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. The secondary release mechanism, besides direct contact with soil, includes dust, surface water runoff, and leaching. 4.5.2 Pathways and Exposure Routes Lead poses a hazard to potential receptors through direct exposure to contaminated media through pathways including surface soil, subsurface soil, ambient air, surface water and sediments, and groundwater. These pathways potentially expose receptors to lead via inhalation, ingestion, or dermal adsorption. 4.5.3 Potential Receptors Current and Future Land Use The main human exposure scenarios identified under current land use as a County Beach Park are the general public, maintenance workers, and construction works. Since the park's land use is restricted due to its location and ownership, it is not likely to change, and future land use includes these same human exposure scenarios. This is also true for avian and aquatic receptors. 4.5.4 Complete Exposure Pathways Complete exposure pathways exist for all receptor scenarios exposed to surface and subsurface soil at this site under current and future conditions. Exposure to dust is a complete pathway to on-site maintenance and construction workers when the current grass cover is disturbed and there is potential for inhalation of dust under dry windy conditions when activities such as land mowing and excavation occur. 4.5.5 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways Potentially complete pathways to the general public, terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors exist via direct exposure to fugitive dust if the grass cover was not maintained or a construction excavation project was conducted at the park and dust controls were not implemented correctly. This potential exposure route could be controlled using proper materials management practices and could limit this exposure pathway. Currently, there is no complete pathway to any receptors via surface water runoff, but again, future construction activities could potentially complete this pathway if not conducted with care. Additionally, if there were a natural disaster such as a tsunami that could scour away the 26 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives current stream bank and redistribute lead -impacted soils in the current park in valley floor sediment and runoff could be a completed exposure pathway. 4.5.6 Exposure to Lead Leaching There has not been an identified complete pathway to current and future receptors via leaching in subsurface soil or groundwater. A batch test leachability model based on SPLP analyses from soil collected from the DUs with the highest documented throughout the aggregated sampling events demonstrated that the absorption coefficient is high enough to prevent contaminant mobilization from the soil to groundwater (Appendix B). This is also in part supported by the results of surface water sampling conducted in May of 2022 from a small slow -flowing stream that borders the southern valley escarpment that meanders through and around the most heavily lead -impacted areas. Three surface water DUs were sampled from this stream (DUs 202249, 202250, and 202251, See Figure 3-2) from locations; 1) prior to passing through most impacted areas (DU 202249), 2) at the point which was adjacent to the areas where highest soil concentrations have been identified (DU 202251), and the final point just downstream of the areas of greatest lead concentrations (just before draining into the mouth of Hakalau stream and Hakalau Bay) (DU 202250). 27 0-4 N T Table 4-1: Conceptual Site Exposure Model Potential Receptors Future Land Use* Aquatic Ecological ><><><.><0 0 0-- — — — Terrestrial Ecological X X XXO O 0 -- —-- General Public/ X X XXO O 0 -- —-- On-site Landscape or Construction Workers X X XXX 0 O — — — — — Current Land Use Aquatic Ecological ><><><X0 0 0-- — — — Terrestrial Ecological X X XXO O 0 -- —-- General Public X X X X 0 0 O — — — — — On-site Landscape or Construction Workers X X XXX 0 --—--- Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Ingestion EE o Inhalation Pathway Surface Soil Sub -Surface Soil Ambient Air Surface Water and Sediments Subsurface Soil Ground- water Secondary Release Mechanism a) o o z a) z Dust Surface Water Runoff o) c LE ) Secondary Sources (6 V.3 J E 0 Primary Release Mechanism E No a) co co co J Primary Sources a) U (a Q O ° n3 a) J Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 5 Establishing Alternatives Under amended Section 121(d) of CERCLA, remedial actions for hazardous substance cleanup must attain or waive federal environmental potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), or more stringent state environmental ARARs, upon completion of the remedial action (EPA 2019). ARARs include only federal and state environmental or facility -citing laws/regulations and do not include occupational safety or worker protection requirements. Compliance with OSHA standards is required by 40 C.F.R. 300.150 and therefore the CERCLA requirement for compliance with or waiver of ARARs does not apply to OSHA standards (EPA 2019). In addition to ARARs, non -promulgated criteria, advisories, guidance, or policies referred to as to -be -considered criteria (TBC) information may also apply to the conditions found at a site. Unlike ARARs, identification of and compliance with TBC information is not mandatory or legally binding; however, where TBC information is used as a cleanup level, its use for this purpose should be explained and justified. See Appendix C for a table for ARARs and TBC criteria for remedial alternatives considered for Hakalau Beach Park. The alternatives evaluated to meet the ARARs and compliance may require consultation with State and Federal Agencies. 5.1 Potential ARARs and TBC Criteria 5.1.1 Potential Chemical -Specific ARARs and TBCs Chemical -specific ARARs include those environmental laws and regulations that regulate the release to the environment of materials with certain chemical or physical characteristics or that contain specified chemical compounds. These requirements generally set health- or risk-based concentration limits or discharge limits for specific hazardous substances by media. In this instance, the chemical of concern is lead. This contaminant is identified in the EPA RSLs specifically and identified as acceptable for park users at 400 mg/kg in soil. The RSLs are defined as TBCs as they are not promulgated. 5.1.2 Potential Location -Specific ARARs and TBCs Location -specific ARARs govern activities in certain environmentally sensitive areas. These requirements are triggered by the specific location and the proposed activity at the site. The site is a public park. The EPA RSLs currently allow for 400 mg/kg of total lead at pre-schools and parks. Under the HRS 128D, the HDOH Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) office have provided guidance that recommended a stricter standard of 200 mg/kg for unrestricted land use and active park space. The RSLs and EALs are not promulgated. The site is also less than 150 meters from the water and within the Coastal Zone Management Special Management Area. It is below the Hawaii -designated underground 29 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives injection control line and is not a source of drinking water. It is not located in a designated critical habitat or a designated wetland. 5.1.3 Potential Action -Specific ARARs and TBCs Action -specific ARARs generally set performance, design, or other similar action - specified controls or restrictions on particular kinds of response activities. For example, action -specific ARARs may include restrictions that define acceptable treatment and disposal procedures for hazardous substances under 40 CFR Part 261 and 262. The EPA regulatory limit for lead is 5 mg/L. DUs at the site have been identified as exceeding this limit and would be classified as hazardous waste. DUI, DU11, and DU21 failed TCLP at different depth profiles, (0 to 3 -inches bgs), and near -surface soil (3 to 6 -inches bgs). It is possible that DU2, which was not tested at the time, could also fail TCLP due to its high total lead concentrations. "In addition, any soil with total lead concentrations somewhere between 1410 mg/kg (DU -12A, TCLP lead of 1.3 mg/L) and 5080 mg/kg (approximate range of total lead concentration 1500 - 5000 mg/kg) may likely have TCLP lead results greater than 5 mg/L, and thus be classified as hazardous waste based on the 2016 results" (KPC 2022). There are no approved waste disposal sites in Hawaii authorized to accept this waste. This type of waste is sent off island for disposal. 5.2 Remedial Action Objectives The Remedial Action Objectives for Hakalau as identified by the site owners and as recommended by the state guidance is to remove the direct contact pathway to human receptors (park goers and site workers) and ecological receptors to lead -impacted soil which exceeds concentrations of 200 mg/kg. 5.3 General Response Actions Actions may include restricting access, fencing, administrative/institutional controls, reducing contact with lead -impacted soil through physical barriers, or removing the source of contamination. 30 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 6 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives The HDOH TGM (Section 16.2.2.2) and the Hawaii State Contingency Plan (SCP) [HAR 11-451-8(c)] (HAR 1995) identify a hierarchy of remedial response actions in this descending order: 1. Recycle or reuse 2. Destruction or detoxification 3. Separation, concentration, or volume reduction 4. Immobilization of hazardous substances 5. On-site or off-site disposal, isolation, or containment 6. Institutional controls or long-term monitoring. 6.1 Alternative 1: Recycle or Reuse The contaminant of concern is dispersed lead -paint flakes. The lead paint material is not dense enough to be separated from the soil in order to be recycled or reused. This alternative is not suitable to remove the contaminant from the site or reduce potential exposure pathways. 6.2 Alternative 2: Destruction or Detoxification The lead at the site is also not organic, corrosive, or explosive and is relatively immobile. This alternative is not suitable to remove the contaminant from the site or reduce potential exposure pathways. 6.3 Alternative 3: Separation, concentration, or volume reduction Under this alternative, contaminated material may be completely or partially separated from material that is not contaminated, or contamination may be reduced in a large volume of material by concentrating the contaminant in a smaller volume. Soil particle size separation is conducted to reduce contaminated soil volume. Soils at Hakalau and lead paint flakes are not suitable for volume reduction in this form and contamination would not be reduced significantly. 6.4 Alternative 4: Immobilization of Hazardous Substances Portions of the site exceed gross contamination and fail TCLP. The soil in some DUs (approximately 8,390 sq ft) would be classified as hazardous waste if removed for disposal. This soil cannot be disposed of in Hawaii as there are no facilities that are permitted to accept hazardous waste. Reducing bioavailability by stabilizing the lead with a strong buffering agent application was tested to reduce the concentration which could allow for disposal in the state (e.g., through the application of triple superphosphate (TSP) as an amendment to the soil). This would be in conjunction with soil excavation and removal and would not be used for in-situ stabilization. Treated soil would be hauled to RCRA subpart D permitted landfill (e.g., West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill). TSP is a commercially available soil fertilizer that can also be used to reduce the mobility of lead in the soil. Phosphate is a compound made up of phosphorous (P) and oxygen 31 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives (0) and phosphorous atoms that act as an anion that binds readily to lead cations. TSP can also be combined with different ions to impact solubility under acidic conditions. It is most commonly used as fertilizer produced from phosphate rock and phosphoric acid and is technically known as calcium dihydrogen phosphate and as monocalcium phosphate, [Ca (H2PO4)2.H2O]. Treatability studies for in situ lead stabilization that used phosphate - based binders found a significant reduction in the bioavailable lead in soil when it was amended with TSP (Hettiarachchi et al. 2001 and Gene 2008). TSP can also be combined with different ions to impact solubility under acidic conditions. Based on the high concentrations of lead in soil at the Hakalau site, TSP was not considered as a potential in situ stabilization remedial alternative approach. Instead, TSP is evaluated in this alternative and was considered as an amendment to be added to the contaminated soil after it is excavated to reduce the toxicity through immobilization/stabilization of the soil to allow it to be disposed of at an on -island landfill. This is a variation of the scenarios that are evaluated under Alternative 5. As part of the remedial alternative evaluation, in May of 2022, KPC collected a bulk sample using ISM from the most heavily impacted areas below the bridge on the southern side of the Hakalau stream from DUs 32 and 33 which had been documented in previous investigations as having the highest total lead concentrations in the project area (DUs 32 and 33 were composed of the consolidated DUs 1, 2, 11, and 21). The methodology and results of this treatability study are presented in Appendix E. The study concluded that TSP was effective at reducing the toxicity of lead in the areas where the highest total lead was present. The total lead concentrations from ISM soil samples collected from DU32 and DU33 were 11,400 mg/kg and had a respective TCLP result of 25.6 mg/I, which is well above the RCRA toxicity characteristic for lead of 5.0 mg/L. However, if TSP is added to an aliquot from this same ISM from DU32 and DU33 at a concentration of just 5% of the total soil mass, the TCLP results were shown to reduce concentrations below the laboratories method reporting limit (or in other words non- detectable dissolved lead). This was achieved without any additional pH buffering additives and demonstrated that immobilization/ stabilization using TSP is highly effective and has ratios that are economically feasible. As a component of the bench test treatability study in addition to evaluation of the effectiveness of immobilizing lead by adding TSP as an amendment, KPC also evaluated the effectiveness of adding Portland Cement as a way to stabilize the lead. The concept was that if Portland Cement could both buffer the soil to reduce the mobility of the lead and create a material that could consolidate the lead soil as long-term management to reduce disposal costs (e.g., construct an onsite encapsulation cell). Portland Cement was added to the impacted soil at a typical mass ratio for making concrete (1:3). Samples of the soil were weighed, and Portland Cement was mixed with the soil, no other sand or gravel was added and because the soil already had a high moisture content, water was not added to the mix. After the mix was cured, samples were pulverized and submitted to Eurofins for analysis. TCLP analysis on this final material also showed that Portland cement is able to reduce the TCLP result to below the laboratory reporting limit without the addition of TSP Appendix E. 32 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 6.5 Alternative 5: On-site or off-site disposal, isolation, or containment This method offers a good option to prevent the general public from coming into contact with lead -impacted soils. There are three scenarios evaluated in the RAA that are considered effective presumptive remedies for addressing lead -impacted sites by the USEPA. Generally, if lead -impacted soil remains on-site it will be encapsulated and direct exposure to park users is prevented, however, site maintenance workers/construction workers may come into contact with it in the future. An Environmental Hazard Management Plan (EHMP) will need to be maintained and updated when future work activities are planned in areas where encapsulated contaminated soil is present. A project -specific construction EHMP (C-EHMP) will need to be prepared for each future repair and construction activities need to plan for managing lead -impacted soil to be protective of all potentially exposed receptors for the duration of the project. Alternatively, if lead -impacted soil is removed in its entirety from the site as a remedial approach then all potential exposure risk is removed and no EHMP is required for the long term. This alternative presents the remedial alternatives that reduce or remove contamination from direct contact with receptors at the site. Due to the overlapping rounds of sampling and DUs that have occurred between the period 2016 and 2022, Tables 6-1 and 6-2 identify the total area of the exceedances broken down by landowner, location, and DU. 33 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 Table 6-1: HDOT and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 800 mg/kg Stream Side Owner (Description) Lead Area (sq ft) Perimeter (ft) DUs Total (sq ft) North HDOT (ROW) 800+ mg/kg 5885 313 5,6,34 North Marian Land Co (downstreami) 200+ mg/kg 4100 267 202239 South HDOT (ROW Streamside) 800+ mg/kg 5510 331 1,2,7,33, 22 (partial) South South HDOT (ROW Roadway) 800+ mg/kg 3026 285 7,32,33, South South HDOT (ROW Upslope) 800+ mg/kg 10805 421 1,7,11, 21,32,33 South Marian Land Co 200+ mg/kg 1355 161 13 1355 South Wolf Property (Streamside) 800+ mg/kg 5219 308 22,27 South Wolf Property (Roadway) 800+ mg/kg 1817 248 Not sampled, likely 800 mg/kg + South Wolf Property (Upslope) 800+ mg/kg 10382 404 8,20,26 South Marian Land Co (downstream of bridge) 800+ mg/kg 3907 345 12, portion 13 Total HDOT Area 800 + mg/kg 25,226 Total Privately Owned Parcel 21,325 Total Area 800+ mg/kg 46,551 Table 6-2: Hawaii County and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 200 mg/kg and are below 800 ma/ka * Stream Side Owner Lead Area (sq ft) Perimeter (ft) DUs* Total (sq ft) North Wolf Property (upstream) 200+ mg/kg 5847 310 202241 North Marian Land Co (downstreami) 200+ mg/kg 4100 267 202239 North Side: Between 200-800 mg/kg 9947 South County of Hawaii 200+ mg/kg 36017 875 16, 17,18,37,38 36017 South Wolf Property upslope 200+ mg/kg 9035 374 202244 9035 South Marian Land Co 200+ mg/kg 1355 161 13 1355 South Side: Between 200-800 mg/kg 46407 Total Area 200- 800 mg/kg 56354 *All HDOT DUs exceed 800 mg/kg 34 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 6.5.1 Alternative 5a: On-site isolation and containment HDOH and EPA -acceptable mitigation measures include soil encapsulation. During soil encapsulation, DUs that exceed HDOH unrestricted land use EALs (200 mg/kg) for lead would first be covered with orange mirafi (geotextile) or black geotextile material with caution tape laid at intervals to produce a visible barrier between the clean and impacted soils. Visual confirmation will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is covered (Figure 6-1, Table 6-3). • Clean fill would be brought in and overlaid across the impacted site at a depth of either 18 or 24 inches and grass would be maintained to prevent potential exposure. Additional cubic yards of clean soil would also be needed for drainage and grading. An exposure assessment conducted at nearby Kolekole Beach Park in 2017 for park maintenance workers demonstrated the grass cover on the impacted soil areas effectively prevented a complete exposure pathway while performing maintenance activities (e.g., lawn mowing). The results of this assessment also demonstrated that grass cover was protective of park user exposure scenarios as long as there were restrictions on activities that could render the grass cover ineffective (e.g., digging, driving fence posts, etc.). This may be suitable for the County of Hawaii Park Parcels but may not be adequate for the HDOT ROW due to high COPC levels. This option leaves the lead -impacted soil on site (including areas of Gross Contamination) and an EHMP would still be needed. Batch Test Leachability analysis demonstrated that lead is immobile and unlikely to affect groundwater and surface water. Workers within the DOT ROW would need respirators when performing maintenance tasks where they are digging/trenching in soil. Table 6-3: Alternative 5a: No Removal, Cap Only, Cubic Yards Annual operation and maintenance costs are not typically high for this alternative; however, the location could be impacted by erosion due to heavy rains and storms. The 35 Cubic Yards Ownership Sq Ft Clean fill 18" Grass Cap Clean fill (24") Grass Cap County of Hawaii 200-800 mg/kg 36017 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg 5885 327 436 HDOT ROW (South) 800+ mg/kg 19341 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North) 200 - 800 mg/kg 9947 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 — 800 mg/kg 10390 577 770 Private Parcels (South) 800+ mg/kg 21325 1185 1580 Total 102905 5718 7623 Annual operation and maintenance costs are not typically high for this alternative; however, the location could be impacted by erosion due to heavy rains and storms. The 35 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives hard cap and soil cover option may be undermined during large storms. If this occurs, additional soil or hard cap repairs may be needed. If evidence of erosion impacts the mirafi layer, there is a potential that impacted soil may be spread over areas currently identified as "lower risk" and additional sampling could be required. It is vital that this cap is maintained to protect park users. An annual inspection of this cap will be required per the EHMP and will be documented and submitted to HDOH. Areas, where this would be impracticable (steep slopes, areas of intense vegetation/trees on the southern embankment), would be fenced and signs would be maintained to restrict access. 6.5.2 Alternative 5b: Removal of all soil that exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill DUs which pass TCLP and exceed HDOH Tier I unrestricted land use EALs for lead (200 mg/kg) will be excavated (Figure 6-1), hauled to West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill and replaced with clean fill at a design fill depth of 24 inches. DUs in the County of Hawaii parcel meet this standard. Other locations, particularly the DOT ROW area and some private parcels, do not meet this standard and may require disposal off -island (Table 6- 4). Initial costs would be high as soil which is classified as hazardous waste could not be disposed of at facilities in Hawaii. DU1, DU2, DU11, and DU21 failed TCLP at different depth profiles, (0 to 3 -inches bgs), and near -surface soil (3 to 6 -inches bgs). This is approximately 8,390 sq ft. It is possible that DU2, which was not tested at the time, could also fail TCLP due to its high total lead concentrations. DU2 is approximately 2,444 sq ft but both 0.25 -inch depth layers are likely to fail TCLP so at least 0.5 feet would be removed and would require off -island disposal. Table 6-4: DUs which Failed TCLP (2016) and Require Mainland Disposal DU Owner sq. ft Depth* CY Total Lead mg/kg TCLP DU -1B HDOT 5847 3 — 6 inches 54.14 7880 26.2 DU -11 HDOT 1228 0 — 3 inches 11.37 8820 31.8 DU -21 HDOT 1315 0 — 3 inches 12.18 5080 14.2 DU -2A DU -28 HDOT 2444 0 — 3 inches 22.63 10200 Fails TCLP* HDOT 2444 3 — 6 inches 22.63 9480 Fails TCLP* Total 13258 122.94* Soil Excavation, and Off -Site Disposal of all soil which exceeds the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use for lead (200 mg/kg) Replace contam'nated soil with clean fill. Note = DUs 2A and 2B are assumed to fail TCCP based on total lead concentrations * As a conservative measure assume that an entire 0.5 will be removed from each of these DUs total of 246 cubic yards (123 CY x 2=246 CY). Confirmation sampling will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is removed from each DU. All DUs would be excavated in 6 -inch lifts until confirmation samples indicated 36 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives that soil concentrations were below the HDOH EAL for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). Approximately 103,000 sq ft of soil would need to be removed to various depths. For this alternative, we used an estimated depth of 12 inches. The depth may be less on a site - wide average (Table 6-5). Clean fill would then be brought in and overlaid across the impacted site at a depth of 18- 24 inches to relevel the site for use and allow for revegetation, drainage, and grading. Additional cubic yards of clean soil may also be needed for drainage and grading. An archaeological consultation and monitoring would be required during the excavation. The lead -impacted soil would be removed, therefore an EHMP will not be needed. Once removal is completed, soil onsite would not require an EHMP. The primary maintenance item would be cutting grass and addressing any erosional issues to the grass cover over the new layer of imported soil. Table 6-5: Alternative 5b, Soil Removal 200+ mg/kg, Clean Fill, Cubic yards Ownership Sq Ft DU ID Remove soil (12" estimate) that exceeds 200 mg/kg (CY) Clean fill 18" (CY) Clean fill 24" (CY) County of Hawaii 200-800 m./k. 36017 16, 17,18,37,38 1334 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg HDOT ROW (South) 800+ m./k. 5885 5,6,34 218 327 436 19341 1,2,7, 11, 21, 22, 32, 33 716 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North) 200 — 800 mg/kg 9947 202241, 202239 368 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 — 800 m./k. 10390 13, 202244 385 577 770 Private Parcels South 800+ m./k. 21325 8, 12, 13, 22,27, 26 790 1185 1580 Total 102905 3811 5718 7623 37 Figure 6-1: Alternative 5a or 5b, Removal 200+ mg/kg and Capped Soil Areas CO This page intentionally left blank. C 0 N 0 C N Dm_ L O U f6 U N Q COicsm N E Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 6.5.3 Alternative 5c: Removal of soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. Soil cap for soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg but is below 800 mg/kg. DUs within the HDOT ROW and privately owned parcel exceed the HDOH EALs for the construction/trench worker exposure for lead (800 mg/kg). This is approximately 46,551 sq ft (Figure 6-2, Table 6-6). Soil from these DUs will be removed. Confirmation sampling will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is removed. The soil will be replaced with clean fill at an estimated fill depth of 24 inches. DUs which exceed the HDOH EALs for unrestricted land use for lead (200 mg/kg) would first be covered with orange mirafi (geotextile) or black geotextile with caution tape laid at intervals to produce a visible barrier between the clean and impacted soils. Clean fill would then be brought in and overlaid across these DUs at a depth of 18- 24 inches and grass will be maintained to prevent potential exposure. Additional cubic yards of clean soil may also be needed for drainage and grading. An EHMP for the remaining lead - impacted soil on site would still be needed. Table 6-6: Alternative 5c — Soil Removal 800+ mg/kg, Clean Fill Cubic Yards Archaeological consultation and monitoring would be required during the excavation period (approximately five weeks). A portion of the lead -impacted soil would remain on- site, therefore an EHMP will be needed. 40 Cubic Yards Ownership Sq Ft Remove soil (12" estimate) that exceeds 800 mg/kg Clean fill 18" Clean fill (24") County of Hawaii 200-800 mg/kg 36017 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg 5885 218 327 436 HDOT ROW (South) 800+ mg/kg 19341 716 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North) 200 — 800 mg/kg 9947 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 — 800 mg/kg 10390 577 770 Private Parcels (South) 800+ mg/kg 21325 790 1185 1580 Total 102905 1724 5718 7623 Archaeological consultation and monitoring would be required during the excavation period (approximately five weeks). A portion of the lead -impacted soil would remain on- site, therefore an EHMP will be needed. 40 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 Initial costs would be high as soil which is classified as hazardous waste could not be disposed of at facilities in Hawaii and be required to be disposed of in the mainland United States. DUI, DU11, and DU21 failed TCLP at different depth profiles, (0 to 3 -inches bgs), and near -surface soil (3 to 6 -inches bgs). This is approximately 8,390 sq ft. DU 2 is also likely to fail the TCLP threshold and has been included for removal as lead concentrations in this DU range between 9480 — 10,200 mg/kg. DU2 is approximately 2,444 sq ft. (See Table 6-4). Annual operation and maintenance costs are not expected to be high for this alternative and would fit in with the park's current budget. An annual inspection of the cap will be required per the EHMP and will be documented and submitted to HDOH. The primary maintenance item would be cutting grass and addressing any erosional issues to the grass cover over the new layer of imported soil. Figure 6-2: Removal of Soil Over 800 mg/kg, Cap 200 mg/kg 202249 • Private and HDOT ROW: Over 800 mg/kg ® County of Hawaii Area: 200 mg/kg !-_... Tax Parcels: TMK IDs Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Above B00 mg/kg Decision Units Hakalau 2016 C .? Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Between 200 - 800 mg/kg 2022 Sampling: Belweer 200-800 mg/kg 0 Surface Water 41 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 6.6 Institutional Controls or Long -Term Monitoring This option removes harm to the public but does not remove or reduce the impacts from the site. This option also removes the use value from the site. 6.6.1 Alternatives 6a: No Action Under the no -action, no remediation activities will be performed. The park will remain closed indefinitely. The costs associated with this alternative were evaluated however, there are likely to be unforeseen costs such as security issues associated with trespassing and other unwanted activity. Based on the concentrations of lead on the Hakalau Valley floor, if left unmitigated, lead -impacted soil poses an unacceptable risk to current and future park users and maintenance workers via a direct pathway to highly contaminated soil media. Lead is persistent in the environment and will not decay in the soil over time. To prevent the public from exposure to areas that are grossly contaminated with lead the county could permanently close Hakalau Park down and restrict public use. Social acceptance of having a popular park permanently inaccessible to the public would be unlikely to be accepted and supported. This alternative does not meet the needs of the residents of Hawaii nor the County of Hawaii Parks Department and is the lowest -ranked remedial alternative under the HDOH TGM and Hawaii SCP. 6.6.2 Alternatives 6b: Institutional and Engineering Controls Under the no -action institutional controls alternative, no remediation activities will be performed. The park will would reopen and all areas where lead has been documented to exist in concentrations greater than 200 mg/kg for lead would either be allowed to overgrow with vegetation preventing the public from direct exposure to the soil. A site- specific Environmental Hazard Management Plan (EHMP) would need to be prepared that would outline the areas where various lead concentrations are on the site to facilitate awareness about the risks to current and future maintenance workers. Maintenance (mowing with a mower or line trimmer) would only be conducted where concentrations were below commercial/industrial EALs. To prevent unintentional exposure a healthy grass cover would be maintained, and any bare soil areas would be seeded and covered with jute netting to prevent direct exposure. Signage warning park users of the hazards and some fencing would be installed to prevent access to the areas where contamination exceeds the HDOH HEER Office EALs for construction/industrial land use (and grossly contaminated areas)(Figure 6-3). The costs associated with this alternative were not evaluated however, there are likely to be unforeseen costs such as security issues associated with trespassing and other unwanted activity. Periodic inspections of the grass surface for exposed soil areas of erosion would be required and will need to be documented in annual reports. Site workers may be required to wear respirators due to the high levels of lead in some areas. The EHMP would need to be updated periodically and the effectiveness of this alternative would be reviewed every 5 years. This alternative assumes four updates per 30 -year period to accommodate park maintenance and use changes. 42 Hakalau Beach Park Remedial Action Alternatives May 2023 This alternative may meet the needs of the residents of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii Parks Department however, leaving lead in place on public and private land may not be socially acceptable and the public may reject this remedial alternative under the HDOH TGM and Hawaii SCP. Figure 6-3: Fencing all areas that exceed 800 mg/kg, soil cap for County of Hawaii Parcels kalau 4. Park • Esrl, HE 43 ® County of ia,vaii Area: 200 mg/kg Proposed F,_ ing Tax Parcels: If IK IDs Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Above 800 mg/kg Decision UnIts Hakalau 2016 Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Between 200 - 800 mg/kg 2022 Sampling: Between 200-800 mg/kg .) _..,ce Water Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 7 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 7.1 Overall Protectiveness The first three identified alternatives do not meet the overall protectiveness requirements as these alternatives would not remove, limit, or reduce the potential lead exposure pathways for receptors. Alternative 4 could potentially be used in conjunction with other remedial actions to reduce disposal costs. • Alternative 1: The lead paint material is not dense enough to be separated from the soil in order to be recycled or reused. • Alternative 2: The lead at the site is also not organic, corrosive, or explosive and is relatively immobile. • Alternative 3: Soils at Hakalau and lead paint flakes are not suitable for volume reduction in this form and would not be reduced significantly. • Alternative 4: The Bench Test Treatability study (Appendix E) has demonstrated that immobilization via treatment with TSP to reduce the mobility of lead has been shown to be feasible. This alternative combined with either 5b or 5c to reduce the quantity of lead -impacted soil that would need to be disposed of at mainland US facilities would increase the protectiveness both locally if it able to be treated and accepted for disposal at the WHSL facility. A permit to treat hazardous waste in Hakalau Valley would be required to conduct this alternative. Unfortunately, the uncertainties in the timeline that would be needed to complete the permitting and in obtaining public acceptance of the treatment process make this alternative an unknown. This alternative also has additional costs associated with treatment (industrial machinery for mixing TSP or Portland Cement into the lead -impacted soil, grading, managing stormwater controls on site). The application of this alternative would be in conjunction with soil excavation and removal and would not be used for in-situ stabilization. Alternatives 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, and 6b, presented in Table 7-1 and summarized below vary in protectiveness. The following assumptions are made. • The public obeys signage and restricted areas. • Site workers (Landscapers) have frequent exposure to surface soil. Site workers primarily handle vegetation and do not excavate below the surface (0 to 3 inches). • Construction/Trench Workers dig below surface soil (6+ inches bgs) and handle soil. • Ecological receptors primarily nest, dig, loaf, or lie on the surface of the soil. • The site remains vegetated, as consistent rainfall in the area typically ensures vegetation growth. • Construction/Trench Workers and Landscapers do not enter the river/interact with sediment in the water. 44 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives Remedial Alternatives for Hakalau include the County of Hawaii parcels and the HDOT ROW. The remedial actions are addressed on a parcel and location basis due to the differences in site use and disparity in total lead results of the remedial actions. 45 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing to Limit Access Yes Direct Contact Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? Z >_ Yes >- Air Exposure Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? Potential >- Yes Yes Surface Water Runoff (Sediment) in River Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? Potential z z Potential 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing, No Action Yes O z u) >- u) >->- u) Potential u) >- Yes Yes To a) 0 a_ O z O z Potential Potential No: Lead is below direct exposure for construction/trench worker scenario z Potential: Unlikely z moom Potential z z 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. Yes z z z z O z O z O z O z 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replace with clean fill O z O z O z O z O z O z O z O z O z 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Hard cap on areas of 800 mg/kg exceedances Yes Potential (if breached) Potential Potential (if breached) Potential (if breached) z Potential z ON z z z z z Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential To c o 0 0 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Soil cap entire site. (f)o >- Potential o z Potential Potential U d Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors Is Lead -Impacted Soil Still Present? U d Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors Public Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors This page intentionally left blank. C 0 N 0 C Y Dm_ L O U f6 U N Q COicsm N E Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 7.2 Compliance with ARARs All of the alternatives shall meet the requirements of the ARARs and will use TBC as guidance (EPA RSLs, HDOH EALs). The actions are compatible with standard excavation and/or earth -moving activities and waste disposal in Hawaii. Depending on the chosen alternative, the site work plan will identify methods to prevent, mitigate, and respond to the conservation of cultural and ecological resources ARARs. ARARs evaluation is presented in Appendix C. 7.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment The degree to which the remedial alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, and reduction of volume is achieved, including how the treatment is used to address the COC at the site is presented below (Table 7-2). Factors considered, as appropriate, include the following: • The number of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that will be destroyed, treated, or recycled; • The degree of the expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste due to treatment; and • The degree to which the treatment is irreversible. Alternative 5a - On-site isolation and containment would not remove the volume of contamination, but it would reduce the mobility through a soil cap. This cap is potentially vulnerable to scouring from flooding. The toxicity would not be reduced but the potential for the public and landscapers/site workers to encounter it would be reduced. Treatment under this alternative may not protect against future seismic or climatic events (e.g., tsunami, flooding, or sea -level rise) Table 7-2). Alternative 5b — Removal of all soil that exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill offers the greatest reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume as the entire contaminated source will be removed from the site resulting in a volume reduction of 4,057 cubic yards (CY) of lead impacted soil. Treatment under this alternative is permanent. Alternative 5c - Removal of all soil which exceeds the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for commercial/industrial land use for lead (800 mg/kg), containment, and replacement with clean fill offers a reduction in toxicity. Mobility will be reduced through the soil cap, but the soil cap could be scoured during extensive flooding. The overall volume of lead -impacted soil would be reduced by 1,970 CY. Treatment under this alternative may not protect against future seismic or climatic events (e.g., tsunami, flooding, or sea -level rise) (Table 7-2). Alternatives 6a and 6b reduce the potential toxicity for the general public as they no longer will be allowed to access the site or will not be able to access the areas where the concentrations of lead are present. There is no change in toxicity for landscapers/site workers and construction/trench workers who may need to maintain the site or work within 48 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives the areas that still have high concentrations of lead. There is no change in mobility or reduction of contaminant volume under these options (Table 7- 2). 49 Table 7-2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment Comparison 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Partial Reopening and Restricted Access to Areas of Highest Contamination. = e 0 d kgƒ(\\� )x'55i / @ f . / 2 / 2\/2)ƒ0 e = .0 ® \/gym/\ .�2//7= § \ 2 u = = 2 R o P b E Ct . o= \k2 =§ 56 Vil 0 / -C \ /\9\ o m 0 .\/% lu22° 0 = 0 _ s R E) E E > 0 E f0 .- 02 e -E m3 _ Z o 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Entire Site Restricted, No Action. osa o).,,,,„ c, m ) 6 R _ /§/ \\\\ 0L= 0a7 2 § c o - ƒ o a= Q 5®�[>e�� :20 fco\ J 0 0$ 3 6=_°_ I- 0& P E% o 2£ k = E § /2\/ k \ \ § \ 5%°° •-k ?\ o y 2 o t 2 oo k/ g a E > as E '[ �/ § _- \0 \E 0 Z> 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. = 0 g o 1 / =0¢ ƒE( � Eo ± �_\ 2/-o o E — > =� / a3E Io EE\7a ° =oE>0 ƒ CO P 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill. \ E ( 2 -'y& .7‹ o R �E \ .co - -.-\ ƒ S —® b �2c 0 0= s00 E o > 75 00 E / / = e f7 9 E /2 -- o 30 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Grass cap on Park area. Hard cap on areas of 800 mg/kg exceedances. a7 E e _% n ®o \ 22 /� 0 2 i/ o 0 _ o = k 0 E ooE0 ' : g e = o® g y$@�/ '§ TD S 1- 0&§/ P E R P \ 0 Etc fo2 2 E o a 0 = 0 E - 0 o c 2 2.@ £ 3 E > DE — > G - .o .2 -0 / 2 0 Z This page intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 7.4 Long -Term and Short -Term Effectiveness Alternative 5a: Offers short-term effectiveness. The park reopens without soil removal disposal costs. Site work is still needed in terms of applying mirafi, soil, and re- vegetation/stabilization of the site. The park is located in an area that can experience torrential rains and associated flooding, increasing the potential for long-term exposure risks. The site will need to be maintained to ensure that the containment soil cap is not breached. Alternative 5b: Repairs to the site will take longer, and the park will not open as quickly as under scenario 5a. This alternative has long-term effectiveness. Sitework will include scraping soil, disposing of soils (off -island), laying clean soil, and stabilization. All work will be completed, and additional work is not anticipated. The source should be removed from direct contact for all users. An EHMP will not be needed for the affected area of the park under this alternative. Construction and Landscaping crews would not require additional PPE while working in these DUs after soil removal. Other sources of lead may be present in the park, and areas outside of the DUs may need soil testing. Alternative 5c: Repairs to the site will offer long-term effectiveness. Site work will take as long as alternative 5a but less than 5b and will require additional materials (mirafi). Soil disposal costs and soil disposal work will remain high. Sitework will include scraping soil, disposing of soils (off -island), applying mirafi, laying clean fill, and stabilization. An EHMP will also be required as lead -impacted soil will remain on-site in the parking area. The removal of soils with total lead greater than 800 mg/kg will mean that construction/trench workers will not require additional PPE while working on the site. Lead -impacted soil may be present in the upper steep gulch slopes and could migrate to the park area below. Institutional controls under 6a and 6b offer short-term effectiveness. The lead -impacted source is removed from public contact, but the material remains and will need to be managed by site workers and potentially by construction/trench workers. Ecological receptors will still access the site and be exposed. The site will need to be protected from erosion and washouts. Surface soil may wash into areas used by the general public and into Hakalau Stream and the Pacific Ocean. EHMPs will be needed, and any site work will need to refer to recommendations in the EHMP. 7.5 Implementability Alternative 5a is implementable using equipment and supplies from Hawaii County or shipped to Hawaii County. This alternative will require excavators, work crews, clean fill (from Hawaii County), and EHMP document production. Alternatives 5b and 5c are implementable using equipment and supplies from Hawaii County or shipped to Hawaii County. However, both alternatives require off -island disposal costs and shipping. Immobilization using TSP or Portland Cement could be used to eliminate the need for offsite disposal but the uncertainty in the time need to gain regulatory and public acceptance pose a risk to using this approach. These alternatives will require excavators, work crews, topsoil, and clean fill (from Hawaii County), and alternative 5c will require EHMP document production. The source of the topsoil and 52 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives clean fill will need to be documented that the source is free of chemical and biological contamination (e.g., chlordane, little fire ants, etc.). Alternative 6a will be the easiest to implement. This alternative requires fencing installation and EHMP document production. This alternative will require the County of Hawaii to maintain an EHMP and conduct periodic inspections of the engineering controls (e.g., monthly inspections) reports documenting the results of the inspection (e.g., annual reports). 7.6 Estimated Costs A complete cost table of the alternatives is found in Appendix D. A summary table is found below in Table 7-3. All alternatives are assumed to have the same costs for the planning component including project management, permitting, and public meeting support. This cost is estimated at $44,818 and is included in all alternative costs. For alternatives that consider a soil cap, the thickness of the soil cap can vary from 18 to 24 inches depending on HDOH requirements. This can have an impact on total costs which are summarized in the table below. 53 Table 7-3: Cost Comparison 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Partial Reopening and Restricted Access to Areas of Highest Contamination. Yes Yes O Z o Z o Z o Z $48,268 co M ( 0 M See Above O o Liz in 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Entire Site Restricted, No Action. Yes Yes O Z o Z 0 Z O Z cota N (xi 6R co r` E3 See Above 55,000 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replace with clean fill. Grass cap on Park area. Yes Yes Yes i i Yes $48,268 $5,975,426 co 0) ti 1.-- 6 Ln 69 $120,00 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replace with clean fill. Yes Z Yes } >- Z $48,268 N O) co in aD M ti 69 o� -0 0O a) O asa) ac6 O E (62 c.E N co O O x0 1- c6 LC) .(L) U C7 0_ Yes Yes O z a) i u) i Yes $48,268 0) p COco ta 0) CO o CO 69 - $120,000 Planning Costs EHMP Needed Soil Removal 300 additional CY clean soil for drainage grading. Archeological consultation and monitoring Mirafi/ Geotextile defined boundary Planning and Permitting Cost including 24 inches soil cover Cost including 18 inches soil cover O&M Cost -30 years This page intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 8 Preferred Alternative The five remedial alternatives are compared the to nine evaluation criteria previously in Section 7 presented qualitatively in a summary comparison in Table 8-1. Table 8-1: Evaluation of Cleanup Alternatives: Hakalau RAA Evaluation Criteria Alternatives 5a On-site isolation and containment 5b 5c 6a Removal of all soil Removal at all Institutional and Engineering Controls: No Action which exceeds soil whicexceeds 200 mgikg for lead eoo mg/kgh for and replacement lead, containment with clean fill and replacement wtthh clean fill 6b Institutional and E nglneering Controls: Partial Reopening: Restricted Area 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence. 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment 5. Short-term effectiveness. 6. Implementability. 7. Cost. 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 . 0 0 0 • . 0 0 0 . S2.310M $7.585M S 5.309M S0.167M $0.271M 9. State regulator acceptance. 9. Community acceptance. 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 satisfies the criterion to a low degree or does not satisfy the criterion in a timely manner. ()satisfies criterion to a moderate degree in a timely manner. 411/ satisfies criterion to a high degree in a timely manner. y'7 satisfies criterion to a high degree preferred alternative. Alternative 5b fully satisfies 7 out of 9 of the evaluation criteria to a high degree, while alternatives 6a and 6b satisfy only 2 out of 9 evaluation criteria to a high degree, and 5a and 5c only satisfy 1 out of 9 criteria to the highest degree. While alternative 6b, Institutional and Engineering controls may receive state and community acceptance as an interim action to allow public access to the park under restricted use requirements on an interim basis it did not address overall protection to human health and the environment, long-term effectiveness and permanence, or the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The remaining alternatives met the evaluation of regulator and public acceptance criteria either equally or at a lower level than alternative 6b. Alternatives 5a and 5c, while having price points in the range of alternative 5b, they ranked low relative to alternative 5b at satisfying the other 7 evaluation criteria. Based on all the evaluation criteria the preferred alternative is 5b: Removal of All Soil that Exceeds 200 mg/kg for Lead and Replacement with Clean Fill. This alternative is recommended because it will achieve substantial risk reduction, removes the source of 56 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives contamination, eliminates the need for an EHMP, and removes lead -impacted soil or sediment from becoming exposed during flooding/erosion in the future. This alternative is cost-effective since it offers a permanent reduction of toxicity, mobility, and completely reduces the volume of contamination at the site. It provides the most long-term effectiveness, and the park will not need additional controls. Moreover, the park can be opened for use by the public, site workers, and construction/trench workers with no additional monitoring or maintenance stipulations. 57 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives 9 References AECOS. 2019. Avian Habitat Survey Kapue Stream, Hamakua District, Hawaii. Feb. County of Hawaii. 2015. Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. Office of Planning. http://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte. 2013. Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Gene, Fabian. 2008. Treatability Study Report for In SITU lead Immobilization Using Phosphate -Based Binders. U. S. Army Environmental Command Aberdeen Proving Ground. Hakalau Home. 2022. 1946 Tsunami. https://www.hakalauhome.com/1946- tsunami.html. Accessed August 2022. Hettiarachchi GM, Pierzynski GM, Ransom MD. In situ stabilization of soil lead using phosphorus. J Environ Qual. 2001 Jul-Aug;30(4):1214-21. doi:10.2134/jeg2001.3041214x. PMID: 11476498. Historic Hawaii. 2022. Hakalau Stream Bridge. https://historichawaii.org/2014/02/14/hakalau-stream-bridge/. Accessed August 2022. Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). 2008. Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan, State of Hawaii Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office, Interim Final -November 12, 2008. . 2011. Technical Guidance Manual Notes: Decision Unit and Multi -Increment Sample Investigations. HDOH, Environmental Management Division. March. . 2012a. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume 1: User's Guide, Hawai'i Edition, Fall 2011. Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management Division. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). . 2012b. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume 2: Background Documentation for the Development of Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels, Appendices 2-9. Fall 2011. Prepared by: Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management Division. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). 58 Hakalau Beach Park May 2023 Remedial Action Alternatives . 2012c. EAL Surfer. Prepared by: Hawai'i Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). . 2022. STATE OF HAWAII WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT: Integrated Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Congress Pursuant to §303(d) and §305(b), Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). Hawaii Department of Health. April 6. . 2019. Safe Drinking Water Branch. Underground Injection Control. https://health.hawaii.gov/sdwb/underground-injection-control-program/. Accessed October 2019. KPC. 2022. Final SAP for Additional Lead Delineation Environmental Site Assessment and Treatability Study Workplan at Hakalau Beach Park. Hakalau HI. February. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019. Hamakua Coast. Accessed Oct 2019. https: / /www.ncdc.noaa.gov. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW -846. 3rd ed. Final Update III. Washington. GPO. November. . 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4). EPA/600/R-96/055. Washington, D.C., August. . 2003. Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from Particulate Laboratory Samples. October 27. . 2019. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS). https://www.epa.gov/superfund/applicable-or-relevant-and-appropriate-requirements- arars. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Papaaloa, HI Quad. HTMC, 1992 ed. USGS Topoviewer Accessed 2022. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/19.8861/-155.1273. 59 This page was intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A: LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS This page was intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A-1: 2022 SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES AND LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS This page was intentionally left blank. HKDU38-6-12- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 6-12 a N 7 N C2 C2 to O r HKDU37-6-12- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 6-12 a 4 N N co co co HKDU34-6-12- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 6-12 a N N Ce Qo HKDU34-0-6- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 0-6 a N =N N Ce ‘- N HKDU33-6-12- 021820 18 -Feb -2020 6-12 a 4 7 N 62 O N N M HKDU32-6-12- 021720 17 -Feb -2020 6-12 a Results 0 N n HKDU32-0-6- 021720 17 -Feb -2020 0-6 a N g t O O N M Sample Identifier Sample Date Sample Depth (inches) construction Worker Direct - Exposure Action Levels 3 Lead EPA 6010B 7439-92-1 mg/kg 200 200 800 (0 y 3 C NN -0 E 0 - d N 6 K Q J .1)w J E y Q O iz w v+ n N E D Z W Q 0 0 Ii.; C m Q 0 0 4 C 0 0 C0. G 0 fa c> 0. 0 V 0 J ci 0 d c c 0 U 0 Q 0 0, as N U Cy 2 Q � 1- Construction Worker Direct -Exposure Action Levels 2 0 O CO Residential Direct - Exposure Action Levels 1 N Comment The data indicates that there is 95% confidence that the true mean for lead does not exceed 3,538 mg/kg within this Decision Unit 95% UCL Calculations J U e N m co7 co N co 3 co N m m � Q. ` Eo E z z m N O ni Relative Standard Deviation 0 co a c m•- a c• � cM 0 Cn 0 ry c m to M O co M Relative Percent Difference y m -0 U E c ._ •L to Q. a 1- o M r °' m 13 • • L mc a a o co Y. N T1.6 iz E (0 N M O ID O) N O (0 M M E a, m H c a E m o m a F Sample Identification HKDU33-0-12-021820 HKDU33-6-12-021820 © N CO (V 4 N M co2 0 Y 2 EPA Method M 0 0 CD Q M W Analyte 0 J a J 0. co 0. J riG V 1- J 0 R V co co Q 0 � Q al• Tz � Y co cu L 2 HKDU38-6-12- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 6-12 a 1 D Results c <0.500 HKDU34-6-12- 021920 19 -Feb -2020 6-12 a D D Results 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 v HKDU33-6-12- 021820 18 -Feb -2020 6-12 a - D Results N co <0.500 HKDU32-6-12- 021720 17 -Feb -2020 6-12 a I D Results c <0.500 HKDU32-0-6- 021720 17 -Feb -2020 0-6 a -3 D 0 y d CL c <0.500 Sample Identifier Sample Date Sample Depth (inches) J 13 O o 0 O o 0 w D J 0) E mg/L Z CL a 0 rn M v r rn co 1 --- To l6 V_m O -5, Y G QEN o r O co m o r O co Analyte TCLP Lead SPLP Lead 0 0 / � co0 CO //\ Do j<9 N CO 1 Z / CO 0 o � k K 00 CO Sample Identifier Construction /.4\ ! (0 k CO EPA 60108 co k. (• #} )J\ f\f» ! | 7!is'\k/a \/\)\Z h]//&gG))§;tm gi :i® Tg \ j))))) is ®%;9«e es v EE2 }{. \ \,\5. 0 \\\in&} _ _!f/f§f§/E j §))t))\§\& j!;!/r�e2 0•:=:=.\a\t to`_000>0/$( to f4 0®%±02" 75 co \) \\ \\ ti44, eu rofi ns Calscience ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience LLC 7440 Lincoln Way Garden Grove, CA 92841 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570-21843-2 Client Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment EnviroQuest, Inc. 98-029 Hekaha Street Suite 21 Aiea, Hawaii 96701 Attn: Randy Takemoto <eir-444r Authorized for release by: 3/19/2020 12:00:49 PM Terri Chang, Project Manager I (714)895-5494 terrichang@eurofinsus.com The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC and 2009 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Laboratory Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 8 QC Association Summary 10 Lab Chronicle 12 Certification Summary 14 Method Summary 15 Sample Summary 16 Chain of Custody 17 Receipt Checklists 18 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 2 of 18 3/19/2020 Definitions/Glossary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Qualifiers Metals Qualifier Qualifier Description F1 MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits. Glossary 110 Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) PQL Practical Quantitation Limit QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 3 of 18 3/19/2020 Case Narrative Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-21843-2 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience LLC Narrative Job Narrative 570-21843-2 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 2/26/2020 9:50 AM; the samples arrived in good condition, properly preserved and, where required, on ice. The temperature of the cooler at receipt was 18.5° C. Metals Method 6010B: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for preparation batch 570-57161 and 570-57611 and analytical batch 570-57596 were outside control limits. Sample matrix interference and/or non -homogeneity are suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits. Method 6010B: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for preparation batch 570-57225 and 570-58135 and analytical batch 570-58259 were outside control limits. Sample matrix interference and/or non -homogeneity are suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 4 of 18 3/19/2020 Detection Summary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HKDU32-0-6-021720 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-1 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HKDU32-6-12-021720 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-2 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HKDU33-6-12-021820C Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-5 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 4.62 0.500 mg/L 1 6010B TCLP Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HKDU38-6-12-021920 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-9 No Detections. This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 5 of 18 3/19/2020 Client Sample Results Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - TCLP Client Sample ID: HKDU33-6-12-021820C Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-5 Date Collected: 02/18/20 14:00 Matrix: Solid Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 4.62 0.500 mg/L 03/16/20 14:00 03/17/20 11:57 1 Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 Date Collected: 02/19/20 10:30 Matrix: Solid Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 03/16/20 14:00 03/17/20 11:54 1 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 6 of 18 3/19/2020 Client Sample Results Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - SPLP West Client Sample ID: HKDU32-0-6-021720 Date Collected: 02/17/20 15:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Job ID: 570-21843-2 Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-1 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND Client Sample ID: HKDU32-6-12-021720 Date Collected: 02/17/20 15:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 03/18/20 16:00 03/19/20 00:14 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-2 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND Client Sample ID: HKDU33-6-12-021820C Date Collected: 02/18/20 14:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 03/18/20 16:00 03/19/20 00:11 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-5 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 Date Collected: 02/19/20 10:30 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 03/18/20 16:00 03/19/20 00:17 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND F1 Client Sample ID: HKDU38-6-12-021920 Date Collected: 02/19/20 16:30 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 03/18/20 16:00 03/19/20 00:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-9 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 03/18/20 16:00 03/19/20 00:08 1 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 7 of 18 3/19/2020 QC Sample Results Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: LB 570-57161/1-C Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 57596 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 57611 LB LB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 03/16/20 14:00 03/16/20 19:55 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-57161/2-C Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 57596 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample El Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 57611 Spike LCS LCS %Rec. Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-57161/3-C Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 57596 Analyte 5.00 4.242 mg/L 85 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 57611 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec. RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 5.00 4.372 mg/L 87 80 - 120 3 20 Lab Sample ID: 570 -23384 -B -1-I MS Client Sample ID: Matrix Spike Matrix: Solid Prep Type: TCLP Analysis Batch: 57596 Prep Batch: 57611 Sample Sample Spike MS MS %Rec. Analyte Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead ND F1 5.00 4.025 F1 mg/L 78 84- 120 Lab Sample ID: 570 -23384 -B -1-J MSD Client Sample ID: Matrix Spike Duplicate Matrix: Solid Prep Type: TCLP Analysis Batch: 57596 Prep Batch: 57611 Sample Sample Spike MSD MSD %Rec. RPD Analyte Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead ND F1 5.00 4.193 F1 mg/L 81 84- 120 4 7 Lab Sample ID: LB2 570-57225/1-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 58259 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 58135 LB2 LB2 Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 03/18/20 16:00 03/18/20 23:36 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-57225/2-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 58259 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 58135 Spike LCS LCS %Rec. Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-57225/3-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 58259 Analyte 5.00 4.260 mg/L 85 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 58135 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec. RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 5.00 4.407 mg/L 88 80 - 120 3 20 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 8 of 18 3/19/2020 QC Sample Results Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 MS Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 Matrix: Solid Prep Type: SPLP West Analysis Batch: 58259 Prep Batch: 58135 Sample Sample Spike MS MS %Rec. Analyte Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead ND F1 5.00 4.158 F1 mg/L 83 84- 120 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 MSD Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 58259 Analyte al Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 El Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 58135 Sample Sample Spike MSD MSD %Rec. RPD Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead ND F1 5.00 4.085 F1 mg/L 82 84- 120 2 7 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 9 of 18 3/19/2020 QC Association Summary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Metals Leach Batch: 57161 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 LB 570-57161/1-C LCS 570-57161/2-C LCSD 570-57161/3-C 570 -23384 -B -1-I MS 570 -23384 -B -1-J MSD Leach Batch: 57225 Lab Sample ID HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Client Sample ID Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP Prep Type Job ID: 570-21843-2 Matrix Method Prep Batch Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 1311 1311 1311 1311 1311 1311 1311 Method Prep Batch 570-21843-1 570-21843-2 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 570-21843-9 LB2 570-57225/1-B LCS 570-57225/2-B LCSD 570-57225/3-B 570-21843-7 MS 570-21843-7 MSD Analysis Batch: 57596 Lab Sample ID HKDU32-0-6-021720 HKDU32-6-12-021720 HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU38-6-12-021920 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU34-6-12-021920 Client Sample ID LB 570-57161/1-C LCS 570-57161/2-C LCSD 570-57161/3-C 570 -23384 -B -1-I MS 570 -23384 -B -1-J MSD Prep Batch: 57611 Lab Sample ID Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Client Sample ID 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 LB 570-57161/1-C LCS 570-57161/2-C LCSD 570-57161/3-C 570 -23384 -B -1-I MS 570 -23384 -B -1-J MSD Analysis Batch: 57805 Lab Sample ID HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Client Sample ID 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 Prep Batch: 58135 Lab Sample ID HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 Client Sample ID SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP TCLP Prep Type TCLP TCLP Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 1312 Method Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Method Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A Method Solid Solid Matrix 6010B 6010B Method 570-21843-1 570-21843-2 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 570-21843-9 HKDU32-0-6-021720 HKDU32-6-12-021720 HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU38-6-12-021920 SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A Prep Batch 57611 57611 57611 57611 57611 Prep Batch 57161 57161 57161 57161 57161 57161 57161 Prep Batch 57611 57611 Prep Batch 57225 57225 57225 57225 57225 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 10 of 18 3/19/2020 QC Association Summary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Metals (Continued) Prep Batch: 58135 (Continued) Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Job ID: 570-21843-2 Matrix Method LB2 570-57225/1-B LCS 570-57225/2-B LCSD 570-57225/3-B 570-21843-7 MS 570-21843-7 MSD Analysis Batch: 58259 Lab Sample ID Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU34-6-12-021920 Client Sample ID 570-21843-1 570-21843-2 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 570-21843-9 LB2 570-57225/1-B LCS 570-57225/2-B LCSD 570-57225/3-B 570-21843-7 MS 570-21843-7 MSD HKDU32-0-6-021720 HKDU32-6-12-021720 HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU38-6-12-021920 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU34-6-12-021920 SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type SPLP West Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A Method SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Prep Batch 57225 57225 57225 57225 57225 Prep Batch 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 58135 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 11 of 18 3/19/2020 Lab Chronicle Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HKDU32-0-6-021720 Date Collected: 02/17/20 15:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-1 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West Leach 1312 100.08 g 2000 mL 57225 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 SPLP West Prep 3010A 5 mL 50 mL 58135 03/18/20 16:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 SPLP West Analysis 6010B 1 58259 03/19/20 00:14 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKDU32-6-12-021720 Date Collected: 02/17/20 15:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-2 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West Leach 1312 100.03 g 2000 mL 57225 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 SPLP West Prep 3010A 5 mL 50 mL 58135 03/18/20 16:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 SPLP West Analysis 6010B 1 58259 03/19/20 00:11 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKDU33-6-12-021820C Date Collected: 02/18/20 14:00 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-5 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West Leach 1312 100.11 g 2000 mL 57225 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 SPLP West Prep 3010A 5 mL 50 mL 58135 03/18/20 16:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 SPLP West Analysis 6010B 1 58259 03/19/20 00:17 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 TCLP Leach 1311 100.04 g 2000 mL 57161 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 TCLP Prep 3010A 5 mL 50 mL 57611 03/16/20 14:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 57805 03/17/20 11:57 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKDU34-6-12-021920 Date Collected: 02/19/20 10:30 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-7 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West Leach 1312 SPLP West Prep 3010A SPLP West Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP8 TCLP Leach 1311 TCLP Prep 3010A TCLP Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP8 1 1 100.05 g 5 mL 2000 mL 57225 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 50 mL 58135 03/18/20 16:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 58259 03/19/20 00:00 ULPF ECL 1 99.87 g 2000 mL 57161 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 5 mL 50 mL 57611 03/16/20 14:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 57805 03/17/20 11:54 ULPF ECL 1 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 12 of 18 3/19/2020 9 Lab Chronicle Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HKDU38-6-12-021920 Date Collected: 02/19/20 16:30 Date Received: 02/26/20 09:50 Lab Sample ID: 570-21843-9 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West Leach 1312 100.07 g 2000 mL 57225 03/13/20 19:00 SUJ5 ECL 3 SPLP West Prep 3010A 5 mL 50 mL 58135 03/18/20 16:00 SUJ5 ECL 1 SPLP West Analysis 6010B 1 58259 03/19/20 00:08 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Laboratory References: ECL 1 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Lincoln, 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 ECL 3 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Knott, 11380 Knott Street, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 13 of 18 3/19/2020 9 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience LLC All accreditations/certifications held by this laboratory are listed. Not all accreditations/certifications are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date California Los Angeles County Sanitation 10109 09-29-20 Districts California SCAQMD LAP 17LA0919 11-30-20 California State 2944 09-29-20 Guam State 20-003R 10-31-20 Nevada State CA00111 07-31-20 Oregon NELAP CA300001 01-29-21 USDA US Federal Programs P330-20-00034 02-10-23 Washington State C916-18 10-11-20 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 14 of 18 3/19/2020 Method Summary Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Job ID: 570-21843-2 Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 ECL 1 1311 TCLP Extraction SW846 ECL 3 1312 SPLP Extraction SW846 ECL 3 3010A Preparation, Total Metals SW846 ECL 1 Protocol References: SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: ECL 1 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Lincoln, 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 ECL 3 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Knott, 11380 Knott Street, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 15 of 18 3/19/2020 Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Project/Site: DOT - Hakalau Lead Assessment Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Sample Summary Job ID: 570-21843-2 Matrix Collected Received Asset ID 570-21843-1 570-21843-2 570-21843-5 570-21843-7 570-21843-9 HKDU32-0-6-021720 HKDU32-6-12-021720 HKDU33-6-12-021820C HKDU34-6-12-021920 HKDU38-6-12-021920 Solid 02/17/20 15:00 02/26/20 09:50 Solid 02/17/20 15:00 02/26/20 09:50 Solid 02/18/20 14:00 02/26/20 09:50 Solid 02/19/20 10:30 02/26/20 09:50 Solid 02/19/20 16:30 02/26/20 09:50 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 16 of 18 3/19/2020 0 O 0 w >- 0_ 0 O 0 O z 2 U 0 LL 0 0_ z (1) W c J LABORATORY NOTES: Samples have been MI prepped at ESN -HI. *Please notify PM immediately with preliminary results for total lead to identify which samples will be analyzed forTCLP and SPLP. 70-21843 Chain of Custody 1 1 Prniart Mananar. S Mnnr.riPf RECIEVED BY (Signature) DATE/TMF� RECIEVED BY (Signature) DATErrME ..—, XXXXXXXXX O) CIS ba• bag a 0) .0_0 O) bag ba• bag 1 O) a R 1 UISHaED :(Signature DATE/TIME K. Ca a o to Fed Calscience 2/25/20 1500 RELINQUISHED BY:(Signature) DATEMME N .. 0 O (() 0 0 O O (n 0 O 0 O 0 co 0 0 0 () C) 0 N 0 OD (0 O N O (O N (O N (O O N N (O (.O N to O N00 ,— N (Oi 9' N co 0 Y 2 H KD U 32-6-12-02172 HKDU33-6-12-02182 H K D U 33-6-12-02182 HKDU33-6-12-02182 H KD U 34-0-6-021920 HKDU34-6-12-02192 HKDU37-6-12-02192 HKDU38-6-12-02192 N M 'Cr LO (.O n CO O> G C\ X20 N CO V Priv CO - 17 t-- CO 0) ui 18 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: EnviroQuest, Inc. Login Number: 21843 List Number: 1 Creator: Andujo, Italy Question Answer Comment Job Number: 570-21843-2 List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. False Thermal preservation not required. Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 18 of 18 3/19/2020 ti' eurofins LINKS ........... Review your project results through Total Access Have a Question? -, A5 k /The Ex erttwoNammr Visit us at: WWW . eurofinsus.com/Env Environment Testing America ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience LLC 7440 Lincoln Way Garden Grove, CA 92841 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570 -44279 - Client Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment For Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC 103 South Kalaheo Avenue Kailua, Hawaii 96734-2933 Attn: Scott Moncrief Authorized for release by: 12/7/2020 1:39:51 PM Terri Chang, Project Manager I (714)895-5494 Terri.Chang@eurofinset.com The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC, 2009 TNI, and 2016 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Laboratory Job ID: 570-44279-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 7 QC Association Summary 8 Lab Chronicle 9 Certification Summary 11 Method Summary 12 Sample Summary 13 Chain of Custody 14 Receipt Checklists 15 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 2 of 15 12/7/2020 Definitions/Glossary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Qualifiers Metals Qualifier Qualifier Description B Compound was found in the blank and sample. Glossary Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 3 of 15 12/7/2020 Case Narrative Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-44279-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience LLC Narrative Job Narrative 570-44279-1 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 11/19/2020 10:00 AM; the samples arrived in good condition, and where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperature of the cooler at receipt was 4.9° C. Receipt Exceptions The Chain -of -Custody (COC) was incomplete as received and/or improperly completed. No relinquished time listed. Metals Method 6010B: The method blank for preparation batch 570-113495 and analytical batch 570-113944 contained Lead above the reporting limit (RL). Associated sample(s) were not re -extracted and/or re -analyzed because results were greater than 10X the value found in the method blank. Method 6010B: The following samples were diluted due to the presence of Iron which interferes with Lead: HKL_DU27_0-3_20201116 (570-44279-1), HKL_DU8B_3-6_20201116 (570-44279-2), HKL_DU20_3-6_20201116 (570-44279-3), HKL_DU12_4-6_20201117 (570-44279-4) and HKL_DU26_0-3_20201117 (570-44279-5). Elevated reporting limits (RLs) are provided. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 4 of 15 12/7/2020 Detection Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU27_0-3_20201116 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-1 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 1680 5.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: HKL_DU8B_3-6_20201116 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-2 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 2680 5.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: HKL_DU20_3-6_20201116 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-3 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 1640 5.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: HKL_DU12_4-6_20201117 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-4 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 738 5.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: HKL_DU26_0-3_20201117 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-5 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 1320 B 5.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 5 of 15 12/7/2020 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Client Sample ID: HKL_DU27_0-3_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 10:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-1 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 1680 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU8B_3-6_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 11:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Analyte Result Qualifier 5.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 10:05 10 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-2 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 2680 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU20_3-6_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 13:30 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Analyte Result Qualifier 5.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 10:06 10 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-3 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 1640 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU12_4-6_20201117 Date Collected: 11/17/20 08:30 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Analyte Result Qualifier 5.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 10:08 10 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-4 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 738 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU26_0-3_20201117 Date Collected: 11/17/20 10:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Analyte Result Qualifier 5.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 10:10 10 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-5 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 1320 B 5.00 mg/Kg 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 10:03 10 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 6 of 15 12/7/2020 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: MB 570-113491/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113491 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/Kg 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 09:34 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-113491/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113491 Spike LCS LCS %Rec. Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-113491/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte 25.1 24.66 mg/Kg 98 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113491 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec. RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead Lab Sample ID: MB 570-113495/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte 24.9 25.00 mg/Kg 100 80 - 120 1 20 Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113495 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 0.6430 0.505 mg/Kg 12/02/20 18:00 12/04/20 09:56 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-113495/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113495 Spike LCS LCS %Rec. Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-113495/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 113944 Analyte Lead 25.0 25.23 mg/Kg 101 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 113495 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec. RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit 24.6 24.55 mg/Kg 100 80-120 3 20 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 7 of 15 12/7/2020 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Metals ISM Prep Batch: 111774 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch 570-44279-1 570-44279-2 570-44279-3 570-44279-4 570-44279-5 Prep Batch: 113491 Lab Sample ID H KL_D U 27_0-3_20201116 H KL_D U 8B_3-6_20201116 H KL_D U 20_3-6_20201116 H KL_D U 12_4-6_20201117 HKL DU26 0-3 20201117 Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Method Prep Batch 570-44279-1 570-44279-2 570-44279-3 570-44279-4 MB 570-113491/1-A LCS 570-113491/2-A LCSD 570-113491/3-A Prep Batch: 113495 Lab Sample ID 570-44279-5 H KL_DU27_0-3_20201116 H KL_D U 8B_3-6_20201116 H KL_D U 20_3-6_20201116 H KL_DU 12_4-6_20201117 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method MB 570-113495/1-A LCS 570-113495/2-A LCSD 570-113495/3-A Analysis Batch: 113944 Lab Sample ID 570-44279-1 HKL DU26 0-3 20201117 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 570-44279-2 570-44279-3 570-44279-4 570-44279-5 MB 570-113491/1-A MB 570-113495/1-A LCS 570-113491/2-A LCS 570-113495/2-A LCSD 570-113491/3-A LCSD 570-113495/3-A H KL_D U 27_0-3_20201116 H KL_D U 8B_3-6_20201116 H KL_D U 20_3-6_20201116 H KL_DU 12_4-6_20201117 H KL_D U 26_0-3_20201117 Method Blank Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 111774 111774 111774 111774 Prep Batch 111774 Prep Batch 113491 113491 113491 113491 113495 113491 113495 113491 113495 113491 113495 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 8 of 15 12/7/2020 8 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU27_0-3_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 10:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-1 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 111774 11/19/20 16:00 C4LT ECL 3 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 113491 12/02/20 18:00 SP7J ECL 1 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 10 113944 12/04/20 10:05 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU8B_3-6_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 11:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-2 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 111774 11/19/20 16:00 C4LT ECL 3 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 113491 12/02/20 18:00 SP7J ECL 1 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 10 113944 12/04/20 10:06 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU20_3-6_20201116 Date Collected: 11/16/20 13:30 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-3 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 111774 11/19/20 16:00 C4LT ECL 3 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 113491 12/02/20 18:00 SP7J ECL 1 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 10 113944 12/04/20 10:08 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU12_4-6_20201117 Date Collected: 11/17/20 08:30 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-4 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 111774 11/19/20 16:00 C4LT ECL 3 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 113491 12/02/20 18:00 SP7J ECL 1 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 10 113944 12/04/20 10:10 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Client Sample ID: HKL_DU26_0-3_20201117 Date Collected: 11/17/20 10:00 Date Received: 11/19/20 10:00 Lab Sample ID: 570-44279-5 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 111774 11/19/20 16:00 C4LT ECL 3 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 113495 12/02/20 18:00 SP7J ECL 1 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 10 113944 12/04/20 10:03 ULPF ECL 1 Instrument ID: ICP8 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 9 of 15 12/7/2020 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Laboratory References: ECL 1 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Lincoln, 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 ECL 3 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Knott, 11380 Knott Street, Garden Grove, CA92841, TEL (714)895-5494 Job ID: 570-44279-1 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 10 of 15 12/7/2020 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience LLC All accreditations/certifications held by this laboratory are listed. Not all accreditations/certifications are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date California Los Angeles County Sanitation 10109 09-30-21 Districts California State 2944 09-30-21 Nevada State CA00111 07-31-21 Oregon NELAP CA300001 01-29-21 USDA US Federal Programs P330-20-00034 02-10-23 Washington State C916-18 10-11-21 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 11 of 15 12/7/2020 Method Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 ECL 1 3050B Preparation, Metals SW846 ECL 1 Increment, Prep ISM - Dry, Disaggregate, Sieve, Split, EPA ECL 3 Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: ECL 1 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Lincoln, 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 ECL 3 = Eurofins Calscience LLC Knott, 11380 Knott Street, Garden Grove, CA 92841, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 12 of 15 12/7/2020 Sample Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Beach Park Supplimental Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-44279-1 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received Asset ID 570-44279-1 570-44279-2 570-44279-3 570-44279-4 570-44279-5 HKL DU27 0-3 20201116 HKL DU8B 3-6 20201116 HKL DU20 3-6 20201116 HKL DU12 4-6 20201117 HKL DU26 0-3 20201117 Solid 11/16/20 10:00 11/19/20 10:00 Solid 11/16/20 11:00 11/19/20 10:00 Solid 11/16/20 13:30 11/19/20 10:00 Solid 11/17/20 08:30 11/19/20 10:00 Solid 11/17/20 10:00 11/19/20 10:00 Eurofins Calscience LLC Page 13 of 15 12/7/2020 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD 0 tt� Ca!science V_ 0 570-44279 Chain of Custody z 6 d SAMPLER(S): (PRINT) Scott Moncrief, Chrisian Schneider REQUESTED ANALYSES 1 E' E H 7 m \ E H 6 E 19 dajd IW x x x x x peal moi x x x x x Please check box or till in blank as needed. 9'812 0 661L 0 961L 0 (IA) -10 0 m m o Date:/ f ai o XL4L/OZO9 0 XL172/0109 0 SIe1aW ZZ1 NIS OLZ8 ❑ OLZ8 ❑ SHHd CLIENT PROJECT NAME / NUMBER: Hakalau Beach Park Supplemental Lead Assessment PROJECT CONTACT: Scott Moncrief (2808) 590d (1.809)Sap!o4sed m "° a 0 m c in . 0 Received(Signature/Affiliation) ) �>1 ,/' 2 m c in a` o, cr _ (OLZ9) S00AS woo eJJal 0 woo u3 ❑ (S£OS)daJd (Ooze) Saleua6Ax0 (0928) SODA ❑ 09Z8 0 381W /X318 Hdl 1740-90 0 9£0-90 0 Hdl O80 ❑ (P)Hd1 ❑ 08D ❑ (6)Hdl ❑ LABORATORY CLIENT: EnviroQuest Inc. ADDRESS: 103 South Kalaheo Ave. m a N 1 W Q_ N 2 Y E-MAIL: scottmoncrief808mail.com TURNAROUND TIME (Rush surcharges may apply to any TAT not ' STANDARD"): ❑ SAME DAY 0 24 HR 0 48 HR 0 72 HR 0 5 DAYS 0 STANDARD LOG CODE: Pa all!d Pla!d panJesaJd panuasa�du0 GLOBAL ID: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: = O a (� - Relinquished by: (Signatur- Scott Moncrief Relinquished by: (Signatur Relinquished by: (Signature) MATRIX u) _ (0 _ N _ _ SAMPLING 3WLL O O O O O ` O to co O co m O O O DATE O N CO O N CO O N O O N N O N N TEL: 808 286 0222 o W HKL DU27 0-3 20201116 HKL_DUSB_36_20201116 HKL_DU20_36_20201116 HKL_DU12_46_20201117 HKL DU26 0-3 20201117 ❑ COELT EDF a. Q to 06/02/14 Revision Page 14 of 15 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-44279-1 Login Number: 44279 List Number: 1 Creator: Ramos, Maribel Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. False Refer to Job Narrative for details. Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience Page 15 of 15 12/7/2020 ti' eurofins Review your project results through EOL Have a Question? Ask-1 The Expert Visit us at: www. eurofinsus.com/Env Environment Testing America ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience 2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570-97597-2 Client Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment For: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC 111 Hekili Street Ste. A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Attn: Scott Moncrief Authorized for release by: 7/15/2022 3:28:22 PM Terri Chang, Project Manager! (657)210-6295 Terri.Chang@et.eurofinsus.com The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC, 2009 TNI, and 2016 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Laboratory Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 7 QC Association Summary 8 Lab Chronicle 9 Certification Summary 10 Method Summary 11 Sample Summary 12 Chain of Custody 13 Receipt Checklists 18 Eurofins Calscience Page 2 of 18 7/15/2022 Definitions/Glossary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Glossary Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. ❑ Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Calscience Page 3 of 18 7/15/2022 Case Narrative Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience Narrative Job Narrative 570-97597-2 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 5/26/2022 10:35 AM. Unless otherwise noted below, the samples arrived in good condition, and where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperature of the cooler at receipt was 23.6° C. Metals No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience Page 4 of 18 7/15/2022 Detection Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 737 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 IZI Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 360 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 339 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience Page 5 of 18 7/15/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Date Collected: 05/11/22 16:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 737 Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Date Collected: 05/12/22 09:40 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier 4.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:40 5 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 360 Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Date Collected: 05/11/22 13:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier 4.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:43 5 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 339 4.00 mg/Kg 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:45 5 Eurofins Calscience Page 6 of 18 7/15/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: MB 570-248997/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.812 mg/Kg 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 13:57 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-248997/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-248997/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte 51.0 53.16 mg/Kg 104 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 50.8 51.88 mg/Kg 102 80 - 120 2 20 Eurofins Calscience Page 7 of 18 7/15/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Metals ISM Prep Batch: 246211 Lab Sample ID 570-97597-10 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Prep Batch: 248997 Lab Sample ID DU39 6-12 202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Matrix Method Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Method Prep Batch 570-97597-10 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 MB 570-248997/1-A LCS 570-248997/2-A LCSD 570-248997/3-A Analysis Batch: 249306 Lab Sample ID 570-97597-10 DU39 6-12 202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 MB 570-248997/1-A LCS 570-248997/2-A LCSD 570-248997/3-A DU39_6-12_202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Prep Batch 246211 246211 246211 Prep Batch 248997 248997 248997 248997 248997 248997 Eurofins Calscience Page 8 of 18 7/15/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Date Collected: 05/11/22 16:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:40 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Date Collected: 05/12/22 09:40 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:43 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Date Collected: 05/11/22 13:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:45 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Laboratory References: ECL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience Page 9 of 18 7/15/2022 9 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4175 01-31-23 Eurofins Calscience Page 10 of 18 7/15/2022 Method Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 ECL 4 3050B Preparation, Metals SW846 ECL 4 Increment, Prep ISM - Dry, Disaggregate, Sieve, Split, EPA ECL 4 Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: ECL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience Page 11 of 18 7/15/2022 Sample Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 570-97597-10 DU39_6-12_202239 Solid 05/11/22 16:00 05/26/22 10:35 570-97597-12 DU41_6-12_202241 Solid 05/12/22 09:40 05/26/22 10:35 570-97597-14 DU44 6-12 202244 Solid 05/11/22 13:00 05/26/22 10:35 Page 12 of 18 Eurofins COjpg22 0 570-97597 Chain of Custody o Z a SAMPLER(S) (PRINT) KP, KC, EW, SM REQUESTED ANALYSES .■■■■■.... II ..■...■.. N HE Time. 1 N E 1= av 1 X X X X X X X x X X 9 963 ❑ 661.L 0 9614. 0 (INFO.......... Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date: Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date XLbL/0309 0 XLPLIO 609 0 91919N ZZ1... III ...... check box or fill in blank as needed NIS OLZB 0 OLZ9 0 9HHd.■........ (2808) sBJd.......... ( 6808) sapioilsad (OLZB) sOOAS.........■ woo eua1 0 91o0 u3 0 (9E09) deed.......... (0939) saleua6tx01111 (0928) sOOn.......... .......... ....... CLIENT PROJECT NAME/ NUMBER. Hakalau Assessment PROJECT CONTACT ❑ 0938 ❑ 28.1.1A1/ X318...■.■.... Hdl.......... bbO-9O 0 9£O -9O 0 Hdl.......... oHo ❑ (P)Hdl ❑..■...... OHO ❑ (6)Hdl ❑.■ ■■...■■ LABORATORY CLIENT Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC ADDRESS' 103 South Kalaheo Ave CITY STATE. ZIP Kailua HI 96734-293 E-MAIL. scottmoncnef808@gmall com I LOG CODE. Paiall!d Plaid panuasaid pamesewdufl ■■■■...... .......... X ©© X X X X X X X F 208 U Relinquished by (Signature) KATIE PAGE Relinquished by (Signature) Relinquished by (Signature) MATRIX • O J O J_ O (0 J _ O 0) WATER WATER J O O 0) 'STANDARD") 72 HR ❑'. TIME 1030AM Q. N 22 Q. N Q 4) r r Q N �. r 10AM g O `r ON- 2 ,`,(1 O r_ d V E. d V 3U39_6 -12_2C SAMF DATE 5/10/2022 5/10/2022 5/10/2022 N 0 0 O 41 5/10/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 0 J DU45_6-12_202245 DU45 6-12 2022458 DU45 6-12 202245C DU43_0-6_202243 DU43_6-12_202243 SW49_202249 SW50_202250 S W 55_202255 DU39_0-6_202239 DU39 6-12 202239 TEL. 808-208-8616 DELT EDF d Q co 5 o Page 13 of 18 06/02/14 Revi 7/15/2022 CHAIN OF CUSTC N ''''0 ., 0 Q(5 0 I,- _ O N Oa. o z a SAMPLER(S)- (PRINT KP, KC, EW, SI REQUESTED ANALYSES Please check box or fill In blank as needed. 9 86Z ❑ 666L ❑ 966L ❑ (IA)MO Date Date: L/OZO9 0 XLiL/0609 0 slel3W ZZl WIS OLZ9 0 OLZ9 0 sHVd CLIENT PROJECT NAME/NUMBER. Hakalau Assessment PROJECT CONTACT (2909) s93d (6908) seP!0gsed Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Received by' (Signature/Affiliation) (OLZ9) SOOAS 00 eliel 0 eio0 u3 ❑ (9£09) daid WO # / LAB USE ONLY (0929) saieua6/x0 (0928) SODA 0 09Z9 03911/1 / X319 Hdl 12h0-90 0 9E0-90 0 Hdl Oad 0 (P)Hdi 0 o io ❑ (6)Hdl 0 For courier service / sample drop off information contact us26_sales@eurofinsus com or call us LABORATORY CLIENT Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC ADDRESS: 103 South Kalaheo Ave CITY STATE: ZIP- Kailua HI 96734-293 E-MAIL. scottmoncrief808(a?gmail com TURNAROUND TIME (Rush surcharges may apply to any TAT not STANDARD") 0 SAME DAY 0 2 HR 0 4 HR ❑72FIR 0 DAYS X STANDARD LOG CODE. paJelfid Pied paJJ9SOJd paAJeseidun >< >< >< >< GLOBAL ID' SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. SEE PAGE 1 OF CONT. Relinquished by (Signature) KATIE PAGE Relinquished by (Signature) MATRIX J_ O (0 J _ 0 co J _ 0 0) J _ 0 0) SAMPLING ti _ F O 'Ag O O O LL 1PM �tJ I-- Q ca 5/12/2022 5/12/2022 5/11/2022 N N N N h TEL. 808-208-8616 D W J 0- 2 2 a en 0041_0-6_202241 DU41 6-12 202241 DU44_0-6_202244 DU44_6-12_202244 ❑ COELT EDF m W j 52o Page 14 of 18 7/15/2022 =:JN OF CUSTC LY RECORD 0 q D (1) cc,omorcall w ❑J REQUFSTED J U) a. 9Ul6❑6G1,1 JSJb 1LJOA) X!VL/OL09 ❑ X'1,!/0609 13 Is I LAI G 1. WIS O//U ❑ G CU ❑ IIVd (i )d L (ll (01G8) SUOAS �0�LJJJIL.)Ic.il)IL( L )d u (Ox8 S)s ))(/ ❑ Q9 ❑ JB.LW / XJ1U LJ w 0 Pacific Con, 1 ants 0 Y 103 SoJ h KaI he. V U (D E J 0 co CO U O u) c2C88' 6 LO 0 cr LO --OLIiN/O2JU IIclL VvO i)❑(J ) J 4 1)Ut'13_Z_2aZ2L 3 >JJ39�6 12_ ZcZz3q 2 11 tQ 0 0 4I 6 r_ 0 m 01 V) /1) 11) ilJ If IL G, w u� lW u. f' /0 7/15/2022 0 LJ LU >-- 0 (1) Lar 0 Page 16 of -48l 7/15/2022 L 0., :r_ m m in cu _ 1� W til a tl' m n .cc) w c CD Ct 1 a m u u' U U .0 �) to w D ] - - LL �� a�� N - II 991e EL 0611 LJib, /Li(I/U)) I = Sc -ue _� ecb „ aure u X X/ VL/OZO9 ❑ XLV//0109 ❑ SI(l )W Z61 N INIS 0/69 O Otn3 USIIV)I >- 9)1 4(I) <7 (1 .. )1)1)I -1 UJLU W (ol6a) ions 't— W J t. -u00 l.L )l ❑ wok u] O ( 0 ) .1.0 1 r— "( 0W ox (096411 S )I 1. of AhO —j t) (03 )tJl\ n D7 009e%OJ£I1.0,1/XJlkl Y_ — 7 ali -- OIV\l/OZIU Hd1. q Lu . u S w`L L.) •a 5 > c VVJ93094_39)04-Idl 3 U 6 0 ) O21U ❑ ((Ill 191 LJ U( )L_ t 11 Cl 1 Crove 0 02841 1427 (714) 895 s L le drop orm=tion ccs act us2E_= c.eurc rsu= corn or ca Kealarr. Pacific Consultants LLC A- 5 103 South Kala' -e, .-.ve K^ciIua HI 96734 293 pa)a11'J PIa'J u j 0 pJ J Josai c.7 ,�. ,.._ ...., — )f'ii e 8O8 'amiaii c"_ SAMPLING ' DATE r 1 MATRIX U ''a £ 0 0 hl -7- NI N N 0 N � 1 ,421 1 S 7 (A u COELT EDF Page 16 of -48l 7/15/2022 United States Departinei 1 of Agriculture Units Stale 1),Nutniult 0! \1�11(ultul, Animal and Plant I leak!) In51)t(tlun Plant Prot '(hurt & U(1,u 11itnlL -1700IZIv,i Rul,l I(I(1It111( '\11) 201)/ Permit to Rece1v e roti Itegu1,0e(I b.) 7 CFR 330 11115 pu'urlt \\,ngurualul (lit isuulutll\ (la the tPct toils ,\.IUs 1'I I2\II 11 I' 1 \ \\II Icrri (I'ircw ( ()1.I1)4\1 Eurulin. ( il.uun, 1 I ( 1(1 ( l\( \I,Ultl SS 7110 m,uln \1 1\ (1 ud,n (1tu\ ( \ \I \11 I\() 51)UI2i ,S 7110 I inculn \1 tt Carden Oro (_ \' 1111 1910\1' (71 I) 1195 5 19 1 1\ 1'1 121111 \1 \1131 It 1', 10 '0 0511011 11'1'1 1( \110\ \1 hill It t'.)-) 1911'1 00! (1 1 ISSI 1 1) ()! 10 10 O 1 \IOUI S (12/10/2023 PO121S ()I 512141\ 51 /1'1 A\1 I\SPl ( 110\ S1 5110\\ Al. \utiat ti. \1 Ilunn\tli, Al Mobile 'i/ Dou,la. \/ 1 ul,c\111, \/ \ 1l11 \/ \ d,. \/ Pho 1 I, \/ `, lit 1 1,1 1/ 11 uta l \ ( ,111 1,0 ( A 11 tic undo C 1 1 r nu lA 1 01 1X1110 (. \ U11.lut,l l \ thit Ito t \ UIi i'0 l t 1,11 11)101,11i, C \ (,1 lin, tats ( \ `,til 1)1 II ( \ \t11, \ `,in 1 1111 ( \ 11h '111 Lt 1 L \ 1 1 11 ( l) 1) 11\51 ( 1 II 111111111 ( 1 \ t\ 11ttln t)I 11t)iLi 1)1 \\111,111 111 11 11 1 11111110 ill 11 1l \bLI, 111 11 I'1,1,, 11 I,tll.wtI\slk. 11 111.\ \\ut 11. Nitaint 11 Miami (( tr'u 1)111 1,111. lk1'S ,1, ) 1 1 ()II nolo 1 1 I'cn.duilt 1 L Port Canaveral 1'L Port L vcrglaiks 1 L Sanford 1 1 1 unp t 1 1 West P tint lac tch 111 \tl tot t CIA Savo -mall GU Ag tui 111 11110 III Honolulu 111 Kahului III Kali('t Kon 1 III 1 lhuc 11) 1 a.y)t i i 11 ( Imago IN Ind1 mapolis KY 1 ouisvtllc Mi\ South Boston 1\11) I3 tIlnnoi, 1,11) B,10,t lilt, \ll Ii n11_or \11 ( Hass \'ll 1(0olton Mb Portland MI D,trott Ml Port I loom MI Runutlu, 1\41 S toll S tint M ti u. M\ I)uttith \IN (,r 11111 Portage f\'IN Intern Mona] I all. MN Minn, 1po11. M0 1. Los is ( 11\ ISI() Si 1 inns NII' Cunuuunw, lith ill Ih, Nurthun 111'1 tri 111E11.1,0)(1. NIS Ciullport \4S Putt Iiictt\ 111, \-I I I, t n nd 511 121 0,\ til( \I 1 S\\„( t t . Nit It ticis'h NL \\tlnuns'tun \L) Dun„tah NI) 1 .ii but t \1) Pi 101 .J 1 1 i I it \\I \Ibtign t1lu, 1\VI (olunlbu. \\1 SuttiI.i•c i \\ 1 t Vc 1. \1 \Ibut \1 \i 1011 1 \1 1111 tIit1 N1 Builttu \1 1hinti1,111 Rot... l'ortt N1 J 1111 t, 1 N1 \,w bur h UI 1 \. a tb 11 1 011 (tit 1 1111111 ()II ( I,\cl it 0 (111 ( of iti tet 011 1'01.110 011 W1lntmgton OK Oklahoma ( 1111 Olt Puril unl 1' 1 511unot\n 1' \ 11 irrtshutl. I' 1 111111 k1p11i i P 1 Pittsburgh 1'A Scranton Pit Aguadllla I'R Carolina PR 1 tp.udu I'R Ma) 'gut,/ 1'R Punt 121 \1 1i-wick/Pro ukn„ 'i (0 a lcston IN 3Iuuplus I'N NI h\ 111, IX Austin 1 \ Liru,,1t \ ilk, 1 \ ( urpu. (Inst 1\ 1) ills 1\ 1)(.1 R10 1\ la I, 1'1 1\ 111'1.0 1\ 111ui. I\ 1 tl,un 1\ 10t11111ni I -I\ I rc,port 1 \ (, 111,.15111 1 \ 111d iigu 1 \ 1 Iutlbl, 1 \ 1 11,051 1 \ l 0',111‘110`, 1 \ 1'11 u 1 I \ Port A11hut 1 \ 1'10.11110 1 X l'ru ,1..511 1 \ Ittu (,ran(k. l tit 1 \ Rt tit 1 1 \ S 511 \nli tiiu I \ \• 1,101 t 1 t 1 S 110 1116, ( it( V 1 Dull,. 1' t N011011, 1 I St (rin\ VI SI I hunt I. \ 1 I1,1lut 11 1 lit 'Inc 1\ 1 1)no 111, 11 1 foil 111,c Its \VA St 11 1, \\ 5 Sum t \1 1 (0%1it 11 tt 111 51111\ tui c( It \Ali ( \1(1+1 \t t ndu'the conditions six, 0ILLI lhn ptsutl tuthot1Lu lh, lupi titii €uanitl) of Soil uu- Shiimutt and 1 r,a(tncnt Sttrth,aitun 1\111 ittcrIuc with mluulcd us, 1 our 1 iuhtt NIL IS 1 lit sn.pc(Icd Ind 1ppiut,0 t0 r„tJt, 11)1s S011 SPLC IAL INS I RU( 1 iC)NS 10 INSI'L C 101 , puma ,un(Iihou, 1s. iw 1 11 it. 1 1 1 3 0-i1/.(100s4 1I -IIS P1 RI\'ll 1 HAS 13L1 N '\PPRObLI) 1 I I C I I3ONI( \1 l 1 01 1111 101 1 ()WINO 1'1'(1 III ADQI '\R 11 It 01 I ILIA1 VI 1 I I'! It\II 1 S ) Gibbs Smith 02/1.000?0 1(1(‘I 1 1 1 , 11 1 111 Page 17 of 18 7/15/2022 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-97597-2 Login Number: 97597 List Number: 1 Creator: Chang, Terri Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. False Received extra samples not listed on COC. Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience Page 18 of 18 7/15/2022 ti' eurofins Review your project results through EOL Have a Question? The Expert Visit us at: www. eurofinsus.com/Env Environment Testing America ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience 2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570 -105614 - Client Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment For: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC 111 Hekili Street Ste. A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Attn: Scott Moncrief Authorized for release by: 8/19/2022 12:44:30 PM Lori Thompson, Project Manager! (657)212-3035 Lori.Thompson@et.eurofinsus.com Designee for Terri Chang, Project Manager! (657)210-6295 Terri.O i -an : eurcflnsus, or The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC, 2009 TNI, and 2016 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Laboratory Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 11 QC Association Summary 13 Lab Chronicle 16 Certification Summary 19 Method Summary 20 Sample Summary 21 Chain of Custody 22 Receipt Checklists 26 Eurofins Calscience Page 2 of 27 8/19/2022 Definitions/Glossary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Qualifiers General Chemistry Qualifier Qualifier Description H H3 Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time Sample was received and analyzed past holding time. Glossary Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Calscience Page 3 of 27 8/19/2022 Case Narrative Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience Narrative Job Narrative 570-105614-1 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 8/5/2022 9:40 AM. Unless otherwise noted below, the samples arrived in good condition, and where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperatures of the 2 coolers at receipt time were 0.9° C and 1.2° C. Metals No analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described in the Definitions/Glossary page. General Chemistry Method Moisture - 2540: The following samples were received outside of holding time: HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1), HAKA_BT_AZ (570-105614-2), HAKA_BT_B (570-105614-3), HAKA_BT_C (570-105614-4), HAKA_BT_D (570-105614-5) and HAKA_BT_E (570-105614-6). No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience Page 4 of 27 8/19/2022 Detection Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 10900 8.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Lead 25.6 0.500 mg/L 1 6010B TCLP Lead 4.32 0.0300 mg/L 1 6010B SPLP West Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 11400 8.00 mg/Kg Lead 22.9 0.500 mg/L 10 6010B 1 6010B Total/NA TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 No Detections. This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience Page 5 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 10900 8.00 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 16:37 10 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 11400 8.00 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 16:40 10 Eurofins Calscience Page 6 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte 25.6 Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:26 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte 22.9 Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:28 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:31 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:33 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:36 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:25 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:38 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:40 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:43 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:45 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 7 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:40 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:48 1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:55 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 8 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - SPLP West Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 4.32 0.0300 mg/L 08/17/22 20:17 08/18/22 14:53 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 9 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment General Chemistry Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 22.0 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 28.2 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 34.1 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 28.3 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 27.6 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 25.0 H H3 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 10 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: MB 570-256107/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.821 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 12:42 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-256107/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-256107/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte 49.5 47.79 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead Lab Sample ID: LB 570-255340/1-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte 50.5 50.96 mg/Kg 101 80 - 120 6 20 Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 LB LB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 13:57 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-255340/2-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-255340/3-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte 2.00 2.255 mg/L 113 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead Lab Sample ID: MB 580-400071/21-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte 2.00 2.010 mg/L 101 80 - 120 11 20 Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.0300 mg/L 08/17/22 20:17 08/18/22 13:12 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 580-400071/22-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead 1.00 1.035 mg/L 104 80 - 120 Eurofins Calscience Page 11 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: LCSD 580-400071/23-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 1.00 1.051 mg/L 105 80 - 120 2 20 Eurofins Calscience Page 12 of 27 8/19/2022 v QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Metals Leach Batch: 255340 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B Prep Batch: 255638 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B Analysis Batch: 255866 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 Eurofins Calscience Page 13 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Metals ISM Prep Batch: 255881 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Prep Batch: 256107 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Matrix Method Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Method Prep Batch 570-105614-2 MB 570-256107/1-A LCS 570-256107/2-A LCSD 570-256107/3-A Analysis Batch: 256849 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 570-105614-2 MB 570-256107/1-A LCS 570-256107/2-A LCSD 570-256107/3-A Leach Batch: 400071 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Method Prep Batch 255881 255881 Prep Batch 256107 256107 256107 256107 256107 Prep Batch 570-105614-1 MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B Prep Batch: 400945 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 1312 1312 1312 1312 Method Prep Batch MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B Analysis Batch: 401081 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A Method 570-105614-1 MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Solid Solid Solid Solid 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 400071 400071 400071 400071 Prep Batch 400945 400945 400945 400945 General Chemistry Analysis Batch: 255207 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Method Prep Batch Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Eurofins Calscience Page 14 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment General Chemistry ISM Prep Batch: 255507 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Eurofins Calscience Page 15 of 27 8/19/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Leach Prep Analysis 1312 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: TAC047 Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment, Prep Prep 3050B Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment,Prep Analysis Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 1 1 10 1 1.0 g 1.0 mL 50 mL 50 mL 100.05 g 2000 mL 5 mL 50 mL 10g 400071 08/10/22 14:13 JLS 400945 08/17/22 20:17 JLS 401081 08/18/22 14:53 TMH 255340 255638 255866 255881 500 mL 256107 256849 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 08/10/22 14:26 VZOK 08/10/22 15:19 KZX6 08/11/22 12:59 CS5Z 08/15/22 16:37 VZOK EET SEA EET SEA EET SEA EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Run Factor Amount Final Amount Batch Prepared Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Leach 1311 Prep 3010A Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment, Prep Prep 3050B Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment,Prep Analysis Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 1 10 1 100.05 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 255866 08/10/22 14:28 VZOK 10g 255881 500 mL 256107 256849 08/10/22 15:19 KZX6 08/11/22 12:59 CS5Z 08/15/22 16:40 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Amount Amount TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Analysis Increment,Prep Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 100.05 g 2000 mL 5 mL 50 mL Batch Prepared Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL 255866 08/10/22 14:31 VZOK EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Eurofins Calscience Page 16 of 27 8/19/2022 9 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.01 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL . TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:33 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL. Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.04 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 60108 1 255866 08/10/22 14:36 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL. Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.02 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:38 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:25 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.04 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:40 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Eurofins Calscience Page 17 of 27 8/19/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 Matrix: Solid Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP Batch Batch Type Method Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Leach 1311 Prep 3010A Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 100.06 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL . 255866 08/10/22 14:43 VZOK EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Prep Type Type Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Batch Prepared Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 TCLP Prep 3010A TCLP Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 100.06 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 255866 08/10/22 14:45 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:40 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Run Factor Amount TCLP TCLP TCLP Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 Final Batch Amount Number 100.03 g 2000 mL 255340 5 mL 50 mL 255638 255866 Prepared or Analyzed Analyst Lab 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 08/10/22 14:48 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Batch Type Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Batch Prepared Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 TCLP Prep 3010A TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 Instrument ID: ICP10 Completion dates and times are reported or not reported per method requirements or individual lab discretion. 100.05 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL 255866 08/10/22 14:55 VZOK EET CAL . Laboratory References: EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 EET SEA = Eurofins Seattle, 5755 8th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424, TEL (253)922-2310 Eurofins Calscience Page 18 of 27 8/19/2022 9 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4175 02-02-23 Laboratory: Eurofins Seattle The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4167 07-08-23 Eurofins Calscience Page 19 of 27 8/19/2022 Method Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 EET CAL 4 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 EET SEA Moisture - 2540 Percent Moisture SM EET CAL 4 1311 TCLP Extraction SW846 EET CAL 4 1312 SPLP Extraction SW846 EET SEA 3010A Preparation, Total Metals SW846 EET CAL 4 3010A Preparation, Total Metals SW846 EET SEA 3050B Preparation, Metals SW846 EET CAL 4 Increment, Prep ISM - Dry, Disaggregate, Sieve, Split, EPA EET CAL 4 Increment,Prep ISM - As Received, Disaggregate, Split EPA EET CAL 4 Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency SM = "Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And Wastewater" SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 EET SEA = Eurofins Seattle, 5755 8th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424, TEL (253)922-2310 Eurofins Calscience Page 20 of 27 8/19/2022 Sample Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 570-105614-1 HAKA BT A Solid 07/28/22 13:30 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-2 HAKA BT AZ Solid 07/28/22 13:35 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-3 HAKA BT B Solid 07/28/22 13:45 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-4 HAKA_BT_C Solid 07/28/22 13:45 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-5 HAKA_BT_D Solid 07/28/22 13:50 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-6 HAKA_BT_E Solid 07/28/22 13:55 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-7 HAKA_BTPC_A Solid 07/28/22 15:25 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-8 HAKA_BTPC_B Solid 07/28/22 15:30 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-9 HAKA_BTPC_C Solid 07/28/22 15:35 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-10 HAKA_BTPC_D Solid 07/28/22 15:40 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-11 HAKA BTPC E Solid 07/28/22 15:45 08/05/22 09:40 Eurofins Calscience Page 21 of 27 8/19/2022 Chain of Custody Record Ver 01/16/2019 i7:___ � _ Preservation Code: XX > pp� "------- —,,( r V t4 I\ yutsneo by Date Time. Method ofship -went slm uished by 12‘1- Oaten -me: Company Receiv by -fr Da /Time: ,vCompany ahnquished by r✓riL�� k7 (( 1 " �� _. Date/Time: Company Reseiued.byf Da! Mme: Company uished by ----- Ver -` - ,l1 I L 1'.1..'_' ir_) 1W Ver 01/16/2019 Chain of Custody Record V o c d N U g 3 0 0 L W O co N Q U 0 F COC No' 570-182827 1 Page Page 1 of 1 Job #: 570-105614-1 Preservation Codes - A HCL M - Hexane B- NaOH N - None C - Zn Acetate 0 AaNa02 D - Nitric Acid P - Na204S E - NaHSO4 Q - Na2S03 F - McOH R - Na2S203 G - Amchlor S - H2SO4 H Ascorbic Acid T TSP Dodecahydrate I ice U- Acetone J - DI Water V - MCAA K - EDTA W-pH4-5 L - EDA Y Trizma Z - other (specify) Other Special Instructions/Note. Note: Since laboratory accreditations are subject to change, Eurofins Calscience places the ownership of method analyte 8 accreditation compliance upon out subcontract laboratories. This sample shipment is forwarded under chain -of -custody If the laboratory does not currently maintain accreditation in the State of Origin listed above for analysis/tests/matrix being analyzed, the samples must be shipped back to the Eurofins Calscience laboratory or other instructions will be provided. Any changes to accreditation status should be brought to Eurofins Calscience attention immediately If all requested accreditations are current to date, retum the signed Chain of Custody attesting to said complicance to Eurofins Calscience. Sample Disposal (A fee may be assessed if samples are retained longer than 1 month) I I Retum To Client I I Disposal By Lab I I Archive For Months Special Instructions/QC Requirements elinqulshed by;-' ` Date.Shipment Method of Empty Kit R 'Time: ' i P. 0 (S Company Company Cooler Temperature(s) °C and Other Remarks. v C a v E E m o d E E 0 Carrier Tracking No(s) State of Origin. Hawaii Accreditations Required (See note). NELAP - Oregon, State - Hawaii Analysis Requested siauie;uoo Jo JagwnN te;oj Received by - Received by- Received y Received by- Lab y Lab PM Chang, Terri E -Mail' _... Terri Chang@et.eurofinsus.com Peel dldS M M ZL£NBOL09 X C f Edi 0 0 'Company Company Custody Seal No ON JO seA) aSWISW uuoJJad Possible Hazard Identification Unconfirmed 'Deliverable Requested III, III, IV, Other (specify) Primary Deliverable Rank: 2 (oN Jo sa v aOwes poaNII j Paid Company Eurofins Environment Testing Northwest, Due Date Requested. 8/17/2022 TAT Requested (days). Project # 57002418 SSOW#: Matrix (w=wamr s=solid, o-wsm/on, eT=nsss, a=Air) Preservation Code: P O 0) a ca d a lJ f�> fi. �.. ,E o 0 E C 0 a m E m ao ra cA~Ut7 y a w c O m # a # 's Sample Date 7/28/22 m S v c Q G 1Client Information (Sub Contract Lab) Client Contact: Shipping/Receiving Address. 5755 8th Street East, Ciy Tacoma State Zip' WA, 98424 Phone: 253-922-2310(Tel) Project NamLee: Hakalau ad Assessment ..9.3 Sample Identification - Client ID (Lab ID) HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1) Custody Seals Intact: A Yes A No Page 23 of 27 8/19/2022 570-105614 Waybill Part 9 156297-435 FIRDB EXP 01/23 1:163VOCREIIIIS CZ1C cc•--• 2841 DOW AVE., STE.100 REF: KOLEKOLE ,111.0Z14,0Z4OZZU uJ %.619rSi. = e-4,101410,41?il; Part it 156297-435 RADS UP 01/23 1,163.V(166.4/M135 ('Jul waltz LO Ol 003tr•-• • NY X •• NI-('JCO LLI.,-.7/- (DV) •• 01-0 (0 0-3 •• 2L)CC., MCCUO BILL THIRD PARTY (808) 266-0222 •• OWN:: 02111111 0-00D2 E0 007) 0,1 -CM 01-0,0 0,0> 1 CCUZ03 0(000) .4) o .141 IA J.-. (ED LU Cc uJ LU C) CoD ocC C-1 C/3 LL. CD LI.1 0 1 DOW AVE., STE.100 CO afp'rfgr(4,i,Y,, ' X uJ 131 03 11. A 11 LOZ LKIzzazzir LIU 0!.'0.40.rm/r0k.,--0.s.t0002&-.0000_,. ismaimmommi ...11101•••01.01111111•11MIIMIIMION 1.11.1.1111111 11.•••••••••••1111•111111••••• ICC MIINIMIMMUmmimmm MM. gOrniia weEiEttZO 0 Page 24 of 27 IM411111•11111111•MIIIIIIIr. ..11••111111111101•111111•11•111111111 8/19/2022 Chain of Custody Record ,_ ,_ o) j§\/( - ; ;c ( Preservation cones: A- HGL M - Hexane N - None 8-NeOH O-AsNaO2 C -Zn Acetate P - Na2045 D -Nitric Acid p - Na25O3 E- NaH5O4 R-Na2S2O3 F-Mo0H 5-H25O4 G - Amchlar T - TSP Oodecahydrate H - Ascorbic Acid p - Acetone 1 -Ice V - MCRA J - DI Warer W-pH4-5 K -EGTA Y-Trizma t. - EDA Z - other (specify) Other: Special Instructions/Note: \ \ a ...... Sample Disposal (A fes maybe assessed if samples are retained longer than 7 mown Retum To Client Disposal By Lab Archive For _ Months Special Instructions/DC Requirements: t { yam¥ a V a. . —2. c,- Custody Seal No.: . . . - . - Cooler Temperature(s) °C and Other Remarks: Ver: 06/08/2021 ini ■t 3 Analysis Requested ..... k+¥ +$ . / ! .2 $I _ t E -Mail) TerrtChang@et.eurofinsus.com Accreditation Required (See note): NELAP - Oregon, State - Hawaii _,_SWM _m x� \ 0 / wN k�W¥�w k 7 ° 1Q \ ) ! Deliverable Requested: I, i1. 6). IV, Other (specify) Primary Deliverable Rank: 2 ( &@m mow pm rd: TAT Requested (days): Matrix (w•w.a., s•soud, 0.1.,.09.11. BT.T ee .. A.AIr) Preservation Code. Solid / w ®# § ; - \ % a E u) ®�x \E .a§ƒ 2. ) / 2 ao {) }r / Sample Date 2 ? cv 04 cv © 0 6 o t 7 Client Information (Sub Contract Lab) oEI g rƒ ,) ) \\\\/} $ \ State, Zip: WA, 98424 / L0 _ Project Name: Hakalau Lead Assessment .._-- , ( ) \ , HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1) I Custody Seals Intact. A Yes A No ® } / 611{ \ / $ Page 25 of 27 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-105614-1 Login Number: 105614 List Number: 1 Creator: Patel, Jayesh Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience Page 26 of 27 8/19/2022 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-105614-1 Login Number: 105614 List Number: 2 Creator: Holdener, Heather D Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Seattle List Creation: 08/12/22 12:11 PM El Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey True meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? N/A There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience IR8 3.1/2.5 Received project as a subcontract. Page 27 of 27 8/19/2022 APPENDIX A-2: 2022 SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES AND LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS This page was intentionally left blank. Ce 0 \ J o Ce 0 } CO CO ai CO CO CO )§c - I2(/ } E 2 o. E m Construction 2 15 .2 2f E2[ ,ex«� 2 w E k 0 CO E EPA 6010B as ci / ( \ } c ca } 5 \ 15; e } } 0 \ -2,, CT)o E 2. ) \ { § \ Lu Lu> 0 To 4 Lu 12 \}/ \ \111 IA L 7D 0 ! 2 \ inated Soil and Groundwater E c6 0 0 0 r - C d E 0 47. C� C raH N 0 V N r- 0 E c6 0 c6 Q d L 0 w N O R R ca 2 cu d 0 4- N V N L l4 L U CC A m Q � W J (6 m Q (13 H I Comment The data indicates that there is good precison in the replicate data set with 11% RPD. The arithmetic mean value of 76.8 mg/kg is used as the reported value within this Decision Unit. Relative Standard Deviation r Standard Deviation a En R Y o ci r— Relative Percent Primary and Triplicate ‘," O N Primary and Duplicate ,a- Result (mg/kg) 82.9 o-) rn a co (0 N a a R I co L'. m E a` Duplicate Triplicate Sample Identification DU42_0-6_202242B (1) DU42_0-6_202242B (2) DU42_0-6_202242B (3) EPA Method m O O co Analyte ca a) J z mg/kg = milligram(s) per kilogram (i.e. parts per million (ppm)). DU43_0-6_202243 10 -May -2022 0-6 J re 490 4.00 386 4.00 146 4.00 CI Resu Its D U41_0-6_202241 12 -May -2022 0-6 et a Resu Its D U39_0-6_202239 11 -May -2022 0-6 K a Resu Its Sample Identifier Sample Date Sample Depth (inches) Construction Worker Direct - Exposure irect- Exposure Action Levels' Lead EPA 60108 7439-92-1 mg/kg 200 200 800 @ i � .� V W G :2 i g:1-] N FaW x43 J E O m N A 1- I' N c 7 z re y Q U V T.L-. cd Q T 0c Q al Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Fall 2017 E ricted Land -Use Sc 2 Stale of Hawaii Department of Health Tier 1 EALs, Unr minated Soil and Groundwater (Fall ction/Trench Worker Exposure Scenario presented in Table 1-3 of the Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Co c c O V Cl) d Q. E V/ O 0) c E i V c C7 G a a) O J O 1- 2 N V - • L C • (6 N c aco= Q1 as • co 1—M DU45_6-12_202245* 10 -May -2022 6-12 ce 402 4.00 83.7* 4.00 a Resu Its D U44_0-6_202244 11 -May -2022 0-6 re a Results Sample Identifier Sample Date Sample Depth (inches) Construction Worker Direct - Exposure irect- Exposure Action Levels' EPA 60108 7439-92-1 mg/kg 200 200 800 1c " V 0 N O 2 L _ O VN � y 0 W a J ce J E O .`,137, N 7 z re m a U V -0 O 7.>,1 Q C a Lead 0 ted Land -Use Scenario presented in Table 1-1 of the Evaluation of En State of Hawaii Department of Health Tier 1 EALs, the replicate results. Hakalau Beach Park Comment The data indicates that there is good precision in the replicate data set with 12% RPD. The arithmetic mean value of 83.7 mg/kg is used as the reported value within this Decision Unit. Relative Standard Deviation 0 N 'a O V w d N 0 coc En Y M oo Relative Percent Difference Primary and Triplicate co T .1-P L CU v u c• •i 0 a a = 0 Ln N N a1 re E 72.1 N d1 86.5 d a a. E N ._ E o_ ro c) a 0 Triplicate Sample Identification DU45 6-12 202245 DU45 6-12 2022458 DU45 6-12 202245C a arc Lu d 2 o o com Analyte J milligram(s) per kilogram (i.e. parts per million (ppm)). E E U) ta L 0, i+ E L d J R O i O N N d R 70 (� a-5 U I (a O co a CO ca co CO r 2 SW55_202255 11 -May -2022 Stream water collected from all depths of the stream near DU 55 J Ct O a Resu Its 0 z SW50_202250 11 -May -2022 Stream water collected from all depths of the stream near DU 50 J cry ND 50 V Results SW49_202249 11 -May -2022 Stream water collected from all depths of the stream near DU 49 NJ ND 50 V Results Sample Identifier Sample Date Sample Description Tier 1 EAL >150m 1 Total Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Metals Lead EPA 60108 7439-92-1 pg/I 15 c CASRN Analytical Method Analyte pg/I = microgram(s) per liter. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry No. ND = Not Detected. Indicates that the analyte was not detected in concentrations above the laboratories method reporting limit. n is not established. N5 = No Standard. Indicates that a State of Hawaii Department of Health and/or RCRA Waste Characterization action level for the contaminant of potential co Q = Data Qualifier. RL = Reporting Limit (detection limit). ti' eurofins Review your project results through EOL Have a Question? Ask-1 The Expert Visit us at: www. eurofinsus.com/Env Environment Testing America ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience 2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570-97597-2 Client Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment For: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC 111 Hekili Street Ste. A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Attn: Scott Moncrief Authorized for release by: 7/15/2022 3:28:22 PM Terri Chang, Project Manager! (657)210-6295 Terri.Chang@et.eurofinsus.com The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC, 2009 TNI, and 2016 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Laboratory Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 7 QC Association Summary 8 Lab Chronicle 9 Certification Summary 10 Method Summary 11 Sample Summary 12 Chain of Custody 13 Receipt Checklists 18 Eurofins Calscience Page 2 of 18 7/15/2022 Definitions/Glossary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Glossary Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. ❑ Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Calscience Page 3 of 18 7/15/2022 Case Narrative Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience Narrative Job Narrative 570-97597-2 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 5/26/2022 10:35 AM. Unless otherwise noted below, the samples arrived in good condition, and where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperature of the cooler at receipt was 23.6° C. Metals No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience Page 4 of 18 7/15/2022 Detection Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 737 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 IZI Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 360 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 339 4.00 mg/Kg 5 6010B Total/NA This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience Page 5 of 18 7/15/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Date Collected: 05/11/22 16:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 737 Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Date Collected: 05/12/22 09:40 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier 4.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:40 5 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 360 Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Date Collected: 05/11/22 13:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Analyte Result Qualifier 4.00 RL mg/Kg Unit 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:43 5 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 339 4.00 mg/Kg 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 14:45 5 Eurofins Calscience Page 6 of 18 7/15/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: MB 570-248997/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.812 mg/Kg 07/13/22 19:45 07/14/22 13:57 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-248997/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-248997/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 249306 Analyte 51.0 53.16 mg/Kg 104 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 248997 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 50.8 51.88 mg/Kg 102 80 - 120 2 20 Eurofins Calscience Page 7 of 18 7/15/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Metals ISM Prep Batch: 246211 Lab Sample ID 570-97597-10 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Prep Batch: 248997 Lab Sample ID DU39 6-12 202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Matrix Method Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Method Prep Batch 570-97597-10 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 MB 570-248997/1-A LCS 570-248997/2-A LCSD 570-248997/3-A Analysis Batch: 249306 Lab Sample ID 570-97597-10 DU39 6-12 202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 570-97597-12 570-97597-14 MB 570-248997/1-A LCS 570-248997/2-A LCSD 570-248997/3-A DU39_6-12_202239 DU41_6-12_202241 DU44_6-12_202244 Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Prep Batch 246211 246211 246211 Prep Batch 248997 248997 248997 248997 248997 248997 Eurofins Calscience Page 8 of 18 7/15/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Client Sample ID: DU39_6-12_202239 Date Collected: 05/11/22 16:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-10 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:40 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Client Sample ID: DU41_6-12_202241 Date Collected: 05/12/22 09:40 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-12 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:43 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Client Sample ID: DU44_6-12_202244 Date Collected: 05/11/22 13:00 Date Received: 05/26/22 10:35 Lab Sample ID: 570-97597-14 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Total/NA ISM Prep Increment, Prep 246211 06/30/22 11:19 KZX6 ECL 4 Total/NA Prep 3050B 10 g 500 mL 248997 07/13/22 19:45 CS5Z ECL 4 Total/NA Analysis 6010B 5 249306 07/14/22 14:45 K1UV ECL 4 Instrument ID: ICP10 Laboratory References: ECL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience Page 9 of 18 7/15/2022 9 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Job ID: 570-97597-2 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4175 01-31-23 Eurofins Calscience Page 10 of 18 7/15/2022 Method Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 ECL 4 3050B Preparation, Metals SW846 ECL 4 Increment, Prep ISM - Dry, Disaggregate, Sieve, Split, EPA ECL 4 Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: ECL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 Eurofins Calscience Page 11 of 18 7/15/2022 Sample Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-97597-2 Project/Site: Hakalau Assessment Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 570-97597-10 DU39_6-12_202239 Solid 05/11/22 16:00 05/26/22 10:35 570-97597-12 DU41_6-12_202241 Solid 05/12/22 09:40 05/26/22 10:35 570-97597-14 DU44 6-12 202244 Solid 05/11/22 13:00 05/26/22 10:35 Page 12 of 18 Eurofins COjpg22 0 570-97597 Chain of Custody o Z a SAMPLER(S) (PRINT) KP, KC, EW, SM REQUESTED ANALYSES .■■■■■.... II ..■...■.. N HE Time. 1 N E 1= av 1 X X X X X X X x X X 9 963 ❑ 661.L 0 9614. 0 (INFO.......... Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date: Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Date XLbL/0309 0 XLPLIO 609 0 91919N ZZ1... III ...... check box or fill in blank as needed NIS OLZB 0 OLZ9 0 9HHd.■........ (2808) sBJd.......... ( 6808) sapioilsad (OLZB) sOOAS.........■ woo eua1 0 91o0 u3 0 (9E09) deed.......... (0939) saleua6tx01111 (0928) sOOn.......... .......... ....... CLIENT PROJECT NAME/ NUMBER. Hakalau Assessment PROJECT CONTACT ❑ 0938 ❑ 28.1.1A1/ X318...■.■.... Hdl.......... bbO-9O 0 9£O -9O 0 Hdl.......... oHo ❑ (P)Hdl ❑..■...... OHO ❑ (6)Hdl ❑.■ ■■...■■ LABORATORY CLIENT Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC ADDRESS' 103 South Kalaheo Ave CITY STATE. ZIP Kailua HI 96734-293 E-MAIL. scottmoncnef808@gmall com I LOG CODE. Paiall!d Plaid panuasaid pamesewdufl ■■■■...... .......... X ©© X X X X X X X F 208 U Relinquished by (Signature) KATIE PAGE Relinquished by (Signature) Relinquished by (Signature) MATRIX • O J O J_ O (0 J _ O 0) WATER WATER J O O 0) 'STANDARD") 72 HR ❑'. TIME 1030AM Q. N 22 Q. N Q 4) r r Q N �. r 10AM g O `r ON- 2 ,`,(1 O r_ d V E. d V 3U39_6 -12_2C SAMF DATE 5/10/2022 5/10/2022 5/10/2022 N 0 0 O 41 5/10/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 5/11/2022 0 J DU45_6-12_202245 DU45 6-12 2022458 DU45 6-12 202245C DU43_0-6_202243 DU43_6-12_202243 SW49_202249 SW50_202250 S W 55_202255 DU39_0-6_202239 DU39 6-12 202239 TEL. 808-208-8616 DELT EDF d Q co 5 o Page 13 of 18 06/02/14 Revi 7/15/2022 CHAIN OF CUSTC N ''''0 ., 0 Q(5 0 I,- _ O N Oa. o z a SAMPLER(S)- (PRINT KP, KC, EW, SI REQUESTED ANALYSES Please check box or fill In blank as needed. 9 86Z ❑ 666L ❑ 966L ❑ (IA)MO Date Date: L/OZO9 0 XLiL/0609 0 slel3W ZZl WIS OLZ9 0 OLZ9 0 sHVd CLIENT PROJECT NAME/NUMBER. Hakalau Assessment PROJECT CONTACT (2909) s93d (6908) seP!0gsed Received by (Signature/Affiliation) Received by' (Signature/Affiliation) (OLZ9) SOOAS 00 eliel 0 eio0 u3 ❑ (9£09) daid WO # / LAB USE ONLY (0929) saieua6/x0 (0928) SODA 0 09Z9 03911/1 / X319 Hdl 12h0-90 0 9E0-90 0 Hdl Oad 0 (P)Hdi 0 o io ❑ (6)Hdl 0 For courier service / sample drop off information contact us26_sales@eurofinsus com or call us LABORATORY CLIENT Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC ADDRESS: 103 South Kalaheo Ave CITY STATE: ZIP- Kailua HI 96734-293 E-MAIL. scottmoncrief808(a?gmail com TURNAROUND TIME (Rush surcharges may apply to any TAT not STANDARD") 0 SAME DAY 0 2 HR 0 4 HR ❑72FIR 0 DAYS X STANDARD LOG CODE. paJelfid Pied paJJ9SOJd paAJeseidun >< >< >< >< GLOBAL ID' SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. SEE PAGE 1 OF CONT. Relinquished by (Signature) KATIE PAGE Relinquished by (Signature) MATRIX J_ O (0 J _ 0 co J _ 0 0) J _ 0 0) SAMPLING ti _ F O 'Ag O O O LL 1PM �tJ I-- Q ca 5/12/2022 5/12/2022 5/11/2022 N N N N h TEL. 808-208-8616 D W J 0- 2 2 a en 0041_0-6_202241 DU41 6-12 202241 DU44_0-6_202244 DU44_6-12_202244 ❑ COELT EDF m W j 52o Page 14 of 18 7/15/2022 =:JN OF CUSTC LY RECORD 0 q D (1) cc,omorcall w ❑J REQUFSTED J U) a. 9Ul6❑6G1,1 JSJb 1LJOA) X!VL/OL09 ❑ X'1,!/0609 13 Is I LAI G 1. WIS O//U ❑ G CU ❑ IIVd (i )d L (ll (01G8) SUOAS �0�LJJJIL.)Ic.il)IL( L )d u (Ox8 S)s ))(/ ❑ Q9 ❑ JB.LW / XJ1U LJ w 0 Pacific Con, 1 ants 0 Y 103 SoJ h KaI he. V U (D E J 0 co CO U O u) c2C88' 6 LO 0 cr LO --OLIiN/O2JU IIclL VvO i)❑(J ) J 4 1)Ut'13_Z_2aZ2L 3 >JJ39�6 12_ ZcZz3q 2 11 tQ 0 0 4I 6 r_ 0 m 01 V) /1) 11) ilJ If IL G, w u� lW u. f' /0 7/15/2022 0 LJ LU >-- 0 (1) Lar 0 Page 16 of -48l 7/15/2022 L 0., :r_ m m in cu _ 1� W til a tl' m n .cc) w c CD Ct 1 a m u u' U U .0 �) to w D ] - - LL �� a�� N - II 991e EL 0611 LJib, /Li(I/U)) I = Sc -ue _� ecb „ aure u X X/ VL/OZO9 ❑ XLV//0109 ❑ SI(l )W Z61 N INIS 0/69 O Otn3 USIIV)I >- 9)1 4(I) <7 (1 .. )1)1)I -1 UJLU W (ol6a) ions 't— W J t. -u00 l.L )l ❑ wok u] O ( 0 ) .1.0 1 r— "( 0W ox (096411 S )I 1. of AhO —j t) (03 )tJl\ n D7 009e%OJ£I1.0,1/XJlkl Y_ — 7 ali -- OIV\l/OZIU Hd1. q Lu . u S w`L L.) •a 5 > c VVJ93094_39)04-Idl 3 U 6 0 ) O21U ❑ ((Ill 191 LJ U( )L_ t 11 Cl 1 Crove 0 02841 1427 (714) 895 s L le drop orm=tion ccs act us2E_= c.eurc rsu= corn or ca Kealarr. Pacific Consultants LLC A- 5 103 South Kala' -e, .-.ve K^ciIua HI 96734 293 pa)a11'J PIa'J u j 0 pJ J Josai c.7 ,�. ,.._ ...., — )f'ii e 8O8 'amiaii c"_ SAMPLING ' DATE r 1 MATRIX U ''a £ 0 0 hl -7- NI N N 0 N � 1 ,421 1 S 7 (A u COELT EDF Page 16 of -48l 7/15/2022 United States Departinei 1 of Agriculture Units Stale 1),Nutniult 0! \1�11(ultul, Animal and Plant I leak!) In51)t(tlun Plant Prot '(hurt & U(1,u 11itnlL -1700IZIv,i Rul,l I(I(1It111( '\11) 201)/ Permit to Rece1v e roti Itegu1,0e(I b.) 7 CFR 330 11115 pu'urlt \\,ngurualul (lit isuulutll\ (la the tPct toils ,\.IUs 1'I I2\II 11 I' 1 \ \\II Icrri (I'ircw ( ()1.I1)4\1 Eurulin. ( il.uun, 1 I ( 1(1 ( l\( \I,Ultl SS 7110 m,uln \1 1\ (1 ud,n (1tu\ ( \ \I \11 I\() 51)UI2i ,S 7110 I inculn \1 tt Carden Oro (_ \' 1111 1910\1' (71 I) 1195 5 19 1 1\ 1'1 121111 \1 \1131 It 1', 10 '0 0511011 11'1'1 1( \110\ \1 hill It t'.)-) 1911'1 00! (1 1 ISSI 1 1) ()! 10 10 O 1 \IOUI S (12/10/2023 PO121S ()I 512141\ 51 /1'1 A\1 I\SPl ( 110\ S1 5110\\ Al. \utiat ti. \1 Ilunn\tli, Al Mobile 'i/ Dou,la. \/ 1 ul,c\111, \/ \ 1l11 \/ \ d,. \/ Pho 1 I, \/ `, lit 1 1,1 1/ 11 uta l \ ( ,111 1,0 ( A 11 tic undo C 1 1 r nu lA 1 01 1X1110 (. \ U11.lut,l l \ thit Ito t \ UIi i'0 l t 1,11 11)101,11i, C \ (,1 lin, tats ( \ `,til 1)1 II ( \ \t11, \ `,in 1 1111 ( \ 11h '111 Lt 1 L \ 1 1 11 ( l) 1) 11\51 ( 1 II 111111111 ( 1 \ t\ 11ttln t)I 11t)iLi 1)1 \\111,111 111 11 11 1 11111110 ill 11 1l \bLI, 111 11 I'1,1,, 11 I,tll.wtI\slk. 11 111.\ \\ut 11. Nitaint 11 Miami (( tr'u 1)111 1,111. lk1'S ,1, ) 1 1 ()II nolo 1 1 I'cn.duilt 1 L Port Canaveral 1'L Port L vcrglaiks 1 L Sanford 1 1 1 unp t 1 1 West P tint lac tch 111 \tl tot t CIA Savo -mall GU Ag tui 111 11110 III Honolulu 111 Kahului III Kali('t Kon 1 III 1 lhuc 11) 1 a.y)t i i 11 ( Imago IN Ind1 mapolis KY 1 ouisvtllc Mi\ South Boston 1\11) I3 tIlnnoi, 1,11) B,10,t lilt, \ll Ii n11_or \11 ( Hass \'ll 1(0olton Mb Portland MI D,trott Ml Port I loom MI Runutlu, 1\41 S toll S tint M ti u. M\ I)uttith \IN (,r 11111 Portage f\'IN Intern Mona] I all. MN Minn, 1po11. M0 1. Los is ( 11\ ISI() Si 1 inns NII' Cunuuunw, lith ill Ih, Nurthun 111'1 tri 111E11.1,0)(1. NIS Ciullport \4S Putt Iiictt\ 111, \-I I I, t n nd 511 121 0,\ til( \I 1 S\\„( t t . Nit It ticis'h NL \\tlnuns'tun \L) Dun„tah NI) 1 .ii but t \1) Pi 101 .J 1 1 i I it \\I \Ibtign t1lu, 1\VI (olunlbu. \\1 SuttiI.i•c i \\ 1 t Vc 1. \1 \Ibut \1 \i 1011 1 \1 1111 tIit1 N1 Builttu \1 1hinti1,111 Rot... l'ortt N1 J 1111 t, 1 N1 \,w bur h UI 1 \. a tb 11 1 011 (tit 1 1111111 ()II ( I,\cl it 0 (111 ( of iti tet 011 1'01.110 011 W1lntmgton OK Oklahoma ( 1111 Olt Puril unl 1' 1 511unot\n 1' \ 11 irrtshutl. I' 1 111111 k1p11i i P 1 Pittsburgh 1'A Scranton Pit Aguadllla I'R Carolina PR 1 tp.udu I'R Ma) 'gut,/ 1'R Punt 121 \1 1i-wick/Pro ukn„ 'i (0 a lcston IN 3Iuuplus I'N NI h\ 111, IX Austin 1 \ Liru,,1t \ ilk, 1 \ ( urpu. (Inst 1\ 1) ills 1\ 1)(.1 R10 1\ la I, 1'1 1\ 111'1.0 1\ 111ui. I\ 1 tl,un 1\ 10t11111ni I -I\ I rc,port 1 \ (, 111,.15111 1 \ 111d iigu 1 \ 1 Iutlbl, 1 \ 1 11,051 1 \ l 0',111‘110`, 1 \ 1'11 u 1 I \ Port A11hut 1 \ 1'10.11110 1 X l'ru ,1..511 1 \ Ittu (,ran(k. l tit 1 \ Rt tit 1 1 \ S 511 \nli tiiu I \ \• 1,101 t 1 t 1 S 110 1116, ( it( V 1 Dull,. 1' t N011011, 1 I St (rin\ VI SI I hunt I. \ 1 I1,1lut 11 1 lit 'Inc 1\ 1 1)no 111, 11 1 foil 111,c Its \VA St 11 1, \\ 5 Sum t \1 1 (0%1it 11 tt 111 51111\ tui c( It \Ali ( \1(1+1 \t t ndu'the conditions six, 0ILLI lhn ptsutl tuthot1Lu lh, lupi titii €uanitl) of Soil uu- Shiimutt and 1 r,a(tncnt Sttrth,aitun 1\111 ittcrIuc with mluulcd us, 1 our 1 iuhtt NIL IS 1 lit sn.pc(Icd Ind 1ppiut,0 t0 r„tJt, 11)1s S011 SPLC IAL INS I RU( 1 iC)NS 10 INSI'L C 101 , puma ,un(Iihou, 1s. iw 1 11 it. 1 1 1 3 0-i1/.(100s4 1I -IIS P1 RI\'ll 1 HAS 13L1 N '\PPRObLI) 1 I I C I I3ONI( \1 l 1 01 1111 101 1 ()WINO 1'1'(1 III ADQI '\R 11 It 01 I ILIA1 VI 1 I I'! It\II 1 S ) Gibbs Smith 02/1.000?0 1(1(‘I 1 1 1 , 11 1 111 Page 17 of 18 7/15/2022 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-97597-2 Login Number: 97597 List Number: 1 Creator: Chang, Terri Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. False Received extra samples not listed on COC. Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience Page 18 of 18 7/15/2022 ti' eurofins Review your project results through EOL Have a Question? The Expert Visit us at: www. eurofinsus.com/Env Environment Testing America ANALYTICAL REPORT Eurofins Calscience 2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Tel: (714)895-5494 Laboratory Job ID: 570 -105614 - Client Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment For: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC 111 Hekili Street Ste. A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Attn: Scott Moncrief Authorized for release by: 8/19/2022 12:44:30 PM Lori Thompson, Project Manager! (657)212-3035 Lori.Thompson@et.eurofinsus.com Designee for Terri Chang, Project Manager! (657)210-6295 Terri.O i -an : eurcflnsus, or The test results in this report meet all 2003 NELAC, 2009 TNI, and 2016 TNI requirements for accredited parameters, exceptions are noted in this report. This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Laboratory Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Definitions/Glossary 3 Case Narrative 4 Detection Summary 5 Client Sample Results 6 QC Sample Results 11 QC Association Summary 13 Lab Chronicle 16 Certification Summary 19 Method Summary 20 Sample Summary 21 Chain of Custody 22 Receipt Checklists 26 Eurofins Calscience Page 2 of 27 8/19/2022 Definitions/Glossary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Qualifiers General Chemistry Qualifier Qualifier Description H H3 Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time Sample was received and analyzed past holding time. Glossary Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re -analysis, Re -extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Calscience Page 3 of 27 8/19/2022 Case Narrative Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience Narrative Job Narrative 570-105614-1 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 8/5/2022 9:40 AM. Unless otherwise noted below, the samples arrived in good condition, and where required, properly preserved and on ice. The temperatures of the 2 coolers at receipt time were 0.9° C and 1.2° C. Metals No analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described in the Definitions/Glossary page. General Chemistry Method Moisture - 2540: The following samples were received outside of holding time: HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1), HAKA_BT_AZ (570-105614-2), HAKA_BT_B (570-105614-3), HAKA_BT_C (570-105614-4), HAKA_BT_D (570-105614-5) and HAKA_BT_E (570-105614-6). No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Eurofins Calscience Page 4 of 27 8/19/2022 Detection Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 10900 8.00 mg/Kg 10 6010B Total/NA Lead 25.6 0.500 mg/L 1 6010B TCLP Lead 4.32 0.0300 mg/L 1 6010B SPLP West Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type Lead 11400 8.00 mg/Kg Lead 22.9 0.500 mg/L 10 6010B 1 6010B Total/NA TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 No Detections. Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 No Detections. This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Eurofins Calscience Page 5 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 10900 8.00 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 16:37 10 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 11400 8.00 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 16:40 10 Eurofins Calscience Page 6 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier RL Unit Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte 25.6 Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:26 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte 22.9 Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:28 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:31 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:33 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:36 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:25 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:38 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:40 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte ND Result Qualifier 0.500 RL mg/L Unit 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:43 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 Matrix: Solid D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:45 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 7 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - TCLP Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:40 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:48 1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 14:55 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 8 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - SPLP West Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead 4.32 0.0300 mg/L 08/17/22 20:17 08/18/22 14:53 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 9 of 27 8/19/2022 Client Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment General Chemistry Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 22.0 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 28.2 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 34.1 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 28.3 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 27.6 H H3 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Analyte Result Qualifier 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Percent Moisture 25.0 H H3 0.100 % 08/09/22 16:00 1 Eurofins Calscience Page 10 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: MB 570-256107/1-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.821 mg/Kg 08/11/22 12:59 08/15/22 12:42 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-256107/2-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-256107/3-A Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 256849 Analyte 49.5 47.79 mg/Kg 97 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: Total/NA Prep Batch: 256107 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead Lab Sample ID: LB 570-255340/1-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte 50.5 50.96 mg/Kg 101 80 - 120 6 20 Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 LB LB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.500 mg/L 08/09/22 20:18 08/10/22 13:57 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 570-255340/2-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead Lab Sample ID: LCSD 570-255340/3-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 255866 Analyte 2.00 2.255 mg/L 113 80 - 120 Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: TCLP Prep Batch: 255638 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead Lab Sample ID: MB 580-400071/21-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte 2.00 2.010 mg/L 101 80 - 120 11 20 Client Sample ID: Method Blank Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 MB MB Result Qualifier RL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac Lead ND 0.0300 mg/L 08/17/22 20:17 08/18/22 13:12 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS 580-400071/22-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 Spike LCS LCS %Rec Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits Lead 1.00 1.035 mg/L 104 80 - 120 Eurofins Calscience Page 11 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Sample Results Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) Lab Sample ID: LCSD 580-400071/23-B Matrix: Solid Analysis Batch: 401081 Analyte Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type: SPLP West Prep Batch: 400945 Spike LCSD LCSD %Rec RPD Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit Lead 1.00 1.051 mg/L 105 80 - 120 2 20 Eurofins Calscience Page 12 of 27 8/19/2022 v QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Metals Leach Batch: 255340 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B Prep Batch: 255638 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B Analysis Batch: 255866 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 570-105614-7 570-105614-8 570-105614-9 570-105614-10 570-105614-11 LB 570-255340/1-B LCS 570-255340/2-B LCSD 570-255340/3-B HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E HAKA_BTPC_A HAKA_BTPC_B HAKA_BTPC_C HAKA_BTPC_D HAKA_BTPC_E Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 TCLP Solid 1311 Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 TCLP Solid 3010A 255340 Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 TCLP Solid 6010B 255638 Eurofins Calscience Page 13 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Metals ISM Prep Batch: 255881 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Prep Batch: 256107 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Matrix Method Increment, Prep Increment, Prep Method Prep Batch 570-105614-2 MB 570-256107/1-A LCS 570-256107/2-A LCSD 570-256107/3-A Analysis Batch: 256849 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 570-105614-2 MB 570-256107/1-A LCS 570-256107/2-A LCSD 570-256107/3-A Leach Batch: 400071 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B Method Prep Batch 255881 255881 Prep Batch 256107 256107 256107 256107 256107 Prep Batch 570-105614-1 MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B Prep Batch: 400945 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 1312 1312 1312 1312 Method Prep Batch MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B Analysis Batch: 401081 Lab Sample ID HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup Client Sample ID SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Prep Type Solid Solid Solid Solid Matrix 3010A 3010A 3010A 3010A Method 570-105614-1 MB 580-400071/21-B LCS 580-400071/22-B LCSD 580-400071/23-B HAKA_BT_A Method Blank Lab Control Sample Lab Control Sample Dup SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West Solid Solid Solid Solid 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 400071 400071 400071 400071 Prep Batch 400945 400945 400945 400945 General Chemistry Analysis Batch: 255207 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Method Prep Batch Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Moisture - 2540 255507 Eurofins Calscience Page 14 of 27 8/19/2022 QC Association Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment General Chemistry ISM Prep Batch: 255507 Lab Sample ID 570-105614-1 570-105614-2 570-105614-3 570-105614-4 570-105614-5 570-105614-6 Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch HAKA_BT_A HAKA_BT_AZ HAKA_BT_B HAKA_BT_C HAKA_BT_D HAKA_BT_E Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Total/NA Solid Increment,Prep Eurofins Calscience Page 15 of 27 8/19/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-1 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab SPLP West SPLP West SPLP West TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Leach Prep Analysis 1312 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: TAC047 Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment, Prep Prep 3050B Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment,Prep Analysis Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 1 1 10 1 1.0 g 1.0 mL 50 mL 50 mL 100.05 g 2000 mL 5 mL 50 mL 10g 400071 08/10/22 14:13 JLS 400945 08/17/22 20:17 JLS 401081 08/18/22 14:53 TMH 255340 255638 255866 255881 500 mL 256107 256849 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 08/10/22 14:26 VZOK 08/10/22 15:19 KZX6 08/11/22 12:59 CS5Z 08/15/22 16:37 VZOK EET SEA EET SEA EET SEA EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_AZ Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-2 Matrix: Solid Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Total/NA Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Run Factor Amount Final Amount Batch Prepared Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Leach 1311 Prep 3010A Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment, Prep Prep 3050B Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Increment,Prep Analysis Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 1 10 1 100.05 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 255866 08/10/22 14:28 VZOK 10g 255881 500 mL 256107 256849 08/10/22 15:19 KZX6 08/11/22 12:59 CS5Z 08/15/22 16:40 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-3 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Amount Amount TCLP TCLP TCLP Total/NA Total/NA Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 ISM Prep Analysis Increment,Prep Moisture - 2540 Instrument ID: BAL62 100.05 g 2000 mL 5 mL 50 mL Batch Prepared Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL 255866 08/10/22 14:31 VZOK EET CAL 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Eurofins Calscience Page 16 of 27 8/19/2022 9 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-4 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.01 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL . TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:33 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL. Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:50 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-5 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.04 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 60108 1 255866 08/10/22 14:36 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL. Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BT_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 13:55 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-6 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.02 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:38 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Total/NA ISM Prep Increment,Prep 255507 08/09/22 13:30 KZX6 EET CAL Total/NA Analysis Moisture - 2540 1 255207 08/09/22 16:00 B4QL EET CAL Instrument ID: BAL62 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_A Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:25 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-7 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Prep Type Type Method Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 100.04 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 TCLP Prep 301 OA 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 255866 08/10/22 14:40 VZOK EET CAL Instrument ID: ICP10 Eurofins Calscience Page 17 of 27 8/19/2022 Lab Chronicle Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_B Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:30 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-8 Matrix: Solid Prep Type TCLP TCLP TCLP Batch Batch Type Method Dil Initial Final Batch Prepared Run Factor Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab Leach 1311 Prep 3010A Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 100.06 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL . 255866 08/10/22 14:43 VZOK EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_C Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:35 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-9 Matrix: Solid Batch Batch Prep Type Type Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Batch Prepared Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 TCLP Prep 3010A TCLP Analysis 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 100.06 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 255866 08/10/22 14:45 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_D Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:40 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-10 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Type Batch Method Dil Initial Run Factor Amount TCLP TCLP TCLP Leach Prep Analysis 1311 3010A 6010B Instrument ID: ICP10 1 Final Batch Amount Number 100.03 g 2000 mL 255340 5 mL 50 mL 255638 255866 Prepared or Analyzed Analyst Lab 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 08/10/22 14:48 VZOK EET CAL 4 EET CAL EET CAL Client Sample ID: HAKA_BTPC_E Date Collected: 07/28/22 15:45 Date Received: 08/05/22 09:40 Lab Sample ID: 570-105614-11 Matrix: Solid Prep Type Batch Batch Type Method Dil Run Factor Initial Final Batch Prepared Amount Amount Number or Analyzed Analyst Lab TCLP Leach 1311 TCLP Prep 3010A TCLP Analysis 6010B 1 Instrument ID: ICP10 Completion dates and times are reported or not reported per method requirements or individual lab discretion. 100.05 g 2000 mL 255340 08/08/22 23:00 XBO9 EET CAL 4 5 mL 50 mL 255638 08/09/22 20:18 ECX6 EET CAL 255866 08/10/22 14:55 VZOK EET CAL . Laboratory References: EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 EET SEA = Eurofins Seattle, 5755 8th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424, TEL (253)922-2310 Eurofins Calscience Page 18 of 27 8/19/2022 9 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Job ID: 570-105614-1 Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4175 02-02-23 Laboratory: Eurofins Seattle The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Oregon NELAP 4167 07-08-23 Eurofins Calscience Page 19 of 27 8/19/2022 Method Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 EET CAL 4 6010B Metals (ICP) SW846 EET SEA Moisture - 2540 Percent Moisture SM EET CAL 4 1311 TCLP Extraction SW846 EET CAL 4 1312 SPLP Extraction SW846 EET SEA 3010A Preparation, Total Metals SW846 EET CAL 4 3010A Preparation, Total Metals SW846 EET SEA 3050B Preparation, Metals SW846 EET CAL 4 Increment, Prep ISM - Dry, Disaggregate, Sieve, Split, EPA EET CAL 4 Increment,Prep ISM - As Received, Disaggregate, Split EPA EET CAL 4 Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency SM = "Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And Wastewater" SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates. Laboratory References: EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494 EET SEA = Eurofins Seattle, 5755 8th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424, TEL (253)922-2310 Eurofins Calscience Page 20 of 27 8/19/2022 Sample Summary Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job ID: 570-105614-1 Project/Site: Hakalau Lead Assessment Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 570-105614-1 HAKA BT A Solid 07/28/22 13:30 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-2 HAKA BT AZ Solid 07/28/22 13:35 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-3 HAKA BT B Solid 07/28/22 13:45 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-4 HAKA_BT_C Solid 07/28/22 13:45 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-5 HAKA_BT_D Solid 07/28/22 13:50 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-6 HAKA_BT_E Solid 07/28/22 13:55 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-7 HAKA_BTPC_A Solid 07/28/22 15:25 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-8 HAKA_BTPC_B Solid 07/28/22 15:30 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-9 HAKA_BTPC_C Solid 07/28/22 15:35 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-10 HAKA_BTPC_D Solid 07/28/22 15:40 08/05/22 09:40 570-105614-11 HAKA BTPC E Solid 07/28/22 15:45 08/05/22 09:40 Eurofins Calscience Page 21 of 27 8/19/2022 Chain of Custody Record Ver 01/16/2019 i7:___ � _ Preservation Code: XX > pp� "------- —,,( r V t4 I\ yutsneo by Date Time. Method ofship -went slm uished by 12‘1- Oaten -me: Company Receiv by -fr Da /Time: ,vCompany ahnquished by r✓riL�� k7 (( 1 " �� _. Date/Time: Company Reseiued.byf Da! Mme: Company uished by ----- Ver -` - ,l1 I L 1'.1..'_' ir_) 1W Ver 01/16/2019 Chain of Custody Record V o c d N U g 3 0 0 L W O co N Q U 0 F COC No' 570-182827 1 Page Page 1 of 1 Job #: 570-105614-1 Preservation Codes - A HCL M - Hexane B- NaOH N - None C - Zn Acetate 0 AaNa02 D - Nitric Acid P - Na204S E - NaHSO4 Q - Na2S03 F - McOH R - Na2S203 G - Amchlor S - H2SO4 H Ascorbic Acid T TSP Dodecahydrate I ice U- Acetone J - DI Water V - MCAA K - EDTA W-pH4-5 L - EDA Y Trizma Z - other (specify) Other Special Instructions/Note. Note: Since laboratory accreditations are subject to change, Eurofins Calscience places the ownership of method analyte 8 accreditation compliance upon out subcontract laboratories. This sample shipment is forwarded under chain -of -custody If the laboratory does not currently maintain accreditation in the State of Origin listed above for analysis/tests/matrix being analyzed, the samples must be shipped back to the Eurofins Calscience laboratory or other instructions will be provided. Any changes to accreditation status should be brought to Eurofins Calscience attention immediately If all requested accreditations are current to date, retum the signed Chain of Custody attesting to said complicance to Eurofins Calscience. Sample Disposal (A fee may be assessed if samples are retained longer than 1 month) I I Retum To Client I I Disposal By Lab I I Archive For Months Special Instructions/QC Requirements elinqulshed by;-' ` Date.Shipment Method of Empty Kit R 'Time: ' i P. 0 (S Company Company Cooler Temperature(s) °C and Other Remarks. v C a v E E m o d E E 0 Carrier Tracking No(s) State of Origin. Hawaii Accreditations Required (See note). NELAP - Oregon, State - Hawaii Analysis Requested siauie;uoo Jo JagwnN te;oj Received by - Received by- Received y Received by- Lab y Lab PM Chang, Terri E -Mail' _... Terri Chang@et.eurofinsus.com Peel dldS M M ZL£NBOL09 X C f Edi 0 0 'Company Company Custody Seal No ON JO seA) aSWISW uuoJJad Possible Hazard Identification Unconfirmed 'Deliverable Requested III, III, IV, Other (specify) Primary Deliverable Rank: 2 (oN Jo sa v aOwes poaNII j Paid Company Eurofins Environment Testing Northwest, Due Date Requested. 8/17/2022 TAT Requested (days). Project # 57002418 SSOW#: Matrix (w=wamr s=solid, o-wsm/on, eT=nsss, a=Air) Preservation Code: P O 0) a ca d a lJ f�> fi. �.. ,E o 0 E C 0 a m E m ao ra cA~Ut7 y a w c O m # a # 's Sample Date 7/28/22 m S v c Q G 1Client Information (Sub Contract Lab) Client Contact: Shipping/Receiving Address. 5755 8th Street East, Ciy Tacoma State Zip' WA, 98424 Phone: 253-922-2310(Tel) Project NamLee: Hakalau ad Assessment ..9.3 Sample Identification - Client ID (Lab ID) HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1) Custody Seals Intact: A Yes A No Page 23 of 27 8/19/2022 570-105614 Waybill Part 9 156297-435 FIRDB EXP 01/23 1:163VOCREIIIIS CZ1C cc•--• 2841 DOW AVE., STE.100 REF: KOLEKOLE ,111.0Z14,0Z4OZZU uJ %.619rSi. = e-4,101410,41?il; Part it 156297-435 RADS UP 01/23 1,163.V(166.4/M135 ('Jul waltz LO Ol 003tr•-• • NY X •• NI-('JCO LLI.,-.7/- (DV) •• 01-0 (0 0-3 •• 2L)CC., MCCUO BILL THIRD PARTY (808) 266-0222 •• OWN:: 02111111 0-00D2 E0 007) 0,1 -CM 01-0,0 0,0> 1 CCUZ03 0(000) .4) o .141 IA J.-. (ED LU Cc uJ LU C) CoD ocC C-1 C/3 LL. CD LI.1 0 1 DOW AVE., STE.100 CO afp'rfgr(4,i,Y,, ' X uJ 131 03 11. A 11 LOZ LKIzzazzir LIU 0!.'0.40.rm/r0k.,--0.s.t0002&-.0000_,. ismaimmommi ...11101•••01.01111111•11MIIMIIMION 1.11.1.1111111 11.•••••••••••1111•111111••••• ICC MIINIMIMMUmmimmm MM. gOrniia weEiEttZO 0 Page 24 of 27 IM411111•11111111•MIIIIIIIr. ..11••111111111101•111111•11•111111111 8/19/2022 Chain of Custody Record ,_ ,_ o) j§\/( - ; ;c ( Preservation cones: A- HGL M - Hexane N - None 8-NeOH O-AsNaO2 C -Zn Acetate P - Na2045 D -Nitric Acid p - Na25O3 E- NaH5O4 R-Na2S2O3 F-Mo0H 5-H25O4 G - Amchlar T - TSP Oodecahydrate H - Ascorbic Acid p - Acetone 1 -Ice V - MCRA J - DI Warer W-pH4-5 K -EGTA Y-Trizma t. - EDA Z - other (specify) Other: Special Instructions/Note: \ \ a ...... Sample Disposal (A fes maybe assessed if samples are retained longer than 7 mown Retum To Client Disposal By Lab Archive For _ Months Special Instructions/DC Requirements: t { yam¥ a V a. . —2. c,- Custody Seal No.: . . . - . - Cooler Temperature(s) °C and Other Remarks: Ver: 06/08/2021 ini ■t 3 Analysis Requested ..... k+¥ +$ . / ! .2 $I _ t E -Mail) TerrtChang@et.eurofinsus.com Accreditation Required (See note): NELAP - Oregon, State - Hawaii _,_SWM _m x� \ 0 / wN k�W¥�w k 7 ° 1Q \ ) ! Deliverable Requested: I, i1. 6). IV, Other (specify) Primary Deliverable Rank: 2 ( &@m mow pm rd: TAT Requested (days): Matrix (w•w.a., s•soud, 0.1.,.09.11. BT.T ee .. A.AIr) Preservation Code. Solid / w ®# § ; - \ % a E u) ®�x \E .a§ƒ 2. ) / 2 ao {) }r / Sample Date 2 ? cv 04 cv © 0 6 o t 7 Client Information (Sub Contract Lab) oEI g rƒ ,) ) \\\\/} $ \ State, Zip: WA, 98424 / L0 _ Project Name: Hakalau Lead Assessment .._-- , ( ) \ , HAKA_BT_A (570-105614-1) I Custody Seals Intact. A Yes A No ® } / 611{ \ / $ Page 25 of 27 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-105614-1 Login Number: 105614 List Number: 1 Creator: Patel, Jayesh Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Calscience Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey N/A meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? True There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience Page 26 of 27 8/19/2022 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC Job Number: 570-105614-1 Login Number: 105614 List Number: 2 Creator: Holdener, Heather D Question Answer Comment List Source: Eurofins Seattle List Creation: 08/12/22 12:11 PM El Radioactivity wasn't checked or is <1= background as measured by a survey True meter. The cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. True Sample custody seals, if present, are intact. True The cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or True tampered with. Samples were received on ice. True Cooler Temperature is acceptable. True Cooler Temperature is recorded. True COC is present. True COC is filled out in ink and legible. True COC is filled out with all pertinent information. True Is the Field Sampler's name present on COC? N/A There are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. True Samples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate True HTs) Sample containers have legible labels. True Containers are not broken or leaking. True Sample collection date/times are provided. True Appropriate sample containers are used. True Sample bottles are completely filled. True Sample Preservation Verified. True There is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested True MS/MSDs Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is True <6mm (1/4"). Multiphasic samples are not present. True Samples do not require splitting or compositing. True Residual Chlorine Checked. N/A Eurofins Calscience IR8 3.1/2.5 Received project as a subcontract. Page 27 of 27 8/19/2022 APPENDIX B: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Batch Test Leaching Method Results This page was intentionally left blank. Batch Test Leaching Model Version: Fall 2017Hawai'i Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office -Refer to accompanying technical memorandum for background and use of this spreadsheet (HDOH 2017). -Physiochemical constants updated in Fall 2017 (refer to HDOH 2017). -Spreadsheet calculates Kd desorption coefficient based on input contaminant concentration in soil and Batch Test data. -Correlative concentration of contaminant in leachate calculated based on estimated Kd value (may differ from batch test data). -Future impacts to groundwater estimated using simple groundwater/leachate dilution factor. -Alternative model based on soil gas data provided in accompanying worksheet. -Possibility of past impacts to groundwater not considered and must be evaluated separately. -Check to ensure that this is an up-to-date version of the spreadsheet. -Remove write protection if problems occur in selection of contaminant. Password to unprotect worksheet is "EAL" (under Tools menu). STEPS: 1. Select chemical from pulldown list (unlisted chemicals - unprotect spreadsheet and input chemical name and chemical constants). 2. Input total contaminant concentration and SPLP (or other applicable batch test) concentration. 3. Input sample properties. Use default values if sample -specific data are not available. 4. Input Batch Test method information. Default SPLP method parameter values noted. 5. Input groundwater:leachate dilution factor (DF of 1.0 = no dilution; USEPA default = 20, USEPA 2002). 6. Input target groundwater action level for comparison to model calculation of groundwater impacts (optional). 7. Input chemical -specific Henry's Law Constant (Kh) and solubility if "Generic (Volatile)" or "Generic (Nonvolatile)" selected from pulldown list. Input "0" if values not available. 8. Spreadsheet calculates sample -specific Kd value and dissolved -phase concentration of contaminant in saturated sample. 9. Spreadsheet calculates concentration of contaminant in groundwater following impact by leachate. Step 1: ''Select Contaminant (use pulldown list) Step 2: Input Sample Data Concentration in soil sample (mg/kg) Concentration in Batch Test solution (ug/L) DEFAULT N/A N/A Step 3: Input Sample Properties (5USEPA soil defaults noted) Sample density (g/cm3) Particle density (g/cm3) Fraction air-filled porosity (assume saturated soil) 1.50 2.65 0.00 Step 4: Batch Test Method Data (SPLP defaults noted 2Batch Test Solution Volume (ml): 2Batch Test Solution Density (g/cm3): 2Batch Test Sample Weight (grams) 2,000 1.0 100 INPUT 1.1E+04 4.3E+03 1.50 2.65 0.00 2,000 1.0 100 3Step 5: Input Groundwater/ Leachate Dilution Factor DEFAULT INPUT 20 20 °Step 6 (optional): Input Target Groundwater Concentration (ug/L) Batch Test Sample Mass (grams) Model Results Sample Mass:Solution Mass Ratio (gm/gm) 5Kd partition Coefficient (cm3/g): 2.5E+03 6Estimated Concentration in Source Area Leachate (ug/L): _ 7Estimated Concentration in Groundwater (uci/L): _ Step 7: 10Chemical Constants [Generic Chemical only] Calculations: Sample porosity - total Sample porosity - air-filled Sample porosity - water -filled 0.43 0.00 0.43 Batch Test Solution Mass (grams) 2.0E+03 Batch Test Sample Mass (grams) 1.0E+02 Sample Mass:Solution Mass Ratio (gm/gm) 5.0E-02 Total Mass of Contaminant (ug) 1.1E+06 Mass Contaminant in Batch Test Solution (ug) 8.6E+03 Mass Contaminant Sorbed to Soil (ug) 1.1E+06 Concentration Sorbed (ug/kg) 1.1E+07 Batch Test Percent Solid Phase 99.2% Batch Test Percent Dissolved Phase 0.8% Batch Test Solid -Phase Contaminant Conc. (mg/kg) 1.1E+04 Batch Test Solution Contaminant Conc. (ug/L) 4.3E+03 Kd >20. Contaminant not significantly mobile for concentration and soil type tested. Do not place below water table without further evaluation. Address other potential environmental concerns as needed (direct exposure, gross contamination, etc.). Notes (refer also to accompanying memo). 1. Total contaminant concentration measured in soil sample and results of Batch Test analysis (e.g., SPLP). Hawai'i DOH Fall 2011 Batch Test Leaching Model 2. Batch Test: Default SPLP method calls for 100 grams of sample and 2 liters of solution with a density of approximately 1.0 3. Site-specific or default groundwater/leachate dilution factor (default = 20, USEPA 2002). 4. Target groundwater action level. Refer to HDOH EAL document and appropriate groundwater category. 5. Partition Coefficient (Kd) = Concentrationsoted/Concentrationsoi„t;o„ (after Roy et al 1992). Partition Coefficient units in L/Kg [(ug/Kg)/ug/L)] or cm3/g [(ug/g)/ug/cm3)] 6. Estimated dissolved -phase concentration of contaminant in saturated sample based on calculated partition coefficient Kd contaminant concentration in leachate during transport through vadose zone not considered. Refer to Tier 2 concentration 8. Caution Message: A caution message will appear if the input batch test concentration is greater than 75% of the assumed contaminant solubility and a Kd value will not be generated (refer to "Leaching Evaluation of Heavily Contaminated Soils” in text). Model assumes that free product is present in the batch test solution and a Kd cannot be calculated (see text). 9. Error Message: The batch test data are not valid if the contaminant mass calculated for solute exceeds total mass calculated for sample (based on sample mass and input total contaminant concentration). This may not be uncommon given the potential for lab error at very low concentrations of contaminants. 10."GENERIC CHEMICAL" can be selected from pulldown menu an used to model of any chemical, including chemicals not listed. Selection requires input of Kh (atm m3/mole) and Solubility constants in Step 7 if available. Note that a chemicals physiochemcial constants affect results for VOCs only if input Fraction Air -Filled Porosity is >0% (model considers partitioning into pore space air for VOCs as well as leachate). References: HDOH, 2017, Use of laboratory batch tests to evaluate potential leaching of contaminants from soil (updated Fall 2017): Hawai'i Dept. of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/index.html HDOH, 2017, Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Hawai'i Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, Fall 2017, www.hawaii.gov/health/environmental/hazard/ea12005.html. USEPA, 1994, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, SW -846 Method 1312, September 1994, www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm. USEPA, 1999, Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values: Office of Air and Radiation, August 1999, EPA/402/R/99/004A, http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/kdreport/ USEPA, 2002, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER 9355.4-24, December 2002, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/ssg_main.pdf Hawaii DOH Fall 2011 Batch Test Leaching Model APPENDIX C: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and To -Be -Considered (TBC) Criteria This page was intentionally left blank. Appendix C: Preliminary Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) and Guidance to be Considered. TBC Information. EPA RSLs are not promulgated. EE 0 /\ 0. a2 3(\ 1Ec \\\ coon Applicability to Site Chemical -Specific Chemical -Specific kk )<0. 0 J Requirement Removal or Remedial Action EPA RSL Tables (November 2019) > /o HDOH EALs J ) k Potentially relevant and appropriate. The site is adjacent to Kolekole Stream. The National Wetland Inventory classifies the stream channel and banks as riverine upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded. If a survey determines that the wetland is jurisdictional, then compliance with the substantive requirements of the CWA and § 404 Permit process may be required for any response action that includes excavation of soil and installation of clean fill material in the wetland area. Potentially applicable. Excavation activities that alter coastal vegetation and landforms will comply with substantive requirements to minimize effects on coastal resources. Potentially applicable. The selected response action will comply with this regulation because the site location is within the coastal zone. Applicable if the selected response action disturbs more than 1 acre (Current potential remedial action area is more than 1 acre). Response activities will comply with the ARARs to prevent discharge to the adjacent stream. BMPs will be implemented. Although administrative requirements do not qualify as ARARs, a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared to demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of this regulation. Applicable. Any grading, grubbing, stockpiling activities will require a permit and BMPs to manage soil erosion and sediment control. Any removed vegetation should not be stored along the banks of Kolekole Stream. Grading activities will result in positive drainage to prevent the accumulation or retention of surface water in depressions. Hazardous conditions will not be created by fill. The site is adjacent to Kolekole Stream. The majority of the site is located within a Special Management Area as designated by the State of Hawaii. The majority of the site falls within a Special Management Area as designated by the State of Hawaii. The site is adjacent to Kolekole Stream. Response actions that include grading or excavation. o co ) Location -Specific Location -Specific Action -Specific Action -Specific State County Requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials to into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Provides for the protection of coastal resources. Requires federal actions or activities conducted within or affecting a coastal zone be consistent with the State's coastal program. Also requires protection of valuable coastal ecosystems and minimization of adverse impacts on coastal ecosystems. Regulates the discharge of treated effluent and storm water runoff to waters of the United States. Regulates grading, excavation, clearing and grubbing activities for management of soil erosion and sediment control. 33 use§ 1344; CWA § 404; 33 USC§ 1311(a) HRS Title 13, Chapter 205A: Coastal Zone Management. S 16 USC §-1455 (c); 15 CFR § 930.30-33, 36(a}, and 39(b -d) CWA§ 402; 33 USC§ 1311(a): 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125 HRS Title 12, Chapter 180C, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Hawaii County Code (1983, 2016 Amended) Chapter 10, Section 10- 26 Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the U.S. o N 1 Coastal Zones NPDES Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, Grading Excavation, Clearing and Grubbing. Appendix C: Preliminary Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) and Guidance to be Considered. Determination Applicability to Site §k )J § J Excavation and/or Earth Moving Activities (continued) Potentially applicable. Response actions will not cause or permit the discharge of visible fugitive dust beyond the site perimeter. Dust may be controlled by screen or limited application of water spraying over disturbed area to prevent the discharge of fugitive dust. Runoff from dust control is not permitted. Potentially applicable. Response actions will not cause excessive noise beyond the exclusion zone outside of the hours of 0700 and 2200. Permissible sound outside of the exclusion zone for multifamily residential, commercial, and resort areas shall not exceed 60 decibels. Outside of the hours of 0700 and 2200, permissible sound levels shall not exceed 50 decibels. Site is located within an isolated gulch. Residential housing is above the site. Response actions that include grading or excavation. Response actions that include the use of heavy machinery and trucks. Action -Specific cn ) Requires mitigation of fugitive dust visible beyond the property line through implementation of best practical operation or treatment. Defines maximum permissible sound levels to prevent, control, and abate noise pollution from stationary noise sources and equipment related to agricultural, construction, and industrial activities. HRS 19 3428-11; 34 HAR Title 11, Chapter 60.1-33: Air Pollution Control HRS Title 19, Chapter 342F-30; HAR Title 11, Chapter 46: Noise Pollution Control Control of Fugitive Dust Control of Noise 71. ) ces c Das o \\\\ ;i1\N \\� ) \45 0-00-5 Lead is present in site soil. Lead is present in site soil. Chemical -Specific Action -Specific =00 {))0 §2}, g111 g,"2 2 Si cce2. )ƒ;\§ 40 CFR Part 261 40 CFR Part 262 \\ Conservation and Protection of Ecological and Cultural Resources Location -Specific Location -Specific 16 USC § 703(a) 43 CFR 10, § 3c and 3d Appendix C: Preliminary Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) and Guidance to be Considered. Determination Applicability to Site 0 U E Potentially applicable. Comply with the substantive requirements for the excavation, removal, and preservation of humans remains if selected response action includes excavation and human remains or burial sites are encountered. Potentially applicable. Comply with substantive requirements to prevent irreparable damage to or destruction of human remains and artifacts and to preserve archaeological and scientific data if selected response action includes excavation and human remains, burial sites, or cultural artifacts are encountered. Potentially applicable. Comply with the substantive requirements to provide for data recovery and preservation activities if selected response action includes terrain alterations that result in irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, historical, or archaeological data. Potentially applicable. Comply with substantive requirements to prevent the irreparable damage and destruction of human remains or artifacts and to preserve the archaeological and scientific data if selected response action includes excavation and human remains. burial sites, or cultural artifacts are encountered. Potentially relevant and appropriate. No designated critical habitat is at the site. Comply with requirements to protect RTE species and their habitat if documented or if they appear at the site. The site has potential habitat for the Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni). Potential for Hawaiian Hoary bat (Aeorestes semotus), or Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), however no trees will be removed or disturbed during site work, minimizing potential impacts. Construction will take place during daylight hours and will not use nocturnal lights. Vegetation is non-native or common species and consists of maintained landscaping (grass). Location -Specific Location -Specific aN �o o m i. Location -Specific m a o m To ' LL T'2 LL d m m m LL Governs practices and procedures relating to the proper care and protection of burial sites and human skeletal remains 50 years or older. Requires protection of archaeological resources if discovered. Alteration of terrain that threatens significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archeological data may require actions to recover and preserve artifacts. Includes coordination with federal and state officials to determine proposed site activities have the potential to cause adverse effects on historic properties. Requires action to be taken to locate, identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources. Requires action to conserve endangered or threatened species, including coordination with the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HAR Title 13, Chapter 300: Rules of Practice and Procedures Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains 43 CFR § 7.4(a) and 7.5(b)(1) 16 USC 469; 16 USC§ 470; 36 CFR Part 800 HRS Chapter 6E. K 0 2 m m OJ Lo 0 w 7 Burial Sites and Human Remains Protection of Archaeological Resources National Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act; National Historic Preservation Act Historic Preservation Q liU N cn I W APPENDIX D: REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON This page was intentionally left blank. : 2 22 TOE= g C3 Scope of Work: To o Po 3. ro o 03 s. For 07, 3. r. 2. Word Processo 0 Senior Project Accountant .71 7b. Subcontractor Labor 2 o o E U w E 9 s a •E c z° S a" 0 Scope of Work: o S. r. 0 8. 6-3 3 3 3 8.3 3 3 E E E 2. Equipment ith Sear attachmen ti 0 0 3 3 3 62, 3 3 3 3 3. Materials and Other Direr 15'6 E 0 Disposal of Vegetation HD Fuel of vehicles Report reproduction ƒ§/28 / ) /{\ Scope of Work: $2,411,750.00 s. $4,001,550.00 oi 4. Subcontractors Construction Screening Excavate, Load, Haul, and Tipping Fee (Mainland) Excavate, Load, Haul, and Tipping Fee (WHSL - On Island) Import Clean Fill and Grade Hydroseed Mirafi/Geotextile spread accorss site Dust Controls, Water meter, water truck Cargo Air Samples Ho to Hono Fed EX Hono to AAL Wood Chipper Archeological Support ASTs PAH's ASTs ISM prep Air Monitoring Lead issues if present with Tank ISM Prep RCRA 8 METAL PERCENT MOISTURE DRYSLIEVE RCRA 8 METAL -TCLP Shipping to lab cti 33333 $ al PA r 4+ ij Scope of Work: E. Per Dem Geolo ui WW EE Bonding, Insurance, and Tax f ( !\\\ ,„Eg- aEla`- \\\\�j \\\�\i\\\\\\\ \}//)f\/ ) _ §; : :® J;;[f7:\5 ((/wi—--Do2°05! r< i2 2 w,5a _ i 7i=ae2(E5 ! ]§2 fk EHMP needed. Assume archeological m }§ o o Scope of Wor o $212,642.74 Fr o (71 o Fr o Fr Fr Fr 17, .0 Project Manager 0 Senior Project Scie 0 Construction Manager Technical Editor Word Processor Senior CADD Operator Project Administrator Senior Project Accountant Ts 1 b. Subcontractor Labor Brush Clearing 1 Brush Clearing 2 Brush Clearing 4 00 ((/:;=ze28 2 Si k % 18 \. {0.6 §\j?2'' _ EaWo \2 8/1;1 gE f j rak ft EHMP needed. \8558 as 22 r;![f! )252 Assume archeological m kfE Assume archeological monitoring. osi 69 Fo : _ OD 671 ss k k Backhoe (operated) - brush clearing 2 ( misc brush clearing equipemnt o soi 6.76 o 76. 2 67, 3. Materials and Other Direct Costs Consumables ( water etc.) Health and PPE -tyveck suit 20 per day (2XL) [ Misc Health and Safety Plastic sheeting Restoration (not backfill) Fuel of vehicles Report reproduction �\\ ;88-s5 5Ela`32 0S\0\\0 \2.1'.h \\\\\\ (E.5500;;; :/#—ls7Kf) 0<_WWH2o5o5 Assume archeological m EHMP needed. }§ f j Assume archeological monitoring. $1,810,200.00 $2,291,500.00 $4,881,172.51 co $4,001,550.00 $1,504,500.00 $6,581,870.07 $1,504,500.00 co Units }\/-o°° :l::!\\aJ Ig 4. Subcontractors Excavate, Load, Haul, and Tipping Fee (Mainland) Excavate, Load, Haul, and Tipping Fee (WHSL - On Island) import Clean Fill and Grade Hydroseed Mirafi/Geotextile spread accorss site Dust Controls, Water meter, water truck Cargo Air Samples Hib to Hono Fed EX Hono to AAL Wood Chipper Archeological Support Archeological Monitoring Air Monitoring ISM Prep RCRA 8 METAL PERCENT MOISTURE DRYSLIEVE RCRA 8 METAL -TCLP Shipping to lab :{[4! §\): \j),0/ !\ ) ! § A309,11 e!§Z:E Assume archeological m BE }§ Wi 20 \)/)) 11,20 surae archeological monitoring. 8. 8. co- ) 0 0-6 .21 ui Per Diem Construction Manager Per Diem Geologist Lodging Construction Manager Lodging Geologist $5,218,080.37 $6,971,371.67 $2,076,503.58 SUBTOTALS GO 0 Bonding, Insurance, and Taxes 1,1 0 $5,791,793.70 $7,737,854.47 TASK TOTALS APPENDIX E: TREATABILITY STUDY Appendix E Bench Test Treatability Study on Hakalau Beach Park Soil — Batch 1: Triple Superphosphate and Batch 2: Portland Cement Introduction A Bench Test Treatability Study was performed to evaluate the potential for treating high concentrations of lead in the soil on the floor of Hakalau Valley to reduce the toxicity of the soil. During soil investigations performed at Hakalau Beach Park between 2017 and 2022, a large area under the Hakalau bridge and primarily on the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation right of entry easement land, soil sample results have identified concentrations of lead in the soil as high as 25,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The total lead results are well above the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for Commercial/Industrial Land -use (800 mg/kg) and the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for Unrestricted Land -use (200 mg/kg) and are considered gross soil contamination. The DOH HEER office would require that lead -contaminated that meets the threshold for gross contamination be a priority for remedial action. Additionally, these samples exhibited hazardous waste characteristics well over the United States Environmental Protection Agencies Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) definition of lead as a hazardous waste (5.0 milligrams per liter [mg/L]). Results from RCRA toxicity characteristic leaching procedure testing (TCLP) on samples from this area have had concentrations of leachable lead high as 31.8 mg/L on a sample with a total lead concentration of 8,820 mg/kg, let alone other samples as high as 25,000 mg/kg. There is no facility in the State of Hawaii that can accept lead -impacted soil that has a TCLP result higher than 5.0 mg/L. One alternative that may potentially reduce the cost of remediating the soil would be to stabilize some portion of the soils that exceed the hazardous waste criterion so that their TCLP results were below the RCRA toxicity characteristic definition of a hazardous waste (TCLP lead <5.0 mg/L). Materials Batch 1 Triple Super Phosphate (TSP) was used as a soil additive to treat the contaminated soil that was removed from Hakalau Beach Park. To evaluate the effectiveness of TSP as a stabilizing agent on lead -impacted Hakalau soil, two (2) DUs that have previously been identified with high concentrations of lead were resampled to provide media for the bench test study. TSP is a commercially available soil fertilizer than can also be used to reduce the mobility of lead in the soil. Phosphate is a compound made up of phosphorous (P) and oxygen (0) and phosphorous atoms that act as an anion that binds readily to lead cations. TSP can also be combined with different ions to impact solubility under acidic conditions. It is most commonly used as fertilizer produced from phosphate rock and phosphoric acid and is technically known as calcium dihydrogen phosphate and monocalcium phosphate, [Ca (H2PO4)2.H2O]. Treatability studies for in situ lead stabilization that used phosphate -based binders found a significant reduction in the bioavailable lead in soil when it was amended with TSP (Hettiarachchi et al. 2001 and Gene 2008). Batch 2 Portland Cement is composed of 60-67% Lime (CaO), 17-25% Silica (SiO2), 3-8% Alumina (Al2O3), 0.5-6% Iron oxide (Fe2O3), and 0.1-4% Magnesia (MgO). It is a global commodity used in making cement and is widely available in bulk quantities to supply the construction industry. Portland cement is the binding agent in industrial concrete and is alkaline and a good candidate for buffering acids (pH of 11). This property was evaluated as a way to reduce the mobility of lead in the bulk soil sample collected for Hakalau using a cost-effective ubiquitous material. The Portland Cement was also selected as a potential way to convert loose soil into a potentially structurally sound material that would be amenable to be put into a consolidation cell or a form that would be easily transported to a facility for disposal. Methodology As part of the remedial alternative evaluation, in May of 2022, KPC collected a bulk sample using ISM from the most heavily impacted areas below the bridge on the southern side of the Hakalau stream bench from DUs 32 and 33 which had been documented in previous investigations as having the highest total lead concentrations in the project area (DUs 32 and 33 were composed of the consolidated DUs 1, 2, 11, and 21). The two (2) DUs sampled for the bench test material were DU32 and DU33, and these are confirmed as the locations for some of the highest lead concentrations in the Hakalau Bridge study area. Surface soil samples (0-3 inches bgs) were collected via the incremental sampling method (ISM) method from both DUs which provided a bulk sample that was used for the treatability test. Fifty 200 -gram incremental sampling locations were collected which resulted in 10 kg of soil collected from DUs 32 and 33 and placed into a new 5 -gallon plastic bucket. On July 26th, 2022, all of the soil (a total of 23.290 kg) was poured into a 14 -gallon open - head poly drum and was hand -pushed (rolled) for 30 -minutes to ensure all soil was completely homogenized before the TSP addition. After the soil was homogenized for the Batch 1 evaluation, aliquots of each bulk sample were submitted for the total lead and then TCLP lead. Each Aliquot will be a multi- increment subsample from the bulk sample this will consist of 50 twenty (2) gram increments (1 kg total sample). A 50 -Ib bag of granulated TSP was purchased locally on the island for the TSP addition. Using a large mill, the TSP material was ground down to a fine powder -like material. On July 28th, 2022, two (2) KPC team members conducted the bench test process. One (1) kg of TSP was weighed out per one (1) kg of soil sample. TSP was added at increments of 5% (50 grams), 10% (100 grams), 15% (150 grams), and 20% (200 grams). The TSP additives were mixed thoroughly with each soil sample by kneading the mixture in a bowl with gloved hands. Following the mixing, the treated soil samples were placed into plastic Ziploc Bags with their unique sample ID reflecting the TSP addition percentage in preparation for laboratory analysis. Next, the second batch (Batch 2) of soil samples was weighed out and placed in five (5) trays for the Portland Cement addition. Portland Cement was added to the sample to decrease the leachability properties of the lead. A total of 500 grams of soil was weighed out and TSP was added at increments of 0 grams, 25 grams, 50 grams, 75 grams, and 100 grams (a total of 5 aliquots of soil). Next, the Portland cement was added following a ratio of 1 to 3, Portland cement to each of the 5 aliquots TSP treated soil. Water was not added since there was enough soil moister to allow complete mixing to achieve the desired consistency (a thick slurry resembling wet cookie dough). The mixture of soil, TSP, and Portland cement was then formed into cylindrical shapes, allowed to cure for 72 hours, crushed, bagged, and sent to the lab for TCLP analysis to evaluate whether a lead is stabilized using Portland Cement and TSP -treated soil mixture. All samples were bagged and shipped overnight to Eurofins Calscience, Tustin, California for lead -level and TCLP analysis testing. Results Based on the laboratory results, the TSP addition was successful in reducing the lead concentrations in the soil. Table 1 presents the results from the bench test study. Sample ID HAKA_BT_A and the duplicate sample (HAKA_BT_AZ) were control samples and therefore were not treated with TSP and were analyzed for total lead, TCLP lead, and SPLP west lead. The control showed total lead results of approximately 11,000 mg/kg and TCLP results of approximately 23 mg/I. Both values were over the Reporting Limits. The lowest addition of TSP was 5%, and that resulted in TCLP lead concentrations below the laboratories method reporting limit (Non -Detectable [ND]). Batch 2 — Portland Cement showed similar efficacy, where soil with 0% TSP and 33% by mass of Portland cement added to the aliquot, TCLP results were also ND. These results show that the addition of TSP and Portland Cement effectively reduces lead concentrations in the lead -contaminated soil. Conclusions The study concluded that TSP was effective at reducing the toxicity of the lead in the areas where the highest total lead. The total lead concentrations from ISM soil samples collected from DU32 and DU33 were 11,400 mg/kg and had a respective TCLP result of 25.6 mg/I, which is well above the RCRA toxicity characteristic for the lead of 5.0 mg/L. However, if TSP is added to an aliquot from this same ISM from DU32 and DU33 at a concentration of just 5% of the total soil mass, the TCLP results were shown to reduce concentrations below the laboratories method reporting limit (or in other words non- detectable dissolved lead). This was achieved without any additional pH buffering additives and demonstrated that immobilization/ stabilization using TSP is highly effective and has ratios that are economically feasible. Portland Cement was added to the impacted soil at a typical mass ratio for making concrete (1:3). Samples of the soil were weighed, and Portland Cement was mixed with the soil, no other sand or gravel was added and because the soil already had a high moisture content, water was not added to the mix. After the mix was cured, samples were pulverized and submitted to Eurofins for analysis. TCLP analysis on this final material also showed that Portland cement can reduce the TCLP result to below the laboratory reporting limit without the addition of TSP. All of the aliquots of the primary ISM soil sample for DUs 32 to 33 to which Portland Cement was added exhibited structural properties similar to a bone-dry terracotta clay (unfired variety). It was durable but could be pulverized back into a powder with relative ease using a 50 Ib millstone. The bench test demonstrated that the addition of TSP and Portland Cement to reduce the leachability of lead is effective and could be used as a treatability recommendation for the lead -contaminated soil at Hakalau Beach Park. The TSP addition is a cost- effective on-site solution for remedial action for the lead -contaminated soil and could be applied on a larger scale to successfully treat contaminated DUs in the Beach Park. Table 1: Bench Test Laboratory Results Sample ID Sample Treatment Description Analysis Unit Results RL HAKA_BT_A Not treated with TSP Total Lead mg/kg 10,900 8.0 TCLP Lead mg/I 25.6 0.500 SPLP West Lead mg/I 4.32 0.0300 HAKA_BT_AZ Duplicate sample to HAKA_BT_A Total Lead mg/kg 11,400 8.0 TCLP Lead mg/I 22.9 0.500 SPLP West Lead mg/I NA - HAKA_BT_B +5% TSP TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BT_C +10% TSP TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BT_D +15% TSP TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BT_E +20% TSP TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BTPC_A +0% TSP with 33% by mass Portland cement TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BTPC_B +5% TSP with 33% by mass Portland cement TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BTPC_C +10% TSP with 33% by mass Portland cement TCLP Lead mg/l ND 0.500 HAKA_BTPC_D +15% TSP with 33% by mass Portland cement TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 HAKA_BTPC_E +20% TSP with 33% by mass Portland cement TCLP Lead mg/I ND 0.500 Notes: 200 mg/kg Lead or greater exceeds the State of Hawaii Department of Health Tier 1 EALs, Direct Exposure Action Levels - Unrestricted Land -Use Scenario presented in Table 1-1 of the Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Fall 2017 Edition). 800 mg/kg Lead or greater exceeds the State of Hawaii Department of Health Tier 1 EALs, Direct Exposure Action Levels - Commercial/Industrial Land -Use Scenario presented in Table 1-2 of the Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Fall 2017 Edition). 800 mg/kg Lead or greater exceeds the State of Hawaii Department of Health Tier 1 EALs, Direct Exposure Action Levels - Construction/Trench Worker Exposure Scenario presented in Table 1-3 of the Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Fall 2017 Edition). mg/kg=milligram(s) per kilogram (i.e. parts per million (ppm)). mg/I = milligram(s) per liter (Le. parts per million (ppm)). NA = Not Analyzed. Indicatesthat the sample was not requested to be analyzed by the laboratory for the specified analysis. ND =Not Detected. Indicates that the analyte was not detected in concentrations above the laboratories method reporting limit. RL=Reporting Limit. FINAL RESPONSE ACTION MEMORANDUM Hakalau Beach Park Hakalau, Hawaii TMK (3) 2-9-002:080 Prepared For: Hawaii Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office 2385 Waimano Home Road Pearl City, Hawaii 96782 Responsible Party: Hawaii Department of Transportation Aliiaimoku Building 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Prepared By: Kealamahi Pacific Consultants, LLC. 111 Hekili Street, Ste A601 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 October 2023 i Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum This page is intentionally left blank. ii Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Assessment of the Property 1 1.2 Description of Preferred Remedy 1 2 Site Location and Description 3 2.1 Site Background 4 2.2 Investigation History 4 2.3 Magnitude and Extent of Contamination 4 2.3.1 X -Ray Fluorescence: HDOH 2016 5 2.3.2 Paint and Soil Sampling: ESI 2016 6 2.3.3 Soil Sampling: KPC Spring 2022 (April 18-20 and May 10-12) 6 3 Environmental Hazard Evaluation 21 3.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern 21 3.2 Exposure Setting 22 3.3 Potential Human/Ecological Receptors 22 3.4 Exposure Pathway Analysis 22 3.5 Environmental Hazard Evaluation Summary 22 4 Remedial Strategy 27 4.1 Development of Remedial Action Objectives 27 4.1.1 Applicable Remedial Action Levels 27 4.1.2 Remedial Action Objectives 27 4.2 Estimation of Soil Volumes Needing Remedial Action 27 4.3 General Response Actions 27 4.4 Development of Remedial Alternatives 27 5 Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives 29 6 Proposed Remedy 39 6.1 Long -Term and Short -Term Effectiveness 42 6.2 Implementability 43 6.3 Estimated Costs 43 7 Final Remedy Selected 45 8 Responsiveness Summary 46 9 References 47 iii Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum FIGURES Figure 1-1: Site Location Hakalau 2 Figure 2-1: Site Location Hakalau Beach Park 3 Figure 2-2: 2016 and 2020 DU and Sample Results Hakalau 15 Figure 2-3: 2022 DU and Sample Results 17 Figure 5-1: Alternative 5a or 5b, Removal 200+ mg/kg and Capped Soil Areas 35 Figure 5-2: Removal of Soil Over 800 mg/kg, Cap 200 mg/kg 38 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Combined Soil Sample Results 11 Table 2-2: Hakalau Beach Park Southern Bank Results above 800 mg/kg for Lead 19 Table 3-3-1: Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Human and Ecological Receptors 25 Table 5-1: HDOT and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 800 mg/kg 31 Table 5-2: Hawaii County and Privately Owned Parcels which 31 Table 5-3: Alternative 5a: No Removal, Cap Only, Cubic Yards 32 Table 5-4: Alternative 5b — Soil Removal 200+ mg/kg, Clean Fill, Cubic yards 33 Table 5-5: DUs which Failed TCLP (2016) and Require Mainland Disposal 34 Table 5-6: Alternative 5c—Soil Removal 800+ mg/kg, Clean Fill Cubic Yards 37 Table 6-1: Alternatives Analysis - Protectiveness 40 Table 6-2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment Comparison 42 Table 6-3: Cost Summary Table 44 Table 8-1: Public Comments Submitted During Public Comment Phase 46 iv Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum List of Acronyms and Abbreviations bgs below ground surface c-EHMP Project specific construction Environmental Hazard Management Plan COC Contaminant of Concern COPC Contaminants of Potential Concern CSM Conceptual site model CY Cubic yard(s) DU Decision Unit HDOT State of Hawaii Department of Transportation EAL Environmental Action Level EHMP Environmental Hazard Management Plan EHE Environmental Hazard Evaluation EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESI Environmental Science International Final RAM Final Response Action Memorandum HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HDOH State of Hawaii Department of Health HDOH TGM State of Hawaii Department of Health Technical Guidance Manual HEER Hazardous Evaluation and Emergency Response ISM Incremental Sampling Methodology KPC Kealamahi Pacific Consulting LLC LBP Lead -Based Paint v Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum mg/kg Milligram per kilogram PPE Personal Protective Equipment RAA Remedial Alternatives Analysis RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure sq. ft. Square Feet TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TSP Triple Superphosphate TMK Tax Map Key XRF X -Ray Fluorescence vi Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 1 Introduction This Final Response Action Memorandum (Final RAM) has been prepared by Kealamahi Pacific Consultants (KPC) and presents the proposed (preferred) remedial alternative selected for Hakalau Beach Park ("the site"). The site is located at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii on the Hamakua Coast approximately 14 miles north of Hilo HI (Figure 1-1). The site is used a public park for general recreation, swimming, surfing, and fishing. The site includes the Hawaii County Tax Map Key (TMK) (3) 2-9-002 Parcel 080. This Final RAM describes the proposed remedial alternatives and the selected final alternative. It also summarizes site information, environmental investigation data, and provides the basis for remediation as well as the rationale for the selected remedial alternative. This Final RAM was developed based on the Remedial Alternative Analysis (RAA) Report from July 2023 and the Draft RAM from February 2023. The preferred remedial alternative selected is 5b: Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill. 1.1 Assessment of the Property The area of concern is located in the park and surrounding area, which is below the Hakalau Stream Bridge (Figure 1-1). Lead -impacted soil has been documented at Hakalau Beach Park and potential impacts on human health, several site investigations were conducted in 2016, 2020, and 2022 to identify and delineate the extent of lead -impacted soil within Decision Units (DUs) at the site. The site is a public County of Hawaii managed park which is used for general recreation, surfing, and fishing and the site is anticipated to remain a public park. Therefore, based on the current plans for future site use, a response action must be implemented to protect human and ecological health and the environment. 1.2 Description of Preferred Remedy The overall preferred remedial alternatives for the site were recommended by the environmental consultant in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (NEER Office) and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) after investigating the environmental contamination of the site. Six (6) potential remedies were selected: 1. Recycle or Reuse, 2. Destruction or Detoxification, 3. Separation, Concentration, or Volume Reduction, 4. Immobilization of Hazardous Substances, 5. On-site of Off-site Disposal, Isolation, or Containment, and 6. Institutional Controls or Long -Term Monitoring The fifth remedial option, specifically 5b, was selected as the preferred remedy based on recommendations from the site environmental consultant, as well as a review of the site investigation and RAA report. On-site or Off-site Disposal, Isolation, or Containment is a long- term solution where all soil within the open park and surrounding area that exceeds HDOH Tier 1 Unrestricted Land Use Environmental Action Level of 200 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) for 1 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 lead will be removed offsite for disposal and will be replaced with clean fill. This will achieve substantial risk reduction, remove the source of contamination, eliminate the need for an environmental hazard management plan (EHMP), and remove the possibility of lead -impacted soil or sediment becoming exposed during future flooding or erosion events. Figure 1-1: Site Location Hakalau .m Kalaoa •Hilo HoIualoa Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Ala Kahal National H star c Trail 32900288,8& Beach 331x'01004 331001002 329006021 • 32900 329002025 Tax Parcels County of Hawaii Parcel HDOT ROW Parcel 329002023 329002064 329006011. 10,r012 - b5, 1 1708ttA(i \--.><41.01,132 2 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2 Site Location and Description Hakalau Beach Park is located in Hakalau, Hawaii, approximately 14 miles north of Hilo. The TMK is (3) 2-9-002 Parcel 080. The HDOT owns an easement under the Hakalau Bridge that extends out ten feet on either side of the bridge which is TMK (3) 2-9-002 Parcel 999. The access road transits across two privately owned triangular parcels which straddle the stream. The site is located in a steep gulch and is bisected by the wide and rocky Hakalau Stream which opens to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2-1). A paved road descends into Hakalau Gulch and crosses Hakalau Stream via a stabilized channel crossing and becomes gravel/dirt/rock. The southern embankment includes the County of Hawaii Park parcel. This parcel is open and grassy, with a concrete -floor pavilion, and the partial walls from the former Hakalau Sugar Mill. Another dirt/rock road serves the northern embankment. The area under the Bridge is rocky with tall grasses. The site is a public park used for general recreation, surfing, and fishing. Figure 2-1: Site Location Hakalau Beach Park 3 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2.1 Site Background In the past, the site had been used for agricultural purposes. Like the other Hamakua bridges, Hakalau Stream Bridge was originally constructed for a railway in the 1900s. The original footings remain, but it was rebuilt after the 1946 tsunami as a highway bridge. The lead-based paint used on the metal support structure flaked and dispersed into the soil below causing the contamination. The lead paint on the bridge was removed in 2000. 2.2 Investigation History Lead was found in soils at concentrations exceeding the 200 mg/kg Environmental Action Level for level established by HDOH for unrestricted land use. Soil exceedances were identified in the County Park parcel, HDOT ROW, and between 70 to 200 ft west and east from the ROW within privately owned parcels. The County of Hawaii Beach Park Parcel had sample results which exceeded 200 mg/kg for lead, however, sample results in this parcel did not exceed the 800 mg/kg Construction/Trench Worker EAL for lead. The concentrations of lead in the soil within the County Park parcel are comparable to results found at some schools along the Hamakua Coast. Lead results within and adjacent to the HDOT ROW exceeded the HDOH Construction/Trench Worker Scenario EALs. Six DUs also exceeded the gross contamination EAL of 1,000 mg/kg for lead. All of the DUs which exceeded gross contamination levels were located within the HDOT ROW. Several DUs in the area also failed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) which assesses leaching in a landfill. Soil from these DUs requires out-of-state disposal. 2.3 Magnitude and Extent of Contamination The potential for harmful health effects from swallowing the lead -impacted soil or lead -containing paint chips depends upon the levels of lead in the soil and paint, how much soil and paint were ingested, and how often. Previous site investigations on bridges along the Hamakua Coast identified that lead-based paint flakes and arsenic could be a concern in the HDOT Highways right of way below the bridges. Multi -increment soil sample investigations in 2016 identified lead -impacted soils in 15 of the 19 DUs at the site. One DU was paved and not sampled. Only four DUs met the HDOH-NEER Unrestricted Land Use (residential land use) Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for total lead (HDOH revised Fall 2017). Follow-up sampling in 2020 and 2022 expanded the DU areas and included additional depth profiles. The sampling confirmed that the southern embankment HDOT ROW contained the highest lead concentration sample results. The area under the Hakalau bridge had lead concentrations that exceeded the gross contamination levels (<1,000 mg/kg) in soil beginning from surface soil to a depth of 12 -inches below ground surface (bgs). The highest results in the ROW were 25,000 mg/kg 4 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 of total lead. Ultimately every DU in the HDOT ROW exceeded the construction/trench worker action level of 800 mg/kg of total lead. The area was not confined to the ROW. Lead -impacted soil was found in the adjacent properties (Figures 2-2 and 2-3), primarily upstream on the southern embankment. In total approximately 6,000 sq. feet on the Northern Embankment and approximately 43,000 sq. feet on the southern embankment exceeded the 800 mg/kg lead EAL for Construction/Trench Workers. Concentrations decreased at greater distances from the bridge. Total lead remained between 200 mg/kg and 800 mg/kg even 80 to 100 feet from the bridge in the northern embankment. Lead -impacted soils were found approximately 225 ft from the bridge on the southern embankment. The County of Hawaii park area DUs were between 200 mg/kg and 800 mg/kg within the primary park area. No DUs exceeded 800 mg/kg. Lead -impacted soils covered an area approximately 43,000 sq ft of the parcel (the majority of the park space). Some DU depth profiles in the County of Hawaii parcel met the HDOH Tier I EALs for unrestricted land use. Soil containing lead could pose a health risk to young children who play in the park. Lead can be harmful to children who accidentally eat small amounts of lead -impacted soil or lead -containing paint chips. Lead is more harmful to children than adults because it can accumulate and persist in their bodies. Lead is particularly toxic to the developing brains and neurologic systems of young children. The screening levels used by the HDOH, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are designed to protect people using the area. The screening levels assume that areas, where children play, will be barren and the soil exposed. Fortunately, the impacted soil at the park is covered with thick grass. This helps to minimize contact with the soil and reduces concerns about health risks from the periodic use of the park by young children. It is important to continue efforts to make sure that the contact with the soil is minimized. 2.3.1 X -Ray Fluorescence: HDOH 2016 In 2016, the HDOH HEER performed a surface soil site investigation to evaluate the impacts of Lead- based paint (LBP) and sugar plantation activities at the site. HDOH used an X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer to screen for lead, arsenic, and mercury in a single composite soil sample. This single - exposure DU was located directly below Hakalau Bridge and represented the most probable location of the lead -impacted soil. Thirty (30) increments of soil were collected from the top 2 to 3 -inches of soil within this DU. The DU was approximately 120 -feet long by 30- feet wide. Sixteen (16) XRF measurements were taken from the combined incremental soil samples and averaged. The average lead concentration was 196 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and the average arsenic concentration was less than 8.7 mg/kg. Mercury was not detected in any of the XRF measurements (HDOH 2016). 5 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2.3.2 Paint and Soil Sampling: ESI 2016 Due to high levels of LBP found at other locations on the Hamakua Coast, ESI tested paint chips that were found on the bridge footings and steel girders (ESI 2016). Greyish -black paint chips were collected from the base of four (4) of the steel girders. Lead concentrations ranging from 89 to 510 mg/kg and arsenic concentrations ranging from 61 to 110 mg/kg were found. Red and black paint chips on the rocks beneath the bridge were also tested, and lead was detected in the red paint at 11,000 mg/kg, and in the black paint at 2,700 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected in the red paint at 130 mg/kg and was not detected in the black paint (ESI 2017a). Additional multi -incremental soil samples were collected from nine DUs in Spring 2016 and twelve more DUs in Fall 2016 (Table 2-1 and Table 2-2) at depths of 0 to 3 inches bgs and 3 to 6 inches bgs. The 2016 soil sample results found exceedances for lead, with results as high as 25,000 mg/kg directly below the bridge. Nine DUs exceeded the HDOH Construction/Trench Worker Direct Exposure EAL of 800 mg/kg for lead, and eight exceeded the HDOH Gross Contamination EAL of 1000 mg/kg for lead (ESI 2017b). As a result of the high lead exceedances, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was performed on soil from seven DUs (KPC 2022). TCLP is a soil sample extraction method for the assessment of the toxicity of heavy metals or other compounds in contaminated soil media. The method incorporates an extraction fluid with a pH that simulates the acidic conditions that soil if it were disposed of in a permitted landfill. If TCLP is detected at concentrations which exceed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste criteria (in the case of lead it is 5 mg/L), the material is classified as hazardous waste and must be disposed of in the continental United States as there are currently not any landfills in Hawaii that can accept this type of waste. TCLP analysis results for three of the DUs exceeded the RCRA listed hazardous waste criterium of 5 mg/L (DU -1B, 11A, and 21A), see Figure 2-1. All of these are located on the southern embankment, under the middle girder (KPC 2022). However, it is estimated that DU2 could also fail TCLP based on the high total lead concentrations. 2.3.3 Soil Sampling: KPC Spring 2022 (April 18-20 and May 10-12) Concerns about the extent of impacts along both banks of the stream valley floor, shoreline, and the leachability of lead -impacted areas transferring to groundwater and surface water were addressed in the 2022 sampling. Sampling had been planned for 2021, however, it was delayed due to COVID and right of entry documentation to access private land areas in the vicinity of the project area. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected along the northern bank as well as upstream at the southern embankment. As shown in Figure 2-3 the vertical and horizontal extent of the lead - impacted soil had not been established on the mauka and makai sides of the bridge on the northern stream bank and in the mauka direction of the southern stream bank. The purpose of the 6 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2022 sampling events was to identify the limits of the contamination "hot zone" to the point where concentrations of total lead in soil fall below the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg) (EnviroQuest 2020). Sediment Sampling from Stream Bank During this mobilization, sediment sampling had been proposed along both sides of the stream bank (KPC 2022). When KPC arrived to perform the first of two sampling events in April 2022 extensive scouring, associated with a heavy rain event days preceding the sampling had removed all fine sediment associated with the planned sediment DUs and only large cobble and boulder - sized material remained on the banks. As a result of the high stream discharge rate following the rain event, the vast majority of the sediment formerly along the banks of either side of the stream mouth had been transported out into Hakalau Bay. KPC discussed this event with Mr. Thomas Gilmore (HDOH HEER Remedial Project Manager) who visited the site on April 18, 2022, while KPC was conducting sampling on the northern bank of the Hakalau Stream. Mr. Gilmore concurred that sampling for sediment was not practicable since there was longer fine sediment available to sample in the four planned DU locations on either side of the stream. KPC returned approximately one month later on May 10, 2022, to complete the sampling activities and observed that the sediment in the planned sediment sampling DUs still had not fully returned to its former position. Coarse cobble and boulder -sized sediment made up the bulk of the stream shoreline in these areas, while the gravel -sized sediment was still in the littoral region of the bay and was only beginning the regress into the mouth of the stream. Based on the April and May 2022 observations it was apparent that the fine sediment is displaced from the mouth of the stream into Hakalau Bay following high rainfall events, then constant wave action winnows out the fine sediment particles out of the slug of new sediment entering the bay and slowly pushes the remaining courser sediment back in the mouth of the stream over days/weeks. The rate that sediment returns into the mouth of the stream depends on the wave conditions and a large portion of the fine sediment formerly in the estuary likely remains offshore and the vast majority of the material originally transported into the bay is redeposited is medium to coarse gravel and cobble - sized material. This cyclical process is repeated perhaps a couple of times per year on the scale that we observed, and several times per year on a smaller scale that acts to continuously winnow out the fine sediment (including fine lead particles in the sediment) from the mouth of the stream. Based on these observations it is unlikely that there is a complete exposure pathway to human receptors (beachgoers, fishermen) posed by lead in the beach and river sediments. Delineation Sampling North and South Stream Bank Benches Results As shown in Figure 2-3 the vertical and horizontal extent of the lead -impacted soil had not been established on the mauka and makai sides of the bridge on the northern stream bank and in the mauka direction of the southern stream bank. The purpose of the 2022 sampling events was to identify the limits of the contamination "hot zone" to the point where concentrations of total lead in soil fall below the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). 7 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 The results showed a drop-off in total lead concentrations approximately 225 feet upstream along the southern stream bench and 125 feet along the northern stream bench. The goal was to identify the limits of contamination, where soil met HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. In the 2022 sampling event, no DU exceeded 800 mg/kg of total lead. Three DUs exceeded the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (Figure 2-3). Groundwater Sampling Results The plans to collect a groundwater sample from within the highly contaminated zone represented by DUs 32 and 33 using an auger and a gas -powered direct push rig were abandoned based on the observation of the sub -surface cross-section of the southern stream bank adjacent to these DUs. On May 10, 2022, a steep stream bank resulted from high volumes of water scouring the southern bank exposed a 4 -foot cross-section that exhibited that a thin veneer of a coarse gravel layer mixed with sand and silt extend from the surface to about 8-12 inches below the upper surface layer. This unit was underlain by rounded large cobble to small boulder -sized rock unit from the base of the described upper layer to the base of the stream bank cross-section where it was covered by other course sediments that made up the rest of the stream bank sediment. This type of geologic unit would not allow a boring to be installed using the available drilling methods and in lieu of the temporary monitoring well, an additional surface water sample collected from the slow meandering stream that passes through the southern side of the steam where the DUs with the highest lead concentrations were found this portion of the stream bench was conducted as a proxy to evaluate the potential soil groundwater leaching effects. This is described in greater detail below. Surface Water Sampling Results In accordance with the Final SAP, Addendum samples were collected from surface water at two locations from the small stream flowing along the base of the southern embankment that supports the access road down the side of Hakalau valley (KPC 2022). An additional location was added at the approximate midpoint where the stream passes through the highly contaminated zone (DUs 32 and 33). DU sample from the stream was conducted following the HDOH TGM and the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-54. This tributary stream has a width of approximately 6 feet and a depth of approximately 3 feet and runs parallel to the southern wall of the valley, then cuts north and discharges into the Hakalau stream, close to the public beach area. Because this stream passes through the most contaminated areas identified, a sample was planned to be collected in the SAP where the stream turns north and discharged into the main course of Hakalau stream just before where an open concrete dip stream crossing is present in the access roadway connecting to the park, As described above, this point was selected to assess the potential that lead in the soil may be leaching into the surface water as it passes through this highly contaminated zone as described above. These surface water DUs and presented as 202249, 202250, and 202251 in Figure 2-3. A total of three (3) surface water samples were collected and tested for total lead concentration (mg/L). Concentrations of lead in the water samples were all below the laboratory method reporting 8 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 limit. Results indicate that there is likely no impact on the surface water body via lead mobilizing from soil to groundwater and groundwater then discharging to surface water. This is supported by the results of the Batch Test Leaching Model (HDOH 2007), which concluded that the mobility of lead in the soil was very low based on the result of the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) results of the Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) samples collected from the DUs with the highest concentration of lead (DUs 32 and 33). 9 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 This page intentionally left blank. 10 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Table 2-1: 2016, 2020, and 2022 Combined Soil Sample Results at Hakalau Beach Park 2020/202 2 DU Lead results below HDOH Tier 1 EAL Unrestricted Land Use (200 mg/kg) Previous Sample ID Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL Unrestricted Land Use (200 mg/kg), but below Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg) Lead results above HDOH Tier 1 EAL above Construction/Trench Worker Scenario (800 mg/kg), but below gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) Lead results above gross contamination (1,000 mg/kg) 2020/202 2 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 1 DU -1 2016 0-3 25,000 Area around the bents 4 and 5 under the bridge on the south side stream. HDOT 1 DU -1D 2016 0-3 23,700 23,600 1 DU -1T 2016 0-3 1 DU -1B 2016 3-6 7,880 32/33 1 DU -1B 2020 6-12 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 2 DU -2 2016 0-3 10,200 Between the road and stream around bent 6 HDOT 2 DU -2B 2016 3-6 9,480 32/33 2 DU -2B 2020 6-12 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 3 DU -3a 2016 0-6 69.4 Southern stream bank HDOT 4a DU -4a 2016 0-6 3.81 Northern stream bank. HDOT Observed scour in Feb. 2020 4a DU -9+ 2016 0-6 2.8 4a DU -10+ 2016 0-6 2.52 4b DU -4b 2016 6-18 2.99 5 DU -5 2016 0-3 3, 0 Northern stream bank. Areas around the bridge bents. HDOT 34 5 DU -5 2020 0-6 221* 34 5 DU -5 2020 6-12 918* 34 6 DU -6 2016 0-3 282 Northern bank: Access road between Bents 9- 10 HDOT 7 DU -7 2016 0-3 2,530 Road on S. Embankment, between Bents 5 and 6. HDOT 7 DU -7B 2016 3-6 Refusal 33 7 DU -7B 2020 6-12 3,538* 8 DU -8 2016 0-3 1,850 Vegetated area on S. embankment south of the access road to park area. Wolf Property 32 8 DU -8 2020 3-6 13,500* 2,680** 8B 8 DU -8 2020 3-6 32 8 DU -8 2020 6-12 7,510* 8B 12+ Refusal 11 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2020/202 2 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 11 DU -11A 2016 0-3 8,820 Refusal \Jarrow DU south of DUI. HDOT 11 DU -11B 2016 3-6 32/33 11 DU -11B 6-12 3,538*; 7510* 12 DU -12A 2016 0-3 1,410 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. 12 DU -23A 2016 0-3 1,040 12 DU -24A 2016 0-3 12 12 DU-12A/B, 24A/B 2016 4-6 738** 12 DU -12B 2016 3-6 773 13 DU -13A 2016 0-3 357 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. 13 DU -13B 2016 3-6 372 14 DU -14A 2016 0-3 57 Driveway area, acceptable for public use Marian Land Co. 14 DU -14B 2016 3-6 93.4 15 DU -15A 2016 N/A Paved Paved drainage swale. Marian Land Co. 15 DU -15B 2016 N/A Paved 16 DU -16A 2016 0-3 339 Park area. Heavy use by public. County of Hawaii 16 DU 16B 2016 3-6 348 37 16 DU -16B 6-12 368* 17 DU -17A 2016 0-3 232 Grassy area south of park. County of Hawaii 17 DU 17B 2016 3-6 161 37 17 DU -17B 2020 6-12 368* 18 DU -18A 2016 0-3 104 Grassy Park area at mouth of Hakalau stream. County of Hawaii 18 DU -18B 2016 3-6 226 38 18 DU -18B 2020 6-12 764* 19 DU -19A 2016 0-3 28.4 Grassy strip west of DU 18. Acceptable for public. County of Hawaii 19 DU -19B 2016 3-6 14.1 20 DU -20A 2016 0-3 760 Vegetated area west of DU -8. Wolf Property 20 DU -20B 2016 3-6 570 20 20 DU -20A and DU2OB 2020 3-6 1,640** 20 6+ Refusal 21 DU -21A 2016 0-3 5,080 2,720 Directly below bridge south bank. HDOT ROW 21 DU -21B 2016 3-6 32 21 DU -21B 2020 6-12 3,538*; 7510* 12 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2020/202 2 DU 2016 DU Previous Sample ID Sample Date Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 22 DU -22A 2016 0-3 3,830 Wolf Property: Area between driveway and stream. Potential high use. HDOT/ Wolf Property 32 22 DU -22B 2016/2020 3-6 2,870; 13,500* 7,510* 32 22 DU -22B 6-12 26 2020 0-3 1,320** Southern bank upstream of DU22 Wolf Property 3+ Refusal 6-18 27 2020 0-3 1,680** Southern bank upstream of DU26 Wolf Property 27 3+ Refusal 34 2020 0-6 221* Northern bank: renumbered from DU35 in 2020 SAP HDOT 34 2020 6-12 39 2022 0-6 490 Northern bank: adjacent to bridge downstream Marian Land Co. 39 2022 6-12 737 40 2022 0-6 131 Northern bank: downstream from DU 39 Marian Land Co. 41 2022 0-6 386 Northern bank: adjacent to ROW upstream Majority Wolf Property 41 2022 6-12 360 42a 2022 0-6 99 Northern bank: upstream of 41. Wolf Property 42b 2022 0-6 76.8 (arithmetic mean) Northern bank: upstream of 42A. Wolf Property 43 2022 0-6 146 Southern bank: streambank Wolf Property 44 2022 0-6 402 Southern bank: across from 43. Wolf Property 44 2022 6-12 339 45 2022 0-6 83.7 (arithmetic mean) Southern bank: upstream of 44 Wolf Property 13 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 This page intentionally left blank. 14 October 2023 Results Hakalau Figure 2-2: 2016 and 2020 DU and Samp S-6 *4o�L�i.•. fie'\ a�1'�\ii .e . a`\ October 2023 This page was intentionally left blank. October 2023 Figure 2-3: 2022 DU and Sample Results October 2023 This page was intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Table 2-2: Hakalau Beach Park Southern Bank Results above 800 ma/ka for Lead Exceeds Commercial/Industrial Scenario Above HDOH Tier 1 EALs for construction/trench worker direct exposure (800 mg/kg) oss Contamination Exceeds HDOH EALs for Gross Contamination (1000 mg/kg) NA Not sampled 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner HDOT ROW DUs 1 DU -1 0-3 1 Area around the bents 4 and 5 HDOT DU -1D 0-3 DU -1T 0-3 23,606 DU -1B 3-6 7,880 32/33 DU 1B 6-12 3,250*; 3,360*; 2,960* 2 DU -2 0-3 10,200 Between the road and stream around bent 6 HDOT DU 2B 3-6 9 480 32/33 DU -2B 6 12 3,250*; 3,360 2 960* 7 DU -7 0-3 2,530 Road on South stream bank, between Bents 5 and 6. HDOT DU -7B 3-6 Refusal 33 DU -7B 6-12 3,538* 11 DU -11A 0-3 8,820 Narrow DU south of DUI. HDOT DU -11B 3-6 Refusal 32/33 DU 11B 6-12 3,538*; 7510* 21 DU -21A 0-3 5,080 Directly below bridge south bank. HDOT ROW DU -21B 3-6 2,720 32 DU -21B 6-12 3,538*; 7510* 22 DU -22A 0-3 3,830 Wolf Property: Area between driveway and stream. Potential high use. HDOT/ Wolf Property 32 DU -22B 3-6 2,870; 13,500* 32 DU 22B 6-12 7,510* PRIVATELY OWNED PARCELS DUs 8 DU -8 0-3 1,850 Vegetated area On southern stream bank south of the access road to park area. Wolf Property 32 DU -8 3-6 13,500* 8B DU -8 3-6 2,680** 32 DU -8 6-12 7,510* 8B 12+ Refusal 19 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 2020/2022 DU 2016 DU Depth (in) Previous Lead Results (mg/kg) Current Use Description Owner 12 DU -12A 0-3 Grassy area, likely used by public. Marian Land Co. DU -23A 0-3 DU -24A 0-3 897 20 DU -20A 0-3 760 Vegetated area west of DU -8. Wolf Property DU 20B 3-6 570 20 DU 20A and DU2OB 3-6 1 640** 20 6+ Refusal DU -22A 0-3 ; , Wolf Property: Area between driveway stream. Potential high use. HDOT/ Wolf Property 3222 DU -22B 3-6 2,870; 13,500* 32and DU 22B 6-12 7,510* 26 0-3 1,320** Refusal Southern stream bank upstream of DU22 Wolf Property 3+ 6-18 27 0-3 1,680** Southern bank upstream of DU26 Wolf Property 27 3+ Refusal % *DU10 consists of a sample, duplicate and triplicate. For the purposes of this table, the highest total lead sample result is identified. 2016/2017/2019: Year Sampled ### mg/kg: Total Lead Results 20 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 3 Environmental Hazard Evaluation The Environmental Hazard Evaluation (EHE) process was developed by DOH to respond to site investigation activities in an RAA. The objective of the EHE was to evaluate the existing soil on the site in relation to HDOH current criteria. A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed (Table 2) to examine the potential exposure of human and ecological receptors to lead - contaminated soil at the site. 3.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Lead paint was used for decades on the Hakalau Bridge and may have been used on the Hakalau Plantation Flume (destroyed in 1946). Other bridges along the Hamakua Coast have also been identified as contributing sources for lead paint. Initial studies performed at Hakalau Beach Park assessed lead, arsenic, and mercury as chemicals of potential concern (COPC). Sampling identified lead as the chemical of concern (COC). Lead-based paints were used as a corrosion -inhibiting coating on the Hakalau Bridge for decades until removed in 2000. During previous analyses, lead was found to exceed the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for construction/trench worker direct exposure scenario of 800 mg/kg for lead within multiple DUs (Table 1b) for a total area of approximately 46,550 square feet (sq. ft.) Approximately 103,390 sq. ft. were found to be above the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). Lead is persistent in the environment and accumulates in soils and sediments through deposition. Once absorbed into the body, lead may be stored for long periods in mineralizing tissue (e.g., teeth, bones, etc.). The stored lead may be released again into the bloodstream, especially in times of calcium stress (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, osteoporosis, etc.) or calcium deficiency. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproduction and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen -carrying capacity of the blood. The lead effects most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects (e.g., high blood pressure, heart disease, etc.) in adults. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ. Ecosystems near point sources of lead demonstrate a wide range of adverse effects including losses in biodiversity, changes in community composition, decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates. 21 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 3.2 Exposure Setting Hakalau Beach Park is a public, County of Hawaii Park. However, some portions of private parcels (TMKs) adjacent to the County and HDOT-owned parcels have been used as de facto extensions of the parking area as they are readily accessible to park users but are not owned by the County of Hawaii. The park was closed in 2017 due to concerns about lead -impacted soil and previously served as a park, fishing area, and general recreation site. 3.3 Potential Human/Ecological Receptors A conceptual site model (CSM) provides a framework regarding potential sources of contamination, types of contaminants, contaminated media, exposure and migration pathways, and receptors. The CSM (Table 2) was used in the preparation of the Remedial Alternatives Analysis (RAA). Based on the results of the document review, the following are identified as potential human receptors: • On-site construction workers — including personnel involved in repair or construction/trenching during future site activities; and • On-site landscapers/site workers — personnel who may maintain landscaped areas and may mow, weed whack, and perform general site maintenance (trash pickup, re -seeding, shrub trimming). • General Public/Site Users — Including individuals of all ages, who may camp, recreate, or otherwise use the park setting and may potentially dig, touch, drive, lie, or be exposed to lead -impacted soil or dust. • Ecological Receptors — including native and non-native birds, and mammals that may nest, loaf, hunt, or transit across the site (AECOS 2019). 3.4 Exposure Pathway Analysis Direct exposure to lead -impacted soil is a potential exposure pathway to human receptors at the site via the following pathways: • Direct Contact: Incidental ingestion or dermal contact with soil; • Air: Inhalation of fugitive dust; • Surface Runoff and Sediment Exposure: Contaminants bourn by water or revealed by erosion; and • Groundwater Exposure: Contaminants leaching from soil or impacting flowing groundwater. 3.5 Environmental Hazard Evaluation Summary The exposure pathway analysis described in the previous section identifies various exposure pathways (direct and indirect) where lead -impacted soil may pose risk to human and ecological receptors. The conceptual site exposure model provides a graphical comparison release mechanism, pathways, and exposure routes to potential current and future receptors at the Site (See Table 3-1). 22 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum COPC Sources and Release Mechanisms The primary source of the Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) at Hakalau Beach Park is lead -impacted surface and subsurface soil from lead released into the environment from lead- based paint used in historical bridge maintenance activities. Lead -impacted soil present at the site has been shown to exist at concentrations above the HDOH Tier EALs for gross contamination (1000 mg/kg). Total concentrations vary across the site and include portions that are at or below HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. The secondary release mechanism, besides direct contact with soil, includes dust, surface water runoff, and leaching. Pathways and Exposure Routes Lead poses a hazard to potential receptors through direct exposure to contaminated media through pathways including surface soil, subsurface soil, ambient air, surface water and sediments, and groundwater. These pathways potentially expose receptors to lead via inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption. Potential Receptors Current and Future Land Use The main human exposure scenarios identified under current land use as a County of Hawaii beach park are the general public, maintenance workers, and construction works. Since the park is owned by the county and land use is not likely to change, future land use includes these same human exposure scenarios. This is also true for avian and aquatic receptors. Complete Exposure Pathways Complete exposure pathways exist for all receptor scenarios exposed to surface and subsurface soil at this site under current and future conditions. Exposure to dust is a complete pathway to on-site maintenance and construction workers when the current grass cover is disturbed and there is a potential for inhalation of dust under dry windy conditions when activities such as land mowing and excavation occur. Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways Potentially complete pathways to the general public, terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors exist via direct exposure to fugitive dust if the grass cover was not maintained or a construction excavation project was conducted at the park and dust controls were not implemented correctly. This potential exposure route could be controlled using proper materials management practices and could limit this exposure pathway. Currently, there is no complete pathway to any receptors via surface water runoff, but again, future construction activities could potentially complete this pathway if not conducted with care. Additionally, if there were a natural disaster such as a tsunami that could scour away the current stream bank and redistribute lead -impacted soils in the current park in the Kolekole valley floor sediment and runoff could be a completed exposure pathway. Exposure to Lead Leaching There has not been an identified complete pathway to current and future receptors via leaching 23 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum in subsurface soil or groundwater. A batch test leachability model based on SPLP analyses from soil collected from the DUs with the highest documented throughout the aggregated sampling events demonstrated that the absorption coefficient is high enough to prevent contaminant mobilization from the soil to groundwater. This is also in part supported by the results of surface water sampling conducted in May of 2022 from a small slow -flowing stream that borders the southern valley escarpment that meanders through and around the most heavily lead -impacted areas. Three surface water DUs were sampled from this stream (DUs 202249, 202250, and 202251, See Figure 2-3) from locations; 1) prior to passing through most impacted areas (DU 202249), 2) at the point which was adjacent to the areas where highest soil concentrations have been identified (DU 202251), and the final point just downstream of the areas of greatest lead concentrations (just before draining into the mouth of Hakalau stream and Hakalau Bay) (DU 202250). 24 October 2023 Table 3-1: Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Human and Ecological Receptors Potential Receptors Future Land Use* Aquatic Ecological x )< )< >< 0 0 0 — — — — — Terrestrial Ecological X X X X 0 0 0 —— — — — General Public/ X X X x 0 0 0 —— — — — On-site Landscape or Construction Workers x x x X X 0 0 —— ——— Current Land Use Aquatic Ecological x x X x 0 O O —— ——— Terrestrial Ecological >< >< >< x 0 0 0 —— — — — General Public X X X X 0 0 0 —— — — — On-site Landscape or Construction Workers X ><>(>( x O O —— — — — Exposure Route Ingestion Dermal Ingestion To o c .2 co C Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Dermal c 0 ro t C Pathway Surface Soil Sub -Surface Soil Ambient Air Surface Water and Sediments Subsurface Soil Groundwater Secondary Release Mechanism N z0 a) z0 Dust Surface Water Runoff be a J Secondary Sources a) a o 0 J 0_0 (1)C Primary Release Mechanism C C -a 0 U) i co t -0 J m .-- m co d Primary Sources O v) aJ a o J 00 C0 C I - Incomplete a) cuC0 E 0 V T 6 .Y O 0 t co0 Q v 0 0 aJ a) a) a2 E 0 V a) O z a! 0) a) a) 0) a) Q a) 7 0 a) t 0 a) 0) 0 V N 0 z October 2023 This page is intentionally left blank. Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 4 Remedial Strategy 4.1 Development of Remedial Action Objectives The Remedial Action Objectives for Hakalau Beach Park were based on the multiple rounds of soil sample analysis described above to identify the nature and extent of contamination. The objective of the remedial action is to meet the requirements of HDOH and protect the health of users, site workers, and ecological receptors. 4.1.1 Applicable Remedial Action Levels The HDOT has chosen to implement soil removal and offsite disposal (Option 5b) for soil in the areas which exceed the HDOH Tier 1 Unrestricted Land Use Environmental Action Level of 200 mg/kg for lead, and replacement of impacted soil with clean fill. 4.1.2 Remedial Action Objectives The Remedial Action Objectives for Hakalau Beach Park as identified by the site owners and as recommended by the state guidance is to remove the lead -impacted soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead from direct contact with site users, site workers, and potential ecological receptors (Option 5b). This option will achieve substantial risk reduction, remove the source of contamination, eliminate the need for an environmental hazard management plan (EHMP), and remove the possibility of lead -impacted soil or sediment from becoming exposed during flooding or erosion in the future. 4.2 Estimation of Soil Volumes Needing Remedial Action A total of 1,265 Cubic Yards (CY) of soils that exceeded the 200 mg/kg lead criteria for soil removal will be removed and disposed of off-site at a permitted waste disposal facility. The total volume includes approximately 1,150 CY of soil exceeding 200mg/kg and approximately 115 CY of soil exceeding 800 mg/kg. Soil which exceed 800 mg/kg will require off -island disposal. 4.3 General Response Actions Actions may include restricting access, fencing, administrative/institutional controls, reducing contact with lead -impacted soil through physical barriers, or removing the source of contamination. The option to remove the source of contamination had an open public comment period. Notices were placed in the Hawaii Tribune -Herald on June 30, 2023. The public Fact Sheet and Draft RAM was available to the public through the HDOH HEER Office website (http://hawaii.gov/doh/heer) during the public comment period Comments from eight people were received. All supported a clean-up activity, and 6 supported option 5b. One person identified 5c as their preferred alternative, and one person identified 6a as their top choice. Option 5 b was ultimately chosen as the final remedial action. 4.4 Development of Remedial Alternatives HDOT operates Hakalau Beach Park and is responsible for the cleanup. HDOT has coordinated to investigate the environmental contamination at the site and has evaluated six (6) potential remedies. The State of Hawaii Department of Health Technical Guidance Manual (HDOH TGM) 27 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum (Section 16.2.2.2) and the Hawaii State Contingency Plan [HAR 11-451-8(c)] (HAR, 1995) identifies a hierarchy of remedial response actions in the following descending order: 1. Recycle or Reuse, 2. Destruction or Detoxification, 3. Separation, Concentration, or Volume Reduction, 4. Immobilization of Hazardous Substances, 5. On-site or Off-site Disposal, Isolation, or Containment, and 6. Institutional Controls or Long -Term Monitoring. 28 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 5 Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives Alternative 1: Recycle or Reuse The COC is dispersed lead -paint flakes. The lead paint material is not dense enough to be separated from the soil to be recycled or reused. This alternative is not suitable to remove the contaminant from the site or reduce potential exposure pathways. Alternative 2: Destruction or Detoxification The lead at the site is also not organic, corrosive, or explosive and is relatively immobile. This alternative is not suitable to remove the contaminant from the site or reduce potential exposure pathways. Alternative 3: Separation, Concentration, or Volume Reduction Under this alternative, contaminated material may be completely or partially separated from material that is not contaminated, or contamination may be reduced in a large volume of material by concentrating the contaminant in a smaller volume. Soil particle size separation is conducted to reduce contaminated soil volume, soils at Hakalau and lead paint flakes are not suitable for volume reduction in this form and contamination would not be reduced significantly. Alternative 4: Immobilization of Hazardous Substances Portions of the site exceed gross contamination and fail TCLP. Soil in some DUs would be classified as hazardous waste if removed for disposal (areas of 8390 sq ft). This soil cannot be disposed of in Hawaii as there are no facilities that are permitted to accept hazardous waste. Reducing bioavailability by stabilizing the lead with a strong buffering agent application was tested to reduce the concentration which could allow for disposal in the state (e.g., through the application of triple superphosphate (TSP) as an amendment to the soil). This would be in conjunction with soil excavation and removal and would not be used for in-situ stabilization. Treated soil would be hauled to RCRA subpart D permitted landfill (e.g., West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill). TSP is a commercially available soil fertilizer than can also be used to reduce the mobility of lead in the soil. Phosphate is a compound made up of phosphorous (P) and oxygen (0) and phosphorous atoms that act as an anion that binds readily to lead cations. TSP can also be combined with different ions to impact solubility under acidic conditions. It is most commonly used as fertilizer produced from phosphate rock and phosphoric acid and is technically known as calcium dihydrogen phosphate and as monocalcium phosphate, [Ca (H2PO4)2.H20]. Treatability studies for in situ lead stabilization that used phosphate -based binders found a significant reduction in the bioavailable lead in soil when it was amended with TSP (Hettiarachchi et al. 2001 and Gene 2008). TSP can also be combined with different ions to impact solubility under acidic conditions. Based on the high concentrations of lead in soil at the Hakalau site, TSP was not considered as a potential in situ stabilization remedial alternative approach. Instead, TSP is evaluated in this alternative and was considered as an amendment to be added to the contaminated soil after it is excavated in an effort to reduce the toxicity through immobilization/stabilization of the soil to allow it to be disposed of on island. This is a variation 29 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum of the scenarios that are evaluated under Alternative 5. As part of the remedial alternative evaluation, in May of 2022, KPC collected a bulk sample using ISM from the most heavily impacted areas below the bridge on the southern side of the Hakalau stream from DUs 32 and 33 which had been documented in previous investigations as having the highest total lead concentrations in the project area (DUs 32 and 33 were composed of the consolidated DUs 1, 2, 11, and 21). The study concluded that TSP was effective at reducing the toxicity of lead in the areas where the highest total lead was present. The total lead concentrations from ISM soil samples collected from DU32 and DU33 were 11,400 mg/kg and had a respective TCLP result of 25.6 mg/I, which is well above the RCRA toxicity characteristic for lead of 5.0 mg/L. However, if TSP is added to an aliquot from this same ISM from DU32 and DU33 at a concentration of just 5% of the total soil mass, the TCLP results were shown to reduce concentrations below the laboratories method reporting limit (or in other words non-detectable dissolved lead). This was achieved without any additional pH buffering additives and demonstrated that immobilization/ stabilization using TSP is highly effective and ratios that are economically feasible. As a component of the bench test treatability study in addition to evaluation of the effectiveness of immobilizing lead by adding TSP as an amendment, KPC also evaluated the effectiveness of adding Portland Cement as a way to stabilize the lead. The concept was that if Portland Cement could both buffer the soil to reduce the mobility of the lead and create a material that is could consolidate the lead soil as long-term management to reduce disposal costs (e.g., construct an onsite encapsulation cell). Portland Cement was added to the impacted soil at a typical mass ratio for making concrete (1:3). Samples of the soil were weighed, and Portland Cement was mixed with the soil, no other sand or gravel was added and because the soil already had a high moisture content, water was not added to the mix. After the mix was cured, samples were pulverized and submitted to Eurofins for analysis. TCLP analysis on this final material also showed that Portland cement is able to reduce the TCLP result to below the laboratory reporting limit without the addition of TSP Appendix D. Alternative 5: On-site or off-site disposal, isolation, or containment This method offers a good option to prevent the general public from coming into contact with lead -impacted soils. There are three scenarios evaluated in the RAA that are considered effective presumptive remedies for addressing lead -impacted sites by the EPA. Generally, if lead -impacted soil remains on-site it will be encapsulated and direct exposure to park users is prevented, however, site maintenance workers/construction workers may come into contact with it in the future. An Environmental Hazard Management Plan (EHMP) will need to be maintained and updated when future work activities are planned in areas where encapsulated contaminated soil is present. A project -specific construction EHMP (C-EHMP) will need to be prepared for each future repair and construction activities need to plan for managing lead - impacted soil to be protective of all potentially exposed receptors for the duration of the project. Alternatively, if lead -impacted soil is removed in its entirety from the site as a remedial approach then all potential exposure risk is removed and no EHMP is required for the long term. 30 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 This alternative presents the remedial alternatives that reduce or remove contamination from direct contact with receptors at the site. Due to the overlapping rounds of sampling and DUs that have occurred between the period 2016 and 2022, Tables 5-1 and 5-2 identify the total area of the exceedances broken down by landowner, location, and DU. Table 5-1: HDOT and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 800 mg/kg Stream Side Owner (Description) Lead Area (sq ft) Perimeter (ft) DUs Total (sq ft) North HDOT (ROW) 800+ mg/kg 5885 313 5,6,34 North Marian Land Co (makai) 200+ mg/kg 4100 267 202239 South HDOT (ROW Streamside) 800+ mg/kg 5510 331 1,2,7,33, 22 (partial) South South HDOT (ROW Roadway) 800+ mg/kg 3026 285 7,32,33, South South HDOT (ROW Upslope) 800+ mg/kg 10805 421 1,7,11, 21,32,33 South Marian Land Co 200+ mg/kg 1355 161 13 1355 South Wolf Property (Streamside) 800+ mg/kg 5219 308 22,27 South Wolf Property (Roadway) 800+ mg/kg 1817 248 Not sampled, likely 800 mg/kg South Wolf Property (Upslope) 800+ mg/kg 10382 404 8,20,26 South Marian Land Co (makai of bridge) 800+ mg/kg 3907 345 12, portion 13 Total HDOT Area 800 + mg/kg 25,226 Total Privately Owned Parcel 21,325 Total Area 800+ mg/kg 46,551 Table 5-2: Hawaii County and Privately Owned Parcels which exceed 200 mg/kg and are below 800 mg/kg * Stream Side Owner Lead Area (sq ft) Perimeter (ft) DUs Total (sq ft) North Wolf Property (mauka) 200+ mg/kg 5847 310 202241 North Marian Land Co (makai) 200+ mg/kg 4100 267 202239 North Side: Between 200-800 mg/kg 9947 South County of Hawaii 200+ mg/kg 36017 875 16, 17,18,37,38 36017 South Wolf Property upslope 200+ mg/kg 9035 374 202244 9035 South Marian Land Co 200+ mg/kg 1355 161 13 1355 South Side: Between 200-800 mg/kg 46407 Total Area 200- 800 mg/kg 56354 *All HDOT DUs exceed 800 mg/kg 31 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 5a: On-site isolation and containment HDOH and EPA -acceptable mitigation measures include soil encapsulation. During soil encapsulation, DUs which exceed HDOH unrestricted land use EALs (200 mg/kg) (Figure 5-1) for lead would first be covered with orange mirafi (geotextile) or black geotextile material with caution tape laid at intervals to produce a visible barrier between the clean and impacted soils (Table 5-2). Confirmation visual confirmation will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is covered. • Clean fill would be brought in and overlaid across the impacted site at a depth of either 18 or 24 inches and grass would be maintained to prevent potential exposure (Table 5-3). Additional cubic yards of clean soil would also be needed for drainage and grading. An exposure assessment conducted at nearby Kolekole Beach Park in 2017 for park maintenance workers demonstrated the grass cover on the impacted soil areas effectively prevented a complete exposure pathway while performing maintenance activities (e.g., lawn mowing). The results of this assessment also demonstrated that grass cover was protective of park user exposure scenarios as long as there were restrictions on activities that could render the grass cover ineffective (e.g., digging, driving fence posts, etc.). This may be suitable for the County of Hawaii Park Parcels but may not be adequate for the HDOT ROW due to high COPC levels. This option leaves the lead -impacted soil on site (including areas of Gross Contamination) and an EHMP would still be needed. Batch Test Leachability analysis demonstrated that lead is immobile and unlikely to affect groundwater and surface water. Workers within the DOT ROW would need respirators when performing maintenance tasks where they are digging/trenching in soil. Table 5-3: Alternative 5a: No Remova , Cap Only, Cubic Yards 32 Cubic Yards Ownership Sq Ft Clean fill 18" Grass Cap Clean fill (24") Grass Cap County of Hawaii 200-800 mg/kg 36017 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg 5885 327 436 HDOT ROW (South) 800+ mg/kg 19341 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North) 200 - 800 mg/kg 9947 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 — 800 mg/kg 10390 577 770 Private Parcels (South) 800+ mg/kg 21325 1185 1580 Total 102905 5718 7623 32 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum Annual operation and maintenance costs are not typically high for this alternative; however, the location could be impacted by erosion due to heavy rains and storms. The hard cap and soil cover option may be undermined during large storms. If this occurs, additional soil or hard cap repairs may be needed. If evidence of erosion impacts the mirafi layer, there is a potential that impacted soil may be spread over areas currently identified as "lower risk" and additional sampling could be required. It is vital that this cap is maintained to protect park users. Areas where this would be impracticable (steep slopes, areas of intense vegetation/trees on the southern embankment) would be fenced and signs would be maintained to restrict access. 5b: Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill DUs which pass TCLP and exceed HDOH Tier! unrestricted land use EALs for lead (200 mg/kg) (Figure 5-1) will be excavated, hauled to West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, and replaced with clean fill at a design fill depth of 24 inches. DUs in the County of Hawaii parcel meet this standard. Other locations, particularly the DOT ROW area and some private parcels, do not meet this standard and may require disposal off -island (Table 5-4). Table 5-4: Alternative 5b — Soil Removal 200+ mg/kg, Clean Fill, Cubic yards Ownership Sq Ft DU ID Remove soil (12" estimate) that exceeds 200 mg/kg (CY) Clean fill 18" (CY) Clean fill 24" (CY) County of Hawaii 200-800 mg/kg 36017 16, 17,18,37,38 1334 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg 5885 5,6,34 218 327 436 HDOT ROW (South) 800+ mg/kg 19341 1,2,7, 11, 21, 22, 32, 33 716 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North)9947 200 - 800 mg/kg 202241, 202239 368 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 - 800 mg/kg 10390 13, 202244 385 577 770 Private Parcels (South) 800+ mg/kg 21325 8, 12, 13, 22,27, 26 790 1185 1580 Total 102905 3811 5718 7623 Initial costs would be high as soil which is classified as hazardous waste could not be disposed of at facilities in Hawaii. DU1, DU2, DU11, and DU21 failed TCLP at different depth profiles, (0 to 3 -inches bgs), and near -surface soil (3 to 6 -inches bgs) (Table 5-5). This is approximately 8,390 sq ft. It is possible that DU2, which was not tested at the time, could also fail TCLP due to its high total lead concentrations. DU2 is approximately 2,444 sq ft but both 0.25 -inch depth layers are likely to fail TCLP so at least 0.5 feet would be removed and would require off -island disposal. 33 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Table 5-5: DUs which Failed TCLP (2016) and Require Mainland Disposal DU Owner sq. ft Depth* CY Total Lead mg/kg TCLP DU -1B HDOT 5847 3 - 6 inches 54.14 7880 26.2 U-11 HDOT 1228 0 - 3 inches 11.37 8820 31.8 DU -21 HDOT 1315 0 - 3 inches 12.18 5080 14.2 U -2A HDOT 2444 0 - 3 inches 22.63 10200 Fails TCLP* U- HDOT 2444 3 - 6 inches 22.63 9480 Fails TCLP* Total 13278 122.94 Soil Excavation, and Off -Site Disposal of all soil which exceeds the HDOH Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use for lead (200 mg/kg) Replace contaminated soil with clean fill. Note = DUs 2A and 2B are assumed to fail TCCP based on total lead concentrations * As a conservative measure assume that an entire 0.5 will be removed from each of these DUs total of 246 cubic yards (123 CY x 2=226 CY). Confirmation sampling will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is removed from each DU. All DUs would be excavated in 6 -inch lifts until confirmation samples indicated that soil concentrations were below the HDOH EAL for unrestricted land use (200 mg/kg). Approximately 103,000 sq ft of soil would need to be removed to various depths. For this alternative, we used an estimated depth of 12". The depth may be less on a site -wide average (Table 5-3). Clean fill would then be brought in and overlaid across the impacted site at a depth of 24 inches and grass would be maintained to prevent potential exposure. Additional clean soil for drainage grading would be needed. An archaeological consultation and monitoring would be required during the excavation. The lead -impacted soil would be removed, therefore an EHMP will not be needed. Once removal is completed, soil onsite would not require an EHMP. The primary maintenance item would be cutting grass and addressing any erosional issues to the grass cover over the new layer of imported soil. 34 October 2023 Figure 5-1: Alternative 5a or 5b, Removal 200+ mg/kg and Capped Soil Areas M October 2023 This page intentionally left blank. cu a`r175 •7Cc L O SS Q - J Y N E N S K Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 5c: Removal of soil that exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. DUs within the HDOT ROW and privately owned parcel exceed the HDOH EALs for the construction/trench worker exposure for lead (800 mg/kg) (Figure 5-2). This is approximately 46,551 sq ft. (See Table 5-1). Soil from these DUs will be removed. Confirmation sampling will be conducted to ensure that all targeted soil is removed. The soil will be replaced with clean fill at an estimated fill depth of 24 inches (Table 5-6). DUs which exceed the HDOH EALs for unrestricted land use for lead (200 mg/kg) would first be covered with orange mirafi (geotextile) or black geotextile with caution tape laid at intervals to produce a visible barrier between the clean and impacted soils. Clean fill would then be brought in and overlaid across these DUs at a depth of 18- 24 inches and grass will be maintained to prevent potential exposure. Additional cubic yards of clean soil may also be needed for drainage and grading. Table 5-6: Alternative 5c — Soil Removal 800+ mg/kg, Clean Fill Cubic Yards 37 Cubic Yards Ownership Sq Ft Remove soil (12" estimate) that exceeds 800 mg/kg Clean fill 18„ Clean fill (24") County of Hawaii 200-800 mg/kg 36017 2001 2667 HDOT ROW (North) 800+ mg/kg 5885 218 327 436 HDOT ROW (South) I. 800+ mg/kg — 19341 716 1075 1433 Private Parcels (North) 200 — 800 mg/kg 9947 553 737 Private Parcels (South) 200 — 800 mg/kg 10390 577 770 Private Parcels (South) 800+ mg/kg 21325 790 1185 1580 Total 102905 1724 5718 7623 37 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Figure 5-2: Removal of Soil Over 800 mg/kg, Cap 200 mg/kg ri, HEiLL Private and HDOT ROW: Over 800 mg/kg ® County of Hawaii Area: 200 mg/kg C.-..-- Tax Parcels: TMK IDs Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Above B00 mg/kg Decision Units Hakalau 2016 Previous DUs: Lead Sample Results Between 200 - 800 mg/kg 2022 Sampling: Between 200-800 mg/kg 0 Surface Water Alternative 6: Institutional Controls or Long-term Monitoring This option removes harm to the public but does not remove or reduce the impacts from the site. This option also removes the use -value from the site. Archaeological consultation and monitoring would be required during the excavation period (approximately five weeks). A portion of the lead -impacted soil would remain on-site, therefore an EHMP will be needed. Initial costs would be high as soil which is classified as hazardous waste could not be disposed of at facilities in Hawaii and be required to be disposed of in the mainland United States. DU1, DU11, and DU21 failed TCLP at different depth profiles, (0 to 3 -inches bgs), and near -surface soil (3 to 6 -inches bgs). This is approximately 8,390 sq ft. DU 2 is also likely to fail the TCLP threshold and has been included for removal as lead concentrations in this DU range between 9480 — 10,200 mg/kg. DU2 is approximately 2,444 sq ft. (See Table 5-5). Annual operation and maintenance costs are not expected to be high for this alternative and would fit in with the park's current budget. The primary maintenance item would be cutting grass and addressing any erosional issues to the grass cover over the new layer of imported soil. 38 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 6 Proposed Remedy Based on recommendations from the site environmental consultant, as well as a review of the site investigation and remedial alternatives reports (Table 4), and public comments, HDOT has selected Option 5b as the long-term solution. Specifically, the HDOT has chosen to implement soil removal and offsite disposal of all soil in the areas which exceeds HDOH Tier 1 Unrestricted Land Use Environmental Action Level of 200 mg/kg for lead, and replacement with clean fill. This option will achieve substantial risk reduction, remove the source of contamination, eliminate the need for an environmental hazard management plan, and remove the possibility of lead -impacted soil or sediment from becoming exposed during flooding/erosion in the future (Table 6-1). 39 October 2023 N N Gl U N O L N is c N CUc 4-0 LIS ra G) 1- a c L 2 N < — 3 to -O Y 0) N 2 � 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing to Limit Access Direct Contact Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? O z}QJ V) N V Air Exposure Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? ro N 0 V) WQJ >- V >-}1 4 V 1 O z V) N >- V) N >- V) U) >- Potential Potential kA 0 Z 0 Z 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing, No Action 1 Potential No: Lead is below direct exposure for construction/trench worker scenario 0 Z Potential: Unlikely 0 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replace with clean fill 0 z ON 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z Potential 0 z 0 z 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Hard cap on areas of 800 mg/kg exceedances )^ aJ >- Potential (if breached) Potential Potential (if breached) Potential (if breached) Potential Potential Potential Potential 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Soil cap entire site. 0 z Potential Potential Potential Is Lead -Impacted Soil Still Present? UU _. . d Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors _. . d Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors October 2023 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing to Limit Access Surface Water Runoff (Sediment) in River Does the site have a complete exposure pathway for the following users under the scenario? ca c a; 0 a 0 z 0 z Potential 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Fencing, No Action Potential o z o z Potential 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. o z o z 0 z 0 z 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replace with clean fill ON o z o z 0 z 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Hard cap on areas of 800 mg/kg exceedances o z o z 0 z 0 z 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Soil cap entire site. c IP C a; 0 a 0 z Potential Potential Public Construction/ Trench Workers Site Workers (Landscapers) Ecological Receptors Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Table 6-2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment Comparison 5a/6. On-site isolation and containment. Grass cap on Park area. Hard cap on areas of 800 mg/kg exceedances. 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill. 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replacement with clean fill. 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Entire Site Restricted, No Action. 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Partial Reopening and Restricted Access to Areas of Highest Contamination. Toxicity No change contaminants are still present for construction/site workers. Impacts are reduced for maintenance crews, the public and ecological receptors. Toxicity: Eliminated Toxicity: Reduced. Toxicity: No Change - contaminants are still present for ecological receptors, maintenance crews and any potential construction/site workers. Reduced for the public. Toxicity: No Change - contaminants are still present for ecological receptors, maintenance crews and any potential construction/site workers. Reduced for the public. Mobility: Contaminant is potentially mobile during extensive erosion and damaging storms. Mobility: Eliminated Contamination is no longer present. Mobility: Reduced but potentially mobile during extensive erosion. Mobility: No change contaminant is potentially mobile through erosion and surface runoff. Mobility: No change - contaminant is potentially mobile through erosion an surface runoff. Volume: No reduction in volume of contaminant Volume: Eliminated: all contaminant removed. Volume: Reduced — all soil above 800 mg/kg removed Volume: No reduction in volume of contaminant Volume: No reduction in volume of conta ' 6.1 Long -Term and Short -Term Effectiveness Alternative 5a: Offers short-term effectiveness. The Hakalau Beach Park reopens without soil removal disposal costs. Site work is still needed in terms of applying mirafi, soil, and re- vegetation/stabilization of the site. The park is located in an area that can experience torrential rains and associated flooding, increasing the potential for long-term exposure risks. The site will need to be maintained to ensure that the containment soil cap is not breached. If breached, the park will likely require closure, repairs, and extended period of time out of use for the public. Costs associated with future repairs will need to be considered due to the frequent flooding and scouring in the valley and stream mouth. See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. Alternative 5b: Repairs to the site will take longer, and the park will not open as quickly as under scenario 5a. This alternative has long-term effectiveness. Sitework will include scraping soil, disposing of soils (off -island), laying clean soil, and stabilization. All work will be completed, and additional work is not anticipated. The source should be removed from direct contact for all users. An EHMP will not be needed for the affected area of the park under this alternative. Construction and Landscaping crews would not require additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while working in these DUs after soil removal. Other sources of lead may be present in the park, and areas outside of the DUs may need soil testing. See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. Alternative 5c: Repairs to the site will offer long-term effectiveness. Site work will take as long as alternative 5a but less than 5b and will require additional materials (mirafi). Soil disposal costs 42 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum and soil disposal work will remain high. Sitework will include scraping soil, disposing of soils (off - island), applying mirafi, laying clean fill, and stabilization. An EHMP will also be required as lead - impacted soil will remain on-site in the park area. The removal of soils with total lead greater than 800 mg/kg will mean that construction/trench workers will not require additional PPE while working on the site. Lead -impacted soil may be present in the upper steep gulch slopes and could migrate to the park space below. See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. 6.2 Implementability Alternative 5a is implementable using equipment and supplies from Hawaii County or shipped to Hawaii County. This alternative will require excavators, work crews, clean fill (from Hawaii County), and EHMP document production. See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. Alternatives 5b and 5c are implementable using equipment and supplies from Hawaii County or shipped to Hawaii County. However, both alternatives require off -island disposal costs and shipping. Immobilization using TSP or Portland Cement could be used to eliminate the need for offsite disposal but the uncertainty in the time need to gain regulatory and public acceptance pose a risk to using this approach. These alternatives will require excavators, work crews, topsoil, and clean fill (from Hawaii County), and alternative 5c will require EHMP document production. The source of the topsoil and clean fill will need to be documented that the source is free of chemical and biological contamination (e.g., chlordane, little fire ants, etc.). See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. Alternative 6a will be the easiest to implement. This alternative requires fencing installation and EHMP document production. This alternative will require the County of Hawaii to maintain an EHMP and conduct periodic inspections of the engineering controls (e.g., monthly inspections) reports documenting the results of the inspection (e.g., annual reports). See Table 6-2 for Treatment Comparison. 6.3 Estimated Costs A summary cost table of the alternatives is found below in Table 6-3. All alternatives are assumed to have the same costs for the planning component including project management, permitting, and public meeting support. The planning component is estimated at $44,818 and is included in all alternative costs. For alternatives that consider a soil cap, the thickness of the soil cap can vary from 18 to 24 inches depending on HDOH requirements. This can have an impact on total costs which are summarized in the table below. 43 Hakalau Beach Park Final Response Action Memorandum October 2023 Table 6-3: Cost Summary Table Notes: 1) A standard three (3) percent (%) escalation factor per year should be considered when estimating the cost. Current rates present remedial alternative cost in 2022 dollars. 2) These are rough order of magnitude budgetary estimates (+50%/-30 % level of accuracy). 3) There is no cost difference between 18 -inch and 24 -inch soil cover cost for Alternative 5b. This remedy does not require any additional soil cover beyond the soil needed to replace the volume removed. 44 5a. On-site isolation and containment. Grass cap on Park area. 5b. Removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replace with clean fill. 5c. Removal of all soil which exceeds 800 mg/kg for lead, containment, and replace with clean fill. Grass cap on Park area. 6a. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Entire Site Restricted, No Action. 6b. Institutional and Engineering Controls: Partial Reopening and Restricted Access to Areas of Highest Contamination. Planning Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EHMP Needed Yes No Yes Yes Yes Soil Removal No Yes Yes No No 300 additional CY clean soil for drainage grading. Yes Yes Yes No No Archeological consultation and monitoring Yes Yes Yes No No Mirafi/ Geotextile defined boundary Yes No Yes No No Total Cost including 24 inches soil cover $1,807,166 8,100,000 $3,812,916 $102,171 $252,997 O&M Cost -30 years $120,000 $0 $120,00 55,000 55,000 Notes: 1) A standard three (3) percent (%) escalation factor per year should be considered when estimating the cost. Current rates present remedial alternative cost in 2022 dollars. 2) These are rough order of magnitude budgetary estimates (+50%/-30 % level of accuracy). 3) There is no cost difference between 18 -inch and 24 -inch soil cover cost for Alternative 5b. This remedy does not require any additional soil cover beyond the soil needed to replace the volume removed. 44 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 7 Final Remedy Selected The final remedy selected is the proposed remedy: alternative 5b which is the removal of all soil which exceeds 200 mg/kg for lead and replacement with clean fill. This is the final remedy selected because it will achieve substantial risk reduction, removes the source of contamination, eliminates the need for an EHMP, and removes lead -impacted soil or sediment from becoming exposed during flooding/erosion in the future. This remedy costs more than capping or selective removal due to the requirement for off -island disposal of soil that exceeds 800 mg/kg. Costs are estimated at $8.1 Million due to the need for off -island disposal. However, Option 5b offers a permanent reduction of toxicity, mobility, and completely reduces the volume of contamination at the site. It provides the most long-term effectiveness, and the park will not need additional controls. Moreover, the park can be opened for use by the public, site workers, and construction/trench workers with no additional monitoring or maintenance stipulations. 45 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 8 Responsiveness Summary The public comment period on the proposed remedial action described in the Draft RAM was accepted during the 30 -day public comment period from June 30, 2023, to July 29, 2023. Eight individuals identified their preferences via email sent to the HDOH HEER office project manager, Mr. Thomas Gilmore, which are included in Table 6 below. Six of the eight supported Option 5b. One supported Option 6a, and one supported 5c. A public notice including the accessibility of the Draft RAM, contact information, and commenting period was published in the Hilo Tribune -Herald on June 30, 2023. The public Factsheet and Draft RAM was available to the public through the HDOH HEER Office website (http://hawaii.gov/doh/heer) during the public comment period. Table 8-1: Public Comments Submitted During Public Comment Phase Public Comment Individual Supports Option 5b Jeff Pereboom Supports Option 5b John Kocol Supports Option 5b Susan Melow Supports Option 6a Randy Simpson Supports Option 5c Paul Landau Supports Full Cleanup (this is Option 5b) Michael Stolp Supports Option 5b Cortney Okumura Supports Option 5b Susan Forbes 46 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 9 References AECOS. 2019. Avian Habitat Survey Kapue Stream, Hamakua District, Hawaii. Feb. Environmental Science International (ESI). 2016. Environmental Assessment, Hakalau Stream Bridge, Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19), Hakalau, Hawaii. ESI Project No. 115064, May 18. Environmental Science International (ESI). 2016b. Work Plan and Analysis Plan for Hakalau Stream Bridge Additional Assessment, Hakalau Stream Bridge, Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19), Hakalau, Hawaii, ESI Project No. 116046, October 3. ESI. 2017a. Addendum to Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan for Additional Assessment at Hakalau Stream Bridge Additional Assessment, Hakalau Stream Bridge, Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19), Hakalau, Hawaii, ESI Project No. 116046, February 1, 2017. ESI. 2017b. Additional Assessment, Hakalau Stream Bridge, Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19), Hakalau, Hawaii, ESI Project No. 116046, February 24. EnviroQuest. 2020. Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan [and Addendum] for Supplemental Lead -Impacted Soil Response Assessment at Hakalau Beach Park, Hakalau, Hawaii. Gene, Fabian. 2008. Treatability Study Report for In SITU lead Immobilization Using Phosphate - Based Binders. U. S. Army Environmental Command Aberdeen Proving Ground. Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). 2007. Hawai'i Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. Use of laboratory batch tests to evaluate potential leaching of contaminants from soil. April 2007. HDOH. 2012a. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume 1: User's Guide, Hawai'i Edition, Fall 2011. HODH, Environmental Management Division. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). HDOH. 2012b. Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Volume 2: Background Documentation for the Development of Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels, Appendices 2-9. Fall 2011. Prepared by: HDOH, Environmental Management Division. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). HDOH. 2012c. EAL Surfer. Prepared by: Hawai'i Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. Fall 2011 (Revised Fall 2017). HDOH, 2016. Public website Clean-up Action: Hakalau Bridge & Beach Park Lead Contamination Fact Sheet. Prepared by: Hawai'i Department of Health, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. October 20, 2016 47 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum HAR 11-451. Hawai'i Administrative Rules, Department of Health. Title 11, Chapter 451, State Contingency Plan (SCP). August 2, 1995. Hettiarachchi GM, Pierzynski GM, Ransom MD. 2001. In situ stabilization of soil lead using phosphorus. J Environ Qual. 2001 JuI-Aug;30(4):1214-21. doi:10.2134/jeg2001.3041214x. PMID: 11476498. KPC. 2022. Final SAP for Additional Lead Delineation Environmental Site Assessment and Treatability Study Workplan at Hakalau Beach Park. Hakalau HI. Februar 48 Hakalau Beach Park October 2023 Final Response Action Memorandum 49 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project TMKs: (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 080, 999 and (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999 Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e ahupua 'a North and South Hilo Districts Island of Hawai`i FINAL VERSION ASM Project Number 41250.01 Prepared By: ASM Affiliates Prepared For: WSP USA 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 June 2024 Archaeology • History • Anthropology • Architectural History Hilo Office: (808) 969-6066 Fax: (608) 443-0065 507-A E. Lanikaula Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Honolulu Office: (808) 439-8089 Fax: (808) 439-8087 820 Mililani Street, Suite 700, Honolulu, HI 96813 An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project TMKs: (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 080, 999 and (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999; Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e ahupua `a North and South Hilo Districts Island of Hawai i ASM Vt3 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of WSP USA, Inc., on behalf of the State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation (HDOT), ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Project in Kama`e`e and Hakalau Nui ahupua 'a, North and South Hilo Districts, Island of Hawai`i. The purpose of the study was to aid HDOT in their efforts to identify historic properties in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Hawai`i revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E-8 within a roughly 15 -acre area where the proposed project will occur that includes portions of several Tax Map Key parcels (TMKs: [3] 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 080, 999 and [3] (3) 3-1-001:001, 022, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999). The project involves repairs to Hakalau Stream Bridge, which carries Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) over Hakalau Gulch at milepost 15.3, and remediation of the lead contaminated soil beneath the bridge. The Agency has been awarded funds by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for this project. As such, the project has been determined to be an Undertaking subject to Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (2006), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). The project is also subject to review under HRS Chapter 6E-8, and the current study was conducted in compliance with 36 CFR 800 and Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-275. Portions of five previously documented historic properties were identified within the APE as a result of the current survey. These sites include the former Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 50-10-16-09070), Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) along Highway 19 (Site 50-10-16-09090), the remains of the old Hakalau Mill and Plantation infrastructure (Site 50-10-16-26591), a section of the Old Mama lahoa Highway alignment (Site 50-10-16-30187), and the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) along the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 50-10-16-XXXXX; T-1), which is documented in the Hawai`i State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation as Bridge Number 001290001100003 (MKE and Fung 2013), but does not yet have a Statewide Inventory of Historic Places site number, and has been designated Temporary Site 1 (or Site T-1) for the purposes of this study. To determine the effects that the proposed Undertaking will have on historic properties, the sites recorded within the APE are assessed for their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for their HRS Chapter 6E significance in this report. However, the Agency (HDOT) will be rendering its own HRS Chapter 6E-8 and Section 106 effect determinations and mitigation recommendations (if applicable) for the proposed Undertaking in an HDOT letter addressed directly to the Hawaii SHPO/SHPD. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Remediation Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i i Table of Contents CHAPTERS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) 5 2. BACKGROUND 11 CULTURE -HISTORICAL CONTEXT 11 Early Settlement of Hawai`i Island and the Hilo District 13 Mdhele Aina of 1848 13 Government Land Grants and post -1850 settlement patterns 15 Boundary Commission Testimony (1875) 18 Land Acquisition in Hakalau and Kama`e`e Following the Mahele 21 Hakalau Sugar Plantation and Railroad Development 21 The Tsunami of April 1, 1946 34 Rebuilding of the Hakalau Mill 37 Construction of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) and Hakalau Stream Bridge 40 Hakalau Plantation During the Second Half of the Twentieth Century 40 PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 47 3. PROJECT AREA EXPECTATIONS 51 4. FIELDWORK 52 FIELD METHODS 52 FINDINGS 52 Site 50-10-16-09070 53 Site 50-10-16-09090 56 Site 50-10-16-26591 57 Site 50-10-16-30187 83 Site 50-10-16-XXXXX (Temporary Site 1) 87 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 89 5. HRS CHAPTER 6E SIGNIFICANCE AND NRHP ELIGIBILITY 92 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBLITY 92 HRS CHAPTER 6E SIGNIFICANCE 92 DISCUSSION OF SITE SIGNIFICANCE 92 Site 50-10-16-09070 93 Site 50-10-16-09090 93 Site 50-10-16-26591 94 Site 50-10-16-30187 94 Site 50-10-16-XXXXX (Temporary Site 1) 94 6. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 95 REFERENCES CITED 96 APPENDIX A. NRHP REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE HAKALAU PLANTATION MANAGER'S HOUSE (SIHP SITE 50-10-16-09070) 105 APPENDIX B. NRHP REGISTRATION FORM FOR HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE (STATE) (SIHP SITE 50-10-16-09090) 128 ii AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i Table of Contents APPENDIX C. HAWAII STATE HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY (MKE AND FUNG 2013) SDOCUMENTATION OF THE HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE (COUNTY) 141 FIGURES Page 1. Location of the APE 2 2. TMK parcels included in the APE. 3 3. Google EarthTM satellite image showing the APE (outlined in red). 4 4. Oblique aerial view to the northeast of the of the Hakalau Stream Bridge (HWY 19) 5 5. Geological units in the APE (Sherrod et al. 2007) 6 6. Soils within the APE (Soil Survey Staff 2019). 7 7. Old Mamalahoa Highway accessing the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch, view to the west. 7 8. Stone stairs accessing the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch within the APE, view to the northeast. 8 9. Recreational users on the beach at the outlet of Hakalau Stream, view to the east. 8 10. Gravel access road on the north side of Hakalau Stream, view to the southwest. 9 11. Reinforced concrete ford crossing Hakalau Stream along the access road to the old Hakalau Mill, view to the east. 9 12. Former Hakalau Mill site (current county beach park), oblique aerial view to the southwest. 10 13. Hakalau Beach Park pavilion, view to the northeast 10 14. Informational sign commemorating the history of the Hakalau Mill, view to the east 11 15. Hawai`i Registered Map 2060 by J.M. Donn (1901) showing the APE within Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e ahupua `a, North Hilo District. 12 16. Hawai`i Registered Map No. 20 prepared by H.M. Lyman in 1853 showing extent of Hakalau Nui. 16 17. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 1092 by Lyons and Wall (1882) showing land grants in Kama`e`e 17 18. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2728 by Hockley and Murray (1925) showing portions of the project area in Grant 1350 to Ioela (shaded purple) and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. (shaded yellow) 18 19. Hakalau Mill and gulch, pre -1911 (Hawai`i State Archives, PPWD-4-7-018). 22 20. Hakalau covered bridge and gulch laborers camp, in the mauka portion of the APE, sometime between 1911 and 1929 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 23 21. Portion of Hakalau Plantation field map from 1900 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 24 22. Detail of 1903 Registered Map 2225 by Walter E. Wall showing Hakalau Village and the main Government Road that crossed Hakalau Gulch. 25 23. Hawaii Consolidated Railway Map of November 1923 (Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926). 26 24. Construction of trestle bridge over Hakalau Gulch ca. 1911 with mill in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Note large pile of sediment deposited within the gulch inland of the new bridge. 26 25. Construction of trestle bridge over Hakalau Gulch ca. 1911 with gulch labor camp in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 27 26. Train crossing Hakalau Gulch with mill in background ca. 1911-1920 (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 27 27. View of Hakalau Mill between 1911 and 1915 (State Archives, PPWD-4-7-029). 29 28. View of Hakalau Mill in 1920 (from https://www.facebook.com/farleyohana, accessed February 8, 2023) 29 29. Workers sitting on tramway at the top of Hakalau Gulch, ca. late 1940's (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 30 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i iii Table of Contents 30. Workers on tramway descending into Hakalau Gulch, ca. late 1940's (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 30 31. 1919 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Hakalau Plantation showing details of roadways and buildings. 31 32. Aerial photograph of Hakalau point and bay ca. 1925 (USAAF 1925). 32 33. Construction of new smokestack ca. 1925 (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 33 34. Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) carrying the Mamalahoa Highway across the Hakalau Stream with mill smokestack and railroad trestle in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). This bridge replaced the covered bridge in 1930. 33 35. Overview of chute leading to mill and the crane below (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 34 36. Hakalau Mill during the April 1, 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 35 37. Flume crossing Hakalau Gulch following the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 35 38. Hakalau Mill in the wake of the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 36 39. Workers surveying damage at Hakalau Mill following the 1946 tsunami (Muffler and Museum 2015:57). 36 40. Hakalau Mill under construction following 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 37 41. View of Hakalau Mill in 1951 illustrating railroad bridge and flume in foreground and chute in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 38 42. Ca. mid-1950s photograph showing the tramway and repaired flume crossing Hakalau Stream (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 38 43. Hakalau Sugar Mill and Support Facility shown on an annotated version of a 1966 Sanborn map. 39 44. Hakalau Mill in ca. 1974-1979, after it closed (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 39 45. Newspaper clipping stating reuse of Hakalau Bridge (Hawaii Tribune Herald 1950). 40 47. Repurposing of Hakalau Railroad Bridge during the early 1950s (left), and the same image to the right showing the addition of material (in red) to the existing structure (in blue) to facilitate addition of concrete roadbed (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 41 49. Hakalau Highway Bridge with cane flume in background (Kanemori 1953) 42 50. Dedication and opening ceremony of Hakalau Bridge on April 17, 1953 (Hilo Tribune -Herald 1973) 43 51. Substructure of the Hakalau Highway Bridge (The Honolulu Advertiser 1953) 44 52. Public notice of the indefinite closure of a portion of the old Mamalahoa Highway within Hakalau Gulch (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978). 46 53. Removal of lead-based paint from Hakalau Bridge in 2002 (Bishop 2002) 47 54. Previous studies conducted in the vicinity of the APE. 48 55. Site location map 54 56. Photograph of the Hakalau Manager's House, ca. 1920s/1930s (Forbes and Forbes 2023) 55 57. 2024 photograph of the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House, view to the southwest. 55 58. Plaque outside the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House 56 59. Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site 50-10-16-09090) crossing Hakalau Gulch, view to the south 58 60. Hakalau Stream Bridge, showing driving deck, oblique aerial view to the southwest. 58 61. Hakalau Stream Bridge supports, view to the north. 59 62. Hakalau Stream Bridge columns and trusses, view to the north 59 63. Underneath of Hakalau Stream Bridge deck, view to the southeast. 60 64. Hakalau Stream Bridge, view to the southeast 60 65. Plan view of Site 26591. 61 66. Plan view of the features of Site 26591 documented within the APE. 62 67. Site 26591 Feature J, stone slab staircase, view to the east. 63 68. Hakalau Mill Tramway in use in 1972 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Note stairs to the left. 64 69. Tram rail track remnants currently used as the base of the staircase, view to the east. 64 70. Site 26591 Feature K, former flume supports crossing Hakalau Stream, view to the west. 65 71. Site 26591 Feature K concrete flume blocks on north side of Hakalau Stream, view to the east 66 iv AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama' e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i Table of Contents 72. Site 26591 Feature K, concrete flume supports on the south side of Hakalau Stream, view to the north. 66 73. Site 26591 Feature K, elevated concrete pier in Hakalau Stream, view to the northeast 67 74. Site 26591 Feature K, metal drum with rocks, view to the southeast. 67 75. Site 26591 Feature L, the former location of the Hakalau Mill, aerial view to the northeast. 68 76. Overview of mill site, ca. 1940's and present, view to the south. 69 77. Location of sugar hopper, ca. 1940's and present, view to the northeast. 70 78. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation and sea wall, view to the northwest. 71 79. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation of former machine shop, view to the south 71 80. Site 26591 Feature L, sea wall, view to the northeast 72 81. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete pillar, oblique aerial view to the southeast 72 82. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation wall of former evaporator/crystalizer room, view to the southwest. 73 83. Site 26591 Feature L, portion of fonner mill crusher wall, view to the northeast. 73 84. Area of mill crusher, ca. 1940's and present, view to the southeast. 74 85. Site 26591 Feature L, remnants of the former crane, view to the west 75 86. Site 26591 Feature L, underneath the former machine shop foundation, view to the east. 75 87. Site 26591 Feature L, sea wall and broken concrete foundation, view to the southeast. 76 88. Site 26591 Feature L, park pavilion and shipping container currently on the foundation of the former Hakalau Mill, view to the southwest 76 89. Oblique aerial view to the northeast of Hakalau Gulch showing the route of the mill access road as a dotted red line. 77 90. Aerial view of raised concrete roadbed and culverts crossing Hakalau Stream. 78 91. Raised concrete ford crossing Hakalau Stream, view to the northwest. 78 92. Portion of 1916 USGS Honomu Quadrangle map showing the APE and the road leading to the gulch laborer's camp along the Hakalau Stream. 79 93. 1954 aerial photograph showing the mill access road crossing the stream (note the runoff from the mill clouding Hakalau Bay). 79 94. Site 26591 Feature N, smokestack in 1946 and present, view to the northwest. 80 95. Site 26591 Feature N, smokestack flue, view to the northeast. 81 96. Site 26591 Feature 0, view to the north. 82 97. Site 26591 Feature 0, view to the west. 83 98. Site 30187, portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway in southern portion of the APE, oblique aerial view to the southeast. 84 99. Alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187) through APE, ca. 1911 and present, view to the east. 85 100. Site 30187 retaining wall added in 1931 along a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway within the APE, view to the south. 86 101. Waterworn cobble and mortar guardrail along northern edge of the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187). 86 102. Concrete posts along the northern edge of the Old Mamalahoa Highway, view to the east 87 104. Map of the APE showing the former extent of Plantation -era features within and nearby Hakalau Gulch. 91 TABLES Page 1. TMK parcels included in the APE. 1 2. Government Land Grant in Kama`e`e. 17 3. Prior archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the APE. 49 4. Archaeological sites located within the APE. 53 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i v Table of Contents 5. Features of Site 26591. 57 6. Site specific HRS Chapter 6E significance evaluations and NRHP eligibility 92 vi AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of WSP USA, Inc., on behalf of the State of Hawaii Depaitment of Transportation (HDOT; referred to hereafter as the Agency), ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted an archaeological inventory survey for the proposed Hakalau Stream Bridge Project in Kama`e`e and Hakalau Nui ahupua `a, North and South Hilo Districts, Island of Hawai`i (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The purpose of the current study was to aid the Agency in their efforts to identify historic properties in compliance with Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E-8 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) within a roughly 15 -acre project area that includes portions of 13 Tax Map Key parcels (TMKs: [3] 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 080, 999 and [3] 3-1-001:001, 022, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999; see Figure 2 and Table 1). The proposed project involves repairs to the Hakalau Stream Bridge, which carries Hawai`i Belt Road (Highway 19) over Hakalau Gulch at milepost 15.3, and remediation of the lead contaminated soil beneath the bridge. The Agency has been awarded funds by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for this project. As such, the project has been determined to be an Undertaking subject to Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (2006), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). The project is also subject to review under HRS Chapter 6E-8. The current study was therefore conducted in compliance with 36 CFR 800 and with Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-275 and § 13-276. The scope of the Section 106 Undertaking and the HRS Chapter 6E-8 Project are identical, and are referred to as "the Undertaking" in the remainder of this report, except where statute -specific language is required. Similarly, the Section 106 Area of Potential Effect (APE) and the HRS Chapter 6E-8 Project Area are coterminous and are referred to collectively as "the APE" except where statute -specific language is required. Table 1. TMK parcels included in the APE. TMK: Size (acres) Portion within APE Owner (3) 2-9-002:023 64.8 0.5 Shropshire Group, LLC (3) 2-9-002:025 3.0 1.0 Steven and Maria Wolf (3) 2-9-002:039 3.2 0.4 Scott Wallace Trust (3) 2-9-002:080 3.2 2.4 County of Hawai`i (3) 2-9-002:999 HWY ROW 2.4 HDOT (3) 3-1-001:001 0.5 0.5 Hana U`i, LLC (3) 3-1-001:002 4.2 3.2 Steven and Maria Wolf (3) 3-1-001:003 1.2 0.5 Hana U`i, LLC (3) 3-1-001:004 4.6 1.2 Steven and Maria Wolf (3) 3-1-001:005 1.1 0.1 David Lloyd Turner Trust (3) 3-1-001:006 129.1 0.4 Richard Alderson Trust (3) 3-1-001:777 16.2 0.6 Not listed on CoH tax website (3) 3-1-001:999 HWY ROW 1.9 HDOT AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 1 1. Introduction -endo - .. N eQ A 0 Clip Area of Detail A 0 200 Km II 1 i I N .f�i $ 0 300 1p0 411461L flak° km—, , 'I Wear" eoSj /-- y� �P A Bay 10. � .— t / /too PO �.09' zoo` ��_Hakalau ,. ,c �0 N 4 i� ` Z I-, pyo �� 19 Wail ea (.1. Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Papaaloa. 2017 Bal \ 0 200 400 APG\ �tiQ° 0 Meters V,. / iI/// \ Figure 1. Location of the APE. 2 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 1. Introduction Q Area of Detail 30U Km n (3)3-1-001:006 -001:003 0)2-9-002:080 -001:002 0)2-9-002:039 0)2-9-002:02.3 0 50 100 Meters ap Key (TMK) Figure 2. TMK parcels included in the APE. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 3 1. Introduction Figure 3. Google Earthm4 satellite image showing the APE (outlined in red). 4 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 1. Introduction Figure 4. Oblique aerial view to the northeast of the of the Hakalau Stream Bridge (HWY 19). AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) The roughly 15 -acre APE (multiple TMK parcels; see Figure 2) encompasses the entire length of the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) plus an additional 100 feet on Hawaii Belt Road at either end of the bridge, plus approximately 600 feet mauka and makai of the bridge within the gulch, and a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mill Access Road (see Figures 1 and 3). The APE is situated along the boundary between Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a and Kama`e`e Ahupua`a and the Districts of North and South Hilo. At the heart of Hakalau Gulch is the 29.9 mile long Hakalau Stream which is fed by at least three other primary streams including Kama' ee, Wa`awa`a, and Kaulia (Parham et al. 2008). Hakalau Gulch extends almost a mile inland from the coast and measures between 262 meters (859 feet) and 323 meters (1,059 feet) wide, making it one of the largest gulches in the Hilo District. Elevations within the APE range from sea level at the outlet of Hakalau Stream within Hakalau Bay to roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level (amsl) at the top edges of the gulch. Geologically, this area is comprised of lavas flows of the Hamakua Volcanics Series (labeled "Qhm" in Figure 5) that erupted from Mauna Kea roughly 64,000 to 300,000 years before present (B.P.) (Sherrod et al. 2007). Soils within the Hakalau Gulch portion of the APE, which were created as waters of Hakalau Stream eroded through the underlying lava flows (Soil Survey Staff 2022), are classified as Hilo -Rock outcrop complex on 35 to 100 percent slopes (labeled "909" in Figure 6). Deeper soil deposits found on the less steeply sloped tablelands to the east and west of the gulch are classified as Hilo hydrous silty clay loam on 0-10 percent and 10-20 present slopes respectively (labeled "901" and "903" in Figure 6). The terrain on either side of Hakalau Stream, within the gulch, is relatively flat, consisting of alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, and waterworn pebbles, cobbles, and boulders flanked by the steep, nearly vertical gulch edges to the north and south. The climate in the vicinity of the APE is moderately warm, with a temperature that typically ranges between 72 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the year (Giambelluca et al. 2013). This area receives a mean annual rainfall of approximately 3,615 millimeters (142 inches), with the highest rainfall occurring during March, and the least amount of rainfall occurring during May and June (Giambelluca et al. 2014). Trade winds usually blow from east to west across this region, except when kona winds are blowing (typically during the summer months), and the wind pattern AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 5 1. Introduction is reversed. Owing to the warm weather and ample rain, vegetation cover within the APE is fairly thick, consisting of a ground cover that consists primarily of grasses, weeds, vines, fiddlehead ferns (ho io; Diplazium sandwichianuni), and elephant's ear ( 'ape; Alocasia macrorrhizos) interspersed with stands of coconut (niu; Cocos nucifera), ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia), pandanus (hala; Pandanus tectorius), bamboo (Bambusoideae sp.), hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), banana (Musa sp.), mango (Mangifera indica), banyan (Ficus sp.), miconia (Miconia calvescens), and African tulip (Spathodea campanulata). Ornamentals and planted tree species such as kukui, avocado, and breadfruit are present in the northeastern portion of the APE near the former location of the Hakalau Sugar Mill and the current County of Hawai`i Beach Park. The APE can be accessed from the southern side of Hakalau Gulch via the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Figure 7) and a set of stone stairs leading to the former Hakalau Mill site (at the coast along the southern edge of Hakalau Stream; Figure 8). The Old Mamalahoa Highway alignment is currently gated at the top of the gulch to prevent unfettered vehicular access, but the stairs and the old roadway both allow for easy pedestrian access into the gulch, and frequent recreational use of the shoreline area at the outlet of Hakalau Stream was noted during the current fieldwork (Figure 9). The alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway, which crosses Hakalau Stream, formerly continued up the northern side of Hakalau Gulch, but that section of the road washed out and was closed in 1978. The old highway now terminates at a gravel road that provides accesses to the coast on either side of Hakalau Stream. The northern fork of that road extends straight to the coast (Figure 10), while the southern fork, which formerly provided vehicular access to Hakalau Mill, crosses Hakalau Stream via a reinforced concrete ford before extending to the coast (Figure 11). Both forks of the road pass under the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State). The former site of the Hakalau Mill, which closed in 1974 and was dismantled in 1979, is now marked by a concrete seawall, a series of large concrete foundations, and other industrial remains perched against the northeastern edge of the gulch between the ocean and Hakalau Stream (Figure 12). The mill foundations are now the site of a pavilion and a shipping container associated with the County of Hawai`i's Hakalau Beach Park (Figure 13), which was created in 2006 when the County acquired the Mill parcel. A few picnic tables meant for park users are also present along the southern edge of the stream between the bridge and the mill site, and an infonnational sign commemorating the history of the Hakalau Mill is present at the bottom of the stone stairway that provides pedestrian access to the park (Figure 14). That history is expanded upon in the Culture -Historical Context for the APE provided below. O API-. Qhm 64.000-300.000 yr Hamakna \olcanics I' QI 1 I A(10-61,00(1 yr Laupahoehoe Volcanics . '.II ;Ili.., 0 Meter, 0 200 400 Figure 5. Geological units in the APE (Sherrod et al. 2007). 6 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 1. Introduction =I APE 901 - Hilo hydrous silty clay loam. 0 to 10 percent slopes 903 - Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes 909 - Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes Figure 6. Soils within the APE (Soil Survey Staff 2019). M= Meters] 0 50 100 . t , , • •.. \ Figure 7. Old Mamalahoa Highway accessing the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch, view to the west. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama' e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` 7 1. Introduction Figure 8. Stone stairs accessing the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch within the APE, view to the northeast. Figure 9. Recreational users on the beach at the outlet of Hakalau Stream, view to the east. 8 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama' e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 1. Introduction Figure 10. Gravel access road on the north side of Hakalau Stream, view to the southwest. Figure 11. Reinforced concrete ford crossing Hakalau Stream along the access road to the old Hakalau Mill, view to the east. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 9 1. Introduction Figure 12. Former Hakalau Mill site (current county beach park), oblique aerial view to the southwest. Figure 13. Hakalau Beach Park pavilion, view to the northeast. 10 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 2. Background Figure 14. Informational sign commemorating the history of the Hakalau Mill, view to the east. 2. BACKGROUND To generate a set of expectations regarding the nature of archaeological resources that might be encountered within the APE, and to establish an environment within which to assess the significance of any such resources, a general culture -historical context that includes specific information regarding the known history of Hakalau Nui and Kama' e`e ahupua 'a is presented. This is followed by a discussion of relevant prior archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the APE. Per HAR §13-276-5(b)(1)(B), the primary English language and Hawaiian language documents and materials reviewed while researching the culture -historical background and previously conducted archaeological studies presented in this report were found at various physical and digital repositories, including at the State Historic Preservation Division, Hawai`i State Archives, the Department of Accounting and General Services Land Survey Division, and the Olsen Plantation Archives, as well as at digital collections provided through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Papakilo and Kipuka databases, Waihona `Aina, the Ulukau Hawaiian Electronic Library, Hakalauhome.com, and Newspapers.com. Additionally, hardcopy and digital resources from ASM Affiliates' Library in Hilo were also consulted and referenced. All the specific sources cited in this report are listed in the References Cited section of this report. CULTURE -HISTORICAL CONTEXT The APE extends across the ahupua 'a of Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e and straddles the Hakalau Stream, which serves as the boundary separating the modern judicial districts of North and South Hilo (Figure 15). Prior to the creation of the modern judicial districts in 1886, North and South Hilo were simply known as Hilo—a vast district that extended from Waiakea in the south to 'O'okala in the north (King 1935). Pukui et al. (1974:35) literally translate the name Hakalau to mean "many perches" and Maly (in Rosendahl 2009:A-5) note that its meaning is "descriptive of openings in the cliff face." Although Pukui et al. (1974) do not provide a translation for Kama' e`e, Maly (in Rosendahl 2009:A- 9) interpret this place name to mean "Contrary Child." A closer review of the words kania and `e `e reveals other possible interpretations including to bind the yellow feathers of the `o `o (Moho nohilis) bird (kania meaning to bind, tie, wrap and `e `e meaning yellow underwing feathers of the '5'5 bird) or child/person wrapped in yellow '6'5 feathers AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 11 2. Background (kama meaning child, person). This interpretation of Kama.` e`e is plausible given the historical abundance of native birds in the upper forested regions of Hilo, as well as the numerous mentions of bird catchers in the district as recorded in the proceedings of the Commission of Boundaries in the mid to late 19th century (see section titled Boundary Commission). Hamakua HAWAII TERRITORY SURVEY wii'rv�i�«iw�n HAWAIIAN ISLANDS North Hilo MAUNA i 0 A Figure 15. Hawai`i Registered Map 2060 by J.M. Donn (1901) showing the APE within Hakalau Nui and Kama'ee ahupua `a, North Hilo District. 12 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Traditionally, the district of Hilo was divided into three `okana (sub -districts). Beginning in the north is Hilo Paliku, an area that extends north of the Wailuku River to Ka 'ilia Gulch, characterized by its upright and densely vegetated cliffs and broad kula (plains) lands (Edith Kanaka` ole Foundation 2012). The Hawaiian proverb, Hilo iki, pali `ele `ele (little Hilo of the dark cliffs) describes this sub -district noted for its greenery, rain, and mists (Pukui 1983:107). The second `okana is Hilo One, or "sandy Hilo," famed for its black sand beach that extends along Hilo Bay between the Wailoa and Wailuku Rivers. The final `okana is Hilo Hanakahi, which extends south of Wailoa River to include Keaukaha (Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation 2012). Hakalau and Kama`e`e are located in the `okana of Hilo Paliku, a name that aptly describes the precipitous bluffs carved by the numerous stream -cut gulches that are characteristic of this region. The cliffs span along the northeastern coastline of Hawai`i Island running north from the mouth of the Wailuku River and broken only by a string of relatively narrow gulches extending down the slopes of Mauna Kea. Early Settlement of Hawaii Island and the Hilo District Widely accepted archaeological settlement patterns suggest that deep -bottomed gulches along the windward shoreline of northeast Hawai`i Island would have been targeted by early Polynesians for initial settlement due to the ease of canoe landing and access to freshwater (Cordy 1994; Kirch and McCoy 2023). In addition to providing drinking water and direct access to marine resources, gulches with regular flowing streams were also well suited for agriculture. The traditional staple crop, kalo (taro), was cultivated in irrigated terraces along stream edges (Handy et al. 1991). According to Handy et al. (1991:747), the streams "along the North Hilo coast whose valleys were terraced for wet taro were Maulua, Hakalau, Wailea, Honomu, Kapehu, Kawainui, and Aalakahi. . .". Over time, as populations grew, agriculture and settlement would have spread to the upper broad plateaus between gulches where the lush, fertile kula lands were and where `uala (sweet potato), mai `a (banana) and k5 (sugarcane) could easily be grown (Handy et al. 1991). King David Kalakaua provides a brief description of what traditional settlement looked like along the Hilo and Hamakua coast of Hawai`i Island in his book The Legends and Myths of Hawaii: The northeastern coast of the island of Hawaii presents an almost continuous succession of valleys, with intervening uplands rising gently for a few miles, and then more abruptly toward the snows of Mauna Kea and the clouds. The rains are abundant on that side of the island, and the fertile plateau, boldly fronting the sea with a line of cliffs from fifty to a hundred feet in height, is scored at intervals of one or two miles with deep almost impassable gulches, whose waters reach the ocean either through rocky channels worn to the level of the waves, or in cascades leaping from the cliffs and streaking the coast from Hilo to Waipio with lines that seem to be molten silver from the great crucible of Kilauea. In the time of Liloa, and later, this plateau was thickly populated, and requiring no irrigation, was cultivated from the sea upward to the line of frost. A few kalo patches are still seen, and bananas grow, as of old, in secluded spots and along the banks of the ravines; but the broad acres are green with cane. ..(Kalakaua 1888:284) Mahele `Aina of 1848 The mid -19th century brought with it great changes, especially as it relates to the alteration of the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system. During the 1830s and 1840s, the Hawaiian Kingdom was an established center of commerce and trade in the Pacific, recognized internationally as a sovereign nation by the United States and other nations in the Pacific and Europe (Sai 2011). As Hawaiian political elites sought ways to modernize the burgeoning kingdom, and as more Westerns settled in the Hawaiian Islands, major socioeconomic and political changes took place, including the formal adoption of a Hawaiian constitution by 1840, the change in governance from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and the shift towards a Euro -American model of private land ownership. The change in land governance was partially informed by ex -missionaries and Euro -American businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that could be revoked from them at any time. Convinced that the feudal system of land tenure previously practiced was not compatible with a constitutional government, the reigning M57 (King) Kauikeaouli and his high-ranking chiefs decided to separate and define the ownership of all lands in the Kingdom (King n.d.). The change in land tenure was further endorsed by missionaries and Western businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that could be revoked from them at any time. After much consideration, it was decided that three classes of people each had one-third vested rights to the lands of Hawai`i: the M57, the ali '1 (chiefs) and konohiki (land agents), and the maka `ainana (common people or native tenants) (Chinen 1958). In 1845 the legislature created the Board of AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 13 2. Background Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (more commonly known as the Land Commission), first to adopt guiding principles and procedures for dividing the lands and granting land titles, and then to act as a court of record to investigate and ultimately award or reject all claims brought before them. All land claims, whether by chiefs for entire ahupua 'a or by tenants for their house lots and gardens, had to be filed with the Land Commission within two years of the effective date of the Act (February 14th, 1848) to be considered. This deadline was extended several times for the ali `i and konohiki, but not for commoners (Alexander 1920; Soehren 2005). The Moi and some 245 ali `i (Kuykendall 1938) spent nearly two years trying unsuccessfully to divide all the lands of Hawai`i amongst themselves before the whole matter was referred to the Privy Council on December 18, 1847 (King n.d.). Once the Mo 7 and his ali `i accepted the principles of the Privy Council, the Mdhele Aina (Land Division) was completed in just forty days (on March 7th, 1848), and the names of all of the ahupua 'a and `ili kupono (nearly independent `ili land division within an ahupua `a) of the Hawaiian Islands and the chiefs who claimed them, were recorded in the Buke Mahele (also known as the Mahele Book) (Buke Mahele 1848; Soehren 2005). As this process unfolded the M� 7, who received roughly one-third of the lands of Hawai`i, realized the importance of setting aside public lands that could be sold to raise money for the government and also purchased by his subjects to live on. Accordingly, the day after the division when the last chief was recorded in the Buke Mdhele, the King commuted about two-thirds of the lands awarded to him to the government (King n.d.). Unlike the King, the ali `i and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive their Land Commission Award (LCAw). The chiefs who participated in the Mahele were also required to provide commutations of a portion of their lands to the government to receive a Royal Patent that gave them title to their remaining lands. The lands surrendered to the government by the M� and ali' i became known as "Government Land," while the lands that were personally retained by the Mo 7 became known as "Crown Land," and the lands received by the ali `i became known as "Konohiki Land" (Chinen 1958:vii; 1961:13). Most importantly, all lands (Crown, Government, and Konohiki lands) identified and claimed during the Mdhele were "subject to the rights of the native tenants" therein (Garovoy 2005:524). Finally, all lands awarded during the Mahele were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be formally surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission. Disposition of Hakalau Nui and Kama `e `e As a result of the Mahele, the entirety of Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a was claimed by the high chiefess Miriam Kekau'Onohi, who was subsequently awarded these lands as parcel forty-two of LCAw 11216 (Royal Patent Grant No. 7541). Hakalau Nui was one of eight ahupua 'a in Hilo that was awarded to the chiefess. (Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2018). Kekau`onohi was the granddaughter of Kamehameha I and at the time of the Mahele was the second largest landholder after the M0 7 Kauikeaouli. When Kekau `onohi died in 1851, her land went to her second husband, Levi Ha'alelea (Kame`eleihiwa 1992). Based on a review of the Buke Mahele (1848), it appears as though Kama` e`e was divided into three, possibly four sections, with three different ali `i laying claim to each, namely Eseta Kipa, Kalaimoku, Kaaiawaawa, and Kaunuohua. Despite the intial claims, it appears that by the time the final disposition of lands was agreed upon, they had each relinquished their interest to Kauikeaouli, and Kama' e`e in its entirety was ultimately incorporated into the Government Land holdings. The Kuleana Act of 1850 As the King and his ali `i and konohiki made claims to large tracts of land via the Mdhele, questions arose regarding the protection of rights for the native tenants. To resolve this matter, on August 6th, 1850, the Kuleana Act (also known as the Enabling Act) was passed, clarifying the process by which native tenants could claim fee simple title to any portion of lands that they physically occupied, actively cultivated, or had improved (Garovoy 2005). The Kuleana Act also clarified access to kuleana parcels, which were typically landlocked, and addressed gathering rights within an ahupua `a. Lands awarded through the Kuleana Act were and still are, referred to as kuleana awards or kuleana lands. The Land Commission oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as Land Commission Awards (LCAw.) (Chinen 1958). Native tenants wishing to claim their lands were required to register in writing those lands with the Land Commission, who assigned a number to each claim, and that number (the Native Register) was used to track the claimant through the entire land claims process. The native tenants registering their kuleana were then required to have at least two individuals (typically neighbors) provide testimony to confirm their claim to the land. Those testimonies given in Hawaiian became known as the Native Testimony, and those given in English became known as the Foreign Testimony. Upon provision of the required information, the Land Commission rendered its decision, and if successful, the tenant was issued the LCA. Finally, to relinquish any government interest in the property, the holder of a LCA obtained a Royal Patent Grant from the Minister of the Interior upon payment of the commutation fee. No 14 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background records indicating a claim or award of kuleana lands were found for both Hakalau Nui or Kama `e`e, likely because ali `i generally discouraged kuleana claims within their awarded ahupua `a. Another factor contributing to the lack of kuleana claims was the massive Native Hawaiians population decline following western contact. In October of 1853, H.M. Lyman working as a government surveyor completed his survey of the kula portion Hakakau Nui which he calculated the land area to include some 9,357 acres. A review of Lyman's survey notes does not provide any specific information for the coastal portion of Hakalau Nui, in which the project area is situated, howerver, his map indicated that Hakalau Nui is bound on the south by Hakalau lki (near the coast) and Makahanaloa (in the uplands), on the west by Humu`ula, and north by Piha (in the uplands) and Kama'ee (near the coast). A copy of Lyman's map, Hawaii Registered Map No. 20 is included below as Figure 16. A transcription of Lyon's surveyor notes is provided below (and translated by ASM Senior Ethnographer, Lokelani Brandt, M.A.). Lyons's notes read as follows: Hakalau nui Hilo — Hawaii E hoonaaka ana keia ma kahakai ma kahi ahupohaku maloko o ke awawa kahawai e moku ana keia aina me Hakalauiki, a e holo ana iuka ma ia awawa kahawai, a hiki ma kekahi kumu ohia maloo e ku ana ma kahawai mawaho o ka ulu laau; a laila e holo ana maloko o ka ulu laau Hem. 58° 28' Kom. 541.30 kaul. a hiki i ka palena o Makahanaloa ma kekahi wailele ma kahawai nui o Kolikoli; a laila ma ia palena o Makahanaloa Hem. 67 3/4 Kom. 361.00 kaul. a hiki ma ke ahupohaku nui ma ka Puakala, ma ka palena o Humuula; a laila ma ia palena Ak. 3° Kom. 117.00 kaul. a hiki ma kahi ahu pohaku nui ma kahawai o Waioheu, oia ke kahawai o Hakalau nui a laila e holo ana ma ia kahawai a hiki ma kahakai; alaila e holo ana ma kahakai a hiki aku ma kahi i hoomaka i ai. Eka 9,357 m.a.l. Hakalau Nui Hilo — Hawaii This survey commences at the seashore at the stone pile within the stream gulch separating this land and Hakalauiki, and running upland to a dried `5hi `a tree standing at the river just outside of the forest; then running into the forest South 58° 28' West 541.30 chains to the boundary of Makahanaloa at a waterfall in the great river of Kolikoli [Kolekole]; then at the boundary of Makahanaloa South 67 3/4 West 361.00 chains to the large stone pile at Puakala at the boundary of Humu'ula; then at that boundary North 3° West 117.00 chains to the large stone pile at the river Waioheu, that is the river of Hakalau Nui, then running from that river to the seashore; then running at the shore until the point of commencement. Containing 9,357 acres Government Land Grants and post -1850 settlement patterns In conjunction with the Mahele, the King also authorized the issuance of Royal Patent Grants to applicants for tracts of land, larger than those generally available through the Land Commission. The process for applications was clarified by the "Enabling Act," which was ratified on August 6, 1850. The Act resolved that portions of the Government Lands established during the Mahele of 1848 should be set aside and sold as grants ranging in size from one to fifty acres at a cost of fifty cents per acre. The stated goal of this program was to enable native tenants, many of whom were not awarded kuleana parcels during the Mdhele, to purchase lands of their own. Despite the stated goal of the land grant program, this provided the mechanism that allowed many foreigners to acquire large tracts of Government Lands. Unlike in the kuleana claims, where claimants stated their use of the land, the grant records are silent regarding the grantees' intended use. The Royal Patent deeds and survey notes do contain some limited information about geographical features, vegetation, and survey markers, but they generally do not say anything about improvements to the land or land use. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 15 2. Background Approximate project area location Bo ((„CG C (u GeZ. _ S 4,441a Ala ,441asAa d_at a. "e.t.a an a. lel1 . /rft.[ yvia fect$..� aftly41.4,4 2asa'X; a /rPQ GL1Cix c2. a s t:. a✓ati [ 4aa Jac 4 Asa, 24 6 GY, 4.r4e a. mane. GUlc9l:oceio c. �jr.••. . e ISGCa a.ie . sCe Pe.. mN. 4;a6,_R s.rti 40-4-iC (AGR-e`!-Q.l., 4 .4AJ tea.. a. 444. .. C8. e /Lt lA.sv 1. 41. et. Kha t r6.e Ori 444-a a .4.; .461,. 10/i02e a efic h jan .3S_2S. .14/_30 h .( a 4:4 r . to fialin a. .o .J Elzaktal w 4,, 4.. fee /£a Z ‘c, dra7eN era.(LP 4 G42_%4__4__ a +u Aa.ee;ra 0 .X4• .QQQO/. o» haw / a. 72/.6.. 9na 7tt !ea 6c 0,4Cp ,aa.7a .44 /10-4* 4.4_4. ars&.-La, 91a ds.Ch- 2a. d. /.i LAO/!Q/Gee ay..w bx a- .d d. - - O1.4.264. (Q ; - 4 y .. 4 .�a ' /pe a leu 4.1 -ted.... 24.2.a lL a F a+fa.,f> 0. ler /e a 4z ac+e... 0 Lta>�.c.. rice :. a e 41'71: asea. e a *rig e Z-4 11..14, 4v1.0. a 4 n.4- Xa/¢"eai,-434:1'x. I.G1 ' 7ta a -a. d.1r. i8 5-3. locz . 13 S} Jt otDWmt�m. Figure 16. Hawai`i Registered Map No. 20 prepared by H.M. Lyman in 1853 showing extent of Hakalau Nui. 16 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background As a privately -owned Ali `i Award, no government land grants were sold in Hakalau Nui Ahupua`a; however, in the neighboring Government Land of Kama' e`e, nine grants were sold, all of which are listed below in Table 2. Eight of these grants are shown in Hawaii Registered Map No. 1092 prepared by Lyons and Wall in 1882 (Figure 17), and all nine are depicted in Hawai `i Registered Map No. 2728 prepared by E.W. Hockley and C. L. Murray in 1925 (Figure 18). Hockley and Murray's 1882 map indicates that the current project area includes portions of two land grants located along the Kama' e`e side of Hakalau Stream, Grant No. 1350 to Ioela and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. Table 2. Government Land Grant in Kama`e`e. Grant No. Grantee Year Acres Notes from Boundary Survey 909 910 911 912 913 1056 1057 Kapueuhi Manuhoa Kahookaamoku Kawaikini Lau Keawe Manuhoa et al. 1058 Kekahiko 1350 Ioela 1852 16.0 Vegetation noted included niu and puuhala 1852 23.23 Vegetation noted included niu, puuhala, `alani as well as built features including an alanui and kahua hale kula. 1852 4.75 n/a 1852 19.87 Vegetation noted included `alani, niu, and puuhala. 1852 31.0 Noted vegetation included niu and puuhala. 1852 22.20 Noted vegetation included niu. 1852 131.0 Other grantees named for this property included Puhi, Aikane, Kalua, and Mahiki. 1852 117.12 Noted vegetation included niu, puuhala, `alani, and Laila (Pride of China; Koelreuteria sp. ) as well as built features including an alanui and kahua hale kola. 1854 4.12 n/a Project area Grant 913 to Lau ■ Grant 911 to Kahookaamoku Grant 909 to Kapueuhi Grant 912 to Kawaikini ■ Grant 910 to Manuhoa Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. Grant 1056 to Keawe ■ Grant 1058 to Kekahiko Kama`e`e School Lot . 2-357 S 0 .¢- 92° Z;3o izl Yn. ui+JGar.. A'' ~V'J3i'.an Chare.h. Figure 17. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 1092 by Lyons and Wall (1882) showing land grants in Kama`e`e. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 17 2. Background ;rant 913 to Lau ❑'ant 911 to Kahookaamoku Grant 909 to Kapueuhi IGrant 912 to Kawaikini Grant 910 to Manuhoa Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. Grant 1056 to Keawe Grant 1058 to Kekahiko Grant 1350 to loela Kanra`e`e School Lot 0 Meters 0 100 200 is Project area o of 11018 Figure 18. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2728 by Hockley and Murray (1925) showing portions of the project area in Grant 1350 to Ioela (shaded purple) and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. (shaded yellow). In summary, the awarded land grants included a total of 369.23 acres that extended from the coast to about the 700 -feet elevation or roughly 1.6 miles inland of the coast. Except for the grant awarded in 1854 to loela, the remaining grants were awarded in 1852 and ranged in size from 4.12 acres up to 131 acres (see Table 2). A review of the survey notes for each of the grants identified several plants species including niu (coconut), "puuhala" likely a variant spelling of puhala (pandanus), as well as `alani (orange) and laila (Pride of China; Koelreuteria sp.). The survey notes also identify several built features including an alanui (road) and the kahua hale kula (school house foundation), the locations of which are shown in Lyon and Wall's 1882 map (see Figure 17). Boundary Commission Testimony (1875) In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of Hawai`i to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua `a that had been awarded, by name only, as a part of the Mahele. Subsequently, in 1874, the Boundary Commission was authorized to certify the boundaries for lands brought before them. As a part of this process, the Boundary Commission gathered testimony from informants, who were typically older native residents who learned of the boundaries from their ancestors, relatives, or neighbors. The boundary information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and simultaneously transcribed into English. Although hearings for most ahupua `a boundaries were brought before the Boundary Commission and later surveyed by Government employed surveyors, in some instances, the boundaries were established through a combination of other methods. In some cases, ahupua `a boundaries were established by conducting surveys on adjacent ahupua `a. Or in cases where the entire ahupua `a was divided and awarded as Land Commission Award(s) and or Government - issued Land Grants (both of which required formal surveys), the Boundary Commission relied on those surveys to establish the boundaries for that ahupua `a. Although these small-scale surveys aided in establishing the boundaries, they lack the detailed knowledge of the land that is found in the Boundary Commission hearings. Although no testimony was heard for Kama'ee Ahupua`a, since it was Government Land, the Commission did hear testimony for Hakalau Nui. 18 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background On February 11th, 1875, upon the application of W. L. Green, the Boundary Commission met at the courthouse in Hilo to hear testimony to help settle the boundaries of Hakalau Nui. The testimony for Hakalau Nui was quite extensive with five individuals, Kekualiilii, Kanehoalani, Lyman, Kapou, and Halaioo, testifying before the commission. Their testimonies, which are cited in their entirety below,: Kekualiilii k Ikane;malel sworn, I live at Kamaee, Hilo. I was born there and have always lived there. I was born at the time Kamehameha II returned from Honolulu to Hawaii and remained on Hawaii. I know a part of the boundaries of Hakalau Nui that old people told me when I was young. Kamaee bounds Hakalau Nui on the Hamakua side of the valley. The muliwai [stream] belongs to Hakalau and the dry land on the Hamakua bank to Kamaee. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Thence the boundary runs mauka [upland] along the Hamakua side of the stream to a place called Nakama a hill way mauka in the woods, where we can see the shore; there are branches from the Kamaee side, first one called Kawelo below the woods, thence the boundary follows up the main stream to where a large branch of the gulch called Wawaa comes in on the Hamakua side; the boundary follows up this branch, passing a branch from the Hamakua side called Wailimu and passing another branch from the Hamakua side called Kuamoohua, up the main gulch called Nakana. This is as far as I know the boundaries. Kamaee reaches to this place above this place the gulch is not so deep but is wide. I do not know where Kamaee ends; I have heard that Umauma cuts it off; I have always heard that Hakalau extends to the upper edge of woods. The main branch of Hakalau on the Hilo side in the middle of the land has a great deal of sand in it. The Wawaa branch has none. I do not know the boundaries on the Hilo side of Hakalau Nui adjoining Hakalau-Iki. Cxd The boundary is along the Hamakua branch of the stream in the valley. When we need to go fishing in the stream, Hakalau people used to take the fish away from us. Kanehoalani k sworn I was born at Kamaee and am a kamaaina (native-born, well acquainted). I was born at the time of Ualakaa; I know the land of Hakalau and the boundaries adjoining Kamaee. Fishing rights extending out to sea. The boundary between Hakalau and Kamaee at the shore is at a large flat rock in the water. The water in the stream belongs to Hakalau, and the dry land on the Hamakua side to Kamaee. Thence the boundary follows along the Hamakua side of the stream passing the stream from Kamaee to a high water fall, thence mauka to the junction of Wawaa, from the Hamakua side with Laniomaui, thence up Wawaa gulch to Nakama, a puu [hill] and old kauhale [settlement] in koa, thence mauka a short distance to where Wawaa gulch [illegible] and on to a pali [cliff] called Kaoku, and below this pali the kahawai [stream] becomes only an awaawa [gulch]. Here the Waiau gulch comes in on the Hamakua side called Waiau. At Kaoku Kamaee is cut off by Umauma. I have never heard that Wawaa reaches to the upper edge of woods. Laniomaui reaches through the woods in the middle of the land. I have heard that Hakalau-Nui reaches through the woods. I have heard that a place called Awakee is the boundary at shore between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-Iki. I do not know the other boundaries. Cxd Waiau is the Umauma kahawai. Punaluu kahawai is a good branch of it. Hakalau extends from Kaoku to Waiau gulch. F.S. Lyman k sworn I went with my brother Henry to a point on the boundary between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-Iki just makai of the woods, where he triangulated to a large hill in the woods, on the boundary of Makahanaloa. He had already surveyed from the shore to the woods. We then went to Hamakua through the woods and to mauka corner adjoining Makahanaloa. There is a pile of stones there near Laumaia road; From there we surveyed across, a mile or a little more, until we came to a gulch with steep sides, hard to cross, which they said was the boundary of Hakalau, 1 think. Waiki was with us also Kapou, konohiki of Hakalau-Nui. 1 do not remember who were the kamaaina at that time. Cxd The kamaaina told us that this gulch ran clear to the shore and was the Hakalau gulch. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 19 2. Background Kapou k sworn I live at Wailea, Hilo [illegible] from Hakalau. I was born at Hakalau at the time that the moku as carne. l know a part of the boundaries of Hakalau. The boundary between Kamaee and Hakalau Nui at the shore is at a large rock in the water at the landing place. Thence the boundary runs up the Hamakua side of the stream till it comes to Wawaa kahawai. Then the boundary runs up the Wawaa kahawai. I have not seen where Kamaee ends. Have heard that Kamaee is cut off by Hakalau but do not know where. I have heard that Hakalau leaves Waawaa at Waaloa across land till it comes to a bend of Waawaa gulch. Thence it runs mauka in the Waawaa gulch to the upper edge of woods Kupouli, my father and Naluliilii were Henry's [Henry Lyman] kamaaina and went on to the mountain with him. I have heard that Humuula cuts it off above the woods. I did not go with them. Kupouli, now dead and father of Naluliilii, were bird catchers and used to go through the woods to the upper edge of woods. My father was the Luna of the bird catchers when he was living. I know that part of the boundaries on the Hilo side. My father, Kawainui, and Kawaiholo, and myself, went with Henry Lyman where he surveyed the land. Kawainui was konohiki of Hakalau-Iki at that time, and I of Hakalau-Nui. The boundary at the shore between their land and Hakalau-Iki is at Awakee, an awaawa. This l learned from my kupuna. Nalu is my only father still living, very feeble. Kupouli was my uncle. The boundary runs from Awakee mauka along a small awaawa. Kawaiholo was the kamaaina and my kupuna. The awaawa runs mauka until you come to a large ditch; thence it runs mauka along the ditch to its mauka end; thence past bamboo and into awaawa; up awaawa to Kukui- nui. Thence to the mauka end of the awaawa. Thence passing Puna side of loi to a clump of bamboo where we stopped surveying. The boundary runs mauka along the ditch to a poauwai [head water] called Kapihae belonging to Hakalau-Ilei. Thence mauka in the woods to poauwai called Waihaka, belonging to Hakalau-Nui on a small gulch. Thence up and old trail to Kaawahine, an old kauhale. The mauka corner of Hakalau-Iki. Thence along Wailea to Napuumaia, banana trees. Thence along Kaiwiki along an old trail. Thence along Kaahakina gulch. This is as far as I know the boundaries. I do not know where Kaiwiki ends. There is an old bird catcher named Moi? living at my house. I have heard that a large koa (Acacia koa) tree called Puuwai is in the middle of Hakalau-Nui. Cxd By D. Kamai I have heard that Kaiwiki reaches to the Niuika. I have heard that the Waiau gulch cuts Kamaee off an that Hakalau joins Umauma. Hitchcock accepts the boundaries as surveyed beween Hakalau-Nui & Humuula. Halaioo k sworn (middle aged man) 1 lived at Wailea. I was born there at time of Akakaio Maalo. 1 know the boundaries between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-lki. My makua, now dead, a kamaaina there told me the boundaries. Awakee is the boundary at the shore, between these two lands. The awaawa runs mauka to Government Road. Thence mauka on the Puna side of the awaawa across land to Lanikeha a kauhale[settlement]. Thence along the old road into the woods to the mauka corner of Hakalau-Iki at Na puu ma o ka Ehu. Thence up along Wailea to a gulch called Waimana. Kaahina ends and Napuumaia. Thence up Waimana a branch of Kolikoli. This is as far as I know the boundaries. I do not know the boundaries adjoining Kamaee. Hakalau ends at Napuumaia not a Kaawahine. Kaawahine is makai of this. I do not know where Kaiwiki ends. (Boundary Commission 1874:359- 364) In summary, the boundary commission testimonies reveal a wealth of information regarding geographical features and land use in the area during the early to mid -19th century. The most predominant feature that testifiers describe was the numerous muliwai (streams) that were found at higher elevations in Hakalau and Kama'e`e, serving as boundary markers between ahupua 'a. Regarding cultural practices, the testimonies also describe fishing rights in the streams and open ocean. These rights were enforced and known by the residents of Hakalau of Kama' e`e. Bird catching is also noted to have taken place in the upper forested regions of the area. Trails leading to the uplands were noted by several of the informants. Some of the informants mentioned the presence of the Government Road along with to `i (irrigated terrace traditionally used to grow taro) in the upper portions of Hakalau, as well as bamboo, kukui, `dhi 'a, and bananas. 20 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Land Acquisition in Hakalau and Kama`e`e Following the Mahele In the decades following the Mahele, Hakalau Nui was retained by the high chief, Levi Ha'alelea until his death on October 3, 1864. Born in 1822 in Lahaina, Maui, Ha'alelea was the son of the chief Ha'alou and his wife, Eseta Kipa, who relinquished her claim to a portion of Kama' e`e during the Mahele of 1848 (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1864). As noted by Kame`eleihiwa (1992:307), by the time of Ha'alelea's death, he had accrued some "$40,000 worth of debts, part of which he owed to Bishop & Co." To repay his debts, the courts auctioned many of his lands, including those in Hakalau. An advertisement showing the public action of Ha`alelea's lands appeared in the March 10, 1866 edition of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser. The advertisement notes that the lands of Hakalau were favorable for cultivating sugarcane, raising cattle, and harvesting timber from native hardwood trees. Three years later, William Lowthian Green began placing advertisements in the Pacific Commercial Advertiser and The Hawaiian Gazette to sell 9,357 acres of land in Hakalau. Green would advertise the sale of Hakalau until 1875. As for Kama'e`e, which became part of the inventory for Government Lands through the Mahele, it appears that by 1881, the government had set up a 15 year lease at an annual rate of $200 for unsold lands within the ahupua 'a (Daily Honolulu Press 1881). In the August 26th, 1871 edition of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, a travelling correspondent under the pen name Quirk wrote about their journey along the Hilo coastline. The description of Hakalau presented in that article provides a glimpse into the life of the people residing within Hakalau Gulch prior to the establishment of the sugar industry: HAKALAU GULCH Opens up beautifully, filled with trees, conspicuous amongst which are the cocoa -palms, overshadowing the school -houses and native cottages that nestle close to the shore. From this point the cliffs decrease in height, honey -combed as usual with caves, giving a wild look to the coast line... (The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1871:3) By 1874, Hilo already ranked as the second-largest population center in the islands and within a few years the fertile uplands, plentiful water supply, and port combined to make Hilo a major center for sugarcane production and export. After earlier failed attempts to secure a treaty with the United States, in 1875, King David Kalakaua signed the Treaty of Reciprocity, which established a free -trade agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S. (Kuykendall 1967). The signing of this treaty, which guaranteed a duty-free market for Hawaiian sugar in exchange for special economic privileges for the United States, drastically increased sugar production in Hawai`i and forever altered the political, economic, and socio -cultural fabric of the islands. Although sugar production was already occurring in Hilo, within a few short years after the signing of the treaty and in an effort to cash in on incoming sugar boom, a slew of plantations sprung up around the islands, one of which included the Hakalau Sugar Co. Ltd. The arrival of large scale commercial sugar would, throughout the remainder of the 19th and 20th century, radically transform the lands in the APE and neighboring vicinity. In April of 1877, following the passage of the 1876 Act "to aid in the development of the resources of the Kingdom" the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources toured different areas of Hawai`i Island including Hakalau. The commission reported on their findings and provided recommendations regarding improvements and prospetive land use. In presenting their findings for Hakalau, the commission reported that: The landing at Hakalau was examined. An iron pier to connect the beach with a point of lava on the east side of the bay, would give a fair landing, but the expense would be great; as well as connecting roads up the palis. If mills were put in the gulch it would be adviseable to make the landing available for surf boats. The Government have about 1500 acres of good land in the vicinity, and there is a larger quantity of lands beloging to private parties. (Carter et al. 1877) Hakalau Sugar Plantation and Railroad Development In 1878, California sugar mogul Clause Spreckles, with W.G. Irwin & Company as his agent, established the Hakalau Sugar Plantation. By 1880, the plantation employed 300 men and was cultivating sugar cane on 430 acres, with 1,480 extra acres available for planting (Bowser 1880:417). The fields were planted on the broad plateaus between gulches. Rainfall provided ample water to naturally irrigate the vast fields and fill the extensive network of flumes used to transport cane to the coastal mill site. Water was also sourced from "mountain gulches in the forest belt with a system of ditches to carry water where needed" (Star -Bulletin 1935). The long flumes, some as high as 125 feet, and supported by tall trestles, were constructed to span the gulches. At the time, Hakalau Sugar Plantation was one of the most modern sugar plantations in the islands: AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 21 2. Background All the modern improvements, both as regards the mill and the plantation, are of the very best character; and the appearance of all the surroundings denote that all is done in the best possible manner by the managers to forward the interest of their employers. No expense is spared to carry on the work as it should be. The mill and buildings are now (April, 1880) drawing toward completion; and the mill, when completed, will rank first on the list with any on the Hawaiian Islands. The facilities for transporting the cane to the mill is of the very best description, and Mr. Claus Spreckels is proving himself to be the right man in the right place, as an A No.1 sugar planter. (Bowser 1880:417-418) In 1882, Spreckles organized the charter for Hakalau Sugar Co. Ltd. Following the formal creation of the new sugar company, announcements were published in local newspapers conveying the purpose of the company: The purposes of the company are the raising and cultivation on the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere of sugar cane, and the purchase and sale of its products; also, the acquisition by lease and otherwise, of such lands and water rights as may be necessary to properly carry on the business, and the making of such contracts and obligations as are essential to the transaction of its affairs. (The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1882) The company's mill was at the beach along the southeastern edge of Hakalau Gulch, just a few feet above sea - level and was surrounded on its remaining sides by Hakalau Stream and the Pacific Ocean (Figure 19). The first two mills at Hakalau were constructed between 1879 and 1881 by engineer and agriculturalist John Alison Scott (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1925). In addition to the mill, a small house can be seen in Figure 19, on an island in the stream and under the flume. This small building was used as a schoolhouse until it was abandoned in 1894 in favor of a location a across the Gulch on the Kama'ee side (Hilo Tribune -Herald 1940; Hughes 1981). Figure 19. Hakalau Mill and gulch, pre -1911 (Hawai`i State Archives, PPWD-4-7-018). A description of the mill was published in the Daily Honolulu Press on August 1, 1885, noting its location in the gulch and near the shoreline: "Hakalau mill—at least the one that was being operated when I was there—is in the bottom of one of those incomparable gulches, so low that the tide washes its foundation walls, and the spring freshets threaten it..." (Daily Honolulu Press 1885). The close proximity of the mill to the ocean meant that damage caused by stormy weather and high surf occurred periodically. As an example, the mill was damaged in 1892 following a winter storm that swept through the area: 22 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Hakalau probably received the worst damage, as there the sea, running dead on, broke with appalling force. It carried way the landing and trash house and stove in the sides of the lower mill, filling the lower story with rocks and sand. (The Honolulu Advertiser 1892) Between 1895 and 1896, the original mill was torn down and replaced with a new mill that was imported from Scotland (Capellas 1925; Evening Bulletin 1909; Hawaiian Gazette Co. 1895). An 1898 account of the plantation and mill reads: At Hakalau, another town on the island of Hawaii, is the large sugar plantation owned by Messrs. Claus Spreckels & Co. This is about fifteen miles from Hilo, and everything is carried on in a very extensive way. All the modern improvements as regards the mill and plantation are of the finest, and everything denotes from the appearance of the surroundings that all is carried on in the best manner possible. Mr. Spreckels has proved himself to be the right man in the right place, and stands in the foremost rank as a sugar planter. (Hall 1898:95) Although the plantation employed its own laborers which were housed in labor camps spread throughout the plantation's landholdings, it also favored the policy of shareholders growing cane on a contract basis—a policy that has been attributed to the amicable relationship between the plantation and workmen. Most of the plantation's shareholders who grew cane for the mill lived in the upper elevations on homestead lots which they owned, whereas many of the contract laborers lived in camps situated near their workplace. Multiple labor camps were formed near the APE. One of the earliest camps was the Hakalau Gulch Camp, nestled in the gulch along the Government Road, in the mauka portion of the APE (Figure 20). Figure 20. Hakalau covered bridge and gulch laborers camp, in the mauka portion of the APE, sometime between 1911 and 1929 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). By the early 1900s, Hakalau had expanded enough to produce 11,932 tons of sugar and employ 800 workers (Hunted 1902:479). Hakalau Village, the primary hub of the Hakalau Plantation, was relatively small, consisting of a AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 23 2. Background few buildings built along the main Government Road on top of the cliff plateau (Figures 21 and 22). The Government Road descended into the gulch, followed the contour of the cliffside, passed over the Hakalau Stream by way of covered bridge (see Figure 20), and continued up the other cliffside into Kama' e`e. In the beginning processed sugar was loaded onto ships waiting at the mouth of Hakalau Bay, but it wasn't long before sugar export transitioned from steamer to rail. Figure 21. Portion of Hakalau Plantation field map from 1900 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Hawaii Railroad Company During the years of growth and expansion in Hawai`i's sugar industry, modernizing transportation infrastructure was necessary to efficiently transport goods and materials. By the turn of the century, plans to install a railroad between Hilo and Honoka`a were being actualized. Railroad construction was one of the most important elements of governmental and private sector planning following the Treaty of Reciprocity, as crops and product were still being transported by animal drawn carts (Dorrance and Morgan 2000). On the Island of Hawaii, the first major line to be constructed was in the North Kohala District, which operated as the Hawaiian Railroad Company (HRC). The North Kohala line, however, was envisioned as only the first step toward a much larger system connecting the cane fields of Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo with Hilo Harbor, the only protected deep -water port on the island. The initial twenty- five mile track of the HRC was completed by April of 1901, with an extension being completed along Hilo's bayfront to the Wailuku River later that year (Thurston 1913). Just two years later, the HRC constructed a wharf at Waiakea and completed a branch line connecting it to the waterfront line. The rail not only provided a means to get sugar from the mill to port, but also served as passenger transportation. 24 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background vl 46' Bin. �tXl« 11 APE O Meters 0 100 200 p r. •9 c M'9fip iIM1 "m 6 ., r • 1 1.iwee 15. ct1 ie • Figure 22. Detail of 1903 Registered Map 2225 by Walter E. Wall showing Hakalau Village and the main Government Road that crossed Hakalau Gulch. The commercial sugar industry provided most of the cargo transported by HRC, but suffered a sharp decline between the years of 1904-1907, which caused a halt of development in Hilo (Thurston 1913). in response, the HRC worked with `Ola`a Sugar Company to send a representative to Washington D.C. in 1907 to secure funding for the construction of a breakwater that would allow Hilo Bay to accommodate larger ocean-going vessels. Construction on the breakwater began in 1908 and was ongoing for the next 21 years. In exchange for the construction of a breakwater in Hilo Bay, the HRC was required to build a new wharf, a one -mile rail extension from Waiakea, and a 50 -mile rail extension north to Honoka` a Mill (the Hamakua Division). The funding of the breakwater by the HRC resulted in the extension of the railroad through the populated section north of Hilo all the way to Hakalau and eventually to Hamakua (Figure 23). Between June 1909 and December 24, 1911, the HRC built 12.7 miles of rail extending from Hilo to Hakalau Mill, crossing many deep gulches and valleys along its route (Figures 38 through 40). This was followed by the construction of an additional 21 miles of rail that connected Hakalau with Pa` auilo to the north, which covered a total distance from Hilo of roughly 34 miles and was known as the "Hamakua Division” (Thurston 1913:146). The rail spanned the Hakalau gulch by means of a steel trestle girder bridge that measured 775 feet long and 261 feet tall. The Hakalau rail bridge was considered the second longest bridge on the line. Lorrin A. Thurston, who according to Thrum had "been connected with the enterprise from its initiation" (Thurston 1913:142), wrote an article upon the completion of the railroad from Hilo to Pa'auilo, Hamakua in May of 1913 entitled "Railroading in Hilo" which was published in Thrum 's Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1914. Thurston defined the objective of the Hamakua Division as: The principal object of the extension is to give adequate transportation facilities between Hilo and the fertile and well-settled territory extending for 50 miles north of the town of Hilo, and averaging three to four miles in width. This district produces nearly one-fourth of the entire output of sugar of the Territory and is, including the town, the home of over 30,000 people. The only means of access to this section has heretofore been by wagon road, almost impassable in rainy weather, and by derrick and cable landings over bluffs rising from 50 to 300 feet sheer from blue ocean. There are no harbors. (Thurston 1913:147) AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 25 2. Background ..._,,,. •. -^ " -,:st:\ '....,' 4 t,.. —04, -4,....01.:Iv.- i‘. '' '';''. ';'•;::'"'-'", /. 1 \c•Ct.‘.sk:c, G ..r, 1 `IM..un•A �� ,y tw ;roRWF N•$0.4M&L� 11.Aun4: ryLL •uno rlt�u grot I /5rme4 Pit ice_• •,�„ MIaL o^ 4... .t.,_ rAILL ,..» t.., e..T..: Nno b.r '441,1111„ OMO.. 4.• 111".• e.y... PLrtt,µa M.. 1•w. TO. a. -g Approximate project area location MAP Or von Or THE ISLAND Of HSN," SHOWING THE LINES OF THE ' a HAWAII CMSOIIDATED RAILWAY. Move�wsy 11.VIAH\N ��cnrnEL CO. Figure 23. Hawaii Consolidated Railway Map of November 1923 (Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926). Figure 24. Construction of trestle bridge over Hakalau Gulch ca. 1911 with mill in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Note large pile of sediment deposited within the gulch inland of the new bridge. 26 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 25. Construction of trestle bridge over Hakalau Gulch ca. 1911 with gulch labor camp in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 26. Train crossing Hakalau Gulch with mill in background ca. 1911-1920 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 27 2. Background Expansion of Hakalau Plantation A little more than a decade later, the plantation continued to grow, and in 1909, the Honolulu -based Evening Bulletin published a detailed description of the company and their activities. The article provides information regarding the machinery used in processing the sugarcane and the ethnic makeup of the plantation employees: The property of the Hakalau Plantation Company is in the Hilo district, about fifteen miles from the town of Hilo. The plantation embraces 26,600 acres, 6,000 of which is planted and several varieties of cane. The Yellow Caledonia predominates. The plantation maintains ten miles of main and lateral V flumes through which the cane is conveyed to the mill and delivered direct to the twelve -roller mill, operated by steam power and with a capacity of seventy-five tons of raw sugar in twenty-four hours. The company operate their own electric light plant, driven by a 24 -inch Pelton water wheel, which furnishes light to the mill, store, manager's house, etc. The mill is located in a picturesque spot at the bottom of Hakalau Gulch close by the sea, a sea-wall built of cement and stone, surrounding it upon the ocean side. The sugar, when sacked and ready for shipment, is hauled up over a steep incline tramway to the landing warehouse, where it is shipped on board the Inter -Island steamers by a wire cable arrangement from warehouses to the deck of the steamers, without damage or breakage. The grinding season at Hakalau usually lasts about six months. The average yield of sugar to the acre is about 3 '/2 tons. The total output of the mill during 1908 was 12,832 tons. The estimate for 1909 is 11,000 tons. The present mill, which is most complete, was erected by the company in 1897, the steel structural work being supplied by the Judson Manufacturing Company of San Francisco. The working plans were furnished by the Honolulu Iron Works. Its Big Smokestack. Because of the situation of the mill it was necessary to construct a brick flue surmounted by a smokestack 120 feet high and having an elevation 235 feet above the mill site. This tall smokestack gives the furnaces in the mill a better draught. The mill is quite complete in all its departments, being supplied with sixteen 30 -inch centrifugals, two Standard triple effects, ten open clarifiers, two 8 and one 5 -ton vacuum pans, besides much other machinery. The four 3 -roller mills and Krajewski crusher are driven by two powerful Hamilton -Corliss engines while the centrifugals which make 1,300 revolutions per minute, are driven either by steam or water power. An immense twelve -ton overhead traveling crane is used in the mill for handling the ponderous machinery when making repairs or changes. The sugar is dropped from the centrifugals to the floor of the sugar room whence it is elevated into two large bins, and there it is allowed to cool before being bagged. The various cane fields are intersected by good roads. Plowing is done with Secretary disc and ordinary molboard plows drawn by mules, while the cultivation is carried out by Deere disc bedders, Crescent disc cultivators, Horner ratoon plows and Horner cultivations, the Horner patents proving highly satisfactory. The soil is fertilized with 1000 pounds of high grade fertilizer and 1800 pounds of lime to the acre. The company maintains a large number of stock upon its property, there being 210 mules and 41 horses in use. Percentage of Working Laborers There are over 1200 laborers on Hakalau plantation, 38 skilled; 51 Portuguese, 800 Japanese, 83 Japanese Women, 60 Porto Ricans, 30 Spanish and Porto Rican Women, 144 Chinese, 4 Hawaiians, 39 Koreans and 26 Spaniards. Nearly all the work is performed under the day labor system. The machine shops are at the mill, while at Hakalau proper are the spacious plantation stables, carpenter and blacksmith shops and the large general merchandise store run in connection with the postoffice and plantation offices. The blacksmith shop has been recently kept busy while the steamer lies but a short distance off shore. John M. Ross, who has been connected with the Hakalau Plantation Co. For fifteen years, has been its manager since September 1st, 1905. (Evening Bulletin 1909:31) 28 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Panoramic photographs taken between 1911 and 1920 (Figures 27 and 28) show that plantation infrastructure along the southern interior portion of Hakalau Gulch included the 1897 mill structure and ancillary buildings, flumes, a tramway, and a smokestack. The tramway was mainly used to transport workers from the plateau above to the mill below (Figures 29 and 30), although it also hauled cane down to the mill and sugar up to the plateau. The mill, nestled along the southeastern base of Hakalau Gulch nearly at sea level, encompassed various rooms for the processing of sugarcane including one for the roller mill and crusher, a machine shop, a mud press room, a fuel room, a room for crystalizers and evaporators, and a sugar bagging room, as illustrated in a Sanborn fire insurance map from 1919 (Figure 31). Adjacent structures situated directly to the west of the mill included a general supply warehouse, laboratory, and an oil tank foundation, as well as a smokestack and a small unidentified building to the east. A concrete spillway extended along the southern edge of the mill building, crossed by a cane flume extending from the mill/crusher room along the toe of the slope towards the northwest into Hakalau Stream. Additionally, a concrete flume extended south from the fuel room southwards towards the toe of the slope, beneath an east -west oriented cable tramway extending along the southern portion of the mill building. Warehouse Smoke Stack Railroad Figure 27. View of Hakalau Mill between 1911 and 1915 (State Archives, PPWD-4-7-029). Figure 28. View of Hakalau Mill in 1920 (from https://www.facebook.com/farleyohana, accessed February 8, 2023). During the next two decades, the Hakalau Plantation Company steadily grew its operations, extending the fields to around the 1,500 foot elevation contour and for nine miles along the coast, extending north and south of the APE across the broad plateaus. An aerial photograph taken in 1925 shows the mill and numerous plantation buildings on the plateau above (Figure 32). In 1925, during the closing of the mill for off season repairs, the old smokestack was taken down and a new one was installed (Figure 33) (The Honolulu Advertiser 1925). During the latter part of the 1920's, improvements to the plantation included installation of "six shower baths with hot and cold water... and a large dressing room with 36 individual lockers" on the mill premises (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1926), construction of a new office, department store, and a new athletic hall for indoor sports (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1927; The Honolulu Advertiser 1928). The 1930's saw construction of a new hospital, theater, and Jodo Mission. The upper coastal plateau of Hakalau grew into social hub, supporting the many plantation laborers. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawaii 29 2. Background Figure 29. Workers sitting on tramway at the top of Hakalau Gulch, ca. late 1940's (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 30. Workers on tramway descending into Hakalau Gulch, ca. late 1940's (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 30 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 2. Background 25 HAKALA// PLgNTAT/ON Cat Seem Mac. GOVERNMENT ROAD r^ .'"• —, HAKALAO PLANTAT/ON CO. Scale of Feet. Figure 31. 1919 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Hakalau Plantation showing details of roadways and buildings. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 31 2. Background 2545 .-923-M-119(1-23-25)(12-500) HAKE Figure 32. Aerial photograph of Hakalau point and bay ca. 1925 (USAAF 1925). In addition to plantation improvements, the Government Road that traversed Hakalau Gulch was improved as well. The covered bridge that once spanned the Hakalau Stream was replaced in 1930 with a steel frame and concrete bridge (Figure 34) and in 1931 work began on a "solid stone wall" on the outside edges of the road on the Hilo side of the gulch to "facilitate traffic and make the side permanent" (The Honolulu Advertiser 1931). All of the improvements to the plantation contributed to a rich community, that was described in a 1935 article published in the Honolulu Star -Bulletin as: Hakalau plantation is particularly distinctive in its social aspects, having a reputation for drawing people from all the surrounding plantations. Labor conditions have been particularly good, a general contentment prevailing. Excellent houses are provided both skilled and unskilled employees and numerous recreational facilities afforded, including club houses, tennis courts, basketball and volleyball courts, baseball and football grounds, motion picture theatre. (Star -Bulletin 1935) A description of the Hakalau Mill and adjacent lands found in the Honolulu Advertiser from 1941 reads: The mill is at sea level, down at the mouth of Hakalau Gulch, notable because the smokestack rises adjoining the main highway several hundred feet from the fireroom. It is built at an angle following the slope. If you want to go to the mill, they lower you on a flat car down a steep inclined railway, or let you stand on a platform that is dropped over a still steeper incline. I took the mill on faith. The railway right-of-way is the old original wagon road of only 45 degrees.. The big storage flume and its by-pass are built around the toe of the north cliff and the mill at the foot of the south pali. The old Hakalau landing was on the north side of the stream. It was the first "port" north of Hilo, in the Old Days when pulu was a chief item of export, along with cattle hides and tallow. The sailing ships anchored offshore. Hawaiians waded out to the small boats with freight, or passengers pick a -back. They were paid five cents a package, whether it was large Hawaiian lady, a bag of sugar or a spool of thread. They got five cents for landing a mill roller or piece of heavy machinery floated ashore on a scow, or for a bolt of cotton goods, or a new hat. (Smith 1941) 32 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 33. Construction of new smokestack ca. 1925 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 34. Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) carrying the Mamalahoa Highway across the Hakalau Stream with mill smokestack and railroad trestle in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). This bridge replaced the covered bridge in 1930. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 33 2. Background Operations at the plantation slowed down during the early 1940's because of shortages in labor and supplies due to WWII, and in 1943 the Hakalau Sugar Plantation merged with the Wailea Milling Company. However, by 1944, the plantation was on the upswing and had produced an all-time maximum yield of over 26 tons of sugar. By 1945, the tramway (also known as a trolley) was no longer used to bring cane down to the mill and instead a dry chute was installed (Hawaii Tribune Herald 1945) (Figure 35). The chute was made of steel and was used to deliver cane directly to the mill. A crane at the bottom of the chute was used to move to the pile of cane into the mill. Figure 35. Overview of chute leading to mill and the crane below (Forbes and Forbes 2023). The Tsunami of April 1, 1946 On April 1, 1946, a series of waves (tsunami) triggered by an earthquake in the Aleutian Islands slammed into the north facing shores of Hawaii. The tsunami caused upwards of $25 million dollars in damages and the deaths of at least 150 people (Shepard et al. 1950). At Hakalau Gulch: ... the water reached 37 feet above sea level on the south side of the valley mouth, and 23 to 29 feet on the north side... The Hakalau Sugar Company's mill, which stood less than 10 feet above sea level and near the water's edge, was badly wrecked. A large clarifier tank, small steel girders, and sheet -iron roofing from the mill were carried 800 feet inland. Steel girders in the railroad trestle, inland from the mill, were bent by the impact of the debris -laden water. Fourteen noticeably large waves, at intervals of about 10 minutes, were counted at Hakalau Mill, the seventh or eighth wave being the largest. (Shepard et al. 1950:439) The tsunami destroyed the mill's boiling house and laboratory, damaged multiple engines and various other pieces of machinery and equipment infrastructure, and washed away the Hakalau Gulch labor camp (Hilo Tribune -Herald 1946). Historic photographs (Figures 36 through 39) show waves flooding Hakalau Gulch and damaging the mill. Following destruction of the Hakalau Mill sugarcane was routed to the Pepeekeo Mill for processing. Stretches of the railroad used by the mill to transport sugar to the port in Hilo were destroyed by the tsunami as well. Railroad tracks along the Hilo waterfront were entirely washed out and the Hilo Station was destroyed. To the south of Hakalau, the railroad bridge spanning Kolekole Gulch lost its center span from the massive inundation of water (Klein et al. 1985; MKE and Fung 2013). 34 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 36. Hakalau Mill during the April 1, 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). h\. Figure 37. Flume crossing Hakalau Gulch following the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 35 2. Background Figure 38. Hakalau Mill in the wake of the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 39. Workers surveying damage at Hakalau Mill following the 1946 tsunami (Muffler and Museum 2015:57). 36 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 2. Background The destruction from the tsunami was so catastrophic to the railroad that the HRC filed for abandonment soon thereafter, receiving permission to do so in December of 1946: ... the railroad asked shippers to determine whether they would use the line if it were rebuilt or were intending to ship their raw sugar by truck. Only Theo H. Davies Ltd. voted to retain the railroad; the rest voted to use the existing highways, despite their poor condition. Hawaii Consolidated Railroad then offered its entire right-of-way, including all bridges and tunnels, to the Territorial Highway Department and to the Hawaii County supervisors. Both agencies declined the railroad's offer. (MKE Associates LLC and Fung Associates, Inc. 2013:E8) The entire railroad was sold as scrap to Gilmore Steel & Company of San Francisco for $81,000. About the time the scrappers had finished pulling up the rails and begun dismantling the steel bridges, the Territorial Highway Department changed its mind. They decided to improve the Hawaii Belt Road, along the Hamakua Coast by relocating it to the railroad right-of-way and to utilize the railroad trestles as highway bridge supports. They bought the bridges still in place, as well as the parts of bridges already trucked to Hilo, for $303,723.53 — nearly four times the amount Gilmore Steel & Supply Company had paid to Hawaii Consolidated for the entire railroad. These railroad bridge elements were used for the Hawaii Belt Road... (MKE Associates LLC and Fung Associates, Inc. 2013:E8) Rebuilding of the Hakalau Mill Although the tsunami damage to Hakalau Mill was serious, the mill and destroyed flumes were reconstructed and put back into operation less than a year later (Figures 40 through 42); an endeavor that cost more than $600,000 (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1947). An article in the March 7, 1947 edition of The Honolulu -Star Bulletin reported that the Hakalau Mill had resumed operations that week on a test basis and that the total damages to the plantation were in excess of 1 million dollars. The article also mentions that the boiling house and boilers had been completely destroyed and were replaced. Very little information on the configuration of the rebuilt mill was discovered as part of this study, but an annotated version of a 1966 Sanborn map for the Hakalau Mill found online (Figure 43; https://eha- cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/iheer/api/documents/11272/download), shows the layout of the mill and its relationship to the plantation buildings perched above, along the edge of the gulch. This new mill continued to operate in Hakalau Gulch until 1974 (Figure 44). Figure 40. Hakalau Mill under construction following 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 37 2. Background Figure 41. View of Hakalau Mill in 1951 illustrating railroad bridge and flume in foreground and chute in background (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 42. Ca. mid-1950s photograph showing the tramway and repaired flume crossing Hakalau Stream (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 38 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 2. Background . fe.., tilk- ,,4010 Office Sugar Hopper Evaporator/ Crystalizers Boiler/Fuel Room Machine Shop Mill Crusher Crane Smoke Stack Cable c °` al 110 Cliff • • • • • • • Scale House Oil/Gas Storage Area Pesticide Mixing Area Salvage Parts Storage Fertilizer/Oil Strg Warehouse Electric Shop Carpenter Shop Stable General Warehouse r,z5 Figure 43. Hakalau Sugar Mill and Support Facility shown on an annotated version of a 1966 Sanborn map. Figure 44. Hakalau Mill in ca. 1974-1979, after it closed (Forbes and Forbes 2023). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 39 2. Background Construction of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) and Hakalau Stream Bridge Following the destruction caused by the 1946 tsunami, the bridge -laden Hamakua Division of the Hawaii Consolidated Railway was appropriated by the Territorial Government, who converted the railroad bridges to highway bridges; a process that was both economical and made vehicular travel more efficient in this part of the island. The converted railroad bridges became part of the Hawai`i Belt Road (Highway 19). Although many of the bridges were completely rebuilt, the Hakalau Bridge sustained only minor damage from the tsunami and was able to be easily modified into a highway bridge. An evaluation of Hakalau Bridge conducted in 1985 stated that only " .. the lower bracing members and struts at Bents 3 through 11 of the Hakalau Bridge were damaged due to surge forces from the 1946 tsunami" (Klein et al. 1985:10). A Hawai`i Tribune Herald newspaper article from 1950 (Figure 45) indicates that Hakalau was one of five former railroad bridges that were widened and strengthened along this section of highway. Conversion of the rail bridges to vehicular traffic also helped ensure that sugar could be more easily trucked to the port at Hilo than it could along the old Mamalahoa Highway. Prior to this conversion "[alutomobile and truck traffic was limited by the narrow, winding road running through the deep gulches that mark the coast" (Honolulu Star - Bulletin 1953), including through Hakalau Gulch. James W. Glover, Ltd. was hired to do the general contracting for Hakalau Bridge, while K. Morishige was contracted to paint the bridge using "Dutch Boy red lead and Dutch Boy black bridge paint" (The Honolulu Advertiser 1953). In order to "strengthen and widen" the Hakalau Bridge for vehicular use, components from other demolished bridges were added to the structure, mirroring the existing components, thereby creating a wider bridge that was capable of supporting a new concrete deck and sidewalks. Figures45, 47, and 48 shows the addition of materials to the outside of the existing bents. On April 17, 1953, the Hakalau Bridge opened to vehicular travel (Figures 49 to 51) (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1953). USE RAILWAY BRIDGES .A.ni‘)i.g the former railway bridges' which will be utilized, through \Vid- eil�]1 ak!d Strengthening, are the h.a pue. Pahecht..., kia kaiau, Urnaturri and N till lid' bridges. Figure 45. Newspaper clipping stating reuse of Hakalau Bridge (Hawaii Tribune Herald 1950). Hakalau Plantation During the Second Half of the Twentieth Century The second half of the twentieth century was a time of immense changes and challenges for many of the sugar plantations throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Although sugarcane was, for many decades, the primary form of sugar that dominated markets globally, the development of the beet sugar industry, which was much cheaper to produce than sugarcane, meant that sugar plantations in Hawai`i needed to adapt if they wanted to survive. Furthermore, the increasing costs of labor, the need to mechanize cultivation and production, as well as the high manufacturing tax for sugar and pineapple, resulted in many plantations either closing down or consolidating their companies and activities (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1961). It was also during this time that the Hakalau Plantation Company began to sell homes in their plantation camps, ranging from $50-$100 USD, "on a removal basis" to plantation employees (The Voice of Hakalau 1962 IN Forbes and Forbes 2023). In 1962, Hakalau Plantation Company merged with the Pepeekeo Sugar Company and ceased to be a separate corporate entity. This was not the first time that either company merged with another company; in 1944, the Hakalau Plantation Company purchased Wailea Milling Company, while the Pepe`ekeo Sugar Company merged with the Honomu Sugar Company in 1946 (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1962). The merger between the Hakalau and Pepe`ekeo companies included the continual operation of the Hakalau Mill, which was threatened with closure months prior and would have resulted in the lay-off of 75 employees (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1962). 40 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background TO _ 200 -180 _160 -MO -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -0 er.. rar. 772'0 out to out of steel 45,-0" 72'-0" base of rail 40,0 72-0" grade 0/ 40-0" 77.0• f, 72-0" ,,40,0",.< 72-0' 72,-0" 40 5H,.0• z 2 2 i z :g, m ai m base of reel grade level 4 To Honkaa .10101 Pemrani ei, h/gh t i wafer ad MN Rood PB @m0M Removal of railroad tracks and addition of concrete road surface with sidewalks ti hormai wafer ELEVATION scale: r • 40'-0• L J hfgh wader existing Damen,' Lower bracing members damaged during 1946 tsunami Trestles reinforced with additional material to widen the deck 100 80 60 40 20 0 -22 Figure 46. Diagram of Hakalau bridge showing tsunami damaged portions that were repaired and 1950s modifications for vehicular travel. Figure 47. Repurposing of Hakalau Railroad Bridge uring the early 1950s (left), and the same image to the right showing the addition of material (in red) to the existing structure (in blue) to facilitate addition of concrete roadbed (Forbes and Forbes 2023). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 41 2. Background — Existing structure — Added materials Figure 48. Diagram of trestle bent showing exiting and added material. biGGEST 6ikIOGE—Tits.Hakalau Gukh bridge on the new Ha- makua coast highway, is the longest highway bridge in the territory, totaling 772 feet. It eliminatis the king, winding de- scent in Gond out of the gulch followed by Ihr old road, The Figure 49. Hakalau Highway Bridge with cane flume in highway bridge was constructed by strengthening the sup- ports under the old railroad bridge, then placing a new, wider deck. Strudure in background is a cane Fiume.—photo} by R. T. Kanemori, Modern Camera Center, background (Kanemori 1953). 42 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 50. Dedication and opening ceremony of Hakalau Bridge on April 17, 1953 (Hilo Tribune -Herald 1973). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 43 2. Background Hakalau Bridge Rebuilt, Given New Paint Job One of the highest and long- est bridges in the Hawaiian Is- lands is the old Hakalau rail- road bridge, recently rebuilt in, order to fill the transportation needs of the modern and pro- gressive Big Island. TO MEET THE growing de-, wands for more convenient and safer crossing facilities for, tourists and the sugar industry,' the Territory established this reconstruction program which included the rebuilding of a se- ries of eight bridges along the Hamakua coast from Hilo to Honokaa, and a new highway. which is still under construc- tion. The Hakalau bridge is 210 feet high and 1.000 feet long. Gen- eral contractor on the recon- struction job was James W. Glover, Ltd. . i PAINT CONTRACTOR was K. Morishige of Honolulu, who Used Dutch Boy red lead and Dutch Boy black bridge paint on this and all other bridges re- ' constructed along the Hamakua coast. NEW LOOK FOR AAKALAII BRIDGE Figure 51. Substructure of the Hakalau Highway Bridge (The Honolulu Advertiser 1953). The 1970s continued to witness the gradual decline of the sugar industry along the Hamakua and North Hilo coastline. In 1971, Pepe'ekeo Sugar Company, along with other companies in Wainaku and Papa`ikou, were consolidated into a processing cooperative led by C. Brewer Company. "Under C. Brewer's ownership the sugar companies combined with hundreds of independent sugar growers to create the Hilo Coast Processing Company which processed all of the sugar cane for their plantations as well as used a by-product, bagasse, to create 25% of the electric power for the island of Hawaii" (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Simultaneously in 1972, US Congress passed the Clean Water Act, establishing "the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters" (Environmental Protection Agency 2022). This piece of legislation meant that sugar companies would be forced to abate the pollution that sugar operations generated, especially with regards to coastal discharges of sugar processing byproducts. Months prior to the passage of the act, C. Brewer Company announced their committment to spend more than $5.5 million USD "to improve the quality of ocean water adjacent to its five Hamakua Coast mills" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1971a). Additionally, plans were made to close the Hakalau Mill and related facilities, and send crops to the mills atPapa`ikou and Pepe`ekeo for processing, as conveyed in the article excerpt below: Pepeekeo Sugar Co. Site clearance has already begin at Pepeekeo to make way for a giant $6.4 million boiler and turbo power complex that will consume all trash and bagasse produced at the Pepeekeo and Papaikou factories. Power generated by a 20 megawatts turbine generator at the plant, scheduled for completion in September, 1973, will be sold to the Hilo Electric Light Co. By that same date, the Wainaku and Hakalau factories will be closed down, and their crops will be processed at the Pepeekeo and Papaikou mills. To facilitate this increase, Pepeekeo's processing capabilities will be doubled and Papaikou will undergo modifications to meet the State's ocean water quality requirements.(Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1971b) 1n 1973, Pepe`ekeo Sugar Company merged with Mauna Kea Sugar to form the Mauna Kea Sugar Company, becoming the fourth largest sugar company in the state at the time with over 18,000 acres of cane (Campbell and 44 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Ogburn 2004). "Upon the final merger, the plantation offered houselots for Hakalau sugar workers and their families at Kulaimano Subdivision in Pepeekeo. Perhaps 75 per cent of the 300 to 400 who left Hakalau moved to homesites there..." (Rood 1975). A year later, the Hakalau Mill was closed after 92 years of operation. A special ceremony was held in December 1974 to commemorate the closure of the mill. The ceremony was attended by Hawai`i County Mayor Herbert Matayoshi, John Farias Jr. (director, State Department of Agriculture), Robert Hughes (chairman of the board of directors, Hilo Coast Processing Company), William Kenda, (president, Hilo Coast Processing Company), Joseph Garcia Jr. (former state representative), and several retired employees (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1974). The events during the last day of operations at the mill were described as: Ceremonies began at 9:30 a.m. when Corsito Santiago, senior cane truck driver, delivered the last load of cane to the Kamaee Station. As the last piece of cane passed through the mill rolls at 10:30 a.m., Antoku Kobashigawa, a 28 - year Hakalau veteran and acting assistant factory superintendent, tossed his hat into the mill grinder, symbolically ending the grinding season, and Larry Iwani, former factory superintendent and presently superintendent, manufacturing, for HCPC, poured champagne over the rolls. At 11:00 o'clock William Kenda, president of HCPC, closed the valves shutting off the mills roll— officially ending the factory's long career. (C. Brewer and Company Limited 1974) The consolidation of Hakalau Plantation Company with Pepeekeo Sugar Company (followed by the merger of the latter with Mauna Kea Sugar Company), the modernization of other facilities along the Hamakua Coast, and the closure of the Hakalau Mill effectively contributed to the departure of numerous former plantation employees and their families, as well as the dismantling and demolition of many of the buildings and structures associated with the Hakalau Plantation and the communities surrounding it. As stated in the title of an April 1975 newspaper article printed in the Hawaii Tribune -Herald, Hakalau was a "dying town" (Rood 1975). Lands that were previously owned by the sugar companies were subdivided into smaller agricultural lots that were then sold on the open market. In 1978, the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works publicly announced the indefinite closure of a portion of the old Mamalahoa Highway (Government Road) on the Hamakua side of Hakalau Gulch (Figure 52). The purpose of the closure was to "allow for the utilization of portion of the old road as a drainage way" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978). In 1979, a year after that section of the roadway was closed, the Hakalau Mill structure was dismantled, leaving only the foundations and other unwanted industrial debris. The flume structure crossing Hakalau Gulch, also appears to have been removed by that time. In 1989, James W. Glover, Ltd. was awarded a contract totaling $313,986 USD to resurface three bridges along the North Hilo/Hamakua coast, including Hakalau. The work consisted of "removing the existing bridge surface, installing a new asphalt -concrete surface...[and] constructing a level connection to the bridge from the existing roadway," as well as "routine improvements on bridge expansion joints" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1989). In following years, further improvements and renovations were made to the bridge, including the removal of the lead-based paint on the girders and repainting in 2002 (Figure 53). In 2003, following complaints of access issues to the beach within Hakalau Gulch, the County of Hawai`i began considering establishing a Beach Park down at Hakalau Bay (Armstrong 2003). The landowner at that time, Mauna Kea Agribusiness Co. (formerly Mauna Kea Sugar Company), wanted the county to assume ownership of the 5.9 -acre property (old mill site) as well as several roads in Papa`ikou and Pauka'a. An agreement could not be reached at that time however, and sometime between 2003 and 2006 the property was sold to Atlanta-based developer Continental Pacific LLC, who in 2006 gave the parcel to the county for use as a public park (Armstrong 2006). According to the informational sign currently in place at the park, in 2007 a group of concerned Big Island surfers banded together to organize a clean-up of the overgrown mill site. A pavilion was later added to one of the mill foundations in ca. 2011- 2012. in 2017, the park was closed due to foundation issues with the 1930 bridge along the Old Mamalahoa Highway leading to the beach park (Johnson 2017). It was also at this time that lead contamination of the soil under the Highway 19 bridge over Hakalau was identified (Callis 2017). Hakalau Beach Park has officially remained closed to the public since 2017. While vehicular access to the Gulch is restricted, pedestrian access is still frequent. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 45 2. Background PUBLIC NOTICE. CLOSING OF PORTION OF OLD MASA HIGHWAY AT I4AKALAU GULCH The portion of the Old Mamaiahaa High- way beginning et a poi ri approximately Two Hundred and Thirty (23O) lineal feet north ❑i the Hakc+lau Gulch bridge and txaending fiortheatte-rly (flarnokua direction) far One Thomann Three Hundred and Twenty-five (1,325) lineal feet, will be closed indifinit.4y to all traffic 'nonevent effective February 14 1970 to allow utilization of portion of the old road as a drainage way, Appropriate signs will be pelted and rnorari.rtw are advised to observe. Ilea posies! Signe. QPY 1..IM+IIT., CP PICCAACKIAY TO Pell CLCizielD J40. OP tecr efekalr4J hcfr.r r]NLa .r"ARTMENT.OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII EDWARD 4FARADA,Chief Engineer (317 — Hawaii tri buns -Herald: is n uprT 11Ir 24,11, 1970 Figure 52. Public notice of the indefinite closure of a portion of the old Mamalahoa Highway within Hakalau Gulch (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978). 46 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 2. Background glirdioPn ill .7 4111 411 Alb 1*'' , ` nIN 4 Scaffolding and shrouding material on the 755.1aoi•longg Hak. from the massive structure. The slate Department of T ansp,, me old paint and to re-paini the bridge. 1 :fie. are ind: has cvntr'ac'. ' 7-t4 pAolo by Wlfltm fig y ..y ,t.maval of lead -basad paint nid•ba$ cl Certified Coalings to remove Figure 53. Removal of lead-based paint from Hakalau Bridge in 2002 (Bishop 2002). PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Among the earliest archaeological work to be done in East Hawai`i was that of the early twentieth century heiau researchers Thrum and Stokes (Thrum 1908, Stokes and Dye 1991). Neither investigator was able to identify heiau within the APE or the immediately surrounding ahupua `a. In the early 1930s, A.E. Hudson, working under the aegis of the Bishop Museum, also conducted archaeological investigations in East Hawai`i (Hudson 1932). While surveying between Waipi`o and Hilo, Hudson remarked that few archaeological sites were to be found due to the "extensive development of sugar plantations" (Hudson 1932:182). Within the upper part of Hakalau Gulch, Hudson noted the presence of a .25 -mile square area of taro terraces, and in the bottom of the gulch, a former konane board (Hudson 1932:218). Hudson (1932:218) also quoted Kinney (1913:29), saying that the gulch was used as a robber's stronghold in ancient times. More recently, nine studies (Table 3) have included portions of Hakalau and Kama`e`e ahupua `a (Haun and Henry 2014; Hommon et al. 1974; Maly 1994; Rosendahl 2001, 2009; Walker and Rosendahl 1994a, 1994b). The location of these studies is shown in Figure Error! Reference source not found.. And, while not archaeological studies, Don Hibbard completed a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form in 2009 for the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House located at TMK: (3) 2-9-002:039 (Appendix A) and Spencer Leineweber completed a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (Appendix B) in 2009 for the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) (both are discussed in further detail below). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 47 2. Background 0 200 Km 11 1 1 1 Project area Hakalau Historic District SIHP 50-10-16-7392 Rosendahl 2009 aun and Henry 2014 Rosendahl 2001 a Leineweber 2009 Walker and Rosendahl 1994a, 1994b Rosendahl 2001b Forbes and Hibbard 2018 ti Hamtnatt and Uyeoka 2007 GAPE 0 Tax Map Key (TMK) tit 0 100 200 0 Meters Figure 54. Previous studies conducted in the vicinity of the APE. 48 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background In addition to these studies, during the Hawaii Island portion of the Statewide Survey of Historic Places (Hommon et al. 1974) conducted in the early 1970s, a single archaeological site, the Hakalau District (S1HP Site 50- 10-16-07392), was established that included a portion of the APE (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). Although the site record is missing from the DLNR-SHPD files, a brief description of this district was provided by Forbes and Hibbard (2018:60) in a National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Hakalau Jodo Mission. Forbes and Hibbard (2018) state that the Hakalau Historic District (SIHP 50-10-16-7392), recorded in the State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) in 1973, extends south from the old mill site adjacent to Hakalau Bay and includes the site of Hakalau School, adjacent to Wailea. The district is also said to include the Hakalau plantation manager's home (built in 1897, HRHP No. 10-16-9070), two plantation warehouses on Hakalau Point (built in 1920), the Hakalau Jodo Mission (built in 1904;current structure 1936), the Hakalau Theater (now the post office, built 1931), the Hakalau School Gym (built in 1941) and the Hakalau School (built at various dates beginning in 1882). In addition to the archaeological studies described below, the Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory (MKE and Fung 2013) documented the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) as 001290001100003 and the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) as 001000190308410. Table 3. Prior archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity of the APE. Year Author(s) Type of Study Ahupua`a Findings 1973 1994a, b 2001a, b 2007 2009 2009 2014 2018 Walker and Rosendahl Rosendahl Hammatt and Uyeoka Rosendahl Hibbard Haun and Henry Forbes and Hibbard Statewide Inventory AIS Archaeological Monitoring Report AIS & CIA NRHP Form AIS NRHP Form Hakalau Nui Hakalau Nui Hakalau Nui Hakalau lki Hakalau Nui Hakalau Nui Hakalau Nui Hakalau Nui Hakalau Historic District None Historic cemeteries N one Structural remains of Hakalau Plantation; cemetery Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Plantation hospital; former cemetery Hakalau Jodo Mission Walker and Rosendahl (1994a, 1994b) completed a study within TMK: (3) 2-9-002 and 004, Hakalau Nui Ahupua`a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, located mauka of the APE (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). This project involved the survey of some 595 acres between Hawaii Belt Road and the 1,500 foot elevation mark. Low-level aerial (helicopter) survey was conducted on some uncultivated portions of the area. Other uncultivated areas were inspected using "variable -coverage (partial to 100%) variable -intensity ground survey" (Walker and Rosendahl 1994b:2). Walker and Rosendahl reported that their project area had been extensively modified in historic times for sugar cane cultivation and therefore no "significant cultural materials of any kind" were found (Walker and Rosendahl 1994b:2). In 2001 Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. conducted a study of former Historic cemeteries located within TMK: (3) 2-9-002: 083 -Lot 5 (Rosendahl 2001a) and TMK: (3) 2-9-002: 088 -Lot 10 (Rosendahl 2001b), located to the southeast of the APE along the coastal bluffs (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). The purpose of their study (2001 a) was to determine the status of the cemetery and its potential impact upon the sale of the residential property. As a result, they determined that the cemetery (locally referred to as the "Japanese Cemetery") was an informal plantation era cemetery associated with the Hakalau Jodo Mission. It was principally used during the first third of the 20th century and contained possibly as many as 200 individuals. The graves were disinterred in the early 1970s by Homelani Memorial Park, Inc. Most individual internments consisted of deteriorated wooden coffins and skeletal remains. The grave monuments were generally reburied in the excavated pits after the remains were removed. The study on TMK: (3) 2 -9 -02:088 -Lot 10 (Rosendahl 2001b) was conducted in two stages: research and field inspection. The purpose of the field inspection was to confirm the boundaries of the cemetery (the "Catholic Cemetery"). They determined that the cemetery was an informal plantation era cemetery with an overall total area estimated between 1 to 2 acres and held possibly 200 to 250 internments of individuals of several ethnicities (Filipino, Portuguese, Puerto Rican), all of whom were likely plantation employees and/or family members of the Catholic faith. They found that the cemetery was primarily used during the first half of the 20th century, and, while a few of the graves were disinterred in the late 1970s by individual families; most of the graves remain in place. Some of the graves within the cemetery probably date to the end of the 19th century or early 20th century. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawaii 49 2. Background Hammatt and Uyeoka (2007) prepared a monitoring report for Hakalau Elementary School, Hawaii Inter -Island DOE Cesspool Project in TMK: (3) 2-9-002:005, located to the southeast of the APE (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). The purpose of the excavations at the school was to install a new 2,000 gallon septic tank and leach field to improve the schools wastewater system. They conducted two trench excavations, one at the leach field and the other at septic tank. The leach field trench measured approximately 50 feet long by 40 feet wide and extended to a depth of 5 feet. The septic tank trench measured approximately 20 feet long by 11 feet wide and extended to a depth of 10 feet. All excavations were completed without encountering any significant subsurface deposits. They recommended that if any subsurface activities are conducted in the future that an on-site archaeological monitor be present. Rosendahl (2009) prepared an archaeological inventory survey and cultural impact assessment for an 8.7 acre Hakalau coastal property (TMKs: (3) 2-9-002:079 and 81), located to the southeast of the APE on the plateau above Hakalau Gulch (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). The purpose of their work was to determine the general nature, extent, and potential significance of any archaeological -historical remains present, the historic preservation implications of any such remains for the feasibility of proposed residential development, and the general scope of work and level of effort for any subsequent archaeological -historic preservation work that might be needed. During their survey, two archaeological sites were identified: S1HP Site 50-10-16-26591, which consists of two warehouses (Features A and B) and foundation remnants (Features C thru 1) associated with the Hakalau Plantation; and SIHP Site 50-10-16-26592, the site of a former Japanese/Korean cemetery. In 2014, Haun & Associates (Haun and Henry 2014) conducted and archaeological inventory survey of a 2.33 - acre parcel (TMK: [3] 2-9-002:083) in Hakalau Nui Ahupua`a, to the southeast of the APE along the coastal bluffs (see Figure Error! Reference source not found.). A portion of this parcel was also investigated by Rosendahl (2001a). As a result of the study, Haun and Henry (2014) identified the remnants of a plantation hospital (SIHP Site 50-10-16-30085), a concrete culvert that extended over a ditch (SIHP Site 50-10-16-30086) and the former location of the Japanese cemetery (SIHP Site 50-10-16-30087) previously documented during the Rosendahl (2001a) study (but not given an SIHP number) that existed within their project area prior to reinternment. Preservation was the recommended treatment for the cemetery location (Site 30087) and no further work was recommended for Sites 30085 and 30086. 50 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 3. Project Area Expectations 3. PROJECT AREA EXPECTATIONS The culture -historical context presented above for Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e ahupua `a, combined with the previous archaeological research conducted in the vicinity of the APE, provides a basis for predicting the type and location of archaeological resources that may be encountered during fieldwork for the current study. During the Precontact Period, the bottom -lands of gulches, such as Hakalau, where fresh water was easily obtained, were well-suited to both traditional habitation and agriculture. Traditional residency and cultivation may have continued within the APE during the early Historic Period. By the late nineteenth century, however, the lands surrounding the APE, like much of the arable land in the Hilo District, were planted in sugarcane by commercial sugar growers. The Hakalau Sugar Plantation started with 230 acres of planted cane spanning Hakalau and Kama`e`e ahupua `a. The plantation installed a mill at the base of Hakalau Gulch, towards the mouth of the bay, and constructed water flumes to deliver cane from the fields to the mill. A rail tramway was installed along the southern steep slope of Hakalau Gulch to bring processed sugar to the plateau above. Modern/Historic development of the lands in and around the APE began during the 1880s, but rapidly accelerated during the middle Historic Period as the commercial sugar industry expanded, and associated railroad infrastructure was developed to spur that economic growth. By the early twentieth century, a railroad had been built from Hilo to Hakalau and beyond that included a bridge crossing Hakalau Gulch. The railroad not only moved processed sugar to the Hilo port but provided an easier way for people to travel the district. Before this, travel to Hakalau from Hilo was by way of the Government Road. This road wound up and down the steep southern and northern slopes of Hakalau Gulch and crossed the Hakalau Stream via the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County). The Hakalau sugar mill and associated infrastructure, including a laborer's camp further upstream, were destroyed during the 1946 tsunami. Although the railroad bridge across Hakalau Gulch was not destroyed during the tsunami, the neighboring railroad bridge at Kolekole to the south was, along with other sections of the rail in Hilo, causing the entire stretch of railroad to be abandoned. The former Hakalau railroad bridge was repurposed and reopened for vehicular travel along the Hawai`i Belt Road in 1953, replacing the old Mamalahoa Highway as a direct route, and remains in use to this day. The Hakalau Mill was rebuilt within a year following the 1946 tsunami and continued to operate until 1974, when it was closed for good. The mill buildings and machinery were removed from the mill foundations in ca. 1979. Given the history of construction activities associated with the Hakalau Mill and Hakalau Bridge (as well as other related infrastructure) combined with the tsunami damage that occurred within Hakalau Gulch in 1946, the likelihood of encountering Precontact or early Historic Period sites within the APE (surface or subsurface) is extremely unlikely. While no previous archaeological studies have occurred within the gulch, studies conducted on the surrounding plateaus indicate a lack of Precontact Period features. These same studies have documented numerous Historic Period features related to sugar production and the railroad. It is expected that remnants of the Hakalau Mill, including the sea wall, building foundations, flume foundations, the smokestack, and tramway, will be found within the APE, as well as a section of the Old Mamalahoa Highway, Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) and the Highway 19, Hakalau Stream Bridge (State). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 51 4. Fieldwork 4. FIELDWORK Fieldwork for the current study was conducted on February 7 and March 16, 2023 by Lauren Kepa`a, B.A., Amy Ketner, B.A., Manuel Lopez, B.A., and Matthew R. Clark, M.A. (ASM Principal Investigator). Follow up work was conducted on February 28 and 29, 2024, by Amy Ketner, B.A., and Robynn Namnama, B.A., under the direct supervision of Matthew R. Clark, M.A. (ASM Principal Investigator). A total of 64 person hours were expended to complete the fieldwork. FIELD METHODS Fieldwork consisted of a pedestrian survey of the APE that included the gulch bottom on either side of Hakalau Stream (encompassing roughly 12 acres or 80% of the APE) where fieldworkers walked systematic east/west transects spaced at 5 -meter intervals, and the alignments of the Old Mamalahoa Highway and the Highway 19 Hakalau Stream Bridge (encompassing roughly 0.5 acres or 3.5% of the APE). While vegetation cover was quite thick in some areas on the gulch floor, ground visibility was adequate throughout the entire survey area to identify any historic properties that may have been present. The remaining portions of the APE, including the north and south edges of the Hakalau Gulch (encompassing the remaining 2.5 acres or 16.5% of the APE), which are in some areas nearly vertical, were not walked due to the to the steep, dangerous nature of the terrain. Instead, a DJI Mavic 2 Pro Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operated by a licensed pilot was used to inspect the steep sides of the gulch, as well as to take photographs of the APE and the identified sites. This survey strategy was verbally agreed to with the SHPD prior to conducting the fieldwork. During the survey, Handheld tablet computers (Apple iPad minis -5th generation) running ESRI's Field Maps Application (Field Maps App) connected to EOS Arrow 100 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers with sub -meter accuracy (set to the NAD 83 Zone 5 North) were loaded with APE shape files prior to the commencement of fieldwork and were used to guide and plan the field survey. All archaeological features encountered during the survey were mapped, documented, and photographed using the handheld tablet computers and standardized field forms in the field Maps App. Additional photographs of the features were taken using the DJI Mavic 2 Pro UAV. No subsurface testing was conducted as part of the AIS fieldwork due to the types of historic properties that were encountered within the APE (all of which were Historic Period constructions with known functions and ages) and the presence of lead contaminated soil covering much of the gulch bottom. All of the features identified within the APE belong to previously identified sites, and in all but one case the previously delineated site boundaries were used to determine the site boundaries presented in this report. The exception was a previously identified site complex comprised of Historic Period structures that was first identified on a parcel neighboring the current APE; in that case the existing site boundary was expanded to include the additional features of the site identified during the current fieldwork. Generally, the site boundaries for stand-alone Historic Period structures were determined by horizontal and vertical extents of their components. For instance, the boundary of a bridge site is the bridge itself and the boundary of a road site is the road alignment and all its associated, constructed features. For complexes containing more than one historic structure, the boundaries of the site were determined by the areal extent of all of the structures (features) combined. In that case, the site itself does not necessarily encompass all of the space between the structures, but only includes the space that was utilized contemporaneously and in conjunction with the features themselves. FINDINGS As a result of the fieldwork, five previously documented Historic Period sites were identified and recorded within the APE (Figure 55; Table Error! Reference source not found.). These sites include the former Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 50-10-16-09070), Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) along Highway 19 (Site 50-10-16-09090), the remains of the old Hakalau Mill and Plantation infrastructure (Site 50-10-16-26591), a section of the Old Mamalahoa Highway alignment (Site 50-10-16-30187), and the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) along the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 50-10-16-XXXX; T-1), which is documented in the Haivai `i State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation as Bridge Number 001290001100003 (MKE and Fung 2013:6-222 to 224), but does not appear to have yet been assigned a Statewide Inventory of Historic Places number. The five sites documented within the APE are discussed in detail below. 52 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Table 4. Archaeological sites located within the APE. Site # Site Name Formal # of Period of Use Prior Study/Notes (50-10-16-) Site Type Feats. 09070 Hakalau Plantation Residence 1 1897 to pres. Hibbard (2009) Manager's House Only partially within APE. 09090 Hakalau Stream Bridge 1 1911 to pres. Leineweber (2009) Bridge (State) 26591 Hakalau Mill and Complex 15 1880 to 1974 Rosendahl (2009) Plantation Only 6 feats. within APE 30187 Old Mamalahoa Road 1 1930 to 2017 Belluomini and Hammatt Highway (2017); Clark et al. (2014); LaChance et al. (2017); Yucha and Hammatt (2017) XXXXX Hakalau Stream Bridge 1 1930 to pres. MKE and Fung (2013) (T-1) Bridge (County) Bridge Number 001290001100003 Site 50-10-16-09070 Site 9070 is the SIHP designation for the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Hibbard 2009) located at 29-2301 Old Mamalahoa Highway, Hakalau, Hawai`i 96710 on TMK: [3] 2-9-002:039 (see Figure 55). This previously documented architectural property was not visited during the current fieldwork, only viewed from the street, but because the TMK parcel is included in the current APE, the description of the Historic residence from Hibbard (2009) is summarized below (see Appendix A for a full description). Site 9070 encompasses the entire 3.15 -acres of the TMK parcel. The house was constructed ca. 1897 by a carpenter named Jack Gertzy, and is associated with John Munro Ross who served as the Hakalau Plantation manager from 1905 to 1946. The house is an asymmetrical, two-story, wood frame dwelling (Figures 56 and 57) situated on 3.15 -acres perched on the tablelands above the steep southern wall of Hakalau Gulch. Other buildings on the TMK parcel include a fernery, a tool shed, two garages, and a cottage. Only the western portion of the TMK parcel, nearest to one of the garages, is located within the current APE (see Figure 55). The Hakalau Manager's House is outside of the APE. The property is privately owned and was not accessible during the current fieldwork, therefore its condition and integrity could not be assessed. The house and related structures were nominated for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 2009 (Figure 58; Appendix A), and is currently listed in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places (HRHP). According to Hibbard (2009): The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is architecturally significant at the state level as a good example of a late nineteenth century plantation manager's house in Hawaii. It is typical of its period in its design, craftsmanship, use of materials, and methods of construction (Criteria C). In addition, it is significant for its associations with the history of Hakalau Sugar Plantation (Criteria A), and also for its associations with John Munro Ross, who managed Hakalau Plantation from 1905-1946 (Criteria B). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawaii 53 4. Fieldwork Figure 55. Site location map. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Ha 4. Fieldwork Figure 56. Photograph of the Hakalau Manager's House, ca. 1920s/1930s (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Figure 57. 2024 photograph of the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House, view to the southwest. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 55 4. Fieldwork HISTORIC RESIDENCE 91)66.90 1897 JACK GERTLY Eon \iANAUFR-S KFSJULNC L HAI6.AL.AII SLGAR PLANTATION The Ilnkal06 Plantedon Moo r! r Heea.lencr sna-ed re dro te;ldrnlial and managcr91 Ind of the Ilnkalau Montano*. a 9,000 nem sugar pl mad, eiritrblirhed 9* Clens Spreckels in 1876. 190460104 op 0 '_6,000 mon of 0060 wirmil(6 (1944), the Hakolnu manager, Meidcnne war Die Some of John M6oto How 11.50.14 1946), a prominent tinom in 00o41)'1 suet indurle., snit r 9ogni,64 000f H0wsil'a fOtomool ;�auharalirtr and iimn1ar 1.01.91, 10ndng 06 the .irt:nt of Hato -Ai and 4919 Co., the 01110 Electric 1_ipht Cnn(pat )1. gnd the 1810 Chen Company. Iiltuall gryiiim 09 Plilorie 0Iwcce 44n.10.)6.9910 Figure 58. Plaque outside the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House. Site 50-10-16-09090 Site 9090, as previously documented by Leineweber (2009), encompasses six steel trestle bridges that cross gulches located along Highway 19 and the North/South Hilo coast. These bridges include Hakalau, Kapue, Kolekole, Nanue, Pahe`ehe`e, and Umauma. The Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) is within the current APE and within the Hakalau Historic District (see Figures Error! Reference source not found. and 55). The bridge, also known as the Hakalau Highway Bridge, was originally designed by John Mason Young and constructed in 1911 by the Hilo Railroad Company to carry the railroad across the gulch (see Figures 24 through 26), it converted for use as a highway bridge in ca. 1953 (see Figures 45 through 50), and continues to be used for that purpose today. While photographs of the bridge were taken during the current study (Figures 60 through 64), no additional architectural documentation of the structure was undertaken, and the description below is summarized from the historic background research presented in this report and the NRHP Nomination Form previously prepared for the bridge by Leineweber (2009) (see Appendix B). The site (bridge) measures 775 feet long and 261 feet high and is constructed of steel trestle supports with masonry (basalt lava rock) abutments. The steel trestles sit on concrete pier blocks, some of which are within Hakalau Stream. Following the tsunami in 1946, many of the stream bridges along the Hamakua coast were damaged, as well as the railroad within Hilo Town. It was not feasible for the rail company to fix all of the damaged rail and bridges, so they were abandoned and repurposed. The Hakalau Stream Bridge was one of five bridges along the coast that sustained minor damage and was able to be repurposed. According to an evaluation of Hakalau Bridge conducted in 1985, only the lower bracing members and struts at Bents 3 through 11 were damaged by the tsunami (Klein et al. 1985:10). Following the 1946 tsunami, the Hakalau Stream Bridge was appropriated by the Territorial Government, who then began the process of rerouting the main highway (Hawaii Belt Road; Highway 19) and converting the railroad bridges along the Hilo coast into bridges that could accommodate vehicular traffic. The Hakalau Stream Bridge was redesigned by William R. Bartels and was widened to a width of 28 feet. It was fitted with a concrete deck, sidewalks, and guardrail, along with additional steel girders and concrete abutments. The conversion utilized steel girders from the Kealakaha, Laupahoehoe, and Kaula trestles and the additional steel bents were taken from the Maulua Bridge (MKE and Fung 2013). The highway bridge, which opened in 1953, has remained much the same since, although the lead paint that was once applied to the trestles and girders was removed in 2000-2002 and the bridge was repainted at 56 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork that time. A National Register of Historic Places Registration (NRHP) Form (see Appendix B) was filed for the Bridge by Leineweber (2009), and although the bridge was not added to the NRHP, it was added to the Hawai`i Register of Historic Places on August 15, 2009. The bridge was later recorded as part of the 2013 Hawai`i State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation (MKE and Fung 2013). Recently, HDOT has identified the need to repair the bridge foundations due to scouring by the stream, and replace or rehabilitate columns and trusses in order to keep it safe, and in good working order. HDOT does not agree with the previously accepted significance assessment presented for Hakalau Bridge, and would like an updated assessment prepared by an SOI qualified architectural historian. Site 50-10-16-26591 Site 26591 is the SIHP designation previously assigned to nine features of the Hakalau Sugar Mill and Plantation by Rosendahl (2009). Those features (Features A -I; Table Error! Reference source not found.), which included 2 warehouses and several concrete foundations related to the former sugar plantation, are located to the east of the APE on the tablelands directly above the old Hakalau Mill, along the southern edge of Hakalau Gulch. As a result of the current study, six additional features related to the former Hakalau Sugar Plantation (Features J -O) were documented and added to Site 26591 (see Table Error! Reference source not found.). The portion of Site 26591 within the APE measures 562 meters east/east by 75 meters north/south. All of the features of Site 26591 are shown in Figure 65, while the features located within the APE are depicted in Figure 66. Descriptions of Features A through I can be found in the Rosendahl (2009) report. Features J through 0 of the site include the remnants of the former tramway and stairs (Feature J), the supports for the flume that once crossed Hakalau Stream (Feature K), the foundation of the former Hakalau Mill (Feature L), the access road to the mill site (Feature M), the base of the old smokestack (Feature N), and an old pipe stanchion (Feature 0), and are described in further detail below. Several additional features of the Hakalau Mill and Sugar Plantation Company that used to be present within Hakalau Gulch during the twentieth century (both within and nearby the current APE) are no longer present, including an old schoolhouse, a laborer's camp, an office building, and the superstructure of the Mill itself, which was removed from the existing foundations in ca. 1979. For additional information on the Hakalau Mill and its history, the reader is referred to the Culture -Historical Background section of this report. Historic industrial debris and Modern trash is present on the surface of the site. No subsurface testing was conducted at the site due to the presence of lead contaminated soils. Table 5. Features of Site 26591. Feature # Type Feature # Type Feature documented by Rosendahl (2009) A B C D E F G H Warehouse (general use) Fertilizer/oil storage warehouse Molasses tank foundation Concrete foundation (unknown use) Lumber yard/storage foundation Repair shop foundation Shed foundation (shed) Cement trough (unknown use) Concrete slab (unknown use) Feature documented within the APE J K L M N 0 Tramway/stone staircase Flume supports Hakalau Mill foundation Mill access road Smokestack base Pipe stanchion All of the features of Site 26591 located within the APE are currently in poor condition, but retain sufficient integrity to be assessed for their significance. Rosendahl (2009) previously assessed the portions of the site located on the bluff above the gulch as significant under Criterion a for its association with the Hakalau Sugar Plantation and its association with the history of sugar cultivation in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as under Criterion d for its information potential. Two of the warehouses (Features A and B) documented by Rosendahl (2009), which are still standing, were additionally assessed as significant under Criterion c for their architectural value. The features of Site 26591 contained within the current project area are all partial foundational elements associated with former industrial structures and access roads that are in poor condition and possess only limited architectural integrity and are not considered significant under Criterion c. They do however retain sufficient integrity to be considered significant under Criteria a and d for the reasons discussed by Rosendahl (2009) above. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawaii 57 4. Fieldwork Figure 59. Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site 50-10-16-09090) crossing Hakalau Gulch, view to the south. Figure 60. Hakalau Stream Bridge, showing driving deck, oblique aerial view to the southwest. 58 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 61. Hakalau Stream Bridge supports, view to the north. Figure 62. Hakalau Stream Bridge columns and trusses, view to the north. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 59 4. Fieldwork Figure 63. Underneath of Hakalau Stream Bridge deck, view to the southeast. Figure 64. Hakalau Stream Bridge, view to the southeast. 60 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 65. Plan view of Site 26591. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 61 4. Fieldwork Figure 66. Plan view of the features of Site 26591 documented within the APE. 62 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Feature J Feature J consists of a stone staircase built into the southeastern side of Hakalau Gulch (see Figure 66). The staircase (Figure 67) is associated with a tramway cable car that once paralleled the stairs to the north. The staircase can be seen in photographs taken in the late 1940's alongside the tramway (see Figures 29 and 30). Tramway tracks are shown on a Hakalau Plantation field map from 1900 (see Figure 21) and it appears that that both the tramway and stairs likely date to the 1880s when the mill was first constructed. Mill workers traversing the steep sided gulch utilized both the tramway and stairs to get to the Hakalau Mill at the base of the gulch. The tramway was in use until the mill closed in 1974 (Figure 68). Only a small section of the tramway's rail tracks were observed at the base of the gulch wall during the current study, however, and it appears that the tramway may have been dismantled following closure of the mill in 1974. The remaining tracks were used to form the treads at the base of the stairs (Figure 69). The stairs still extend from the top of the gulch to the base and are constructed of cut basalt slabs set into the slope of the gulch wall. Vegetation has encroached on the stairs making the pathway narrow and some of the slabs have lifted or are broken, but overall, the staircase is in good condition and is still used by pedestrian visitors to the County's Hakalau Beach Park. The portion of Feature J present within the APE measures roughly 100 meters long by 3 meters wide. Figure 67. Site 26591 Feature J, stone slab staircase, view to the east. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 63 4. Fieldwork Figure 68. Hakalau Mill Tramway in use in 1972 (Forbes and Forbes 2023). Note stairs to the left. Figure 69. Tram rail track remnants currently used as the base of the staircase, view to the east. 64 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 4. Fieldwork Feature K Feature K consists of seven concrete pier blocks and one elevated concrete pier that were all used as foundational supports for the flume trestles that formerly crossed Hakalau Stream (Figure 70). They are located on the makai (eastern) side of the Hakalau Stream Bridge (Figure 66), with three blocks on the north side of Hakalau Stream (Figure 71), four blocks on the south side of the stream (Figure 72), and the elevated concrete pier within the stream between the two groupings (Figure 73). Depending on the stream and ocean fluctuations, all of the flume blocks may at any time be within the stream. The elevated concrete pier sits on four metal legs and has rusted metal protruding from the surface. Along with the three concrete pier blocks on the north side of the stream are two large metal drums, one in the stream and one on the stream bank (Figure 74). They appear to be concrete, and cobble filled. The flume was constructed in the late nineteenth to early twentieth century to carry raw sugarcane from the fields to the Hakalau Mill for processing. Following the tsunami in 1946, the trestles were damaged and rebuilt (see Figures 19 and 42). In 1976, after the closure of the mill, the flumes and support trestles were removed (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1976), but the concrete pier blocks were left in place. The eight elements comprising Feature K are in relatively good condition with only minor cracking. Figure 70. Site 26591 Feature K, former flume supports crossing Hakalau Stream, view to the west. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawaii 65 4. Fieldwork Figure 71. Site 26591 Feature K concrete flume blocks on north side of Hakalau Stream, view to the east. Figure 72. Site 26591 Feature K, concrete flume supports on the south side of Hakalau Stream, view to the north. 66 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 4. Fieldwork Figure 73. Site 26591 Feature K, elevated concrete pier in Hakalau Stream, view to the northeast. Figure 74. Site 26591 Feature K, metal drum with rocks, view to the southeast. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 67 4. Fieldwork Feature L Feature L consists of foundational remnants of the Hakalau Mill located at the mouth of the Hakalau Stream, along the southeastern edge of Hakalau Gulch (see Figures 65 and 66). The foundations (Figure 75) are those of the mill constructed after the 1946 tsunami, which closed in 1974 and was demolished and removed in 1979. According to the 1966 Sanborn map (see Figure 43), the mill that operated at this location between 1947 and 1974 contained a sugar hopper, an evaporator and crystallizer room, a boiler/fuel room, a machine shop, and a crane that loaded raw sugarcane into a mill crusher room. Feature L measures approximately 150 meters long by 75 meters wide. The area in which the former mill was located looks very different today than it did when the mill was still present (Figures 76 and 77). Currently all that remains of the mill are the concrete foundation fronting the sea wall (Figure 78) and that of the former machine shop (Figure 79), the sea wall (Figure 80), a concrete pillar (Figure 81), the northern foundation wall of the evaporator and crystallizer room (Figure 82), portions of the mill crusher wall (Figures 83 and 84), concrete fragments, and heaps of rusted metal including remnants of the former crane that was used to move sugarcane from the steel chute into the mill for processing (Figure 85). There is an opening on the north side of the former machine shop foundation that allows entrance underneath that foundation (Figure 86). All of the remaining elements of the Hakalau Mill are in poor condition. The concrete foundation fronting the sea wall is broken in many places allowing the ocean waves to crash through (Figure 87). The County of Hawai`i acquired the mill site in 2006 and established the Hakalau Beach Park, which officially opened in 2009. Hakalau Beach Park elements currently present at the former mill site include an informational sign at the base of the Feature J stairs, a pavilion and large steel shipping container (located on the former machine shop foundation), picnic tables, and concrete barricades delineating driving and parking areas (Figure 88). Figure 75. Site 26591 Feature L, the former location of the Hakalau Mill, aerial view to the northeast. 68 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 76. Overview of mill site, ea. 1940's and present, view to the south. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 69 4. Fieldwork Figure 77. Location of sugar hopper, ca. 1940's and present, view to the northeast. 70 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 78. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation and sea wall, view to the northwest. Figure 79. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation of former machine shop, view to the south. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 71 4. Fieldwork Figure 80. Site 26591 Feature L, sea wall, view to the northeast. Figure 81. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete pillar, oblique aerial view to the southeast. 72 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 4. Fieldwork Figure 82. Site 26591 Feature L, concrete foundation wall of former evaporator/crystalizer room, view to the southwest. Figure 83. Site 26591 Feature L, portion of former mill crusher wall, view to the northeast. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama' e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` 73 4. Fieldwork Figure 84. Area of mill crusher, ca. 1940's and present, view to the southeast. 74 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 85. Site 26591 Feature L, remnants of the former crane, view to the west. Figure 86. Site 26591 Feature L, underneath the former machine shop foundation, view to the east. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 75 4. Fieldwork Figure 87. Site 26591 Feature L, sea wall and broken concrete foundation, view to the southeast. Figure 88. Site 26591 Feature L, park pavilion and shipping container currently on the foundation of the former Hakalau Mill, view to the southwest. 76 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 4. Fieldwork Feature M Feature M consists of the mill access road that extends east from the old Mamalahoa Highway at the northern base of the Hakalau Gulch (see Figure 55) and immediately forks (Figure 89), with one spur continuing east (for roughly 425 meters) along the base of the northern gulch slope and one spur turning southeast and crossing the Hakalau Stream in two places before continuing under the Hakalau Stream bridge (for roughly 575 meters) and ending at the former mill site at the mouth of Hakalau Stream. The road is unimproved except where it crosses the stream. The road spur that crosses the stream does so on a raised concrete ford (Figures 90 and 91). Feature M appears in early historic photographs and maps as only extending into the gulch laborer's camp (see Figures 20 and 92). The road spur that crosses the stream was likely added sometime between 1930 and 1954 as it shows up on an aerial photograph from 1954 (Figure 93). It's possible that the road over the stream was added following the 1946 tsunami when access to the mill to rebuild it necessitated a stream crossing that could be made safely by vehicles. Figure 89. Oblique aerial view to the northeast of Hakalau Gulch showing the route of the mill access road as a dotted red line. Feature N Feature N is the smokestack that was associated with the Hakalau Mill (see Figure 27). The smokestack remnants are located above the former mill site along the old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187), perched on the steep side of the gulch wall (see Figure 66). In 1909, the smokestack was described as "a brick flue surmounted by a smokestack 120 feet high and having an elevation 235 feet above the mill site" (Evening Bulletin 1909:31). The smokestack was rebuilt in 1925 (see Figure 33), but presumably the flue stayed original. All that currently remains of the smokestack is the brick flue (Figure 94). The flue measures 9 feet (3 meters) square and 9 feet (3 meters) tall. It is constructed of red fire brick and mortar supported by iron girders. Some of the plaster that once covered the surface is still visible (Figure 95). Vines and roots cover the flue, and the slope has deteriorated and eroded around the structure. Overall, Feature N is in poor condition. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 77 4. Fieldwork Figure 90. Aerial view of raised concrete roadbed and culverts crossing Hakalau Stream. Figure 91. Raised concrete ford crossing Hakalau Stream, view to the northwest. 78 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii 4. Fieldwork Figure 92. Portion of 1916 USGS Honomu Quadrangle map showing the APE and the road leading to the gulch laborer's camp along the Hakalau Stream. Figure 93. 1954 aerial photograph showing the mill access road crossing the stream (note the runoff from the mill clouding Hakalau Bay). AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 79 4. Fieldwork Figure 94. Site 26591 Feature N, smokestack in 1946 and present, view to the northwest. 80 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 95. Site 26591 Feature N, smokestack flue, view to the northeast. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 81 4. Fieldwork Feature 0 Feature 0 consists of a pipe stanchion located above the former mill site along the old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187), approximately 75 feet (25 meters) southwest of the Feature N smokestack (see Figure 66). It measures 9 feet (3 meters) tall and is roughly rectangular in shape with a wider base and a narrower top. The top is molded into a halfpipe shape. It's constructed of cut basalt cobbles and mortar (Figure 97). Figure 33, a photograph showing the reconstruction of the smokestack in ca. 1925, shows a pipe extending across the old Mamalahoa Highway in roughly the same location as Feature O. It's unclear what the specific purpose of the pipe held by the stanchion was, but the Feature 0 stanchion is in good condition. Figure 96. Site 26591 Feature 0, view to the north. 82 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 97. Site 26591 Feature 0, view to the west. Site 50-10-16-30187 Site 30187 is the SIHP designation for the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Belluomini and Hammatt 2017; Clark et al. 2014; LaChance et al. 2017; Yucha and Hammatt 2017). A roughly 1 ,835 -foot (559 -meter) long section of Site 30187 is present within the current APE (see Figures 65 and 66), traversing the southern slope of that Hakalau Gulch in an east/west direction before crossing Hakalau Stream and terminating at the access road that leads to the old Hakalau Mill site (Figure 98). The road, which ranges from 15 to 20 feet (5 to 6.6 meters) wide, was closed to the public in 2017 and is currently gated at the top of the gulch to control vehicular access. Originally opened in ca. 1930 when the current bridge across Hakalau Stream was built to replace the older covered bridge that was once present there (see Figures 20 and 34), the wider and paved Mamalahoa Highway through Hakalau Gulch replaced an older, narrow, dirt road (the old Government Road) that followed essentially the same route (Figure 99). In 1931 a "solid stone wall" on the outside edge of the road on the Hilo side of the gulch was built to "facilitate traffic and make the side permanent" (The Honolulu Advertiser 1931). This retaining wall, built of basalt cobbles and concrete, can be seen in Figure 100. After the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 19) opened in 1953, the alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway ceased to be the primary route through Hakalau Gulch. The section of the road that traversed the northern side of the gulch closed in 1978 (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978) and was converted to a drainage way (see Figure 52). Currently the alignment of the Old Mamalahoa terminates at the access road to leading to the old Hakalau Mill site. No Historic cultural material was observed on the surface of the road. The portion of the road that closed in 1978 (traversing the northern slope of Hakalau Gulch) is covered by soil and dense vegetation and is only accessible from the top edge of the gulch. The intact portion of the road within the current APE (traversing the southern slope of Hakalau Gulch) is paved, but is poorly maintained at the moment, and has rocks and vegetation strewn across its surface. In addition to the aforementioned retaining wall, this section of the roadway is also lined along its down slope edge by sections of a waterworn cobble and mortar guard rail and modern metal guard rails (Figure 101). Three concrete posts that may have once held a metal guide wire are also present (Figure 102). The upslope edge of the wall consists of a vertical cut in the gulch face. Despite the neglect of routine road maintenance in recent years due to its closure in 2017, the section of the Old Mamalahoa Highway crossing the APE is in good condition. With respect to its HRS Chapter 6E significance, this site has previously been determined AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 83 4. Fieldwork significant under Criterion a for its association with a establishing regional transportation network in the islands and under Criterion d for the information it yielded (Belluomini and Hammatt 2017; Clark et al. 2014; LaChance et al. 2017; Yucha and Hammatt 2017). Figure 98. Site 30187, portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway in southern portion of the APE, oblique aerial view to the southeast. 84 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 99. Alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187) through APE, ca. 1911 and present, view to the east. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 85 4. Fieldwork Figure 100. Site 30187 retaining wall added in 1931 along a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway within the APE, view to the south. Figure 101. Waterworn cobble and mortar guardrail along northern edge of the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 30187). 86 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork ='Lr •� e I 0,17 rti • Figure 102. Concrete posts along the northern edge of the Old Mamalahoa Highway, view to the east. Site 50-10-16-XXXXX (Temporary Site 1) For the purposes of the current study, the temporary site designation T-1 was assigned to the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County), which was constructed in 1930 and is located in the mauka portion of the APE where the alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway crosses Hakalau Stream (see Figure 55). This bridge (Figure 48) is described in the Hawai State Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation as Bridge Number 001290001100003 (Appendix C), a "concrete closed spandrel arch" measuring 67 feet long by 22.4 feet wide (MKE and Fung 2013:6-2223), and is described as a contributing element to the "proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District" (ibid.:2-19). The Hakalau Stream Bridge was assessed in the bridge inventory as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C as part of the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District. The following discussion of that proposed district, which was never formalized, is presented below: The bridges in the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District are significant for their contributions to engineering and transportation in Hawaii. The development of the Old Mamalahoa Highway contributed to the economic development of the island by linking the small towns and sugar plantations along the Hamakua coast with the island's principal port in Hilo. The bridges in the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District are eligible under Criterion A as prominent products of the Republic of Hawaii and representative of Territorial and County public works efforts. The construction of the bridges was a deliberate investment in permanent public works improvements requiring the mobilization of skilled labor and significant public funds. Thus, these bridges were often constructed at important crossings along major transportation routes. The bridges served as important links in the circum -island transportation system, aiding in the commercial and residential development of Hilo and the Hamakua Coast. Reinforced concrete arch bridges were constructed to replace earlier timber and metal bridges. Many of these bridges were visually prominent, both in style and location, and made significant civic statements regarding the technical and aesthetic sophistication of the communities in which they were built. Concrete deck bridges are eligible under Criterion A for their associations with of the first use of formal engineering expertise in bridge making by the new county governments shortly after the annexation of Hawaii AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 87 4. Fieldwork by the United States. These road bridges played a major role in the development of County of Hawaii's belt road plan by connecting previously isolated communities with a paved highway. The bridges are eligible under Criterion C since they represent a visual timeline of bridge construction technology in Hawaii. Nearly every historic bridge type remaining in the islands is represented along the Old Mamalahoa Highway. The masonry arch bridges are notable examples of the use of vernacular building materials and local craftsmen. Masonry and concrete arch bridges often evidence a high degree of detailing and workmanship and the few remaining examples are rare survivors of these once common bridge types. Furthermore, the reinforced concrete arch bridges constructed along the Mamalahoa Highway are among the earliest examples of reinforced concrete bridge construction in the state. Concrete deck bridges, including flat slab, girder and tee beam spans, are representative of the most common historic bridge type found in the islands. The majority of county built bridges, such as the Maili and Kaiwiki Bridges, were of this type as were the subsidiary spans on Mamalahoa-Honolii Bridge. Moreover, many of the bridges are examples of exceptional work by important local builders (the "work of a master") such as Louis M. Whitehouse, Johnny Wilson, Peter and Charles Arioli, and Hisato Isemoto. Prominent designers include William H. Chun and En Leong Wung. The fifty-seven bridges and culverts that make-up the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District are evaluated as a group. Together these bridges form an area encompassing the entire sixty miles of the Mamalahoa Highway. Individually, the bridges in this proposed district range from technologically simple timber and masonry arch bridges to the more complex concrete deck girder and flat slab bridges. Together these bridges form a cohesive group built in a relatively short time period that document the evolution of style, methods and bridge building technology in Hawaii. This group of bridges played a critical role in the development of belt road transportation for the island of Hawaii. Based on observations made during the current study, the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) is in good condition and retains integrity. With respect to HRS Chapter 6E significance, the bridge is considered significant under Criteria a and c for the same reasons listed above. 88 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork Figure 103. Hakalau Stream Bridge (County), view to the northeast. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As a result of the current fieldwork, five previously documented Historic Period sites were identified within and nearby the APE (see Figure 55 and Table 4Error! Reference source not found.). The identified sites include the former Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 50-10-16-09070), the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) along Highway 19 (Site 50-10-16-09090), the remains of the old Hakalau Mill and associated plantation infrastructure (Site 50-10-16- 26591), a section of the Old Mamalahoa Highway alignment (Site 50-10-16-30187), and the Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) along the Old Mamalahoa Highway (Site 50-10-16-XXXX; T-1). These sites represent Historic Period use of the APE and vicinity between ca. 1880, when the first iteration of the Hakalau Mill was built, and 1974, the current 50 -year cut-off for the end of the Historic Period, which also corresponds to the year that the Hakalau Plantation ceased operations and Hakalau Mill closed its doors for good. No surface evidence of Precontact Period use of the bottom -lands of Hakalau Gulch was identified as a result of the current study, which has been nearly entirely altered by Historic Period land use. While the gulch, with its ample fresh water and easy ocean access, would have been well-suited for traditional habitation and associated agriculture, the history of construction activities associated with the development of Hakalau Mill and Hakalau Bridge (as well as other related infrastructure) combined with the tsunami damage that occurred within Hakalau Gulch in 1946, makes the likelihood of encountering Precontact or early Historic Period sites within the APE (surface or subsurface) extremely unlikely. It should be noted, however, that no subsurface testing was conducted during the current project to confirm the lack of Precontact Period sites or cultural deposits within the APE due to the presence of lead contaminated soils in the areas best suited for traditional use of the gulch. The culture -historical background presented above, documents the history of plantation development within Hakalau Gulch during the late 19th and 20th centuries. That history was confirmed by the findings of the current AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 89 4. Fieldwork fieldwork. By 1880, the Hakalau Mill and Sugar Plantation Company had installed a mill at the base of Hakalau Gulch, towards the mouth of the bay, and constructed water flumes to deliver cane from the fields to the mill. A rail tramway was installed along the southern steep slope of Hakalau Gulch to bring processed sugar to the plateau above, where support infrastructure for the mill, including several warehouses and the plantation manager's house were located. The remains of all of these features are still present within and nearby the APE (Figure 104). Plantation associated railroad infrastructure, including Hakalau Stream Bridge (State), was built across the gulch at the turn of the 20th century. The railroad not only moved processed sugar to the Hilo port but also provided an easier way for people to travel the district. Before this, travel to Hakalau from Hilo was by way of the Government Road, which wound up and down the steep southern and northern slopes of Hakalau Gulch and crossed the Hakalau Stream via a covered bridge. The current alignment of the Old Mamalahoa Highway was developed during the 1930s, which is also when the existing Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) was constructed to replace the covered bridge. The Hakalau sugar mill and associated infrastructure, including a laborer's camp further upstream, were largely destroyed by the 1946 tsunami, and the railroad bridge across Hakalau Gulch was also slightly damaged. The Hakalau Mill was rebuilt within a year following the 1946 tsunami and continued to operate until 1974, when it was closed for good. The mill buildings and machinery were removed from the mill foundations in ca. 1979. The railroad bridges crossing neighboring gulches were so badly damaged by the 1946 tsunami, however, that the entire stretch of railroad was abandoned, and in 1953 the alignment, including Hakalau Stream Bridge (State), was repurposed and reopened for vehicular travel (along the Hawai`i Belt Road; Route 19). While evidence of this Historic Period use of Hakalau Gulch is widespread within the APE, several additional features of the Hakalau Mill and Sugar Plantation Company that used to be present within Hakalau Gulch during the late 19th and 20th centuries (both within and nearby the current APE) are no longer present, including an old schoolhouse, a laborer's camp, an office building, and the superstructure of the mill itself, which was removed from the existing foundations in ca. 1979 (see Figure 104). The findings of the current study, given the history of land disturbance and plantation use within Hakalau Gulch, have largely confirmed the expected Historic Period settlement patterns for the area. The findings do not provide any additional information regarding the expected Precontact Period settlement of this general region of the Hilo District, however, and for the reasons discussed above, the APE (at the mouth of Hakalau Gulch) is considered a poor candidate for revealing any additional information regarding the traditional settlement and use of the area. 90 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Fieldwork figure . Ma of t PE s sowing t tormer extent of P antation-era features wit tin an near Ha (a au u c i AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 91 5. HRS Chapter 6E significance and NRHP eligibility 5. HRS CHAPTER 6E SIGNIFICANCE AND NRHP ELIGIBILITY To determine the effects that the proposed undertaking will have on historic properties, the sites recorded within the APE are assessed for their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for their HRS Chapter 6E significance. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBLITY The criteria for NRHP evaluation are contained in 36 CFR 60.4, and their application is discussed in National Register Bulleting No. 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 1997). For a resource to be considered significant, and thus a historic property, it must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and must be characterized by one or more of the following criteria: A It must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B It must be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C It must embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D It must have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. HRS CHAPTER 6E SIGNIFICANCE Under HRS Chapter 6E, the evaluation of significance is based on criteria established and promoted by the DLNR- SHPD and contained in the Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-275-6. For a resource to be considered significant it must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: a Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; d Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; e Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. DISCUSSION OF SITE SIGNIFICANCE The HRS Chapter 6E significance (and NRHP eligibility) for the five documented sites are presented in Table 6 and discussed in further detail below. As can be seen in Table 6, the period of significance for the documented sites extends from when they were first constructed to 50 years before the present day (or 1974). Table 6. Site specific HRS Chapter 6E significance evaluations and NRHP eligibility. Site No. (50-10-16-) Property Period of NRHP significance eligibility HRS 6E significance 09070 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House 1897 to 1974 A, B, C a, b, c 09090 Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) 1911 to 1974 A, B, C a, b, c 26591 Old Hakalau Mill 1880 to 1974 A, C, D a, c, d 30187 Old Mamalahoa Highway 1930 to 1974 A, D a, d T-1 Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) 1930 to 1974 A, C, D a, c, d 92 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 5. HRS Chapter 6E significance and NRHP eligibility Site 50-10-16-09070 Site 9070 is the SIHP designation for the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House. Significance evaluations for the house, which is listed in the HRHP and has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, were previously prepared by Hibbard (2009). Under Criterion A, the house was assessed as significant for its association with the Hakalau Plantation. Under Criterion B, the house was assessed as significant for its association with John Munro Ross, who managed the Hakalau Plantation from 1905-1946. Under Criterion C, the house was assessed as architecturally significant as an example of a late nineteenth century plantation manager's house in Hawaii. The integrity of the house could not be assessed during the current project because it is located on private property. The full significance evaluation for the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House from the NRHP nomination form is presented in Appendix A. With respect to its HRS Chapter 6E significance, Site 9070 is considered significant under Criteria a, b, and c for the reasons discussed above. Although a portion of the Tax Map Key parcel that is nearest to the existing highway and coterminous with the boundary of the site (TMK: [3] 2-9-002:039) is included within the APE for the proposed project, the house and associated buildings are located on the upper tablelands of Hakalau Gulch and not within the APE. Site 50-10-16-09090 Site 9090 is the SIHP designation for the Hakalau Stream Bridge (State) located along State Highway 19. Significance evaluations for this bridge, which is currently listed in the HRHP and has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, were previously prepared by Leineweber (2009). The significance evaluation for the bridge from the NRHP nomination form (see Appendix B) is reproduced here (as previously mentioned HDOT does not agree with this prior significance evaluation): Criteria A The Hakalau Stream Bridge is significant for its contributions to the fields of engineering and transportation in Hawai`i. The bridge is eligible under Criterion A for its associations with the Hilo Railroad Company, later called the Hawai`i Consolidated Railway, which played a major role in the development of the Hilo and the Hamakua Coast by providing transportation to the harbor for the island's sugar production. The railroad and its numerous bridges together have been called the "greatest engineering feat in Hawaii." Another commentator noted that the completions of the railroad marked nothing less than "an era in the development of the islands." The steel railroad trestles and truss spans from the original bridge remain intact with minor modifications for seismic upgrading and bolted connections. The new highway and reconstructed bridges bypassed and straightened -out the old Mamalahoa Highway and the more irregular parts of the Hawaii Belt Road (FAP 19) providing modern transportation facilities for the island of Hawaii, thus greatly contributing to its commercial growth in the latter half of the twentieth-century. Criterion B The bridge is eligible under Criterion B for its association with figures significant in the history of the Hawaiian islands: the Hilo Railroad Company founders- Benjamin Dillingham, Lorrin Thurston, and Mark Robinson. Benjamin Dillingham was a noted businessman who drew up plans for a large sugar mill at `01a`a, eight miles south of Hilo in the previously uncultivated Puna district. Lorrin Thurston was the minister to Washington during the former Republic of Hawaii and a former Interior Minister under the monarchy. Mark Robinson worked as the former Foreign Affairs for Queen Liliuokalani. Criterion C The bridge is eligible under Criterion C as a representative example of early twentieth-century engineering technology. The bridge is a rare remaining example of steel girder and trestle construction and was, for many years, the longest span in the state. The bridge represents the "work of a master": John Mason Young, designer of the original railroad line and bridges; as well as William R. Bartels, of the Territorial Highway Department, who engineered their conversion from railroad to highway use in the 1 950s. The analysis of the structure may provide information about early twentieth-century steel manufacture and construction, as well as information regarding the only standard gauge railway in the islands. Leineweber (2009) AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 93 5. HRS Chapter 6E significance and NRHP eligibility With respect to significance of Site 9090 under HRS Chapter 6E, because HDOT does not agree with the prior significance assessment for the bridge, the Agency would like a Secretary of Interior (SOI) qualified architectural historian to prepare an updated significance evaluation for the site following the procedures set forth in the February 2018 SHPD publication Guidelines: Architectural Historic Resource Surveys and Documentation available at the SHPD website (https://dlnr.hawaii.gov). Site 50-10-16-26591 Site 26591 consists of 15 features associated with the Hakalau Plantation that are located both above Hakalau Gulch to the east, and within the APE. Six features of the site, including the remnants of the former tramway and stairs (Feature J), the supports for the flume that once crossed Hakalau Stream (Feature K), the foundation of the former Hakalau Mill (Feature L), the access road to the mill site (Feature M), the base of the old smokestack (Feature N), and an old pipe stanchion (Feature 0), are present within the APE. Rosendahl (2009) previously assessed this site under HRS Chapter 6E as significant under Criterion a for its association with the Hakalau Sugar Plantation and its association with the history of sugar cultivation in the Hawaiian Islands and under Criterion d for its information potential. Two of the warehouses (Features A and B) were additionally assessed as significant under Criterion c for their architectural value, which was viewed as temporally distinctive and exemplifying a type, period (1920s), and method of construction. The features of Site 26591 contained within the APE, since they are all currently in ruins and in poor condition, lack the architectural value to be considered significant under Criterion c, but they do retain enough integrity of setting, location, and association to be considered significant under Criteria a and d, as discussed by Rosendahl (2009). The portion of Site 26591contained within the current APE is also considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and D for the same reasons discussed above. Site 50-10-16-30187 Site 30187 is the SIHP designation for the Old Mamalahoa Highway. This site has previously been determined significant under Criteria a and d with respect to HRS Chapter 6E (Belluomini and Hammatt 2017; Clark et al. 2014; LaChance et al. 2017; Yucha and Hammatt 2017). The 1,835 foot (559 meter) long section of Site 30187 contained within the APE retains integrity of location, setting, and feeling, and its integrity of association with important late nineteenth and early twentieth century events in establishing a regional transportation network that has its roots in antiquity qualifies it as significant under Criterion a. Character -defining elements of the road that convey its significance under Criterion a are limited to the road alignment, which has not changed since the 1930's, and the cobble and concrete retaining wall. Under Criterion d the road is considered significant for the information it has yielded during prior studies (Belluomini and Hammatt 2017; Clark et al. 2014; LaChance et al. 2017; Yucha and Hammatt 2017). Character defining qualities of the historic road have included the pavement (road surface) within the travel way, the alignment, and structures such as dry -stacked stone revetments, retaining walls, embankments, and culverts. Site 30187 is also considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and D for the reasons discussed above and also potentially as part of the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District (MKE and Fung 2013). This site will be used to facilitate access to the APE during the proposed undertaking. Site 50-10-16-XXXXX (Temporary Site 1) The Hakalau Stream Bridge (County) that carries the Old Mamalahoa Highway over the Hakalau Stream (Bridge Number 001290001100003; Appendix C), was previously assessed as eligible for listing in the NRNP under Criteria A and C as part of the proposed Mamalahoa Highway Historic Bridge District (MKE and Fung 2013). Under Criterion A, the bridge is considered significant for its association with the Old Mamalahoa Highway which established a regional transportation network in the islands and under Criterion C, the bridge is significant because it represents an unusual architectural bridge type (concrete closed spandrel arch). With respect to significance under HRS Chapter 6E, the bridge retains integrity in all categories and is considered significant under Criteria a and c for same reasons given for the NRHP eligibility. This bridge will be used to facilitate access to the APE during the proposed undertaking. 94 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i 6. Determination of Effect And Recommendations 6. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT AND RECOMMENDATIONS The HDOT will be rendering its own HRS Chapter 6E-8 and Section 106 effect determinations and mitigation recommendations (if applicable) for the proposed Undertaking in an HDOT letter addressed directly to the Hawai`i SHPO/SHPD. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 95 References Cited REFERENCES CITED Alexander, A. C. 1920 Land Titles and Surveys in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Planters' Record XX111:67-78. Electronic document, https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Land-Titles-and-Survey.pdf, accessed 2017/03/07/. Armstrong, J. 2003 Old Mill Site Eyed for Hakalau Beach Park: Land Donation Possible if Firm Can Unload Rural Roads. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 10 January: 1 & 6. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/, accessed April 18, 2023. 2006 Hakalau Beachfront Property Gift: Owners of Land Want it to Become a Public Park. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 09 May: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/, accessed April 18, 2023. Belluomini, S. A. and H. H. Hammatt 2017 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Hilea Bridge Replacement Project, Hilea Ahupua` a, Ka`u District, Hawai`i Island, Federal Highway Administration/ Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA/CFLHD) contract DTFH68-13-R-00027 TMKs: [3] 9-5-017: 007 por., 008 por., and 9-5-017 Hawai`i Belt Road/Mamalahoa Highway Right -of -Way. Cultural Surveys Hawai`i, Inc. Job Code HILEA 2. Final. Revised 2017. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Bishop, H. 2002 Hakalau gate sparks clash. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 15 August: 1 and 8. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com. Boundary Commission 1874 Boundary Commission Book Vol. B, Reel 1#1. Microfilm. Mo`okini Library, University of Hawai'i at Hilo. Hawaiian Reference Collection. Bowser, G. 1880 Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory and Tourists' Guide George Bowswer & Co., Honolulu and San Francisco, CA. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org/elib/collect/polk1880/index/assoc/DO.dir/book.pdf, accessed October 8, 2021. Buke Mahele 1848 Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i Hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha 111 a me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana, Hale Alii, Honolulu. C. Brewer and Company Limited 1974 Vets pay Final Tribute to Hakalau. Monthy Letter lll (12). Electronic document, in www.hakalauhome.com. Callis, T. 2017 Hakalau Beach Park Bridge Repairs Coming But Fix Doesn't Guarantee Reopening. West Hawaii Today [Kailua-Kona]. 04 September: A 1 . Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 96 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited Campbell, S. and P. Ogburn 2004 Pepeekeo Sugar Company History. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives Collection. University of Hawai`i at Manoa Library Hawaiian Collection. 2004. Electronic document, https://www2.hawaii.edu/—speccoll/p hilocoast.html, accessed January 20, 2023. Capellas, E. S. 1925 North of Hilo Bay. Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. April 30: 9. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/259014841/?terms=north%20ot%20hi10%20bay&match=2, accessed February 6, 2023. Carter, H. A. P., J. M. Kapena, and J. Makee 1877 Report of the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources. Pacific Commercial Advertiser [Honolulu]. 5 May. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. Chinen, J. J. 1958 The Great Mahele: Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published. Clark, M. R., J. D. Nelson, and R. B. Rechtman 2014 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Sections of the Mamalahoa Highway and Napo`opo`o Road Rights -of -Way (and Portions of Adjacent Parcels) for the Construction of the Proposed Mamalahoa Bypass Interchange Portions of TMKs: (3) 8-1-06: 062, 074, 188; 8-1-08: 003, 004, 005, 020, 021; and 8-1-09: 006, 007, 010, 011, 012, 013, 050, 057, 999, Ka`awaloa Ahupua`a, South Kona District, Island of Hawaii. ASM Affiliates 22590.01. Revised 2014. Prepared for the County of Hawaii, Hilo, HI. Cordy, R. 1994 A Regional Synthesis ofHamakua District, Hawai `i Island. Historic Preservation Division, DLNR, State of Hawai`i, Honolulu. Daily Honolulu Press 1881 The Sale of Leases and Lands at Ali[i]Iolani Hale. Daily Honolulu Press [Honolulu]. 10 September: 2. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. 1885 Hakalau Mill. Daily Honolulu Press [Honolulu]. August 1: 2, accessed February 7, 2023. Dorrance, W. and F. Morgan 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165 -Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation 2012 Ethnohistorical Study of Honohononui, Hilo, Hawaii Island. Honohononui Kalaninui`iamamao. Revised 2012. Prepared for Kamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division, Honolulu. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 97 References Cited Environmental Protection Agency 2022 "Summary of the Clean Water Act". Electronic document, www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/summary-clean-water-act, accessed January 20, 2023. Evening Bulletin 1909 Hakalau Plantation Company, LTD. Evening Bulletin [Honolulu]. March 25: 31. Electronic document, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82016413/1909-03-25/ed-2/seq-31/, accessed February 6, 2023. Forbes, K. and S. Forbes 2023 Hakalau Our Home. Electronic document, www.hakalauhome.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Forbes, S. and D. Hibbard 2018 Hakalau Jodo Mission National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2018. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Garovoy, J. 2005 "Ua koe ke kuleana o na kanaka" (Reserving the rights of Native Tenants): Integrating Kuleana Rights And Land Trust Priorities in Hawaii. Harvard Environmental Law 29:523-571. Giambelluca, T. W., Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J. K. Eischeid, and D. M. Delparte 2013 Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai`i. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94 (3):313-316. Giambelluca, T. W., X. Shuai, M. L. Barnes, R. J. Alliss, R. J. Longman, T. Miura, Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, R. G. Mudd, L. Cuo, and A. D. Businger 2014 Evapotranspiration of Hawai`i. Revised 2014. Prepared for Water Resource Management, State of Hawaii. Hall, A. D. 1898 Hawaii. Street & Smith, New York. Electronic document, https://www. google. com/books/edition/Hawaii/E UXK 1 M09ej IC?h1—en&gbpv=1. Handy, E. S. C., E. G. Handy, and M. K. Pukui 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Haun, A. E. and D. Henry 2014 Archaeological Inventory Survey TMK: (3) 2-9-02:083 Hakalau Nui Ahupuaa, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. Haun & Associates 1035-041514. Revised 2014. Prepared for Chad and Jennifer Walker, Pearl City, HI. Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926 Annual Report of the General Manager. Vol. For the year ending December 31, 1926, Headquarters of Railway, Hilo, Hawaii. Hawaii Tribune -Herald 98 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited 1953 "Hakalau Bridge Opening Ceremony Next Friday". Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawai`i]. 12 April: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1962 "Lay -Off of 75 Men Averted. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 13 April: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1971a Brewer Will Spend $5.5 Million. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 11 July: 61. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1971b Firms Report Progress In Pollution Abatement. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 11 July: 61. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1974 Hakalau Factory Ends Cane Milling. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 29 December: 10. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1976 Traffic Notice. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. September 12: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1978 Department of Public Works. County of Hawaii 1978. Public Notice: Closing of Portion of Old Mamalahoa highway at Hakalau Gulch. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 24 January: 10. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1989 Motor Vehicle Safety Checks Are Up to $10.75. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 07 August: 5. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Hawaii Tribune Herald 1945 Hakalau "Trolley" Replaced by Steel Flume. Hilo Tribune Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 20 August: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Hawaiian Gazette Co., L. 1895 Bright Skies At Hilo. Hawaiian Gazette [Honolulu]. December 10: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/49693173/?terms=Carpenters%20are%20busily%20engaged&match= 1, accessed February 6, 2023. Hibbard, D. 2009 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2009. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Hilo Tribune -Herald 1940 John M. Ross Relates the Growth of Hakalau School. Hilo Tribune Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. October 20: 10. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/555585682/?terms=hakalau%20gulch%20camp&match=1, accessed February 6, 2023. 1946 Hakalau Damage Over $500,000. Hilo Tribune Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. April 2: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/555631850/?terms=hakalau%20mill&match=1, accessed February 7, 2023. 1973 Hakalau Bridge. Hilo Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 28 January: 22. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 99 References Cited Hockley, E. W. and C. Murray 1925 Kamaee-Wailua Govt. Tract, North Hilo, Hawaii. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 2728. Hawaii Territory Survey. 1:300 scale. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map- search/, accessed February 12, 2023. Hommon, R. J., A. Sinoto, I. P. Gordon, and P. C. McCoy 1974 Statewide Inventory. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum Project 090. Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1925 Pioneer Builder of Hawaii, John A. Scott, Dead. Prominent Figure In Industrial Life of Territory Passes Away In Honolulu. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. November 13. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com. 1926 Hakalau Mill Has Showers Installed. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. May 25: 5. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/274854168/?terms=hakalau%20mill&match=1, accessed February 7, 2023. 1927 Hakalau Plans $40,000 Store: Concrete Structure will be Erected to Blend with New Office. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 09 April: 11. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1947 Hakalau Mill, Tidal Wave Scars Erased, Resumes Its Operations. Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 7: 12. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/282705311/?terms=hakalau%20mill%20tidal%20wave%20scars%20erased&m atch=1, accessed February 6, 2023. 1953 Hamakua Railroad Bridges Made Part of Road System. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 29 April: 32. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1961 Isle Sugar Industry Fights for Survival:HSPA Chief. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 12 June: 2. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Hudson, A. 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawaii, Bernice P Bishop Museum. Hughes, M. 1981 Hakalau School's 100th Jubilee. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. August 16: 24. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Husted, F. (editor) 1902 Husted's Directoy of Honolulu and Territory ofHawaii. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Honolulu. Johnson, K. 2017 'A Very Real Threat' Foundation Erosion Prompts Hakalau Bridge, Beach Park Closure. West Hawaii Today [Kailua-Kona]. A5. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1864 Honolulu, Okatoba 8, 1864. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. October 8. Electronic document, www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed December 6. 100 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited Kalakaua, L. D. 1888 The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. The Fables and Folk -Lore of a Strange People. Charles L. Webster & Company, New York. Electronic document, https://archive.org/details/legendsmythsofha00kala/page/n9, accessed 2019/01/24/. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Ko Hawaii Aina a Me Nd Koi Pu `umake a Ka Po 'e Haole, Pehea 1d e Pono ai? How Shall We Live in Harmony? Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Kanemori, R. T. 1953 Biggest Bridge. Hawaii Tribune Herald [Hilo]. 20 September: 1. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. King, R. 1935 Districts in the Hawaiian Islands. In A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii, pp. 214-230. Edited by J. W. Coulter. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. n.d. Hawaiian Land Titles. n.d. Electronic document, https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads, accessed May 15, 2020. Kinney, H. 1913 The Island of Hawaii. Hilo Board of Trade, Hilo. Kirch, P. V. and M. D. McCoy 2023 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: The Archaeology of Ancient Hawai `i. Revised ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Klein, G., M. Koob, and D. Lee 1985 Load Capacity and Service Life Study of Hamakua Coast Steel Trestle Bridges HI-HWY-82-1. Revised 1985. Prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division -Design Branch, Honolulu. Kuykendall, R. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854. Foundation and Transformation, vol. 1. 3 vols. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 1967 The Hawaiian Kingdom: volume III: 1874-1893. The Kalakaua Dynasty, vol. 3. 3 vols. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. LaChance, F., S. Wilkinson, and H. H. Hammatt AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 101 References Cited 2017 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Mamalahoa Highway (Route 19) Widening (Mud Lane to Mana Road) Project, Waikoloa Ahupua`a, South Kohala District, Island of Hawaii TMK: [3] 6-4. Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. Job Code WAIKOLOA 10. Revised 2017. Prepared for R.M. Towill Corporation. Leineweber, S. 2009 Hakalau Stream Bridge National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2009. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Lyons, C. J. and W. A. Wall 1882 Map of Hilo Hawaii From Honomu to Maulua. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 1092. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/surveyhnap-search. Maly, K. 1994 Appendix A: Historical Documentary Research. In Archaeological Inventory Survey, Chin Chuck Road Project Area, Land of Hakalau Nui, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 2-9-02:23 and 2-9- 04:56), edited by A. Walker and P. H. Rosendahl. PBR Hawaii, Hilo, HI. MKE and Fung (M. K. E. Associates LLC and Fung Associates, Inc.) 2013 Hawaii State Historic Bridge Inventory And Evaluation. MKE Associates, LLC and Fung Associates, Inc. Revised 2013. Prepared for State of Hawai`i, Department of Transportation, Highway Division, Honolulu. Muffler, B. and T. P. T. Museum 2015 Images of America Hawai`i Tsunamis. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. NPS (National Register Branch, Tnteragency Resources Division, National Park Service) 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2018 Kipuka Database. Electronic document, http://kipukadatabase.com/kipuka. Parham, J. E., G. R. Higashi, E. K. Lapp, D. G. K. Kuamo'o, R. T. Nishimoto, S. Hau, J. M. Fitzsimmons, D. Polhemus, and W. S. Devick 2008 Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds & Their Aquatic Resources. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu. Electronic document, https://hawaiiwatershedatlas.com/index.html, accessed April 5. Pukui, M. K. (editor) 1983 `Olelo No `eau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. Mo`okini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Rood, J. 102 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited 1975 Portrait of a Dying Town. Hawaii Tribune Herald [Hilo]. 09 April: 12. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Rosendahl, P. H. 2001 Archaeological -Historical Assessment, Lot 10 — Hakalau Estates Subdivision, Land of Hakalau Nui, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-9-02:Por.1). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2174-092301. Revised 2001. Prepared for Mauna Kea Agribusiness Company, Inc. 2009 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Cultural Impact Assessment, Hakalau Coastal Parcel. Land of Hakalau, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-9-79,81). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2684- 070908. Revised 2009. Prepared for Jeffery Melrose, Island Planning. Sai, D. K. 2011 Ua Maar Ke Ea Sovereignty Endures: An Overview of the Political and Legal History of the Hawaiian Islands. Pu`a Foundation, Honolulu. Shepard, F. P., G. M. MacDonald, and D. C. Cox 1950 The Tsunami of April 1, 1946. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California 5 6, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Sherrod, D. R., J. M. Sinton, S. E. Watkins, and K. M. Brunt 2007 Geologic Map of the State of Hawai `i. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open -File Report 2007-1089. Electronic document, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1089, accessed Apr 27, 2018. Smith, J. G. 1941 New Canes Being Tried at Hakalau: Plantation has Shown Caution in Replacing Old Varieties; 1063, 1389 Shows Promise. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 09 July: 1 & 9. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Soehren, L. 2005 A Catalog of Hawaii Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part 1: Puna and Hilo. 2005. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?, accessed September 14, 2016. Soil Survey Staff (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service) 2022 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Star -Bulletin, H. 1935 Hawaiian Sugar Plantation History No. 26-Hakalau Island of Hawaii. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. August 24: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. The Honolulu Advertiser 1892 Hilo Budget. Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. December 1: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/256280832/?terms=Hakalau%20probably%20received%20the%20wo rst%20damage%2C%20as%20there%20the%20sea&match=2, accessed February 6, 2023. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 103 References Cited 1925 News of the Other Islands from Advertiser Correspondents: Hakalau. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 03 November: 8. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1928 Hakalau Local and Personal. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 24 July: 7. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1931 Bridge Work at Pohakupuka Now Near Completion. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 13 March: 5. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1953 Hakalau Bridge Rebuilt, Given New Paint Job. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 05 July: 25. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1871 Letters from Hawaii -No. 1. The Pacific Commerical Advertiser [Honolulu]. August 26: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. 1882 News of the Week. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser [Honolulu]. November 4: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/174892670/?terms=The%20purposes%20of%20the%20company%20are%20th e%20raising%20and%20cultivation%20on%20the%20Hawaiian%20Islands%20and%20elsewhere%20of /o20sugar %20cane%2C%20and%20the%20purchase%20and%20sale&match=1, accessed February 6, 2023. Thurston, L. 1913 Railroading in Hilo. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1914. Edited by T. Thrum. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. USAAF (United States Army Air Forces) 1925 Hakalau, Hawaii, T.H. National Archives and Records Administration. Aerial Photograph 18 -AA - 37 -5. Airscapes-Hawaiian Islands. Electronic document, https://catalog.archives.gov, accessed February 6, 2023. Walker, A. and P. H. Rosendahl 1994a Archaeological Inventory Survey, Chin Chuck Road Project Area, Land of Hakalau Nui, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:2-9-02:23 and 2-9-04:56). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc. 2174-092301. Revised 1994. Prepared for Mauna Kea Agribusiness Company, Inc. 1994b Interim Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey, Chin Chuck Road Project Area, Land of Hakalau Nui, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai`i (TMK:2-9-02:23 and 2-9-04-:56). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc. 1563-102894. Revised 1994. Prepared for Mr. Eben Dale, C. Brewer Homes, Inc. c/o PBR Hawaii. Yucha, T. and H. H. Hammatt 2017 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report for the Ninole Bridge Replacement Project, Ninole Ahupua`a, Ka`u District, Hawai`i Island, Federal Highway Administration/ Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA/CFLHD) Contract DTFH68-13-R-00027 TMKs: [3] 9-5-019:011, 016, 024, 035 por., 9-5- 027:020 por., and 9-5-019, 9-5-027 Hawaii Belt Road/Mamalahoa Highway Right -of -Way. Cultural Surveys Hawai`i, Inc. Job Code NINOLE 3. Final. Revised 2017. Prepared for CH2M HILL and on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 104 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A APPENDIX A. NRHP REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE HAKALAU PLANTATION MANAGER'S HOUSE (SIHP SITE 50- 10-16-09070) AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 105 NPS Form 10-900 ny10 No 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior i'l.); -,n;il R.-1rk tier:,,, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form '. r use In nominating or requesting determinations to intli .al properties and drstnes See instructions in National Register Iiiili9rni How to Complete roe National Register of Historic Places Registration Form If any item does not appR to m.; prupgrty ue,ng nocr rr enmd. _mer Ya A' tor 'not applicable' For functions. architectural classification, materials, and areas of significancy .dile, r,nly r.01+41nr,u0 0n:0 subcategories from the instructions Platt additional codification comments, entries, and narrative Items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property *,:.lo-,- -,ii- e Hakalau Pa,tti:iun Manager's House other names -site number TMK (3) 2-9-002:039 2. Location street & number 29-2301 Old Mamalahoa Highway ❑ not for publication city or town Hakalau, Hawaii 0 vicinity state Hawaii code HI county Hawaii code 001 zip code 96710 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act. as amended. I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion. the property _ meets does not meet the National Register Criteria I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: _ national X statewide local {] . /'117.. S#� fi"��4/7G-7 Signature ng official / Date Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property _ meets _ 110e5 not meet the National Register criteria Signature of commenting official Date Title State of Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government '.. 4. National Park Service Certification I, hereby. certify that 11 i0 property rs _ entered in the National Reg i si -i _ determined eligible for me Nation! Register _ detemnmed not elrgwe iof the National Register _ removed from the National Register other (explain:) _ Signature of the Keeper Date of Action AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 105 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation rdnrr,, v, property Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii County and State 5. Classification Ownership iCneck Name (Ente as many X of related W A' of Property Category boxes as apply) (Check private public - Local public - State public - Federal multiple property listing d property is not pan eta multiple NA only X property of Property one boxl building(s) district site structure building(s) object I stinyl Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the Contributing Noncontributing count.) buildings sites structures objects 1 1 4 buildings 5 1 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 0 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories nom instructions' Domestic Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions) Domestic Single Dwelling Single Dwelling 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) Late 19th & 20th Century Revivals Materials (Enter categories from Instr etons) foundation: Wood: post and pier walls: Wood: shiplap Colonial Revival roof: Corrugated metal other: 106 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property County and Stale Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance of the properly. Explain contributing and noncontributing resources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location. setting, size, and significant features.) Summary Paragraph The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is an asymmetrical, two-story. wood frame dwelling sited on a knoll that presides over the town of Hakalau and the site of the former sugar mill. From the property. views are afforded of the ocean and the summit of Mauna Kea. The house is characterized by a corrugated metal hipped roof and an outset porch that wraps around the left side of the house. The porch protects the walls of a shallow front wing, that adds a visual dynamic to the composition. A centered porte cochere breaks up the massing of the house, as does a right of center enclosed, single story lanai. The intersecting hipped roofs have closed overhanging eaves with tongue and groove soffits, and a prominent gabled dormer accentuates the left of center wing's roof. Narrative Description The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House sits on a hillside above the Old Mamalahoa Highway. A white picket fence sets the lawn of the deep front yard apart from the street. A pair of lava rock posts herald the entry to a circular drive that leads up to the house and its porte cochere. A lava rock fountain, which has been reconstructed and features a contemporary whale sculpture is located in the middle of the lawn in front o1 the porte cochere. The porte cochere appears to have been rebuilt in the past twenty years. It has a low-pitched, front facing hip-gablet roof, which is supported 6" x 6" corner posts with brackets and diagonal bracing. The posts stand on 18" high concrete piers with panels in their faces. Thirteen concrete steps lead up to the front porch. The porch is 8'-6" wide and its ceiling and floor is made of 4" tongue and groove. It features a simple 2" x 2" balustrade and four 8" x 8" posts with scrolled bracketing at the top along the front, and eight similar posts carrying the roof down the left side of the house.. A centered double glass doorway. with each door having fifteen lites. provides entry to the house. To the left of the entry are a pair of 1 x 1 double hung sash windows with transoms above. All the wood double hung sash windows throughout the house are new, having replaced similar windows in poor condition. The entry opens onto a very large, flowing open space. A pair of Tuscan columns serve as a focal point and form an imaginary entry hallway that directs the eye towards the rear of the house. where a koa stair leads to the second floor. The living room runs across the front of the house and flows into the the dining behind it on the right side. The living room's front wall opens on the enclosed lanai on the right side. A now screened in, once open, side lanai runs down the right (east) side of the living and dining rooms. The rooms have Douglas fir floors with six inch baseboards. which are found in all major rooms throughout the house. The two Tuscan columns demarcate the large open, public space. Thus the living room, although running the length of the front of the house, reads as two distinct spaces on either side of a non-existent entry hall. Similarly the right side Tuscan column stands at the corner where the dining room, living room and "hall" intersect. The ceilings are not original, and reinforce this spatial conception as indirect lighting, running from front to rear, has been placed on either side of the imaginary hallway and around the peripheries of the rooms. By this device the space is totally open, but reminds a viewer of the more traditional floor plan. The dining room features a chandelier. The west wall of the living room illuminates the interior via a pair of double glass doors, each of fiteen lues, which are flanked by double hung sash windows. Transoms are above all the openings. On the east side living room flows into the front. enclosed lanai, or sunroom. The room has three pairs of original sliding windows, each with four panes, running the length of its front wall, and two pairs of similar windows on its side wall. A new aluminum sliding door in the rear wall opens the enclosed lanai to the screened -in side lanai. The side lanai's balustrade and posts follow the design of the front porch. Three. near AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 107 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Name of Property Hawaii Hawaii Counly and State floor to ceiling, plate glass windows look out onto the screened lanai from the living room, while a set of four historic pocket doors with large singel pane windows access the dining room from the side lanai. At the rear of the dining room a swinging door opens into a former butlers pantry. This space retains some of its historic cabinetry with rounded comers. The butler's pantry has been opened up so that It flows into the kitchen, which retains its beaded tongue and groove walls and ceiling, but its cabinets and counters have been remodeled. Two double hung sash windows in the rear wall of the kitchen provide light and air. A west side door exits the house onto a concrete stoop with five concrete steps leading down to the rear yard. A breakfast nook adjoins the butler's pantry to the east. A pair of modern single pane casement windows in the breakfast nook open on the side lanai, and a large plate glass window dominates the east wall of the breakfast nook. A modern aluminum sliding door in the rear wall leads outside and down eight wooden steps to the back yard. The central hall leads to a koa stairway. To the west of the stair is a bathroom and laundry room. Across from these two small rooms, a door leads into a downstairs, rear bedroom. The windows have been removed from this room's west wall, and in their stead is two sliding aluminum doors, which lead out to the side porch. Between the bathroom and the stairway is a rear door that leads into a mudroom. It appears this was a rear wrap-around continuation of the side porch which at some point was enclosed, as its one interior wall is the same as the house's exterior shiplap walls. The double dogleg stairway, with its koa treads, leads up to the second floor. Six steps lead up to a landing, and then a run of eleven steps leads to a second landing. From the second landing four steps lead to the second floor. A wrought iron railing with a linear, geometric infill graces the stair. Off the second landing is a rear sun porch. This appears to have been added atter the completion of the house, as its interior wall is shiplap, similar to the exterior walls of the house. All three exterior walls of the sun room are glazed. The two side walls each contain a pair of four pane sliding windows, and its rear wall features two sets of three 1 x 1 double hung sash windows. The room has a 4" tongue and groove ceiling and a 6" tongue and groove floor. The second floor has twelve foot high ceilings and contains three bedrooms and two baths. An original central hall, that runs front to rear, services the three rooms. The rooms have been remodeled, but contain their original fenestration. which is comprised of all double hung sash windows, grouped in singles, pairs and triples. The windows replaced in kind the original windows. It appers originally there may hve been at least four bedrooms upstairs, however, the master bedroom and its bath now occupies the entire east side of the second floor. A large sloping lawn surrounds the house, with a lava rock retaining wall forming a terrace on the east side yard. From the edge of the east yard views of the ocean and coastline are readily available, before the yard drops down a steep embankment. On the west side of the property is a small road that services the two garages and other houses. Behind the plantation manager's house are a fernery, a tool shed, two garages, and a cottage (see site map). The two car garage that services the main house dates from some time prior to World War II. It sits to the northwest of the main house almost immediately on the side road. with a very short driveway. The garage has a lateral running, corrugated metal and plastic gable roof and sits on a concrete foundation, which is 3' high on the downslope side. The walls are made of 8" vertical tongue and groove boards. A set of double sliding doors mounted on an overhead curvilinear metal track serve as the automotive entries' doors. These doors are made of 8" tongue and groove boards, and each has six hinged panels. In addition to the garage space, a tool room is also under roof and is situated at the north end of the garage. A doorway connects the two spaces. Two doorways exit the rear of the building, one from the garage, the other from the tool room, with five concrete steps extending down to the yard for each. 108 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Managers House Name of Property Hawaii Hawaii County and State To the northeast of the garage is the rectangular shaped femery. It has a 2' x 4" frame with screened walls and a corrugated, transluscent plastic gabled roof. It sits on a lava rock foundation, and a sliding door on the north side provides access. The fernery's dirt floor is on two levels, with the north end 18" higher than the south. A lava rock wall demarcates the break in elevation and two concrete steps lead to the lower level. The roof is carried by 2" x 4" Fink trusses with the bottom chord 11' 6" above the level of the higher floor. To the east of the fernery the tool shed sits on a 30" high concrete foundation, has 7' tongue and groove walls, and is capped by a front facing, corrugated metal gable roof. The shed has an outset front lanai with two 4" x 4" posts supporting its flat roof. The cottage at the rear of the property dates from prior to World War II; however, it has vinyl siding and has been dramatically remodeled, and does not contribute to the historic significance of the property. The garage for the cottage does retain its integrity and does contribute to the premise's historic significance. It is a single car garage with corrugated metal walls and front facing gable roof. Sliding windows are in both sidewalis, and there is no door to enclose the space. It sits on a concrete slab foundation. The Hakalau Plantation Manger's House retains its historic integrity. The house sits on its original spacious grounds. elevated above the former belt road, lording over the lands its occupant oversaw. The exterior of the house and the grounds retain their historic appearance. Much of the historic interior fabric remains intact, with some alterations. Major alterations include the opening up of the interior living spaces on the ground floor and the placement of indirect lighting around the ceiling at an unknown period. These changes were handled in a sensitive manner, respecting the original spatial configuration, which the trained eye can still readily recognize. Other alterations include the remodeling of the kitchen. parts of the butler's pantry, and the upstairs bedrooms. These are all secondary spaces, which are less character defining than other areas of the house. The double hung windows and main exterior doors have all been replaced, but this was done with in-kind windows and doors. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 109 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii County and State Name of Property 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark'ir in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing) Ixl 1 x 1 X A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattems o1 our history_ B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period. or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high anistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history, Criteria Considerations (Mark 'i in all the bones that apply) Property is. owed by a religious institution or used for religious A purposes. B removed from its original location. C a birthplace or grave D a cemetery. E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. F a commemorative property. G less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years. Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) architecture agriculture Period of Significance 1897-1959 Significant Dates 1897 Significant Person IContplete only a C. 1r,rion 6 is marked above) John Munro Ross Cultural Affiliation Architect/Builder Builder Jack Gertzy 110 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property County and State Period of Significance (justification) The period of significance extends from the time the house was constructed to cover the life of the house until 1959, at which time the period of significance concludes in accordance with national register guidelines. Criteria Consideratons (explanation. if necessary) NA Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (provide a summary paragraph that includes level of signficance and ppborh e cnteria) The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is architecturally significant at the state level as a good example of a late nineteenth century plantation manager's house in Hawaii. It is typical of its period in its design, craftsmanship, use of materials, and methods of construction (Criteria C). In addition. it is significant for its associations with the history of Hakalau Sugar Plantation (Criteria A), and also for its associations with John Munro Ross, who managed Hakalau Plantation from 1905-1946 (Criteria B). Narrative Statement of Significance (provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance) The Hakalau Plantation Manager's house well exemplifies a sugar plantation manager's house in Hawaii by way of its siting, scale and double wall construction. In addition, it is typical of its period in the use of shiplap siding, its craftsmanship, and methods of construction. The manager's house on sugar plantations in Hawaii represented the seat of authority and as such was the most Imposing residence on the plantation lands. The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is no exception to this rule. Sited on a knoll above what was then the main highway, the house literally oversaw the comings and goings of plantation life. A white picket fence and lava rock entry posts further demarcates the realm of the manager from that of the rest of the plantation, over which he presided. The plantation town of Hakalau, most of which no longer exists, lay along the Old Mamalahoa Highway within easy view of the house, a short distance from the residence. Also from the grounds of the house the no longer extant Hakalau mill, located along the shore in the valley below, was visible. Like most plantation manger's houses in Hawaii, the Hakalau house rose two stories in height and was of a more substantial double wall construction, as compared to the single wall residences of the workers and most of the plantation's professional staff. With 4,485 square feet under roof, it was by far the largest dwelling on the plantation. The house's use of shiplap siding was typical for its period, as similar siding is utilized in the plantation manager's house at Honomu and the James Hind residence in Hawi, both of which are contemporaneous with the Hakalau house. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 111 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Properly County and State The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is one of approximately thirty historic plantation manager's houses to remain standing in the state. Several of these have already been placed in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places, including Grove Farm Homestead and the stone manager's house at Kilauea on Kauai; the plantation manager's houses for Honolulu, Waianae and Ewa plantations, and the supervisor's house at Kahuku, on the island of Oahu: the Hind residence in Hawi, the Union Mill manager's house, and Paauhau and Honokaa plantation manager's houses on the Island of Hawaii. The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House is also significant for its associations with Hakalau Plantation. Situated fourteen miles north of Hilo, the plantation was established after the enactment of the Reciprocity Treaty, which allowed Hawaii's sugar to enter the United States duty tree. The 9,000 acre plantation was established by Claus Spreckels in 1878. with William Irwin & Company as agent. Spreckels was the major figure in the sugar industry in Hawaii during the nineteenth century. By 1890 the plantation's mill, located on the shore at the base of a two hundred foot bluff, produced five thousand tons of sugar a year. The plantation's maximum production was 26,509 tons in 1944, following the 1943 merger of the neighboring Wailea Milling Company into Hakalau. Hakalau continued in operation until 1962, when C. Brewer closed the mill and merged the plantation into Pepeekeo Sugar Company. The mill was dismantled and all that remains along the shore are the concrete foundations. Most all the plantation's operations buildings also have been removed, and little remains of Hakalau town, with the poorly maintained former theater serving as the post office. As such. the well- preserved Hakalau Plantation Manager's house stands as the preeminent reminder of the former plantation. The house is also associated with John Munro Ross (1868-1946), who was recognized as one of Hawaii's foremost agriculturists. Ross was born in Kincardine, Ross -Shire, Scotland and engaged in farming and railroad work before migrating to Hawaii in 1895. Upon his arrival he immediately went to work at Hakalau Plantation. which was managed at that time by George Ross (relationship. if any, unknown). Starting as a tuna, John Ross succeeded George Ross as plantation manager in 1905. a position which he held until shortly before his death in 1946. Along with overseeing the plantation, he was very active within the community and strongly encouraged the education of plantation youths. The Ninole public school. the largest in the North Hilo District was renamed the "John M. Ross School" in 1932 in his honor. Both this school and the one at Honohina placed a strong emphasis on agriculture in their curriculums thanks to his influence. In addition, Ross served as president of the Hawaiian Insurance & Trust Company, the Hilo Electric Light Company, and Hilo Gas Company. Developmental history/additional historic context information (if appropriate) The January 23, 1897 Hilo Tribune reported, "Carpenter Jack Gertzy has the building intended for manager Ross' Hakalau residence well advanced. The house when finished will be quite an imposing ornament to Hakalau village. " The manager's house remained in the hands of the plantation and C. Brewer until 1998, when the chairman of C. Brewer, John W. A. "Doc" Buyers purchased the property. In 2005 the property was sold to the present owner. 112 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property County and State 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets) Dorrance, William and Francis Morgan, Sugar Islands, the 165 Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii, Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 2002. Hilo Tribune, January 23, 1897, page 1. Nellist, Earl, Men of Hawaii, Honolulu: Star -Bulletin, 1930, page 425 "Services Today tor John Ross, Sugar Veteran," Honolulu Advertiser, August 28, 1946, page 1 "John Ross Dies," Hilo Tribune -Herald, August 27, 1946, page 1. Previous documentation on fila (NPS): Primary location of additional data: _preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 nos been X Slate Historic Preservation Office requested Other State agency __previously tisted in the National Register Federal agency previously determined eligible by the National Register Local government designated a National Historic landmark University recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey M_..,__- _ Other recorded by Historic American Engineering Record a Name of repository. Historic Resources Survey Number Of assigned): 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property 3.15 acres (Do not include previously listed resource acreage) UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) 1 05 15507675 1953920 3 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 2 4 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Verbal Boundary Description (describe the boundaries of the property) This nomination includes all the lands owned by Ron Smith in 2009 as described by Tax Map Key 2-9- 002:039. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 113 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Managers House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property County and State Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected) This is the property historically associated with the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House. 11. Form Prepared By name/title Don Hibbard organization date May 12. 2009 street & number 45-287 Koknkah, Place telephone (808)-542-6230 city or town Kaneohe state Hawaii zip code 96744 e-mail Additional Documentation Submit the foilow,the completed form: • Maps: A USGS map 17.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. • Site Plan • Floor Plans • Photo Key 114 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager s House Name of Property State Hawaii Hawaii County and Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the northwest. 6 of 17. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 115 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property State USGS MAP: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Papaaloa Quadrangle, 1992 1:24,000 NAD 83 County and Hakalau Plantation Manager s House 116 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Name of Property State Hakalau Plantation Manager's House: Photo Key Hawaii County and AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 117 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property County and State Photographs: Submit clear and descriptive black and white photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the road. View from the south. 1 of 17. 11!111111111 118 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Managers House Name of Property Hawaii Hawaii State Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17, 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the south. 2 of 17. County and AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 119 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Name of Property State Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Hawaii County and Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the southwest. 3 of 17. 120 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Name of Property State Hawaii Hawaii County and Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17, 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the southeast. 4 of 17. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 121 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Name of Property State Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 County and Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House as seen from the east. 5 of 17. 122 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Managers House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property --__-- _- State County and Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17, 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House front porch as seen from the east. 7 of 17. k4i11+1'� LI„ AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 123 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Hawaii Name of Property Stale Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 County and Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House grounds behind the house with tool shed in foreground fernery to right rear and garage to left rear, as seen from the northeast. 13 of 17. 124 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawaii Name of Properly Stale Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Hawaii County and Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House tool shed as seen from the southeast. 14 of 17. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 125 Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager's House Hawau Name el Property State Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Hawaii County and Description of Photograph(s) and number: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House fernery as seen from the east. 15 of 17. 126 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix A Hakalau Plantation Manager s House Narne of Properly Stale Hawaii Hawaii County and Name of Property: Hakalau Plantation Manager's House City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Don Hibbard Date Photographed: February 17. 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number. Hakalau Plantation Manager's House main garage's sliding door on metal track. as seen from the north 16 of 17. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 127 Appendix B APPENDIX B. NRHP REGISTRATION FORM FOR HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE (STATE) (SIHP SITE 50-10-16-09090) 128 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Register of Historic Places Registration Form I' is 101 use in nuuunating or requesting determinations ' ' , ..al propertles and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How • mete rhe Nahnnal Register 01 Hulonc Places Reg sOar,, ,• -'rpany item does not apply to e property being documented. enter 'N/A" for iIrcable" For functions. architectural classification maler:.al, e�th 1 .1 00 _ignlficance. enter only categories and subcalegones from the ,r,-. lions: ms Place additional certification comments, entries, and nanahvrSterne on continuation sheets (NPS Form 1O900a). 1. Name of Property Historic name HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Other names/site number Hakalau Highway Bridge (structure number 001000190308410) 2. Location street & number Hawai9 Bell Road ❑ not for publication city of town Hakalau (TMK 3-2-9-02) ❑ vicinity State Hawai'i code HI county Hawaii code 001 zip code 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: _ national _ statewide _local Signature of certifying official Date Title Stale or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion. the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria, Signature of commenting official Dale Title Stale or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Parte Service Certification I, hereby. certify Mat this property is: Signature o1 the Keeper Dale of Acbon entered in the National Register _ determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register _ removed from the National Register _ other (explain') 128 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County. Hawaii Name of Properly County and State 5. Classification Ownership tCheck Name (Enter "N/A' Steel as many _ x of related Trestle of Property Category boxes as apply) (Check private public - Local public - State public - Federal private multiple property listing A property is not part of a multiple Bridges on the Hamakua only x property Coast of Property one box) building(s) district site structure building(s) object listing) Number of Resources within Property (Do not 'include previously listed resources in the count i Contributing Noncontributing 0 0 buildings 0 0 sites 1 0 structures 0 0 Objects 0 0 buildings 0 0 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed In the National Register 6. Function or Use Historic Functions IEnler categories from instructions) TRANSPORTATION: rail -related Current Functions (Enter categories from Instructions) TRANSPORTATION: road -related (vehicular) 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) OTHER: steel girder and trestle bridge Materials (Enter categories from instructions) foundation: N/A walls: N/A roof: N/A other METAL AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 129 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawai'i County, Hawaii Name of Property County and State Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontnbuting resources if necessary Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property. such as its location setting. sizeand signdicanl features.) Summary Paragraph The Hakalau Strcaiu Bridge is a steel girder anti trestle bridge with the anal length of�5 reef. a 'h l-Icct height o.cr the stream bed, and a roadway width ..f 28 feet. It is built o.er I lakalau Stream aloe: the l lanuikua ('oast of the Island of Hawaii and the rural ;e!tii! of the hridge remain, unoh,ir o. 1. The super u-ucture of the bodge i. cump(secl of a concrete deck on steel girders. and the substructure Is composed of c 1911 steel railroad trestle support; with masonry (lava -rock) abutment,. ( )11011 but icontal concrete rail. concrete cap and concrete end piers with incised bridge name and date of construction are portions added in the 1050, rehabilitation. Narrative Description The Hakalau Stream Bridge carries the liar:di Belt Ituad i P:\P 10) o. er I lakalau Stream along the Hamakua ( oast of the Island of Ilanal'I. The present hlgh\\dC bridge n,r reccinstructed from older railroad trestle and gorier ,pans. In 1'711-1 `11 2, fourteen steel trestle girder bridges \\ ere erected along the 1Iiuniikua ('oast to support railroad ,ad tracks for the Hilo Railroad e'tnnh;w. .\II or the rail bridge. along the line ,.ere detastated hi the tsunami of 1946. and nine of the ,deet Ire. le bridges weer di;assembled and ;old as ;real) I Inc rcm:nnine lis r bridges t I lakalau. \:mut. Pahe'ehe'r. l mauma, and Kapott ..ere retained and modified as territorial Ingllna\ bridge. brnvcot 1050.53. Kolekule liridee „as assembled using 1r.rrIs of other demolished tallrnail trestle bridge.. 1 he railroad bridge remains in it; original location; honener. the Hawaii Belt Road. the prntarc transportation arten for the island, n:n re-routed in the early 1950s 51 order to utihic the abandoned railroad alignment and nulroad bridge trestle ,\slew. The setting has e\pericnced little. if an.. change. In 105 3. the bridge ria; .\ idcned for u;c as a higln.a. bridge n ith members from the disc;.cmhlcd railroad bridge; The rcconn[rucuon Ibllows the original trestle de,itnn, hnnerer holier.' rattier than ri.eted connection; were mill/ed. A concrete \leek, siders alk; and rail here added to ficihtate automobile and pedestrian traffic. The integrity of the original uh;lructtire remains intact. and is a remainder of the only standard-gauge railroad constucied in the islands. Thr bridge's substructure can beyiowed from the old \Iiunalahoa I lig hoar a. high runs under the highway bridge The bridge's historic associations are readily apparent to all uh;criet;, the bridge retains its historic Ieebne due to its unusual construction type. Interpretation is aided h5, the presence of a plaque on the substructure which reads: Hamilton & Chambers Contractors for Steel Structure New York, U.S.A. 1912 The Hakalau Stream Bridge has recently undergone seismic retrofit modifications. The project included addition of hinge restrainers, scat extenders at hinges and abutments. longitudinal struts at abutments, and the upgrade of pier footings. 130 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name of Property Hawaii County, Hawaii County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x' in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing) x A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattems of our history. B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our pass. C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark 'i in all the boxes that apply) Property is: owed by a religious institution or used for religious A purposes. 8 removed from its original location_ C a birthplace or grave. ID a cemetery. E a reconstructed building, object. or structure. F a commemorative property. G less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years. Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION Period of Significance 1911 1953 Significant Dabs 1911 1953 Significant Person (Complete only i1 Crilenon a is marked above) Dillingham, Benjamin Thurston, Lorrin Robinson, Mark Cultural Affiliation N/A Architect/Builder l uun:. John \lam liau-tcls, A\llliant R. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 131 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County. Hawaii Name of Property Courcy „iiia .ilaic Period of Significance (justification) The Ilakalau Stream Bridge vas built in 1911 as a railroad bridge (tutor thc ralln,Id's second phase of construction to the area north of Hilo. In 1951,the Terris vial l helm :n Department. tinder the direction of William R. Bartels, reconstructed Hakalau Ir,.un Bridge .i. a part of the I korai i Belt Road i I \P 19) utilizing members of the original railroad trestle supponl a.arm and .Idditional material!, ihnn oilier r.iilioad bridges. Criteria Consideratons (explanation, if necessary) Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (provide a summary paragraph that includes level of signficance and applicable cr tcnau The Hak.dao Stream Bridge is significant under C'riieria A. 13, and C. Criterion A is applicable for the bridge's association sk ith the I Ido Railroad Compan\. (-ritcrion 13 is applicable for the bridge'; association ss ith three founder, of the I lilo Railroad ('ompany. ('ritennn 1 is applicable .ince the bridge is a r0pre;e111a1s0 example of early twentieth-century engineering tech1ulogsas well as a source for Infornnauon about earh twentieth-century steel manufacture and construction. Narrative Statement of Significance (prov de at least one paragraph for each area of sidnlhcance) (7ltcr !! :\ The I lakalau Stream 13ndrde is significant Jiff its contributions to the fields of engineering :Ind transportation in 11:iss.ii 1. 1 he bodge i; ,Itzible under (rilcnon A for us :I;socIauon; o ih the I lila Railroad ("ntnpanc. Ia cr c4IIYl Ow: 11.1 9.1'1 Consnlid:ucd Railway. v. ss Inch played a minor rote u1 the des clopment of the I hill and the I Limikua Coast pros iding lfill1,1)011d11011 the harbor for the island's sugar production- I he railroad and Its numerous badges 1 001he! lune 1,000 0:1110(1 the "greatest engineering feat in Him .\nothcr commentator noted that the completion of the r.lihoad'narked nothing less than "a11 01:1111 the 11e\01oplu0nl of 1110 islands."' The steel railroad nestles and truss spans from the original bider 1.,...1114111 intact kith minor modifications for seismic upgrading and bolted connections. I ho news highsums and 1cconstructcd bridge. 1 passed and straightened -out he old \15nrd:dnttt I li;_hsvay and the more irregular pouts of the 1I'swai'1 Belt Road ( FAP 19) providing modem Iran.pottanon f.icIIitics lir the island of Hawaii, thus greatl\ contributing to its eomineleial growth in the latter half of It tsssntieth-century. Criterion B The bridge is eligible under Criterion 13 for it. usao0ialion with figures significant in the history of Clic I Iawaiian islands: the I1110 Railroad Company founders - Benjamin Ullhngham. 1 orris 1 hur.ron, and `lark Robinson. Benjamin Dillingham ss as a noted husine,sman a ho drew up phut. for :I large Sugar mill at'OIa'a, eight miles south of Hilo in the peesiou;ly uncultivated l'una district. 1.orrin Thurston was the \linister to \Va.hington during the former Republic of I lasrai'i and a former Interior sinister under the monarchc. \lark Robinson worked as the fomncr \twister of Foreign Affairs for Queen Liliuokalan Criterion C Paraducotthc Pan fic. (December 19241: 14. Thomas Thrum. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual I Honolulu: Hawaiian Gazcttr Company. 1914). 142. a Gerald M Rost. Railroads of Hawaii (San Manno. California. Golden Wort Books. 19781. 123-124 132 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, !imam Name of Property County and Slain The bridge is eligible under Clilerion ( ;IN a represcnlall\ e e\;nnhle of ail\ t\\ ulticth-ccntul) cn_inccting technology. The bridge Is a rue rctuainiII cyamhlc heel girder and trestle comaructiun And N, a;. ling many yeas. the longest ,pan in the ;tate. the Midge represents the "rook of .l master ': John Mason 1'uune, designer u(ihc ori,,mal railroad line and bridges. as ii ell as \\ illi;un R. Bartels. of the Ten I lighii;ti Department, n hu cmimrcred their eon rrston Irom railroad to hi bora_\ use in the I'P.'It;. I he ;is of the structure may pro t, ide information about early m-cntieth-Lenton steel mannlaeturc and construction. as well as information regarding thc only standard gauge rinks ay in thc islands. AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 133 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Name of Property County and State United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Historic Concrete and Steel Tresle Bridges along Hamakua Coast on the Island o1 Hawai'i Developmental history/additional historic context information (if appropriate) The Hakalau Railroad Trestle Bridge was built in 1911 by the !filo Railroad Company during the raiIrn,id', second phase 1,1 construction to support the plantation indust} of the I I l,1d john Masan Young drew the specification; and design of the bridge. Young was the founder of Pacific Engineering Company of I Innolulu and a pioneer faculty member of the (allege of Agriculture and Mechanic : \rt; I l;ltrr the I_'nivcrsity of 1 law The bridge's components were ordered from the New York fimt of I lamllton and Chambers ()silo also fabricated the steel for the I lanalei Riser Bridge on Kauai the same year). It was erected by W.W. Beers, described by the Ifilo Tribune as a New York engineer. I lakalau Railroad Trestle Bridge was one of the most impressive bridges built by the Hilo Railroad. At 775 feet long and sitting on sex en steel towers. the Hakalau Scram Budge 15.1. the second longest bridge on the rule. outdistanced only by the \laulua Bridge at more than 118111 feet. Atter the Martina Bridge was taken down, l lakalart became the longest highway bridge In the tet for several sears 11 was also among the tallest, with a height of 261 Deet, only 25 feet shy of the tallest brillge o\ er NSnuc Streams. In 1946, the railroad line were devastated by a tsunami. I lakalau Stream Bridge and four other bridges were retained and reconstructed when the rest of the steel trestle bridges vete disassembled. A sixth bridge was assembled from remaining parts from oths bridges. l'he Ilaw art Belt Road (IAP 19) was re -muted in the early I9su; to utiliie the abandoned railroad alighment since the original Belt Road was too narrow Intl w'riding for the large snuck; a;cd by the plantation Industn. in lieu of the deva;tated railroad. In 1953. I lakalau Stream 13ndgc w a. ss idenctl fur use as a highway bridge with members from rite disassembled railroad bridges. The reconstruction follows the original trestle design. however bolted rather thait riveted connection, were uulved \ cannery deck, sidewalks and rail were added to facilitate automobile and pedestrian ualtic. John William.101,,.1 Hawaii I Terrifink of Hawaii: Honolulu Star Bullcan. 1921 ). 451. and George Ncllut. Men of Hawaii_ 1Honolulu. 19351. •1n-.•1:.,. 5 Indo Tribune. 111 Apo! 19111: 3. 6 Hawaii (State 1. Department of Planum • and rconomw Des do Pa F pmcnt, The State of Hawaii Data Fronk. 1982 A 5lausocal :\t+seact (Honolulu: t)cpanmcnt of Planning and I connmic Des elopmcnt. 19831.414. Patricia Alcare,. "A Hnton of Road and Bodge Development on the Island of Hawaii" in Histone Bridge Inventory and FAaluation. Island of Hawaii, prepated for the State of Hawaii. Dvpanmcnt of Transportation, llrghway.s Division nt cosry.cranun with the 1' S. Department of Tran.sponation. Federal Highways Administration. (Honolulu. 198741. 511 134 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Name or Property County and State 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books. articles. and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets) Sec Continuation Sheet. Previous documentation on flN (NPS): Primary location of additional data: preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been _State Historic Preservation Office requested x Other State agency previously listed in the National Register -Federal agency prevously determined eligible by the National Register Local government designated a National Historic Landmark _University .iecorded by Historic American Buildings Survey 5 Omer recorded by Historic American Englneenng Record a Name of repository: Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property Less than one acre. (Do not include previously listed resource acreage) UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) 1 5 277032 2201749 3 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 2 4 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Verbal Boundary Description (describe the boundaries of the property) The nonunited pnrperty is a rectangular shaped parcel measuring 772 feet by 28 feet, which is centered on the UTM point listed above. Included within this parcel are the bridge's superstructure, substructure, Floor system, and approach span,. Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected) Elie nominated ,trueturc includes the hridec's superstructure. suh.tructurc. floor system and appropriate spans and the prnpert\ upon tt hich they rest. These boundaries encompass. but do not exceed, all of the property that has been hi.lonralh associated 55 11h this bridge. 11. Form Prepared By name/title 1pfncer Leineweber. FAIA Professor organization Heritage Center, University of Hawaii at MAnoa date August 15, 2009 street & number 2410 Campus Road telephone (808) 956-4704 city or town Honolulu state HI zip code 96822 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 135 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Name of Property County and State Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: • Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map. • Continuation Sheets • Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Photographs: Submit clear and descriptive black and white photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Name of Property: Hakalau Stream Bridge City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawai i Photographer: Spencer Leineweber, FAIA/Professor Date Photographed: August 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Photo sl. Approach Photo #2. Name Photo #3: Trestle Substructure. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register n` Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing. to 1st properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Histone Preservation Act. as amended 116 U S C 460 el sen 1 Estimated Burden Statement Public reporting burden for Sus form is estimated to average 1B hours per response including time for reviewing In st uetoons. gathering and maintaining data, and complebrg and reviewing the tam. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate Or any aspect Of I56 loon to the Cruel, Administrative Services Division. National Park Servke. PO Box 37127. Washington, DC 200137127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (10240018), Washington. DC 20503. 136 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name of Property Hawaii County, Hawaii County and State Location Hakalau. Hawaii UTA1 Zone: S Casting: 277ni2. Notating: 2201'40 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 137 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name of Property Se, j. A14p Hawaii County, Hawaii County and State 138 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BF< Name of Property Photo #1: Approach Photo #2: Name Hawaii County, Hawaii County and Stale AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai` i 139 Appendix B HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name of Properly Photo #3: Trestle Substructure Hawaii County, Hawaii County and State 140 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix C APPENDIX C. HAWAII STATE HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY (MKE AND FUNG 2013) SDOCUMENTATION OF THE HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE (COUNTY) Inventory Form (Courty1Private) General Information Bridge Number: 001290001100003 Popular Name: Hakalau Stream Bridge Feature Crossed: Hakalau Stream Feature Carried: Old Mamalahoa Highway Milepost: County Private: Hawaii Longitude: 155d -07m -56.19s Latitude: 19d -53m -49.96s Location: TMK: 2-9-002'025 Historic Name: Hakalau Stream Bridge DesignerlEngineer: Builder/Contractor: Location Map: 2000 ft 1 km 001290001100003 Hakalau Stream Bridge 6-222 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 141 Appendix C Construction Information Bridge Type: Closed Spandrel Arch Altered? No Alteration Date(s): Alteration Type(s): Alteration Description(s): Bridge Information Number of Spans: 1 Max Span: 67.0 ft. Superstructure: Concrete Closed Spandrel Arch Substructure: Concrete Abutment Wall Floor/Decking: AC Pavement Parapets/Railings: Concrete Open Decorative Setting: Other Features: Construction Date: 1930 Replaced? No Total Length: 67.0 ft. Deck Width: 22.4 0. Historic Association Eligibility Status: High Preservation Value Criteria: A, C State/National Registered? No Current Function: Bridge Historic Function: Bridge Area of Significance: Transportation, Engineering Narrative Description: See Mamalahoa historic district description. 001290001100003 Hakalau Stream Bridge 6 - 223 142 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, South Hilo, Hawaii Appendix C Significance Statement: This bridge is an arch bridge which is an uncommon bridge type. See Mamalahoa historic district description. 001290001100003 Hakalau Stream Bridge 6 - 224 AIS for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, North and South Hilo, Hawai`i 143 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX D CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project TMK: (3) 2-9-002 and (3) 3-1-001 various parcels Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e Ahupua'a North & South Hilo Districts Island of Hawai`i FINAL VERSION ASM Project Number 41250.00 Prepared By: Kau`i Lopes, B.A., Halena Kapuni-Reynolds, M.A., and Lokelani Brandt, M.A. Prepared For: WSP USA 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 March 2024 AS M VO. affiliates }dt.tt4 Archaeology • History • Anthropology • Architectural History Hilo Office: (808) 969-6066 Fax: (808) 443-0065 507-A E. Lanikaula Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Honolulu Office: (808) 439-8089 Fax: (808) 439-8087 820 Mililani Street, Suite 700, Honolulu, HI 96813 Cultural Impact Assessment for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project TMK: (3) 2-9-002 and (3) 3-1-001 various parcels Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e Ahupua`a North & South Hilo District Island of Hawai`i Table of Contents CHAPTERS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 5 Geology, Soils, Climate, and Vegetation 11 2. BACKGROUND 13 RESEARCH METHODS 13 CULTURE -HISTORICAL CONTEXT 13 Overview of Traditional Hawaiian Land Management Strategies 14 Intensification and Development of Hawaiian Land Stewardship Practices 15 CULTURAL HISTORY OF HAKALAU NUI AND KAMA`E`E AHUPUA'A 16 Traditional Mo `olelo of Hakalau and Kama`ee and the Greater Hilo Paliku 23 Hakalau and Kama`e`e During the Early to Late 19th Century 36 Mahele Aina of 1848 37 The Kuleana Act of 1850 38 Government Land Grants 40 Boundary Commission Testimony (1875) 43 Land Acquisition in Hakalau and Kama`e`e Post-Mahele 46 Hakalau Sugar Plantation 47 Hakalau Plantation Post -1946 59 From Railroad to Highway 65 Post -Plantation and Creation of the County -Owned Hakalau Beach Park 72 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL STUDIES 73 3. CONSULTATION 78 Outreach Efforts 78 INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY 80 SUSAN FORBES 80 BLAKE MCNAUGHTON 81 KEITH "BRADDA SKIBS" NEHLS 82 CARMELITO "LITO" ARKANGEL 83 4. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS 84 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL -HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 85 IDENTIFICATION OF TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, VALUED CULTURAL RESOURCES 87 Forest Resources and Practices 87 Botanical Resources and Horticultural Practices 88 Waterways 88 Avian Resources 88 Marine/River Practices and Resources 88 Recreational, Access, and Subsistence Uses 89 Historic Era Resources (Hakalau Plantation Company, Old Mamatahoa Highway, and Hakalau Stream Bridge [County and State]) 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i v Table of Contents CONCLUSION 90 REFERENCES CITED 91 APPENDIX A. HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FORM 103 APPENDIX B. K4 WA/ OLA PUBLIC NOTICE 117 APPENDIX C. COUNT OFHAWAII- CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (CRC) COMMENTS 119 FIGURES Page 1. Project area location 2 2. Tax Map comprising the project area. 3 3. Google EarthTM satellite image showing project area location. 4 4. Aerial view of Hakalau Bridge, Hawai`i Belt Road, Hakalau Stream and the project area, view to the east. 5 5. Waterways that feed into Hakalau Steam. 6 6. View of Old Mamalahoa Highway, view to the east. 7 7. Aerial view of portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway included in project area traversing the south face of Hakalau Gulch 7 8. Hakalau Stream (County) constructed in 1930, view to the north. 8 9. Aerial view of raised concrete road crossing Hakalau Stream 8 10. Concrete sections of road that cross over the Hakalau Stream twice, view to the northwest. 9 11. Aerial view of unimproved road traversing under Hakalau Bridge to the former Hakalau Sugar Mill site 9 12. Unimproved road traversing underneath Hakalau Bridge, view to the southeast. 10 13. View of the makai section of the project area, note remnants of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill on the southern embankment, view to the west. 10 14. Aerial view of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill site, present day Hakalau Beach Park. 11 15. Geological units in the project area 12 16. Soils in the project area 12 17. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map 2060 by J.M. Donn (1901) showing project area within Hakalau and Kama`e`e Ahupua'a 17 18. 2021 aerial photo showing Hakalau Gulch in Hilo Paliku, photo by ASM. 18 19. Hawai`i Registered Map No. 20 prepared by H.M. Lyman in 1853 showing extent of Hakalau Nui. 40 20. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 1092 by Lyons and Wall (1882) showing land grants in Kama`e`e 42 21. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2728 by Hockley and Murray (1925) showing portions of the project area in Grant 1350 to Ioela (shaded purple) and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. (shaded yellow) 43 22. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser (1866) public auction notice advertising the sale of Levi Ha'alelea's Hakalau lands. 47 23. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No 344 by C. J. Lyons (n.d.) showing project area. 48 24. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2225 by Morange (1903) showing Hakalau Village and the main government road meandering through Hakalau Gulch. 49 25. Hakalau Mill and gulch, pre -1911 (Hawai`i State Archives, PPWD-4-7-018). 51 26. Panoramic view of Hakalau Plantation showing the landing, mill, flume, and other built vi CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Table of Contents FIGURES Page features, post -1911. Image source: Hawai`i State Archives, PPWD-4-7-029. 51 27. 1919 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Hakalau Plantation showing details of roadways and buildings. 52 28. Hakalau Plantation Company Field Map annotated to indicate the various camps in the region. Original field map is courtesy of the Edmund Olson Trust Archive (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 53 29. Hakalau Gulch Camp. Photo courtesy of Steve Sutter (Forbes and Forbes 2023). 54 30. Aerial photo of the Hakalau plantation community taken on January 23, 1925 (USAAF 1925). 55 31. Portion of County TMK (3) 1-01 map showing the project area during the 1930s. 55 32. Incoming tsunami wave inundating Hakalau Mill on April 1, 1946 taken by Waichi Ouye (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -mill site photos). 56 33. The 1946 tsunami battering Hakalau Mill, note the steel trestles and the tops of the coconut trees in the background (Forbes and Forbes 2023- the 1940s). 56 34. Hakalau Mill in the wake of the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -the 1940s). 57 35. Workers surveying the damage at Hakalau Mill following the 1946 tsunami (Muffler and Museum 2015:57) 57 36. Reconstructed Hakalau Mill post -1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -the 1940s). 58 37. Photos published in The Honolulu Advertiser (1947:9) showing the Hakalau Mill during the 1946 tsunami (right) and the reconstructed mill in 1947 (left). 58 38. Portion of County TMK (3)-1 map from the 1950s showing the project area. 60 39. 1954 aerial photograph showing the project area, the sprawling Hakalau plantation community (note the runoff from the mill clouding Hakalau Bay). 60 40. Aerial photo from 1977 showing the project area and Hakalau plantation community 61 41. Photos published in the Hawai `i Tribune -Herald of the last cane haul and processing of sugarcane at Hakalau Mill (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1974). 62 42. Images of derelict and demolished buildings accompanying an article published on April 9, 1975 in the Hawaii Tribune -Herald about the "Dying Town" of Hakalau. The photographs were taken by Paul Miyasaki 63 43. Public notice of the indefinite closure of a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway within Hakalau Gulch (included in project area) (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978:10). 64 44. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 339 prepared by (Cabot 1879) showing the preliminary route of the railroad. 65 45. 1915 USGS map showing the HCR alignment over Hakalau Gulch. 67 46. Hawaii Consolidated Railway Map of November 1923 (Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926). 67 47. Steel trestles installed across Hakalau Gulch (ca. 1911) with the mill in the background (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad) 68 48. Railroad bridge being installed on steel trestles across Hakalau Gulch (note labor camp on the mauka side of the bridge in the gulch) (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad). 68 49. HCR train crossing Hakalau Bridge ca. 1911-1920 (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad). 69 50. Photo published in The Honolulu Advertiser (1953:25) showing the newly lead painted Hakalau Bridge. 70 51. Dedication and opening of Hakalau Bridge on April 17, 1953 (Hilo Tribune -Herald 1973:22) 71 52. Hakalau Bridge following reconstruction efforts with cane flume in the background (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1953). 72 53. Map showing the extent of the Hakalau Historic District and Wailea Village Historic District both of which were designated in 1973 (Forbes and Hibbard 2018:61). 74 54. Location of prior studies conducted in the vicinity of the project area. 75 55. ASM site map of archaeological features recorded in Hakalau Gulch (in Prep). 77 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i vii Table of Contents TABLES Page 1. Inoa `Rina in Hakalau and Kama`e`e 20 2. `Olelo No 'eau associated with the famed rains of Hilo 21 3. Rain Names Associated with Hilo Paliku 22 4. Wind names associated with Hilo Paliku 22 5. Government Land Grant in Kama`e`e. 41 6. Community members contacted for consultation. 79 viii CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i I . Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of WSP USA on behalf of the Hawai`i Department of Transportation (HDOT) for Project No. HWY- DS-ENV2020-01, ASM Affiliates (ASM) has prepared this Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) for the proposed Hawai`i Belt Road Hakalau Stream Bridge Project. The project area extends across Kama`e`e and Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a and straddles the boundary of the North and South Hilo Districts, Island of Hawai`i (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The project area is comprised of roughly 15 acres and includes portions of the following Tax Map Keys (TMK) (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 080, 999 and (3) 3-1-001:001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, and 999 (see Figure 2). The HDOT has found that the Hakalau Bridge, which carries Hawai`i Belt Road (Highway 19) over Hakalau Stream at milepost 15.3 was once painted with lead-based paint which has contaminated the soil around the bridge extending into Hakalau Beach Park. Remediation could involve removing contaminated soil and/or capping the contaminated soil with a concrete layer. This work would entail removing all vegetation and disturbing roughly 24 inches of topsoil. Contaminated soils may also be removed and disposed of at a permitted facility or stabilized and left in place. In addition to the lead remediation work, HDOT intends to do structural rehabilitation of the bridge by replacing the steel bents with concrete bents. This CIA, which is intended to inform an Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted in compliance with HRS Chapter 343, is being prepared pursuant to Act 50 and in accordance with the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, adopted by the Environmental Council, State of Hawai`i, on November 19, 1997 (OEQC 1997:417). Act 50, which was proposed and passed as House Bill No. 2895 and signed into law by the Governor on April 26, 2000, specifically acknowledges the State's responsibility to protect native Hawaiian cultural practices. Act 50 further states that environmental studies "... should identify and address effects on Hawaii's culture, and traditional and customary rights" and that "native Hawaiian culture plays a vital role in preserving and advancing the unique quality of life and the `aloha spirit' in Hawai`i". Articles IX and XII of the state constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the State impose on governmental agencies a duty to promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of native Hawaiians as well as other ethnic groups." The current report is divided into four main chapters. Chapter 1, the introduction, includes an overview of the proposed project as well as a physical description of the project area. To provide a cultural context of the project area, Chapter 2 includes cultural -historical background information specific to the project area and the broader geographical region of Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e, and at times the greater Hilo Paliku, a traditional region of Hilo that extends north of the Wailuku River and is characterized by its upright cliffs and broad plateaus. This chapter also includes a summary of prior archaeological and cultural studies that have been conducted within or near the project area. The methods and results of the consultation process are then presented in Chapter 3. Lastly, Chapter 4 includes a discussion of potential cultural impacts as well as actions and strategies that may help to mitigate any identified impacts. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 1 1. Introduction 6111 N 0, of Detail G 0 200 Km 1011111' I I I I I N AArca ..� - 1 00 19' 1 lir 1 Stream 0 ,!e� 1 r Bay CO 40 ch PO /,00 . Hakalau Jam_. 4 ;��� -/ )»). 411‘ „imp 4*. - ,, r, ....., • , , 7 __ . %.,.) , ,,,,• 2 k, ` v v y I k45? 1 9 11.7u ilea �/ [ Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle P ip.laloa. 2017 - liin \ �� 0 200 400 Project area \ _tiz"mil0 Meters v - _'F[rtpl Figure 1. Project area location. 2 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i I . Introduction Arca of Detail 0 200 Km 1 1 1 1 1 OD -1-001:006 -001:003 (i3)2-9-002.080 '(3)2-9-0,(12 039 ($3)2-9-002,:02.3 01. Project area Tax Map Key (TMK) 0 50 100 Meters Figure 2. Tax Map comprising the project area. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 3 1. Introduction d Q N A Area of Detail- 0 200 Km 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 3. Google EarthTM satellite image showing project area location. 4 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i I . Introduction PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The roughly 15 -acre project area encompasses Hakalau Bridge which carries Hawai`i Belt Road over Hakalau Stream plus the land area beneath the bridge (Figure 4) which includes both privately -owned parcels as well as a portion of the County -owned Hakalau Beach Park. Additionally, the project area includes the following roadways: the portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway that travels down along the gulch's southern edge and the portion of the Old Mill Access Road that lies north of the stream and leads to the mouth of Hakalau Gulch. The Old Mamalahoa Highway ties into the Old Mill Access Road on the northern bank of Hakalau Gulch, where it continues east into the project area (Figures 7 and 9). The permanently closed portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway, which traverses the northern edge of Hakalau Gulch, is not included in the project area. At the heart of Hakalau Gulch is the 29.9 mile long Hakalau Stream which is fed by at least three other primary streams including Kama`e`e, Wa`awa`a, and Kaulia (Figure 5) (Parham et al. 2008). The elevation in the project area ranges from sea level at Hakalau Bay up to roughly 134 feet (41 meters) above mean sea level (amsl) on the edges of the gulch. Access to the project area is from the Old Mamalahoa Highway, which begins above the southern side of Hakalau Gulch (Figures 6 and 7) and crosses the Hakalau Stream at a 1930's concrete bridge (Figure 8). A road spur along the northern road portion turns south and crosses Hakalau Stream via a raised concrete road (Figures 9 and 10) before traversing under the steel bridge as an unimproved road (Figures 11 and 12) and ending at the old Hakalau Sugar Mill site (present-day Hakalau Beach Park) situated on the southern embankment where Hakalau Stream meets with the Pacific Ocean (Figures 13 and 14). Figure 4. Aerial view of Hakalau Bridge, Hawai`i Belt Road, Hakalau Stream and the project area, view to the east. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 5 1. Introduction Kau]ia Kama`e'e & Haka Ahupua`a Waterways Source maps: Hawaii Registered Map No, 1092 (1882), Hawaii Registered Map 2728 (1925) Figure 5. Waterways that feed into Hakalau Steam. 6 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i . Introduction Figure 6. View of Old Mamalahoa Highway, view to the east. Figure 7. Aerial view of portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway included in project area traversing the south face of Hakalau Gulch. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 7 1. Introduction Figure 8. Hakalau Stream (County) constructed in 1930, view to the north. Figure 9. Aerial view of raised concrete road crossing Hakalau Stream. 8 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i . Introduction Figure 10. Concrete sections of road that cross over the Hakalau Stream twice, view to the northwest. Figure 11. Aerial view of unimproved road traversing under Hakalau Bridge to the former Hakalau Sugar Mill site. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 9 1. Introduction Figure 12. Unimproved road traversing underneath Hakalau Bridge, view to the southeast. Figure 13. View of the makai section of the project area, note remnants of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill on the southern embankment, view to the west. 10 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i I . Introduction Figure 14. Aerial view of the former Hakalau Sugar Mill site, present day Hakalau Beach Park. Geology, Soils, Climate, and Vegetation The underlying geology of this portion of the Hilo District is generally formed of moderately deep to deep silty clay loam formed from volcanic ash that originated from Mauna Kea Volcano between 64,000 and 300,000 years ago between the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs. This soil type has been mapped in Figure 15 as "Qhm (Sherrod et al. 2007; Wolfe and Morris 1996). Well -drained andisol soils that have developed throughout the majority of the project area are classified as Hilo -Rock outcrop complex on 35 to 100 percent slopes and mapped in Figure 16 as "909", while a narrow pocket along the project area's southern boundary is composed of soils classified as Hilo hydrous silty clay loam on 10 to 20 percent slopes and mapped as "903" (see Figure 16) (Soil Survey Staff 2022). The climate at this elevation in Hilo is moderately warm, with a mean annual temperature between 72° to 77° Fahrenheit throughout the year (Giambelluca et al. 2014). The lands in the vicinity of the project area receive a mean annual rainfall of approximately 3,615 millimeters (142 inches), with the highest rainfall occurring during the spring month of March, and the least amount of rainfall occurring during the summer months of May and June (Giambelluca et al. 2013). Trade winds often blow from east to west across this region, except when kona (southerly) winds are blowing (typically during the summer months), which causes the wind pattern to reverse. Terrain in the central portion of Hakalau Gulch on either side of Hakalau Stream is relatively level, flanked by the steep, nearly vertical gulch edges to the north and south. Water flowing makai (east) through Hakalau Stream is interrupted by the occasional small fluvial island composed of alluvial deposits of sand, gravel, and waterworn pebbles, cobbles, and boulders of varying sizes. Owing to the warm weather and ample rain, vegetation cover within the project area is fairly thick, consisting of a ground cover that consists primarily of grasses, weeds, vines, fiddlehead ferns (h� io; Dipla-ium sandwichianum), and elephant's ear Cape; Alocasia macrorrhizos) interspersed with stands of coconut (niu; Cocos nucifera), ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia), pandanus (hala; Pandanus tectorius), bamboo (Bambusoideae sp.), hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), banana (Musa sp.), mango (Mangifera indica), banyan (Ficus sp.), miconia (Miconia calvescens), and African tulip (Spathodea campanulata). Ornamentals and planted tree species such as kukui, avocado, and breadfruit are present in the northeastern portion of the project area near the former location of the Hakalau Sugar Mill and the current County of Hawai`i Beach Park. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 11 1. Introduction O I'rnjcci arca Qhm Gd,000-300,000 yr Hamalnta Volcanics QI 11,000-64,000 yr Laupahoehoe Voleanies Figure 15. Geological units in the project area. Q Project area 901 - Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes 903 - Hilo hydrous silty clay loath. 10 to 20 percent slopes 909 - Hilo -Rock outcrop complex. 35 to 100 percent slopes O Meters o 50 100 Figure 16. Soils in the project area. 12 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background 2. BACKGROUND As specified in the OEQC Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts (1997:1), "...the geographical extent of the inquiry should, in most instances, be greater than the area over which the proposed action will take place. This is to ensure that cultural practices which may not occur within the boundaries of the project area, but which may nonetheless be affected, are included in the assessment." For this CIA, the ahupua `a of Hakalau Nui and Kama`e`e are considered the `study area', while the location of the proposed development activities is referred to as the `project area'. To generate a set of expectations regarding the nature of cultural resources and customary practices that might be encountered within the current project area and to establish a context within which to assess the significance of such resources, the background section begins with a general culture -historical context. This is followed by culture - historical background information concerning the history of Hakalau Nui & Kama'e`e. Limited background information for the Hilo Paliku region, the broader regional designation in which Hakalau Nui & Kama`e'e are situated, also falls within the parameters of the OEQC guidelines and ensures that a broader set of cultural practices and histories are considered. Following this background section is a discussion of relevant prior archaeological and cultural studies that have been conducted within and in the immediate vicinity of the project area. RESEARCH METHODS The culture -historical context and summary of previously conducted archaeological and cultural research presented below are based on research conducted by ASM Affiliates at various physical and digital repositories. Primary English language and Hawaiian language resources were found at multiple state agencies, including the State Historic Preservation Division, Hawaii State Archives, and the Department of Accounting and General Services Land Survey Division. Digital collections provided through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Papakilo and Kipuka databases, Waihona `Rina, the Ulukau Hawaiian Electronic Library, and Newspapers.com. Lastly, secondary resources curated at ASM Affiliates' Hilo office offer general information regarding the history of land use, politics, and culture change in Hawaii, enhancing the broad sampling of source materials cited throughout this CIA. CULTURE -HISTORICAL CONTEXT While the question of when Hawaii was first settled by Polynesians remains contested, scholars working in the fields of archaeology, folklore, Hawaiian studies, and linguistics have offered several theories. With advances in palynology and radiocarbon dating techniques, Kirch (2011), Athens et al. (2014), and Wilmshurst et al. (2011) have argued that Polynesians arrived in the Hawaiian Islands sometime between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1200. This initial migration on intricately crafted wa `a kaulua (double -hulled canoes) to Hawaii from Kahiki, the ancestral homelands of Hawaiian deities and peoples from southern Pacific islands, occurred at least from initial settlement to the 13th century. According to Fornander (1969), Hawaiians brought from their homeland certain Polynesian customs and beliefs: the major gods Kane, Ku, Lono, and Kanaloa (who have cognates in other Pacific cultures); the kapu system of political and religious governance; and the concepts of pu `uhonua (places of refuge), aumakua (ancestral deity), and mana (divine power). Archaeologist Kenneth Emory who worked in the early to mid -20th century reported that the sources of early Hawaiian populations originated from the southern Marquesas Islands (Emory in Tatar 1982). However, Emory's theory is not universally accepted, as Hawaiian scholars in the past and present have argued for a pluralistic outlook on ancestral Hawaiian origins from Kahiki (Case 2015; Fornander 1916-1917; Kamakau 1866; Kikiloi 2010; Nakaa 1893; Poepoe 1906). While stories of episodic migrations were widely published in the Hawaiian language by knowledgeable and skilled ku `auhau (individuals trained in the discipline of remembering genealogies and associated ancestral stories), the cultural belief that living organisms were hunau 'ia (born) out of a time of eternal darkness (po) and chaos (kahuli) were brought and adapted by ancestral Hawaiian populations to reflect their deep connection to their environment. As an example, the Kumulipo, Hawaii's most famed ko ihonua (a cosmogonic genealogical chant), establishes a birth -rank genealogical order for all living beings (Beckwith 1951; Liliuokalani 1978). One such genealogical relationship that remains widely accepted in Hawaii is the belief that kalo (taro) plants (in addition to all other plants, land animals, and sea creatures), are elder siblings to humans (Beckwith 1951). This concept of hierarchical creation enforces the belief that all life forms are intimately connected, evidencing the cultural transformations that occurred in the islands through intensive interaction with their local environment to form a uniquely Hawaiian culture. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 13 2. Background In Hawai`i's ancient past, inhabitants were primarily engaged in subsistence -level agriculture and fishing (Handy et al. 1991). Following the initial settlement period, communities clustered in the ko olau (windward) shores of the Hawaiian Islands where freshwater was abundant. Sheltered bays allowed for nearshore fisheries (enriched by numerous estuaries) and deep-sea fisheries to be easily accessed (McEldowney 1979). Widespread environmental modification of the land also occurred as early Hawaiian kanaka mahi `ai (farmers) developed new subsistence strategies, adapting their familiar patterns and traditional tools to work efficiently in their new home (Kirch 1985; Pogue 1978). Areas with the richest natural resources became heavily populated over time, resulting in the population's expansion to the kona (leeward) side of the islands and to more remote areas (Cordy 2000). Overview of Traditional Hawaiian Land Management Strategies Adding to an already complex society was the development of traditional land stewardship systems, including the ahupua `a. The ahupua `a was the principal land division that functioned for both taxation purposes and furnished its residents with nearly all subsistence and household necessities. Ahupua `a are land divisions that typically include multiple ecozones from mauka (upland mountainous regions) to makai (shore and near -shore regions), assuring a diverse subsistence resource base (Hommon 1986). Although the ahupua `a land division typically incorporated all of the eco -zones, their size and shape varied greatly (Cannelora 1974). Noted Hawaiian historian and scholar Samuel Kamakau summarized the ecozones that could be found in a given ahupua `a: Here are some names for [the zones of] the mountains—the mauna or kuahiwi. A mountain is called a kuahiwi, but mauna is the overall term for the whole mountain, and there are many names applied to one, according to its delineations (`ano). The part directly in back and in front of the summit proper is called the kuamauna, mountaintop; below the kuamauna is the kuahea, and makai of the kuahea is the kuahiwi proper. This is where small trees begin to grow; it is the wao nahele. Makai of this region the trees are tall, and this is the wao lipo. Makai of the wao lipo is the wao `eiwa, and makai of that the wao ma `ukele. Makai of the wao ma `ukele is the wao akua, and makai of there is the wao kanaka, the area that people cultivate. Makai of the wao kanaka is the ama u, fern belt, and makai of the ama u the apa `a, grasslands. A solitary group of trees is a moku la `au (a "stand" of trees) or an ulu la `au, grove. Thickets that extend to the kuahiwi are ulunahele, wild growth. An area where koa trees suitable for canoes (koa wa `a) grow is a wao koa and mauka of there is a wao la`au, timber land. These are dry forest growths from the `apa `a up to the kuahiwi. The places that are "spongy" (naele) are found in the wao ma `ukele, the wet forest. Makai of the `apa `a are the pahe `e [pili grass] and Mina growths and makai of them the kola, open country, and the 'apoho hollows near to the habitations of men. Then comes the kahakai, coast, the kahaone, sandy beach, and the kalawa, the curve of the seashore—right down to the 'ae kai, the water's edge. That is the way ka po `e kahiko [the ancient people] named the land from mountain peak to sea. (Kamakau 1976:8-9) The maka `ainana (commoners, literally the "people that attend the land") who lived on the land had rights to gather resources for subsistence and tribute within their ahupua `a (Jokiel et al. 2011). As part of these rights, residents were required to supply resources and labor to all' i (chiefs) of local, regional, and island chiefdoms. The ahupua'a became the equivalent of a local community with its own social, economic, and political significance and served as the taxable land division during the annual Makahiki procession (Kelly 1956). During the time of Makahiki, the paramount all `i sent select members of his/her retinue to collect ho okupu (tribute and offerings) in the form of goods from each ahupua `a. The maka `ainana brought their share of ho `okupu to an ahu (altar) that was marked with the image of a pua `a (pig), serving as a physical visual marker of ahupua `a boundaries. In most instances, these boundaries followed mountain ridges, hills, rivers, or ravines (Alexander 1890). However, Chinen (1958:1) reports that "oftentimes only a line of growth of a certain type of tree or grass marked a boundary; and sometimes only a stone determined the corner of a division." These ephemeral markers, as well as their more permanent counterparts, were oftentimes named as evidenced in the thousands of boundary marker names that are listed in Soehren (2005). Ahupua `a were ruled by ali `i `ai ahupua `a or chiefs who controlled the ahupua `a resources. Generally speaking, ali `i `ai ahupua `a had complete autonomy over the ahupua `a they oversaw (Malo 1951). Ahupua `a residents were not bound to the land nor were they considered property of the ali `i. If the living conditions under a particular ahupua a chief were deemed unsuitable, the residents could move freely in pursuit of more favorable 14 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background conditions (Lam 1985). This structure safeguarded the well-being of the people and the overall productivity of the land, lest the chief loses the principal support and loyalty of his or her supporters. In turn, ahupua `a lands were managed by an appointed konohiki, oftentimes a chief of lower rank, who oversaw and coordinated stewardship of an area's natural resources (Lam 1985). In some places, the po `o lawai `a (head fisherman) held the same responsibilities as the konohiki (Jokiel et al. 2011). When necessary, the konohiki took the liberty of implementing kapu (restrictions and prohibitions) to protect the mana of an area's resources from environmental and spiritual depletion. Many ahupua `a were divided into smaller land units termed `ili and `ili kupono (often shortened to `ili ku). Ili were created for the convenience of the ahupua `a chief and served as the basic land unit which hoa `aina (caretakers of particular lands) often retained for multiple generations (Jokiel et al. 2011; MacKenzie 2015). As 'ili were typically passed down in families, so too were the kuleana (responsibilities, privileges) that were associated with it. The right to use and cultivate `ili was maintained within the `ohana, regardless of the succession of ali `i `ai ahupua `a (Handy et al. 1991). Malo (1951) recorded several types of `ili, including the `ili pa `a (a single intact parcel) and `ili lele (a discontinuous parcel dispersed across an area). Whether dispersed or wholly intact, required a cross-section of available resources, and for the hoa `aina, this generally included access to agriculturally fertile lands and coastal fisheries. Ili kupono differed from other `ili lands because they did not fall under the jurisdiction of the ahupua'a chief. Rather, they were specific areas containing resources that were highly valued by the ruling paramount chiefs, such as fishponds (Handy et al. 1991). Ali `i ai ahupua a, in turn, answered to an ali `i `ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire moku or district) (Malo 1951). Hawai`i Island is comprised of six moku (districts) that include Kona, Ka`u, Puna, Hilo, Hamdkua, and Kohala. Although a moku comprises multiple ahupua `a, moku were considered geographical subdivisions with no explicit reference to rights in the land (Cannelora 1974). While the ahupua `a was the most common and fundamental land division unit within the traditional Hawaiian land management structure, variances occurred, such as the existence of the kalana. By definition, a kalana is a division of land that is smaller than a moku. Kalana was sometimes used interchangeably with the term `okana (Lucas 1995; Pukui and Elbert 1986), but Kamakau (Kamakau 1976) equates a kalana to a moku and states that `okana is merely a subdistrict. Despite these contending and sometimes conflicting definitions, what is clear is that kalana consisted of several ahupua `a and '111 'aina. This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian life and the product of advanced natural resource management systems. As populations resided in an area over centuries, direct teaching and extensive observations of an area's natural cycles and resources were retained, well -understood, and passed down orally over the generations. This knowledge informed management decisions that aimed to sustainably adapt subsistence practices to meet the needs of growing populations. The ahupua `a system and the highly complex land management system that developed in the islands are but one example of the unique Hawaiian culture that developed in these islands. Intensification and Development of Hawaiian Land Stewardship Practices Hawaiian philosophies of life in relation to the environment helped to maintain both natural, spiritual, and social order. In describing the intimate relationship that exists between Hawaiians and `aina (land), Kepa Maly writes: In the Hawaiian context, these values—the "sense of place"—have developed over hundreds of generations of evolving "cultural attachment" to the natural, physical, and spiritual environments. In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawaii, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its' natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture and nature begins. In a traditional Hawaiian context, nature and culture are one in the same, there is no division between the two. The wealth and limitations of the land and ocean resources gave birth to, and shaped the Hawaiian world view. The `aina (land), wai (water), kai (ocean), and lewa (sky) were the foundation of life and the source of the spiritual relationship between people and their environs. (Maly 2001) The `olelo no `eau (proverbial saying) "hanau ka `dina, hanau ke ali `i, hanau ke kanaka" (born was the land, born were the chiefs, born were the commoners), conveys the belief that all things of the land, including kanaka (humans), are connected through kinship links that extend beyond the immediate family (Pukui 1983:57). Aina or land, was perhaps most revered, as noted in the `olelo no `eau "he ali `i ka 'Cana; he kauwa ke kanaka," which Pukui (Pukui 1983:62) translated as "[t]he land is a chief man is its servant." The lifeways of early Hawaiians, which were dependent entirely from the finite natural resources of these islands, necessitated the development of sustainable CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 15 2. Background resource management practices. Over time, what developed was an ecologically responsive management system that integrated the care of watersheds, natural freshwater systems, and nearshore fisheries (Jokiel et al. 2011). Disciplined and astute observation of the natural world became one of the most fundamental stewardship tools used by the ancient Hawaiians. The vast knowledge acquired through direct observation enabled them to detect and record the subtlest of changes, distinctions, and correlations in the natural world. Examples of their keen observations are evident in the development of Hawaiian nomenclature to describe various rains, clouds, winds, stones, environments, flora, and fauna. Many of these names are geographically unique or island -specific, and have been recorded in oli (chants), mele (songs), pule (prayers), inoa `aina (place names), and `olelo no `eau (proverbial sayings). Other Hawaiian arts and practices such as hula (traditional dance), lapa 'au (traditional healing), lawai 'a (fishing), mahi 'al (farming) further aided in the practice of knowing the rhythms and cycles of the natural world. Comprehensive systems of observing and stewarding the land were coupled by the strict adherence to practices that maintained and enhanced the kapu and mana of all things in the Hawaiian world. In Hawaiian belief, all things natural, places, and even people, especially those of high rank, possessed mana or "divine power" (Pukui and Elbert 1986:235; Pukui et al. 1972). Mana was believed to be derived from the plethora of Hawaiian gods (kini akua) who were embodied in elemental forces, land, natural resources, and certain material objects and persons (Crabbe et al. 2017). Buck (1993) expanded on this concept noting that mana was associated with "the well-being of a community, in human knowledge and skills (canoe building, harvesting) and in nature (crop fertility, weather etc.)" (c.f. Else 2004:244). To ensure the mana of certain resources, places, and people, kapu of various kinds were implemented and strictly enforced to limit over -exploitation and defilement. Elbert and Pukui (1986:132) defined kapu as "taboo, prohibitions; special privilege or exemption." Kepelino noted that kapu associated with akua (deities) applied to all social classes, while kapu associated with ali `i were applied to the people (in Beckwith 1971). As kapu dictated social relationships, they also provided "environmental rules and controls that were essential for a subsistence economy" (Else 2004:246). The companion to kapu was noa, translated as "freed of taboo, released from restrictions, profane, freedom" (Pukui and Elbert 1986:268). Some kapu, particularly those associated with maintaining social hierarchy and gender differentiation were unremitting, while those kapu placed on natural resources were applied and enforced according to seasonal changes. The application of kapu to natural resources ensured that such resources remained available for future use. When the ali `i or the lesser chiefs (including konohiki and po'o lawai `a) determined that a particular resource was to be made available to the people, a decree was proclaimed indicating that kapu had been lifted, thereby making it noa. Although transitioning a resource from a state of kapu to noa allowed for its use, people were expected to practice sustainable harvesting methods and pay tribute to the paramount chief and the akua associated with that resource. Kapu were strictly enforced and violators faced serious consequences including death (Jokiel et al. 2011). Violators who escaped execution sought refuge at a pu `uhonua, a designated place of refuge or an individual who could pardon the accused (Kamakau 1992). After completing the proper rituals, the violator was absolved of his or her crime and allowed to reintegrate back into society. In summary, the layering and interweaving of beliefs, land stewardship practices, and the socio-political system forms the basis of the relationship shared between the Hawaiian people and the land. It is through the analysis of these dynamic elements that we develop an understanding of the complexity of place. CULTURAL HISTORY OF HAKALAU NUI AND KAMA`E`E AHUPUA'A The project area extends across the ahupua 'a of Hakalau Nui and Kama'ee (Figure 17) and straddles the Hakalau Stream, which serves as the boundary separating the modem judicial districts of North and South Hilo. Prior to its separation in 1886, North and South Hilo was simply known as Hilo—a vast district that extends from Waiakea in the south to `O`okala in the north (King 1935). Pukui et al. (1974:35) translated Hakalau as "many perches" and Maly (in Rosendahl 2009:A-5) noted that its meaning is "descriptive of openings in the cliff face." Although Pukui et al. (1974) did not provide a translation for Kama`e`e, Maly (in Rosendahl 2009:A-9) interpreted this place name to mean "Contrary Child." A closer review of the words kama and `e `e reveals other possible interpretations including to bind the yellow feathers of the '5 '5 (Moho nobilis) bird [kama meaning to bind, tie, wrap and `e`e meaning yellow underwing feathers of the `o `o bird] or child/person wrapped in yellow '5 '5 feathers [kama meaning child, person]. This interpretation of Kama`e`e is plausible given the historical abundance of native birds in the upper forested regions of North Hilo, as well as the numerous mentions of bird catchers in the district as recorded in the proceedings of the Commission of Boundaries in the late 19r' century (see Boundary Commission section). 16 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a Hakalau lki Ahupua'a Kama'c'eAhupua'a Or. U N A,,. au... K • ^ 4• Q. 0 ':+ N Figure 17. Portion of Hawai i Registered Map 2060 by J.M. Donn (1901) showing project area within Hakalau and Kama`e`e Ahupua`a. A succinct general description of the Hilo District is provided by E. S. Craighill Handy, Elizabeth Green Handy, and Mary Kawena Pukui in their book Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment: Hilo as a major division of Hawai`i included the southeastern part of the windward coast most of which was in Hamakua, to the north of Hilo Bay. This, the northern portion, had many scattered settlements above streams running between high, forested kula lands, now planted with sugar cane. From Hilo Bay southeastward to Puna the shore and inland are rather barren and there were few settlements. The population of Hilo was anciently as now concentrated mostly around and out from Hilo Bay, which is still the island's principal port. The Hilo Bay region is one of lush tropical verdure and beauty, owing to the prevalence of nightly showers and moist warmth which prevail under the northeasterly trade winds into which it faces. Owing to the latter it is also subject to violent oceanic storms and has many times in its history suffered semidevastation from tidal waves unleashed by earthquake action in the Aleutian area of the Pacific. (Handy et al. 1991:538) Traditionally, the moku of Hilo was divided into three 'okana (sub -districts). Beginning in the north is Hilo Paliku, an area that extends north of the Wailuku River to Ka`ula Gulch and is characterized by its upright and densely vegetated cliffs and broad kula (plains) lands (Figure 18) (Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation 2012). The Hawaiian proverb, Hilo iki, pali `ele `ele (little Hilo of the dark cliffs) describes this sub -district noted for its greenery, rain, and mists (Pukui 1983:107). The second `okana is Hilo One, or "sandy Hilo," famed for its black sand beach that extends along Hilo Bay between the Wailoa and Wailuku Rivers. The final `okana is Hilo Hanakahi, which extends south of Wailoa River to include Keaukaha (Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation 2012). The source of these `okana is found in the legendary account titled "Ka `ao Ho `oniva Pu `uwai no Ka-Miki" ("The Heart Stirring Story of Ka-Miki") written by John Wise and J.W.H.I. Kihe and published in Hilo's Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Holcu 0 Hawai `i between January 8, 1914, through December 6, 1917. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 17 2. Background Figure 18. 2021 aerial photo showing Hakalau Gulch in Hilo Paliku, photo by ASM. The study area ahupua 'a of Hakalau and Kama`e`e are located in the `okana of Hilo Paliku, a name that aptly describes the precipitous bluffs carved by the numerous stream -cut gulches that is characteristic of this region. The pall (cliffs) span along the northeastern coastline of Hawai`i Island running north from the mouth of the Wailuku River and broken only by a string of relatively narrow gulches extending downslope of Mauna Kea. The broad and gently sloping plateaus, referred to as kula lands, between the gulches are fertile with deep soils. Both the gulches and kula lands and served as an ideal environment for thriving populations prior to Western contact. King David Kalakaua also provided a concise description of this region's rough geography and commented on the density of the population there in his book The Legends and Mvths of Hawaii: The northeastern coast of the island of Hawaii presents an almost continuous succession of valleys, with intervening uplands rising gently for a few miles, and then more abruptly toward the snows of Mauna Kea and the clouds. The rains are abundant on that side of the island, and the fertile plateau, boldly fronting the sea with a line of cliffs from fifty to a hundred feet in height, is scored at intervals of one or two miles with deep almost impassable gulches, whose waters reach the ocean either through rocky channels worn to the level of the waves, or in cascades leaping from the cliffs and streaking the coast from Hilo to Waipio with lines that seem to be molten silver from the great crucible of Kilauea. In the time of Liloa, and later, this plateau was thickly populated, and requiring no irrigation, was cultivated from the sea upward to the line of frost. A few kalo patches are still seen, and bananas grow, as of old, in secluded spots and along the banks of the ravines; but the broad acres are green with cane, and the whistle of the sugar -mill is heard above the roar of the surf that beats against the rock-bound front of Hamakua. (Kalakaua 1888:284) The abundance of streams, valleys, and gulches in this region, although stunningly beautiful, made foot travel quite difficult and treacherous. The legendary account of Ka-Miki (mentioned above), published in the Hawaiian 18 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background language newspaper Ka Hoku 0 Hawai `i on March 30, 1916, poetically describes the difficulties faced by early travelers. Kepa Maly, a Hawaiian historian translated the account as such: O Hilo Paliku kahi i `olelo `ia ai; Pau ke aho i ka hele o Hilo, he lau ka pu `u, he mano ka ihona, he kini na kahawai, a e 'au no ho' i i ka wai o Hilo a pau ke aho, a' ohe e pau ka wai! Of Hilo Paliku it is said, one becomes short of breath traveling through Hilo, for there are many (400) hills, many (4,000) areas to descend, and many (40,000) streams, indeed while swimming through the waters of Hilo one becomes out of breath, but one is never out of water at Hilo! (Maly and Maly 2006:13) A similar sentiment was also reported in "Ka Huakaihele ike i na Makaainana o Hilo" (A Sightseeing Tour to Visit the Common Folk of Hilo), written by G.K. Mahoe (1876) of his travels throughout Hilo that was serialized in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Lahui Hawai `i. Mahoe described Hilo Paliku thusly: ...ua pale ae au i ka loa o ke alahele, ua manao ole ae hoi i na pali hauliuli o Hilo paliku, na piina, na ihona, na alu, na kahawai, na kualono, a me na pupu, ua hele hookahi is no e a'u, me ka manao ole i ka luhi a me ka inea o ka hele ana, oiai, ma ka hoomaopopo ana i ka loa mai Hilo one a hiki i Laupahoehoe, me he mea la, ua aneane no i ke kanakolu mile. A mai kuhihewa hoi ka poe heluhelu, he papu a he laumania hoi ke ano o ka waiho ana o ka aina, aole, aka, he putt kinikini, he alu, he kapekepeke ke alanui. ...I am protected from the long path ahead, I did not think twice of the dark cliffs of Hilo Paliku, the inclines, the descents, the ravines, the streams, the mountaintops, and the cleared fields, I moved alone, without thinking much of the strain and discomfort of traveling, although, when I recalled the length between Hilo One and Laupahoehoe, those thirty miles came and went. The reader should not be mistaken, the lands that are passed along the way are not clear and smooth, rather, there are many hills, gulches, and twisting roads. (Mahoe 1876:1) The low-lying coastal areas of Hilo Paliku thrived with traditional Hawaiian habitation and cultivation sites. Within the larger gulches and kula regions were lush, fertile lands well suited for agriculture. The traditional staple crop, kalo (taro), was cultivated in irrigated terraces along stream edges while `uala (sweet potato), mai' a (banana) and ko (sugarcane) were grown in the kula lands of the lower forest zone (Handy et al. 1991). The region had an abundance of kukui (candlenut), `ulu (breadfruit), and niu (coconut) groves and was also rich in marine and river resources. Although settlements were prominent in these areas, with the increase in population and agricultural production during the late 19' and 20th centuries, settlements spread into the upland kula regions. Handy and Handy (1972), in drawing from a description given by early missionary William Ellis, provide yet another description of the fertile landscapes of South Hilo: The light and fertile soil is formed by decomposing lava, with a considerable portion of vegetable mould. The whole is covered with luxuriant vegetation, and the greater part of it formed into plantations, where plantains, bananas, sugar -cane, taro, potatoes and melons, come to the greatest perfection. Groves of cocoa -nut and bread -fruit trees are seen in every direction, loaded with fruit, or clothed with luxuriant foliage. (Ellis in Handy and Handy 1972:539) Place, Rain, and Wind Names of Greater Hilo Paliku The inoa (names) of wahi (places), ua (rains), and makani (winds) within a particular ahupua `a or broader region evidences the long-term relationship of various communities to their immediate environment. Geographer Katrina - Ann R. Kapa`anaokalaokeola Nakoa Oliveira offers a concise description of the natural environment as it was understood by Hawaiians of the past: Ancestral Kanaka recognized the connection between the heavens, lands, and oceans and how all three were interconnected and interdependent upon one another. In spite of the interwoven nature of the sky, land, and sea, however, Kanaka of ancestral times did not have a term that directly translates to what we have come to know today as "environment." Rather, the Hawaiian Dictionary offers two phrases that approximate the notion of environment: (1) "`ano o ka nohona" and (2) "na mea e ho`opuni ana." 'Ano o ka nohona refers to the nature of one's relationship to one's surroundings or places. Na mea e ho`opuni ana relates to everything that surrounds or encircles a person. (Oliveira 2014:64) CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 19 2. Background Reacquainting ourselves with these inoa `aina (place names), inoa ua (rain names), and inoa makani (wind names) allows us to appreciate the environment as it was once observed by ancestral Hawaiian populations. In Hakalau and Kama`e`e, a few inoa `aina are listed by Soehren (2005), unless specified otherwise, as markers for the boundaries of these ahupua `a. The inoa ?dna for Hakalau and Kama`e`e are listed in Table 1 below. Note that the translations provided below should be treated as cursory interpretations rather than authoritative facts since further research is needed to develop more definitive translations of these place names: Table 1. Inoa `Rina in Hakalau and Kama`e`e Thou `Aina Lexicology Ahupua'a Interpretive Translation Notes Awakee Awake'e Holei Holei Honohina Kalepolepo Kaloaloa Kanepuu Kaoku Kahoikua Kapahunui Kapihae Honohina Kalepolepo Kaloaloa Kanepu `u Ka`Oku Kaho`ikua Kapahunui Unknown Hakalau Bent harbor Hakalau Native tree of the same name (Ochrosia compta) Hakalau Hina's Bay or gray bay Hakalau The dirt Hakalau Hakalau Hakalau Hakalau Hakalau Hakalau Kawelo Kawelo Kama' e`e Kuamoohua Kuamo`ohua Kama' e`e Kukuinui Kukuinui Hakalau Lanikeha Lanikeha Hakalau Laniomaui Lani 0 Maui Hakalau Lemupahupahu Lemupahupahu Hakalau The elongated Kane's hill The decoy The return of the god The large drum/box Translation undetermined The progency or the setting sun Path along the edge Great kukui tree Majestic heavens Heavens/sky of Maui Buttocks/Bruised buttocks Boundary point at shore between Hakalau-nui and Hakalau-iki. Boundary point between Hakalau-nui and Hakalau-iki. Stream One of two ponds estimated to be at about the 6,500 foot elevation. Hill, triangulation station located about the 6,640 foot elevation. Prominent hill located about the 5,800 foot elevation. A cliff and boundary point between Hakalau and Kama'e`e. Upland boundary point between Hakalau-nui and Hakalau-iki. Second of the two ponds estimated to be at about the 6,500 foot elevation. Apo 'o 'auivai (headwater) and boundary point between Hakalau-nui and Hakalau-iki. Tributary stream and boundary point between Hakalau and Kama' e`e. A tributary of Wa` awa` a stream. Boundary between Hakalaunui and Hakalauiki. Old village site on the Hakalaunui/Hakalauiki boundary. Boundary point between Hakalau and Kama`e`e in the woods. A place along the coastal cliffs of Hakalau. (Kahapee 1867) Table 1 continues on next page. 20 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Table 1. continued. Inoa `Tina Lexicology Ahupua'a Interpretive Translation Notes N akama Nakama Hakalau Napumaia Napumai`a Hakalau Waawaa/ Wa`awa`a/ Hakalau Wawaa Wawa Waiau Waiau Hakalau Waihaka Waihaka Kama' e`e Wailimu Wailimu Hakalau/Kama`e`e Algae water The children The banana stalks Furrowed Swirling waters Watery perch A hill and old village site in the uplands of Hakalau gulch that served as a boundary point between Hakalau and Kama`e`e. Boundary point between Hakalau-nui and Hakalau-iki. Gulch, stream, and boundary between Hakalau and Kama`e`e. Stream and boundary between Hakalaunui and Kama' e`e. Also called Wailimu. A stream and po o auwai (headwater) in Hakalau-nui. Stream that flows into Wa`awa`a. Also believed to be called Waiau. End of Table 1. Although there are many inoa Una that were collected for Hakalau and Kama`e`e, many of these names refer to places ma uka (upland) of the project area. The inoa `aina also reveals information regarding old village sites (Lanikeha, Nakama). Lastly, many of the inoa `aina evidence the numerous waterways and water sources found in Hakalau and Kama`e`e that served as boundary points between the ahupua'a (Honohina, Kalepolepo, Kapahunui, Kawelo, Kuamoohua, Waawaa, Waiau, Wailimu, Waimana). Prominent po 'o auwai (headwaters), used to manage the flow and level of stream waters, are also named (Kapihae, Waihaka). In terns of inoa ua, Hilo Palikti and the larger moku of Hilo is renowned in oral expressions such as mele (song), oli (chants), and `olelo no `eau (proverbs and poetical expressions) for its abundance of rain and fresh water. Numerous `olelo no eau found in Pukui (1983) describe the characteristics of Hilo's many rains (Table 2). Table 2. `Olelo No `eau associated with the famed rains of Hilo Olelo No`eau Literal/Figurative Translation Ele ele Hilo, panopano i ka ua. Dark is Hilo, clouded with the rain (Pukui 1983:40) Halulu me he kapua `i kanaka la ka ua o Hilo. Hana Hilo i ka po `i a ka ua. Hilo `aina ua lokuloku. Hilo i ka ua kinakinai, ka ua mao 'ole. 'Au umauma o Hilo i ka wai. Pau ke aho i ke kahawai lau. o Hilo. The rain of Hilo makes a rumbling sound like the treading of feet. (Pukui 1983:53) Hilo works on the lid of the rain. Refers to the constant showers typical of Hilo district on Hawai`i. (Pukui 1983:54) Hilo of the pouring rain. (Pukui 1983:107) Hilo of the constant rain, where it never clears up. (Pukui 1983:107) Hilo has breasted the water. To weather the storm. The district of Hilo had many gulches and streams and was difficult to cross. (Pukui 1983 28) One's strength is exhausted in crossing the many streams of Hilo. Said of or by one who is weary with effort. First uttered by Hi`iaka in a chant when she found herself weary after a battle with the lizard god Pana`ewa. (Pukui 1983:287) CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 21 2. Background Akana and Gonzalez (2015) in Hanau Ka Ua, a collection of Hawaiian rain names, describe the cultural significance of rain: Our kupuna [ancestors] had an intimate relationship with the elements. They were keen observers of their environment, with all of its life-giving and life -taking forces. They had a nuanced understanding of the rains of their home. They knew that one place could have several different rains, and that each rain was distinguishable from another. They knew when a particular rain would fall, its color, duration, intensity, the path it would take, the sound it made on the trees, the scent it carried, and the effect it had on people. (Akana and Gonzalez 2015:xv) Listed in Table 3 are a few of the rain names associated with Hilo Paliku and the northern portion of Hilo that can be found in Akana and Gonzalez (2015): Table 3. Rain Names Associated with Hilo Paliku Rain Name Literal/Figurative Translation `Awa`awa Translates as "bitter." Refers to a cold and dark rain or mist. Heenehu Translates as "sliding anchovy." Refers to a misty rain in the early morning off the coastline at a time when nehu fish are in abundance. Ho`olua Translates as "to do twice." Refers to heavy rains that fall during strong northerly winds (which are also known as ho`olua). Kinai Translates as "to quench or extinguish." Refers to a constant rain that continues for long hours. Kualua Translates as "repeating twice." Refers to rain over the sea that is accompanied by wind. Lanipili Translates as "clinging sky." Refers to cloudbursts or heavy rain that lasts for days. Lanipolua Translates as "very dark sky." Refers to misty rain that falls when forests are obscured by low- lying clouds. Lokuloku Translates as "pouring rain." A generic term referring to heavy showers accompanied by wind. (Lila 1872:3) Nau1u Translated as "vexed." Refers to sudden heavy showers. Ulumano Translated as "growing exponentially." A rain that travels inland from the sea that is an indicator of the abundance of `ohua (juvenile fish). Whereas Hanau Ka Ua provides us with a comprehensive listing of inoa ua across the Hawaiian Islands, there is no comparable publication for inoa makani to date. Listed in Table 4 are wind names that can be found in an array of Hawaiian and English language primary sources: Table 4. Wind names associated with Hilo Paliku Wind Name Notes `A`alahonua Translates as "fragrant earth." A wind that carries the fragrance of soil and foliage after the rain. (Alvarado 2005) Kepia Translates as "dandruff." A wind associated with Hilo Paliku. (Nawaa 1904) Kolonahe Translates as "crawling slowly." A generic term for a gentle breeze (Lila 1872). Uluaunui Translates as "to grow increasingly." a strong northerly wind that makes landing by boat difficult. Uluau Translates as "to grow increasingly." Associated with Hilo Paliku in the mo `olelo of Kuapaka`a. (Kuapuu 1861:24) Ho`olua Translates as "to do twice." Refers to strong northerly winds that may include rain. (Malo 1903:35) Hau Translates as "ice." A wind that blows downward from the mountains (Malo 1903:35) Maluaki`iwai "Translate as "water -collecting seabreeze." A sea breeze accompanied by showers. (Alvarado 2005:5). 22 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Traditional Mo `olelo of Hakalau and Kama`e`e and the Greater Hilo Paliku Mo `olelo (accounts, stories, legends) are rich resources for understanding the cultural landscape, land use, and practices of an area. It is yet another indigenous source of information that informs our understanding of how peoples of the past expressed their relationships to their lands and environment. An exhaustive search through secondary sources and Hawaiian language primary source materials revealed a few mo `olelo that specifically name Hakalau and Kama`e. Additionally, an array of mo `olelo speaks of events that take place in Hilo Paliku the `okana within which Hakalau and Kama`e`e and located. The following summary of mo `olelo begins with those that make explicit reference to the lands of Hakalau and Kama`e`e, followed by a selection of mo `olelo that speaks more broadly of the Hilo Paliku region. Hi `iakaikapoliopele, Malaeakini, and the Flying Ghosts The mo olelo of Hi'iakapoliopele is an epic tale that was published numerous times by several authors in Hawaiian language newspapers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This mo `olelo follows Hiiakaikapoliopele along her journey to retrieve the Kauai chief Lohi'au for his lover, the fire deity Pete, Hi'iaka's eldest sister. This coming of age story traces Hi'iakaikapoliopele's movement across the archipelago, recounting the numerous places she visited as well as the beings—both human and nonhuman—that she encountered and at times battled. In the mo `olelo, Hi`iakaikapoliopele and her aikane (intimate friend) Wahine`oma`o briefly pass through Hakalau and the famed lehua grove of Malaeakini as they made their way to Laupahoehoe. In a version of the mo olelo published in the newspapers Ku `oko `a Home Rula between 1908-1911 by Hawaiian literary author Joseph Moku`ohai Poepoe, a brief explanatory note regarding Malaeakini is included. Poepoe (1909) states that Malaeakini was an ancient lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) grove that was frequently visited by travelers and po `e ho `olana ma `i (people with a specific form of sickness that is unknown at this time). The following excerpt of the mo olelo is derived from a version of Hiiakapoliopele authored by Ho`oulumahiehie and translated by Puakea Nogelmeier. Prior to arriving in Hakalau, Hi'iakaikapoliopele and Wahine`dma`o visited Makahanaloa (south of Hakalau) and the famed `ohe (bamboo) grove of the god Kane known as Hdmaika`ohe. After departing Makahanaloa, the pair approached Hakalau and observed a crowd of people including men, women, and children surfing in the bay. Hi`iaka questions whether the surfers were indeed human or if they were merely spirits disguised as humans. To test her conjecture, Hi`iaka retrieves branches from Malaeakini, the famed lehua and tossed it into the sea at which point the surfers quickly vanished. That portion of the story relating the details of this event reads thusly: '0 ko lakou nei Kele is Hakalau i nd They went along until Hakalau, amid the lehua o Malaeakini, 'ike akula `o lehua trees of Malaeakini, when Wahine `oma `o i ka he `e nalu mai o Wahine`oma`o saw men, women, and kekahi po `e /cane, na wahine, a me na children surfing, and said to her kamali `i, a `olelo akula ia i ke aikane, companion, "What a crowd of people "Mdkena wale ho `i ua po `e e he `e surfing. Men, women, and children, all nalu maila. '0 kdne, ka wahine, a me sliding along the waves." kamali'1 ia e kaha maila i ka nalu." Hi'iaka then said to Wahine`oma`o, Olelo maila `o Hi `iaka id "Those aren't actual people that you see. Wahine `Oma `o, " A `ole ice la he Those are flying ghosts, from the biggest kanaka `i `o du e `ike akula. He po `e to the smallest, all gliding along on the `ula lele keld mai ke nui a ka li `ili `i ia waves." e ho `okikakaha maila i ka nalu." "How absurd, my friend, to say those "He keu n� ho `i `oe e aikane, i `dlelo people are flying ghosts. Don't they look maila i keld po `e kanaka he po `e 'ula like real people?" Wahi`oma`o asked her lele. He po `e kanaka maoli no paha friend. kela? " wahi a Wahine `oma `o i pane "Let us see the truth of our assumptions; aku ai i ke aikane. now, I will toss a lehua from here in "E nand a `e kaua i ka pololei o kau a Malaeakini into the sea, and if those me ka pololei 'ole o ka `u, `o ia ho `i, e people do not disappear, then you are kiola a' e au i ka lehua o Malaeakini correct, but if they suddenly and nei i loko o ke kai, a i nalowale 'ole completely disappear from your sight, kela po `e mai kou mau maka aku, a then I am right." laila, ua pololei 'oe; aka ho `i, i CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 23 2. Background nalowale honua kela po `e mai na lihilihi aku o kou mau maka, a laila, ua pololei ho `i au." '0 ko Hi `iaka lalau a `ela no ia i kekahi 1a1a lehua a ho `olei akula i ia mea 1loko okekai. Iiawa1 `ike aku ai `o Wahine `dma `o i ka naholo pI `d '5 `ana a `e o ua po `e nei ana e `ike aku nei, mai ke nui a ka li `ili `i, a nalowale a `ela, me ka maopopo 'ole is Wahine `oma `o o ko lakou wahi o ka nalowale `ana aku. A i ia wa i ninau mai ai 'o Hi `iaka id Wahine `drna `o, "Auhea akula ua po `e he `e nalu nei du i `ike aku nei?" Ua pau nui i ka nalowale. Maopopo 'ole na `e is `u ko lakou wahi o ka nalowale `ana aku nei. E! Ua pololei kdu, e aikane, i ha `i mai nei. He po `e `e `epa keld, " i pane aku ai `o Wahine 'Oma`o i ke aikane. E ka mea heluhelu, ma ka mana mo `olelo Hi `iaka a kekahi po `e, ua `olelo `ia `o keia po `e kdnaka a Wahine `dma `d e `ike aku nei, mai ke nui a ka li `ili `i e he `e nalu ana, he po `e kdnaka maoli nd, a ma mull o ko Hi `iaka ho `olei `ana i ka ldld lehua o Malaeakini dna i haha `i mai ai a kiola akula i loko o ke kai, ua pau loa keld po `e i ka make, '0 kane, 'o ka wahine, 'o keiki, ma mull o ko lakou hihia `ana i/id 11115okokekumu lehua 1ulua`e ai mai nei 1a167 lehua a Hi `iaka i uhaki a `e ai a kiola akula i loko o ke kai. Ind o ka mea pololei keia, a laila, ua lilo 'o Hi'iaka i mea pepehi kumu 'ole i keld po `e kanaka lawehala 'ole mai id Hi `iaka, aka, nau n� na `e, e ka mea heluhelu, e kaupaona nou iho i ka mea pololei. (Ho`oulumahiehie 2006b:1108-1109) The Chief Hua And The Battle of Kani `auho `opio Hiiaka then grabbed a branch of lehua and tossed it into the sea. At that moment, Wahine`oma`o saw the frantic flight of all the people she had seen; big to little, they completely disappeared, with Wahine`oma`o unable to figure out where they had gone. Then Hiiaka asked her, "Where did all of those surfers you just saw go off to?" "They have all vanished. I do not know where they disappeared to. Ah! What you said, aikane, was correct after all. They were supernatural beings," said Wahine'oma`o to her friend. Dear reader, in some people's version of the Hi`iaka epic, these folk Wahine`oma`o sighted surfing, from the large to the small, were actual people, and because Hiiaka tossed the branch of lehua from Malaeakini, which she'd broken and thrown into the sea, all of the men, women, and childred died, tangled in the branches of lehua that sprouted from this one branch Hiiaka had broken and tossed into the sea. If this were true, it would make Hi`iaka a senseless killer of those who brought her no harm, but you, the reader, should weigh the truth of this for yourself. (Ho`oulumahiehie 2006a:102-103) Although the story of the chief Hua is mentioned anecdotally as part of larger narratives of Hawaii's ancient past, mention is made of that battle known as Kani`auho`opio, which took place in Hakalau. It was in this battle that many of Hawaii's chiefs were slain by Hua. The translated excerpt offered below is pulled from an account published in 1908 by Poepoe in the newspaper he edited, Ka Na `i Aupuni. His serialized story, titled Moolelo Hawaii! (Hawaii's History!), incorporated earlier accounts, such as those told by Hawaiian historians David Malo and Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau, to convey the story of Hua and many other chiefs and chiefesses of Hawaii's ancient past. The translated excerpt below offers some introductory remarks regarding Hua and the battle of Kani`auho opio: In the Ulu genealogy (one of numerous genealogies that the high-ranking chiefs of Hawaii traced their lineages to), there are chiefs named Hua that can be seen. The first is Hua, the child of 24 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Pohukaina (m) and Huahuakapalei (f); the second Hua, who was known as Huanuikala`ila`i (Huanuikala-la`ila`i), was the child of Pau (m) and Kapohaakia (f). This [second] Hua, however, is a descendant of the first Hua that is shown above. These two Hua chiefs both were born in Hawaii (the archipelago). REGARDING THE FIRST HUA This is what David Malo reveals within his handwritten book "Moolelo Hawaii," translated by Dr. N. B. Emerson into English and named "Hawaiian Antiquities," pages 323, chapter 62, page 10: "Hua was a ruling chief, born at Kahona, Lahaina, Maui; he died at Kehoni, on the same island, and buried at 'Tao. This is S. M. Kamakau's story for this chief: THE STORY OF HUA OF POHUKAINA Kupuaimanaku was another name for his father. Hua was born in Lahaina. This is not the Hua that built the heiau of Apahua in the uplands of Wainee, near Kapoulu. This is a warring chief. This Hua is the one that built the heiau of Honua`ula and Kuawalu in Ka`uiki, Hana. And he [is the chief associated with] the war called Kani`auho`opio in Hakalau, Hilo, Hawaii. Hawai`i's people were slain in this battle. Kalaaualonomakauahi (spelled Kalaauaolomakauahi in the chant below) was the name of Hua's weapon. Here is the name chant of this chiefly Hua: `O Hua a Kapuaimanaku Ke'lii o Lahaina I hanau n5 i Kahona i Kanaha '0 Lelenuikuakamau, Kahua '0 Waie `e ke ewe '0 Luakona ka piko '0 Kaua `ula ke a'a I Haleili i Kahili Noho i Wananalua Haka kapu id Honua `ula Hahau i ke kaua i Kana `auho `opio I haka i Hakalau I pa id Kaona i Hikinaakala I ili id Kana I pale 'ia is Kalaauaolomakauahi I ka laau kapu a Hua Hanle i Kehoni i Kiikewe I kapa i Niva ke'lii o Hua Hoi no i uka ka waihona Hua, child of Kapuaimanaku Chief of Lahaina Born at Kahona, at Kanaha Lelenuikuakamau is the seed Waie'e is the sprout Luakona is the navel Kauaula is the rootlets At Haleili, at Kahili Residing at Wananalua Sacred platform to Honua`ula Smitten by battle, by KanT`auho`opio [He who was] perched in Hakalau [He who was] hit by Kaona, by Hikianakala [He who was] attacked Kana [He who was] protected by Kalaauaolomakauahi The sacred weapon of Hua [He who] fell at Kehoni, at Ki`ikewe [He who was] called Niva the chief known as Hua Returned to the uplands for safekeeping. (Translation by ASM staff, Halena Kapuni- Reynolds) (Poepoe 1908b:1) This chant, composed for this Hawaiian chief from Lahaina, Maui, clearly describes his birthplace. He lived in many places, eventually arriving [and living] in Wananalua, Hana. He lived there (at Wananalua), and he built a heiau for warfare in that place. He sailed to Hawaii for battle, and when he returned victorious, he returned to Hana. When he was an old man, he was ridden with sickness. He left Hana and landed ashore at Ki`ikewe in Waihee. He died at Niva. His body was taken to the uplands of `Iao. (Poepoe 1908a:3) Adding to Poepoe's interpretation of Hua's mele inoa (name chant), the mele may also convey information about the battle that took place. Kaona (and his weapon Hikianaakala) and Kana may be two rivals that Hua defeated in the battle of Kani`auho`opio. This battle was highly significant for it to be remembered and memorialized in Hua's name chant. Ke Ka `ao Ho `oniva Pu `uwai no Ka-Miki—The Heart Stirring Story of Ka-Miki Hakalau and Kama' e`e are both mentioned in the heart stirring story of Ka-Miki, an account published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawai `i by John Wise and J.W.H.I. Kihe between 1914-1917. Although CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 25 2. Background the mo `olelo "used a mixture of local traditions, tales, and family histories in association with place names to tie together fragments of site specific history that had been handed down over the generations," it "...is not an ancient account" (Maly and Maly 2001:23). The following succint synopsis of the mo `olelo is provided in Maly and Maly (2001:23): This mo `olelo is set in the 1300s (by association with the chief Pili-a-Ka`aiaea), and is an account of two supernatural brothers, Ka-Miki (The quick, or adept, one) and Maka-`iole (Rat [squinting] eyes). The narratives describe the birth of the brothers, their upbringing, and their journey around the island of Hawai`i along the ancient ala loa and ala hele (trails and paths) that encircled the island. During their journey, the brothers competed alongside the trails they traveled, and in famed kahua (contest fields) and royal courts, against `olohe (experts skilled in fighting or in other competitions, such as running, fishing, debating, or solving riddles, that were practiced by the ancient Hawaiians). They also challenged priests whose dishonorable conduct offended the gods of ancient Hawaii. Ka-Miki and Maka-`idle were empowered by their ancestress Ka-uluhe-nui- hihikolo-i-uka (The great entangled growth of uluhe fern which spreads across the uplands), who was one of the myriad of body forms of the goddess Haumea, the earth -mother, creative force of nature who was also called Papa or Hina. Among her many nature -form attributes were manifestations that caused her to be called upon as a goddess of priests and competitors. Maly in Rosendahl (2009) translated a portion of Ka-Miki centered on the lands of Kolekole, Kuhua, Hakalau, and Kama`e`e. Below is Maly's summary and translation of the mo olelo. Any mention of Hakalau, Kama`e`e, and place names within these ahupua `a are bolded for emphasis: In summary, readers are told that lands that bear the names of Haka-lau (Many perches — descriptive of opernings in the cliff face) were named for the Hakalau chiefs, a priest and `olohe [skilled warrior]; Hakalau-lani-a-pi`i and Hakalau-a-olo were the chiefs; Hakalau-iki was the priest (famed for his knowledge and cliff leaping skills); and Hakalau-nui was the kaula `aina (land administrator) and an `olohe champion who served under the chief Kolekole (6/8/1916). (The excerpts below, are presented in the narrative form as written in the original Hawaiian.) Kuhua Kuhua can be translated as "Thicken" (cf. lepo kuhue clay); a land area that borders the valley of Kolekole. The land called Kuhua was named for the `olohe chiefess Kuhua-i-Halala, one of the daughters of Honomu, sister of `Ope`a-i-Honohina, Kuhua was also the guardian of the young warrior -chief named Kapahe`ehe`e (there is an area now called Pahe`ehe`e). While traveling along the ala loci (the main trail of this region that ran along the kula overlooking the coastal cliffs), Ka-Miki, Maka-`iole, and the chiefs Hilo Hanakahi and Keahialaka had been attacked by Kapahe`ehe`e (and the chief Honomu, who had tried to rescue Kapahe`ehe`e). Ka- Miki ma (Ka-Miki and companions) left Kapahe`ehe`e and Honomu securely bound near the trailside and continued their journey. Traveling a short distance, they met with the chiefess Kuhua- i-HAlala, the daughter of Honomu and adoptive guardian of Kapahe`ehe`e. Now Kuhua was compared to the puhi kapa (voracious eel of the ocean), and was a master of ha `iha `i (bone breaking techniques) and lua (rough hand-to-hand combat). Kuhua, her sister `Opea-i-Honohina (Honohina), and Honohina's husband Peleau`au, regularly challenged travelers who passed on the ala loa near their residence. Those that were unskilled in fighting were killed along the trail, and those who could compete skill for skill with them were invited into Kuhua's house. Kuhua kept an `aha puluniu (sennit crab snare) in her pa `u and when entering the house, she would strangle her victims. Kuhua's house was built overlooking the cliff ledge of Kupoupo`o [presumably overlooking the Kolekole area], and the victims of Kuhua and were compared to `a `ama crabs caught in puluniu crab snares. Seeing Ka-Miki ma, Kuhua asked in an `olelo no `eau (riddle): `Mama Hilo?" (Can one move swiftly through Hilo?). Ka-Miki responded, "Mama i ka wai `ole!" (Yes indeed one may travel swiftly through Hilo, for there is no water in the streams!)(Meaning there were no `olohe upon the trail who could meet the challenge of stopping his group.) Kuhua then inquired how this could be so, and she said: ...How is it that Hilo is without water (`olohe)? There are many (400) hills, many (4,000) descents, and many (40,000) rivers in Hilo, one becomes breathless (is overcome) swimming 26 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background in the waters of Hilo, but one is never out of water in Hilo...Hilo is the land of rain, rain that goes on and on, rain that darkens the sun. Indeed the sun is darkened by the rains, and it is the Maluaki`iwai that pushes down the river debris (travelers) from the uplands. So is the stormy nature of Hilo known, and blocked are the trails that one would travel. (5/25/1916) Ka-Miki then answered Kuhua in poetic riddle phrase of his own: ...Hilo has no water. The water has returned and sits in the springs, along the dripping cliff faces, to the quiet pools. The rivers have receded, the rain trough of Hilo is placed in the heavens...we have come to see Hilo bound in the meshes of heavenly rains, Hilo in the long twined lines of the Malualua, which fetches the multitudinous waters (olohe), those of skill, [wind] upon the mountain tops [adorned] with budding 'Ai 'a, and the mdmane that droops in the cold, on the mountains that move overhead like birds soaring in the heights of the heavens. Hilo is consumed by the great wind of the gourd; not it is like a small gourd to be set aside, the children call out; for it is ended, Hilo is [no longer] black, darkened by the rains, [emptied] are the rain troughs in the heavens... [The references to the many waters, streams, rains and storms of Hilo referred to the evil 'olohe who beset the region. The winds that cleared the heavens refer to Ka-Miki ma. Thus the children [people] of Hilo rejoiced in their new-found safety.] Ka-Miki went on to tell Kuhua: It is I, the descendent of Ka-uluhe-nui-hihi-kolo-i-uka, who have cleansed and dried the rivers. Hereafter the debris (`olohe) that has blocked the pathways will never again rise. Nana-i-ke-kihi-o-Kamalama, the descendant of Lani-nui-ku `i-a-mamao- loa has ended the practices of Upeloa, Kaumana, Kalanakama`a-o-uli, Pukihae, Mokuhonua, Waiaea, Kaiwiki, Honoli`i, Kikooakapuna, Pau and Keka`a [Pauka`a], Pueopaku, Papa`i-nui-a-kou [Papaikou], Waiahole, Ka`ie`ie-lulu-ka-i`a [Ka`ie`ie], Kalaoa, Hanawi, Kula`imano, kuilauania, Kapahe`ehe`e, and Honomu—for all have been bound by Ka-Miki. Thus Ka-Miki has waded through half of the streams of Hilo, and here is Ka-Miki seeking out and judging the skilled `olohe who remain, seeking the koa trees that darken [i.e. disreputable warriors] all the forests. (Seeking) the great koa and little koa, those who are called the Koa pd `ele-ku o Hilo – Koa trees that darken Hilo [high canopy trees that shade all that is below; descriptive of powerful warriors.] Ka-Miki then asked Kuhua, "Ma ke koa nui, ma ke koa iki, mahea `oe? " (A great koa, a little koa, where are you, what is your nature?) Thus, Kuhua understood the nature and skills of Ka-Miki, and that these youths had come seeking her out (5/24/1916). Kuhua and Ka-Miki exchanged taunts, and Kuhua said that she was the woman who snared the 'a `ama kualena (yellow backed black crabs [fierce warriors]) along the cliffs from which the koa `e (tropic birds) fly. Kuhua leapt to fight, but was defeated and bound in the net of Lani-nui-ku`i-a-inamao-loa (6/1/1916). Kuhua surrendered to Ka-Miki, and agreed to give up waylaying travelers. She then led Ka-Miki into Kolekole, where he met with Hu'ia, the chief's master image carver and a skilled orator (6/8/1916). Kolekole This area was named for Kolekole (meaning red, or raw), a high chief in the region of Hilo Paliku. The narrative continues: Seeing Kuhua arrive with strangers at the village of Kolekole, the populace approached her, questioning the nature of her visitors, for they knew the habits of Kuhua, Honomo (sic.), and Kapahe`ehe`e ma. Kuhua told them what had happened and stated that there was no one who could beat Ka-Miki, not even the priest Hakalau-nui. Observing the area around the village and compound of Kolekole, Ka-Miki noted that there were many finely carved images and he commented on their beauty, but his comments led Kolekole's master image carver Hu'ia (who was also a formidable riddler) to boast before Ka-Miki and ridicule his knowledge. Hu'ia stated that the CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 27 2. Background Kulanikapele and the champions of Kolekole would defeat him on the contest field. Thus, Ka-Miki learned that Kolekole was hosting contests between champion competitors of the region, and he asked Hu'ia to make arrangements for the area champions to meet him on the contest field that evening. Ka-Miki then called out in a chant, and described the nature -forms of his ancestress and instructor, and a mysterious voice responded, carried on the winds that rushed into the village from the mountain slopes. Because of the mysterious nature of the chant, Hu'ia became frightened of Ka-Miki (6/8/1916). Hu`ia went to the home of the chief, Kulanikapele, who was a counselor and `olohe master who served under the chief Kolekole. Hu'ia described the events to Kulanikapele, and Kulanikapele sent his messenger, `Ohi`aokalani, to confirm what had been said about the fate of the other `olohe in that section of Hilo. `Ohi`aokalani found that what was said about Ka-Miki was true, and returned to his chief, confirming the reports. Kulanikapele then sent his runner to call `Akaka, the grandson of Kulanikapele, who was also a skilled competitor, and when `Akaka met with his grandfather, the two agreed that there would be no sense in challenging Ka-Miki to a contest. Kulanikapele and `Akaka acknowledged Ka-Miki's expertise and hosted a feast and `awa ceremony for him. As the night drew near, preparations were made for the contests at the kahua of Kolekole. Kulanikapele was to be the overseer of the contests, and it was agreed that `Akaka would take Ka-Miki to the kahua. (6/15- 22/1916). In preparation for the contests, people gathered from all over at Kolekole. Among the observers were Ka -hung (The hidden one; a waterfall) and Nawao-lele (Nawao, an upland taro garden), the two beautiful chiefesses and daughters of the chief Kolekole. The areas that bear these names were named for them (6/29/1916). The first contest was to have been between Kuhua and Waileale`a, but because Kuhua had surrendered to Ka-Miki, she agreed that Ka-Miki could compete in her place. The lands of Waite 'a (Pleasurable water), both in Hilo and on Maui, at Paeahu, were named for Waileale`a, a famous Maui `olohe who was visiting Hawaii at the time of Ka-Miki's visit at Kolekole. The contest began, and Wailealea leapt to attack Ka-Miki but was quickly thrown off of the kahua. Ka-Miki then called out to learn who would be next to compete with him, and Waileale`a said he would compete again. Ka-Miki called to Waileale`a, "Kahah.a! (How surprising!). This is Waileale`a who was thrown from the kahua like a bundle of taro leaves for the chief Kolekole. I would have thought he'd had enough of Ka-Miki, the little finger of Ka- uluhe-nui-hihikolo-i-uka." Outraged, Waileale`a leapt to the kahua and was once again thrown from the field. Thus Waile`ale`a realized he was no match for Ka-Miki—Ka niuhi ae 'ale a ka moana (the great white shark that rises upon the ocean waves). Hakalau-nui then entered the kahua as the next competitor to face Ka-Miki Hakalau-nui called out to Ka-Miki— Iluna ke alo, ilalo ke alo, mahea 'oe? Is it face up or face down, where are you? [Was the fight to be to the death of one competitor?] To which Ka-Miki responded it could be however Hakalau-nui wished it to be! Hakalau-nui then said, "So you claim to be a true `olohe, master of all manner of skills!" Ka-Miki told Hakalau-nui, "It is my right, for all manner of knowledge and skills are known to me, for T have ascended, and dwelt at Kaki o Wailau (The heights of Wailau) [Mastered the very highest skills]. Numerous indeed are the teachings of Ka-uluhe-nui-hihi-kolo-i-uka, but this is not a time for questioning, it is a time for contests, so if you wish it to be "face down," let it be!" (7/6/1916). Hakalau-nui leapt to seize Ka-Miki and became entangled in Ka-Miki's malo. Ka- Miki then called to Hakalau-nui, "If you are master of all knowledge, as if at Koki o Wailau, then release the `opae (shrimp) and hinana (goby fish) from their perch (pass or hiding place)." Try as he might, Hakalau-nui was unable to free himself, and he was left bound by Ka-Miki. The reason that Ka-Miki quickly dispatched Hakalau- nui, was because he wanted to complete this night of contests and continue on to 28 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Maulua, where he would meet with Hilo-Hanakahi's master instructor and friend. Ka- Miki then chanted, calling out and asking who the next competitor would be. Mele paha Spoken chant Eu e, eu la ka `opae, `eu ka hinana Stirred up, and animated, stirred up are the `opae and hinana; Eu ka 'ula a ka naele, ka i `a he `umi Agitated is the lobster in its crevice, this wawae fish of ten feet. ...0 ka po le `a o Kolekole ke li `i It is the night of contests for the chief Kolekole, Ke li `i 'ai kalana, `ai ahupuaa `a (sic.) The chief who consumes the kahana (sic.) (combined parcels), the ahupua `a (sub -districts) 'Ai `okana, `ai ko `ele [The chief] who controls the `okana (region) and the k� 'de chiefs' farmlands Ike kuakua a lele wale [The chief who controls] the kuakua (lands planted in rows), and the lele (detached land parcels) He ui, he ninau na Ka-Miki An inquiry, a question asked by Ka-Miki Owai hou a `e ua `olohe hialoloa Who is the next skilled `olohe? I hoa mokomoko no Ka-Miki? The wrestling companion of Ka-Miki? (7/13/1916) Kama`e`e-a-kau responded that he would be the next challenger. Kama`e`e The lands of Kama-`e`e (interpretive translation: Contrary Child) were named for the `olohe chief Kama-`e`e-a-kau. Kama-`e`e called to Ka-Miki, "Great indeed is your knowledge, that you could defeat the expert `olohe of Hilo, the great branchless koa of Hilo, which are made into wa `a kialoa (long hulled canoes). Which are you, the large koa or the small koa? Ka-Miki then answered Kama-`e`e, "Take heed my companion of the swollen surf, protect your legs and arms, lest they become entangled in the mest of Ku uku u, the net of my mysterious ancestresses. Take heed lest you become the long legged fish (sacrifice). I have come with Kuo-a-koili the ko `i pahoa kuamauna (the broad bladed adze) which cuts down the koa trees of Hilo, trees used by the kahuna kalai wa `a (canoe maker priests) of Hilo. This night the extent of your knowledge shall be known, and when it is finished, your bones shall be stripped and made into tuna fishhooks for your chief Kolekole, and your flesh shall be used as bait for the sharks (Ke holehole 'ia ou mau iwi i makau lawai `a `ahi na ko li `i, na Kolekole, a ko i `o 'ea i mea kupalu mano). Ka-Miki then chanted his background, chanted calling upon his ancestresses. Kama -``e then leapt upon the kahua, thinking he would bind Ka-Miki, but he was thrown off and killed. At this turn of events, eleven `olohe broke the strict rules of kahua competition, and joined together to kill Ka-Miki. The `olohe included the chiefesses Wailua, and Honohina, and `Awapuhi, Pele`au, Name, Piha, Waikaumalo, Nahiku, Pu`u`ohua, Manowai`opae, Pehakupuka, and Kaiakea. Ka-Miki defeated all of these `olohe and compared them to a branchless koa tree hewn by the master canoe maker. He also told all assembled that the actions of those `olohe had shamed their chief and brought dishonor on the kahua. All of the `olohe were left bound until the following day (7/13 and 20, 1916). After Ka-Miki defeated the assembled `olohe, the events were completed for that night. Ka-Miki forbade that the bound `olohe be killed, saying that they should be left bound until the following day. Seeing all that had occurred, Hu'ia went to Ka-Miki to repent for his rash behavior, and Hu'ia became the konohiki for Kolekole. Hu`ia oversaw—[keJ ka to `i kalo, ka mo `o `uala, ke opu ko, ka mai `a palaku iluna ka `awa kau i kaulu pali o Akaka...([the] taro terraces, sweet potato planting rows, the sugar cane clusters, the ripening stands of bananas and the `awa that grew along the cliff CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 29 2. Background ledge of `Akaka). Kolekole was greatly pleased with Ka-Miki's defeat of the `olohe of Hilo Paliku, and he hosted Ka-Miki ma to a feast and papai `awa ( `awa ceremony). After the `awa ceremony Ka-Miki ma prepared to continue their journey. Hilo Hanakahi went ahead to see his `olohe master and instructor, Maulua-a-pi`o. Hilo Hanakahi told Maulua about all that had occurred and asked Maulua to acknowledge Ka-Miki's skills, rather than challenge him...(7/27/1916). (Maly in Rosendahl 2009:A5 -A9) Kamehameha I And His Guardian/Teacher, The Famed Warrior Kekuhaupi`o, Battle Maui Warriors in Hakalau He Moolelo Kaao no Kuhaupio Ke Koa Kaulana o ke Au o Kamehameha Ka Nui (A Tale of Kekuhaupi`o, the Famous Warrior of the Era of Kamehameha the Great ) was recounted by Reverend Stephen Langhern Desha Sr. and published in serial form in the Hawaiian -language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawai`i. Consisting of 174 articles published between December 16, 1920, and September 11, 1924, Desha's account narrates the life of the famed warrior Kekuhaupi`o who trained Kamehameha I in the art of warfare and served him on the battlefield (Desha 2000:xiii-xiv). Kekuhaupi`o was born and raised in Ke`ei, South Kona, and from an early age, was noted for his strength, agility, and vigor. Following a mock battle on the shores of Kealakekua between boys from Ke`ei and Napo`opo`o—a battle in which the kahuna kia `i (guardian priest) of the heiau Hiki`au observed Kekuhaupi`o's fearlessness and courage—the kahuna kia `i spoke to Kohapiolani, Kekuhaupi`o's warrior -chief father, and foretold of Kekuhaupi`o's fame and success as a warrior. Following this interaction, Kohapiolani became Kekuhaupi`o's first instructor and trained the young warrior in sprinting, spear hurling, boxing, and wrestling. Years later, Kekuhaupi`o trained under other skilled warriors, including La`amea and Koaia. Once he mastered the various arts of warfare under Koaia, he was tasked with capturing and eating the eye of a niuhi (tiger) shark as part of his `ailolo (graduation) ceremony (Desha 2000:1-17). Following his training, Kekuhaupi`o and his father traveled to Kokoiki, Kohala along with many other high chiefs who were waiting for the high chiefess Kelcu`iapoiwa to give birth. Once Pai`ea (Kamehameha I) was born, Kekuhaupi`o then served Kalani`opu`u, who was then the chief of the Ka`u District. Upon the death of Alapa`inui, the ali `i of Hawai`i Island, Kalani`opu`u waged war against Keawe`opala, Alapa`inui's son and successor. Kalani`opu`u emerged victorious from this conflict, becoming the new ali `i of Hawaii Island. It was following Kalani`opu`u's ascension that Kamehameha I, who was "under the care of Alapa`inui, his uncle," went to live in Kalani`opu`u's court (Desha 2000:31). It is also during this time that Kalani`opu`u instructed Kekuhaupi`o to become Kamehameha I's teacher and guardian, which "brought about the firm bond of affection between" the two (Desha 2000:31). In He Moolelo Kaao no Kuhaupio Ke Koa Kaulana o ke Au o Kamehameha Ka Nui, Desha recounts a battle that took place in Hakalau between Kalani`opu`u's armed forces (including Kamehameha I and Kekuhaupi`o) and those of Kahekili, the ali `i ai moku of Maui. Although the exact year of the battle is not known, Desha's account indicates that the battle in Hakalau took place sometime after the arrival of Captain James Cook on Hawaii Island in 1779 and before Kalani`opu`u's death in 1782. Kahekili's warriors, under the command of Kahahawai, were in the Hilo Paliku region because Keawemauhili, the ali `i `ai kalana (district chief) of Hilo, permitted Kahekili to send some of his people to Hakalau to craft a canoe. Kahahawai was a famed warrior of Maui and an aikane (favorite friend, companion) of Kahekili. When Kamehameha I and Kekuhaupi`o arrived by canoe in Hakalau, they were greeted by the chiefess Keakealani of Hilo, princess Liko`a, and princess Kahipa, daughter of Kanekoa, the ali `i `ai kalana of Hamakua. In the original Hawaiian language texts, it states that Kahipa was living with female relatives in Hakalau in those days, and it is assumed that these relatives were Keakealani and Kahipa (Desha 1996:99). Keawemauhili was not present, as he was in Ka`u at this time. The following excerpt recounting the battle is from Frances N. Frazier's translation of He Moolelo Kaao no Kuhaupio Ke Koa Kaulana o ke Au o Kamehameha Ka Nui, published under the title Kamehameha and His Warrior Kekuhaupi `o (2000). In the mo olelo, mention is made of the Hunalele army gathering stones where the Hakalau stream meets the sea. This brief note on the gathering of this resource for warfare is underlined in the excerpt below: Kahahawai had stationed a spy at Hakalau to watch the activities of the Hawai`i people. On that day that Kamehameha landed there the spy ran quickly to Kahahawai in the upland forest to tell him that Kamehameha and Kekuhaupi`o were at Hakalau. When Kahahawai heard this news from his spy he became very angry because at some battles on Maui Kamehameha and Kekuhaupi`o had thwarted him. The landing by Kamehameha and his group at Hakalau caused suspicion that he 30 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background had come to spy on Kahahawai's activities in Hilo, or perhaps to waylay him in the Hilo forests. Therefore, Kahahawai quickly prepared to make a secret attack on Kamehameha. While Kamehameha and his men were idling pleasurably at Hakalau, feasting on the delicacies prepared by the chiefesses, he received secret information about the Maui people saying that they were planning to attack him and his people. As the most favorite occupation of this Pai`ea Kamehameha was warfare, he rejoiced in this news. He secretly called Kekuhaupi`o and some of his officers and disclosed the news which had been told to him They began to discuss the means of meeting the enemy who were thinking of a night assault on them. Quick preparations were made to meet the enemy, and the army called Hunalele was readied. These were people very accomplished with slingstones, led by Kalawa the famous warrior of Halawa at North Kohala. They were quickly sent to the stream, where it emerged at the sea, to gather hard stones to let fly when they met the enemy. At this time also the Hueloku were readied. They were very skillful at hurling spears and at seizing them and they were led by Puniawa, a famous warrior of Makahanaloa, close to Hakalau. He was a daring man accomplished in warfare. Kamehameha ordered the warriors of this division to follow quickly after the Hunalele after they had thrown their hard basaltic stones which made a cracking sound when they struck. When Kamehameha's Hunalele warriors had prepared their slingstones they proceeded to the place where they would meet the Maui warriors led by that pa`ele hi [black, referring to tattooing] warrior of the Bays of Pi`ilani. The Maui warriors were sure that Kamehameha was not aware of their secret attack and they came down thinking that Kamehameha was taking his ease. However they met with something undreamed of: the hot stones of Kaueleau [unyielding forces]. When those Maui warriors emerged from the `ama `uma `u ferns they were startled to meet the Hawaii warriors. The stones from the slings of the Hunalele struck some of them, so that their bodies were left in the foreign land. However, Kaihe quickly called to his warriors and led them fearlessly to meet Kamehameha's Hunalele army, who, not having spears in their hands, were unable to fight with those Maui people. At this time the warriors of the Hueloku, led by Puniawa, the famous warrior of Makahanaloa, met the Maui people face to face and a very strong battle between the two sides began. Kamehameha's army was very skilled at hurling spears and in warding off or seizing the spears of their enemy. They fought like hyenas, uttering their battle calls, and trampled the Maui people who had become victims of Kamehameha's Hunalele warriors. The Maui people displayed their fearlessness and great cleverness as they were very skilled in that type of battle, learned from numerous encounters. This "black man" of Kahekili was incomparably skilled with his spear and was overwhelming Kamehameha's warriors, as well as warding off with great skill the thrusts of his opponents, so that his followers were encouraged by his bravery. Kamehameha's searching eye noted the forward movement of that Maui warrior, who was causing death to his warriors of the Hueloku. He greatly desired to meet this famous man in person, but his way was barred by the war instructor of his youth, the one of whom this story is told. E Kalani e, perhaps you should not cause pain to the skin with that Maui warrior of low status—you do not lack for people on your side who have equal status with him Therefore abide, and one of us shall place the punishment of death upon him. They shall not at all triumph on this day. They did wrong by attacking first and attempting to assault you, 0 heavenly one. Therefore leave it to us to punish this warrior who intruded wrongly. As Kamehameha's intention was blocked by these words of Kekuhaupi`o, he turned and began to slay some others of the Maui people, leaving Kaihe for his instructor to fight. It was said that this battle in the vicinity of Hakalau showed the strength of Kamehameha, which so terrified the Maui people, that they fell back, behind that "black" Kaihe. Now Kekuhaupi`o moved toward this man who was killing Kamehameha's warriors, and when they met face to face they eyed each other fearlessly in preparation for their fight. There was a little pause in the fighting between some of the warriors in order to watch the fight between these famous warriors. (In a certain previously published history of Kamehameha it was said that it was another lesser chief who killed Kaihe, the famous "black" of Kahekili, and that his name was Ho`ohi`olo`olo, the son of Ho`onohoka`ie`ie CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 31 2. Background and her husband Kaukahiakua. However, the genuine truth was that Kekuhaupi`o was the opponent of that "black" Kaihe of Maui. This was verified by Kekuhaupi`o when he told the story to some of his family at Napo`opo`o. Perhaps that is the truth, for the most famous warrior on Kamehameha's side was this man of Ke `ei o lalo lilo). This "black" man of Kahekili was extremely proficient in whirling the spear, as described previously, and he had engaged victoriously in numerous battles. His opponent, who stood forth at this time, is known to us, 0 readers, for his proficiency, as a lesser chief instructed in the various martial arts of ancient Hawai`i. His companions regarded him with pride, knowing that this "black" man of Kahekili would be unable to slap his head (ke pa `i i kona po `o). Kekuhaupi`o well understood the status of his opponent, and prepared himself accordingly. They immediately began telling of their sons (A ho'omaka koke ihola no ka ho `ike `ana o laua i nc7 keiki kine o lana). It is true that Kahekili's warrior was extremely well prepared and if Kahekili had been present on this battlefield he would have been stirred by the appearance of his favorite warrior. The eyes of Kamehameha and those of his battle companions were upon his instructor, because if he fell under the spear of Kahekili's warrior then his all i would be shamed, as well as his battle companions, and the Maui people would stand boasting. Kekuhaupi`o gathered together all his skill, and both opponents well understood that death was the goal. They maneuvered to gain the best situation from which to hurl their spears, each attempting to find the other's weakness. For a short time they did this, then Kaihe was seen to whirl his spear, hurling it strongly at Kekuhaupi`o thinking perhaps that Kekuhaupi`o was unprepared. As the spear left the hand of Kaihe it was warded off by the spear in Kekfhaupi`o's hand, so that it fell uselessly. That first thrust by Kaihe was immediately followed by Kekuhaupi`o's spear hurled with great strength; however, it was dodged effortlessly and passed without harming that Maui warrior. It was the custom in this type of fighting to have two spears in hand, the first to hurl at the enemy, the second to ward off the enemy's weapon. When those two spears of those opponents missed equally, the persons close by this fight hastened to furnish each of them with another spear. Again they prepared to fight. Kaihe was seen whirling his spear like a windmill, and while he was doing this Kekuhaupi`o observed the movement of his feet to understand his next action. Another reason for Kekuhaupi`o's staring at Kaihe's feet was his thought of attempting to deceive Kaihe by making him think that he was going to thrust below the navel so that perhaps he would attempt to defend below, giving Kekuhaupi`o the opportunity to aim his spear above the navel. While Kekuhaupi`o was staring at the movement of Kaihe's feet, Kaihe hurled his spear, and Kekuhaupi`o alertly seized it and hurled it back at his opponent. Kekuhaupi`o had thought this movement of Kaihe would weaken his defensive stance, but with great alertness Kaihe warded off the spear and it struck quivering in the forest. The din of battle was stilled on both sides and all eyes focused on these two daring ones of the battlefield. When the spear hurled by Kelcuhaupi`o had missed, the opponents again took up their stance, eyeing each other with fiery eyes, seeking any weakness, as well as a good opportunity to use their spears. We, 0 readers, are able to understand that Kekuhaupi`o's eyes were accustomed to assessing the conditions in a battle, for he had been the instructor of not only Kamehameha, but of some of the warriors under Kamehameha. His opponent, Kaihe, was also accustomed to the battlefield, although he had not been an instructor and did not have the experience of assessing the students of warfare. However this did not lessen his preparedness as he had gained experience on many battlefields. While these two were resuming their stance the multitudes were unable to make a choice as to who was the more proficient, but soon we shall see, 0 reader of this story of the famous warrior of the era when the nation was conquered by that person later distinguished by the title Napoleon of the Pacific. 32 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background While these warriors were preparing themselves, Kekuhaupi`o noted that his opponent was preparing to leap, and he perceived the means by which to deceive him. It was the custom of this famous "black" warrior to leap here and there. While they were staring, one at the other, Kekuhaupi`o deceived his opponent by making a feint to the right of Kaihe, who believed that his opponent was hurling at his right side, and he leaped to the left, at which moment Kekuhaupi`o hurled his spear straight to Kaihe's belly, before he was able to leap again to the right. He received a direct thrust of the spear from the famous warrior of Ke `ei o lalo lilo, and he fell, with his feet fluttering, as the spear had pierced him through to his back. When the Maui warriors witnessed the death of their leader, fear of the Hawai`i people overcame them and they began to run from the battlefield, pursued by the Hawaii warriors. The shouts of Kamehameha's men were heard as they pursued Kahekili's warriors. The words of encouragement from Kahahawai were not heeded by the Maui people, and he ran with his people, without seeking to fight with Kamehameha's men. He was one of those whom Kekuhaupi`o had greatly desired to meet on that day, but his wish was unfulfilled. After the Maui people had fled into the forest of the Hilo districts, Kamehameha's people returned, and he conferred with his chiefs, also discussing what should be communicated to his uncle, Kalani`opu`u. At this same time when Kamehameha was fighting at Hakalau with the Maui people, Kalani`opu`u had arrived at North Kohala, desiring to see his keiki Kamehameha and to discuss with him the preparations to make war again on Kahekili. When, however, he arrived at Kohala he learned that Kamehameha was at Hilo. Kamehameha learned that his chiefly makua [uncle] was at Kohala with his retinue, and a swift messenger was sent to report to Kalani`opu`u concerning Kamehameha's fight with the Maui people and that Kahahawai and his people had been put to flight. On the arrival of the swift messenger before Kalani`opu`u and his retinue at Kohala, this news was much discussed by the high chiefs who supported Kalani`opu`u. The foremost, however, of the chiefs who spoke without reservation was Keawemauhili, the chief of Hilo, and the main subject of his conversation concerned Kamehameha's actions. He was the chief who had spoken these portentous words at the time of the birth of Kamehameha at Kokoiki, North Kohala: "Pinch off the tip of the young mulberry shoot." Because of these words by this high chief of Hilo, Kamehameha had been secretly taken by Naihe [Nae`ole] and reared in seclusion during the young days of Kamehameha's life. On hearing of Kamehameha's victory in this battle with the Maui people, Chief Keawemauhili sighed, and he said: "This is perhaps the bravery which shall achieve the conquest of the islands. Woe to us, his hulu makua [esteemed elders], perhaps he will revenge himself upon us." It is truly said that this young chief of Kohala was feared by the chiefs, who realized the arrival of a chief who would "slap them on their heads" in the time to come. (Desha 2000:67-71) Whereas the mo `olelo summarized above make explicit reference to the lands of Hakalau, the following accounts are a selection of mo `olelo that speaks to different coastal areas of the broader Hilo Paliku region. The Story of Kuahailo and Hinaaukekele He Moolelo Kaao no Kuahailo a me Hinaaukekele, Kana Kaikamahine Hanauna (An account for Kuahailo and Hiaaukekele, his female relative) is a story that tells of the establishment of the highest-ranking genealogical lines of Hawaii. Published as a weekly serial in the Hilo -based Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawai `i from July 18, 1918, to March 13, 1919, the mo `olelo follows Kuahailo and Hinaaukekele along their journey from their ancestral home of Kuaihelani to the various islands of Hawai`i. The following translated summary was prepared by ASM staff, Halena Kapuni-Reynolds. The segment of the mo `olelo in Hilo Paliku takes place midway through the narrative and were published in installments published on January 30, February 6, 13, and 27, 1919 (Ka Hoku 0 Hawaii 1919). At this point in the mo `olelo, Hinaaukekele and her husband, Kahikikuaokalani, resided in the valley of Waipi`o. Their journey to Hilo Paliku began with a dialogue between Hinaaukekele and Kahikikuaokalani, where she expressed her desire to visit her grandmother, Hailikulamanu, and other relatives who lived in the `okana of Hilo Hanakahi. Kahikikuaokalani CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 33 2. Background agreed with Hinaaukekele to visit their relatives. They made their way to Hilo Hanakahi atop a traveling `ohi `a tree filled with lehua blossoms. According to the mo `olelo, the tree grew out of Hinaaukekele's `iewe (placenta, afterbirth) that her mother, Hinauluohia, planted near their home in Paliuli. As the couple traveled to Hilo Hanakahi, Kahikikuaokalani heard the yelling and cheering of many people coming from the valley of Laupahoehoe. He asked Hinaaukekele to instruct her traveling `ohi `a tree to stop where all the commotion was coming from. In his curiosity, Kahikikuaokalani searched out the source of the cheering. He discovered that the noise was of bystanders who were cheering on two exceptionally skilled surfers, one from Hilo One and one from Hilo Paliku, who were competing against each other. The waves at Laupahoehoe were well known across Hawai`i Island and were the same waves that were favored by the famed ali `i, `Umi, generations later. When Hinaaukekele and Kahikikuaokalani arrived, the people of Laupahoehoe shifted their attention away from the surfers and rushed towards the beautiful travelers atop the moving `ohi `a tree. What made these travelers even more extraordinary was the fact that they were accompanied by numerous forest -dwelling birds and four low-lying rainbows. When Hinaaukekele inquired about the commotion, some spectators responded that they were celebrating the fact that their surfer, a Hilo Paliku man by the name of Kekuaiwa, beat Kenao, the surfer from Hilo One, and won forty kapa cloths and a long canoe in the process. When Hinaaukekele asked how Kekuaiwa won, the people responded that it was because he was more skilled at surfing in the rough waters of Laupahoehoe as opposed to the calmer waters of Hilo One. Furthermore, Hinaaukekele inquired about the ruling chief of the area, in which the people of Laupahoehoe responded that there was no ruling chief who lived in the valley but that they were subjects of Kanakea, a chiefess who resided in Hilo. Kanakea knew of Hinaaukekele, as she was the one who was sent to retrieve Kahikikuaokalani from O`ahu. Hinaaukekele then proceeded to tell the people of Laupahoehoe to have the two surfers compete once more. The spectators enthusiastically followed these instructions and told the local konohiki (head man of an ahupua `a) what they heard from these distinguished travelers. In turn, the konohiki told the surfers to take to the waves again, and the surfers agreed without complaint. When Kekuaiwa and Kenao reached the wave break, both were intent on outdoing their competitor to become the champion of the waves. Kekuaiwa did not think twice about Kenao, for he surfed in the waters of Laupahoehoe since he was a child. As a wave neared, Kenao paddled to a spot where the waves were easier to ride. Kekuaiwa knew what Kenao was doing and prepared himself for the competition ahead. Onshore, most spectators believed that Kekuaiwa would win once more since he won the first time. Enthused by the energy of the crowd and surfers, Kahikikuaokalani proposed to Hinaaukekele that they pick who they believed would win the surf competition. When Kahikikuaokalani told Hinaaukekele that she could pick first, she laughed, teasing him by saying that he only wanted her to choose Kekuaiwa, the obvious choice since he won the first competition, because he could rebuke her for choosing the former winner. Kahikikuaokalani laughed at Hinaaukekele's remarks and told his beloved that he was letting her choose first as a gesture of honor and respect and that either of the surfers could win. When the couple looked down at the surfers who were poised to catch the next wave, Hinaaukele used her thoughts to secretly call her magical grandmother to let the surfer from Hilo One win the competition. When an excellent surfing wave neared, the two surfers caught it. They both rode splendidly. As they neared the shore, it was clear that the surfer from Hilo Paliku, Kekuaiwa, would win the competition. But as they neared the shore, Kekuaiwa saw a human hand emerge from the sea and snatched his board down into the depths. Kenao was thus the winner of the second round. The spectators ashore were shocked to the point of speechlessness due to the outcome of the surfing competition. They could not explain how Kekuaiwa lost to Kenao. So too was Kahikikuaokalani puzzled by this turn of events, as he had no way of knowing that it was Hailikulamanu, Hinaaukekele's grandmother, who intervened. When the surfers came back to land, Hinaaukekele instructed someone to tell the surfers to come to her and Kahikikuaokalani. Kenao happily obliged to this request, but Kekuaiwa was furious about his loss and did not want to see these visitors out of embarrassment. Kahikikuaokalani was still pondering the outcome of the competition. He realized in time that Hinaaukekele must have had something to do with Kenao's win, so he asked Hinaaukekele if he could leave and find Kekuaiwa, which she allowed him to do so. When he found Kekuaiwa, Kahikikuaokalani explained that it was because of Hinaaukekele's magical abilities that resulted in his loss during the surfing competition. Kekuaiwa then described how a human hand grabbed his board and pulled him down. In response, Kahikikuaokalani explained to Kekuaiwa that he had nothing to be ashamed of because it was his decision to bet against Hinaaukekele that resulted in his 34 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background (Kekuaiwa's) loss. Kahikikuaokalani continued by describing how Hinaaukekele used her thoughts to call out to her grandmother to assist Kenao in winning the competition. When Kahikikuaokalani returned to Hinaaukekele, she laughed because she knew that her secret was exposed. She turned to Kenao and asked him if he wanted to accompany them to Hilo One, in which he humbly declined due to their superior rank. From there Hinaaukekele and Kahikikuaokalani continued on their journey through Hilo Paliku until they reached Hilo One. Pau Kuhihewa Id Hilo Paliku-Completely Mistakened by Hilo Paliku One of the sayings for the Hilo Paliku region of Hilo is "pau kuhihewa id Hilo Paliku," which translates to "Hilo Paliku is completely mistaken." In historical sources, authors used this saying as an expression of disdain for someone who lies and does not keep promises. In August of 1900, an author under the penname "Hawaii Oiaio" published an article that explains the origins and usage of "pau kuhihewa is Hilo Paliku." In the article titled "Pau Ole Kuhihewa is Hilo Paliku," Hawaii Oiaio addresses it to members of the Aloha `Rina political party, including Joseph Nawahi, William White, John Richardson, Thomas Clark, Reverend John Kalana Hihio, J. Nazareka, David Kalauokalani, James Kaulia, Robert Wilcox, and William Auld, which he chastises for their pro -Kingdom politics. Although the excerpt that is included below focuses on the story of the Hilo Paliku saying, the overall message of the article encourages readers to pursue leadership positions within the newly formed government of the Territory of Hawai`i. A transcription of the original article along with a translation provided by ASM staff, Halena Kapuni- Reynolds is provided below: O ka huaolelo a hopunaolelo maluna ae e The saying and sentence located above, "Hilo kau ae la, "Pau kuhihewa ia Hilo Paliku," Palikd is mistaken completely," it is a he huaolelo kaulana loa keia mai ka wa legendary saying from the ancient times of our kahiko loa mai o ko kakou aina, mawaena land, that arose between two friends, who o na ho loh [sic] elua, e lilo i mau became best friends, and later became halekipa, a i mau aikane "Punakeonaona, companions. "Punakeonaona, indeed if the ina no Maui, Oahu, Kauai ke kanaka i person from Maui, Oahu, and Kauai hoaikane nae ko Hilo, a ina paha naa Maui befriended Hilo's [person], and if on Maui is kahi i fauna ai, alaila, ua mopopo [sic] no i where they enjoy each other's company, and ke kanaka o Hilo ka makemake o ka then, the person in Hilo would know that their hoaloha o Maui he waa alaila, pane aku la Maui friend is in need of a canoe, and then, the ke kanaka o Hilo, he wahi waa no ko `u Hilo people responds, 1 definitely have a canoe makemake no ia, e lawe koke mai hoi ha that was painted black, I will leave and then oe, ae, ua pono. return, and then, the person from Maui Oi kali aku ke kanaka o Maui a, a hala ae responded, that is what 1 who desired it, please ana he anahulu, a hala aku ana ua bring it quickly, indeed, it is needed. anahulu, pau ka palena o ka pono, o kau Whilst the person from Maui waited, a month nae kai puhi aku la ia iala, a hoka iho la ke passed, and another month passed, he reached kanaka o Maui. Pane iho la ke kanaka o his limit and became furious and disappointed. Maui, he lohe akahi no a ike maka, nolaila, The person from Maui told the person from ua ailolo na kanaka o Maui, Oahu, Hilo, I heard you but I have yet to see it with Molokai, Lanai, Kuai i ko Hilo Poe i ka my own eye, therefore, the people of Maui, hoopunipuni, pili nae keia i ka poe Oahu, and Lanai were scorned. Hilo's people, kalaiwaa. (Oiaio 1900:6) in particular the canoe carvers, trade in lies. Although the saying does not see people from Hilo Paliku as favorable or honest, it speaks of the region's long history of interisland exchange and communication. E Alu Ka Pule Id Hakalau — Concetrate Your Prayers on Hakalau E alu ka pule id Hakalau is another famed 'Old() no eau that is used as a rallying call for collective concentration and unity toward completing a project or goal. Pukui (1983:15) translates the saying as "Concentrate your prayers on Hakalau" and shares the following anecdote regarding the origins of this wise saying: A sorcerer at Hakalau once created havoc in his own and other neighborhoods. Many attempts to counter -pray him failed until a visiting kahuna suggested that all the others band together to concentrate on the common enemy. This time they succeeded (Pukui 1983:15). CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 35 2. Background On November 6th, 1880, a more detailed narrative behind the `olelo no `eau was published in the Hawaiian language newspaper Ka Nupepa Ku `oko `a, edited at that time by Samuel Kaaikaula and Hezekia Aea. Kaaikaula and Aea were responding to an announcement that was shared in the newspapers Ko Hawaii Pae Aina and Ka Elele Poakolu (the announcement was not found at this time) asking for commoners to gather on November 16th and to "concentrate their prayers in Hakalau," perhaps in connection to festivities associated with King David Kalakaua's birthday, which also fell on that day. Given the use of this saying, Kaaikaula and Aea sought out the source of this 'Melo no `eau from older Hawaiians who said that it is derived from a story about a chief who practiced `and'and (sorcery) in Hakalau. Although Kaaikaula and Aea published the account to discourage further use of the `olelo no `eau, this article presents one of the few written sources explaining the story behind this `olelo no `eau and its connection to Hakalau. In the story, mention is made of Pa`ele, a chief of Hakalau; Pakilohala, a chief from Hamakua that practiced `ana `ana; a narrow cliffside trail that descended to the Hakalau shoreline; and a large boulder along the trail where Pakilohala would snatch his victims. The following narrative is a translation of the original Hawaiian language source prepared by ASM staff, Halena Kapuni-Reynolds: Today's newspaper readers are probably not unaware of an opinion that was published in Ka Paeaina (Ko Hawaii Paeaina) and Ka Elele Poakolu, calling for all commoners to gather on the 16th of this month and to concentrate your prayers on Hakalau. Due to the confusing nature of that demand, we asked a few old folks, what kind of saying is "concentrate your prayers on Hakalau?" A single answer was given by this and that person and it is this: "It is an `and'and (sorcery) prayer of the ancient past." Here is its explanation. In the ancient past, when the [Hawaiian] race lived in pagan times, P .'ele was a chief of Hakalau in Hilo, Hawai`i. Another Hamakua chief by the name of Puakilohala went to live in Hakalau. This chief (Puakilohala) practiced `ana `ana on Hakalau's people, with many of them being killed. It was on the narrow trail ascending Hakalau valley that a huge boulder blocked the cliffside pathway. On the far edge next to the rock is where fishermen came back up onto the land. When the fishermen returned with an Akua (deity, god) to that rock, when they were carefully making their way back on the side where the white of the Akua joined the rock, that is where the chief Puakilohala snatched people and practiced 'and'and on them. When Pa`ele sought out the reason regarding the death of his peoples, he instructed all of the po `e pule `and'and (people who knew `and'and prayers) of Hakalau to pray for Puakilohala's death. That is where these words were spoken: "concentrate your prayers on Hakalau." It is Kuokoa's (the newspapers) opinion, that we should abandon practices like this and not mix them with the religious practices of enlightened times. It is appropriate for storytelling and pleasant pastimes, however, it is not suitable for convincing others. It is inappropriate to combine the old and the new. (Kaaikaula and Aea 1880) As the mo `olelo recounted above reveal, Hakalau and Kama`e`e's stories are interwoven with the larger story of the Hilo Paliku region. In the story of Hi`iakaikapoliopele, we learn of the fame lehua grove of Malaeakini that once grew in Hakalau. What stands out in the mo olelo of Hua, Ka-Miki, and Kamehameha I are the numerous battles and athletic feats that took place in Hakalau and neighboring lands. The stories behind two famed wise sayings, pau kuhihewa id Hilo Paliku and e alu ka pule id Hakalau, offer further context regarding the origins and place - specificity of `olelo no `eau. From these stories, we learn of some of the area's cultural practices and resources including surfing, canoe building, gathering of sling stones, trails, among others. Building on these traditional accounts, the next section traces descriptions of Hakalau and Kama`e`e in the 19th century, with emphasis on transformations of the physical landscape and traditional land tenure system. Hakalau and Kama`e`e During the Early to Late 19th Century Some of the earliest written descriptions of Hilo Paliku come from the accounts of the first Protestant Missionaries to visit the island. Early Historic visitors to the region noted the beauty, fertility, and ruggedness of this part of the island. In 1823, the Reverend William Ellis (Ellis 1825), a member of the London Missionary Society and one of the first Christian missionaries to arrive in Hawai`i, passed along the South Hilo coast during his tour of Hawai`i Island. Having been warned against walking due to the ruggedness of the terrain, he sailed from Hilo to Laupahoehoe in a canoe, passing by Hakalau and Kama`e`e along the way. In his account, he provides the following description of Hilo Paliku, with reference to its verdant landscape, numerous waterways, and limited landing points along the coast: 36 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background The face of the country by which we sailed, was fertile and beautiful, and the population throughout considerable. The numerous plantations on the tops or sides of the deep ravines, or values, by which they were frequently interspersed, with the meandering streams running down them into the sea, presented altogether a most agreeable prospect. The coast was bold, and the rocks evidently volcanic. We frequently saw the water gushing out of the hollows in the face of the rocks, or running in various cascades from the top to the bottom. After sailing very pleasantly for several hours, we approached Laupahoehoe. Although we had come upwards of twenty miles, and had passed not less than fifty ravines, or vallies, we had not seen a spot where we thought it would be possible to approach the shore, as the surf was beating violently, and the wind blowing directly towards the land. However, when we got within a few yards of the surf, we perceived an opening in the rocks, just wide enough to admit our canoe. (Ellis 1825:192) Later in his trip, Ellis made his way to Ka`ula (spelled Kaura in his account), a gulch on the boundary of Hilo and Hamakua and reflected on the country of Hilo: Hiro, which we had now left, though not so extensive and populous as Kona, is the most fertile and interesting division on the island. The coast from Waiakea to this place [Ka`ula] is bold and steep, and intersected by numerous valleys or ravines; many of these are apparently formed by the streams from the mountains, which flow through them into the sea. The rocks along the coast are volcanic, generally a brown vesicular lava. In the sides and bottoms of some of the ravines, they were occasionally of very hard compact lava, or a kind of basalt. This part of the island, from the district of Waiakea to the northern point, appears to have remained many years undisturbed by volcanic eruptions. The habitations of the native generally appear in clusters at the opening of the valleys, or scattered over the face of the high land. The soil is fertile, and herbage abundant. The lofty Mouna-Kea [Mauna Kea], rising about the center of this division, forms a conspicuous object in every view that can be taken of it. The base of the mountain on this side is covered with woods, which occasionally extend within five or six miles of the shore (Ellis 1917:263). Overland travel across the central and northern Hilo District remained difficult throughout the first part of the 19th -century due to its rugged coastline and deep gulches. Transportation difficulties may have even temporarily delayed large-scale commercial exploitation of the kula lands in the vicinity of the study area (Desilets et al. 2004). Initial commercial exploitation of these lands was limited to small scale agriculture in areas with coastal access for shipping and receiving goods. The Reverend Titus Coan, who settled at the Hilo Mission Station in 1835, wrote that: For many years after our arrival there were no roads, no bridges, and no horses in Hilo, and all my tours were made on foot...The path was a simple trail, winding in a serpentine line, going down and up precipices, some of which could only be descended by grasping the shrubs and grasses, and with no little weariness and difficulty and some danger. (Coan 1882:31-32) In 1846, Chester S. Lyman, arrived in Honolulu and later made a visit to Hilo where he stayed with Reverend Titus Coan. Stopping at Hakalau on June 18th of that same year, Lyman wrote the following: Two miles further on we halted at 6'/2 for the night at a place called Hakalau. Our host is headman of the vicinity. We found here greater marks of civilization than in the other native houses we had occupied. A glass lamp with oil I saw for the first time, the substitute at other places being strings of the Tutui or Candle -nut. The native who lighted the lamp pulled up the wicks an inch or more so as to make a torch, this being I am told their universal practice, until by hard drilling they are taught to do otherwise. Frid. 19th June. Hired a guide, & started with Mr Lyman & his son Frederic at 7% to visit the Falls of Akaka about 4 miles S or SW of Hakalau. (Lyman 1924:80) Mahele `Aina of 1848 The mid -19th century brought with it great changes, especially as it relates to the alteration of the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system. During the 1830s and 1840s, the Hawaiian Kingdom was an established center of commerce and trade in the Pacific, recognized internationally as a sovereign nation by the United States and other nations in the Pacific and Europe (Sai 2011). As Hawaiian political elites sought ways to modernize the burgeoning CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 37 2. Background kingdom, and as more Westerns settled in the Hawaiian Islands, major socioeconomic and political changes took place, including the formal adoption of a Hawaiian constitution by 1840, the change in governance from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and the shift towards a Euro -American model of private land ownership. The change in land governance was partially informed by ex -missionaries and Euro -American businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that could be revoked from them at any time. Convinced that the feudal system of land tenure previously practiced was not compatible with a constitutional government, the reigning M� 7 (King) Kauikeaouli and his high-ranking chiefs decided to separate and define the ownership of all lands in the Kingdom (King n.d.). The change in land tenure was further endorsed by missionaries and Western businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that could be revoked from them at any time. After much consideration, it was decided that three classes of people each had one-third vested rights to the lands of Hawai`i: the M5 7, the ali `i (chiefs) and konohiki (land agents), and the maka `dinana (common people or native tenants) (Chinen 1958). In 1845 the legislature created the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (more commonly known as the Land Commission), first to adopt guiding principles and procedures for dividing the lands and granting land titles, and then to act as a court of record to investigate and ultimately award or reject all claims brought before them. All land claims, whether by chiefs for entire ahupua `a or by tenants for their house lots and gardens, had to be filed with the Land Commission within two years of the effective date of the Act (February 14th, 1848) to be considered. This deadline was extended several times for the ali `i and konohiki, but not for commoners (Alexander 1920; Soehren 2005). The Moi and some 245 ali i (Kuykendall 1938) spent nearly two years trying unsuccessfully to divide all the lands of Hawai`i amongst themselves before the whole matter was referred to the Privy Council on December 18, 1847 (King n.d.). Once the Mo 7 and his ali `i accepted the principles of the Privy Council, the Mahele Aina (Land Division) was completed in just forty days (on March 7th, 1848), and the names of all of the ahupua 'a and kapono (nearly independent `ili land division within an ahupua 'a) of the Hawaiian Islands and the chiefs who claimed them, were recorded in the Buke Mahele (also known as the Mahele Book) (Buke Mahele 1848; Soehren 2005). As this process unfolded the M5 7, who received roughly one-third of the lands of Hawai`i, realized the importance of setting aside public lands that could be sold to raise money for the government and also purchased by his subjects to live on. Accordingly, the day after the division when the last chief was recorded in the Buke Mahele, the King commuted about two-thirds of the lands awarded to him to the government (King n.d.). Unlike the King, the ali `i and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive their Land Commission Award (LCAw). The chiefs who participated in the Mdhele were also required to provide commutations of a portion of their lands to the government to receive a Royal Patent that gave them title to their remaining lands. The lands surrendered to the government by the Mo 7 and ali i became known as "Government Land," while the lands that were personally retained by the M57 became known as "Crown Land," and the lands received by the ali `i became known as "Konohiki Land" (Chinen 1958:vii; 1961:13). Most importantly, all lands (Crown, Government, and Konohiki lands) identified and claimed during the Mahele were "subject to the rights of the native tenants" therein (Garovoy 2005:524). Finally, all lands awarded during the Mahele were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient boundaries would prevail until the land could be formally surveyed. This process expedited the work of the Land Commission. Disposition of Hakalau Nui and Kama `e `e As a result of the Mdhele, the entirety of Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a was claimed by the high chiefess Miriam Kekau`onohi, who was subsequently awarded these lands as parcel forty-two of LCAw 11216 (Royal Patent Grant No. 7541). Hakalau Nui was one of eight ahupua 'a in Hilo that was awarded to the chiefess. (Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2018). Kekau`onohi was the granddaughter of Kamehameha I and at the time of the Mahele was the second largest landholder after the Mo 7 Kauikeaouli. When Kekau `onohi died in 1851, her land went to her second husband, Levi Ha`alelea (Kame`eleihiwa 1992). Based on a review of the Buke Mahele (1848), it appears as though Kama`e`e was divided into three, possibly four sections, with three different ali `i laying claim to each, namely Eseta Kipa, Kalaimoku, Kaaiawaawa, and Kaunuohua. Despite their claims, they each had likely relinquished their interest as Kama`e, in its entirety, was transferred and incorporated into the inventory of Government Lands. The Kuleana Act of 1850 As the King and his ali `i and konohiki made claims to large tracts of land via the Mahele, questions arose regarding the protection of rights for the native tenants. To resolve this matter, on August 6th, 1850, the Kuleana Act (also 38 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background known as the Enabling Act) was passed, clarifying the process by which native tenants could claim fee simple title to any portion of lands that they physically occupied, actively cultivated, or had improved (Garovoy 2005). The Kuleana Act also clarified access to kuleana parcels, which were typically landlocked, and addressed gathering rights within an ahupua 'a. Lands awarded through the Kuleana Act were and still are, referred to as kuleana awards or kuleana lands. The Land Commission oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as Land Commission Awards (LCA) (Chinen 1958). Native tenants wishing to claim their lands were required to register in writing those lands with the Land Commission, who assigned a number to each claim, and that number (the Native Register) was used to track the claimant through the entire land claims process. The native tenants registering their kuleana were then required to have at least two individuals (typically neighbors) provide testimony to confirm their claim to the land. Those testimonies given in Hawaiian became known as the Native Testimony, and those given in English became known as the Foreign Testimony. Upon provision of the required information, the Land Commission rendered its decision, and if successful, the tenant was issued the LCA. Finally, to relinquish any government interest in the property, the holder of a LCA obtained a Royal Patent Grant from the Minister of the Interior upon payment of the commutation fee. No records indicating a claim or award of kuleana lands were found for both Hakalau Nui or Kama`e`e. In October of 1853, H.M. Lyman working as a government surveyor completed his survey of the kula portion Hakakau Nui which he calculated the land area to include some 9,357 acres. A review of Lyman's survey notes does not provide any specific information for the coastal portion of Hakalau Nui, in which the project area is situated, howerver, his map indicated that Hakalau Nui is bound on the south by Hakalau Iki (near the coast) and Makahanaloa (in the uplands), on the west by Humu'ula, and north by Piha (in the uplands) and Kama`e`e (near the coast). A copy of Lyman's map, Hawai`i Registered Map No. 20 is included below as Figure 19. A transcription and translation of Lyon's surveyor notes is provided below by ASM staff, Lokelani Brandt. Lyons's notes reads: Hakalau nui Hilo — Hawaii E hoomaka ana keia ma kahakai ma kahi ahupohaku maloko o ke awawa kahawai e moku ana keia aina me Hakalauiki, a e holo ana iulca ina ia awawa kahawai, a hiki ma kekahi kumu ohia maloo e ku ana ma kahawai mawaho o ka ulu laau; a laila e holo ana maloko o ka ulu laau Hem. 58° 28' Kom. 541.30 kaul. a hiki i ka palena o Makahanaloa ma kekahi wailele ma kahawai nui o Kolikoli; a laila ma ia palena o Makahanaloa Hem. 67 3/4 Kom. 361.00 kaul. a hiki ina ke ahupohaku nui ma ka Puakala, ma ka palena o Humuula; a laila ma ia palena Ak. 3° Kom. 117.00 kaul. a hiki ma kahi ahu pohaku nui ma kahawai o Waioheu, oia ke kahawai o Hakalau nui a laila e holo ana ma ia kahawai a hiki ana kahakai; alaila e holo ana ma kahakai a hiki aku ma kahi i hoomaka i ai. Eka 9,357 m.a.l. Hakalau Nui Hilo — Hawaii This survey commences at the seashore at the stone pile within the stream gulch separating this land and Hakalauiki, and running upland to a dried `ohi `a tree standing at the river just outside of the forest; then running into the forest South 58° 28' West 541.30 chains to the boundary of Makahanaloa at a waterfall in the great river of Kolikoli [Kolekole]; then at the boundary of Makahanaloa South 67 3/4 West 361.00 chains to the large stone pile at Puakala at the boundary of Humu`ula; then at that boundary North 3° West 117.00 chains to the large stone pile at the river Waioheu, that is the river of Hakalau Nui, then running from that river to the seashore; then running at the shore until the point of commencement. Containing 9,357 acres CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 39 2. Background Approximate project area location r/. Pj ��ppL)r t1a(i�u•auu:_ c/6r� /O�edyss.4 0. 9Jx a. kl[d.., ma .64 kLe, d4.4 �n4ipQaura ppa.rl^i aara, �'p Xa �a. a.'a-a. a 40, a.Ftc a r. a. 74s r a cvn� wl �.yt. d6f .Fa `a.0 r.Ce, • a e [o a.,.a. h.. ..a 14., a. 4,64. �e� ».w. QL' .. x, .: Qu a ® Me ay/. /Ca hat1Ja.e .A, 4.44..4 dx4 O %EQ a,�... (,: .. a 2'aN.4 e it: &..s. o. axt a (oleo o 4 Icy a s< r%G7rrr�, 3 8_.ZS r/Y/na., 6 ,w 630 , a...[. a 4Z. r. 1ga/ia da. ay op✓/(//�,Za (a.44 a.s tva. ,m ,�et.�o 4u. arailxll ma.YLhaa..-a-s: awe. da fLi.t; a4,r Ca, .h..0. .d.,4 aIGt2 ..o .l/!//pa d0;-... . i, ox/.-yo(/,P;�.O/ tea: .4k �rH A,tn0. M0.p✓ie4,44 ,9Ma. fro �'Q. Cl �/.'p4 o l is xccu (a. ;_ 4ZF.cGa 4..a_ A. AALcaA_ Awd.. 4 2u kr: - y..a .%�a-4«.' egw, yf� J� . y Qe, a7/e'u .awl. area la "a a..l .tQ4..e ra. £ jot a.d:.. !Q 0 h eL., �c //iio cF I leL 4Le:, I 0, f2-. !a. ppe rW� 40.E as. _ pp.. a. ad.4 ...•-a,r, ah./Gy .W2 �:•.... /t�7.- epp ,(ppate+ A//.+a_ nxG�¢. ‘a.4.14.,: .Ha4 .e 7wti7.,alea Oak'. IgS3. Figure 19. Hawai`i Registered Map No. 20 prepared by H.M. Lyman in 1853 showing extent of Hakalau Nui. Government Land Grants In conjunction with the Mahele, the King also authorized the issuance of Royal Patent Grants to applicants for tracts of land, larger than those generally available through the Land Commission. The process for applications was clarified by the "Enabling Act," which was ratified on August 6, 1850. The Act resolved that portions of the Government Lands established during the Mahele of 1848 should be set aside and sold as grants ranging in size from one to fifty acres at a cost of fifty cents per acre. The stated goal of this program was to enable native tenants, many of whom were not awarded kuleana parcels during the Mahele, to purchase lands of their own. Despite the stated goal of the land grant program, this provided the mechanism that allowed many foreigners to acquire large tracts of Government Lands. Unlike in the kuleana claims, where claimants stated their use of the land, the grant records are silent regarding the grantees' intended use. The Royal Patent deeds and survey notes do contain some limited 40 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background information about geographical features, vegetation, and survey markers, but they generally do not say anything about improvements to the land or land use. No government land grants were awarded in Hakalau Nui, however, in the neighboring Kama`ee, nine grants were awarded which are listed below in Table 5, and eight of which are shown in Hawai`i Registered Map No. 1092 by Lyons and Wall from 1882 (Figure 20). That grant (Grant No. 1350) to Ioela (not shown in Lyon and Wall's 1882 map) is, however, depicted in a Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2728 prepared in 1925 by E.W. Hockley and C. L. Murray (Figure 21). Hockley and Murray's 1882 map show portions of the project area extending into two land grants; Grant No. 1350 to Ioela which is located along the Kama`e`e side of Hakalau Stream, and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. In summary, the awarded land grants included a total of 369.23 acres that extended from the coast to about the 700 -feet elevation or roughly 1.6 miles inland of the coast with one grant situated on the north side of Hakalau Stream and the remaining eight grants all situated on the Kama`e`e plateau. Except for the grant awarded in 1854 to Ioela, the remaining grants were awarded in 1852 and ranged in size from 4.12 acres up to 131 acres (see Table 5). A review of the survey notes for each of the grants identified several plants species including niu (coconut), "puuhala" likely a variant spelling of puhala (pandanus), as well as 'alani (orange) and laila (Pride of China; Koelreuteria sp.). The survey notes also identified several built features including an alanui (road) and the kahua hale kula (school house foundation), the locations of which are shown in Lyon and Wall's 1882 map (see Figure 20). Table 5. Government Land Grant in Kama`e`e. Grant No. Grantee Year Acres Notes from Boundary Survey 909 Kapueuhi 910 Manuhoa 911 912 913 1056 1057 Kahookaamoku Kawaikini Lau Keawe Manuhoa et al. 1058 Kekahiko 1350 Ioela 1852 16.0 Vegetation noted included niu and puuhala 1852 23.23 Vegetation noted included niu, puuhala, `alani as well as built features including an alanui and kahua hale kula. 1852 4.75 n/a 1852 19.87 Vegetation noted included `alani, niu, and puuhala. 1852 31.0 Noted vegetation included niu and puuhala. 1852 22.20 Noted vegetation included niu. 1852 131.0 Other grantees named for this property included Puhi, Aikane, Kalua, and Mahiki. 1852 117.12 Noted vegetation included niu, puuhala, `alani, and Laila (Pride of China; Koelreuteria sp. ) as well as built features including an alanui and kahua hale kula. 1854 4.12 n/a CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 41 2. Background Project area Grant 913 to Lau ■ Grant 911 to Kahookaamoku h Grant 909 to Kapueuhi Grant 912 to Kawaikini IGrant 910 to Manuhoa Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. LAGrant 1056 to Keawe ® Grant 1058 to Kekahiko Kama `e`e School Lot •eF 236? 0 - t S a>r )7"-: or, ti -drane 2:3‘ 1 ^eS Government Road O, lEr'i. 1'^ 4"1 1•. T¢¢ 1'1 _L �+J' VVI Chur ch• - Figure 20. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 1092 by Lyons and Wall (1882) showing land grants in Kama`e`e. 42 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background irant 913 to Lau rant 911 to Kahookaamoku Grant 909 to Kapueuhi Grant 912 to Kawaikini ant 910 to Manuhoa I 1 Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. Irani 1056 to Keawe irant 1058 to Kekahiko irant 1350 to loela Kaniar Lot 0 \Irlcn NH) Project area 411 Figure 21. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2728 by Hockley and Murray (1925) showing portions of the project area in Grant 1350 to Ioela (shaded purple) and Grant 1057 to Manuhoa et al. (shaded yellow). Boundary Commission Testimony (1875) In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of Hawai`i to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua `a that had been awarded, by name only, as a part of the Mahele. Subsequently, in 1874, the Boundary Commission was authorized to certify the boundaries for lands brought before them. As a part of this process, the Boundary Commission gathered testimony from informants, who were typically older native residents who learned of the boundaries from their ancestors, relatives, or neighbors. The boundary information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and simultaneously transcribed into English. Although hearings for most ahupua `a boundaries were brought before the Boundary Commission and later surveyed by Government employed surveyors, in some instances, the boundaries were established through a combination of other methods. In some cases, ahupua `a boundaries were established by conducting surveys on adjacent ahupua 'a. Or in cases where the entire ahupua `a was divided and awarded as Land Commission Award(s) and or Government -issued Land Grants (both of which required formal surveys), the Boundary Commission relied on those surveys to establish the boundaries for that ahupua `a. Although these small- scale surveys aided in establishing the boundaries, they lack the detailed knowledge of the land that is found in the Boundary Commission hearings. Although no testimony was heard for Kama`e`e Ahupua`a, the Commission did hear testimony for Hakalau Nui. On February 11th, 1875, upon the application of W. L. Green, the Boundary Commission met at the courthouse in Hilo to hear testimony to help settle the boundaries of Hakalau Nui. The testimony for Hakalau Nui was quite extensive with five individuals, Kekualiilii, Kanehoalani, Lyman, Kapou, and Halaioo, testifying before the commission. Their testimonies which are cited in their entirety below has been annotated with the following; Hawaiian words are italicized, definitions of Hawaiian words added in brackets on their first mention; and cultural practice and resources are underlined: Kekualiilii k [kane;mate] sworn, CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 43 2. Background I live at Kamaee, Hilo. I was born there and have always lived there. I was born at the time Kamehameha II returned from Honolulu to Hawaii and remained on Hawaii. I know a part of the boundaries of Hakalau Nui that old people told me when I was young. Kamaee bounds Hakalau Nui on the Hamakua side of the valley. The muliwai [stream] belongs to Hakalau and the dry land on the Hamakua bank to Kamaee. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea. Thence the boundary runs mauka [upland] along the Hamakua side of the stream to a place called Nakama a hill way mauka in the woods, where we can see the shore; there are branches from the Kamaee side, first one called Kawelo below the woods, thence the boundary follows up the main stream to where a large branch of the gulch called Wawaa comes in on the Hamakua side; the boundary follows up this branch, passing a branch from the Hamakua side called Wailimu and passing another branch from the Hamakua side called Kuamoohua, up the main gulch called Nakana. This is as far as I know the boundaries. Kamaee reaches to this place above this place the gulch is not so deep but is wide. I do not know where Kamaee ends; I have heard that Umauma cuts it off; I have always heard that Hakalau extends to the upper edge of woods. The main branch of Hakalau on the Hilo side in the middle of the land has a great deal of sand in it. The Wawaa branch has none. I do not know the boundaries on the Hilo side of Hakalau Nui adjoining Hakalau-Iki. Cxd The boundary is along the Hamakua branch of the stream in the valley. When we need to go fishing in the stream, Hakalau people used to take the fish away from us. Kanehoalani k sworn I was born at Kamaee and am a kamaaina (native-born, well acquainted). I was born at the time of Ualakaa; I know the land of Hakalau and the boundaries adjoining Kamaee. Fishing rights extending out to sea. The boundary between Hakalau and Kamaee at the shore is at a large flat rock in the water. The water in the stream belongs to Hakalau, and the dry land on the Hamakua side to Kamaee. Thence the boundary follows along the Hamakua side of the stream passing the stream from Kamaee to a high water fall, thence mauka to the junction of Wawaa, from the Hamakua side with Laniomaui, thence up Wawaa gulch to Nakama, a puu [hill] and old kauhale 'settlement] in koa, thence mauka a short distance to where Wawaa gulch [illegible] and on to a pali [cliff] called Kaoku, and below this pali the kahawai [stream] becomes only an awaawa [gulch]. Here the Waiau gulch comes in on the Hamakua side called Waiau. At Kaoku Kamaee is cut off by Umauma. I have never heard that Wawaa reaches to the upper edge of woods. Laniomaui reaches through the woods in the middle of the land. I have heard that Hakalau-Nui reaches through the woods. I have heard that a place called Awakee is the boundary at shore between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-Iki. I do not know the other boundaries. Cxd Waiau is the Umauma kahawai. Punaluu kahawai is a good branch of it. Hakalau extends from Kaoku to Waiau gulch. F.S. Lyman k sworn I went with my brother Henry to a point on the boundary between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-Iki just makai of the woods, where he triangulated to a large hill in the woods, on the boundary of Makahanaloa. He had already surveyed from the shore to the woods. We then went to Hamakua through the woods and to mauka corner adjoining Makahanaloa. There is a pile of stones there near Laumaia road; From there we surveyed across, a mile or a little more, until we came to a gulch with steep sides, hard to cross, which they said was the boundary of Hakalau, I think. Waiki was with us also Kapou, konohiki of Hakalau-Nui. I do not remember who were the kamaaina at that time. Cxd The kamaaina told us that this gulch ran clear to the shore and was the Hakalau gulch. 44 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Kapou k sworn 1 live at Wailea, Hilo [illegible] from Hakalau. 1 was born at Hakalau at the time that the moku aa came. 1 know a part of the boundaries of Hakalau. The boundary between Kamaee and Hakalau Nui at the shore is at a large rock in the water at the landing place. Thence the boundary runs up the Hamakua side of the stream till it comes to Wawaa kahawai. Then the boundary runs up the Wawaa kahawai. I have not seen where Kamaee ends. Have heard that Kamaee is cut off by Hakalau but do not know where. I have heard that Hakalau leaves Waawaa at Waaloa across land till it comes to a bend of Waawaa gulch. Thence it runs mauka in the Waawaa gulch to the upper edge of woods Kupouli, my father and Naluliilii were Henry's [Henry Lyman] kamaaina and went on to the mountain with him. I have heard that Humuula cuts it off above the woods. I did not go with them. Kupouli, now dead and father of Naluliilii, were bird catchers and used to go through the woods to the upper edge of woods. My father was the tuna of the bird catchers when he was living. I know that part of the boundaries on the Hilo side. My father, Kawainui, and Kawaiholo, and myself, went with Henry Lyman where he surveyed the land. Kawainui was konohiki of Hakalau-Iki at that time, and I of Hakalau-Nui. The boundary at the shore between their land and Hakalau-Iki is at Awakee, an awaawa. This I learned from my kupuna. Nalu is my only father still living, very feeble. Kupouli was my uncle. The boundary runs from Awakee mauka along a small awaawa. Kawaiholo was the kamaaina and my kupuna. The awaawa runs mauka until you come to a large ditch; thence it runs mauka along the ditch to its mauka end; thence past bamboo and into awaawa; up awaawa to Kukui-nui. Thence to the mauka end of the awaawa. Thence passing Puna side of loi to a clump of bamboo where we stopped surveying. The boundary runs mauka along the ditch to a poauwai [head water] called Kapihae belonging to Hakalau-Iki. Thence mauka in the woods to poauwai called Waihaka, belonging to Hakalau-Nui on a small gulch. Thence up and old trail to Kaawahine, an old kauhale. The mauka corner of Hakalau-Ilei. Thence along Wailea to Napuumaia, banana trees. Thence along Kaiwiki along an old trail. Thence along Kaahakina gulch. This is as far as I know the boundaries. I do not know where Kaiwiki ends. There is an old bird catcher named Moi? living at my house. I have heard that a large koa (Acacia koa) tree called Puuwai is in the middle of Hakalau-Nui. Cxd By D. Kamai 1 have heard that Kaiwiki reaches to the Niuika. I have heard that the Waiau gulch cuts Kamaee off an that Hakalau joins Umauma. Hitchcock accepts the boundaries as surveyed beween Hakalau-Nui & Humuula. Halaioo k sworn (middle aged man) I lived at Wailea. I was born there at time of Akakaio Maalo. I know the boundaries between Hakalau-Nui and Hakalau-Iki. My makua, now dead, a kamaaina there told me the boundaries. Awakee is the boundary at the shore, between these two lands. The awaawa runs mauka to Government Road. Thence mauka on the Puna side of the awaawa across land to Lanikeha a kauhale[settlement]. Thence along the old road into the woods to the mauka corner of Hakalau-Iki at Na puu ma o ka Ehu. Thence up along Wailea to a gulch called Waimana. Kaahina ends and Napuumaia. Thence up Waimana a branch of Kolikoli. This is as far as I know the boundaries. I do not know the boundaries adjoining Kamaee. Hakalau ends at Napuumaia not a Kaawahine. Kaawahine is makai of this. I do not know where Kaiwiki ends. Cxd (Boundary Cominission 1874:359-364) In summary, the boundary commissions reveal a wealth of information regarding geographical features and land use in the area during the early to mid -19th century. The most predominant feature that testifiers described was the numerous muliwai (streams) that were found at higher elevations in Hakalau and Kama`, serving as boundary markers between ahupua `a. Regarding cultural practices, the testimonies also describe fishing rights in the streams and open ocean. These rights were enforced and known by the residents of Hakalau of Kama`e`E. Bird catching is also noted to have taken place in the upper forested regions of the area. Several forest settlements were also noted including one at Lanikeha and Nakama. Trails leading to the uplands were also noted by several of the informants as well as the practice of orally transmitting knowledge of the area's boundaries and gathering restrictions over the generations. Some of the informants mentioned the presence of the Government Road along with to `i (irrigated CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 45 2. Background terrace traditionally used to grow taro) in the upper portions of Hakalau, as well as bamboo, kukui, `ohi `a, and bananas. Land Acquisition in Hakalau and Kama`e`e Post-Mahele In the decades following the Mahele, Hakalau Nui was retained by the high chief, Levi Ha'alelea until his death on October 3', 1864. Born in 1822 in Lahaina, Maui, Ha'alelea was the son of the chief Ha`alou and his wife, Eseta Kipa, who relinquished her claim to a portion of Kama'e`e during the Mahele of 1848 (Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1864). As noted by Kame`eleihiwa (1992:307), by the time of Ha`alelea's death, he accrued some "$40,000 worth of debts, part of which he owed to Bishop & Co." Two repay his debts, the courts auctioned many of his lands, including those in Hakalau. An advertisement showing the public action of Ha' alelea's lands appeared in the March 10th1866 edition of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser (Figure 22). The advertisement notes that the lands of Hakalau were favorable for cultivating sugar cane, raising cattle, and harvesting timber from native hardwood trees. Three years later, William Lowthian Green began placing advertisements in the Pacific Commercial Advertiser and The Hawaiian Gazette to sell 9,357 acres of land in Hakalau. Green would advertise the sale of Hakalau until 1875. As for Kama`e`e, which became part of the inventory for Government Lands through the Mahele, it appears that by 1881, the government had set up a 15 -year lease at an annual rate of $200 (Daily Honolulu Press 1881). In the August 26th, 1871 edition of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, a traveling correspondent under the pen name Quirk wrote about their journey along the Hilo coastline. Their commentary while visiting Hakalau provides a glimpse into the life of the people residing within Hakalau Gulch prior to the establishment of the sugar industry: HAKALAU GULCH Opens up beautifully, filled with trees, conspicuous amongst which are the cocoa -palms, overshadowing the school -houses and native cottages that nestle close to the shore. From this point the cliffs decrease in height, honey -combed as usual with caves, giving a wild look to the coast line. Last night, being near Makahanaloa point, the wind left us, and out helpless schooner rocks idly on the glassy swell. The school -master and C. leaves us, and in the ship's boat gain the shore. We can just manage to make out with a glass that they have found a couple of horses, and now they wave us "good-bye," as they disappear on their way to Kaiwiki. (Quirk in The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1871:3) By 1874, Hilo already ranked as the second-largest population center in the islands, and within a few years the fertile uplands, plentiful water supply, and port combined to make Hilo a major center for sugarcane production and export. After earlier failed attempts to secure a treaty with the United States, in 1875, King David Kalakaua signed the Treaty of Reciprocity, which established a free -trade agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S. (Kuykendall 1967). The signing of this treaty, which guaranteed a duty-free market for Hawaiian sugar in exchange for special economic privileges for the United States, drastically increased sugar production in the islands and forever altered the political, economic, and socio -cultural fabric of the islands. Although sugar production was already occurring in Hilo, within a few short years after the signing of the treaty and in an effort to cash in on incoming sugar boom, a slew of plantations sprung up around the islands, one of which included the Hakalau Sugar Plantation. The arrival of large scale commercial sugar would, throughout the remainder of the 19th and 20th century, radically transform the lands in the project area and neighboring vicinity. In April of 1877, following the passage of the 1876 Act "to aid in the development of the resources of the Kingdom" the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources toured different areas of Hawai`i Island including Hakalau. The commission reported on their findings and provided recommendations regarding improvements and prospetive land use. In presenting their findings for Hakalau, the commission reported that: The landing at Hakalau was examined. An iron pier to connect the beach with a point of lava on the east side of the bay, would give a fair landing, but the expense would be great; as well as connecting roads up the palis. If mills were put in the gulch it would be adviseable to make the landing available for surf boats. The Government have about 1500 acres of good land in the vicinity, and there is a larger quantity of lands beloging to private parties. (Carter et al. 1877) Sometime between 1871-1896 Hawaii Government Surveyor, C. J. Lyons conducted a coastline survey between Nanaue and Hakalau. Lyon's undated map (Hawai`i Registered Map No. 344; Figure 23), although faint, shows the project area during the latter half of the 19th century. 46 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background DESIRABLE LANDS • t. Al 1�1:11>I1141 Tire L'tuir•r4'1::40.1 . 1 erti ar 1' L 111.11 • 11 /'1.1(1 N i,, 11 41.41 .1 1,1 , r•..• 1:41..0 lit 1 rte IA .sl,l.0..1 •.n the I.13n.1 •.( Il+lw:a.L. ur ...1 many ..t therm alo 111„+} 14• 20•['•'4• s urd 1„r the iray m• -ret ••f the 11. iota •4 tlr- }. tut.• • ( 111.• Late Hon. 1.1.3.1 11 •4 i l.t:1.i:.1, in t••Lr••u;ar.. .4 an .,rel, r grant/dt.,If, • 1Ln11r1:Itrd..r•nf .:a1.1}:stat■. taL.rr 1,' - r t',.,rlt tl1t• =.341 411f. _.t1l, 1)1•i1 pie ►a• r t.' 11.1 1.111 h. Vit.. :%fTHE Cr)!'I;I. 11.11- !: I' 1lr)XtJ ULI7. 1:. I'r 1 r i L. -t ".I:.,rs,-'s r, :, - u•t E-s..t+", Y.L. 1' 1 1 1' 44. 1 1 3 PI %% 1 1 1' P t l' .% 1 i1 I I I T1IE .1111'I'1'.t % (PE 1! % KA,LAIU 3 :`4sit.41+•11 .r1 t1,s• I1 -+1r .; 1 11 •1'h.• 11 . .6".• eult41:ate.', "r S L 1: 1 It (• .1 1,-tNlr.. TItI .h111'1'1'.►.t 'i I .r.l 1n th„ 1 a,:, I:.i .,:..FO.., 1.eate.1 fur the i"..r :a 1.M1 a'+.[l.lj if r-+•- :a hr:. tra.'t Attu, 1•A:'11 RE 3.114 WiPUL) OF HON A `i AU ! District 4.1 I+...ua. r..luat.le• tarr.i v►ri1 a.1 a1.1.,1 i.. 1t..• cultir.eti..r. of U1i_1til1} SU i&%Yi C1,..41; 14E141 t.'r!F'Fl:t. Till: .t1I1"I'll. ,:1► OF IIONOK.%IIAI' • r.luat•tl ,1: tht 1 i-tr.ri •1 1/4..,44 4, a 1.4r4,- W04.111 1,-tN11. 11. %V. S1•:4-E1L.S N[•k•:. Auk ll',r;ttr. Figure 22. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser (1866) public auction notice advertising the sale of Levi Ha'alelea's Hakalau lands. Hakalau Sugar Plantation In 1878, California sugar mogul Clause Spreckles, with W. G. Irwin & Company as his agent, established the Hakalau Sugar Plantation. By 1880, the plantation was already cultivating sugar cane on 430 acres, with 1,480 acres available for planting. Three hundred men were employed by the company, along with forty mules, ten oxen, and ten horses (Bowser 1880:417). At the time, the Hakalau Plantation was one of the most modem sugar plantations in the islands: All the modern improvements, both as regards the mill and the plantation, are of the very best character; and the appearance of all the surroundings denote that all is done in the best possible manner by the managers to forward the interest of their employers. No expense is spared to carry on the work as it should be. The mill and buildings are now (April 1880) drawing toward completion; and the mill, when completed, will rank first on the list with any on the Hawaiian Islands. The facilities for transporting the cane to the mill is of the very best description, and Mr. Claus Spreckels is proving himself to be the right man in the right place, as an A No.1 sugar planter. (Bowser 1880:417-418) CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 47 2. Background } O Project arca IW 200 A Figure 23. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No 344 by C. J. Lyons (n.d.) showing project area. Four years later in 1882, Spreckles organized the charter for Hakalau Sugar Co. Ltd. Following the formal creation of the new sugar company, announcements were published in local newspapers conveying the purpose of the company: The purposes of the company are the raising and cultivation on the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere of sugar cane, and the purchase and sale of its products; also, the acquisition by lease and otherwise, of such lands and water rights as may be necessary to properly carry on the business, and the making of such contracts and obligations as are essential to the transaction of its affairs. (The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1882) Over the years, the Hakalau Sugar Co. steadily grew its operations with their fields extending to about the 1,500 -foot elevation and stretching for some nine miles along the coast, extending north and south of the project area on the broad plateaus. The annual rainfall provided an ample water supply to naturally irrigate their vast fields and fill their extensive network of flumes to transport cane to the coastal mill site (Star -Bulletin 1935). The water used for their flumes was supplied by "mountain gulches in the forest belt with a system of ditches to carry water where needed" (Star -Bulletin 1935:3). In the deep gulches that bisected the fields planted on the broad plateaus, the plantation built long trestles to support the flumes, some as high as 125 feet. By the early 1900s, Hakalau Plantation had expanded enough to produce 11,932 tons of sugar and employ 800 workers (Husted 1902:479). Hakalau Village, the primary hub of the Hakalau Plantation, was relatively small, consisting of a few dwellings built along the main government road, as shown in the 1903, Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2225 (Figure 24). The road, included in the project area, descended into the gulch, followed the contour of the cliffside, passed over the streambed, and ascended the other cliffside into Kama`. 48 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background ,dtilGw. r «Nf` 4/ 9rr5' fr Y^;r �µur Al olos Ow" y�lYlA, ,alar. nte rR` ANN• 5., nte .00 +n1�� - dak., CO' 0.. R`• ay" CI Project area 0 Meters 0 100 200 'MI.' ,.moi,.. '70,Ena"q.IPr;'In�� Ile 74 u. Hw 1.1,0E h G • 0'a aaN Figure 24. Portion of Hawai`i Registered Map No. 2225 by Morange (1903) showing Hakalau Village and the main government road meandering through Hakalau Gulch. In 1909, The Honolulu -based Evening Bulletin published a detailed description of the company and their activities. Information is provided regarding the machinery used in processing the sugarcane and the ethnic makeup of the plantation employees: The property of the Hakalau Plantation Company is in the Hilo district, about fifteen miles from the town of Hilo. The plantation embraces 26,600 acres, 6,000 of which is planted and several varieties of cane. The Yellow Caledonia predominates. The plantation maintains ten miles of main and lateral V flumes through which the cane is conveyed to the mill and delivered direct to the twelve -roller mill, operated by steam power and with a capacity of seventy-five tons of raw sugar in twenty-four hours. The company operate their own electric light plant, driven by a 24 -inch Pelton water wheel, which furnishes light to the mill, store, manager's house, etc. The mill is located in a picturesque spot at the bottom of Hakalau Gulch close by the sea, a sea-wall built of cement and stone, surrounding it upon the ocean side. The sugar, when sacked and ready for shipment, is hauled up over a steep incline tramway to the landing warehouse, where it is shipped on board the Inter -Island steamers by a wire cable arrangement from warehouses to the deck of the steamers, without damage or breakage. The grinding season at Hakalau usually lasts about six months. The average yield of sugar to the acre is about 3 '/2 tons. The total output of the mill during 1908 was 12,832 tons. The estimate for 1909 is 11,000 tons. The present mill, which is most complete, was erected by the company in 1897, the steel structural work being supplied by the Judson Manufacturing Company of San Francisco. The working plans were furnished by the Honolulu Iron Works. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 49 2. Background Its Big Smokestack. Because of the situation of the mill it was necessary to construct a brick flue surmounted by a smokestack 120 feet high and having an elevation 235 feet above the mill site. This tall smokestack gives the furnaces in the mill a better draught. The mill is quite complete in all its departments, being supplied with sixteen 30 -inch centrifugals, two Standard triple effects, ten open clarifiers, two 8 and one 5 -ton vacuum pans, besides much other machinery. The four 3 - roller mills and Krajewski crusher are driven by two powerful Hamilton -Corliss engines while the centrifugals which make 1,300 revolutions per minute, are driven either by steam or water power. An immense twelve -ton overhead traveling crane is used in the mill for handling the ponderous machinery when making repairs or changes. The sugar is dropped from the centrifugals to the floor of the sugar room whence it is elevated into two large bins, and there it is allowed to cool before being bagged. The various cane fields are intersected by good roads. Plowing is done with Secretary disc and ordinary molboard plows drawn by mules, while the cultivation is carried out by Deere disc bedders, Crescent disc cultivators, Horner ratoon plows and Horner cultivations, the Horner patents proving highly satisfactory. The soil is fertilized with 1000 pounds of high grade fertilizer and 1800 pounds of lime to the acre. The company maintains a large number of stock upon its property, there being 210 mules and 41 horses in use. Percentage of Working Laborers There are over 1200 laborers on Hakalau plantation, 38 skilled; 51 Portuguese, 800 Japanese, 83 Japanese Women, 60 Porto Ricans, 30 Spanish and Porto Rican Women, 144 Chinese, 4 Hawaiians, 39 Koreans and 26 Spaniards. Nearly all the work is performed under the day labor system. The machine shops are at the mill, while at Hakalau proper are the spacious plantation stables, carpenter and blacksmith shops and the large general merchandise store run in connection with the postoffice and plantation offices. The blacksmith shop has been recently kept busy while the steamer lies but a short distance off shore. John M. Ross, who has been connected with the Hakalau Plantation Co. For fifteen years, has been its manager since September 1st, 1905. (Evening Bulletin 1909:31) Figure 25 offers a partial view of the mill site, flume, and other infrastructure built within Hakalau gulch prior to 1911, based on the absence of the Hakalau bridge/railroad. Another photo (Figure 26) depicts a panoramic view of the Hakalau mill, landing, and smokestack that are referenced in the Evening Bulletin article. Although this photo (see Figure 26), which was retrieved from the Hawai`i State Archives is undated, based on the presence of the completed Hakalau/bridge railroad, this photo was likely taken some time after 1911. A 1919 Sanborn fire insurance map (Figure 27) also illustrates the numerous facilities that were built by the company to accomodate their sugar operations. Within the Hakalau gulch was located the sugar mill, laboratory, general supply warehouse, and oil storage. The bluff overlooking the mill was populated with various warehouses, molasses tanks, an office, and an auto repair shop. 50 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 25. Hakalau Mill and gulch, pre -1911 (Hawai`i State Archives, PPWD-4-7-018). Figure 26. Panoramic view of Hakalau Plantation showing the landing, mill, flume, and other built features, post - 1911. Image source: Hawaii State Archives, PPWD-4-7-029. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 51 2. Background 25 hcw.r[au ,fu rarinx atb• J146a4' &tiL. X e d e 1 e N 8 n y IEWJ `fin `" N � d + r X.Oteri Zee PLANTATfUM' CO Figure 27. 1919 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map of Hakalau Plantation showing details of roadways and buildings. A prominent building of the Hakalau Plantation was their sugar mill, remnants of which are found within the project area. The company's mill was nestled on the southeastern base of Hakalau Gulch just a few feet above sea - level and surrounded on its remaining sides by Hakalau Stream and the Pacific Ocean. The first two mills were built between 1879-1881 by engineer and agriculturalist John Alison Scott (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1925). A description of the mill's location was published in the Daily Honolulu Press on August 1, 1885, noting its location in the gulch and near the shoreline: 52 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Hakalau mill—at least the one that was being operated when I was there—is in the bottom of one of those incomparable gulches, so low that the tide washes its foundation walls, and the spring freshets threaten it... (Daily Honolulu Press 1885:2) The proximity of the mill to the ocean meant that damage caused by stormy weather and high surf occurred periodically. As an example, the mill was damaged in 1892 following a winter storm that swept through the area: Hakalau probably received the worst damage, as there the sea, running dead on, broke with appalling force. It carried way the landing and trash house and stove in the sides of the lower mill, filling the lower story with rocks and sand" (The Honolulu Advertiser 1892:2) In 1895, the first two mills were torn down and replaced with a new mill that was imported from Scotland and erected in 1896 (Capellas 1925; Evening Bulletin 1909; Hawaiian Gazette Co. 1895). This third mill (and other facilities nearby) was in use until it was destroyed by the 1946 tsunami. After the 1946 tsunami, the mill was reconstructed and put back into use less than a year later (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1947). Although the plantation employed its own laborers, it also favored the policy of shareholders growing cane on a contract basis—a policy that has been attributed to the amicable relationship between the plantation and workmen. Most of the plantation's shareholders who grew cane for the mill lived in the upper elevation on homestead lots which they owned, whereas many of contract laborers lived in camps situated near their workplace. Near the project area, there were multiple camps formed. Hakalau Upper and Lower Camp were located on the Hilo side of the Hakalau Gulch, near the mill and other plantation buildings. In the coastal region of Kama`e`e was Korean Camp and Sugimoto Camp (Figure 28). One of the earliest camps was the Hakalau Gulch Camp, nestled in the gulch along the government road along a covered bridge (Figure 29) (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -camps). HILO FOREST R £SERV E Kamaee Mauka Honohina Kaminaka Mauka Chin Chuck Stable Camp 1 Chin- Chu Genji Cam Wailea Mill Camp __ Wailea Spanish Camp Hakalau Hakalau Mill Lower Camp__ Honohina Upper Camp Yamagata Camp ahUku CampL-sand. J Zr.- Pa.'1'i€i ` Honohina Fid1:;,:,:1•17:17 : •; bbrJan 196! ��✓j Ti[ MOM YOIrH r+r •n ..0 Lower "Mr'OO'.i9m ti rCIm1HMn �H a 111.11.1.4.1. a. a. Camp - (private �na1000l NMI WOJI. mar Figure 28. Hakalau Plantation Company Field Map annotated to indicate the various camps in the region. Original field map is courtesy of the Edmund Olson Trust Archive (Forbes and Forbes 2023). CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 53 2. Background Figure 29. Hakalau Gulch Camp. Photo courtesy of Steve Sutter (Forbes and Forbes 2023). With its mill situated in Hakalau Gulch and the camps located on the bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, the upper coastal plateau of Hakalau grew as a social hub to support the many laborers and their families. An aerial photo taken in 1925 (Figure 30) shows a sprawling plantation community with the mill situated on the coasts in Hakalau Gulch, other plantation buildings on the bluff overlooking the mill, and workforce housing spread out on the plateau and in the gulch. A 1930s County TMK map (Figure 31) shows the project area during this period. Life in the plantation community of Hakalau was described in a 1935 article published in the Honolulu Star -Bulletin: Hakalau plantation is particularly distinctive in its social aspects, having a reputation for drawing people from all the surrounding plantations. Labor conditions have been particularly good, a general contentment prevailing. Excellent houses are provided both skilled and unskilled employes and numerous recreational facilities afforded, including club houses, tennis courts, basketball and volleyball courts, baseball and football grounds, motion picture theatre. (Star - Bulletin 1935:3) Life on the plantation was radically changed on April 1st, 1946 when a tsunami triggered by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake in the Aleutian Islands slammed into the north -facing shores of Hawai`i Island. This tsunami claimed the lives of 159 people, caused millions of dollars in property damage, and destroyed more than 500 buildings one of which included the oceanfront Hakalau Mill (Muffler and Museum 2015). At Hakalau Gulch, the: ...water reached 37 feet above sea level on the south side of the valley mouth, and 23 to 29 feet on the north side... The Hakalau Sugar Company's mill, which stood less than 10 feet above sea level and near the water's edge, was badly wrecked. A large clarifier tank, small steel girders, and sheet -iron roofing from the mill were carried 800 feet inland. Steel girders in the railroad trestle, inland from the mill, were bent by the impact of the debris -laden water. Fourteen noticeably large waves, at intervals of about 10 minutes, were counted at Hakalau Mill, the seventh or eighth wave being the largest. (Shepard et al. 1950:439) Because of its seaside location, Hakalau Mill was the hardest hit of all the then -existing plantations with damages amounting to over 1 million USD (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1956). The tsunami destroyed the mill's boiling house and laboratory, damaged multiple engines and various other pieces of machinery and infrastructure, and washed away the Hakalau Gulch labor camp (Hilo Tribune Herald 1946). The Hakalau steel -constructed bridge, however, escaped major damage. Historic photographs (Figures 32, 33, 34, 35) show the inundation of Hakalau Gulch and the extensive damage to the mill site. Following the destruction of the Hakalau Mill, sugarcane was routed to the Pepe'ekeo Mill for processing until the new $600,000 replacement mill was built eleven months later in 1947 (Figures 36 and 37) (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1947). 54 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 30. Aerial photo of the Hakalau plantation community taken on January 23, 1925 (USAAF 1925). o t 15 P� • ',,ii\\'' I 1\\\`• sin\\\ ,tlt1; i\\ - 1I1\\\ ?• s`—'\" ."„,/ x\11tfI,;;\.\t►�. 1 '•''" �\‘111 ,ii‘. 1Nltt/�' mNktrs,,,,. !11:f!li, 4. n .n 1 Ilr , :. 1�• a I=1 Project area Figure 31. Portion of County TMK (3) 1-01 map showing the project area during the 1930s. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 55 2. Background Figure 32. Incoming tsunami wave inundating Hakalau Mill on April 1, 1946 taken by Waichi Ouye (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -mill site photos). Figure 33. The 1946 tsunami battering Hakalau Mill, note the steel trestles and the tops of the coconut trees in the background (Forbes and Forbes 2023- the 1940s). 56 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 34. Hakalau Mill in the wake of the 1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -the 1940s). Figure 35. Workers surveying the damage at Hakalau Mill following the 1946 tsunami (Muffler and Museum 2015:57). CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 57 2. Background Figure 36. Reconstructed Hakalau Mill post -1946 tsunami (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -the 1940s). THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER. FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1947. LEGAL NOTICES 1247 Juvenile NOTICE OF NON•EESPONSISILITY Figure 37. Photos published in The Honolulu Advertiser (1947:9) showing the Hakalau Mill during the 1946 tsunami (right) and the reconstructed mill in 1947 (left). THEN AND NOR'—Hakalau plantation mill on Hawaii starts operation after more than 11 months of reconstruction. following the April 1st tidal wave last year. Shown left is a picture taken during the height of the wave. On the right the final touches are being placed on the new boiling house, which was rebuilt completely. The cost of putting the mill into operation was ap- proximately $600.000, according to plantation manager W. C. Jennings. Other losses suffered by the plantation. indirectly, will run the losses to well over a million dollars. 58 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Although changed, sugar plantation life after the 1946 tsunami returned to some semblance of non -nal. Derek Kurisu, Executive Vice President of KTA Super Stores, was born in 1951 and raised on the Hakalau sugar plantation in the mid -20t'' century (Santos et al. 2019). Below he describes what communal life was like in their community: Growing up on Hakalau, a sugar plantation along the Hamakua coast, fifteen miles from Hilo, we learned to respect our elders and treat everyone with dignity and respect. Since we were all poor, we looked at how individuals behaved and carried themselves, not what they possessed. Regardless of our race, age, religion, or character, we lived together as one big family, and saw the positive in everyone. The fishermen fished, the gardeners raised the vegetables, the hunters provided the meat, the mechanics fixed the car, the carpenters fixed the homes, the baseball players coached the kids' team, etc. etc. Everyone had the strengths and used them to contribute to the plantation community. (Kurisu 2014:76) Hakalau Plantation Post -1946 Following the 1946 tsunami, which caused a great deal of damage to facilities in the gulch and thus required a significant amount of funds and debt to reconstruct, the Hakalau Plantation was forced to modernize and provide better wages for workers. Forbes and Forbes (2023) offered the following summation of camp and plantation conditions in the 1950s: The 1950s were difficult for Hakalau Plantation and the question of viability was raised repeatedly. Financial losses and heavy debt resulting from the 1946 tsunami were made worse as [industry -wide] labor strife erupted. Strikes resulted in months of lost production and new labor contracts required significantly higher wages and more employee benefits. Plantation managers and workers implemented new systems to improve efficiency of operations, most notably vastly increasing mechanized harvesting. Workers were aware that the existence of the plantation and their jobs were at risk. Improving efficiency, even if it meant a reduction in jobs, was understood to be essential. The single capital improvement deemed essential to the survival of the plantation was the building of roads to facilitate mechanical harvesting. Most other capital improvements were delayed and equipment was leased instead of purchased. The process of abandoning outlying villages and selling houses to workers on a removal basis began. The Hilo Coast plantations worked together to solve common problems like studying the road system and agricultural research to support improved fertilization practices and cane ripening studies. (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -the 1950s) A County TMK map from the 1950s (Figure 38) shows the project area and a historic aerial take in 1954 (Figure 39) shows, in greater detail, the neatly laid -out Hakalau plantation community and the project area. The 1954 aerial also clearly shows the runoff from the mill clouding the entirety of Hakalau Bay. Like the previous decade, the 1960s were a time of immense change and challenges for many of the plantations throughout the islands. Although sugarcane was, for many decades, the primary form of sugar that dominated markets globally, the development of the beet sugar industry, which was much cheaper to produce than sugarcane, meant that sugar plantations in Hawai`i needed to adapt if they wanted to survive. Furthermore, the increasing costs of labor, the need to mechanize cultivation and production, as well as the high manufacturing tax for sugar and pineapple, resulted in many plantations either closing down or consolidating their companies and activities (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1961:1-2). It was also during this time that the Hakalau Plantation Company began to sell homes in their plantation camps (including Hakalau Lower Camp), ranging from $50-$100 USD, "on a removal basis" to plantation employees (The Voice of Hakalau (1962) in Forbes and Forbes 2023). hi 1962, Hakalau Plantation Company merged with the Pepeekeo Sugar Company. This was not the first time that either company merged with another company; in 1944, the Hakalau Plantation Company purchased Wailea Milling Company, while the Pepe'ekeo Sugar Company merged with the Honomu Sugar Company in 1946. The merger between the Hakalau and Pepe'ekeo companies included the continual operation of the Hakalau Mill, which was threatened with closure months prior and would have resulted in the lay-off of some seventy-five employees (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1962). James C. Stopford, president of the newly merged company, reported in 1963 that the yield for 1962 was 57,300 tons of sugar with earnings amounting to $687,800 (Stopford 1963). CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 59 2. Background P$'. .til\ p11t1\\\ti'It 0 „11\\` \ fill (J ttl 1\� r 01.1111/•:.%' \r" I t\ N• `\`\ 1 t r/1 i� • j1I1111��' 1t 0 SO WO Iti, . 0 Project arca Figure 38. Portion of County TMK (3)-1 map from the 1950s showing the project area. Figure 39. 1954 aerial photograph showing the project area, the sprawling Hakalau plantation community (note the runoff from the mill clouding Hakalau Bay). 60 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Throughout the 1970s, sugar production along the North Hilo and Hamakua coastline continued to dwindle. In 1971, Pepe`ekeo Sugar Company, along with other companies in Wainaku and Papa`ikou, were consolidated into a processing cooperative led by C. Brewer Company. "Under C. Brewer's ownership the sugar companies combined with hundreds of independent sugar growers to create the Hilo Coast Processing Company which processed all of the sugar cane for their plantations as well as used a by-product, bagasse, to create 25% of the electric power for the island of Hawaii" (Forbes and Forbes 2023- the 1970s). Simultaneously in 1972, the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Water Act, establishing "the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters" (Environmental Protection Agency 2022). Evidence of the runoff caused by the mill can be seen in the 1954 aerial (see Figure 39). This piece of legislation meant that sugar companies would be forced to abate the pollution that sugar operations generated, especially with regard to coastal discharges of sugar processing byproducts. Months prior to the passage of the act, C. Brewer Company announced their commitment to spend more than $5.5 million USD "to improve the quality of ocean water adjacent to its five Hamakua Coast mills" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1971a:61). A historic aerial photograph taken in 1977 (Figure 40) shows the project area and Hakalau plantation community. Additionally, plans were made to close the Hakalau mill and related facilities, as conveyed in the article excerpt below with any remaining crops to be sent for processing to the mills at Papa`ikou and Pepeekeo: Pepeekeo Sugar Co. Site clearance has already begin at Pepeekeo to make way for a giant $6.4 million boiler and turbo power complex that will consume all trash and bagasse produced at the Pepeekeo and Papaikou factories. Power generated by a 20 megawatts turbine generator at the plant, scheduled for completion in September, 1973, will be sold to the Hilo Electric Light Co. By that same date, the Wainaku and Hakalau factories will be closed down, and their crops will be processed at the Pepeekeo and Papaikou mills. To facilitate this increase, Pepeekeo's processing capabilities will be doubled and Papaikou will undergo modifications to meet the State's ocean water quality requirements. (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 197lb:61) Figure 40. Aerial photo from 1977 showing the project area and Hakalau plantation community. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 61 2. Background In 1973, Pepeekeo Sugar Company merged with Mauna Kea Sugar to form the Mauna Kea Sugar Company, becoming the fourth largest sugar company in the state at the time with over 18,000 acres planted in cane (Campbell and Ogburn 2004). "Upon the final merger, the plantation offered houselots for Hakalau sugar workers and their families at Kulaimano Subdivision in Pepeekeo. Perhaps 75 per cent [sic] of the 300 to 400 who left Hakalau moved to homesites there..." (Rood 1975:12). A year later, after 92 years of operations the Hakalau Mill was closed. A special ceremony was held in December 1974 to commemorate the closure of the mill (Figure 41). The ceremony was attended by Herbert Matayoshi (Mayor, Hawai`i County), John Farias Jr. (Director, State Department of Agriculture), Robert Hughes (Chairman of the Board of Directors, Hilo Coast Processing Company), William Kenda, (President, Hilo Coast Processing Company), Joseph Garcia Jr. (former State Representative), and several retired employees (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1974): Ceremonies began at 9:30 a.m. when Corsito Santiago, senior cane truck driver, delivered the last load of cane to the Kamaee Station. As the last piece of cane passed through the mill rolls at 10:30 a.m., Antoku Kobashigawa, a 28 - year Hakalau veteran and acting assistant factory superintendent, tossed his hat into the mill grinder, symbolically ending the grinding season, and Larry Iwani, former factory superintendent and presently superintendent, manufacturing, for HCPC, poured champagne over the rolls. At 11:00 o'clock William Kenda, president of HCPC, closed the valves shutting off the mills roll—officially ending the factory's long career. (C. Brewer and Company Limited 1974) The consolidation of the Hakalau Plantation Company with Pepeekeo Sugar Company (followed by the merger of the latter with Mauna Kea Sugar Company), the modernization of other facilities along the Hamakua Coast, and the closure of the Hakalau Mill effectively contributed to the departure of numerous former plantation employees and their families, as well as the dismantling and demolition of many of the buildings and structures associated with the Hakalau Plantation and the communities surrounding it. As stated in the title of an April 1975 newspaper article printed in the Hawaii Tribune -Herald, Hakalau was deemed a "dying town" (Figure 42) (Rood 1975:12). By 1977, Hakalau Lower Camp (located near the current project area) was demolished (Forbes and Forbes 2023- the 1970s). Lands that were previously owned by the sugar companies were subdivided into smaller agricultural lots that were then sold on the open market. In 1978, the County of Hawai`i Department of Public Works publicly announced the indefinite closure of a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway on the Hamakua side of the gulch, north of the Hakalau Bridge (Figure 43). The purpose of the closure was to "allow for the utilization of a portion of the old road as a drainage way" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978:10). Ili, Inst ::ryd ..aae arrives 11 participated Ina etreznany to clow the m11F after .‘alu.rd:n a. ^.nine SI pains SZ xeJrc I larr:rtlop. Ir rwx� M{ YVN Ail ?Al' tihllkipm Kends, president of Fille Coast Proeeesing Co., xhv4s dawn Iht Hakolaa mllt machincr.l. Saturday a. rertincaltb marking the mill closing. Figure 41. Photos published in the Hawai`i Tribune -Herald of the last cane haul and processing of sugarcane at Hakalau Mill (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1974). 62 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Portrait Of A Dying Town SALVAGE OPERATION — Two. Intal moo pick opamtint balkingmalerlal, after asrid ,,...u -s nom< t. tura d uo. HAMAI.AI (.EM - M.* q.Mkt m .W1 - : .-d 'Colt 14n1llr. In .. .... A.43.n.n...W41.We. h Ike.i 0.4.1.441 H4.Lu n}s, Or al*u plaasotn pm .lay I4. Num By Tim Rood sr! Rms. Ilukalua I dose, 1o.4 rune plan row ▪ a the non !Th.., huhu.,ord.in, 6,, the =emir "It rt •. tr., heron, ., n,Mhle, .tett rill be ,,..n a A, ru,ro, kill.. I ono pn+.sang Co . 1.1 rho nwk. '! . •. _ ., u.• nut rhe innate tor the #lout...• 11 .".. ..., M *hie th•r .oda n. 'h,.. Tod Iter...:... n.,., .. rho upper 4...!.. 34.4n;..., n.•I .....Ih ..Jr dun`n..g n h341 up r 74.. rho erten 11n4n7.. ...! !'n ,r.4 •,, #'Inntuton.. .Teri in J'n.l. anon.: Kea • and true .coat merged. Th.. I'.. pe.4.. and Nnt ,, 4.. rsed .n l" -J. 1n. Nunn.. ken Jtynr anthe, nit .agar pun.- 101/11A.11100.8011.ro 4anole.:. nd.. from Il so. o 1 p• .4. J,enl merger, rho I•.n .r.,tithe,. 4....Ln. Jnr !taint.. .•A•� nod rh.. fnaihr, .t 'Aulai.a f4.4,..o lepenken rerhep•:1 per Teta otheltm twu KA.. lel, If lobo n...naare. the. n.a.n n....nr.! 1.. i. .404441 md m 4nnm perknp. VIM men, ...en a .4.Idren loft in 11.4.1... It hat u p...r •.fl.. r. Gram. ,hop and on add plum *. Ion aril min, the Inannk ppdnurna. .The plantation pin had Men the fir. .or AT,s lobo bust along the rest in the 19:'0'.. rote.. menUT.d. It oaf hen .. Il...Srna7 Trw.p Ao t, the ./deet troop ehr f.lnnd.t llnknbtu hold .I...,.F .r. I•r': nhhnngh ant , Intonen , t 1,. ...non rumen /ln4nlau,......s . , ,•1 student.. lint h. 6o nt,trt ..honk ps...46, IA .tr th.. rind, mantled a l7A: ,.rf »ws l..• ,,,.ht Teton, 4 , tritonsnd.rtninn f.....h.+ or hr. Il da t' .nn :tenon. pIantntion t n. j ,,n l'ahaln no 74..n.Aeo ...11 pf... MA.... softball then. Tribune -Herald Photos By Paul Miyasaki PI1"4111P n7 THE PAST - 1!, A. .114 a...alma, v of tar dertaplnt 1.7,.,nn ,y n p -u o Hal,4...111.4. 74'!! LA THEATER - 11111 MrWag.,M bosses 17 14/4' Ins HIM below the Mato.l4b.. 11µ4. 14, NaA.be RSI 1431144 cad a 4eaun 4101. it H .n) Figure 42. Images of derelict and demolished buildings accompanying an article published on April 9, 1975 in the Hawaii Tribune -Herald about the "Dying Town" of Hakalau. The photographs were taken by Paul Miyasaki. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 63 2. Background PUBLIC NOTICE J CLOSING OF PORTION OF OLD MAMuulxoA HIGHWAY AT HAWAII GULCH The portion of the Old Mamalahaa High way beginning at o point approximately Two Hundred and Thirty (2301 lineal Bart north of the 'HakQlav Gulch bridge and emending northeasterly (Harnalrue direction) for One Thousand Thee Hundred and Twenty -Frye {1,325) llnaal feel, will be closed indefinitely to all traffic movement effective February 1, 1978 to allow utilization of portion of the old road as a drat Hoge way Appropriiate rigni will be putted end rnoturi b ars advised to ubscrvr ihc polled wigns. Lim! T cP rit`o,emo slAY TO NW CI -05O We He AWNS u. H,rr .,71r31ka DEPARTMENT. Of PUBLIC WOW COUNTY OF HAWAII EDWARD NAfADA, Chief Enginuir 7 — How4ri i 7rihgimp -FI*tuld; January 18, 24, 27, 1978) Figure 43. Public notice of the indefinite closure of a portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway within Hakalau Gulch (included in project area) (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1978:10). 64 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background From Railroad to Highway During the years of growth and expansion in Hawai`i's sugar industry, modernizing transportation infrastructure was necessary to efficiently transport goods and materials. By the turn of the 20th century, plans to install a railroad between Hilo and Honoka` a were being actualized. Around 1879, the Hawaiian Government conducted a survey to determine a preliminary route for the proposed railroad as shown in Hawaii Registered Map No. 339 from 1879 (Figure 44). As shown in the 1879 map (see Figure 44), it appears as though two possible routes through Hakalau Gulch were considered; one that extended in a straight fashion across the gulch and the other meandering in a westward (mauka) direction through the gulch. Although neither route (as shown in the 1879 map; see Figure 44) was developed into the railroad, the direct route across the gulch eventually became the chosen path. However, it was decidedly moved further makai to cross above the mouth of Hakalau Stream. Railroad construction was one of the most important elements of governmental and private sector planning following the Treaty of Reciprocity, as crops and products were still being transported by cart and animals (Dorrance and Morgan 2000). On the Island of Hawaii, the first major line to be constructed was in the North Kohala District, which operated as the Hawaiian Railroad Company. The North Kohala line, however, was envisioned as only the first step toward a much larger system connecting the cane fields of Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo with Hilo Harbor, the only protected deep -water port on the island. Beginning in 1899, railroad lines began transporting sugar to the harbor for marine transport, thus Hilo became an important shipping and railroad hub. 91 t_ . /9°:. g0.:*. fr'. l 17M Yiulwseil 1 alignment tVW 4 4 ,41‘.4 h4 lr.•II1�• +NI�? ��.rl 7r ► ti, 4� tl. �� ing ' 'M1 ",til •,3'•.. ��1.' 1't r' • s i t •'.%", ,.�ti' „14i, • l , 4.11 Kti :l�• • r! a 100 200 2r Pill•11 . : w+'•5t+11�ti1: .40 f . . '` Prpject area ' Figure 44. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map No. 339 prepared by (Cabot 1879) showing the preliminary route of the railroad. Lorrin A. Thurston, who according to Thrum had "been connected with the enterprise from its initiation" (Thurston 1913:142), wrote an article upon the completion of the railroad from Hilo to Pa'auilo, Hamakua in May of 1913 entitled "Railroading in Hilo" which was published in Thrum's Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1914. Thurston reported that the Hilo Railroad Company (HRC) initiated the railroad endeavor in 1899 from Waiakea south to `Ola`a and onwards to Kapoho. The initial distance of twenty-five miles of track was completed by April 1901. Later that same year, the track was extended along the waterfront of Hilo to the Wailuku River, at the foot of CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 65 2. Background Waianuenue Street" (Thurston 1913:143). In 1903, HRC constructed a wharf at Waiakea and completed a branch line connecting it to the waterfront line. The commercial sugar industry provided most of the cargo transported by HRC but suffered a sharp decline between the years 1904-1907, which caused a halt of development in Hilo (Thurston 1913). In response, HRC worked with `Ola` a Sugar Company to send a representative to Washington D.C. in 1907 to secure funding for the construction of a breakwater that would allow Hilo Bay to accommodate larger ocean-going vessels. Construction on the breakwater began in 1908 and was still ongoing at the time of Thurston's writing (ca. 1914); the breakwater was completed in 1929. In exchange for the construction of a breakwater in Hilo Bay, HRC was required to build a new wharf, a one -mile rail extension from Waiakea, and a 50 -mile rail extension north to Honoka`a Mill (the Hamakua Division). The funding of the breakwater by HRC resulted in the extension of the railroad through the populated section north of Hilo to Hakalau and eventually to Hamakua. The route of the HCR in Hakalau is shown in a 1915 USGS map (Figure 45) and the 1923 Hawaii Consolidated Railway map (Figure 46). In describing plans for the proposed extension of the HCR in the area north of Hilo town, Thurston wrote: When the breakwater project was pending before Congress, opposition was made to the appropriation on account of the limited commerce then being transacted through Hilo harbor. Assurances were thereupon made by the Hilo Railroad Company, that if the breakwater were constructed, a railroad would be built into the country north of Hilo and suitable wharf facilities provided under the lee of the breakwater. Such assurances had a material effect in securing the appropriation. (Thurston 1913:145) Between June 1909 and December 24, 1911, the HRC built 12.7 miles of rail extending from Hilo to Hakalau Mill, crossing many deep gulches and valleys along its route (Figures 47 and 48). This was followed by the construction of an additional 21 miles of rail that connected Hakalau with Pa'auilo to the north, which covered a total distance from Hilo of roughly 34 miles and was known as the "Hamakua Division" (Thurston 1913:146). The rail spanned the Hakalau gulch by means of a steel trestle girder bridge that measured 775 feet long and 261 feet tall (Figure 49). The Hakalau rail bridge was considered the second -longest bridge on the line. Lorrin A. Thurston, who according to Thrum had "been connected with the enterprise from its initiation" (Thurston 1913:142), wrote an article upon the completion of the railroad from Hilo to Pa'auilo, Hamakua in May of 1913 entitled "Railroading in Hilo" which was published in Thrum's Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1914. Thurston defined the objective of the Hamakua Division as: The principal object of the extension is to give adequate transportation facilities between Hilo and the fertile and well-settled territory extending for 50 miles north of the town of Hilo, and averaging three to four miles in width. This district produces nearly one-fourth of the entire output of sugar of the Territory and is, including the town, the home of over 30,000 people. The only means of access to this section has heretofore been by wagon road, almost impassable in rainy weather, and by derrick and cable landings over bluffs rising from 50 to 300 feet sheer from blue ocean. There are no harbors. (Thurston 1913:147) 66 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background L=I Project area 51.21PM. ECM= [eII. tig 0 ft. '7 4011 _111(6."))1i1 .0111iS, ' Figure 45. 1915 USGS map showing the HCR alignment over Hakalau Gulch. tilION104114 O. Ude " I • MAP Ri of THE ISLANci of14. 0 t% SHOWING THE liNf 5 OF THCAWAII. NO+1,4151Fili • HAWAII eiSOLIVATED isAILWAY L.)• •• amilmit=mi=fmr=mmi, ant!' k Figure 46. Hawaii Consolidated Railway Map of November 1923 (Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926). CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`E`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 67 2. Background Figure 47. Steel trestles installed across Hakalau Gulch (ca. 1911) with the mill in the background (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad). igure 48. Railroad bridge being installed on steel trestles across Hakalau Gulch (note labor camp on the maulca side of the bridge in the gulch) (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad). 68 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 49. HCR train crossing Hakalau Bridge ca. 1911-1920 (Forbes and Forbes 2023 -railroad). Railroads throughout the North Hilo/Hamakua coastline remained in use until the 1946 tsunami, after which it was converted into a highway—a process that was both economical and made vehicular travel, which was quickly becoming the preferred mode of travel, more efficient in this part of the island. These highway bridges became part of the Mamalahoa Highway (Hawai`i Belt Road). Prior to this conversion, "automobile and truck traffic was limited by the narrow, winding road running through the deep gulches that mark the coast," including Hakalau Gulch, which was the second longest and highest bridge in the state (Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1953:32). Hired to do the general contracting for Hakalau Bridge was James W. Glover, Ltd., while K. Morishige was contracted to paint the bridge using "Dutch Boy red lead and black bridge paint on this and all other bridges reconstructed along the Hamakua coast" (The Honolulu Advertiser 1953:25). A photo showing the newly painted bridge was also included in the 1953 article (Figure 50) On April 17th, 1953, following a ceremony, the Hakalau Bridge, which cost $635,000, was opened for vehicular travel (Figures 51 and 52) (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1953). More than three decades later, in 1989, James W. Glover, Ltd. was awarded a contract totaling $313,986 to resurface three bridges along the North Hilo/Hamakua coast, including Hakalau. The work consisted of "removing the existing bridge surface, installing a new asphalt -concrete surface...[and] constructing a level connection to the bridge from the existing roadway," as well as "routine improvements on bridge expansion joints" (Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1989:5). In following years, further improvements and renovations were made to the bridge. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 69 2. Background !Hakalau Bridge !Rebuilt, Given New Paint Job One of the highest and long- est bridges in the Hawaiian Is- lands is the old Hakalau rail- road bridge, recently rebuilt in order to fill the transportation needs of the modern and pro- ,gressive Big Island. • • • TO MEET THE growing de- mands for more convenient and safer crossing facilities for tourists and the sugar industry, the Territory established this reconstruction program which included the rebuilding of a se- ries of eight bridges along the Hamakua coast from Hilo to Honokaa. and a new highway which is still under construc- tion. The Hakalau bridge is 210 feet high and 1,000 feet long. Gen- eral contractor on the recon- struction job was James W. Glover, Ltd. • • . PAINT CONTRACTOR was K. Morishige of Honolulu, who used Dutch Boy red lead and Dutch Boy black bridge paint on this and alt other bridges re- constructed along the Hamakua I I coast. NEW LOOK FOR HAKALAU Figure 50. Photo published in The Honolulu Advertiser (1953:25) showing the newly lead painted Hakalau Bridge. BRIDGE 70 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Participating in the ceremony on April 17,1953 were i L- wife of the former long-time manager, cutting lei; "Blue" r.) Miss Hawaii (now Mrs. Arlon, of Kamuela); Kaaua, State District Engineer; Rev. Bino Mamiya; Mrs. Alexander Hossack, then manager of Hakalau Plan- Andres Bacllg; Melvin Lepine, Asst. State Dist. Eng.; Cation: ,lack Ouye; Mrs. Hossack; Mrs. John M. floss, Janet Yara, Hakalau School queen. Hakalau Bridge Last week's Where Is It? - was the framework supporting the Hakalau Bridge, which spans Hakalau Gulch, on the Harnakua Coast. According to Jack Ouye, who was Hakalau Postmaster at the time the bridge was opened. in 1953, "this is supposed to be the longe;1 bridge in the State, and second- highest Honohina-Nanui bridge is higher)." It tent opened to the public at 4:00 p.m. on ,1pri'. 17. 1933 is a ceremony sponsored by the ilak.dau Athletic Association, under Ouye's directin, Also naming the bridge for Where Is It? were: Arlean Yugawa, Elayne Fujii, Cory Vierra, of Hakalau; Joseph S. Pavao, of Pepeek•o: Francis M. Akhnseu, of Mililani St.; J. Walter Silver, of Hilo; M. Hirata, of Palua 1 , pop; and Mrs. S. H. Blumenthal, of St. Petersberg Beach, Florida. As the lei is untied, opening Hakalau Bridge, 4 ars wait along the road for the honor of being the first to cross the new structure. Photos courtes of Jack Ou e. Figure 51. Dedication and opening of Hakalau Bridge on April 17, 1953 (Hilo Tribune - Herald 1973:22) CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 71 2. Background IGGEST tllMtDGE—The Hakatau Gulch bridge on the new Ne- cktie coast highway, is the longest highway bridge in the erritory, totaling 771 feet. It eliminat.s the tong, winding de- cent in and out of the ulch followed b the old road. The highway bridge was constructed by strengthening the sup- porb under the old railroad bridge, then plating u new, wider deck. Structure in background h a cane flume.—Photos by R. T. Kanemori, Modern Camaro Center. Figure 52. Hakalau Bridge following reconstruction efforts with cane flume in the background (Hawaii Tribune - Herald 1953). Post -Plantation and Creation of the County -Owned Hakalau Beach Park More recently, the first consideration of a Hawai`i County beach park at Hakalau Bay was in 2003 (Armstrong 2003). The landowner at that time, Mauna Kea Agribusiness Co. (formerly Mauna Kea Sugar Company), wanted the County to assume ownership of the 5.9 -acre property (old mill site) as well as several roads in Papa`ikou and Pauka`a. The then Planning Department Director, Chris Yuen reported that the old mill site "is one of just a handful along the Hamakua Coast offering a safe way for people to enter the ocean" (Yuen in Armstrong 2003:1). Armstrong went on to report that access to the beach was "restricted since area landowner Steven Wolf gated the only entrance road last summer" (Annstrong 2003:6). The installation of the gate along the entrance road drew much community controversy as reported by the Hawai`i Tribune -Herald. Wolf argued that "he put the yellow metal gate across the road mostly to curtail illegal dumping and vandalism on the property" and that beachgoer could walk past the gate, a couple hundred yards from the shoreline "at their own risk" (Wolf in Bishop 2002:1). The Honomu Village Association President, Jude Mattos pointed out that: The limited access...makes it difficult for our retirees to fish, (and for) people with handicapped disabilities, older surfers, and Native Hawaiians and others to retrieve and return rocks for imus and lois (terraces) (Mattos in Bishop 2002:1). In that same article Mike Staszkow, a writer for the Honomu Village Association newsletter noted that he and other community members were working to clean up the mill site area but to stop because of the lack of vehicular access. J.W.A. "Doc" Buyers, Chairman of C. Brewer (parent company of Mauna Kea Agribusiness Co.) noted that prior to Mauna Kea Agribusiness selling the property to Wolf, recreational use of the area was welcomed and that there "was drinking, vandalism and illegal use of firecrackers—maybe some gunfire—on the property" (Buyers in Bishop 2002). An agreement was not reached and sometime between 2003-2006, the property was sold to Atlanta- based developer Continental Pacific LLC, who in 2006 pledged to gift the parcel to the county for use as a public park (Armstrong 2006). It's unclear when the mill site area was designated as a County Park but it appears that much of the clean-up of debris at the mill site was an ongoing community effort. By 2017, the park was closed due to foundation issues with the 1930 bridge along the Old Mamalahoa Highway leading to the beach park (Johnson 2017). A 2016 bridge inspection showed that the Hakalau Stream had scoured rock and soil away from the foundation of the bridge, making it prone to collapse. It was at this time that lead contamination of the soil under the Hakalau bridge (Hawa`i Belt Road) was identified (Callis 2017). Due to the ongoing lead contamination, Hakalau Beach Park remains closed. 72 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL STUDIES The earliest archaeological work to be done in East Hawaii was that of the early 20th -century researchers Thomas G. Thrum and John F. Stokes (Stokes and Dye 1991; Thrum 1907). Neither identified heiau within the current project area nor in the larger region between Honomu and Hakalau. In the early 1930s, after the widespread development of vast plantations fields, Alfred E. Hudson, working under the aegis of the Bishop Museum, conducted archaeological investigations in East Hawaii (Hudson 1932). Concerning his findings in Hakalau, Hudson reported: The greater part of Hakalau gulch is also planted in cane. It is only in the upper part of the gulch, in dense guava, that taro terraces are found over an area of a quarter of a mile square. No clearly Hawaiian stone structures remain. Mr. Kaffenberg tells me there was formerly a konane board in the bottom of the gulch. Kinney (46, p. 29) says that the gulch was at one time a robber's stronghold. (Hudson 1932:218) During the Hawaii Island portion of the Statewide Survey of Historic Places conducted in the early 1970s, a single site (Site 50-10-16-7392), the Hakalau Historical District was documented (Hommon et al. 1974). Although the site record is missing from the DLNR-SHPD files, a brief description of this district along with a map (Figure 53) was provided by Forbes and Hibbard (2018:60) in their National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Hakalau Jodo Mission: Hakalau Historic District. While not the focus of this nomination, it is noteworthy that the Hakalau Jodo Mission is one of seven structures still existing within the Hakalau Historic District (SIHP 50-10-16-7392), recorded in the State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) in 1973. This district extends from the old mill site adjacent to Hakalau Bay and including the site of Hakalau School, adjacent to Wailea. [The others include the Hakalau plantation manager's home (1897, Hawaii Register of Historic Places No. 10-16-9070), two plantation warehouses on Hakalau Point (1920), Hakalau Jodo Mission (1904/current structure 1936), Hakalau Theater (now the post office, 1931), Hakalau School Gym (1941) and Hakalau School (various dates, at current site beginning in 1882). Within the Hakalau Historic District, the Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (SIHP 50-10-16-9070) and the Hakalau Jodo Mission (STHP 50-10-16-30894) have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Forbes and Hibbard 2018; Hibbard 2009). Of these two Historic sites, a portion of the project area extends into the parcel (TMK: (3) 2-9-002:039) in which Site -9070 is located. The location of the Historic District along with the Forbes and Hibbar (2018) and Hibbard (2009) studies relative to the current project area are shown in Figure 54. The following is a summary of prior archaeological and cultural studies conducted in the immediate vicinity of the project area. This summary does not include those studies (Carter 1990; Raymond 1991, 1993; Speulda 1996; Tomonari-Tuggle 1996) have been been conducted further mauka within the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Paul H. Rosendahl Inc. (PHRI) completed an archaeological inventory survey (Walker and Rosendahl 1994a, 1994b) of TMK: (3) 2-9-002:023 and (3) 2-9-004:056 (see Figure 54). Their study area extended along the south side of Hakalau Gulch from the mauka (west) side of Hawaii Belt Road up to the 1,500 foot elevation and included some 595 acres. A portion of their project area extends into the makai (eastern) end of the current project area. A low-level aerial (helicopter) survey was conducted on some uncultivated portions of the area. Other uncultivated areas were inspected using "variable -coverage (partial to 100%) variable -intensity ground survey" (Walker and Rosendahl 1994b:2). Walker and Rosendahl report that the project area had been extensively modified in historic times for sugar cane cultivation. For this reason, no archaeological sites or "significant cultural materials of any kind" were found (Walker and Rosendahl 1994b:2). PHRI conducted a historical assessment of two former Historic cemeteries located in the makai portions of TMK: (3) 2-009:002 (Lot 5) and TMK: (3) 2-9-002:088 (Lot 10) (Rosendahl 2001a, 2001b), situated southeast of the current project area (see Figure 54). These studies were undertaken to determine the status of the cemetery and its potential impact on the sale of residential property. For the Lot 5 study, it was determined that the roughly 1 -acre cemetery was "informal" meaning that it "was never formally registered with any regulatory agency, or dedicated by recordation with the State Bureau of Conveyances" (Rosendahl 2001a:2). Furthermore, the cemetery was associated with the Hakalau Jodo Mission (locally referred to as the "Japanese Cemetery") and contained an estimated 200 individuals (Rosendahl 2001a:2). It was principally used during the first third of the 20th century and the graves were disinterred in the early 1970s by Homelani Memorial Park, Inc., using a backhoe. Most individual internments consisted of deteriorated wooden coffins and skeletal remains. The grave monuments were generally reburied in the CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 73 NORTH I MOM Hakalauy Historic Distric 111111111111111 CA ev. Wailea Village ;Historic District :�.......i 19.57?(>., 1ss•orao Leh Source: Ari Architectural Preservation Plan for Site 26591 Feature A and Feature B Located on Lands ofthe Former Hakalau Plantation, Hakalau Nui Ahupua' a, South Hilo District, Island of H awai' i [TMK: (3) 2-9-002:079 (POR.)] dated April 2014. 2. Background excavated pits after the remains were removed. Rosendahl (2001a:4) recommended that this area be defined (written description and map) and designated as "Site of Fonner Plantation Era Japanese Cemetery" and that such information be disclosed to any future buyer. Unable to confirm whether all graves were disinterred, Rosendahl (2001a) recommended that any development involving subsurface construction be excluded from this area and that landscaping or other similar activities involving any subsurface activity be limited. PHRI's study on TMK: (3) 2-9-002:088 (Lot 10; see Figure 54) (Rosendahl 2001b) was conducted in two stages: research and field inspection. The purpose of the field inspection was to confirm the boundaries of the cemetery (the "Catholic Cemetery"). They determined that this cemetery, like the Japanese Cemetery (discussed above), was an informal plantation -era cemetery with an overall total area estimated between 1 to 2 acres and held possibly 200 to 250 internments of individuals of several ethnicities (Filipino, Portuguese, Puerto Rican), all of whom were likely plantation employees and/or family members of the Catholic faith. They found that the cemetery was primarily used during the first half of the 20th century, and, while a few of the graves were disinterred in the late 1970s by individual families; most of the graves remain in place. Some of the graves within the cemetery probably date to the end of the 19th century or early 20th century. Figure 53. Map showing the extent of the Hakalau Historic District and Wailea Village Historic District both of which were designated in 1973 (Forbes and Hibbard 2018:61). 74 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Hakalau Historic District SIHP 50-10-16-7392 Rosendahl 2009 Haun and Henry 2014 Rosendahl 2001a Leineweber 2009 Walker and Rosendahl 1994a. 1994b , Rosendahl 2001b Hibbard 2009 Forbes and I Iibbard 201S Hann-natl. and Uyeoka 2007 MOW 0 100 200 0 Meters Figure 54. Location of prior studies conducted in the vicinity of the project area. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 75 2. Background Cultural Surveys Hawai`i, Inc. prepared an archaeological monitoring report (Hammatt and Uyeoka 2007) for Hakalau Elementary School, Hawai`i Inter -Island DOE Cesspool Project in TMK: (3) 2-9-002:005, located south of the current project area (see Figure 54). The purpose of the excavations at the school was to install a new 2,000 - gallon septic tank and leach field to improve the school's wastewater system. They conducted two trench excavations, one at the leach field and the other at the septic tank. The leach field trench measured approximately 50 feet long by 40 feet wide and extended to a depth of 5 feet. The septic tank trench measured approximately 20 feet long by 11 feet wide and extended to a depth of 10 feet. All excavations were completed without encountering any significant subsurface deposits. They recommended that if any subsurface activities are conducted in the future that an on-site archaeological monitor be present. PHRI conducted an archaeological inventory survey and cultural impact assessment for an 8.7 -acre Hakalau coastal property (TMKs: (3) 2-9-002:079 and 081) (Rosendahl 2009), located to the east-southeast of the project area along the coastal bluffs (Figure 54). The objective of this study was to determine the general nature, extent, and potential significance of any archaeological -historical remains present, the historic preservation implications of any such remains for the feasibility of proposed residential development, and the general scope of work and level of effort for any subsequent archaeological -historic preservation work that might be needed. During their survey, two archaeological sites were identified: Site 26591, which consists of two warehouses (Features A and B) and foundation remnants (Features C thru 1); and Site 26592, the site of the former Japanese/Korean cemetery (previously documented by PHRI (2001a) but never assigned a SIHP number). In 2009, Spencer Leineweber nominated the Hakalau Stream Bridge (SIHP 50-10-16-9090; see Figure 54) to the National Register of Historic Places (Leineweber 2009). The bridge was considered significant under Criteria A, B, and C. Leineweber's statement of significance reads thusly: The Hakalau Stream Bridge is significant under Criteria A, B, and C. Criterion A is applicable for the bridge's association with the Hilo Railroad Company. Criterion B is applicable for the bridge's association with three founders of the Hilo Railroad Company. Criterion C is applicable since the bridge is a representative example of early twentieth-century engineering technology as well as a source of information about early twentieth-century steel manufacture and construction. A copy of the Hakalau Stream Bridge National Register Nomination Form in available in Appendix A. As part of the proposed project, ASM Affiliates undertook an archaeological inventory survey of the project area. The fieldwork was conducted on February 7th and March 16th' 2023 and resulted in the documentation of four previously documented Historic Era sites; Site 50-10-16-09070 (the former Hakalau Plantation Manager's House), Site 50-10-16-09090 (Hakalau Stream [Highway 19] Bridge [State]), Site 50-10-16-26591 (six features of the Hakalau Mill), Site 50-10-16-30187 (old Mamalahoa Highway), and one newly identified; Site 50-10-16-T-1 (Hakalau Stream Bridge [County]) shown on Figure 55. The six features of the Hakalau Mill recorded by ASM include a tramway/stone staircase (Feature J), eight concrete flume supports (Feature K), the Hakalau Mill foundation (Feature L), the mill access road (Feature M), a smokestack base (Feature N), and a pipe stanchion (Feature 0). The Hakalau Plantation Manager's House (Site 09070) was assessed under NRHP eligibility and HRS Chapter 6E significance under Criteria A(a), B(b), and C(c). No further work was recommended at this site because it will not be impacted by the Hakalau Bridge Project. The Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site 09090) was assessed under NRHP eligibility and HRS Chapter 6E significance under Criteria A(a), B(b), and C(c) and it was recommended that the bridge be recorded by an architectural historian as mitigation of effects from the proposed Hakalau Bridge Project. Site 26591, the Hakalau Mill, was assessed under NRHP eligibility and HRS Chapter 6E significance under Criteria A(a), C(c), and D(d). No further work was recommended at this site because it will not be impacted by the Hakalau Bridge Project. Site 30187, the Old Mamalahoa Highway, was assessed under NRHP eligibility and HRS Chapter 6E significance under Criteria A(a) and D(d). No further work was recommended at this site because it will not be impacted by the Hakalau Bridge Project. The Hakalau Stream Bridge (Site T-1) was constructed in 1930 and carries the Old Mamalahoa Highway across Hakalau Stream. The bridge was assessed under NRHP eligibility and HRS Chapter 6E significance under Criteria A(a), C(c), and D(d) and it was recommended that the bridge be recorded by an architectural historian prior to commencement of the proposed Hakalau Bridge Project. 76 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 2. Background Figure 55. ASM site map of archaeological features recorded in Hakalau Gulch (in Prep). C- CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 3. Consultation 3. CONSULTATION Gathering input from community members with genealogical ties and long-standing residency or relationships to the project and or study area is vital to the process of assessing potential cultural impacts on resources, practices, and beliefs. It is precisely these individuals that ascribe meaning and value to traditional resources and practices. Community members often possess traditional knowledge and in-depth understanding that are unavailable elsewhere in the historical or cultural record of a place. As stated in the OEQC (1997) Guidelines far Assessing Cultural Impacts, the goal of the oral interview process is to identify potential cultural resources, practices, and beliefs associated with the affected project area. It is the present authors' further contention that the oral interviews should also be used to augment the process of assessing the significance of any identified traditional cultural properties. Thus, it is the researcher's responsibility to use the gathered information to identify and describe potential cultural impacts and propose appropriate mitigation as necessary. This section of the report begins with a description of level of effort undertaken to identify persons believed to have knowledge of the study area, followed by the interview methodology. This section of the report concludes with a presentation of the interview summaries that have been reviewed and approved by the consulted parties. Outreach Efforts In an effort to identify individuals knowledgeable about traditional cultural practices and/or valued cultural resources associated with the current project and study area, a public notice containing (a) locational information about the project area, (b) a description of the proposed project, and (c) contact information was printed in a newspaper with state-wide readership. The public notice was submitted to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) on January 10th, 2023, for publication in their monthly newspaper, Ka Wai Ola. This notice was subsequently published in the February edition of Ka Wai Ola and a copy of the public notice is included in Appendix B of this report. From the public notice, zero responses were received. On August 9t'', 2022, the HDOT, submitted a letter to the County of Hawai`i Cultural Resources Commission (CRC) as part of a Section 106 consultation effort inviting the CRC to provide comments on any historic resources located within the project area. In a reply letter dated September 28th, 2022, the CRC provided extensive comments to the HDOT. The CRC requested Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the undertaking be sure to include the area downstream of Hakalau Bridge. A copy of CRC's September 28th, 2022, letter is included as Appendix C of this report. The concerns and comments of the CRC have also been considered as part of the mitigative measures discussed in the subsequent chapter (see Chapter 4). In addition to the public notice, ASM staff attempted to contact the following individuals listed alphabetically (by last name) below in Table 6. As part of the outreach efforts for the individuals listed below, ASM contacted them either via phone or email. If initial contact was made via phone, ASM staff introduced themselves, and explained the nature of the proposed project as well as the scope of the CIA study. After this initial conservation, ASM staff emailed a community consultation packet to the community members which included a more comprehensive explanation of the proposed project, contact information including, phone, email, and physical address of ASM staff, as well as maps showing the location of the project area. If initial contact was made via email, the community consultation packet was provided. In some instances, the community members responded with either the names of other community members they felt would be able to contribute to this study or they did not respond altogether. Of the eighteen people contacted, five (Carmelito Arkangel, Susan Forbes, Kehaulani Lum, Blake McNaughton, Keith "Bradda Skibs" Nehls) agreed to be interviewed for this study of which only four (excluding Kehaulani Lum) were able to review and approve their interview summary for inclusion in this report. Their interview summaries are included below. 78 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 3. Consultation Table 6. Community members contacted for consultation. Name Affiliation Contact Dates Results Akau, James Arkangel, Carmelito Camara, Kuali`i Cariaga, Jed Crivello, Tifaine Dudley, Leila Forbes, Susan Kurisu, Derek Kurokawa, Brad Lang, Leslie Lum, Kehaulani Matsuda, Akiko McNaughton, Blake Muise, Ku'ulani Nehls, Keith (Bradda Skibs) Makahanaloa Fishing Association. Area resident (Makahanaloa) Hunter Area resident (Hakalau) Area resident (Makahanaloa) Area resident (Hakalau) Raised in Hakalau Plantation Community. Executive Vice President of KTA Super Stores. Area resident (Hakalau) Writer/Historian Area resident (Hakalau) Area resident (Wailea) Vice President of Makahanaloa Fishing Association Area resident (Kahua) Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit Basic Image, Inc. January 20, 2023 May 1, 2023 February 7, 2023 February 27, 2023 January 20, 2023 January 17, 2023 January 19, 2023 January 17, 2023 January 17, 2023 May 1, 2023 January 17, 2023 February 17, 2023 January 17, 2023 January 17, 2023 January 17, 2023 February 28, 2023 January 17, 2023 February 17, 2023 May 1, 2023 Referred ASM staff reach out to Nick Frazier, Blake McNaughton, Pi`i Laeha, and Todd Otake. Was able to get contact information for Blake McNaughton only. See interview summary below. No response Called but was unable to leave a voicemail. No response Responded on January 17th, 2023 indicating that she didn't have information to share with ASM but referred ASM staff to reach out to Blake McNaughton and Ku`ulani Camara. See interview sumrnary below. No response No response Responded on January 17, 2023, with the recommendation that ASM staff contact Akiko Matsuda. Interviewed on January 26, 2023. Unable to get in touch with Kehaulani to review and approve her interview summary. Responded on January 17, 2023 with the recommendation that ASM staff reach out to Kehaulani Lum, Brad Kurokawa, and Susan Forbes See interview summary below. No response. See interview summary below. Table 6 continues on next page. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 79 3. Consultation Table 6. continued. Name Affiliation Contact Dates Results Office of Hawaiian Affairs Urakami, Kawika Uyeoka, Kelly Area resident (Umauma) Area resident (Hakalau) May 1, 2023 No response January 27, 2023 February 17, 2023 January 17, 2023 January 27, 2023 No response Responded February 6, 2023, stated since she wasn't raised there she felt it would be best that ASM staff reach out to Kuali i Camara. End of Table 6. INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY Prior to the interview, ASM staff provided information about the nature and location of the proposed project and informed the potential interviewees about the scope of the current study. The potential interviewees were informed that the interviews were completely voluntary and that they would be given an opportunity to review their interview summary prior to inclusion in this report. With their consent, ASM staff then asked questions about their background, their knowledge of past land use, and the history of the project area, as well as their knowledge of any past or ongoing cultural practices. The informants were also invited to share their thoughts on the proposed development and offer mitigative solutions. The interviews were conducted either via Zoom or in-person, as per the consultee's preference. The four approved interview summaries are provided below. SUSAN FORBES On January 27th, 2023, ASM staff Kaui Lopes met with Hakalau resident Susan Forbes via Zoom video call to discuss the proposed project. Much of the information shared during this interview focused her main concerns over the project and her research of the area. Susan Forbes has been a resident of Hakalau Plantation Village since mid - 2011, the neighborhood adjacent to the project area on the Hilo side. Upon her moving to the area, she and her husband became interested in its history and began researching. This history, most of which relates to the era of the sugar plantations, is available on their website, hakalauhome.com. One of her major concerns for the project is the selection of an alternative route to cross Hakalau Gulch while the Hakalau Bridge is undergoing rehabilitation. If the route chosen is the Old Mamalahoa Highway it would be a safety concern for their residential neighborhood. Old Mamalahoa Highway through their area is not wide enough to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be diverted from the Hawaii Belt Highway. Families, children and the elderly regularly walk along this road. Further, if this alternative route turns into a permanent scenic route, it will attract tourists, creating more traffic. Cliff safety is also another concern related to this route, sharing that if the portion of the Old Mamalahoa Highway on the Honoka`a side of Hakalau Gulch is reconstructed, cliff failures pose a danger. She had discussed the impact of cliff failures with Dr. Bob Nishimoto, a retired marine biologist for the Department of Land and Natural Resources. He stated that cliff failures are also detrimental to the marine life. Further research supported his statement. She doesn't currently know if an emergency route has been selected. However, considering that the 1946 tsunami wiped out the Gulch Camp adjacent to the 1930s Hakalau Stream Bridge, it doesn't seem safe to select an emergency route at sea -level. Concerning the lead contamination, she also mentioned having a discussion with a scientist on the lead in the water and how lead gets flushed out on a regular basis which wasn't of much concern. The following portions of the interview relate to the history of the project and surrounding area, including the historical significance of the project area in Hawaiian history. From 2014-2016, the owner of Hakalau Point proposed a development that included the construction of houses near the cliffs. Susan Forbes advocated for the preservation of the Point by submitting a recommendation to the county to acquire the point under the Public Access and Open Space Natural Resource Preservation Commission (PONC). The owner at the time wouldn't consider selling the Point to the County unless Hakalau Valley was also included. A year later, the County approved the acquisition of both the Point and the Valley. The owner was willing to sell to the County at a certain price, but the assessed value of the properties was less than that price. Ultimately, the County did not acquire the property. During the PONC process, she learned of the historical significance of the area to Hawaiian history. Hakalau was the site of a great landing and battle by Kamehameha and Kekahaupi`o against the warriors of Maui circa 1791. This is a seminal event in Kamehameha's rise to power and unification of the Hawaiian Islands. She noted that currently, the Hawaiian Legacy Reforestation Initiative would be acquiring a parcel on the Point. She hopes there is 80 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 3. Consultation an opportunity to work with them to educate the public and honor both the Hawaiian and Sugar Era histories along a walking path that may be created on the Point. In talking about her research on the area's plantation history, Susan identified three camps adjacent to the project area, one of which was in Hakalau Gulch but was destroyed in the 1946 tsunami, the other two she identified as Camp 1 (Hakalau Upper Camp) and Camp 2 (Hakalau Lower Camp). Susan's house currently sits on the site of Camp 1, whereas Camp 2 is situated makai of the old Mamalahoa Highway and was the largest of the roughly 18-20 camps that existed for the Hakalau Plantation. Susan continued to elaborate on the history of these camps, sharing how over time the camps changed and moved depending on how close the laborers needed to be to the sugar cane. As mechanization became more available, she shared the plantation began to reduce its workforce and consolidate, which she noted was not unique to Hakalau but rather typical for plantations. By the 1950s, the owners at the time, C. Brewer and Company decided to discontinue providing housing for its laborers. Workers were given the opportunity to buy their houses and move them elsewhere, otherwise what was left would be demolished. She noted that by 1975, 75% of the plantation employees had moved out of the area, primarily to Pepe'ekeo. Whatever was left of the camps within the area was subsequently torn down. Hakalau Upper and Lower camps were the last to be demolished. Once the homes were removed or demolished the land was planted with cane, an attempt for the plantation to survive. Concerning cemeteries that can be found within the area, Susan identified a Korean cemetery located on the tip of Hakalau Point and a Japanese cemetery near the Hakalau lower camp site. Archaeological Inventory surveys have been conducted for both. To get more information on area cemeteries, she suggested reaching out to Akiko Matsuda, the "expert" on cemeteries, and advocating for their protection. Akiko Matsuda hosts a Cemetery Stewardship effort each month to clean some cemeteries, although none are in the area of the bridge rehabilitation project. She noted that behind Akiko's bed and breakfast in Wailea is where the Hawaiian cemetery is located and is on lands currently owned by Haiti church. Susan also shared how in the 1970's there were efforts to remove some of the remains, but unfortunately, there isn't good documentation on those efforts. BLAKE MCNAUGHTON On March 13, 2023, a site visit/interview was conducted with Blake McNaughton, the Vice President of Makahanaloa Fishing Association. Blake met with ASM staff Kau`i Lopes on the side of the Old Mamalahoa Road near the site of the Hakalau Plantation Company warehouse for introductions and discussions about the scope of the current project. Blake moved from Waimea to Hilo in 2006 and lastly to Pepe`ekeo in 2008 where he currently resides with his wife and two daughters. Aside from recalling his family being from the area, as a surfer, fisher, and gatherer of the Hilo coastlines, Blake is particularly interested in this project to make sure access to Hakalau Bay is not cut off. As Vice President of the Makahanaloa Fishing Association, their mission is to grow and protect the fishing community's rights while maintaining the generational bond with shoreline areas. Aside from serving on the board, Blake works at Kamehameha Schools with their `Rina Ulu program. As the conversation continued, Kau`i asked about the current gate that restricts vehicular access down to Hakalau Bay. Making their way down the road on foot, Blake shared that the gate was put up about 3-4 years ago when the access to the old bridge was closed due to erosion. He shared how prior to the closure of the old bridge, you could find a variety of people driving down to camp, to sing karaoke, and in general to enjoy the area, even the "old timers" would go down. While this closure unfortunately affects whether the kupuna can come down, Blake shared that this restriction has some benefits like how less people in the area allows for the resources to thrive and come back and having less issues in the area. Currently there are two ways to access the bay, both by foot, one on the road and the other down the trail. Blake pointed out where the trail starts and ends and shared that it was originally the site of the old cable tramway. He shared that this trail is maintained by some of the uncles in the community and named uncle Skipper Butts as someone to reach out to for further consultation. Continuing down to the old bridge, Blake and Kau`i continued their conversation on the resources within the area. Blake named hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), 'Wu (Artocarpus altilis), `ohi `a (Metrosideros polyrnorpha), loulu (Pritchardia), hala (Pandanus tectorius), and milo (Thespesia populnea) as some of the main plants you find in regions like Hakalau as well as adding along the cliffs you find hinahina (ku i ka pali/kahakai) (Heliotropium anomalum), and `ae ae (Lycium sandwicense). Looking down from the road, Blake pointed out a "back road" below that was flooded with water, mentioning the existence of a punawai (spring) that causes the road to flood with water as opposed to from the river. Next to that area he pointed out the patch of lid `i `o (Pteridium aquilinum), which he shares is abundant in this region and continues to be gathered by the community today. Blake expressed how to him, the practice of gathering and sustaining oneself with `ai (food) from your own community is what makes someone local, and having access to these resources is why he is adamant on maintaining the access to the bay. Approaching CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 81 3. Consultation the bridge, Blake shared where the erosion started to occur as well as listing the types of o'opu (goby) that could be found in the stream: nakea (Awaous guamensis), `akupa (Eleotris sandwicensis), `alamo `o (Lentipes concolor) and n5pili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni). He mentioned that because the `o `opu are transitional, you commonly find the "junker climbers" like the `akupa a bit more downstream since they are bigger and are limited by their size, whereas the smaller species like the `alamo'o and nopili are "better climbers" and can be found higher upstream. Continuing the hike down to the bay, mai `a (banana; Musa sp.), niu (Cocos nucifera) and kukui (Aleurites moluccana) were further identified growing in the area. Approaching the causeway where the river flows over the road, Blake continued to share about the Hakalau aquifer and how it is one of the biggest aquifers in the state. The stream is constantly flowing and is for the most part healthy. Identifying other freshwater resources, Blake pointed out a prawn (Dendrobranchiata) and a hlhlwai (Neritina granosa), that he shares is further utilized by the fishermen who will come up stream to catch bait and then go down to the shore to fish. Interestingly he shared that for a saltwater fish, you can find dholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis) upstream. Crossing the causeway and approaching the flatter area below the bridge, Blake credited Uncle Skipper and his crew for mowing the area, out planting native vegetation, putting up an inforrnational kiosk, and building a community space while the road was still open to vehicle use. Since the closure, the areas where people would park have been overgrown. Walking through the area where the road was flooded, Blake related how this was one of the area's that an uncle speculated to have been a site for lo '1 kalo (irrigated taro). Along the bay, Blake continued to identify other marine resources that would be harvested in the area, sharing that he would set net to catch `ama `ama (Mugil cephalus), as well as noting halalu (young akule) and akule (Trachurops crumenophthalmus) appearing in the bay during the summertime and moi (Polydactylus sexfilis). Ending the hike on the site where the old mill was situated, Blake pointed out the landing at Hakalau point and the areas where divers would enter the water to dive. Regarding the name of Hakalau as many perches, he equated the perches to the noio (Anous minutus), which he recalls frequenting the area and especially making home in the nooks of the pali (cliff) face. Looking down at the rocks from the break wall, 'opihi (Cellana sp.), hd `uke `uke (Colobocentrotus atratus), and `a `ama (Grapsus tenuicrustatus) were further identified as marine resources that would be gathered. Blake shared that ecologically, this bay is no different than the resources you would find within the other gulches along Hilo like Kolekole and Honoli`i. As far as traditional mo `olelo of the place, Blake shared he doesn't have in depth knowledge, but recalls the story of Kamiki mentioning Hakalau Nui and Hakalau Iki, the story of Poli`ahu and Pete refers to Hakalau as a stopping point, and the history of Kamehameha staying in the area. He suggested reaching out to Ku'ulani Muise who he says is the best to contact for additional mo 'olelo. Regarding any traditional sites prior to the plantation, he noted that there is Ica 'ula (fishing shrine) but does not know the exact location. Additionally, Blake added that hunting within Hakalau is still practiced in the mauka (mountain) regions. When asked about the lead contamination he shared how the bay is constantly changing, much like how Honolii changes depending on the river. Because of this change the water is constantly filtering out and spreading out the lead in the bay. He shared that he hasn't personally heard of any sever cases of lead poisoning due to being exposed in this area and reasons that it would take constant consumption of the contaminated soil to get to a concerning level. However, Blake also questions the process of the remediation pointing out that the heavy equipment and vehicles running through the area will disturb the contaminated soil and would most likely have to be decontaminated after. Blake expressed his main reason for meeting and sharing his mana'o was to emphasize that during this process, those who gather resources from the area are not restricted and that the outcome does not end in a permanent closure of the park. He also suggests that the county plan parking solutions prior to any closures, recalling that while he was still able to access Kolekole, there was no way to safely park his vehicle. At the end of the interview, he expressed how magical and valuable Hakalau is to local families and gatherers and hopes that access to this place remains. KEITH "BRADDA SKIBS" NEHLS On May 3'd, 2023, ASM staff Kau`i Lopes contacted Keith "Bradda Skibs" Nehls via phone call to discuss the historical and cultural significance of the current project area. The majority of the interview focused on Bradda Skibs sharing about the outreach he does in Pohoiki, Honoli`i, and Hakalau with his non-profit and how the work they do is important for reconnecting people back to `diva and taking care of these spaces. Bradda Skibs is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the non-profit Basic Image, Inc., where they establish live in classrooms to teach various communities about Hawaiian values and culture. 82 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 3. Consultation In talking specifically about Hakalau, he shared that he doesn't know much history except that there was a big battle that happened in the valley where many Hawaiian lives were lost. He also noted that the area is abundant with resources, specifically canoe resources and marine sources that he recalls kupuna driving down to fish when the road was open. Hakalau was one of the areas where his non-profit established a gathering space to conduct outreach to the youth of Hakalau, something that he is passionate about and has been doing for the past 20 years. The gathering and teaching of the youth is important as they focus on helping the youth stay away from drug use and other illegal activities by cleaning and taking care of the area. Since the closure of the road, Bradda Skibs shared that they can't gather as frequently as they have in the past, and because of this, he has seen some of the youth go back to doing drugs. He hopes that Hakalau will reopen again, especially the road access since it is an easier way for all age groups to go down and enjoy the area. Bradda Skibs also shared about Skipper Butts and how he has been maintaining and taking care of the area in Hakalau. Towards the end of the interview, he shared that Hakalau is a beautiful place, a gem, and that he hopes that they can return and gather once again in Hakalau. CARMELITO "LITO" ARKANGEL An in-person interview was conducted on May 10th, 2023, by ASM staff, Lokelani Brandt with Mr. Carmelito Arkangel at Hale`olelo in Hilo. Mr. Arkangel, better known as "Lito" is a long-time Hilo Paliku resident, father, songwriter, musician, and educator. Having spent the better part of his life in Hilo Paliku, Lito mentioned that he spent a lot of time at Hakalau and is where he raised his children. He shared that Hakalau is a "very important and traditional area to teach our keiki (children) traditional knowledge skills such as ocean knowledge; fishing, diving, thrownet, surfing, shoreline conservation, ocean safety and awareness, as well as utilizing resources from the river" and the gulch for self -subsistence purposes. Lito commented that when there is a natural disaster or when "we no longer can depend on common everyday commodities" having these resources (which are discussed in greater detail below) and the knowledge to gather them is essential. As such, he added, bringing his keiki to Hakalau is one way he teaches them to be more self -sustainable and that Hakalau also encourages and provides access for the community to be more self -sustainable. When asked if he was familiar with any past or on -ongoing cultural practices and valued resources, Lito shared that lawai `a (fishing, marine resource gathering) has and continues to take place within the Hakalau Bay area. He explained that just outside of Hakalau Bay is a channel where pelagic fish are found and that this channel extends roughly between Pepe'ekeo Point and just north of Hakalau Bay. Some fishers, he noted, will go out on a boat and some will fish for pelagic fish from the shore including Hakalau Point. A little closer inland of the pelagic zone and along the cliff faces, Lito noted, are various species of reef fish including `ulua, `uhu, kole, kumu, and many other species. He added that these fish are often gathered using the lu `u kai (diving) method. Closer to the Hakalau River mouth are found the "silver fish" such as aholehole, mullet, moi, `d `io, and others. Along the rocky shoreline areas, Lito shared, you will find shellfish, for example, `opihi, ko `ele, pupa `awa, makaloa, ha `uke `uke. As you proceed closer to the river mouth and up the river are valued river species such as w% `o `opu, `dpae, prawns, tohe (puhi `uha), and different types of limu such as limu `ele `ele as well as rarer deep sea limu, which is found offshore. Lito related that Hakalau is one of the few places along the Hilo Paliku area where there is this type of concentration of marine resources and is what makes this place waiwai (rich, valuable, important) "i ka wa kahiko a i keia wa" (in the past up the present-day). In addition to the diversity of marine resources, Lito pointed out that along the gulch floor and river edge are patches of ho `i `o (warabi) which people gather for subsistence purposes and that alualu pua 'a (pig hunting) also takes place in the valley. He indicated that there are other flowering plants found in Halakau Gulch that people gather for lei. Lito shared that the river stones at Hakalau are also an important resource because people will come to the shoreline near the river mouth to gather WPM (pebble) for hula (traditional dance). Also, he added, people gather `aid (dense waterworn volcanic stones) from the river which is essential to making imu (underground ovens). As described by Lito, "Hakalau has a strong energy" and felt that this energy comes from the land and the history of this place. He recalled an old mo olelo about a kahuna 'and' and (sorcerer) that lived at Hakalau who was known to travel up and down the pali (cliff). He reflected that the County of Hawai`i always knew there was lead in the soil and that there was always talk about "fixing" the problem but the "project was never prioritized". Lito recalled that there was a time when Hakalau Beach Park was overrun with things like drug use and loitering but with the leadership of Bradda Skibs (Keith Nehls) and the late Mayor, Billy Kenoi, and the help of the community, the area was cleaned up. Lito commended the leadership and efforts of Braddah Skibs and Billy Kenoi and recalled how Braddah Skibs invited everyone, including those who were loitering at the beach park, to lend a hand in cleaning up and taking care of the area. When asked about his thoughts on the closure and potential reopening of the park, Lito CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 83 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts shared that for him and others in the community, the closure was seen as a sort of kapu (restriction) period. He added that the closure of the park allowed the area and resources to replenish. He shared that although the closure put a pause on the park clean-up efforts, he stated that once the park is reopened, the "culture and community going come back...we're waiting to malama that area again." When asked about his thoughts on the park's reopening after the project is completed, Lito felt it is important to "prioritize 'Cana over the people" and reflected on the `olelo lahui "Ua mau ke ea o ka `aina i ka pono" which emphasizes the importance of maintaining the life and integrity of `aina. Lito expressed that "Western styles of management" which are often imported from elsewhere and enacted in Hawai`i do not incorporate the kuana `ike Hawai`i (Hawaiian perspective) or kuana `ike kama `aina (kama Wince perspective), which for him is problematic. He shared that the reopening of the park is a chance to reframe the mindset of the community and to engage with them to implement positive change. He felt that this is such a critical aspect of future park/beach management because of the history of neglect, improper park use, and the changing community demographics. He felt that the changes that had been implemented before the park's closure by Braddah Skibs should serve as inspiration or even a motto for how parks in Hawaii County could be managed. He shared that before the park's closure, there was outplanting being done, mural patining to help beautify Hakalau as well as community events for the entire `ohana that promoted cultural and ecological awareness. He advocated for the incorporation of these prior efforts into future park plans and would like to see signage developed and installed to help educate people about the rich history of Hakalau. In closing, Lito was glad to see forward momentum on remediating the lead contamination issue and looks forward to returning to and caring for Hakalau Beach Park. 4. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL IMPACTS The OEQC guidelines identify several possible types of cultural practices and beliefs that are subject to assessment. These include "...subsistence, commercial, residential, agricultural, access -related, recreational, and religious and spiritual customs" (OEQC 1997:1). The guidelines also identify the types of cultural resources, associated with cultural practices and beliefs that are subject to assessment. These include other types of historic properties, both man made and natural, submerged cultural resources, and traditional cultural properties. The origin of the concept and the expanded definition of traditional cultural property is found in National Register Bulletin 38 published by the U.S. Department of Interior -National Park Service (Parker and King 1998). An abbreviated definition is provided below: "Traditional cultural property" means any historic property associated with the traditional practices and beliefs of an ethnic community or members of that community for more than fifty years. These traditions shall be founded in an ethnic community's history and contribute to maintaining the ethnic community's cultural identity. Traditional associations are those demonstrating a continuity of practice or belief until present or those documented in historical source materials, or both. "Traditional" as it is used, implies a time span of at least 50 years, and a generalized mode of transmission of information from one generation to the next, either orally or by act. "Cultural" refers to the beliefs, practices, lifeways, and social institutions of a given community. The use of the term "Property" defines this category of resource as an identifiable place. Traditional cultural properties are not intangible, they must have some kind of boundary; and are subject to the same kind of evaluation as any other historic resource, with one very important exception. By definition, the significance of traditional cultural properties should be determined by the community that values them. It is however with the definition of "Property" wherein there lies an inherent contradiction, and corresponding difficulty in the process of identification and evaluation of potential Hawaiian traditional cultural properties, because it is precisely the concept of private property boundaries that runs counter to the traditional Hawaiian belief system. The sacredness of a particular landscape feature is often cosmologically tied to the rest of the landscape as well as to other features on it. To limit a property to a specifically defined area may actually partition it from what makes it significant in the first place. However offensive the concept of boundaries may be, it is nonetheless the regulatory benchmark for defining and assessing traditional cultural properties. As the OEQC guidelines do not contain criteria for assessing the significance of traditional cultural properties, this study will adopt the state criteria for evaluating the significance of historic properties, of which traditional cultural properties are a subset. To be significant the potential historic property or traditional cultural property must 84 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Tmpacts possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet one or more of the following criteria: a Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; d Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; e Have an important value to the 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 or oral accounts—these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. While it is the practice of the DLNR-SHPD to consider most historic properties significant under Criterion d at a minimum, it is clear that traditional cultural properties by definition would also be significant under Criterion e. A further analytical framework for addressing the preservation and protection of customary and traditional native practices specific to Hawaiian communities resulted from the Ka Pa `akai 0 Ka Aima v Land Use Commission court case. The court decision established a three-part process relative to evaluating such potential impacts: first, to identify whether any valued cultural, historical or natural resources are present and/or past or ongoing traditional customary practices; and identify the extent to which any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised; second, to identify the extent to which those resources and rights will be affected or impaired; and third, specify any mitigative actions to be taken to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL -HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section presents a summary of the culture -historical context for Hakalau Nui and Kama`e, which collectively revealed a vibrant history. Prior to the establishment of the North and South Hilo judicial districts, these areas were a part of Hilo, a vast district stretching from Waiakea in the south to O'okala in the north. Hakalau Nui and Kama'e`e are located within the traditional subregion of Hilo called Hilo Paliku, an area known for its steep cliffs, lush vegetation, and extensive plateaus cut by numerous valleys and gulches, including Hakalau Gulch. This subregion has and continues to be admired and honored for its natural beauty as demonstrated by the numerous `olelo no `eau and indigenous classification system that refer to the plentifulness and diversities in the region's rains, winds, gulches, and valleys. It was precisely the abundance of waterways and valleys that made foot travel in this subregion particularly difficult. The plethora of place names recorded for Hakalau is yet another example of the traditional ecological knowledge once held by ancestral Hawaiian populations. These place names tell us of the presence of certain plant resources (holei (Ochrosia spp.), kukui (Aleurites inoluccanus), and mai' a (Musa spp.)), water features both natural and constructed (Honohina, Kalepolepo, Kapahunui, Kapihae, Kawelo, Kuamo`ohua, Wa`awa`a/Wawa, Waiau, Waihaka, and Wailimu), prominent hills (Kaloaloa, Kanepu`u), old village sites (Lanikeha, Nakama), and coastal locations (Awake`e, Kaoku, Lemupahupahu). The traditional mo `olelo that make explicit reference to the lands of Hakalau and Kama`e`e recount the visit made by the deity, Hi`iakaikapoliopele and her companion, Wahine`oma`o. This story tells us of Malaeakini, the famed `ohi `a lehua (Metrodideros polymorpha) grove which was used by Hi`iaka to rid the bay of po `e 'ula lele (flying ghost). This lehua grove was also known to have healing properties and was used by po 'e ho `olana ma `i (people with a specific form of sickness that is unknown at this time). This mo olelo also tells us that Hakalau Bay was an ancient surf spot. Another lesser-known mo olelo tells of the chief Hua of Maui and the outcome of the Battle of Kani`auho`opio in which the warriors of Hawaii Island were slain at Hakalau by Hua and his army. The story of Ka-miki on the other hand tells of the naming of Hakalau. According to this mo `olelo, Hakalau was named for the area chiefs, a priest, and a skilled warrior (`olohe); Hakalau-lani-a-pii and Hakalau-a-olo were the chiefs; Hakalau-iki was the priest, and Hakalau-nui was the `olohe and land administrator (kaula `ciina) who served under the chief Kolekole. In this story, the authors, Wise and Kihe, weave an extensive and intricate tale that highlights the numerous place names in Hilo Paliku. These places are associated with individuals who had familial ties and competed with each other, and who ultimately conspired against the visiting protagonist, Ka-Miki. Another mo `olelo, recorded by Desha recounts the battle that occurred at Hakalau between the forces of Kahekili of Maui and those of Hawaii Island chief, Kalani`opu`u. Although Desha does not give an exact date, CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 85 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts based on Desha's listing of historical events, this battle appears to have transpired sometime between 1779 and 1882. As told by Desha, Kahekili's warriors, under the command of Kahahawai, were in the Hilo Paliku region because Keawemauhili, the ali `i `ai kalana (district chief) of Hilo, permitted Kahekili to send some of his people to Hakalau to harvest koa for canoes. Kahahawai was a famed warrior of Maui and an aikdne (favorite friend, companion) of Kahekili. When Kamehameha I and Kekuhaupi`o arrived by canoe in Hakalau, they were greeted by the chiefess Keakealani of Hilo, princess Liko`a, and princess Kahipa, daughter of Kanekoa, the ali `i `ai kalana of Hamakua. In the original Hawaiian language texts, it states that Kahipa was living with female relatives in Hakalau in those days, and it is assumed that these relatives were Keakealani and Kahipa. While at Hakalau, Kahahawai stationed a spy to keep watch on the activities of the Hawai`i Island people. After the spy observed the arrival of Kamehameha and Kekuhaupi`o at Hakalau he ran back into the forest to report his observations to Kahahawai. Angered by this report, Kahahawai's suspicions were roused and he prepared to wage a secret attack on Kamehameha. Kahahawai expressed a great dislike for Kamehameha as he had thwarted him in a prior battle on Maui. While Kamehameha was idling in Hakalau, he received word that the Maui people were planning to attack him and his people. With delight, Kamehameha gathered his lead officers including Kekuhaupi`o, and organized his army including the accomplished band of clingstone throwers known as Hunalele. The Hunalele went to the mouth of Hakalau Stream to gather hard stones. Other bands were readied including the Hueloku who were skilled at spear throwing and seizing. Kamehameha's band of warriors ascended to the uplands where the `area `uma `u (Sadleria cyatheoides) ferns grew and met with the unprepared Maui forces. Kamehameha's Hunalele band hurled sling stones which struck down some of the Maui warriors. Soon a fierce battle was being waged in the uplands of Hakalau. Leading the Maui forces was Kaihe, who Kamehameha sought earnestly to defeat but Kekuhaupi`o urged Kamehameha to depart from his intentions and leave Kaihe for him. As Kamehameha turned his attention to the other Maui warriors, Kekuhaupi`o and Kaihe met face-to-face in a formidable and daring spear battle. Both Kaihe and Kekuhaupi`o displayed their excellence in spear fighting. After carefully studying each other for some time, Kekuhaupi`o hurled his spear which struck Kaihe's belly and pierced him through his back. At once, Kaihe was struck down which sent the remaining Maui forces into a flurry. Despite Kahahawai shouting words of encouragement to his army, they fled the battlefield into the uplands of Hilo, and Kamehameha's bravery was recognized by the elder chiefs such as Kalani`opu`u and Kawemauhili. The stories behind two famed wise sayings, pau kuhihewa id Hilo Paliku and e alu ka pule id Hakalau, offer further context regarding the origins and place -specificity of `olelo no `eau as well as the practice of `and `and (sorcery) and the use of cliffside trails where a particular chief, Pakilohana would search and kill unsuspecting victims. Historical accounts penned by Early foreigners noted the beauty, fertility, and ruggedness of Hilo Paliku. In addition to describing the rough terrain which made foot travel quite difficult and treacherous, we learn that inter- ahupua `a and inter-moku travel via canoes was often utilized in this region. At the time of the 1848 Mdhele Aina, Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a was claimed and awarded to the ali `i wahine (chiefess), Miriam Kekau`onohi and upon her death in 1851, this ahttpua `a was inherited by her second husband, Levi Ha'alelea. Regarding Kama`e`e, it appears as though this ahupua a was divided into three, possibly four sections with three different ali `i laying claim including Eseta Kipa, Kalaimoku, Kaaiawaawa, and Kaunuohua. However, it appears that each of these ali `i relinquished their interest as Kama`ee, in its entirety, was transferred and incorporated into the inventory of Government Lands. Although there were no kuleana claims awarded within Hakalau or Kama`e, nine Government Land Grants were awarded in Kama`e. The current project area encompasses portions of two of these land grants (Grant No. 1350 to Ioela and Grant No. 1057 to Manuhoa et al.). During the 1875 Boundary Commission hearing for Hakalau Nui five individuals, Kekualiilii, Kanehoalani, Lyman, Kapou, and Halaioo provided testimony regarding their knowledge of the boundaries. Collectively, their testimonies revealed a wealth of information about geographical features and land use during the late 19th century including the numerous streams found in Hakalau. The testimonies also describe fishing rights in the streams and open ocean. These rights were enforced and known by the residents of Hakalau of Kama`e`e. Bird catching is also noted to have taken place in the upper forested regions. Several forest settlements were also noted including one at Lanikeha and Nakama. Trails leading to the uplands were also noted by the informants as well as the practice of orally transmitting knowledge of the area's boundaries and gathering restrictions over the generations. Some of the informants mentioned the presence of the Government Road along with lo '1 (irrigated terrace traditionally used to grow taro) in the upper portions of Hakalau, as well as bamboo, kukui, `ohi `a, and bananas. In 1871, a traveling correspondent wrote an account describing the beauty of the Hakalau Gulch, which was filled with trees, including coconut palms that surrounded the schoolhouses and native cottages that were nestled near the shore. This account describes this area just before large-scale sugar operations were established in the area. 86 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Tmpacts However, by 1878, just a few years after the Treaty of Reciprocity was signed, the Hakalau Sugar Plantation was established by California sugar mogul Clause Spreckles, with W. G. Irwin & Company as his agent. The company's fields, overtime, covered the broad plateaus of both Hakalau and Kama`e`e, however, the heart of the company's operations was located in the makai portion of Hakalau Gulch which was accessible via the Government Road. Here, along the southern bank at the mouth of the river, the company established its mill site and a little upland on the makai side of the Government Road, they built a plantation camp. Another area critical to the Hakalau Sugar Company was the plateau overlooking Hakalau Bay where other ancillary structures associated with the company's daily operations were located. This area, over time, grew to become to neatly laid out community and was the heart of daily plantation life for the many laborers and their families. By the late 19th century, plans were drawn up to install a railroad along the Hilo and Hamakua coastline. The construction of a railroad was considered to be one of the most important elements in increasing sugar production along the Hilo and Hamakua coastline. The construction of the railroad greatly reduced or altogether eliminated the use of the Government Road which was unsuitable for the large cane trucks as the road was narrow, winding, and impassable in rainy weather. With Hilo quickly growing into the main port center, between 1909 and 1911, the Hilo Railroad Company began construction of a rail line along the north Hilo and Hamakua coast. The railroad spanned the Hakalau Gulch by means of a steel trestle girder bridge that measured 775 feet long and 261 feet tall. On April 1't, 1946, a destructive tsunami swept through Hakalau Gulch and destroyed the mill site, and disrupted daily life and plantation operations. Although the Hakalau Bridge survived the blow of the waves, significant damage to other parts of the rail line made repairs financially unfeasible. By 1947, a new mill was constructed but by the 1950s, mounting debt, labor strikes, and the industry -wide shift towards mechanized harvesting created significant challenges for the Hakalau Sugar Company. It was during this time that the former railroad was altered to accommodate vehicular traffic and renamed Hawai`i Belt Road. In preparation for the opening of the Hakalau Bridge, the bridge was painted with a fresh coat of black lead paint. In April 1953, the ceremonial blessing of Hakalau Bridge was held. By 1962, the Hakalau plantation merged with the Pepeekeo Sugar Company which allowed the company to continue cultivating sugar and operating the Hakalau Mill. Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, sugar production along the Hilo and Hamakua coast continued to dwindle. To weather the changes, in 1971, the Pepe`ekeo Sugar Company along with other companies was consolidated into a sugar processing cooperative led by C. Brewer Company. Upon its final merger in 1973 with Mauna Kea Sugar, plans were made to close forever, the sugar operations in Hakalau. After a 92 -year long run, in December of 1974, closing ceremonies were held for the plantation at Hakalau. The closure of the mill effectively contributed to the departure of numerous former plantation employees and their families from the area as well as the dismantling of former plantation buildings. In the decades following the closure of the Hakalau Plantation, the ownership of the former cane lands shifted into the hands of private owners. While some of the more intact plantation infrastructure has been retained for its historical and or architectural value (i.e. Hakalau Bridges, Warehouses, Plantation Manager's house, etc.) the mill site itself and its associated apparatus including the tramway and flume, are today but mere ruins. Efforts by the community to clean up and care for the areas have been ongoing, however, the abrupt closure of the beach park area has halted these efforts. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES, VALUED CULTURAL RESOURCES The information from the culture -historical background and the results of the consultation process has revealed the following with respect to traditional and customary practices and valued cultural resources at Hakalau and Kama`e'E. Forest Resources and Practices The background information reveals that the upland forest of Hakalau was utilized for various purposes. Bird hunters (po e kia manu) harvested the plumage of native birds for crafting royal insignia, while canoe carvers (kalaiwa `a) searched for koa logs to build canoes. Additionally, the forest served as a battleground between Kalani`opu`u's forces led by Kamehameha I and Kekuhaupi`o and Kahekili's forces from Maui. The Battle of Kani`auho`opio, which involved the chief Hua from Maui, also took place in Hakalau, but no specific location is mentioned. The upland areas contained at least two settlements, including one at Lanikeha and one at Nakama. Access to the upland forest was possible through foot trails, some of which followed the boundaries of the ahupua `a. As these practices and resources were limited to the upland region, it is anticipated that the proposed project would not impact the aforementioned resources and practices. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 87 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts Botanical Resources and Horticultural Practices A diversity of botanical resources and horticultural practices in Hakalau were identified. Various cultigens were planted in the region, with the mention of Kapihae `Auwai indicating the customary practice of growing kalo in irrigated terraces (lo `i). However, there is no evidence of widespread development of lo i in Hakalau or Kama`e`e, suggesting that such practices may have been limited to the river and stream banks rather than the valley floor as seen elsewhere throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Traditionally, mai `a (banana), niu (coconut), puhala (pandanus), `uala (sweet potato), ko (sugarcane), `ulu (breadfruit), and `ohe (bamboo) were planted. During the Historic Period, other introduced cultigens were grown including `alani (orange) and Laila (Pride of China). Other valued non - cultivated plant resources that were identified included h5lei (Ochrosia compta), koa, `ohi `a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha), 'ama `uma `u (Sadaleria cyatheoides), and kukui (Aleurites molucanna). From the consultation process, the following botanical (some of which are noted above) resources were identified including hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), `ulu, `ohi `a, hala, and milo (Thespesia populnea), mai `a, niu, kukui, and ho `io (Pteridium aquilinum). Additionally, the consultation process identified the following plants which commonly grow on the coastal cliffs, namely hinahina (ku i ka pali/kahalcai) (Heliotropium anomalum), and `ae `ae (Lvcium sandwicense). Some of the above -identified practices and resources are occurring within the project area and mitigative measures specific to these practices and resources and further described in the ensuing section. Waterways The waterways in Hakalau are significant cultural resources, as demonstrated in the background research. These rivers and streams are a fundamental feature of the region and essential to the survival of various life forms, including humans, and the overall prosperity of this land. The waterways provided fresh drinking water and were used for irrigation and the species living therein were and continue to be used for subsistence purposes. Several rivers and streams in the Hakalau and Kama`e`e areas were named, including Honohina, Kaulia, Kawelo, Kuamoohua, Hakalau, Kolekole, Wa`awa`a, and Umauma, but only Hakalau Stream is situated within the project area. Given the project area encompasses the lower makai portion of the Hakalau Stream, mitigative measures are further described in the ensuing section. Avian Resources From the consultation process, the noio (Annus minutus) was identified as a valued resource. As specified by the consultant party, the name Hakalau (lit. many perches) may be in reference to the numerous perches along the cliff face created by the noio. Although ASM staff could not confirm if noio are found within the cliffs located in the project area, mitigative measures are provided in the ensuing section. Marine/River Practices and Resources Although the historical background information describing specific marine and river resources were limited, we know from the Boundary Commission testimony that area resident had fishing rights in both the streams and ocean. From the consultation process, the following river species were identified; several types of `o `opu (goby) including nakea (Awaous guamensis), `akupa (Eleotris sandwicensis), `alamo `o (Lentipes concolor) and nopili (Sicyopterus stimpsoni). Also, prawns (Dendrohranchiata), `opae (shrimp), wa/hihTwai (Neritina granosa), puhi `zuha (Conger marginatus) were also identified. Of these species, the `o 'opt nakea is known to inhabit the middle and lower reaches of the stream and areas with slow-moving, deep waters with gravel and fine sediment are their prime habitat and riffles at streams mouths are known spawning grounds. `O`opu are migratory and are known to move up and down their river during their lifetime. Of the marine species, the following were identified: aholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis), akule and halalu (Trachurops crumenophthalmus), `ama`ama (Mugil cephalus), kole (Ctenochaetus spp.), kumu (Parupeneus porphyreus), moi (Polydactylus sexfrlis), `uhu (Parrotfish), `ulna (Caranx spp.), `o`io (Albula glossondonta); `opihi including ko`ele (Cellana sp.), pupu`awa (Drupa sp.), makaloa (Morula granulata), ha`uke`uke (Colobocentrotus atratus), `a`ama (Grapsus tenuicrustatus), and limu (seaweed). In addition to the resources noted above, the cultural historical background information noted that river stones from Hakalau Stream have and continue to be been utilized for imu (underground oven) practices. Also, during the battle between Kalani`opu`u and Kahekili's forces, river stones were gathered and used as slingstone. As the project area encompasses portions of Hakalau Stream which connects to the Pacific Ocean, mitigative measures are detailed in the following section. 88 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Tmpacts Recreational, Access, and Subsistence Uses From the background information and consultation efforts, it is evident that coastal Hakalau was a favored recreational area namely surfing and fishing. Reference to Hakalau as a surf spot can be traced back to the legend of Hi`iakaikapoliopele and this practice persists today. Fishing and gathering of marine resources for subsistence purposes is another cultural practice that was and continues to be carried out in Hakalau. As such, mitigative actions are provided in the ensuing section. Historic Era Resources (Hakalau Plantation Company, Old Mamalahoa Highway, and Hakalau Stream Bridge [County and State]) Although large-scale commercial agriculture is not considered a traditional customary practice, the legacy of the Hakalau Plantation Company is a significant part of the project area's history. Remnants of this former era can still be found throughout the project area including the foundation of the Hakalau Mill and its associated infrastructure as well as both of the Hakalau Stream Bridges. As such, mitigative actions are provided in the following section. Concerning the old Mamalahoa Highway, given the scope of the proposed project which does not involve altering the old Mamalahoa Highway, there are no anticipated cultural impacts. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Of the traditional customary practices and valued cultural, historical or natural resources identified within the project area, the proposed project has the potential to impact the following: botanical resources and horticultural practices, waterways, avian resources, marine and river practices and resources, recreational uses, and Historic -era resources namely those associated with the Hakalau Plantation Company and the old Mamalahoa Highway. To mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to the above -identified practices and resources, the following mitigative actions are recommended. Botanical Resources and Horticultural Practices: As discussed above, the proposed lead remediation has the potential to impact botanical resources and horticultural practices within Hakalau Gulch. As requested by some of the interviewees during the consultation process, efforts should be made to minimize the impacts to these valued plant resources (identified above), as well as to reestablish populations of culturally important plant species after the soil remediation has been completed. In areas where ground disturbance is anticipated as part of the lead remediation, it is recommended that the replanting of traditionally important plant resources be incorporated into any landscaping plans, and that the project proponent should consult with community leaders to discuss ways in which the community can assist with any landscaping/out-planting efforts. One suggestion would be to first identify any traditionally important plants that might be removed from the area, then to collect cuttings and/or seeds of those plants that could be replanted as part of the re -naturalization effort. Waterways: The proposed project has the potential to impact Hakalau Stream which extends through the center of the project area and was identified as a significant cultural resource. While this potential impact should be mitigated by the appropriate installation of best management practices (BMPs), it is recommend that those BMPs be monitored throughout the course of the project to limit the potential for construction runoff into the stream. Furthermore, there should be no damming or blocking of any kind to Hakalau Stream in order to ensure that a continuous flow of the water continues through the stream and that any migrating river species are able to do so without injury. Avian Resources: As mentioned during the consultation process, the proposed project has the potential to impact traditionally important avian species. In order to lessen the potential for impacts to traditionally important avian species, the recommendations of the biological survey conducted f by a qualified professional or the project should be followed. Especially recommendations regarding constraining or limiting construction activities during nesting seasons or other sensitive periods to limit disturbance to any such species. Marine/River Practices and Resources: As discussed above regarding the waterways, the proposed project also has the potential to impact Marine/River Practices and Resources within Hakalau Stream and the nearshore waters of Hakalau Bay. While this potential impact should be mitigated by the appropriate installation of BMPs, it is recommend that those BMPs be monitored throughout the course of the project to limit the potential for construction runoff into the stream and ocean. Limiting construction runoff is the best way to protect the resources found within the stream and bay. Recreational, Access, and Subsistence Uses: The proposed project has the potential to (positively) impact recreational, access and subsistence uses of Hakalau Gulch and Hakalau Bay, by allowing for the reopening of the CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 89 4. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Cultural Impacts County of Hawai`i Hakalau Beach Park. It is the intent of the project that upon completion of the proposed lead remediation, the Hakalau Beach Park will be reopened for public use. While public access will likely be limited or restricted during any proposed construction activities, it is imperative that this beach park be opened as soon as the area is deemed safe by the proper authorities and that vehicular access is allowed. Reopening the beach park will allow for continued recreation, access, and subsistence use of the area as well as allow the community to resume their prior beautification efforts and cultural and ecological awareness programs. Historic Era Resources Associated with the Hakalau Plantation Company: The proposed project has the potential to impact Historic era resources associated with the Hakalau Plantation Company, as well as the State's Hakalau Stream Bridge and the County's Hakalau Stream Bridge, which any machinery needed for the lead remediation will need to cross. The legacy of the Hakalau Plantation Company continues to be a significant part of the heritage of the Hakalau community. These resources have been documented to the standards set forth in Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) §13-275 and 276 as part of an Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) prepared by ASM Affiliates (report in prep). While the documentation presented in the ATS report is meant to mitigate any potential impacts the Hakalau Plantation Company's former mill site and related infrastructure documented within Hakalau Gulch, it is recommended that the project proponent attempt to limit impacting that site to the extent possible during ground disturbing activities, and to reestablish the access roads to the shoreline after the lead remediation is complete. The project proponent should also adhere to any recommendations or requests provided by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) upon their review of the AIS report, and to any mitigation measures that are recommended/requested by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as part of the on-going Section 106 consultation for the rehabilitation of Hakalau Stream Bridge. Adherence to these measures will help ensure the project proponent is compliant with applicable laws governing historic resources and prevent and/or limit impacts to such resources. Other Recommendations for Consideration: Lastly, to honor and bring into the public's consciousness the Hawaiian and Plantation -Era history and ecological resources, it is recommended that educational and interpretive signage be developed with input and guidance by the community for selected resources within the project area (including Hakalau Stream Bridge). Such signage could highlight the plantation's heritage, the Hawaiian cultural history, and inform the public of the ways in which they can help protect the valued natural resources in the area. Also, given the gathering of natural resources (flora and faunal) has and continues to be exercised within the project area, it is recommended that there be ongoing monitoring and testing of the natural resources for the bioaccumulation of contaminants post -construction. The findings of such studies should also be publicly accessible. A post -construction monitoring and testing program will ensure that the natural resources, particularly those that are being consumed, are properly identified as "safe" or "unsafe" for human consumption. Such information should be conveyed to the public and updated as necessary. CONCLUSION In summary, the culture -historical background, consultation, and recommendations provided above are intended to ensure that the activities associated with the Hakalau Bridge Project do not adversely impact any of the above - identified valued cultural resources and traditional customary practices. While none of the consulted parties expressed any strong opposition to the proposed project, the concerns, and recommendations offered above are intended to help the HDOT remain mindful of the cultural, social, and environmental uniqueness of this `dina. Furthermore, this study is intended to inform HDOT of the cultural importance that is ascribed to this place by the community. Conducting background research, consulting with community members who so willingly gave their time and knowledge, and taking steps towards mitigating any potential cultural impacts are done so with the utmost aloha, for both the land and the people whose heritage is intimately connected to this landscape. If HDOT assumes its kuleana to implement the proposed project, we recommend that it be done so in the same spirit and practice, with aloha for both the land and the people. Failure to consider and implement the above-described recommendations has the potential to adversely impact the above -identified valued cultural resources and traditional customary practices. Likewise, the no -action alternative for the project has the potential for further degradation and loss of the traditional customary practices and resources occurring in the project area. 90 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited REFERENCES CITED Akana, C. L. and K. Gonzalez 2015 Hanau Ka Ua: Hawaiian Rain Names. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Alexander, A. C. 1920 Land Titles and Surveys in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Planters' Record XXIII:67-78. Electronic document, https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Land-Titles-and-Survey.pdf, accessed 2017/03/07. Alexander, W. D. 1890 A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1891. Press Publishing Company, Honolulu. Alvarado, G. 2005 Index of Winds by Island. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai`i Library. Armstrong, J. 2003 Old Mill Site Eyed for Hakalau Beach Park: Land Donation Possible if Firm Can Unload Rural Roads. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 10 January: 1 & 6. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/, accessed April 18, 2023. 2006 Hakalau Beachfront Property Gift: Owners of Land Want it to Become a Public Park. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 09 May: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/, accessed April 18, 2023. Athens, J. S., T. Rieth, and T. S. Dye 2014 A Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Model -Based Age Estimate for the Colonization of Hawai`i. American Antiquity 79 (1):144-155. Beckwith, M. W. 1951 The Kumulipo A Hawaiian Creation Chant. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1971 Kepelino's Traditions of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 95. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Bishop, H. 2002 Hakalau gate sparks clash. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 15 August: 1 and 8. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com. Boundary Commission 1874 Boundary Commission Book Vol. B, Reel #1. Microfilm. Mo`okini Library, University of Hawai'i at Hilo. Hawaiian Reference Collection. Bowser, G. 1880 Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory and Tourists' Guide George Bowswer & Co., Honolulu and San Francisco, CA. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org/elib/collect/poik1880/index/assoc/DO.dir/book.pdf, accessed October 8, 2021. Buck, E. 1993 Paradise remade: The politics of culture and history in Hawai'i. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Buke Mahele 1848 Buke Kakau Paa no ka mahele aina i Hooholoia iwaena o Kamehameha III a me Na Lii a me Na Konohiki ana, Hale Alii, Honolulu. C. Brewer and Company Limited 1974 Vets pay Final Tribute to Hakalau. Monthy Letter III (12). Electronic document, in www.hakalauhome.com. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 91 References Cited Cabot, L. 1879 Map of North Hilo Shoring the line of the Preliminary Railroad Survey. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 339. 1:24000 scale. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search. Callis, T. 2017 Hakalau Beach Park Bridge Repairs Coming But Fix Doesn't Guarantee Reopening. West Hawaii Today [Kailua-Kona]. 04 September: Al. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Campbell, S. and P. Ogburn 2004 Pepeekeo Sugar Company History. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Plantation Archives Cannelora, L. 1974 The origin of Hawaii land titles and of the rights of native tenants. Security Title Corp. Capellas, E. S. 1925 North of Hilo Bay. Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. April 30: 9. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/259014841 /?terms=north%20of%20hilo%20bay&match=2, accessed February 6, 2023. Carter, H. A. P., J. M. Kapena, and J. Makee 1877 Report of the Royal Commissioners on Development of Resources. Pacific Commercial Advertiser [Honolulu]. 5 May. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. Carter, L. A. 1990 Report on the Archaeological Survey of Selected Areas for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. National Park Service. Case, E. M. K. 2015 I Kahiki Ke Ola: In Kahiki There is Life Ancestral Memories and Migrations in the New Pacific. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellingtom, Wellington. Chinen, J. J. 1958 The Great Mahele: Hawaii's Land Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published. Coan, T. 1882 Life in Hawaii: An Autobiographic Sketch of Mission Life and Labors 1835-1881. Randolph, New York. Cordy, R. 2000 Exalted Sits the Chief The Ancient History of Hawai `i Island. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. Crabbe, K., K. Fox, and H. K. Coleman 2017 Maria Lahui Kanaka Mai no kupuna kahiko mai a hiki i keia wa. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, accessed 2019-04-29. Daily Honolulu Press 1881 The Sale of Leases and Lands at Ali[i]Iolani Hale. Daily Honolulu Press [Honolulu]. 10 September: 2. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. 1885 Hakalau Mill. Daily Honolulu Press [Honolulu]. August 1: 2, accessed February 7, 2023. Desha, S. 1996 He Mo `olelo Ka `ao No Kekuhaupi `o Ke Koa Kaulana o Ke Au o Kamehameha Ka Nui. Edited by W. Wilson and L. Kimura, vol. 1. 2 vols. Hale Kuamo`o, Hawaii. 2000 Kamehameha and his warrior Kekuhaupi `o. Translated by F. N. Frazier. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. 92 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited Desilets, M., A. L. Kasberg, and R. B. Rechtman 2004 Archaeological and Limited Cultural Assessment of TMKs: 3-2-9-03: 13, 29, and 60, Wailea Ahupua`a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. Rechtman Consulting, LLC RC -0247. Revised 2004. Prepared for McCully Works, Inc., Hilo, Hawaii. Edith Kanaka`ole Foundation 2012 Ethnohistorical Study of Honohononui, Hilo, Hawaii Island. Honohononui Kalaninuiiamamao. Revised 2012. Prepared for Kamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division, Honolulu. Ellis, W. 1825 Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with remarks on the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. Cocker and Brewster, Boston. 1917 Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with remarks on the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands. Reprint of the London 1827 Edition ed. The Advertiser Historical Series No.. 2. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Ltd., Honolulu. Else, I. 2004 The Breakdown of the Kapu System and Its Effect on Native Hawaiian Health and Diet. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well -Being 1 (1):241-255. Environmental Protection Agency 2022 "Summary of the Clean Water Act". Electronic document, www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/summary-clean-water-act, accessed January 20, 2023. Evening Bulletin 1909 Forbes, K. and S 2023 Forbes, S. and D 2018 Fornander, A. 1916-1917 Hakalau Plantation Company, LTD. Evening Bulletin [Honolulu]. March 25: 31. Electronic document, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82016413/1909-03-25/ed-2/seq-31/, accessed February 6, 2023. . Forbes Hakalau Our Home. Electronic document, www.hakalauhome.com, accessed April 18, 2023. . Hibbard Hakalau Jodo Mission National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2018. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk -lore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, vol. IV. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1969 An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Edited by J. F. G. Stokes. Charles Tuttle & Co., Inc., Tokyo. Garovoy, J. 2005 "Ua koe ke kuleana o na kanaka" (Reserving the rights of Native Tenants): Integrating Kuleana Rights And Land Trust Priorities in Hawaii. Harvard Environmental Law 29:523-571. Giambelluca, T. W., Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J. K. Eischeid, and D. M. Delparte (CrossRef) 2013 Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai`i. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94 (3):313-316. Giambelluca, T. W., X. Shuai, M. L. Barnes, R. J. Alliss, R. J. Longman, T. Miura, Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, R. G. Mudd, L. Cuo, and A. D. Businger 2014 Evapotranspiration of Hawai`i. Revised 2014. Prepared for Water Resource Management, State of Hawai`i. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 93 References Cited Hammatt, H. H. and K. L. Uyeoka 2007 Archaeological Monitoring Report for Hakalau Elementary School, Hawai`i Inter -Island DOE Cesspool Project, Hakalau Ahupua`a, Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, TMK [3] 2-9-002:005. Cultural Surveys Hawai`i, Inc. Revised 2007. Prepared for CH2MHi11 and Department of Education State of Hawai`i. Handy, E. S. C. and E. G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Handy, E. S. C., E. G. Handy, and M. K. Pukui 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hawaii Consolidated Railroad 1926 Annual Report of the General Manager. Vol. For the year ending December 31, 1926, Headquarters of Railway, Hilo, Hawaii. Hawaii Tribune -Herald 1953 "Hakalau Bridge Opening Ceremony Next Friday". Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawai`i]. 12 April: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1962 "Lay -Off of 75 Men Averted. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 13 April: 1. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1971a Brewer Will Spend $5.5 Million. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 11 July: 61. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1971b Firms Report Progress In Pollution Abatement. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 11 July: 61. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1974 Hakalau Factory Ends Cane Milling. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 29 December: 10. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1978 Department of Public Works. County of Hawaii 1978. Public Notice: Closing of Portion of Old Mamalahoa highway at Hakalau Gulch. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 24 January: 10. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1989 Motor Vehicle Safety Checks Are Up to $10.75. Hawaii Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 07 August: 5. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Hawaiian Gazette Co., L. 1895 Bright Skies At Hilo. Hawaiian Gazette [Honolulu]. December 10: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/49693173/?terns=Carpenters%20are%20busily%20engaged &match=1, accessed February 6, 2023. Hibbard, D. 2009 Hakalau Plantation Manager's House National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2009. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Hilo Tribune -Herald 1973 Hakalau Bridge. Hilo Tribune -Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. 28 January: 22. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/. Hilo Tribune Herald 1946 Hakalau Damage Over $500,000. Hilo Tribune Herald [Hilo, Hawaii]. April 2: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/555631850/?terms=hakalau%20mill&match=1, accessed February 7, 2023. 94 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited Hockley, E. W. and C. Murray 1925 Kamaee-Wailua Govt. Tract, North Hilo, Hawaii. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 2728. Hawaii Territory Survey. 1:300 scale. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search/, accessed February 12, 2023. Hommon, R. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai`i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, pp. 55-88. Edited by P. Kirch. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hommon, R. J., A. Sinoto, I. P. Gordon, and P. C. McCoy 1974 Statewide Inventory. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum Project 090. Honolulu Star -Bulletin 1925 Pioneer Builder of Hawaii, John A. Scott, Dead. Prominent Figure In Industrial Life of Territory Passes Away In Honolulu. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. November 13. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com. 1947 Hakalau Mill, Tidal Wave Scars Erased, Resumes Its Operations. Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 7: 12. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/282705311/?terms=hakalau%20mill%20tidal%20wave%20s cars%20erased&match=1, accessed February 6, 2023. 1953 Hamakua Railroad Bridges Made Part of Road System. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 29 April: 32. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. 1956 Tidal Wave Disaster, 10 Year Ago, Recalled. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 31 March: 7. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/. 1961 Isle Sugar Industry Fights for Survival:HSPA Chief. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. 12 June: 2. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Ho`oulumahiehie 2006a The Epic tale of Hi `iakaikapoliopele. Translated by M. P. Nogelmeier. Awaiaulu, Honolulu. 2006b Ka Mo'olelo o Hi'iakaikapoliopele. Awaiaulu, Honolulu. Hudson, A. 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawaii, Bernice P Bishop Museum. Husted, F. (editor) 1902 Husted 's Directory of Honolulu and Territory of Hawaii. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Honolulu. Johnson, K. 2017 'A Very Real Threat' Foundation Erosion Prompts Hakalau Bridge, Beach Park Closure. West Hawaii Today [Kailua-Kona]. A5. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Jokiel, P., K. Rodgers, W. Walsh, D. Polhemus, and T. Wilhelm 2011 Marine Resource Management in the Hawaiian Archipelago: The Traditional Hawaiian System in Relation to the Western Approach. Journal of Marine Biology 2011:1-16. Ka Hoku 0 Hawaii 1919 He Moolelo Kaao No Kuahailo A Me Hinaaukekele Kana Kaikamahine Hanauna. Ka Hoku 0 Hawaii [Hilo, Hawaii]. 30 January: 1. Electronic document, www.papakilodatabase.com. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 1864 Honolulu, Okatoba 8, 1864. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. October 8. Electronic document, www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed December 6. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`E`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 95 References Cited Kaaikaula and Aea 1880 Pehea Kakou! Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 6 November: 3. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com. Kahapee, S. B. 1867 Lele i ka pali a make loa! Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 16 February: 3. Electronic document, www.papakilodatabase.com. Kaldkaua, L. D. 1888 The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. The Fables and Folk -Lore of a Strange People. Charles L. Webster & Company, New York. Electronic document, https://archive.org/details/legendsmythsotha00kala/page/n9, accessed 2019/01/24. Kamakau, S. M. 1866 Ka moolelo o Kamehameha I: Mokuna IH. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 22 December: 1. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 08/28/2020. Kamakau, S. M. 1976 The Works of the People of Old, Na Hana a ka Po `e Kahiko. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised ed. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Kame`eleihiwa, L. 1992 Native Land and Foreign Desires: Ko Hawaii ',Tina a Me Nd Koi Pu `umake a Ka Po `e Haole, Pehea ld e Pono ai? How Shall We Live in Harmony? Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Kelly, M. 1956 Changes in Land Tenure in Hawaii, 1778-1850. Manuscript. Hawaiian -Pacific Collection, Master's thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 1956. Kikiloi, S. K. 2010 Rebirth of an Archipelago: Sustaining a Hawaiian Cultural Identity for People and Homeland. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well -Being 6:73-115. King, R. 1935 Districts in the Hawaiian Islands. In A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii, pp. 214-230. Edited by J. W. Coulter. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. n.d. Hawaiian Land Titles. n.d. Electronic document, https://ags.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads, accessed May 15, 2020. Kirch, P. V. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 2011 When did the Polynesians Settle Hawai`i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer. Hawaiian Archaeology 12:3-26. Kuapuu, S. K. 1861 He wahi Moolelo--Helu 1. Ka Hae Hawaii [Honolulu]. 17 April: 12. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 08/28/2020. Kurisu, D. 2014 Honoring the Family of KTA Super Stores. The Value of Hawaii 2: Ancestral Roots, Oceanic Visions. Kuykendall, R. 1938 The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854. Foundation and Transformation, vol. 1. 3 vols. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 96 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited 1967 The Hawaiian Kingdom: Volume III: 1874-1893. The Kalakaua Dynasty, vol. 3. 3 vols. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Lam, M. 1985 The Imposition of Anglo-American Land Tenure Law On Hawaiians. Journal of Legal Pluralism. and Unofficial Law 23:104-128. Leineweber, S. 2009 Hakalau Stream Bridge National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. Revised 2009. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Lila, M. 1872 He inoa no Miss Kaiewe, ka Hiapo a B. Kuhea. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 17 February: 3. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 08/28/2020. Liliuokalani 1978 An Account of the Creation of the World According to Hawaiian Tradition, Translated from Original Manuscript Preserved Exclusively in Her Majesty's Family. Pueo Press, Kentfield. Lucas, P. 1995 A Dictionary of Hawaiian Legal Land -Terms. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. University of Hawai`i Committee for the Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art and Culture, Honolulu. Lyman, C. 1924 Lyons, C. J. n.d. Around the Horn to the Sandwich Islands and Califormia 1845-1850 Being A Personal Record Kept by Chester S. Luman. Yale University Press, New Haven. Umauma Section Hilo Coastline Hakalau to Nanaue. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 344. 1:6000 scale. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search. Lyons, C. J. and W. A. Wall 1882 Map of Hilo Hawaii From Honomu to Maulua. Hawai`i Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 1092. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map-search. MacKenzie, M. K. 2015 Native Hawaiian Law, A Treatise. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu. Mahoe, G. K. 1876 Ka Huakaihele ike i na Makaainana o Hilo. Ka Lahui Hawaii [Honolulu]. 1876: 1. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed August 28, 2020. Malo, D. 1903 Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Translated by D. N. B. Emerson. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Ltd., Honolulu. 1951 Hawaiian Antiquities. Second ed. Translated by N. B. Emerson. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2. B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Maly, K. 2001 Malama Pono I Ka `Rina—An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape. Kumu Pono Associates. Revised 2001. Maly, K. and O. Maly 2001 He Wahi Mo`olelo No Na `Nina, A Me Na Ala Hele 1 Hehi `la, Mai Keauhou A 1 Kealakekua, Ma Kona, Hawai`i (A Historical Overview of the Lands, and Trails Traveled, Between Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawai`i). A Study of Archival -Historical Documentary Literature, Oral History - Consultation Interviews, and Kama`aina Recommendations on Site Preservation in the Lands of Keauhou, Honalo, Maihi, Kuamo`o, Kawanui, Lehu'ula, Honua`ino, Hokukano, Kanaueue, Haleki`i, Ke`eke`e, `Ilikahi, Kanakau, Kalukalu, Onouli, Keopuka, Ka`awaloa and CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 97 References Cited Kealakekua, North and South Kona, Island of Hawai`i (TMK Overview Sheets - 7-9, 8-1, 8-2). Kumu Pono Associates Report HiAla40-061501. Revised June 2001. Prepared for Na Ala Hele Program Manager (Hawai`i Island), State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hilo, HI. 2006 Hilo Paliku - Hilo of the Upright Cliffs: A study of Cultural -Historical Resources of Lands in the Laupahoehoe Forest Section, Ahupua'a of the Waipunalei-Mauluanui Region, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK Overview Sheet 3-7-01). Kumu Pono Associates KPA Study HiHETF116-Lauphoehoe (120506a). Revised 2006. Prepared for United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service - Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Hilo. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawai`i. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Revised 1979. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean. Morange, J. H. 1903 Plan Showing Karnaee Tract Road, Kainaee-North Hilo Hawaii. Hawaii Land Survey Division. Registered Map No. 2225. 1:500 scale. Electronic document, http://ags.hawaii.gov/survey/map- search. Muffler, B. and T. P. T. Museum 2015 Images of America Hawaii Tsunamis. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Nakaa, G. W. 1893 He moolelo Hawaii: Mokuna II: Ke kumu mua o ko Hawaii nei kanaka. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 4 February: 4. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 08/28/2020. Nawaa, S. K. 1904 Ma Ka Aoao Ikaika E Ku Ai Kakou. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 28 October: 4, accessed 08/28/2020. OEQC (Office of Environmental Quality Control) 1997 Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, as Adopted by the State of Hawaii Environmental Council in 1997 and amended in 2000. Electronic document, http://oegc2. doh.hawaii.gov/OEQC_Guidance/ 1997-Cultural-Impacts-Guidance.pdf. Office of Hawaiian Affairs 2018 Kipuka Database. Electronic document, http://kipukadatabase.com/kipuka. Oiaio, H. 1900 Pau Ole Kuhihewa Ia Hilo Paliku. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa [Honolulu]. 3 August: 2, accessed 08/28/2020. Oliveira, K. -A. 2014 Ancestral Places: Understanding Kanaka Geographies. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Parham, J. E., G. R. Higashi, E. K. Lapp, D. G. K. Kuamo'o, R. T. Nishimoto, S. Hau, J. M. Fitzsimmons, D. Polhemus, and W. S. Devick 2008 Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds & Their Aquatic Resources. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu. Electronic document, https://hawaiiwatershedatlas.com/index.html, accessed April 5. Parker, P. and T. King 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Revised ed. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Poepoe, J. M. 1906 Moolelo Hawaii Kahiko. Ka Nal Aupuni [Honolulu]. 21 June: 1. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 08/28/2020. 98 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited 1908a Moolelo Hawaii! (He Hooponopono). Ka Na `i Aupuni [Honolulu]. February 24: 3. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 3/31/2023. 1908b Moolelo Hawaii! (He Hooponopono). Ka Na `i Aupuni [Honolulu]. February 20: 2-3. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed 3/31/2023. 1909 Ka Moolelo Kaao 0 Hiiaka-i-ka-Poli-o-Pele. Kuokoa Home Rula [Honolulu]. 22 January: 4. Electronic document, https://www.papakilodatabase.com, accessed December 13, 2022. Pogue, J. F. 1978 Moolelo of Ancient Hawaii. Translated by C. W. Kenn. Topgallant Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K. (editor) 1983 `Olelo No `eau: Hawaiian proverbs & poetical sayings. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K. and S. H. Elbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian -English, English -Hawaiian. Revised and english ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. Mo`okini 1974 Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and Expanded ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, M. K., E. W. Haertig, and C. A. Lee 1972 Nana I Ke Kumu (Look to the Source), vol. 1. Hui Hanai, Honolulu. Raymond, A. 1991 Cultural Resource Survey at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Island of Hawaii. Revised May 1991. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys of Selected Projects at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Hawaii Island. Revised April 1993. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Rood, J. 1975 Portrait of a Dying Town. Hawaii Tribune Herald [Hilo]. 09 April: 12. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. Rosendahl, P. H. 2001a Archaeological -Historical Assessment, Lot 5 - Hakalau Estates Subdivision, Land of Hakalau Nui, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:2-9-02: Por 1). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2174- 090101. Revised 2001. Prepared for John Cross, Mauna Kea Agribuisnes Co., Inc., Hilo, HI. 2001b Archaeological -Historical Assessment, Lot 10 — Hakalau Estates Subdivision, Land of Hakalau Nui, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-9-02:Por.1). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2174-092301. Revised 2001. Prepared for Mauna Kea Agribusiness Company, Inc. 2009 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Cultural Impact Assessment, Hakalau Coastal Parcel. Land of Hakalau, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-9-79,81). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 2684-070908. Revised 2009. Prepared for Jeffery Melrose, Island Planning. Sai, D. K. 2011 Ua Mau Ke Ea Sovereignty Endures: An Overview of the Political and Legal History of the Hawaiian Islands. Pu`a Foundation, Honolulu. Santos, A., L. M. U. Kepa`a, and L. Brandt 2019 A Cultural Impact Assessment for the County of Hawai`i's Kolekole Gulch Park Accessibility Improvements Project, TMK: (3) 2-8-015:015, Kuhua Ahupua`a, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. ASM Affiliates Project Number 31480. Prepared for Geometrician Associates, LLC, Hilo, HI. Shepard, F. P., G. M. MacDonald, and D. C. Cox 1950 The Tsunami of April 1, 1946. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California 5 6, Berkeley and Los Angeles. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 99 References Cited Sherrod, D. R., J. M. Sinton, S. E. Watkins, and K. M. Brunt 2007 Geologic Map of the State of Hawai`i. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open -File Report 2007-1089. Electronic document, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1089, accessed Apr 27, 2018. Soehren, L. 2005 A Catalog of Hawai`i Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part 1: Puna and Hilo. 2005. Electronic document, http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?, accessed September 14, 2016. Soil Survey Staff (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service) 2022 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Speulda, L. A. 1996 Cultural Resources Survey Report of the Upper Honohina Unit and Middle Road and Pua Akala Road Gravel Pits on the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii County, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1, Cultural Resources Team, Sherwood, OR. Star -Bulletin, H. 1935 Hawaiian Sugar Plantation History No. 26-Hakalau Island of Hawaii. Honolulu Star -Bulletin [Honolulu]. August 24: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. Stokes, J. and T. S. Dye 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawai`i.. A Historic Survey of Native Hawaiian Temple Sites. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 2. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Stopford, J. C. 1963 The President's Annual Report for the Pepeekeo Sugar Company. Electronic document, in www.hakalauhome.com. Tatar, E. 1982 Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant. Pacific Anthropological Records. Revised 1982. Prepared for Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. The Honolulu Advertiser 1892 Hilo Budget. Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. December 1: 2. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/256280832/?terms=Hakalau%20probably%20received%20th e%20worst%20damage%2C%20as%20there%20the%20sea&match=2, accessed February 6, 2023. 1947 Tsunami Damage. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 7 March: 9. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/. 1953 Hakalau Bridge Rebuilt, Given New Paint Job. The Honolulu Advertiser [Honolulu]. 05 July: 25. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed April 18, 2023. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1866 Large Sale of Desireable Lands. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser [Honolulu]. March 10: 3. Electronic document, www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. 1871 Letters from Hawaii -No. 1. The Pacific Commerical Advertiser [Honolulu]. August 26: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com, accessed December 6, 2022. 1882 News of the Week. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser [Honolulu]. November 4: 3. Electronic document, https://www.newspapers.com/image/174892670/?teens=The%20purposes%20of%20the%20comp any%20are%20the%20raising%20and%20cultivation%20on%20the%20Hawaiian%20lslands%20 and%20elsewhere%20of%20sugar%20cane%2C%20and%20the%20purchase%20and%20sa1e&m atch=1, accessed February 6, 2023. 100 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i References Cited Thrum, T. G. 1907 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Island of Hawaii. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908, pp. 38-47. Edited by T. Thrum. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Thurston, L. 1913 Railroading in Hilo. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1914. Edited by T. Thrum. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Tomonari-Tuggle, M. -J. 1996 Bird Catchers and Bullock Hunters in the Upland Mauna Kea Forest: A Cultural Resource Overview of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawai`i, Contract No. 10181- 5-2193. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Contract No. 10181-5-2193 (DS). Revised 1996. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hilo, HI. USAAF (United States Army Air Forces) 1925 Hakalau, Hawaii, T.H. National Archives and Records Administration. Aerial Photograph 18 -AA - 37 -5. Airscapes-Hawaiian Islands. Electronic document, https://catalog.archives.gov, accessed February 6, 2023. Walker, A. and P. H. Rosendahl 1994a Archaeological Inventory Survey, Chin Chuck Road Project Area, Land of Hakalau Nui, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:2-9-02:23 and 2-9-04:56). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc. 2174-092301. Revised 1994. Prepared for Mauna Kea Agribusiness Company, Inc. 1994b Interim Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey, Chin Chuck Road Project Area, Land of Hakalau Nui, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:2-9-02:23 and 2-9-04-:56). Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph. D., Inc. 1563-102894. Revised 1994. Prepared for Mr. Eben Dale, C. Brewer Homes, Inc. c/o PBR Hawaii. Wilmshurst, J., T. Hunt, C. Lipo, and A. Anderson 2011 High -Precision Radiocarbon Dating Shows Recent and Rapid Colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:1815-1820. Wolfe, E. W. and J. Morris 1996 Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai `i. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Geologic Investigations Series Map 1-2524-A. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 101 Appendix A APPENDIX A. HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FORM CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 103 Appendix A 104 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i NPS Form 10-900 04.3118 Na. 1024-0010 Uvular! Slates Department of the Interior National Register of Historic Places Registration Form Ibis hr ,; 'or use rn nomrnattog or requesting determrnatrons for individual properties and drslrrcls See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Cr.:rgitr.ra file N3noriat Register or HrsIDnc Pracos Rages;ralan Form. 0 any dam does not apply En the properly ()atm] documented enter 'NA" for "nnl applicable - For functions, archnectural classification. materials. and areas of srgntflcanceenter only categories and subcategories from the instructions Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets {MPS Form 10.90tla1. 1. Name of Property Historic name HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Other namesfsite number Hakalau Highway Bridge (structure number 00100019030'410) 2. Location street & number Hewal'i Bell Road ❑ not for publication city of town Hakalau (TMK 3-2-9-02) 0 vicinity State Hawaii ,rode HI county Howwori'i coda 001 zip code 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the ,e... -i ti F3'," ft authority uncle. il,. ,:,,,I,..nal 1 ii. i iii.. I <. si_it ration Act, as amerr fed, hereby c; tip; that Ih s _ none -ilii •. .- I, ie,-:: ti :• ii't,inri nation of eIira,tr, r, —eta the documenlatron standards for register'n1 p i ,vier, :, n7 the NaLic.nnl Regiotee tel I-iisluric. Pldr:r-5 Anti ir1CLrio Inc procedural and professional requirements set +cmb i" .+i, r'ER Part 60. In my erinion ilii= ri•.?f'..rf r __. meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that This proper;, L,.; .',..,3,3-; i+_ro i si•tnlficant at the following level(s) of significance'. _ national statewide local Signature of certifying official pate riille Slate or Federal agency arrd bureau In my opinion 1he property _ meets _ does not meet the Nationat Register crileria Signature 01 commenting official Date Idle State or Federal agency and bureau ' 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that 1415 property rs Signature nr fhe Keeper Dale 01 Action _entered in the National Register _determined eligible for the National Register �. determined not eligible loo the National Register removed from the National Register _ other (explain ) 104 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKA.LAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii h,{r"9 .,' P,r..erty County and Slate 5- Classification Ownership of Property Category ,..I-,eck as many boxes as apply) (Check private x0 public - Local public - State i:wublic - Federal rprivate Name of related multiple property listing (Enter 'NWA' if property Is not pad of a rlulhple Steel Trestle Bridges on the Hamakua only x property Coast of Property one box) building(s) district site structure building(s) object listing) Number of Resources within Property (Do not Include previously rimed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing 0 buildings 0 0 sites 1 0 structures 0 0 Objects 0 0 buildings 0 0 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 6. Function or Use Historic Functions I.Enler categories frdn1 rn5.trucliansI TRANSPORTATION: rail -related Current Functions (Enter categories from Instructions) TRANSPORTATION: road -related (vehicular) T. Description Architectural Classification iEnler categories from Instructions) OTHER; steel girder and trestle bridge Materials iEnter categories from insiruclionsl foundation: NIA walls: N/A roof: NIA other: METAL CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 105 Appendix A HAK LAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii of Property County end Stare Narrative Description I LI„scribe the historic and current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontributing rr-r•ources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the p1,,nerty, such as its location, setting. size, and significant features-) Summary Paragraph i_L t< 1 .1C:; _ t .r :111 l Lr:>11 r 1.]!•e w 1111 tl. :,+tai length of t. .1 ' I,•ct h.r:'I 1 ,,,t::l .,'::al l,ii€. ;n[l :111•�1,1n,r. o,11 11 _'4 I:» It I.1unit,1. 'r }I.1Lil i *rr,n,1,110nu_ Ili. i€ clatut 111. I •1.LP,€ ! Il.r',',:11 1 :IH tl:, 1111.11 .:11113_ t the 1n1,1 c n:tr:.:111, un ':I,urc:rl is ,1ar:r-[n1 IIiI, ul the 1111.: .•,111;,,<•jl1 a`l.1 ,,t11. IcL il,,€. l'1:,i��-•. 11[].'['•.•:, nil 1111'•.1. Ii,.1111:[iiI 1', 11.'111110-111 i,( 1"Ji -1,21 1,1311k, s,l ,11],p04l, . 1111 111a„0nr . a L1 -..1-I „i k 1 .II I1I 1 'n[• r r1•. -I '1,11 0:11,:l . •t t 1.tC r.slL :+•ti1 !Lk ,1€ rind conircte cud alge 33,111113 mid 1:1tl 1.1 cort,tn1C1I,nI a . pot <tddid 161 the 195U, rehabilitation. Narrative Description The Hakalau Stream Rridec carries the l-lawai'i Belt Road (FAP 19) over Hakalau Stream along the Hamakua Coast of the Island of l law ai'i. The present highway bridge was reconstructed from older railroad trestle and girder spans. In 1911-1912, lirurtecn steel trestle girder bridge, ted along the Harnakua Coast to support railroad tracks for the I lilo Railroad Company. All of the 1.111 bridges along the line were devastated by the tsunami of 1946, and nine of the steel trestle bridges were disassembled and sold as scrap. The remaining five bridges i 1 fakalau, Mime, Pahe`ehc`e, Umauma, and Kapuel were retained and modified as territorial highway bridges between 1950-53. Kolekole Bridge was assembled using parts of other demolished railroad trestle bridges. The 1,,1 it r .,11 i ;,i, . 1...mains in its original location; however, the Hawaii Belt Road, the primary transportation ar t."r'. t, 11 ' Ir_ 1 :I,:n,l. '.t a. 1c -touted in the early 1950s in order to utilize the abandoned railroad alignment and 3,1113 .111 hr:J_,c ;1c,11c , . ,i, rn The setting has experienced little, if any. change_ In 1953. the bridge was widened 1113 Il,i' J• :I :II':_14'.5.1', G,1341!'; ,41th members from the disassembled railroad hridgcs- The reconstruction follows t f : . •11 111.11 ,,, ` .1I,' 113,3 u. 111 .\ ,2%.4:t bolted rather than ricclod connections m. ere utilized. A concrete deck, �1i1: •.S .u; M., ,mei 1..111 err ;r,iiitid to 1:lrrhtate ,nucunohilc and pedestrian traffic Thc integrity of the anginal • 1.11',11111 uirr is Mensain4.lcr nf• the only st•andatrd-gauee railroad cons1Ucted iu the islnds. It, l ,11;34', ,1.I[ •Irr.:Ill ...n he teG+ell 1i+,In tb' olid Nlama1di1hli Itighttia\ .hill) roux, under the highway hr 1,l's 1 1. 1,11,L.,', 111,1= r 1..1 tlrin4 ;]re re nlif} ,1pphtrl.•nl l,i ;all oh<cr, rr-:: tlr; lxit]nr rctaius 115 historic JC 1r1� Jug 1.,, r[• 11n1.nu:1 4,)n,LRlctiol tt pl•. Interpretation is aided by the presence of a plaque on the l'f,�I rl;-�ti,I:• l�il i�ft rC.al::. - Hamilton & Chambers Contractors for Steel Structure New York, U.S.A. 1912 fhc 11,rkalau Stream Bridge has recently undergone seismic retrofit modifications. The project included adtliliun of hinge restrainers, scat extenders at hinges and abutments. longitudinal struts at abutments, and the upgrade of pier footings, 106 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKALAIJ STREAM BRIDGE Newel County, Hawaii Name of Property County and Slate 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x` in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing} x x A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history B Property is associated with the fivesof persons significant in our past C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the Work of a master. or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. ❑ Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,. information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply) Property is: owed by a religious institution or used for religious A purposes. B removed from its original location. C a birthplace or grave. ❑ a cemetery. E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. F a Comrnemcrati;[ proLerty G less than 50 years old r, achieving significance w[Ihin the past 50 years Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION Period of Significance 1911 1953 Slgnificant Dates 1911 1953 Significant Person (Complete only if Crilenon b Is marked above) Dillingham, Benjamin Thurston. Lorrin Robinson, Mark Cultural Affiliation N Architect/Builder von. , l,tltn filahull 13arlLk, ll'illt.un R CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 107 Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Winn ,r I,rnp,rty County and State Period of Significance (justification) 1 he ! Iitkalau titnlun 131111..11C «u, hinlr itt I91 1as a railrou(I hrid e t9un312. the 1a1ln,041', .L rend phase 111" rrilltiltur[ioll to the aura numb ill lido IT] 105 3. the Icrrilorial Ilizh«:1r 1)epurt[nc11t, under ;he rtiri•i'tioll of V, i]]i:un R. Barrels. reconstructed I18k:tlala Sire:un Eiridge :1, a pat of the Ilanai`i Belt Road OAP 1 y) utilizing members of the original railroad trestle support system and additional materials from other railroad bridges. Criteria Consideratons (explanation, if necessary) Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph tprovide a summary paragraph [hat includes level of signficance and. arr.' 71-,te criteria) I l;, 1 i .1k.1Lr1, ti1r.:.1n1 Ri, 1,1;.: .i.'11r1 ir,:11r rllt(ler Criteria rh, B. and C. Criterion '. is applicable for the bridge's a,. ,r1.ua ❑ ..A111.1 ill: 1 Cil, i'.:.1Iar .,J 1 ,,i[tl,,an Criterion B applicahle for the bridge's association with three 1„s,lr l: r • tilu R., ilwnl + 1111,.:11•. 11. rllerion C is applicable since die bridge is a representativ"e'sample of 11-t:, 111111 5 , r1; n ; r 111 I; ti har,lof y as tive11 :is a source for information rihoul early iwenticth-century 4[d.' 11.1.11111: ciia; :HILL coIISIr"1i11,'n. Narrative Statement of Significance (provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance) C'ri i,-, i ,lt A T11, 1 I,rkalatl Stream Bridge is isrtifirarlt 'for its contriHutlnns to the fields of engineering anti transportutiorl 111 l l,: h1 rLr 1, C111,11b1 ,.1r1,hrCri[.,h,1: •\ for il, u1, 11, l; rl ] 11'.,, 1 .oho -al Ih: I1:1`.r.:1 11 •11•,1. 11 luted Railst:r. ', fur tr ;,l,l',ed a m.r1.a 1 I 111 t`1 lrti:'.,loin 11t ,,I 11',:' 111.1, :incl the 11.ir11:1hrla 1r:lt,purtatton 1, ^.11.• Icrlhr r Ilii 111 lwlanrl , .11_'11 1,1, ;fur viral 1 1 i11!,.rl :bill 11, 1111u,!,+n, }midges loc,rh.:1 1i 1..L.• h.:cr.,.riled th ':1i::u.,1 :1r u1:rr!I1- kat 111 I lay. .a1 1 11;,,111 r eo1arncNt ar,1 111 ',:rl that the r„lnplelinn , ; 111: r,111r„,1.: 111a1 Led fll (11111 I - 111:11; .111 rt:I 111th 11 ,., i,Trikia or the islanel. ” f 1 1ce1 ulr ,,1 l 'I ,iI ...1114 irn•, •1+,1u, from the LIr1,:1[i.al l,r1c1;'e r n .1111 1T.It.R f .,111, 1111r1r1r n1.,,111"A:rin,n, Ira 1*r11iC ti pit rrllllrtL;uld h+,lttiti rr.Iritii111,]], 111e .a11 1 r., -n 1,°:-, h,. 1,,a,.�•a .. n,i ,u,lc' u: n,•ti-otic the old M5rnalahoa Iliettet:n ,nr.i 1I1r rn r 1 T r1,i.lr 1,.,1 1, r,1 ill,. II ,',,.r'1 Itch I:,r.ni 1I 11' I i1 1,1, 1,1.11' n.1 ..1em Iran pwtation.facilihe,.I„r Ih: 1,,.ut,1o1 1l:,',.111.11111,t,1r.ilIH,„n11rh...r11,t litI;,,.,.I]Llr.,1dill'ar,.+III 11111;. ,Ittcr halt of the twentieth-century. t well, Po }i 1 he bridge 1s eli gr111: 1111.1,1 t 111:1:1,11 It 11,1 rr, ,r .,1 inion «ith figures significant in the history of the Hawaiian (,land, she 11110 Railroad (on11,,u1% 11+untlel; • f1enf:unin 1)illirt> barn, Lorrin Thurston. and Mark Robinson. I3enl:unirl 1)i11111glutnr ua, :1 norctl hu ine„Mall Wilt/ drew up plans for a large sugar mill at'(]la'a, eight miles south of Ih1ar in the prey iolt,ly IInetillivated Puna district. Lorrin Thurston was the Minister to Washington during the lowlier Republic of E laIl;i1 i and a (Milner Interior Minister under the monarchy. Mark Robinson worked as the tomier hdinistcr of l orril n Affairs for Queen Liliuokalani.3 Criterion C F'a rxJsc of ltic Paafic.IDccnn6cr 19±47:14. 2 Thomas Thrum. Rau arinn Almanac and Annual Inor.olutu: Han anon (jai cne (:ninpany, 19141. 142 Gerald M t;`51. Railroads or liavra.', 1San Marino. California. Golden %Cod Books. 19781,. 121-124 108 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawai'i County, Hawaii Name of Property County and State The bridge is eligible under Criterion C as a representative example of early twentieth-ccntun engineering technology. The bridge is a rare remaining example of steel girder and trestle construction and v, as, li- many years, the longest span in the state. The bridge represents the "work of a master": John Mason Young, designer of the original railroad line and bridges; as well as William R. Bartels, of the Territorial Highvay Department, who engineered their conversion from railroad to highway use in the 1950s. The analysis of the structure may provide information about early twentieth-century steel manufacture and construction, as well as information regarding the only standard gauge railway in the islands. CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 109 Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE United Slates Department of the Interior National Park Service Nation& Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number 8 Page 1 Howell County, Hawaii Cedunty and Mate HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawes', County Hari Historic Concrete and Steel Trestle Bridges along Harriakua Coast on the Wend of Idawari Developmental history/additional historic context Information (11appropriale) Tlic ilakalau 1 iiIc iiLLC ..i. built in 1)11 01, 11110 R u11Lk!( 141, pha,,e ,,1 'mown 1 r,11] li plaittatton 111,11.1,11 ',h. i,lii1l 1,111. 1110 IYIi ILL l'i]+IL'L t'1 II uh1riii2 ,,v11, iii- 1 and 11,1, I rik 1 r11-1-.1( 0. i 1 1h. 1-1,1_, 11, York 111..t, 1 trol.r, 1 !t...,1 ilic 1 1,11ki Li PI 111 hi!,c 4111 K.Itt,L 1110 11 \\i, cicLickl 1 11 1 •ihitio as ", 1....r1L,Ineer. 5 ,11.u.i l ilroad Trff,t1c RritIve was one of most impressive bridges built by the Hilo Railroad. At 775 feet rw,k.1., I [IC 1 Lilt.11.10 Stream Bridge was the second longest bridge on the line, r.In' M 1111 11.1 .11 ir litan 1000 feet. After the Maulua Bridge was taken down. I), 111,,t1,...: in (:,1 ierritory for several years!It was also among the tallest, with a lieiLdit .•1 tI teet, (pH , I ',III, .1 I 1, Elk hridge over Nanue Stream, In 1,1-1r. Oh, r 1111 '. :, 11.", I . Knil.irm 1 1 ILA in 1E1,i -.A:1 1:0111 11,:111 IL' II PA i /3,11 H..iil f , 't PI 111: N-tiTly Jill,' 111: 1t11: 11 kir . •111.1.A. !he in in 1.1.1110.:,1 In 1 10-. 1),4hiL11'.,..1.\ IrIl4L irk ihc!Tilk-n,, .0-0111. 1,1h. HI l4'4'iIiFliLI1l II'".11, L holted ratIler CuliCrelle deLk, Arid 1 111 1.1,1111.11L 11.11.011101111..191,: 1,r, 11 iiric. i..5 u. siLii\len of Ben 1. femur". of Htemai'l Honolulu Sear Bulletin. It/211.451.4nd George Nullea. !dun 5 Kiln Itiliune ill \rid 16111 1 6 115,.1111'.5tIry; I Itcp.ininelli Pluiniiii2 Lind ..Inpinent. The State of Haynie' Dein Bool., 1662 A Statistical Ahdreet Iterdiinieni 4.1 PLIMII,r12 aid to11,11111.1,414 PI‘1.1rcz Rimii cluI Ii/ id &IC .11 IliIl.iri.,i ail' 111 1 E.1.1•11. I1ri4t Iflzrn1ir arid E., LIIILlallion Island of B.1.11431), rttpated tor. the Stair ..1 H.11.171 r),:rdrrnicril..1 111 ,1,111irc11..111 With 1, I tepartincrii ol Transponaiiiin.l.nderal I Ff onolulu. 1167,, 511 110 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama', North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Name of Property Canty and Slate 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books articles, and other sources used in preparing this farm an one. or more continuation sheets) Sec Continuation Sleet. Previous documentation on ire (NP$J: Primary location al additional data: __preliminary deterrnnation of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been State Historic Preservation Offiee requested x 011ier State agency previously listed to the National Register Federal agency previously determined eligible by the National Register Local government designaled a National Historic Landmark University recorded by Historic Arnerca.n Buildings Survey e• Other recorded by Historic American Engtneerrng Record fa Name of repository. Historic Resources Survey N(nnn,:. if assigned): 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property Less tii.:n, .om., :u•l•- (Do not Include previously listed rr., i,.,lc ;.('1,--.. n: l UTM References (Place additional UTM reterenceS on a continuation sheet) 1 5 277032 2201749 3 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing 2 4 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Verbal Boundary Description (describe the boundaries of the property) The itllritlrt;tterl pntpertn Is a rectaneulatr shaped parcel measuring 772 feet by 24 feet. which is centered on the UTM point listed dhr+t e inOIILded ,%iihiri This parcel arc the bridge's superstructure, substructure, floor system. and approach spans. Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected) 1 he nominated structure 111CIutic•. the [sr itigc's superstructure, substructure, floor system and appropriate spans and Ilse pnlpertt Itpmi t*hteh thrt red i hese htlltndaries encompass, but do not exceed, all of the property that has been hisk 1ttc.11l. ILi.ited with this hnd>;e. 11. Form Prepared By nanne'htl . Spencer Leineweber, FAIA Professor organ,...a. .n i tentage Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa date August 15, 2009 street t•. I b:'I Herr 2410 Campus Road telephone X08) 956-4704 city or l., r. r Honolulu state HI zip code 96822 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 111 Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Hawaii County, Hawaii Name of Property County and Slate Additional Documentation Submit the foilnv,In,i .(•rig i,1l :,.:I .;:! 'L,..[-) • Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute: srrnrirs) rnisicanng the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map. • Continuation Sheets • Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Photographs:. Submit clear and descriptive black and while photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Name of Property: Hakalau Stream Bridge City or Vicinity: Hakalau County: Hawaii State: Hawaii Photographer: Spencer Leineweber, FAINProfessor Date Photographed: August 2009 Description of Photograph(s) and number: Photo #1: Approach Photo #2: Name Photo #3: Trestle Substructure. Paperwork Reduction Act Stat, merit; This information rs being collected for appfk.allans to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate ptpperhes for 1i51n.i ,• .--iigibridy for listing, la Inst properties, and to amend existing Ir5tings Rthis esponse to request is required lu obtain a ' ' .-I 1 .. ;,.nal Historic Preservalion Act, as amended (16 U 0 0 460 et seq l benefit in accordarcr_ :. • Estimated Burden Slatr:nnrnl 1-,4 .Iic reporting burden fur this farm is estimated lo average t8 hours per response including lime for reviewing tristniettons gathering an.- .. ,.:: •.. riing data and completing and reviewing the form Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this fon-trio the Chrel Adnurrisira:.ve Services Division National Park Service PD Box 37127, Washington, OC 20013-7127. end the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reductions Protect (1024-0018y Washington 00 20503 112 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Narne of Property 111,111, $0.11711.147 Ty MINIM ximin Hawaii County, Hawaii County and Slate HHkalsom BrltIta c. 1111111,11.,11,0 .01 1 T'so Zone: S E,Eritaw: 2'7012. Norill tugs no 1749 r." • 4 *.4`. .!..r e • CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama', North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 113 Appendix A HAKALAL! STREAM BRIDGE Name of Property Hawaii County, Hawaii County and Stale 114 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name or Pi,.1 .: . Photo #1: Approach Photo #2: Name Hawaii County, Hawaii County and Stara CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 115 Appendix A HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE Name of Property Photo #3: Trestle Substructure HawaPi County Hawaii CCU/i ;vol 5!ab.r 116 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix B APPENDIX B. KA WAIOLA PUBLIC NOTICE CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 117 Appendix B CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: HAKALAU STREAM BRIDGE REHABILITA- TION, HAKALAU NUI, HILO, HAWAII ISLAND Ma o ka State of Hawaii Department of Transportation. ke ho'omakaukau nei 'o ASM Affiliates i Cultural Impact Assessment i kb pono na koina o ka HRS. Chapter 343 Envi- ronmental Assessment no ka Hakalau Stream Bridge Reha- bilitation Project ma Hawaii Belt Road. Aia keia pahana ma kekahi mau 'apana o TMK: (3) 3-1-001:001, 022, 003, 004. 005, 006. 777, 999: (3) 2-9-002:023. 025. 039. 064. 080. 888, 999: a (3) 2-9-006:021. ma Kama'e a lana 'o Hakalau Nui Ahupua'a. ma ka palena o Hilo 'Akau lana 'o Hilo Hema. Haws► i. Ke 'imi nei 'o ASM i po'e kama'aina i Iowa paha ka Ike no ni kumu waiwai mo'omeheu. na loina, a me na hana ku'una i pili me keia 'aina. Ke 'imi pu nei makou i na mana'o e pale ai a ho emi ai i na hopena hiki i is mau mea. Ina he 'Ike kau, e ho'oka'a'ike me Kau'i Lopes. klopes@ asmatlil- iates.com, (808) 969-6066. On behalf of State of Hawaii Department of Transportation. ASM Affiliates is preparing a Cul- tural Impact Assessment to inform o HRS, Chapter 34 3 Environmen- tal Assessment being prepared for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project on Hawaii Belt Road. The project includes portions of TMK: (3) 3-I-001:001, 022, 003, 004. 005, 006. 777, 999: (3) 2-9-002:023, 025, 039, 064, 080. 888, 999; a (3) 2-9-00621 within Kama'e a and Hakalau Nui. on the boundary of North and South Hilo. Ilawai'i. ASM is seeking kama'nina familiar with the area's cultural resources, customs, and practices. We also seek input regarding strat- egies to prevent or mitigate impacts on culturally valued resources or traditional customary practices. If you know of such information, contact tiau'i Lopes. klopes@ asmaffiliates.com, (808) 969-6066. 118 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix C APPENDIX C. COUNT OFHAWAII- CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (CRC) COMMENTS CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 119 Appendix C Mitchell D. Roth .7fnwr September 28, 2022 County of Hawaii Pl. AN\IXCDEPARTMENT CULTURAL RES 1. 1JRC' LS CON IMJSSION Aupuni Center • 1 t]T`.t,rahi Street SUELC 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ih,nel:.ii 0(.1-8288 • I'a'f1:48)961-8742 Ms. IIolly Yuen HDOT Project Manager Design Branch, Highways Division Hawaii Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, Ilawaii 96707 Via email: holly.yuert(e hawaii gov Dear Nis. Yuen. �0 ernldine Bell. Chair Natalie .Grtr:sllinra- Vice Chair 1 itrlie 1ti11_hailau Hiram- ROL9e1P1 -1:11 unci --1• kealatu Kealc.hanutoptuta Kinney Nicol•; Lui Scott Mahcmzy Aaron Spielman SUBJECT: National IIistoric Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Ilakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Federal -Aid Project No. BR -019-2(075) T111K(s): (3) 3- 1- 001: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 777, 999; (3) 2- 9- 002: 023, 025, 039, 064, 080, 888, 999; and (3) 2- 9- 006: 021 Location: Ilakalau Ahupua'a, Ililo MVloku, Ilawaii Island FILE No.: PL -INT -2022-002650 In response to your August 9, 2022, invitation to participate in the consultation for the subject bridge rehabilitation prnjcet, the Cultural Resources Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Section 1-71 on September 21, 2022. Section 106 of the National IIistoric Preservation Act (NIIPA) of 1966 (amended 2006) has been initiated with the State IIistoric Preservation Office (SIIPO) for the subject project and by wad ,,ft leiter, the County of Ilawaii Cultural Resources Commission is stating intent to participate in the Section 106 process. The Ilakalau Stream Bridge is a steel girder and trestle bridge with the total length of 775 fret, a 261 -feet hri .hl over the stream bed- arlel a roadway width of 28 foot. The superstr uetLIc. rt`Ihe bridge is composed if a c.merele deck on sled girders. and the substructure is composed of e.1911 steel railroad trestle upports with masonry- (Ia'.:a-io.kl ahltatients. The Ilakalau Stream Bride is significant for its association with Mel -filo Railroad Compairy and du ee of its founders. It is also a representative example of early 20t11 -century t 1S11n cring, technology. as t' CJI as a source for information about early 20tH-eetitury steel manruhuclure and e"n-irucli.,ii. 1ltis bridge is built over the Ilakalau Stream and is ]istrd on lhr I1awaii Registrl or Historic Places- SHl'T-1 Historic Sitc'•tunber 10-16-9090. Xotinir its Preservation Status: PresenvaIion rex+nuntetuled iu AIS, BTP. or Section 106 document. Source: Leine -weber 2009. Condition noted as Excellent too alterations, no erosion, no disnirbance). 1 Rules of -Practice and Procedure for the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission, Rules 1-5 wow. cehptenningdept.wm Hax•�-i Op ur+h is an Equal Oppwiur,itwPmriderand 13rrrployer planaluggeuhmail.hi.us 120 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix C Ms. Holli Yuen, HDO'l Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 2 September 28, 2022 As pertains to the invitation to coininenl on the .•\rea of Proposed Effect (APE). • The Cultural Resource Commission recommends revisiting the APF. boundary= in order to comprehensively address the following natural and cultural resource items of public trust COIICern. • Hakalau Stream has been irienlilied in the Hawaii Island Stream Assessment as having no dam cIivc-r:siorm and the persistence of an astuary at the mouth of the Stream; Hakalau Stream is an ungaged stream with high flow and tied to at least one L.SPWS wildlife refuge: several tributaries 3Io red inloHalcrliii Stream. • '111e 11'12 if -101.11d capture :111 dolkn.ilreanl effects r,t•lead contamination and any 11) drndr nein r impacts to steam. wetland in- estuarine r.lsled reutrrees- Sureties for remediation of chemical contamination should be of utmost concern in furtherance of pubic trrr.l thllies. Forbioaceunitilation of conlamin:inl.s. including lead, should be inr estis sited aria tin:miilical nn tlrc natural 1L (+ure::S t+f the arca (floral and faunal): c-.peci.rli r swee y :thee in g of fish, -opihi- Buil_ Perna and sunilai resources continue;, a testing and monitoring component should he developed for continuing any contaminant remediation post -construction. Any impact to stream flocs, habitat and morphology, or similar imparts i+ 'he estuary should be modelled prior to undertaking substruetwue or oliscr ra ,r mclodic :nnstruction within the stream bed or floodway. A flood study including hrdrod)n.rmic modelling should also, he considered. • The slrcani i. ruii1;t:d [outstanding for recreational resources. i :creational resource opportunities for llakalau Stream include camping. 1islun . err uttrn nn. ltrrnting artcl seenicviews, The APF. boundary should capture all such rerreatiunat. traditional and cu Iuclary practices in the arca- includiiin •aallra•in ' and Sul+sistenx- activities such as fishing. harvctsting, traditional and c i 1 ,lnar' rights- ca•emony and recreation. • The stream is ranked Outstanding for aquatic resources and ranked Substantial for riparian resources. Water quality information exists. As of last survey, 60° o native forest exists and at least three species ut llii atoned and eidaneered hinds exist as well as palustrinc wetlands identified by the 11SIA S and an estuarine system identified by One or more of the following special areas are associated with the l Ial:aIau Stream: N atural Area Reserve System, plant sant bull , Recs.') nr 1 Libilat for U alerbirds, private preserves, lI iL i km Forest Nal ional 1? ildiil Refuge. 11i1„ Forest Reserve. estuary (identified h, i i)il- r, etl.rinis_ priority 3111itie srte lu It quality streams. • I 1.-7:1•1 I it c d1L rent 1pccr..-; 01 'r r'r,pu hl:elr' iiili.lhil the •lr.::m. Per the Hawaii Stream A • e succor native "indust„r 5[ ids d,.cuu1enlet] ar uh.er•. est (circa 1980) in 11akata 'stream include:: _ „l:+u ; Lirtr• •. i- i0:i., i. l1 opo nopili .nil 'i r( 111 rlal:ea (: ilr.+r rr r`rr.r177C11.,I.ei. The latter, `O'opu nakea should ho expected to he found iri llr middle and lower reaches of streams. Areas of slug. ,E p realer with grave! ur line sediment are l.er habitat for them. Riffles at stream mouths al critical spawning hounds. Amajor ecological requirement for'dopu is the need to pass though a stream mouth at two times during the individual's life. The most important factor for the existence of'o'opu in streams is that access to and from the ocean CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 121 Appendix C Ms. Holly Yuen_ HDU'1' Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 3 September 28, 2022 is maintained. Stream channelization or other diversions can eliminate or significantly limit native fish populations within a stream. As pertains to Identification of IIistoric Properties within the (ultimate) APE. • Hakalau Mill Site is located along the southern side of the mouth of Hakalau Stream on -FMK: 3- 2-9-002:080. Hakalau Plantation NL•rnager's House is located on't'Iv1K: 3-2-9-002:039 at 29-2301 Old N tanralahoa Hio}r';vav (ST -HP No. 50-10-16-09070); immediately adjacent to the August 9, 2022. proposed Area of Potential Alred (APE). The CRC recommends including this property in the Al'L or justifying its exclusion in writing. • The Hawaii Stream :Asse.ansent included no extent of survey cover:iv,: for archaeological resources and little or no information ceistS to assist prediction of wihat.ltistorie sites might be located in unsutveyed areas of the stream; low survcv cm-ca'age etirtits as to historic sitc:.s that may be associated wilh1Lakalau Stream. • The Cultural Resources Commission reeourniends investigation, survey and documentation of pre -contact Hawaiian production syst,aris. pi c-coIon ial incbSrenous agriculture systems and traditional agriculture such as lo -i i:alo and other ancient:historic subsistence, cultural (irreligious areas/sites within the vicinity of l he Ilakalau Brill e. iur:d if et.) ■ alleys such as Ilakalau may have smaller lo'i and loko'ia sites that were cumulatively representative of resilience, sustainability and religious practices of pre -contact Ha vaiian,: the riparian and estuarine areas have been important locations tun'.\ati\'e Hawaiians sines antiquity and contemporary. use continues. Additionally, flume and older bridge foundations associated with the plantation era are likely present within the area and should be investigated_ surveyed and documented. As pertains to `SHO anti or Hawaiian descendants, or other individuals and organizations. • The s.- ulturaI R.3sources Commission recommends contactin0 Richard A NlacKenzie. wetland research ecologist and .Tames .1Lau wis peiTh nn research in this watershed, Ilan Loko and the Ilakalau IIomeowner Association. The r_. uhural ILesources Commission also recommends a pedestrian sur, ey of sn tlicienl radius, during peak days and tithes in order to better identify a(ikeletl person cultural practitioners,. organizations, properties and resource connected practices ttillrin Ih� :nor. • Connl,lcte lir analvs is outlined in ha Pa'akai to ensure that proposed uses of land and water resosIsc .0 pn 1rr::d in a cultually apfr''"I'rnatewar•. including the identity and .scope of"valued cu km Irish 1 ival. or natural resources" in the petitions area. At this time the CRC is unable to detciiiiiiie the e•1cril tow]rirh resources inclu(lim2 1r:aditional and customary nativellawaiian ri lits will het]e:.ts•Ll ar impaired by the proposed action. • 1 l e Cuhtur:LI I esources Connnis*ion concurs that Since I LD(.)T is proposing work in the l lakalatu Stream in close proximity to nearshore waters. Ill:0T should consult closely \e ith t )PSL;-CL'tL the Commission on Water Resources NLrn,rgement (L W'1L-1I). Division of Aquatic resources (DAR). and the Division of Forestry and \1"ildlife (DONA\I') to help mitigate any potential impacts to avian and aquatic species as well as to protect stream flow/water quality standards. 122 CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i Appendix C Ms. Holly Yuen_ HDOT Project Manager Highway Department of Transportation Page 4 Septcmther 28, 2022 The i'111tiiral R: ooree, ( iiiiissiort i4 hopeful 1ha1 c.+ttlhined ellnit• \viII repro enl a ,eisnificantand urea,inarde restoration ettnrt for the public mist resources enjoined under Mk 17roiect. Finally- this Commission was not furnished with details as to the hrir12 raiiln replacements hein� upgraded for'`sa'rh standards" and therefore could not Jetvnrtinc iftIi ii i idA;l Till Ire .m1,:rthetic to the historic nature of the hrjdge. The C'RC requests said infonnatiorl h: provided at v..; tr e:uitest COM 'hens.:. 1 lie i.'iie' aiso auncurs tlith thcconlui mts and Concerns provided 10 4 I Mlles 1" llw I-Iistorlc Illwalr Foundation in their September 14, 2022. trall,:nlli:taI later and urges the outstanding issues and avoid. minimize, or mitigate any adt cr c eifeebi on the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Kevin Sullivan at lravin.sullivan(i'hawaiicounty.gov. Mohair), Geraldine Bell Cultural Resources Commis iurt Chair Cc: Stalc 1 -historic Preservation Officer Historic I-1avtai'i Foundation •..+I0,I m,..-+dmr:a Itr=onrcc; Comm issionTmjedsdlakalan13ridgeRcha1iIftationTMF314[t11K11,nut,1103,001, 99231-1a .al au Biidge Awn its_CRC Reopouse.Jo4rlr CIA for the Hakalau Bridge Project, Hakalau Nui & Kama`e`e, North & South Hilo, Hawai`i 123 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants 50 years of field notes, exploration, and excellence Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report Project #4639-01 Prepared for: WSP USA 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 Honolulu, HI 96813 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 91-1020 Kai Lo li Street • Ewa Beach HI 96706 • 808.499.9092 • svww.harveyecolo;y.com March 2024 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction 1 Section 2.0 Methods 5 Section 3.0 Results 7 3.1 Flora 7 3.2 Fauna 19 Section 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 24 4.1 Flora 24 4.2 Fauna 26 4.2.1 USFWS Species of Concern 26 4.2.2 State Species of Concern – Hawaiian Hawk 28 4.2.3 National Marine Fisheries Service Species of Concern 29 4.3 Invasive Species 30 Section 5.0 References 31 Tables Table 1. Plant Species Observed in the Hakalau Stream Bridge BSA 7 Table 2. Bird Species Observed in the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project BSA 19 Table 3. Approximate Abundance and Distribution of Large Trees in BSA Assessed to Potentially Provide Suitable Habitat for Hawaiian Hoary Bat 22 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Project and Biological Study Area 4 Figure 3. Habitats Map 11 Figure 4. Location of Bird Point Count Stations and Potentially Suitable Trees for Hawaiian Hoary Bat 21 Appendices Appendix A. IPaC Resource List for Hakalau Stream Bridge Project Area A-1 Appendix B. General Project Design Guidelines for Endangered Hawaiian Goose, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Hawaiian Hoary Bat, and Green Sea Turtle B-1 Photos Photo 1. Southeastern Slope of Hakalau Bridge BSA with Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland 12 Photo 2. Small Grove of Polynesian Trees at the Base of the Southeastern Slope 12 Photo 3. View of Alien Dominated Riparian Vegetation on the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream, Viewed from the Northern Bank 13 Photo 4. Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland in the Southwestern Portion of the Hakalau Bridge BSA 13 Photo 5. Road and Alien Dominate Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern BSA 14 Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 1 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 6. Mixed Alien Forest and Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland along the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge 15 Photo 7. Middle Section of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge 16 Photo 8. Northern Bank of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge 16 Photo 9. Mixed Alien Forest in the Northwestern BSA 17 Photo 10. Roadside Vegetation of the Northwestern BSA 18 Photo 11. Mixed Alien Forest in the Northeastern Portion of BSA 18 List of Preparers Scott Terrill, Principal -in -Charge Shahin Ansari, Senior Plant Ecologist Chuck Chimera, Botanist Ilana Nimz, Wildlife Biologist Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— H. T. Harvey & Associates Biological Survey Report March 2024 Section 1.0 Introduction Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W (Figure 1). The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project (the Project). Hakalau Stream Bridge is a historic and an aging steel -trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road roughly 180 feet above Hakalau Stream and spans roughly 775 feet across Hakalau Valley. It was originally constructed in 1911 as a railroad bridge and was later rehabilitated and converted into a highway bridge after the 1946 tsunami that struck the Island of Hawaii. The Project proposes two main actions: 1) soil remediation and 2) bridge rehabilitation, which are described below. Hakalau Stream Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge and Hakalau Beach Park, which is below and adjacent to the bridge. In 2000, the lead paint was removed from the Hakalau Stream Bridge, so it would not continue to further contaminate the environment. However, lead remains in the surrounding area, including at Hakalau Beach Park. Because of this contamination, soil remediation for lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the arca surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe for the public. HDOT proposes to remediate lead -contaminated soil surrounding the bridge to restore public use of the Hakalau Beach Park and to rehabilitate the substructure of the bridge. Studies conducted by Hawaii Department of Health's Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office, formed the basis of HDOT's proposed soil remediation actions. HDOT proposes to replace up to an estimated 7,623 cubic yards of soil in a roughly 2.4 -acre proposed remediation area with the Project Area (Figure 2). Actual depths of clean fill will correspond to actual soil removal depth; the area will be regraded to match pre -construction conditions. Any associated vegetation will be removed and replaced with new vegetation, except for large trees, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The clean soil will be used to re -level the site and allow for revegetation, drainage, and grading. In addition to lead contamination issues, recent bridge inspections have revealed steel corrosion and scour conditions that undermine the structure and foundation of the Hakalau Stream Bridge. The ongoing Hakalau Bridge Bent 8 Repair Project will not be adequate to prevent further deterioration of this Bridge. Therefore, after the completion of soil remediation work, HDOT proposes to rehabilitate the bridge's entire superstructure which includes replacing the existing steel bents and concrete foundations with new concrete bents and foundations to ensure future continued safe operation of the bridge. The concrete trestles would be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing trestles but would have a larger footprint surrounding each existing trestle. Concrete trestles will be installed using drilled shafts up to 6 feet in diameter. These drilled shafts will be constructed on both dry land and in the stream bed. No vegetation clearing for access is anticipated. Construction of the Hakalau Bridge's concrete trestles would be conducted incrementally to allow for continued safe operation. Night work may be conducted to expedite the construction schedule. Temporary best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize potential soil erosion into Hakalau Stream. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 1 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates The objectives of this biological study were to: • Conduct a reconnaissance -level wildlife survey to detect and record the wildlife species (birds and mammals). • Conduct a reconnaissance -level botanical survey to identify and document vegetation communities and the plant species. • Identify and document biological issues of concern, including the presence of any taxa that are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, candidate species for listing, or sensitive habitats. • Identify the potential impacts of implementing the Project and conservation measures that may be considered for inclusion into the planning and design phase if any listed taxa, candidate species for listing, or sensitive habitats are found at the Project Site. • Identify the approximate number of large (>15 feet) trees that may provide suitable day roosting habitat for the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus senaotus). The Project site is bound by Hakalau Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the east and undeveloped lands to the west and north, and a residential neighborhood to the south. The Project Area is about 14 acres and overlaps the Hakalau Gulch with elevations ranging from sea level to about 134 feet above mean sea level. The Hakalau Stream bisects the Project Area in the west to east direction and terminates into the Pacific Ocean just outside of the eastern boundary of the Project Area. The Project site is steeped in the history of sugar plantation era in Hawaii and includes several features of historical significance, which to some degree has also contributed to the existing ecological landscape here. In 1878, the Hakalau Sugar Plantation was established at the Project site and grew to be extensive and one of the most modern plantations at that time. In fact, the Hakalau Rail Bridge was built by the Hawaiian Railway Company and as mentioned above, was later refurbished to construct what is the existing Hakalau Stream Bridge. There was large scale clearing of vegetation at this site to not only plant sugarcane on the broad plateaus between the gulches, but also to build supporting infrastructure such as ditches to carry water, flumes to transport freshly cut cane, and a mill to process sugar. Remnants of this infrastructure such as the broken sea wall, concrete foundation of the mill, fragments of concrete and metal including remnants of a crane to move sugarcane, and a large (about 9 feet) pipe stanchion can still be found in the southeastern corner of the Project Area. The climate at the project site is characterized as moderately warm with the daytime temperature over a year ranging from 70 to 75°F. The site is very wet; according to the Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 2013), the area receives a mean annual rainfall of approximately 142 inches with the highest rainfall occurring during the months of March and November and the least during the month of June (Giambelluca et al. 2013). Typically, the trade winds blow from east to west, except sometimes (during summer months) the "kona winds" blow in the opposite direction. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 2 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates RR\BRR.aprxmlagar \eau Stream Qe L-eP°�Oa ixo umauma Stream Stith V-6 611‘"°."1°\'‘' 11"hu°Y 19 Project \\ Location ayalau Stream oabakini Stream N 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 A Miles Hakalau Wailea\ 19 Honomu 4) H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 1. Vicinity Map Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Biotic Resources Report (4639-01) March 2024 9-01 \Reports\BRR\BRR.aprxmlagarde H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 2. Study Area Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Biotic Resources Report (4639-01) March 2024 Section 2.0 Methods The Biological Study Area (BSA) for the flora and fauna studies consisted of the entire Project Area depicted in Figure 2. Prior to the field survey, H. T. Harvey & Associates' botanists, and wildlife biologist (biologists) reviewed aerial photographs and topographic maps of the BSA and conducted a thorough literature review to identify any ecological concerns and biological resources present in the BSA and its vicinity. We reviewed the resource list of threatened and endangered species in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information for Planning and Consultation database (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2023), which lists species either known or expected to be within or near the BSA. A reconnaissance -level survey of the BSA was conducted on March 16 and 17, 2023. Sunny skies with mild trade winds prevailed during the survey. Two botanists and one wildlife biologist (hereafter referred to as biologists) conducted the survey together. The vast majority of the BSA overlaps a deep gulch with steep slopes to the north and south and which were not accessible on foot. Vegetation on the steep slopes was surveyed by scanning with binoculars from the gulch bottom as well as from the old Mamalahoa Highway which runs along the top of the southern hillside. The biologists walked the accessible areas of the BSA and documented the vegetation communities, plants, birds, and mammals observed. A handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device preloaded with spatial data (e.g., BSA boundary) was used to navigate during the survey and record field observations. In general, rocky outcrops, shaded areas, and topographic depressions, which are more likely to support native plant species, were surveyed more extensively. The wildlife biologist recorded observations of birds and mammals in the BSA. Visual and auditory detection, as well as secondary indicators (e.g., nests) were used to identify the bird species present. To survey for birds, 8 -minute point counts were made from eight locations in the BSA between 6:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. The eight point count locations were spread out to cover different representative habitats in the BSA. Point count surveys included tallying all birds seen or heard by a single observer from a fixed point over a period of 8 minutes. Binoculars (e.g., Eagle Optics 10x 50) were used to assist with visual identifications. In addition to these focused point -count surveys, incidental detections of birds were recorded throughout the duration of the survey. An avian species list was compiled, which includes common and scientific names of the individual species, the legal regulatory status, the average number of individuals detected per count station, and how many count stations were occupied. The last two metrics were used to provide a qualitative relative abundance of observed bird species. . The scope of this study did not include nocturnal surveys to detect Hawaiian seabirds. The only native Hawaiian terrestrial mammal, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat is known to occur on Hawaii Island (Tomich 1986, Bonaccorso et al 2015). For this biological study, it is assumed that Hawaiian hoary bats may use the BSA. Thus, rather than detection, this survey effort tried to assess the habitat for Hawaiian hoary bats in the BSA. To do this the wildlife biologist estimated the number of large (> 15 feet) trees that may provide suitable day roosting habitat for Hawaiian hoary bats. In addition to size, the wildlife biologist also assessed the density of leaves, the structure and form of the branches with dense leaf clusters, and the ability Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 5 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates of bats to ingress and egress these areas of dense leaves. The determination that these trees provided potential habitat was based on the wildlife biologist's experience surveying for Hawaiian hoary bats and observations documented by other bat biologists (Gorreson et al. 2013, Montoya-Aiona 2020). Most of the habitat on the steep hill slopes was assessed using binoculars. The presence of non-native terrestrial mammals was noted either via direct observation or signs such as tracks, scat, or remains. No protocol level surveys were conducted for the native marine mammal, the Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonacbus schauinslandi), however during this two-day survey the biologists periodically scanned the beach area adjacent to the BSA to look for them. Hawaii does not have native reptiles and amphibians. No protocol level surveys were conducted for the Hawaiian green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbticata), but during this two- day survey, the biologists periodically scanned the beach arca adjacent to the BSA to document sea turtles, if present Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 6 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Section 3.0 Results 3.1 Flora The taxa recorded during the reconnaissance -level survey are indicative of the season (i.e., spring) and the environmental conditions at the time of the survey. No rare native Hawaiian plant species or taxa that are state or federally listed as threatened, endangered, or taxa that are candidates for listing were observed in the BSA. Table 1 provides a list of the plant species observed and their relative abundance in the BSA. A total of 68 plant taxa were found, of which 3 (-4%) are native (indigenous) and 65 (96 %) are either Polynesian introduced or alien species (Wagner 1999, Imada 2019). Table 1. Plant Species Observed in the Hakalau Stream Bridge BSA Family Relative Scientific Name Common Name Status' Abundance2 Acanthaceae Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica L. Araceae Alocasia macrorrhizos (L.) G. Don Epipremnum pinnatum (L.) Engl. Araliaceae Schefflera actinophylla (Endl.) Harms Arecaceae Asparagaceae Asteraceae Archontophoenix alexandrae (F. Muell.) H. Wendt. & Drude Cocos nucifera L. Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. Calyptocarpus vialis Less. Crassocephalum crepidioides (Bench.) S. Moore Elephantopus mollis Kunth Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. var. sonchifolia Erechtites valerianifolius (Link ex Spreng.) DC Galinsoga parviflora Cay. Pluchea carolinensis (Jacq.) G. Don Bengal trumpet, blue alien trumpet vine mango alien ape pot golden pothos, pothos, alien taro vine umbrella tree, octopus alien tree Alexandra palm, king alien palm coconut, niu Ki/ti Calyptocarpus, straggler daisy ebolo, fireweed, redflower ragleaf, thickhead pot pot alien alien tobacco weed, soft alien elephantsfoot Pualele alien Flora's paintbrush alien Fireweed alien gallant soldier marsh fleabane, sourbush alien alien Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 7 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Family Scientific Name Relative Common Name Status, Abundance2 Athyriaceae Begoniaceae Bignoniaceae Campanulaceae Cannabaceae Casuarinaceae Combretaceae Commelinaceae Convolvulaceae Cucurbitaceae Cyperaceae Dioscoreaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Heliconiaceae Lauraceae Lytheraceae Malvaceae Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski Youngiajaponica (L.) DC. Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw. Begonia hirtella Link Spathodea campanulata P.Beauv. Hippobroma longiflora (L.) G. Don Trema orientalis (L.) Blume Casuarina equisetifolia L. Terminalia catappa L. Commelina diffusa Burm. f. Ipomoea violacea L. Momordica charantia L. Cyperus mindorensis (Steud.) Huygh Dioscorea bulbifera L. Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Willd. Euphorbia heterophylla L. Canavalia cathartica Thouars Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench Falcataria moluccana (Miq.) Barneby & J. W. Grimes Mimosa pudica L. var. unijuga (Duchass. & Walp.) Griseb. Vigna Iuteola (Jacq.) Benth. Musa x paradisiaca L. Persea americana Mill. Cuphea carthagenensis (Jacq.) J.F.Macbr. Talipariti tiliaceum (L.) Fryxell Malvaviscus penduliflorus DC Sida rhombifolia L. creeping ox -eye, trailing daisy, wedelia Oriental hawksbeard hoio, paca Begonia, Brazilian begonia African tulip star -of -Bethlehem Gunpowder tree common ironwood false kamani, tropical almond day flower, honhono Beach moonflower bitter melon, balsam pear White kyllinga alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien alien yam, air potato, bitter pol yam, hoi Kukui, kukui nut pol spurge, kaliko alien Maunaloa alien partridge pea alien Moluccan albizia sensitive plant, sleeping grass hairy cowpea, Nile bean banana Avocado Colombian cuphea alien alien alien pol alien alien aloalo, hau pol turk's cap, firecracker alien hibiscus Cuban jute alien Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 8 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Relative Family Scientific Name Common Name Status' Abundance2 Melastomataceae Arthrostemma ciliatum Pay. ex D. Don Miconia calvescens DC. Miconia crenata (Vahl.) Michelang. Moraceae Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg Ficus microcarpa L. f. Psidium cattleyanum Sabine Psidium guajava L. Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) Raven Myrtaceae Onagraceae Orchidaceae Pandanaceae Poaceae Polygonaceae Polypodiaceae Psilotaceae Rubiaceae Solanaceae Spathoglottis plicata Blume Pandanus tectorius Parkinson Axonopus compressus (Sw.) P. Beauv. Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone Coix lachrymalobi L. Megathyrsus maximus (Jacq.) B. K. Simon & S. W. L. Jacobs Setaria palmifolia (J. Konig) Stapf Sporobolus africanus (Poir.) Robyns & Tournay Urochloa mutica (Forssk.) T. Q. Nguyen Persicaria chinensis (L.) H.Gross Persicaria punctata (Elliott) Small Microsorum grossum (Langsd. & Fisch.) S. B. Andrews Phlebodium aureum (L.) J. Sm. Psilotum nudum (L.) P. Beauv. Pentas lanceolata (Forssk.) Deflers Cestrum nocturnum L. arthrostema alien miconia alien koster's curse, clidemia alien ulu, breadfruit Chinese banyan strawberry guava guava false loosestrife, water primrose, alohalua, kamole malayan orchid, philippine ground orchid pol alien alien alien native alien screw pine, hala, pu native hala wide -leaved alien carpetgrass cane grass, elephant alien grass, napier grass job's tears alien guinea grass alien palmgrass alien dropseed, rattail grass, alien smutgrass California grass, para alien grass creeping smartweed, alien Chinese knotweed water smartweed alien lauae, maile scented alien fern rabbit's foot fern moa, upright whiskfern pentas night cestrum, night blooming jasmine alien native alien alien Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 9 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Relative Family Scientific Name Common Name Status' Abundance2 Zingiberaceae Hedychium flavescens Carey ex yellow ginger alien R Roscoe 1Status Notes: alien = introduced or alien (all those plants brought to the Hawaiian Islands by humans, intentionally or accidentally, after Western contact [i.e., Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778]). Native = species that occur naturally in the Hawaiian Islands including indigenous species that have a wider distribution outside of Hawaii. 2Qualitative Relative Abundance of Observed Species in Study Area: A = abundant—forming a major part of the vegetation in the BSA. C = common—widely scattered throughout the BSA or locally abundant in a portion of it. U = uncommon—scattered sparsely throughout the BSA or occurring in a few small patches. R = rare—only a few isolated individuals in the BSA. Additional Notes: This checklist is an inventory of plant species observed on March 16 and 17, 2023 during a reconnaissance level botanical survey. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the flowering plants are in accordance with Wagner et al. (1999); recent name changes are those recorded in Imada 2019. In general, the vegetation of the BSA can be characterized as a mix of coastal mesic and coastal wet communities (sensu Gagne and Cuddihy 1999). These community types, on the windward sides of most islands, intercept sufficient rainfall to maintain forest cover, or occur in nutrient -rich floodplains, marshes, and riparian areas. The vegetation, including that occurring on the slopes and adjacent to Halakau Stream, has been heavily modified by pre -historic and modern human activities and is now largely dominated by alien species (Table 1). Four broad vegetation zones were seen in the BSA: Mixed Alien Forest consisting of various non-native trees, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland, Alien -Dominated Herbland (Persicaria chinensis and mixed species), and Alien Dominated Riparian Vegetation (Figure 3). Described below is the distribution and composition of these vegetation communities in the BSA. The southeastern corner of the BSA is a mosaic of Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland. The ridgeline is lined with groves of mixed alien forest consisting of emergent African tulip (Spathodea campanulata), Gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis) and coconut palms (Cocos nucdfera), and common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia) draped in trumpet vine (Thunbergia grandiflora) (Photo 1). The slopes are largely covered by a smothering layer of creeping smartweed (Persicaria chinensis) and trumpet vine interspersed with a mixture of banana (Musa xparadisiaca), 'ape (Alocasia macrorrhios) and variegated hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus). Of minor note, along the flats below this slope is a small grove of Polynesian trees including kukui (Aleurites moluccanus), ulu (Artocarpus altilis), both likely intentionally planted, along with the native hala (Pandanus tectorius) and an understory of ti (Cordyline fruticosa), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), and various other herbs and vines (Photo 2). The southern bank of Hakalau Stream, to the east of the bridge, can be characterized as Alien Dominated Riparian Vegetation. This community consists of a scattered grove of coconut palms, hala trees, common ironwood and tropical almond (Terminalia catappa), with an open understory covered largely by wide -leaved carpetgrass (Axonopus compressus), wedelia (Sphagneticola trilobata) and various other short-statured herbs (Photo 3). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 10 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates aW efielwwde8/19\i1M9\s4odaLIU 96f9f\0096sp& ]d\N a v O ,(Q 0 p. N os: L v cr o .00Q 8 x M N G) c D D N0 0)-0 N ii D 0 0 =,--6 U H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Photo 1. Southeastern Slope of Hakalau Bridge BSA with Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland Note: Gunpowder tree and coconut palms on the ridgeline and creeping smartweed smothering slopes. Photo 2. Small Grove of Polynesian Trees at the Base of the Southeastern Slope Note: Note the kukui, and ulu trees in the center surrounded by a Guinea grass and other mixed alien herbs. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 3. View of Alien Dominated Riparian Vegetation on the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream, Viewed from the Northern Bank Note the canopy of coconut palms, hala trees, and common ironwood with an open, herbaceous understory. Photo 4. Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland in the Southwestern Portion of the Hakalau Bridge BSA Note: Roadside dominated by Guinea grass, and paca ferns. Ridgeline of mixed alien trees. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 5. Road and Alien Dominate Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern BSA Note: Guinea grass along road and prominent Moluccan albizia grove in background. Like the southeastern portion of the BSA, the southwestern slope is also a mosaic of Mixed Alien Forest, Alien - Dominated Paca Fernland and Alien -Dominated Herbland (Photo 4). The roadside is fringed with Guinea grass and a mix of alien herbs. Also bordering the road and covering much of the flats and mid -slopes are paca ferns (Dplaium esculentum), banana, 'ape and other short-statured alien herbs. The ridgeline above the access road is covered with a mixed alien forest of African tulip, Gunpowder tree, and Alexandra palms (Archontophoenix alexandrae) among others. The vegetation between the access road and Hakalau Stream is also largely covered with Guinea grass and other low-statured herbaceous plants, although a prominent small stand of Moluccan albizia (Falcataria moluccana) can also be found to the west of the bridge (Photo 5). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 6. Mixed Alien Forest and Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland along the Southern Bank of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge Note: Canopy of kukui and gunpowder tree. The vegetation along Hakalua Stream to the west of the bridge is bordered by Mixed Alien Forest. The southern bank of the stream consists of a canopy of kukui and gunpowder trees festooned with trumpet vine, pothos (Epipremnumpinnatum) and an understory of Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and other mixed herbaceous and small-statured woody plants (Photo 6). The middle section of the stream consists of a prominent mango tree (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana), Chinese banyan (Ficus macrocarpa), and Moluccan albizia among others with an understory of Alien - Dominated Paca Fernland and smaller-statured woody plants and herbaceous vegetation (Photo 7). The northern bank of the stream is dominated by a dense stand of hau and an understory of Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland and smaller-statured woody plants and herbaceous vegetation (Photo 8). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 15 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 7. Middle Section of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge Note: Prominent mango tree in foreground of Mixed Alien Forest. Photo 8. Northern Bank of Hakalau Stream to the West of the Bridge Note: Hau prominent in foreground. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 16 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 9. Mixed Alien Forest in the Northwestern BSA AAit �F►� . Note: Emergent African tulip and other trees draped in trumpet vine. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 17 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 10. Roadside Vegetation of the Northwestern BSA Note: Chinese banyan in the background with Guinea grass lining the road. Photo 11. Mixed Alien Forest in the Northeastern Portion of BSA Note: African tulip and other trees on the slopes with Guinea grass covering the flat below the slope and bridge. The northwestern portion of the BSA to the western side of Hakalau Bridge is dominated by a thick cover of Mixed Alien Forest including an emergent canopy of African tulip, Gunpowder tree, and Alexandra palms with Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Biological Survey Report 18 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 trunks covered in trumpet vine and pothos. The dense sub -canopy and understory consists of hau, banana and other shorter-statured trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, with Guinea grass prominent along the roadside (Photo 9). The vegetation between the road and the stream in the northeastern BSA is notable for a large Chinese banyan, with African tulip trees, gunpowder tree, banana and Guinea grass also featured prominently (Photo 10). The northeastern slope of the BSA consists of Mixed Alien Forest dominated by African tulip trees, interspersed with emergent gunpowder trees, with trumpet vine and pothos climbing the trunks. Vegetation in the gulch bottom in this area is composed of Guinea grass and Alien -Dominated Herbland (Photo 11). 3.2 Fauna Birds Point count surveys identified 53 individuals representing nine species (Table 2). Eight out of these nine species are introduced or alien (non-native) to the Hawaiian Islands. One endemic species—Hawaiian hawk or io (Buteo solitaries) was seen flying over the Project Area, outside of the point count timeframes, but it did not land or appear to have a nest in the Project Area. Table 2. Bird Species Observed in the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project BSA Average Birds per Point Number of Qualitative Count Station Stations Relative Scientific Name Common Name Status2 (n=7) Occupied (n = 7) Abundance' Acridotheres tristis common myna X 1.29 3 uncommon Buteo solitarius 'io, Hawaiian ES 0.00 0 rare - hawk observed flying above project site Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal X, M 0.43 2 rare Carpodacus house finch X, M 0.71 3 uncommon mexicanus Gallus gallus red jungle fowl X 0.29 2 rare Geopelia striata zebra dove X 1.00 5 uncommon Padda oryzivora yellow -billed X 0.29 1 rare cardinal Passer domesticus house sparrow X 0.29 1 rare Sicalis flaveola saffron finch X 0.57 2 uncommon Zosteropsjaponicus warbling white- X, IW 2.71 7 abundant eye 1Abundance based on the average number of individuals observed per count station, averaged across all point count stations, as follows: Abundant - average > 2.5 individuals observed per station Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 19 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Common - average 1.5 - 2.49 individuals observed per station Uncommon - average 0.5- 1.49 individuals observed per station Rare - average < 0.49 individuals observed per station 2ES = state or federally listed as endangered IW = State (HAR 12-124, Exhibit 5) or Federal (18 U.S.C. 42) injurious wildlife species X = introduced or alien (non-native species) M= Listed as a Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protected Species (10.13 List) The warbling white -eye (Zosteropsjaponicas), was the most abundant species, with small groups of five to six individuals observed flying between tree canopies. Zebra doves (Geopelia striata) and common mynah (Acridotheres tristis) were also observed in higher numbers than other species, primarily roosting in larger trees which were predominantly invasive species such as African tulip, albizia, gunpowder, ironwood and false kamani. The warbling white eye is on the State of Hawaii Injurious Wildlife list and is known to be harmful to agriculture, aquaculture, or indigenous wildlife or plants, or to constitute a nuisance or health hazard (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR] 2015a). Mammals and Hawaiian Hoary Bat Habitat Assessment Two feral mammal species were detected in the Hakalau Project BSA. One individual of a small Indian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) was seen near the foot of the bridge along the northern stream bank. Although feral cats (Felis catus) were not seen, cat scat was observed occasionally when surveying at the gulch bottom along the northern and southern stream banks. We did not incidentally observe any Hawaiian hoary bats during this two-day reconnaissance survey. However, the Project Area appeared to contain numerous trees that might potentially serve as suitable roosting habitat. Based on the density of leaves, the structure and form of the branches with dense leaf clusters, and the ability of bats to ingress and egress these areas of dense leaves, we estimated about 180 trees (including about 50 palms) across 21 locations to be potentially suitable day roosting habitat for Hawaiian hoary bats. The trees (excluding palms) consisted of the following alien tree species—ironwood, false kamani, African tulip, gun powder, Chinese banyan, mango, albizia, and kukui. The determination that these trees provided potential habitat was based on the wildlife biologist's experience surveying for Hawaiian hoary bats and observations documented by other bat biologists (Gorreson et al. 2013, Montoya-Aiona 2020). Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the trees that were assessed to be suitable day time bat roosting habitat. Table 3 provides additional details such as the number and height of trees observed at each point location identified on Figure 4, the tree species and description where found in the Project Area. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 20 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 'oin H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 0 co r> 0 0 1) ce D 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 a) N 0) D m D 0 0 0 Ecological Consultants March 2024 awe6eiwwde aa91aa9\S Jodaa\ L96f9f\0096 1rnd\:N Table 3. Approximate Abundance and Distribution of Large Trees in BSA Assessed to Potentially Provide Suitable Habitat for Hawaiian Hoary Bat Point ID as Approximate illustrated in Number of Figure 4 trees Approximate height of trees (feet) Tree Species Location in Project Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 10 1 3 5 1 7 9 2 2 75 70-80 African tulip, gunpowder African tulip, gunpowder 90 Gunpowder 50 Ironwood, false kamani 60 African tulip 70 Chinese banyan 70 Gunpowder, African tulip 60 Gunpowder, African tulip 80 Gunpowder 60 Chinese banyan, mango 10 50 African tulip 12 12 90 Albizia 13 3 90 African tulip 14 5 90 African tulip 15 16 17 30 + 50 palms 1 15 60-80 30 80 African tulip and palms Kukui Ironwood Northeast hillslope Central area of the northern hill slope, under the Hakalau Stream bridge Northwestern hillslope Northeastern stream bank Lower portion of the northwestern hill slope Northwestern area gulch bottom Northwestern stream bank Northwestern stream bank Northwestern stream bank In the vegetated rock island in the middle of the stream west of the stream ford Western border in center of Project Area just west of where Old Mamalahoa Highway crosses the Hakalau Stream Southwestern stream bank, north of the old mill road Southwestern hill slope near the western boundary of the Project Area Southwestern stream bank close to the water's edge Southwestern hill slope down from upper Old Mamalahoa Highway toward the gulch bottom Southeastern portion in the County beach park area Along upper Old Mamalahoa Highway Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 22 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Point ID as illustrated in Figure 4 Approximate Number of trees Approximate height of trees (feet) Tree Species Location in Project Area 18 19 20 21 3 6 4 3 80 90 60 50 Ironwood Ironwood Ironwood Ironwood Southeastern gulch bottom in County beach park area Southeastern corner hill side Southeastern gulch bottom in County beach park area Southeastern gulch bottom upper stream bank Reptiles and Hawaiian Monk Seal We did not see any sea turtles or Hawaiian monk seal in the BSA during this two-day reconnaissance study. There are no terrestrial reptiles native to Hawaii. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 23 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Section 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1 Flora This study did not find any botanical concerns in the BSA. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on any plant species that is state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, a candidate species for listing, a rare native plant species, or a native plant species of concern. The BSA encompasses a highly disturbed area, and all but three plant species—hala, moa, and water primrose found in the BSA are non-native. Removal of either of these three plant species is not expected to have an adverse effect on species' populations locally or regionally as these native species are known to have a widespread distribution on Hawaii Island as well as in the State. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC database (USFWS 2023) lists four plant species that are either known or expected to be in or near the BSA; these are alani (Melicope ahlbrucknerz), nanu (Gardenia remyz), and two fern taxa—Deparia kaalaana and Microlpia strigosa var. mauiensis (Appendix A). • Alelicope �ahlbruckneri or alani is a long-lived perennial tree in the Rutaceae family. It is medium sized, about 30 to 36 feet tall and currently about 15 individuals of this species are known to occur in one wild population in Kipukapuaulu (Bird Park) and possibly another individual in the Laupahoehoe Natural Area Reserve on Hawaii Island. No individuals are known to occur in the Hakalau Project Area and the closest designated critical habitat for this species is about 20 miles to the south of the Project Area (USFWS 2020a). Threats to alani include habitat degradation by invasive plant species and predation or herbivory by ungulates, rodents, slugs. • Gardenia rernyi or nanu is a tree species in the Rubiaceae family ranging from 10 to 43 feet in height. This species is known from wet forest, mesic forest, and wet cliff and ridge shrubland habitat types with about 29 individuals across 13 wild populations on Hawaii, Maui, East Molokai, and Kauai. On Hawaii Island, 5 individuals are known to occur across two populations—two individuals in the wet and mesic forests in Laupahoehoe iki (-38 miles north of the Project Area) and three individuals in wet forest and wet cliff and ridge shrubland habitat in Polulu (-45 miles north of Project Area). Historically, one plant was reported on the private lands of Hakalau Nui (about 15 miles inland of the Project Area) in 1977 however, it is now believed to be extirpated. Nanu plants are known to occur in full sunlight and mostly along leeward (west) facing ridges from 397 to 4,577 feet elevation, in areas receiving annual rainfall between 61 and 296 inches, and on Hawaii Island in moderately to well -drained, shallow to deep soils that have an organic surface overlaying pahoehoe bedrock and are slightly to strongly acidic. Threats to nanu include loss of habitat due to landslides, storms, erosion; destruction and adverse modification of habitat by feral ungulates; competition with invasive non-native plants; and herbivore by feral ungulates, rodents, non-native snails and slugs. • Deparia kaalaana is a fern in the Athyriaceae family. It is a small fern with decumbent (ground creeping) to erect rhizomes and fronds up to 12 inches long. The species is restricted to the rocky banks of perennial Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 24 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates streams and wet forest. Deparia kaalaana historically occurred in the Kaumana and Papaaloa areas on the Big Island, on Kauai, and from east Maui in Haleakala National Park, but currently there are no known wild individuals of this species following the extirpation of the last remaining population on the island of Maui in 2017 (USFWS 2022a). Deparia kaalaana are known to occur in ohia-uluhe lowland wet forest on vertical walls above perennial streams. Associated native plants include Asplenium excision (pamoho), T'andenboschia grtotheca (no common name (NCN)), Adiantum raddianum (NCN), Dryopteris wallichiana (io nui), and Peperomia ligustrina (alaala wai nui); none of which were found in the BSA. Threats to Deparia kaalaana include habitat destruction by invasive plant species and ungulates, and herbivory by slugs. • Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis or palapalai is a terrestrial fern in the Dennstaedtiaceae family. This is a medium-sized fern with fronds less than 40 inches long. It is known to typically occur in mesic and wet forests from 1,400 to 6,000 feet on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. In the last 5-10 years only seven populations—five on East Maui, one on West Maui and one on Oahu have been observed with the last population on Hawaii Island observed in 2004 in the Waiakea and Piihonua areas. Threats to palapalai include habitat destruction and modification by both non-native plants and animals, and herbivory by pigs, goats, and slugs, (USFWS 2022b). In conclusion, no threatened, endangered, or rare plants were observed in the Project Area. The Project Area is highly disturbed with a history of vegetation disturbance in Hakalau Gulch over the last century since the sugar plantation times. Also, there is ongoing disturbance in the Project Area as it is an active recreational area and beach park. The Project Area has an almost 100 percent cover of non-native and invasive plants, and also contains other direct threats to the four endangered plants described above, such as feral ungulates, rodents, non-native snails and slugs. Based on these findings, it is highly unlikely that the Project Area contains the four endangered plant taxa identified in the IPaC resource list and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed at this time. The process of lead remediation in the Project Area does entail removing vegetation and soil. To the extent feasible, H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that the Project should use native plants to revegetate these areas. Potential native plants that are ecologically suitable for outplanting in the BSA include species such as Acacia koa (koa), Pandanus tectorius (hala), Cibotium mengiesii (hapuu), Coprosma pubens (pilo, hupilo), Freycinetia arborea (ieie), Kadua a anis (au, pilo), Pschotria spp. (kopiko), and Myrsine spp. (kooea). If native plants do not meet landscaping objectives, plants with a low risk of becoming invasive could be substituted. Additional information on selecting appropriate plants for landscaping can be obtained from the Plant Pono website (http://www.plantpono.org/). Furthermore, only plants grown on Hawaii Island should be used for landscaping purposes. If locally grown plants are unavailable, then imported plants may be used, but they should be thoroughly inspected or quarantined if necessary to ensure that they are free from invasive pests such as little fire ants (IVasmannia auropunctata) and invasive plant seeds and seedlings that could arrive inadvertently (also see Section 4.3). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 25 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 4.2 Fauna 4.2.1 USFWS Species of Concern The USFWS IPaC database (USFWS 2023) lists nine threatened or endangered animal species that are either known or expected to be on or near the BSA; these are—Hawaiian hoary bat; four Hawaiian waterbird taxa— Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudsena), Hawaiian coot (Fulica alaa), Hawaiian duck (Anas nyvilliana), and the threatened Hawaiian goose or nene (Branta sandvicensis); three Hawaiian seabirds—Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Band-rumped-storm-petrel (Hydrobates castro), and the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Pu anus newelli); and one reptile—the green sea turtle or honu. None of these nine listed animal species were observed in the BSA during the two-day survey conducted in March 2023. This section addresses the likelihood of impact of Project activities on the listed Hawaiian hoary bat, Hawaiian waterbirds, Hawaiian seabirds, and the Hawaiian green sea turtle identified in the IPaC database for this Project Area. The IPaC resource list does not identify any rare or native migratory bird species in the Project Area. The Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and the House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) seen during this field study are species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but they are common on Hawaii Island as well as on other main Hawaiian Islands. Thus it is unlikely that the proposed Project would have an adverse impact on the population of these species. Hawaiian hoary bat Although the Hawaiian hoary bat was not surveyed for during this reconnaissance -level survey, there are numerous records for this species on Hawaii Island and in the vicinity of the Project Area (Tomich 1986, Gorresen et al. 2013, DLNR 2015b, Montoya-Aiona 2020). Furthermore, the Hawaiian hoary bat habitat assessment conducted as part of this biological study indicated approximately 180 trees across 21 locations in the Project Area that could potentially serve as suitable roosting habitat. Hawaiian hoary bats are known to roost in large (typically greater than 15 -foot -tall) dense -canopy trees, sometimes at the edges of water bodies, such as streams and lakes (USFWS 1998). Hawaiian hoary bats may hunt for flying insect prey along roadways, gulches, and water ways (Bonaccorso et al 2015, DLNR 2015b) and occasionally roost in large, dense -foliage trees (Montoya-Aiona 2020) such as those in Hakalau Gulch within the BSA. Based on the documented evidence of Hawaiian hoary bat distribution and abundance on Hawaii Island and the presence of potential suitable habitat in the Project Area, it is possible that Hawaiian hoary bats occur or utilize the Project Area for roosting, foraging, and or breeding. This proposed Project will entail removal of large trees to remediate for soils contaminated with lead. H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that any removal of large (> 15 feet) trees should, if possible, be conducted outside of the Hawaiian hoary bat breeding season, from June 1 to September 15. USFWS recommended general project guidelines to avoid and minimize impacts to Hawaiian hoary bats are included in Appendix B. If Project activities are not compatible with these federal conservation guidelines, then HDOT should consult with USFWS for further guidance. Outside of the breeding season, it is unlikely that removal of some large Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 26 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates trees will affect individuals or the local or overall population of Hawaiian hoary bats because -1) the potential and limited impact of habitat loss caused by removal of some large trees is temporary. Following soil remediation, the Project will revegetate areas with tree species that can serve as potential bat habitat and 2) in the interim when planted trees in the BSA have not reached optimal height or structure suitable for hoary bats; there is ample alternative habitat, similar to that found in the BSA that is available to the Hawaiian hoary bats in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area as well as elsewhere on Hawaii Island. Waterbirds Even though endangered Hawaiian waterbirds [Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian common gallinule (Gallinulagaleata sandvicensis)] and the threatened Hawaiian goose or nene were not seen during this survey, it should be noted that these taxa occur on Hawaii Island (DLNR 2015b). There are suitable waterbird habitats, such as open water bodies (e.g. Hakalau Stream, ditch) and open grassy areas in the southeastern portion of the Project Area overlapping the County Park as well as in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, it is not out of the realm of possibility for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, including nene, to visit the Project Area. If Hawaiian waterbirds or nene are observed in the Project Area, H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that HDOT consult with USFWS to assess the potential for adverse impacts on Hawaiian waterbirds from Project activities and seek guidance on Project specific conservation measures that may need to be incorporated to avoid and minimize impacts. General measures provided by USFWS to avoid and minimize impacts to endangered Hawaiian waterbirds are included in Appendix B. Seabirds No specific night-time surveys were conducted to survey seabirds in the Project Area. The endangered Hawaiian petrel and Band-rumped-storm-petrel; and the threatened Newell's shearwater are known to have a limited breeding distribution on Hawaii Island confined primarily to the mountains of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa (Day et al 2003, DLNR 2015b). Movement of these seabirds over land, both inland and seaward, usually occurs nocturnally. These species may traverse the Project Area at night during the breeding, nesting, and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Both the Hawaiian petrel and the Newell's shearwater are known to be affected by sources of artificial light, which can distract the birds and cause them to become grounded. This phenomenon is referred to as "fallout" and it primarily affects fledglings that are leaving the nest for the first time on their way to sea. If the proposed Project activities will involve nighttime work, then lighting should be configured to be "dark sky friendly", in compliance with Hawai`i Revised Statute 201-8.5, and may require only the use of full cut off and/or appropriately shielded lights and include reducing or turning off non-essential operational lighting during the seabird fledgling season from September 15 to December 15. H. T. Harvey & Associates also recommends that HDOT consult with USFWS about avoidance and minimization measures planned or being adopted by the Project with regard to outdoor and operational lighting and seabird conservation. General measures provided by USFWS to avoid and minimize impacts to endangered seabirds are included in Appendix B. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 27 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle Listed as threatened under the federal ESA, the Hawaiian green sea turtle, or honu, is identified as the Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the green sea turtle. The range of this Central North Pacific DPS includes the entire Hawaiian archipelago where they complete their lifecycle feeding in the Main Hawaiian Islands and nesting mainly in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Balazs and Chaloupka 2006). Map guides published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (NOAA-PIFSC) do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for Green sea turtles (Parker and Balazs 2015). No turtles were observed in the BSA during this two-day reconnaissance survey. Nonetheless, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Green sea turtles visit the Hakalau sandy beach area next to the eastern most boundary of the Project Area that overlaps the mouth of Hakalau Bay . In the event that Green sea turtles are seen at Hakalau beach or close to the Project Area, H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that HDOT consult with USFWS for further guidance. USFWS recommended general project guidelines to avoid and minimize impacts to sea turtles are included in Appendix B. 4.2.2 State Species of Concern — Hawaiian Hawk Only one native wildlife species, the io or Hawaiian hawk, was seen in the Project Area. The io was on the federal endangered species list for several decades and was only recently delisted in April 2020 (USFWS 2020b). Even though the species is no longer listed as endangered under the federal ESA, the io remains a Hawaii state listed endangered bird species (DLNR 2015b). Io are known to occur over much of Hawaii Island at all elevations, and occupy a variety of habitat types, including native forest, secondary forest consisting primarily of non-native plant species, agricultural areas, and pastures (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2007, DLNR 2015b). They occur at relatively higher densities in the Hamakua region of Hawaii Island, just south of the Project Area. Furthermore, the Project Area falls within identified io breeding range on Hawaii Island (Gorresen et al. 2008). Io are territorial and are known to defend their territory year-round. They have an extended breeding season—egg laying occurs from March to June with nest building starting several weeks before March and fledging occurs from July to September (DLNR 2015b). Pairs sometimes build 2-4 nests that they reuse. Nests may be reused during consecutive breeding seasons or vacated for a year or more before reuse (Clarkson and Laniawe. 2020). Most nesting occurs in native ohia trees (Metrosideros polymorpha), although nesting also occurs in non-native trees such as eucalyptus, ironwood, mango, and coconut palm; species that occur within the BSA. H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that to the extent possible, the Project should avoid removal of large trees during the io breeding season. If construction activities are likely to occur during the breeding season, then a preconstruction survey should be conducted and, if an active nest is found, H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that HDOT consult with DLNR before construction work begins and determine the most appropriate course of action and obtain guidance to avoid and minimize potential impacts to this state -protected species. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 28 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 4.2.3 National Marine Fisheries Service Species of Concern Hawksbill Sea Turtle Hawksbill turtles are one of the rarest of the seven extant species of marine turtles and their scarcity has been recognized by the government of the U.S. and other nations, as well as by international resource management institutions. The hawksbill sea turtle was classified as endangered in 1970 (USFWS 1970). Critical habitat has been designated for the species but includes only nesting islands in Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS 1998). Small numbers of hawksbill sea turtles (probably no more than 20 nesting females annually) nest in Hawaii, primarily along the southeastern coast of the island of Hawaii, with small numbers reported on Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (Seitz et al. 2012). The nesting season extends from April through February, with peak egg laying occurring from late July through mid-September (Seitz et al. 2012). Map guides published by NOAA-PIFSC do not identify Hakalau Bay as an important basking or nesting site for Hawksbill Sca turtles (Parker and Balazs 2015) and no Hawksbill Sca turtles were observed in the BSA during this two-day reconnaissance survey. Nonetheless, it is possible the species at times may visit Hakalau Beach next to the eastern boundary of the Project Area at the mouth of Hakalau Bay and/or enter the stream mouth at the lower reach of the stream particularly during high tides. In the event that Hawksbill sea turtles are seen at Hakalau beach or close to the Project Area, H. T. Harvey & Associates recommends that HDOT consult with USFWS for further guidance. USFWS recommended general project guidelines to avoid and minimize impacts to sea turtles are included in Appendix B. Hawaiian Monk Seal Hawaiian monk seals are endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago. They occur and breed throughout the NWHI and the MHI although the vast majority are in the NWHI (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2007, Carretta et al. 2023). Hawaiian monk seals spend roughly two third of their time in marine waters. Terrestrial habitats are used to haul -out, with preferred haul -out areas that include sandy beaches, sand spits or low shelving rock reefs where they can rest, pup, molt and have social interactions. Haul -out habitats are generally near adequate foraging habitat; however, virtually all substrates could be used (NMFS 2007). They are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and were first listed under the ESA as endangered in 1976. Critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal was first designated in 1986 and was most recently updated in 2015 (NMFS 2015). In the MHIs designated critical habitat exists in marine habitats between the 200 -meter depth contour line through the water's edge and 5 meters onto terrestrial environments from the shoreline (p. 50926 in NMFS 2015). The essential features of critical habitat include areas for haul -out, nursery grounds for pupping and nursing, and marine foraging areas. The waters fronting Hakalau Bay are designated as critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal. The Project Area is about 600 feet inland from this designated critical habitat. No surveys were specifically conducted for Hawaiian monk seals and no inadvertent sightings of the Hawaiian monk seal were made during this study. However, Hawaiian monk seals have been sighted on the sandy beach area of Hakalau Bay by people frequenting the Hakalau Gouty Beach Park (Nui 2017). Any potential impacts to Hawaiian monk seal habitat or to individual seals that may visit the beach or rocky shoreline in Hakalau Bay could be avoided and minimized through the comprehensive in -water and land based BMPs that will be adopted by the Project. These BMPs include measures such as deploying full -depth silt curtains and sandbags to contain Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 29 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates the work area; and are discussed in detail in: An Integrated Storm Water Management Approach and a Summary of Clear Water Diversion and Isolation Best Management Practices for Use in the State of Hawaii by the FHWA, the Hawaii Department of Transportation Practitioners Guide (2016), and the Construction Best Management Practices Field Manual by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (2021). Also, the Project's proposed in -water work that will be conducted under permits obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Hawaii Department of Health, Clean Water Branch. 4.3 Invasive Species A potential impact of implementing the Project is the introduction and spread of invasive species during the construction phase. There are several invasive species that occur on Hawaii Island, but do not occur on other islands (e.g., little fire ants, and coqui frogs [Eleutherodactylus coqui]) and vice versa (e.g. Coconut rhinocerous beetle [Oryctes rhinoceros] on Oahu) and are likely present in the vicinity of the Project Area. H. T. Harvey & Associates' recommends that the Project plan and design incorporate specifications that will result in the adoption of best management practices to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species at the Project Area. These best management practices may include the following: • All construction equipment and vehicles should arrive at the work site for the first time in clean condition and free of: any soil; plants or plant parts, including seeds; insects, including eggs; and reptiles and amphibians, including their eggs. Similarly, all construction equipment and vehicles should be cleaned after use on the Project site and before leaving the site. This would be particularly important for equipment movement between the Project site and the other islands. • All materials imported to the Project site, including gravel, soil, rock, and sand, should be certified weed free. Invasive species found on stockpiled materials should be removed either chemically or mechanically. • Only weed -free seed mixtures should be used for hydroseeding and hydromulching on the Project Site. A qualified botanist should inspect the seeded areas a minimum of 60 days after the hydroseed/hydromulch is applied. Any species of plant other than those intended to be in the hydroseed/hydromulch should be removed. In particular, plant species that are not known to occur on Hawaii Island and those that are actively being controlled on the island should be removed. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 30 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Section 5.0 References Balazs, G. H., and M. Y. Chaloupka. 2004. Thirty-year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Biological Conservation 117:491-498. Bonaccorso, F., C. M. Todd, A. C. Mies, P.M. Gorresen. 2015. Foraging Range Movements of the Endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy. 96(1):64-71. Carretta, J. V., E. M. Oleson, K. A. Forney, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, J. Baker, A. J. Orr et al. 2023. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2022. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. July. NOAA- TMNMFS-SWFSC-684. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Clarkson, K. E., and L. P. Laniawe. 2020. Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA https:/doi?org/10.2173/bow.hawhaw.01 Day, R. H., B. A. Cooper, and R. J. Blaha. 2003. Movement Patterns of Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters on the Island of Hawaii. Pacific Science. 57(2): 147-159. [DLNR] Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015a. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 124, Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Injurious Wildlife, Introduced Wild Birds, and Introduced Wildlife. <http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/files/2013/09/Chap124a.pdf>. Accessed August 20, 2021. [DLNR] Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015b. Hawaii Wildlife Action Plan. <https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/files/2016/12/HI-SWAP-2015.pdf>. Accessed August 20, 2021. Gagne, W. C., and L. W. Cuddihy. 1999. Vegetation. Pages 45– 114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii. Revised edition. Bishop Museum Special Publication, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Gorresen, P. M., R. J. Camp, J. K. Klavitter, T. K. Pratt, and P. J. Hart. 2008. Abundance, Distribution and Population Trend of the Hawaiian Hawk: 1998-2007. Hawaii Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-009. University of Hawaii at Hilo. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 31 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Gorreson P. M., F. J. Bonaccorso, C. A. Pinzaril, C. M. Todd, K. Montoya-Aiona, and K. Brinck. 2013. A Fiveyear study of Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) occupancy on the Island of Hawaii. Technical Report HCSU-041. USGS and University of Hawaii at Hilo. Giambelluca, T. W., Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J. K. Eischeid, and D. M. Delparte. 2013. Online rainfall atlas of Hawaii. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94:313-316. Imada, C. T. 2019. Hawaiian Naturalized Vascular Plants Checklist (February 2019 update). Bishop Museum Technical Report 69. <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/publications/pdf/tr69.pdf>. Accessed March 15, 2021. Montoya-Aiona, Kristina M. 2020. Roosting Ecology and Behavior of the Solitary and Foliage -roosting Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). A thesis presented to the faculty of the Tropical Conservation Biology and Environmental Science graduate program University of Hawaii at Hilo. <content (hawaii.edu)> Accessed June 20, 2023. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service, and [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Silver Spring, Maryland. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi). August 2022. Second revision. Silver Spring, Maryland. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Threatened and Endangered Species: Final Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals. Federal Register 80(162):50926-50988. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Hawaiian Hawk Habitat Enhancement and Management. Biology Technical Note No. 17. Honolulu, Hawaii. Nui, Tita. 2017. Update: Crushin' Hakalau Beach Park with Tita Nui. An article for Big Island Now. <https://bigislandnow.com/2017/02/17/crusin-hakalau-beach-park-with-tita-nui/> Accessed March 1, 2024. Parker, D., and G. Balazs. 2015. Map guide to marine turtle nesting and basking in the Hawaiian Islands. Data mapping product by NOAA-PIFSC Marine Turtle Research Program. <https://georgehbalazs. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 11 /Hawaiianls_2015-PIFSCDataMappingProduct.pdf>. Accessed February 20, 2022. Seitz, W. A., K. M. Kagimoto, B. Luehrs, and L. Katahira. 2012. Twenty Years of Conservation and Research Findings of the Hawai`i Island Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Project, 1989-2009. January. Technical Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 32 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Report 178. The Hawaii -Pacific Islands Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit & Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Tomich, P. Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawaii. Second edition. Bishop Museum Special Publication 76. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. [USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Part 17—Conservation of endangered species and other fish or wildlife; Final rule. Federal Register 35(106):8491-8498. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/ 980511.pdf>. Accessed June 20, 2023. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020a. Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis (palapalai) 5 -Year Review Summary and Evaluation. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species nonpublish/3532.pdf Accessed June 20, 2023. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Removing the Hawaiian hawk from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 85(1):164- 189. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a. Species Report for Deparia kaalaana (no common name). Version 1. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plan/Deparia%20kaalaana SR final.pdf Accessed June 20, 2023. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022b. Species Report for Microlepia strigose var. mauiensis (palapalai, palai). Version 1. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Information for Planning and Consultation Resource List. < https: / /ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VE4BIFXIXFERSPURENUMCJSNQM/resources Van Houtan, K. S., J. N. Kittinger, A. L. Lawrence, C. Yoshinaga, V. Ray Born, and A. Fox. 2012. Hawksbill sea turtles in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 11:117-121. Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. Two volumes. Revised edition. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project - 33 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Appendix A. IPaC Resource List for Hakalau Stream Bridge Project Area Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— A-1 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 Phone: (808) 792-9400 Fax: (808) 792-9580 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0014325 Project Name: Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation July 21, 2023 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened and endangered species, as well as designated critical habitat that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and that may be affected by project related actions. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please contact the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (PIFWO) at 808-792-9400 if you have any questions regarding your IPaC species list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may adversely affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological 07/21/2023 2 Evaluation, similar to a Biological Assessment, be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation are described at 50 CFR 402.12. Due to the significant number of listed species found on each island within PIFWO's regulatory jurisdiction, and the difficulty in accurately mapping ranges for species that we have limited information about, your species list may include more species than if you obtained the list directly from a Service biologist. We recommend you use the species links in IPaC to view the life history, habitat descriptions, and recommended avoidance and minimization measures to assist with your initial determination of whether the species or its habitat may occur within your project area. If appropriate habitat is present for a listed species, we recommend surveys be conducted to determine whether the species is also present. If no surveys are conducted, we err on the side of the species, by regulation, and assume the habitat is occupied. Updated avoidance and minimization measures for plants and animals, best management practices for work in or near aquatic environments, and invasive species biosecurity protocols can be found on the PIFWO website at: https://www.fws.gov/office/pacific-islands-fish-and-wildlife/library. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that a listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http:// www. fws. gov/endangered/esa-library/index. Non-federal entities can also use the IPaC generated species list to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We recommend HCP applicants coordinate with the Service early during the HCP development process. For additional information on HCPs, the Habitat Conservation Planning handbook can be found at https:// www. fws. gov/sites/default/files/documents/habitat-conservation-planning-handbook-entire.pdf. Please be aware that wind energy projects should follow the Service's wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds. Listed birds and the Hawaiian hoary bat may also be affected by wind energy development and we recommend development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for those species, as described above. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers can be found at: ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers ■ http://www.towerkill.com ■ http://www.fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation actions that benefit threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act in accordance with section 7(a)(1). Please include the Consultation Tracking Number associated with your IPaC species list in any 07/21/2023 3 request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Please feel free to contact us at PIFWO_admin@fws.gov or 808-792-9400 if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally listed species and federally designated critical habitat. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List 07/21/2023 1 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-5000 (808) 792-9400 07/21/2023 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: Project Name: Project Type: Project Description: 2023-0014325 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge - Maintenance Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at Milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W. The proposed bridge work can be divided into 3 major activities: 1) remove, remediate, or encapsulate lead contaminated soils around the bridge; 2) rehabilitate the bridge's deteriorating substructure; and 3) upgrade bridge railings. The construction duration will be no longer than two years. No night work is anticipated during construction. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@19.89939305,-155.12949768013715,14z Counties: Hawaii County, Hawaii 07/21/2023 3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 13 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereas semotus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/770 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws. gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6477.pdf STATUS Endangered 07/21/2023 4 BIRDS NAME STATUS Band-rumped Storm -petrel Oceanodroma castro Endangered Population: USA (HI) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1226 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6939.pdf Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck Anas wyvilliana No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7712 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6934.pdf Hawaiian Coot Fulica americana alai No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7233 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6934.pdf Hawaiian Goose Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1627 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/692 5. p df Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6746 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6939.pdf Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2082 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/6934.pdf Newell's Townsend's Shearwater Pu f finus auricularis newelli No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2048 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6939.pdf Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Threatened 07/21/2023 5 REPTILES NAME STATUS Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened Population: Central North Pacific DPS No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/6929.pdf FLOWERING PLANTS NAME Alani Melicope zahlbruckneri There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7338 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generate d/7060.pdf Nanu Gardenia remyi No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5835 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf STATUS Endangered Endangered FERNS AND ALLIES NAME STATUS Deparia kaalaana Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9612 Microlepia strigosa var. mauiensis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4737 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/PD5R32RVXBG6VOOK5QMMPAEBRA/ documents/generated/7051.pdf CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 07/21/2023 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Private Entity Name: Malie McClellan Address: 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 City: Honolulu State: HI Zip: 96813 Email malie.mcclellan@wsp.com Phone: 8085611324 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration Name: Meesa Otani Email: meesa.otani@dot.gov Phone: 8085612316 Appendix B. General Project Design Guidelines for Endangered Hawaiian Goose, Waterbirds, Seabirds, Hawaiian Hoary Bat, and Green Sea Turtle Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— B-1 Biological Survey Report March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hawaiian hoary bat Hawaiian Hoary Bat Generated July 03, 2023 01:32 AM UTC, IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: March 1, 2020 General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian Hoary Bat Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus): The Hawaiian hoary bat roosts in both exotic and native woody vegetation across all islands and will leave young unattended in trees and shrubs when they forage. If trees or shrubs 15 feet or taller are cleared during the pupping season, there is a risk that young bats could inadvertently be harmed or killed since they are too young to fly or may not move away. Additionally, Hawaiian hoary bats forage for insects from as low as 3 feet to higher than 500 feet above the ground and can become entangled in barbed wire used for fencing. To avoid and minimize impacts to the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project description: • Do not disturb, remove, or trim woody plants greater than 15 feet tall during the bat birthing and pup rearing season (June 1 through September 15). • Do not use barbed wire for fencing. 7/3/2023 1:33 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hawaiian goose Hawaiian Goose Generated July 03, 2023 01:29 AM UTC, IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian Goose Hawaiian goose (nene), (Branta (Nesochen) sandvicensis): Nene are found on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Kauai. They are observed in a variety of habitats, but prefer open areas, such as pastures, golf courses, wetlands, natural grasslands and shrublands, and lava flows. Threats to the species include introduced mammalian and avian predators, wind facilities, and vehicle strikes. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to nene we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project description: • Do not approach, feed, or disturb nene. • If nene are observed loafing or foraging within the project area during the breeding season (September through April), have a biologist familiar with nene nesting behavior survey for nests in and around the project area prior to the resumption of any work. Repeat surveys after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). • Cease all work immediately and contact the Service for further guidance if a nest is discovered within a radius of 150 feet of proposed project, or a previously undiscovered nest is found within the 150 -foot radius after work begins. • In areas where nene are known to be present, post and implement reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. nene 4(d) rule: A 4(d) rule was established at the time the nene was downlisted to threatened status. Under the 4(d) rule, the following actions are not prohibited under the Act, provided the additional measures described in the downlisting rule are adhered to: • Take by landowners, or their agents, conducting intentional harassment in the form of hazing or other deterrent measures not likely to cause direct injury or mortality, or nene surveys. • Take that is incidental to conducting lawful control of introduced predators or habitat management activities for nene. • Take by authorized law enforcement officers for the purpose of aiding or euthanizing sick, injured, or orphaned nene; disposing of dead specimens; and salvaging a dead specimen that may be used for scientific study. 7/3/2023 1:29 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hawaiian waterbirds Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck and 3 more species Generated July 03, 2023 01:31 AM UTC, IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck and 3 more species Published by Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 for the following species included in your project Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck Anas wyvilliana Hawaiian Common Gallinule Gallinula galeata sandvicensis Hawaiian Stilt Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Hawaiian Coot Fulica americana alai Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian (=koloa) Duck and 3 more species Hawaiian waterbirds (Hawaiian stilt, Himantopus mexicanus knudseni; Hawaiian coot, Fulica alai; Hawaiian common gallinule, Gallinula galeata sandvicensis; Hawaiian duck, Anas wyvilliana): Listed Hawaiian waterbirds are found in fresh and brackish -water marshes and natural or man- made ponds. Hawaiian stilts may also be found wherever ephemeral or persistent standing water may occur. Threats to these species include non-native predators, habitat loss, and habitat degradation. Hawaiian ducks are also subject to threats from hybridization with introduced mallards. The creation of standing or open water may result in the attraction of Hawaiian waterbirds to a site (creative nuisance or habitat sink). In particular, the Hawaiian stilt is known to nest in sub- optimal locations (e.g. any ponding water), if water is present. Hawaiian waterbirds attracted to sub -optimal habitat may suffer adverse impacts, such as predation and reduced reproductive success, and thus the project may create an attractive nuisance. Therefore, we recommend you work with our office during project planning so that we may assist you in developing measures to avoid impacts to listed species (e.g., fencing, vegetation control, predator management). To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to Hawaiian waterbirds we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project description: • In areas where waterbirds are known to be present, post and enforce reduced speed limits, and inform project personnel and contractors about the presence of endangered species on-site. • Incorporate the Service's Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments into the project design. • Have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology conduct Hawaiian waterbird nest surveys, where appropriate habitat occurs within the vicinity of the proposed project site, prior to project initiation. Repeat surveys again within 3 days of project initiation and after any subsequent delay of work of 3 or more days (during which the birds may attempt to nest). If a nest or active brood is found: o Contact the Service within 48 hours for further guidance. o Establish and maintain a 100 -foot buffer around all active nests and/or broods until the chicks/ducklings have fledged. Do not conduct potentially disruptive activities or habitat alteration within this buffer. o Have a biological monitor that is familiar with the species' biology present on the project site during all construction or earth moving activities until the chicks/ducklings fledge to ensure that Hawaiian waterbirds and nests are not adversely impacted. 7/3/2023 1:31 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hawaiian seabirds Hawaiian Petrel and 2 more species Generated July 03, 2023 01:25 AM UTC, IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian Petrel and 2 more species Published by Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 for the following species included in your project Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis Newell's Townsend's Shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli Band-rumped Storm -petrel Oceanodroma Castro Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 General Project Design Guidelines - Hawaiian Petrel and 2 more species Endangered Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), Threatened Newell's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli), and Endangered Hawaii Distinct Population Segment of the band-rumped storm -petrel (Oceanodroma castro): Hawaiian seabirds may traverse the project area at night during the breeding, nesting and fledging seasons (March 1 to December 15). Outdoor lighting could result in seabird disorientation, fallout, and injury or mortality. Seabirds are attracted to lights and after circling the lights they may become exhausted and collide with nearby wires, buildings, or other structures or they may land on the ground. Downed seabirds are subject to increased mortality due to collision with automobiles, starvation, and predation by dogs, cats, and other predators. Young birds (fledglings) traversing the project area between September 15 and December 15, in their first flights from their mountain nests to the sea, are particularly vulnerable to light attraction. To avoid and minimize potential project impacts to seabirds we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project description: • Fully shield all outdoor lights so the bulb can only be seen from below. • Install automatic motion sensor switches and controls on all outdoor lights or turn off lights when human activity is not occurring in the lighted area. • Avoid nighttime construction during the seabird fledging period, September 15 through December 15. Listed seabirds have been documented colliding with communication towers, particularly in areas of high seabird passage rate. In general, self-supporting monopoles are the least likely to result in collisions, whereas lattice towers, particularly those that rely on guy -wires, have a greater risk. To avoid and minimize the likelihood that towers will result in collisions by listed seabirds we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project description: • The profile of the tower should be as small as possible, minimize the extent of the tower that protrudes above the surrounding vegetation layer, and avoid the use of guywires. • If the top of the tower must be lit to comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, use a flashing red light verses a steady -beam red or white light. • If possible, co -locate with existing towers or facilities. Seabirds have been known to collide with fences, powerlines, and other structures near nesting colonies. To avoid and minimize the likelihood of collision we recommend you incorporate the following measures into your project description: • Where fences extend above vegetation, integrate three strands of polytape into the fence to increase visibility. • For powerlines, guywires and other cables, minimize exposure above vegetation height and vertical profile. 7/3/2023 1:25 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sea turtles Green Sea Turtle and 2 more species Generated July 03, 2023 06:43 AM UTC, IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. General Project Design Guidelines - Green Sea Turtle and 2 more species Published by Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 for the following species included in your project Green Sea Turtle Green Sea Turtle Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Chelonia mydas Chelonia mydas Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 General Project Design Guidelines - Green Sea Turtle and 2 more species Pacific sea turtles: Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) (Central North Pacific DPS - Hawaii and Johnston Atoll), (Central West Pacific DPS - Mariana Archipelago and Wake NWR) and (Central South Pacific DPS - American Samoa, Palmyra, Kingman, Howland, Baker and Jarvis NWR), and Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata): The Service consults on sea turtles and their use of terrestrial habitats (beaches where nesting and/or basking is known to occur), whereas the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) consults on sea turtles and their use of off -shore and open ocean habitats. We recommend that you consult with NMFS regarding the potential impacts from the proposed project to sea turtles in off -shore and open ocean habitats. Green sea turtles may nest on any sandy beach area in the Pacific Islands. Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate (ranging from sandy beach to crushed coral) with nests typically placed under vegetation. Both species exhibit strong nesting site fidelity. Nesting occurs on Hawaiian beaches from May through September, peaking in June and July, with hatchlings emerging through November and December. Sea turtle nesting in the Western Pacific, Marianas, and South Pacific Islands can occur year-round; peaking in April and July. Nesting in American Samoa is from October to March). Construction on, or in the vicinity of, beaches can result in sand and sediment compaction, sea turtle nest destruction, beach erosion, contaminant and nutrient runoff, and an increase in direct and ambient light pollution which may disorient hatchlings or deter nesting females. Off-road vehicle traffic may result in direct impacts to sea turtles and nests, and also contributes to habitat degradation through erosion and compaction. Projects that alter the natural beach profile, such as nourishment and hardening, including the placement of seawalls, jetties, sandbags, and other structures, are known to reduce the suitability of on -shore habitat for sea turtles. These types of projects often result in sand compaction, erosion, and additional sedimentation in nearshore habitats, resulting in adverse effects to the ecological community and future sea turtle nests. The hardening of a shoreline increases the potential for erosion in adjacent areas, resulting in subsequent requests to install stabilization structures or conduct beach nourishment in adjacent areas. Given projected sea level rise estimates, the likelihood of increase in storm surge intensity, and other factors associated with climate change, we anticipate that beach erosion will continue and likely increase. Whenever possible, projects should consider alternatives that avoid the modification or hardening of coastlines. Beach nourishment or beach hardening projects should evaluate the long-term effect to sea turtle nesting habitat and consider the cumulative effects. To avoid and minimize project impacts to sea turtles and their nests we recommend you incorporate the following applicable measures into your project description: • No vehicle use on, or modification of, the beach/dune environment during the sea turtle nesting or hatching season, or on beaches where sea turtles are known to bask. • Do not remove or destroy native dune vegetation. • Incorporate applicable Best Management Practices for Work in Aquatic Environments into the project design. 7/3/2023 6:43 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 2 Pacific Islands Fish And Wildlife Office - Publication Date: February 1, 2022 General Project Design Guidelines - Green Sea Turtle and 2 more species • Have a biologist familiar with sea turtles conduct a visual survey of the project site to ensure no basking sea turtles are present. o If a basking sea turtle is found within the project area, cease all mechanical or construction activities within 100 feet until the animal voluntarily leaves the area. o Cease all activities between the basking turtle and the ocean. • Remove any project -related debris, trash, or equipment from the beach or dune if not actively being used. • Do not stockpile project -related materials in the intertidal zone, reef flats, or stream channels. Lighting: Optimal nesting habitat is a dark beach free of barriers that restrict sea turtle movement. Nesting turtles may be deterred from approaching or laying successful nests on lighted or disturbed beaches. They may become disoriented by artificial lighting, leading to exhaustion and placement of a nest in an inappropriate location (such as at or below the high tide line). Hatchlings that emerge from nests may also be disoriented by artificial lighting. Inland areas visible from the beach should be sufficiently dark to allow for successful navigation to the ocean. To avoid and minimize project impacts to sea turtles from lighting we recommend incorporating the following applicable measures into your project description: • Avoid nighttime work during the nesting and hatching season. • Minimize the use of lighting and shield all project -related lights so the light is not visible from any beach. o If lights can't be fully shielded or if headlights must be used, fully enclose the light source with light filtering tape or filters. • Incorporate design measures into the construction or operation of buildings adjacent to the beach to reduce ambient outdoor lighting such as: o tinting or using automatic window shades for exterior windows that face the beach; o reducing the height of exterior lighting to below 3 feet and pointed downward or away from the beach; and • minimize light intensity to the lowest level feasible and, when possible, include timers and motion sensors. 7/3/2023 6:43 AM IPaC v6.94.0-rc4 Page 3 Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX F WETLAND DELINEATION TECHNICAL REPORT H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants 50 years of field notes, exploration, and excellence Hakalau Stream Bridge Project Wetland Delineation Technical Report Project # 4639-01 Prepared for: WSP USA 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 Honolulu, HI 96813 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 91-1020 Kai Loli Street • Ewa Beach, HI 96706 • 808.441.2082 • wzvcv.harveyecolo,;y.com March 2024 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Project Introduction and Purpose 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Wetland Study Scope and Purpose 2 1.3 Site Description 2 Section 2.0 Survey Methods 9 2.1 Identification of Jurisdictional Waters 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Regime 10 2.1.2 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites) 12 2.1.3 Identification of Other Waters 14 Section 3.0 Survey Results and Discussion 18 3.1 Assumption and Background Information 18 3.2 Site Conditions and Observations 19 3.3 Identification of Potential Section 404 Wetlands 21 3.3.1 Vegetation 21 3.3.2 Soils 22 3.3.3 Hydrology 22 3.3.4 Rationale for Sample Point Choice 22 3.3.5 Photo Points for Section 404 Wetland 23 3.4 Identification of Section 10/404 Other Waters 24 3.4.1 Rationale for OHWM Transect Choice 25 3.4.2 Photo Points for Section 10/404 Waters (Hakalau Stream) 26 3.5 Areas Not Meeting the Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S 27 3.6 Conclusion 27 Section 4.0 References 28 Tables Table 1. Soil Type, Texture, Drainage Classification, and Hydric Status for the Seven Soil Types Occurring in the Study Area 3 Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status Categories for Vascular Plants 12 Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland and Waters Delineated Within the Project Area 18 Table 4. Summary of Sample Point Locations and Results 23 Table 5. Coordinates and Rationale for Section 404 Wetland Photo Points 23 Table 6. Rationale for Transect Placement and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Level Along Hakalau Stream (Section 404 Waters) 25 Table 7. Coordinates and Rationale for Section 404 Waters (Hakalau Stream) Photo Points 26 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2. Project Area 5 Figure 3. U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map 6 Figure 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Map 7 Figure 5. National Wetland Inventory Map 8 Figure 6. Habitats Map 16 Figure 7. Preliminary ID of Waters of the U.S. 17 Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 1 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Figure 8. Discharge of Hakalau Stream Source: USGS Water data, 2023 (USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl) https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis 19 Appendices Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Plants Observed in and Around the Delineated Waters of the U.S A-1 Natural Resource Conservation Service Custom Soil Report for the Project Site B-1 USAGE Hawaii Pacific Wetland Delineation and OHWM Delineation Data Forms C-1 Photographic Documentation of Wetland and OHWM Delineation D-1 List of Preparers Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Principal -in --Charge, Plant and Wetland Ecologist Terrell Erickson, M.S., Senior Associate, Wetland Ecologist Shahin Ansari, Ph.D., Project Manager, Senior Plant and Wetland Ecologist Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— H. T. Harvey & Associates Wetland Delineation Technical Report March 2024 Section 1.0 Project Introduction and Purpose 1.1 Project Description Hakalau Stream Bridge (Bridge No. 001000190308410) is located at milepost 15.3 of Hawaii Belt Road (Route 19) on the Island of Hawaii at roughly 19°53'58.00" N, 155°07'47.00" W (Figure 1). The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project (the Project). Hakalau Stream Bridge is a historic and an aging steel -trestle bridge that carries Hawaii Belt Road roughly 180 feet above Hakalau Stream and spans roughly 775 feet across Hakalau Valley. It was originally constructed in 1911 as a railroad bridge and was later rehabilitated and converted into a highway bridge after the 1946 tsunami that struck the Island of HawaiiThe Project proposes two main actions: 1) soil remediation and 2) bridge rehabilitation, which are described below. Hakalau Stream Bridge was painted with lead-based paint that has contaminated the soil around the bridge and Hakalau Beach Park, which is below and adjacent to the bridge. In 2000, the lead paint was removed from the Hakalau Stream Bridge, so it would not continue to further contaminate the environment. However, lead remains in the surrounding area, including at Hakalau Beach Park. Because of this contamination, soil remediation for lead abatement is needed to make Hakalau Beach Park and the area surrounding Hakalau Stream Bridge safe for the public. HDOT proposes to remediate lead -contaminated soils surrounding the bridge to restore public use of thc Hakalau Beach Park and to rehabilitate thc substructure of the bridge. Studies conducted by Hawai Department of Health's Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office, formed the basis of HDOT's proposed soil remediation actions. HDOT proposes to replace up to an estimated 7,623 cubic yards of soil in a roughly 2.4 -acre proposed remediation area with the Project Area (Figure 2). Actual depths of clean fill will correspond to actual soil removal depth; the area will be regraded to match pre -construction conditions. Any associated vegetation will be removed and replaced with new vegetation, except for large trees, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The clean soil will be used to re -level the site and allow for revegetation, drainage, and grading. In addition to lead contamination issues, recent bridge inspections have revealed steel corrosion and scour conditions that undermine the structure and foundation of the Hakalau Stream Bridge. The ongoing Hakalau Bridge Bent 8 Repair Project will not be adequate to prevent further deterioration of this Bridge. Therefore, after the completion of soil remediation work, HDOT proposes to rehabilitate the bridge's entire superstructure which includes replacing the existing steel bents and concrete foundations with new concrete bents and foundations to ensure future continued safe operation of the bridge. The concrete trestles would be constructed in approximately the same location as the existing trestles but would have a larger footprint surrounding each existing trestle. Concrete trestles will be installed using drilled shafts up to 6 feet in diameter. These drilled shafts will be constructed on both dry land and in the stream bed. No vegetation clearing for access is anticipated. Construction of the Hakalau Bridge's concrete trestles would be conducted incrementally to allow for continued safe operation. Night work may be conducted to expedite the construction schedule. Temporary Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— H. T. Harvey & Associates Wetland Delineation Technical Report March 2024 best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize potential soil erosion into Hakalau Stream. 1.2 Wetland Study Scope and Purpose The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates "Waters of the United States" (WoUS) including wetlands (termed special aquatic sites) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution 10 Control Act) (CWA) and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. Under Section 404 of the CWA, dredged and fill material may not be discharged into jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) without a permit. Project activities described above in Section 1.1 may result in the discharge of materials in Hakalau Stream and/or any associated wetlands that might occur in the Project Area. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent and distribution of potential WoUS including any associated wetlands that might be impacted by proposed Project activities within the Project Area (Figure 2). H. T. Harvey & Associates examined the Project Area for features that may meet the physical criteria and regulatory definition of Section 404 wetlands and other waters. The field survey, however, was limited to safely accessible portions of the Project Area and excluded the nearly vertical portions of the hillside. 1.3 Site Description The Project site is bound by the Hakalau Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the east and undeveloped lands to the east and north, and a residential neighborhood to the south. The Project Area is about 14 acres and overlaps the Hakalau Gulch with elevations ranging from sea level to about 134 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (Figure 3). The Hakalau Stream bisects the Project Area in the west to east direction and terminates into the Pacific Ocean just outside of the eastern boundary. In general, the Project site is steeped in the history of sugar plantation era in Hawaii and includes several features of historical significance which to some degree have also contributed to the existing ecological landscape here. In 1878 the Hakalau Sugar Plantation was established in Hakalau Bay and grew to be extensive and one of the most modern plantations at that time. In fact, the Hakalau Rail Bridge built by the Hawaiian Railway Company was refurbished to construct what is the existing Hakalau Stream Bridge. There was large scale clearing of at vegetation in Hakalau Bay to not only plant sugarcane on the broad plateaus between the gulches but also to build supporting infrastructure such as ditches to carry water, flumes to transport freshly cut cane, a mill to process sugar, a ford to cross the stream and a road vehicular access to the mill. Remnants of these infrastructure such as the broken sea wall, concrete foundation of the mill, access road, fragments of concrete and metal including remnants of a crane to move sugarcane, and a large (about 9 feet) pipe stanchion can still be found in the Project Area (ASM Affiliates 2023). The climate at the project site is characterized as moderately warm with the day time temperature over a year ranging from 70 to 75°F. The site is very wet; according to the Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 2013), the area receives a mean annual rainfall of approximately 142 inches with the highest rainfall occurring during the months of March and November and the least during the month of June (Giambelluca et al. 2013). Typically, the trade winds blow from east to west, except sometimes (during summer months) the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 2 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates "kona winds" blow in the opposite direction. Two soil units are mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Project Area (Figure 4). Table 1 (next page) summarizes the associated texture, drainage classification, landform setting, and hydric soil status (MRCS 2023a) for these soil types found within the Project Area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the study area is depicted in Figure 5. The NWI identifies one aquatic feature within the study area (NWI 2023): the Hakalau Stream which his classified as riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded. NWI maps are based on interpretation of aerial photography, limited verification of mapped units, and/or classification of wetland types using the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). These data are available for general reference purposes and do not necessarily correspond to the actual presence or absence of jurisdictional waters. Table 1. Soil Type, Texture, Drainage Classification, and Hydric Status for the Seven Soil Types Occurring in the Study Area Soil Symbol Soil Name Soil Texture Drainage Classification Landform Hydric Status 901 Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, Silty Clay 0 to 10% slopes Loam 909 Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, Silty Clay 35 to 100 percent slopes Loam Well drained Ash fields on lava flows. Lower third of mountain flank No Well drained Hilo: Gulches on lava flows. No Lower third of mountain flank Rock Outcrop: Gulches. Side slope Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 3 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Honomu N 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 A Miles 4) H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 1. Vicinity Map Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 N:\Projects4600\4 • Hakalau Beach Park • Former Hakalau Sugar Mill), • H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 2. Study Area Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 4600\4639-01 \Reports \We1Del H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 _ ; Project Boundary NRCS Soil Series Boundary 901 - Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes (6%) 909 - Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes (94%) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture 909 • a • • • 901 N 250 A 125 0 250 Feet H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 9-01 \Reports\WelDel\W elDel.aprx z Project Boundary National Wetlands Inventory 11111 Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Source: USFWS 2023 • • N 170 85 0 170 A Feet H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory Map Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 Section 2.0 Survey Methods Before the survey was conducted, H. T. Harvey & Associates reviewed topographic maps and current and historical aerial photos of the Project Area. These sources included the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, NWI, Google Earth software (Google Inc. 2023), NRCS Soil Survey (2023a and b), Hawaii Watershed Atlas (Parham et al. 2008), and State of Hawaii Geographic Information System (GIS) data for streams (Office of Planning 2017). With background information gleaned from these sources, H. T. Harvey & Associates' certified wetland ecologists, Terrell Erickson and Shahin Ansari, performed a technical determination and delineation of Section 404 wetland and other waters in the Project Area on March 16 and 17, 2023. The technical determination was performed in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition, the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Hawaii and Pacific Region (Version 2.0) (Regional Supplement) (USAGE 2012) was followed to document site conditions relative to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. H. T. Harvey & Associates wetland ecologists performed preliminary mapping of the extent and distribution of wetlands and other WoUS that may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The following sections present descriptions of the methods used to identify Section 404 jurisdictional waters (wetlands and other waters). 2.1 Identification of Jurisdictional Waters The "Routine Determination Method, On -Site Inspection Necessary (Section D)" outlined in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and the updated data forms, vegetation sampling methods, and hydric soil and hydrology indicators developed for the Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region (USACE 2012) were used to examine the vegetation, soils, and hydrology on site. This three -parameter approach to identifying wetlands is based on the presence of a prevalence or dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. In addition to applying these survey methods, we compiled this report in accordance with guidance provided in Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatorg Program (USACE 2016a). This document list the information that must be submitted as part of a request for a jurisdictional determination, including: • Vicinity map (Figure 1) • Project Area map (Figure 2) • USGS topographic map (Figure 3) • NRCS Soils map (Figure 4) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 9 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates • NWI map (Figure 5) • Habitat map (Figure 6) • Photo point locations (located at sample point locations, and numbered according to sample points, depicted on Figure 7). Photo points correspond to photos in Appendix D • Preliminary identification of waters map (Figure 7) • Plant species observed (Appendix A) • Current Soil Survey Report (Appendix B) • Data forms for wetland and OHWM sample points (Appendix C) • Photographic documentation of wetland and OHWM delineation (Appendix D) • Written rationale for sample point choice (Section 3.3.1 Rational for Sample Points and Section 3.4.1 Rationale for OHWM transects) During the survey, the Project Area was examined for topographic features, drainages, alterations to site hydrology or vegetation, and recent significant disturbance. A determination was then made as to whether normal environmental conditions were present at the time of the field survey. In the field, the techniques used to identify wetlands included digging of soil pits in the Project Area (also see "Hydric Soils" under Section 2.1.1), observing the vegetation growing near the soil sample points, and characterizing the current surface and subsurface hydrologic features present near the sample points through both observation of indicators and direct observation of hydrology. Note that digging soil pits was limited than is typically conducted in field studies, due to the presence of lead contaminated soils in this Project Area. Features meeting wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrology criteria were then mapped in the field using a sub -meter GPS unit. 2.1.1 Regulatory Regime On December 30, 20221, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army (the agencies) announced a final rule founded upon the pre -2015 definition of "waters of the United States." To determine jurisdiction for tributaries, adjacent wetlands, and additional waters, the final rule relies on the longstanding approach of applying two standards. Certain types of waters are jurisdictional under the final rule if they meet either the relatively permanent standard or significant nexus standard. • Relatively Permanent is a test that provides important efficiencies and clarity for regulators and the public by readily identifying a subset of waters that will virtually always significantly affect paragraph (a)(1) waters. To meet the relatively permanent standard, the waterbodies must be relatively 1 This rule took effect on March 20, 2023. However, in light of preliminary injunctions, at the time of this publication the agencies are interpreting "waters of the United States" consistent with the pre -2015 regulatory regime in 26 states (not including California) until further notice. This delineation is also consistent with the pre -2015 regulatory mapping regime. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 10 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates permanent, standing, or continuously flowing waters connected to paragraph (a) (1) waters or waters with a continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters or to paragraph (a)(1) waters. • Significant Nexus is a test that clarifies if certain waterbodies, such as tributaries and wetlands, are subject to the Clean Water Act based on their connection to and effect on larger downstream waters that Congress fundamentally sought to protect. A significant nexus exists if the waterbody (alone or in combination) significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters. The agencies' definition of "waters of the United States" does not affect the longstanding activity -based permitting exemptions provided to the agricultural community by the Clean Water Act. Additionally, the final rule codifies eight exclusions from the definition of "waters of the United States" in the regulatory text to provide clarity, consistency, and certainty to a broad range of stakeholders. The exclusions are: • Prior converted cropland, adopting the U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition and generally excluding wetlands that were converted to cropland prior to December 23, 1985. • Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, are designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. • Ditches (including roadside ditches), excavated wholly in and draining only dry land, and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. • Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased. • Artificial lakes or ponds, created by excavating or diking dry land that are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. • Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools, and other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land. • Waterfilled depressions, created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of "waters of the United States." • Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes), that are characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. This report was prepared following the ruling issued May 23, 2023 for Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agenc, but before guidance related to the ruling was issued to USACE regulatory staff. Based on the tidal influence and proximity to the Pacific Ocean, we have assumed that all areas meeting USAGE jurisdictional guidance on 3 -parameter wetlands and Section 404 waters would still be considered waters of the U.S. for the purposes of this report. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 11 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 2.1.2 Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites) Where wetland field characteristics were present, the surveyor examined vegetation, soils, and hydrology using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the updated data forms, vegetation sampling methods, and hydric soil and hydrology indicators developed for the Hawaii and Pacific Region Supplement (USAGE 2012). 2.1.2.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Plants that can grow in soils that are saturated or inundated for long periods of time, which contain little or no oxygen when wetted, are considered adapted to those soils and are called hydrophytic. There are different levels of adaptation, as summarized in Table 2. Some plants can only grow in soils saturated with water (and depleted of oxygen), some are mostly found in this condition, and some are found equally in wet soils and in dry soils. Plants observed at each of the sample sites were identified to species, where possible, using the Manual of Flower* Plants of Hawaii _Revised Edition (Wagner et al. 1999) and the Hawaiian Vascular Plants Checklist February 2019 Update (Imada 2019). The wetland indicator status of each species was obtained from the Hawaii and Pacific Islands Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2020). Wetland indicator species are designated according to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. For instance, a species with a presumed frequency of occurrence of 67 to 99% in wetlands is designated a facultative wetland indicator species. The wetland indicator groups, indicator symbol, and the frequencies of occurrence of species within wetlands, provided as a percentage, are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Wetland Indicator Status Categories for Vascular Plants Indicator Category Symbol Frequency (%) of Occurrence in Wetlands' Obligate Facultative wetland Facultative Facultative upland Upland Not Listed OBL FAC W FAC FACU UPL NI >99 (Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands) 67 - 99 (Usually a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands) 34- 66 (Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte) 1 - 33 (Occasionally is a hydrophyte, but usually occurs in uplands) <1% (Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands) Considered to be an upland species 1 Based on information contained in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Plant species that are not listed in the Hawaii and Pacific Islands Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2020) are considered Upland species in Appendix A - Plants Observed in the Project Area. Obligate and facultative wetland indicator species are hydrophytes that occur "in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Facultative indicator species may be considered wetland indicators when found growing in hydric soils that experience periodic saturation. Plant species that are not on the regional list of wetland indicator species are considered upland species. A complete list of the vascular plants observed within the study area, including their current indicator statuses, has been provided in Appendix A. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 12 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 2.1.2.2 Hydric Soils Given that the Project Area contained soils with low to high levels of lead contamination, only visual/color indicators for hydric soils were examined with limited assessment of soil texture. The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines a hydric soil as one formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches of soil (NRCS 2018). Hydric soils include soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. In general, evidence of a hydric soil includes characteristics such as reducing soil conditions, soils with bright mottles and/or low matrix chroma, and soils listed as hydric by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2023b). Reducing soil conditions can also include circumstances where there is evidence of frequent ponding for long or very long duration. A long duration is defined as a period of inundation for a single event that ranges from 7 days to a month, and very long is greater than one month (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Munsell Soil Notations (Munsell 2021) were recorded for the soil matrix of each soil sample. The Munsell color system is based on three color dimensions: hue, value, and chroma. A brief description of each component of the system is described below, in the order they are used in describing soil color (i.e., hue/value/chroma): 1. Hue—The Munsell Soil Color Chart is divided into five principal hues: yellow (Y), green (G), purple (P), blue (B), and red (R), along with intermediate hucs such as yellow -red (YR) and green -yellow (GY). Example of commonly encountered hue numbers include 2.5YR, 10YR, and 5Y. Value—Refers to lightness, ranging from white to grey to black. Common numerical values for value in the Munsell Soil Color Chart range from 2 for saturated soils to 8 for faded or light colors. Hydric soils often show low -value colors when soils have accumulated sufficient organic material to indicate development under wetland conditions, but can show high-value colors when iron depletion has occurred, removing color value from the soil matrix. Value numbers are commonly reported as 8/, 2.5/, and 6/. 2. 3. Chroma—Describes the purity of the color, from "true" or "pure" colors to "pastel" or "washed out" colors. Chromas commonlv range from 1 to 8, but can be higher for gleys. Soil matrix chroma values that are 1 or less, or 2 or less when mottling is present, are typical of soils that have developed under anaerobic conditions. Chroma numbers are listed, for example, as /1, /5, and /8. The NRCS Web Soil Survey (MRCS 2023) was consulted to determine which soil types have been mapped in the study area (Table 1, Figure 4). Detailed descriptions of these soil types are provided in Appendix B. 2.1.2.3 Hydrology Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Wetland hydrology indicators provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrologic regime. Primary indicators might include visual observation of surface water (Al), high water table (A2), water marks (B1), and hydrogen sulfide odor (C1). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 13 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Secondary indicators might include a passing score for the FAC -neutral test (D5), stunted or stressed plants (D1) and saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9). Each of the sample points was examined for positive field indicators (primary and secondary) of wetland hydrology, following the guidance provided in the Regional Supplement. Appendix C contains the wetland datasheets used to document the three parameter approach described above. Appendix D contains photos of the wetland delineation. 2.1.3 Identification of Other Waters Surveys were also conducted within the Project Area for "other waters", which includes lakes, streams, slough channels, seasonal ponds, tributary waters, non -wetland linear drainages, and salt ponds. Such areas arc identified by the (seasonal or perennial) presence of standing or running water and generally lack hydrophytic vegetation. In non -tidal waters, the USAGE Section 404 jurisdiction extends to the OHWM which is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 as "the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character o f the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area." "Other waters" extend to the OHWM on opposing channel banks in non -tidal drainage channels. In tidal waters, Section 404 jurisdiction extends to the landward extent of wetland vegetation of the high tide line (HTL). This can either be identified in the field from direct observations of the HTL via highest extent of wrack, or highest extent of shelving along undeveloped soil banks. Outside of direct observation HTL can be estimated using tidal guage and elevation data. In tidal waters, Section 10 waters include open water, mud flats, and adjacent special aquatic sites up to the limit of the mean high water (MHW) line in areas currently exposed to fully tidal or muted -tidal action. In concert with USACE's efforts to revise the wetland delineation manuals and make them more specific to different geographic regions of the United States, as described above, efforts have been initiated by USAGE to develop an OHWM delineation manual. In particular, two relatively recent publications have attempted to further refine the definition of OHWM: • Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 (USAGE 2005) deals specifically with the topic of OHWM identification, and lists the following physical characteristics that should be considered when making an OHWM determination: (1) natural line impressed on the bank; (2) shelving; (3) changes in the character of the soil; (4) destruction of terrestrial vegetation; (5) wracking; (6) vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; (7) sediment sorting; (8) leaf litter disturbed or washed away; (9) scour; (10) deposition; (11) multiple observed flow events; (12) bed and banks; (13) water staining; and (14) and change in plant community. • National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams: Interim Version (David et al. 2022), provides consistent science -based method for delineating OHWM in streams. This manual provides guidance to observe, evaluate, and select appropriate field indicators Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 14 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates to identify the OHWM elevation that can be applied to any type of stream system. It also introduces a (new) two-page data sheet to record these observations. Starting at the eastern boundary of the Project Area, close to where the stream enters the Pacific Ocean, we walked upstream past the overhead Hakalau Stream Bridge and past the concrete stream ford to where the stream enters the western boundary of the Project Area. We investigated the stream bed and banks and the surrounding area and gathered various geomorphic, vegetation, sediment, and ancillary indicators from both banks per USAGE 2005 guidance and the interim National OHWM Manual (David et al 2022) to delineate jurisdictional waters. In order to better characterize the stream and help with delineating the OHWM level, we established four OHWM transects perpendicular to the stream bed at representative different locations along the stretch of the channel in the Project Area. Appendix C contains the OHWM data forms for all four transects including representative pictures taken at these transects. We placed flags at the OHWM indicators on the left and right banks of each transect. Global Positioning System (GPS) data was collected in the field using a Trimble GeoXTTM GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy. We also took a set of photographs (left bank and right bank; viewing downstream) of the observed OHWM indicators on each transect (Appendix D). After the survey, the GPS data was processed using ARC GIS to map the extent of the Section 404 other waters. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 15 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates ep�efielwxitle laQlaMUeCleN,s1May\L9-6E99\0096sPel,d\ N Q — O a 0 0 p. N Q 2 L 4- c U v .Q .0 O _ 0 ce a-0 0 0 150 0 c 0 0 (1) c 0 0 E H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants N:\Projects4600\4 300933°W 1:19.9006033°N • • Ordinary High Water Mark Transel (T)Project Boundary Photo Points O Sample Points Ordinary High Water Mark Transects (T) Ordinary High Water Mark / High -tide Line Upland (0.17 ac) Waters of the U.S. (2.46 ac) Section 10/404 (1.28 ac) Section 404 (1.01 ac) Section 404 Wetlands Wetland (0.35 ac) Photo 5 Photo 6 0. Photo Photo 3 0 •• ♦ •i i • • • • -�i i • • i i -• • i - • i - i ,a4�♦ 111295872°W ._:� •_ 119.8971178°N e N 170 85 0 170 A Feet Shahin created aa ignA 77o Wetland Delineatio ?Agri, P and Terrell on March16and Erickson H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 7. Preliminary ID of Section 404 Wetlands and Other Waters Hakalau Bridge Rehabilitation Project Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters (4639-01) March 2024 Section 3.0 Survey Results and Discussion The following vegetation types were identified within the study area: (1) Mixed Alien Forest; (2) Mosaic of Mixed Alien Forest, Alien -Dominated Paca Fernland, and Alien -Dominated Herbland; (3) Alien -Dominated Riparian Forest (Figure 6). Two sample points (SPs) and four OHWM transects (T1 -T4) were examined to identify jurisdictional features (Figure 7) (Appendices C and D). Within the Project Area, approximately 2.64 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters regulated by USAGE were identified (Table 3). The results of the delineation are described below. Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Wetland and Waters Delineated Within the Project Area Habitat Type Area (acres) Total Section 404 Wetlands 0.35 Total Other Waters 2.29 Total Section 404 Other Waters 1.01 Total Section 10 Other Waters 1.28 Total potential Waters of the U.S. 2.64 Information assembled during this investigation and pertinent to the identification of jurisdictional Section 404 waters is further discussed below and presented in the five appendices of this report. • Appendix A—Plants Observed in the Project Area • Appendix B—Custom Soil Report for the Project Area • Appendix C—USACE wetland data forms for wetland and OHWM delineations • Appendix D— Photographic Documentation The sections below describe the site conditions observed during this delineation survey, along with pertinent background information, assumptions and rationale. 3.1 Assumption and Background Information The preliminary delineation assumes that relatively normal circumstances prevailed at the time of this March 2023 survey, and results are based upon the conditions present at the time of the survey. The survey was performed using the "Routine Method of Determination" using three parameters, as outlined in the Regional Supplement for wetlands and the method described to identify OHWM level for streams in the National Manual. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 18 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Over the two-day field study, the weather was hot, dry, and with mild trade winds. Rainfall data suggests that in the several weeks leading up to the survey this area received heavy rains. The closest rain gauge is (National Weather Service Location ID: Piihonua [HI91]-PIIH1) about 12 miles to the south of the Project Area. Per this station, the 30 -year average rainfall from January to March for this area is 45.5 inches (NWS 2023) and the area received about 61.9 inches; that is 136% of the average rainfall for this quarterly duration in 2023 (NWS 2023). The stream flow recorded a couple weeks before the survey was conducted was high; the USGS Hakalau Stream gauge (USGS 16717700 near elevation 1300 feet) recorded around 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the beginning of March. But, discharge rapidly decreased during the couple weeks leading up to the survey and was 0.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) on March 16th (Figure 8) USGS 2023). The stream thus had ordinary low flows at the time of the survey. Also the Project Area did not experience any recent extreme flood or drought events. usGs Discharge, cubic feet per second 25 20 15 10 0 USGS 16717700 Hakalau Stream nr alt 1300 ft, HI ft �if4h hh hjkFkh h_� �Zl,i i. i. ii. - � 4L Jan Jan Feb Feb liar 14 28 11 25 11 2023 2023 2823 2023 2023 Provisional Data Subject to Revision ---- Median daily statistic (1 year) 1IE Measured discharge Discharge — Maxinun Reporting Limit Figure 8. Discharge of Hakalau Stream Source: USGS Water data, 2023 (USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl) https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis 3.2 Site Conditions and Observations The steep hillsides of Hakalau Gulch occupy the northern and southern portions of the Project Area and the stream flows through the gulch bottom in the center (Appendix D, Photo 1). The Project Area is accessed from Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 19 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates the top of the gulch on the southern side via the Old Mamalahoa Highway as well as by a set of stone stairs leading to the site of the old sugar mill. The alignment of this old highway loops just west of the Project Area, crosses Hakalau Stream and terminates at the base of the northern hill slope in the western corner of the Project Area. From here a gravel road runs through the upper northern bank between the base of the hill and the stream all the way to the ocean. A southern fork of this gravel road crosses the Hakalau Stream via a reinforced concrete ford and extends to the ocean in the southern portion of the Project Area between the stream and the bottom of the southern hillside. This southern fork used to be the old access road to the mill site in the southeastern corner (Appendix D, Photo 1). Both the forks pass under the Hakalau Stream Bridge. The upper banks on either side of Hakalau Stream are relatively flat for about 50-100 feet and then the terrain sharply rises to nearly vertical hillsides (Appendix D Photo 2). The entire Project Arca except for the stream channel, the stream ford, the old Mamalaoha Highway and the old mill access road, is heavily vegetated, including the steep hillsides. Common canopy trees include gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis), African tulip tree (Spathodea campanulata), and common ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia). Blue trumpet vine (Thunbergia grandiflora) and golden pothos (Eppremnumpinnatum) were abundant and draped on the trees on the hillsides. Paca fern (Dpla<ium esculentum), cane grass (Cenchruspurpureus), wedelia (Sphagneticola trilobata), and guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) were abundant among the herbaceous ground cover found in the Project Area. Hakalau is a major perennial stream that drains the Hakalau watershed, which is a small to medium (about 9 square miles) watershed, steeper in the upper parts and with some embayment (Parham et al 2008). The stream enters the Project Area at the western boundary as a braided system meandering around rocky vegetated islands. Just upstream of the concrete ford, it splits around a vegetated rocky peninsula with the northern channel flowing over the concrete ford and the southern channel flowing through the concrete culvert of the old mill access road. Below the concrete ford there is a vegetated rock island and water flows around it and merges into a single channel below this rock island. The landscape position of Hakalau Stream in the Project Area is typical of streams entering the ocean in Hawaii. At the stream mouth the Hakalau Stream backs up against a gravel bar, forming a deep pool and is above the mean high water mark (Appendix D, Photo 3). During very high flows, it cuts through to the ocean but otherwise during regular flows it ponds behind this gravel bar or berm which is just outside of the eastern border of the Project Area. Hakalau Stream is not channelized with natural bed and banks in the Project Area, except for the concrete footings of the overhead Hakalau Bridge that are situated in the stream bed and the reinforced concrete ford toward the upper/western portion of the stream that affects stream flow (Appendix D, Photo 4). At the time of the survey, water was flowing over the ford and the stream had normal low discharge with exposed inner banks. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 20 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 3.3 Identification of Potential Section 404 Wetlands Areas that were considered to be wetlands were dominated by hydrophytes, possessed hydric soil characters, and demonstrated evidence of wetland hydrology. Approximately 0.35 acres of potential USACE jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the Project Area (Figure 7). One continuous wetland feature was mapped in the southern portion of the Project Area (Figure 7). A narrow ditch runs parallel to the base of the southern hillside and at the eastern end it curves north toward the stream bank and terminates before reaching the old mill access road. From here the wetland extends over a concave stretch of this old mill access road up until there is a slight increase (6 to 12 inches) in elevation toward the stream bank. The old remnant infrastructure from the plantation time have resulted in this wetland that exhibited natural conditions with somewhat of an unnatural boundary around the old mill access road. It should be noted that during this 2023 delineation, only a portion of the wetland was mapped in the field. Given the safety concerns due to terrain, dense vegetation, and lead contaminated soils, we could not access and map the portion of the ditch that ran parallel to the foot of the southern hillside. (Appendix D, Photos 5 to 8). To map this portion of the ditch, we relied on topographic data gathered for this Project along with signatures of saturation and hydrophytic vegetation gathered in the field (described below in sub -section "Vegetation"). 3.3.1 Vegetation Obligate plant species of water smartweed (Persicariapunctata) was primarily found in the ponded portion of the wetland overlapping the old mill access road (Appendix D, Photo 5). The western portion of the narrow road leading up to the ponded area, as well as the stretch of road that continued east beyond this ponded area were mostly un -vegetated, dry bare ground. There were tire marks in the saturated areas and we also saw people drive up and down this ponded stretch indicating that it is used on a regular basis by people accessing the beach park in the southeastern corner of the Project Area. This also probably explains the lack of dense vegetation covering the ponded portion of the road. North of the ponded road (toward the stream), the boundary between ponded and non-ponded but still saturated areas was clear and the vegetation changed from obligate smartweed in the stagnant water to a dense mix of FAC species of wedelia, honohono (Gommelin diffusa), California grass (Urochloa mutica), and FACW- status paca ferns (Appendix D, Photo 6). The boundary between saturated and upland dry area here followed the slight change in elevation; and although the vegetation continued to be dominated by FAC wedelia plants, it was mixed in with the upland -status guinea grass. South of the ponded road (toward the steep southern hillside) too, there is a clear boundary between the obligate plant species in the ponded water on the road to dense growth of a mix of FACW and FAC -status species of wedelia, honohono, and California grass. However, unlike on the north side the vegetation then transitions to obligate plant species (water smartweed and water primrose [Ludvigia octovalvis]) in a ponded ditch. Other plant species in and around the ditch included FACW-status species of paca ferns, job's tears (Coix lachryma jobz), and honohono; and FAC -status ape (Alocasia macrorrhios) and ti plants (Cordyline fruticosa) (Appendix D, Photos 7, Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 21 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 8, and 9). Of particular note were the thickets of the FACW paca ferns that dominated the banks of this narrow (- six feet) ditch. An interesting feature was also the presence of banana trees (FACU) along the banks of the ditch, perhaps remnants from the sugar plantation time. Because the remaining portion of the ditch that runs parallel to the southern hillside was not accessible, we used this vegetation signature of a row of banana trees amongst the paca ferns as seen from the old mil access road and from the Old Mamalaoha Highway on top of the southern hillside to determine the extent of the ditch in the east -west direction (Appendix D, Photos 10 to 14). We then relied on the most recent topographic data to verify the length and width (north -south) of this inaccessible ditch. 3.3.2 Soils Due to the lead contaminated soils in the Project Area, analysis for this 2023 delineation was mostly limited to visual observations of the soil matrix. Histic Epipedon (A2) was the hydric soil indicator in the soil pit representative of the portion of the wetland that was physically delineated in the field. The somewhat concave stretch of the old access road perpendicular to the ditch formed a restrictive layer. Depth in the saturated sample pit (SP1) was restricted to just three inches with color of 5 YR 2.5/1. The soil profile was composed of fibrous peat and mucky peat and texture also felt (through thick rubber gloves, given lead contamination) like slick muck (Appendix C, Appendix D: Photo 15). Moving north from the old road alignment and toward the stream bank, the dry unsaturated dy soils were observed where the elevation increased by about 6 to 12 inches. A soil pit (SP2) here revealed continuation of the restrictive layer however without the histic epipedon found in the saturated and ponded areas. Moreover this sample pit was mostly composed of mass of wedelia roots (Appendix C, Appendix D: Photo 16). On the east and western side of the ponded area ton, we used the transition from saturated soils with histic epipedon to unsaturated dry soils to map the boundary of the wetland. 3.3.3 Hydrology Several primary hydrology indicators of surface water (A1), saturation (A3), drift deposits (B3), and aquatic fauna (B13) along with secondary indicator of drainage patterns (B10) were observed during the two-day field survey. The primary hydrology supporting the wetland appears to be surface water from the perennial stream via the ditch and also by rain water that seeps down from the southern hillside. The water flows from the ditch northward on to the concave portion of the old mill access road (perpendicular to the ditch) and gets ponded against the upslope (about 5-10%) terrain toward the stream bank. The concave stretch in the old mill access road, over the decades since the plantation operations were abandoned in early 1970s, has served as a restrictive layer and created aquis conditions supporting obligate plant species as well as aquatic fauna—tadpoles and mosquito fish (Ganbusia sp.). Formation of the slick mucky histic epipedon is indicative that these aquic conditions have persisted for a long time (Appendix D, Photo 17). 3.3.4 Rationale for Sample Point Choice Two sample points and were selected to document conditions in representative jurisdictional and non - jurisdictional areas (Figure 7). Rationale and findings for wetland data form sample point locations are summarized in Table 4. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 22 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Table 4. Summary of Sample Point Locations and Results Hydrophytic Hydric Wetland Overall Wetland Name Sampling Rationale Vegetation Soil? Hydrology? Assessment SP1 (Photo 15) SP2 (Photo 16) Placed in the saturated soils Yes adjacent to the ponded area. Paired point placed in the Yes slightly elevated and unsaturated, dry area bordering the saturated edge. Yes Yes No No This area met the three parameter wetland criteria. This area did not meet the three parameter wetland criteria. 3.3.5 Photo Points for Section 404 Wetland Photo point labels, coordinates, and rationales for photo documentation are presented in Table 5. Photo points 15 and 16 are associated with sample points SP1 and SP2 depicted on Figure 7. Photo points 10 to 14 were taken from the elevated Old Mamalahoa Highway in the Project Area to identify and document the signature of banana trees and hydrophytic vegetation along the banks of the ditch. Photos are presented in Appendix D. Table 5. Coordinates and Rationale for Section 404 Wetland Photo Points Label Latitude, Longitude Depiction Photo 10 19.898507°N 155.129967°W Photo 11 19.898320°N 155.129801°W Photo 12 19.898436°N 155.129581°W Photo 13 19.898572°N 155.129313°W Photo 14 19.899041°N 155.129392°W Photo 15 19.899309°N (SP1) 155.129365°W Photo 16 19.899359°N (SP2) 155.129392°W Looking down and north from old Mamalahoa Highway on top of the southern hill at the eastern end of the ditch as identified by the end of the row of banana trees. Looking down and north from old Mamalahoa Highway on top of the southern hill at the ditch as identified by the row of banana trees. Point taken slightly east of Photo point 10. Looking down and north from old Mamalahoa Highway on top of the southern hill at the ditch as identified by the row of banana trees. Point taken slightly east of Photo point 11. Looking down and north from old Mamalahoa Highway on top of the southern hill at the eastern end of the ditch as identified by the end of the row of banana trees. Point taken slightly east of Photo point 12. Looking south from the old mill access road in the gulch bottom toward the bottom of the southern hillside and the row of banana trees used to delineate the inaccessible ditch. SP1. Depicting saturated soils in the wetland. Mucky peat of Hisfic Epipedon restricted to three inches due to the old concrete road. Vegetation dominated by FAC wedelia, FACW honohono, and FACW California grass. SP2. Depicting dry upland paired point in dry unsaturated area bordering wetland north of the old mill access road. Vegetation dominated by FAC wedelia plants mixed with upland status guinea grass. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 23 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 3.4 Identification of Section 10/404 Other Waters Approximately 2.29 acres of potential other waters were identified along the Hakalau Stream flowing through the Project Area. At the time of the survey, water, at the mouth of Hakalau Stream was seen flowing toward the ocean. However, topographic data indicated the high tide line above the mean sea level elevation to be further upstream, past the rocky island but just below (east) the concrete ford. This spatially assessed high tide line was used to identify potentially jurisdictional Section 10 waters in Hakalau Stream. There appears to be a continuum of Section 404 to Section 10 waters in this stretch of Hakalau Stream in the BSA. Therefore, of the 2.29 acres, 1.28 acres were identified as potential Section 10/404 waters and the remaining 1.01 acres were identified as Section 404 waters. The average width of the stream channel in the Project Area is 150 feet. The bank slopes varied from less than 30% to greater than 60%. All four indicator types ---geomorphic, vegetation, sediment, and ancillary contributed to delineating the OHWM levels along the Hakalau Stream. At its lowermost reach in the Project Area, Hakalau Stream forms a deep pool (Appendix D, Photo 18). Transect 1 was representative of this lower reach of the stream. The width of the stream here was about 169 feet and both the left and the right banks had gentle slopes of less than 30 percent. Along both banks, the main indicator at the OHWM level was the presence of large drift wood with the break in the slope on the bank being more subtle. Change in vegetation was documented below the OHWM as being absent and transitioning to a thick cover of wedelia. Wedelia is a fast growing prostrate ground cover which during low flow periods is likely to spread quickly and therefore was considered a poor indicator of the high water level mark. Rather, the collecting of drift wood and debris, particular at the base of large trees in combination with the sorting of sediment from boulders and cobbles in the stream to gravel and finer sediment was used to demarcate the OHWM level here (Appendix D Photos 18, 19, and 20). Transect 2 was representative of the stretch of stream where the water, after meandering around the upstream rock island, merges into a single channel. The width of the stream here is about 104 feet. The slopes on both banks were greater than 60 percent. Break in slope on the bank, matted down and bent vegetation, and exposed roots below intact soil layer were the primary indicators at the high water mark level here. Sediment sorting from boulders and cobble to gravel and finer sediment was more obvious on the right than left bank below the OHWM (Appendix D, Photos 21 and 22). Further upstream, Transect 3 overlapped the rock island in the center of the stream channel. It is representative of the stretch of the stream that meanders around this rock island just downstream from the concrete ford (Appendix D, Photo 23). The width of the stream channel here, including the vegetated rock island in the center was about 169 feet. The stream channel between the island and the left bank was narrower and the left bank had about 30 percent slope. Destroyed, matted, and/or bent down vegetation were the strongest indicators at and below the high water mark on the left bank. The stream channel between the island and the right bank was was wider with the right bank also being much steeper (>60 percent slope). Undercutting with exposed roots below together with shelving and obstruction of vegetation behind the tree trunks were better indicators of the high water mark level on the right bank. Both the upper banks as well as the rock island in the center of the Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 24 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates stream channel were heavily vegetated. The ground cover was mostly composed of thickets of FACW paca ferns and FAC cane grass. Scattered on the rock island were Colombian cuphea (Cuphea carthagenensis) plants that also have a FAC -status. Trees species mostly included albizia (Falcataria moluccana), African tulip (Spathodea campanulata), mango (1ylangifera indica), and Chinenes banyan (Ficus microcarpa)—all with FACU indicator status. The fourth transect is representative of the western and uppermost reach of the stream where it enters the Project area and is upstream of the concrete ford. There were several small rock islands in the stream channel along this transect and a large triangular rock island against the concrete ford just below this transect. The width of the channel here was about 158 feet across and unlike the downstream transect, the left bank was steeper (% Name Sampling Rationale Indicators Above OHWM Level Indicators At OHWM Indicators Below Level OHWM level and overlapping rock island and bent in the stream channel vegetation 3.4.2 Photo Points for Section 10/404 Waters (Hakalau Stream) Photo point labels, coordinates, and rationales for photo documentation are presented in Table 7. Photo points 18 to 30 were taken to depict the OHWM indicators taken at the four transect locations. Photos are presented in Appendix D. Table 7. Coordinates and Rationale for Section 404 Waters (Hakalau Stream) Photo Points Label (As in Appendix D) Latitude, Longitude Depiction Transect 1 Photo 18 19.899560°N 155.129238°W Transect 1 Photo 19 19.899560°N 155.129238°W Transect 1 Photo 20 Transect 2 Photo 21 Transect 2 Photo 2 2 Transect 3 Photo 23 Transect 3 Photo 24 Transect 3 Photo 25 Transect 3 Photo 26 Transect 4 Photo 27 Transect 4 Photo 28 Transect 4 Photo 29 Transect 4 Photo 30 19.899560°N 155.129238°W 19.899161°N 155.129903°W 19.899161'N 155.129903°W 19.898165°N 155.130195°W 19.898995°N 155.130791°W 19.8986547°N 155.130442°W 19.8986547°N 155.130442°W 19.8985635°N 155.130625°W 19.8985465°N 155.1312053°W 19.8984336°N 155.1307171°W 19.8984336°N 155.1307171°W Looking north from the right bank toward the left bank. OHWM indicators (R)—presence of drift wood (at and above), destruction of vegetation (below); (L)—sorting of sediment (below) Looking south at the right bank. OHWM indicators—sorting from cobbles to fine sediment (below) and collecting of drift wood and debris (at and above) Looking south at right bank; OHWM level indicators—drift wood (at), sediment sorting (below). Looking south at right bank; OHWM level indicators—break in bank (at), exposed roots below intact soil layer (below). Looking north at left bank from the right bank. OHWM indicator—break in slope and matted down and destroyed vegetation (below) Aerial view of transect 3 location right below the concrete ford and with vegetated rock island in center of channel Looking upstream (west) at left bank. OHWM indicator— destroyed and matted down vegetation (below) Looking south at right bank. OHWM indicator—cut in bank (at) and matted down vegetation (below) Looking northwest from the right bank toward the rock island and the concrete ford. Just below (east) of Transect 4. Looking north at the rock island and the concrete ford from where the concrete ford transitions into the old mill access road. Looking west (upstream) at left bank. OHWM indicators— break in slope (at), wracking and presence of litter (above), matted down vegetation (below) Looking south toward the right bank. OHWM indicator— matted down vegetation (at and below). Looking northwest and upstream toward the rocky vegetated island in the center of the stream channel Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 26 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates 3.5 Areas Not Meeting the Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S. The remainder of the study area does not meet the regulatory definitions of Section 404 wetlands or other waters. Non -jurisdictional uplands includes the vegetation types of Mixed Alien Forest. These vegetation types occur in upland landscape positions and do not meet the USACE criteria for wetlands. While FACW species such as paca ferns and honohono and FAC species such as cane grass, wedelia, and sourbush (Pluchea carolinensis) dominated the gulch bottom; areas mapped as wetlands differed in that they contained obligate plant species, did not contain upland plants species, were in topographic depressions, and had clear indicators of hydric soil and/or active hydrology. 3.6 Conclusion In conclusion, H. T. Harvey and Associates' delineation of Section 404 waters in the Project Area is based upon our best professional judgement. Federal jurisdiction is solely dependent on the determination and confirmation by USACE. Acceptance may require a site visit by a USAGE representative to confirm the delineation data points gathered in the surveyed area. This delineation is not official until HDOT receives an acceptance letter from USACE. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 27 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Section 4.0 References ASM Affiliates. 2023. An Archeological Inventory Survey for the Hakalau Stream Bridge Rehabilitation and Lead Remediation Project. Report prepared for WSP USA. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. David, G. C. L., Fritz, K. M., Nadeau, T. -L., Topping, B. J., Allen, A. 0., Trier, P. H., Kichefski, S. L., James, L. A., Wohl, E. E., Hamill, D. D. 2022. National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams: Interim Version (ERDC/CRREL TR -22-26). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army. Giambelluca, T. W., Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y. -L. Chen, P. -S. Chu, J. K. Eischeid, and D. M. Delparte. 2013. Online rainfall atlas of Hawaii. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94:313-316. Google Inc. 2023. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. <http://earth.google.com>. Accessed Marcht 10. Imada, I. T. 2019. Hawaiian Naturalized Vascular Plants Checklist. Bishop Museum Technical Report 69. <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/publications/pdf/tr69.pdf>. Accessed November 2021. Munsell. 2009. Soil Color Charts, Munsell Color X -rite. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Lichvar, R. W., D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner, and N. C. Melvin. 2016. Hawaii 2016 Regional Plant List. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S.: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 8.2). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. [MRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023a. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov>. Accessed March 10. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 28 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates [MRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022b. National Hydric Soils List. <http://www.nres.usda. gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/>. Accessed March 10, 2023. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2023. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://www. fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html>. Accessed March 10. [NWS] National Weather Service. 2023. Precipitation Summaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <https://www.weather.gov/hfo/hydro_summary>. Accessed May 25. Office of Planning. 2017. Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. Streams (Perennial and Non -Perennial) of the State of Hawaii. <http://gcoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/56046b3578064d989ffa485e4cd3dc46_1>. Parham, J. E., G. R. Higashi, E. K. Lapp, D. G. K. Kuamoo, R. T. Nishimoto, S. Hau, J. M. Fitzsimons, D. A. Polhemus, and W. S. Devick. 2008. Atlas of Hawaiian Watersheds and Their Aquatic Resources. A Joint Project between the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources and Bishop Museum. <http://hawaii watershedatlas.com/watersheds/oahu/36006.pdf>. [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter. No. 05-05. December 7. [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016a. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South PacificDivision Regulatory Program. [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016b. Information Needed for Verification of Corps Jurisdiction, San Francisco District. Revised April 2016. <https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/ regulatory/ 2%20-%20lnfo%20Req.pdf> . [USGS] U.S. Geological Services. 2023. National Water Information System: Web Interface. USGS Water Data for the Nation. USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl]. <https://nwis.waterdata.usgs. gov/nwis>. Accessed May 25. Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. Two volumes. Revised edition. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report 29 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates H t "5 N O A� 1- AO ID 0 D O L 0 Qi V) 0 VI 0 a- Appendix A. c a Indicator Code' U U U U 00 00 000 U U Z Z Z Z u_ Q Q Q Q Z Z Q Q Q Q Q Q Q u Scientific Name E a Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw. 0 0 0 U 0 T L Lauae, maile scented fern rabbit's foot fern moa, upright whiskfern U 0.5 ▪ N J 0 o m J E 1 • N O E • 0 -o E • 3 : 0 o 2 E aQ m o Polypodiaceae Polypodiaceae Psilotaceae 0 0 0 0 0 0) J Alocasia macrorrhizos golden pothos, pothos, taro vine Epipremnum pinnatum (L.) Engl. O 0 O 0 • 0 O o O 0 Q Q Alexandra palm, king palm 0 0 0 U X 0 O N x 0 O D 0 0 Q 0 Q = Arecaceae coconut, niu Cocos nucifera L. Arecaceae A- 1 Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. Asparagaceae day flower, honhono Commelina diffusa Burm. f. Commelinaceae White kyllinga Cyperus mindorensis (Steud.) Huygh Cyperaceae yam, air potato, bitter yam, hoi 0 C Q 0 0 0 o c o C D O • 0 Dioscoreaceae Heliconiaceae Spathoglottis plicata Blume Orchidaceae screw pine, hala, pu hala Pandanus tectorius Parkinson Pandanaceae Wide -leaved carpetgrass 0 0) O 0 0 0 0 N N 0rn 2rn " 0 • 'Q .� U c U a 0 0 o m U m ▪ 0 • 0 U " " S) '(L_.)) .1• E N N 5-< " Q 0 o _o E . E o O 0 j 8 o " Q i -) 0_ • N O 0 0 0 c x 0 o O N Q Uds Setaria palmifolia (J. Konig) Stapf O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O • 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 E k 0 E 0 Scientific Name 4 z z = = z = s e s e e U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U / 7 / / / 2 \ / / / / / / / / u / .,-L,. \ e g 00 E f b } \ e \ 0 \ 2 \ rt = \ o 0 2 / 2 0 0- o a e o f z o ° C E e 0 = 7 \ o . / 9e 9 £ \ -o E X % 6 \ \ 2» 2 ,,..._(D = o o m. / \ / TD o \ ± ) ,2 0 0 ± : .0 \ 0 \ 7 \ \ } g \ / >- / o / / \ 0 k 3 / ƒ 0 0 / E o \ / >- i '> E \ / / / / \ \ 2 o ƒ E 0 $ \ ƒ < \ / 0 )I 0 � 0 Urochloa mutica (Forssk.) T. Q. Nguyen 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 u- _ _ Hedychium flavescens Carey ex Roscoe Zingiberaceae Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. Acanthaceae Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae Schefflera actinophylla (Endl.) Harms Araliaceae Calyptocarpus vialis Less. Asteraceae Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Asteraceae DC. var. sonchifolia Emilia sonchifolia Asteraceae vi [ _c / $ \ » \ \ 2 0 0 E c / 2 > / 0_ \ 0 0 9 0 ) 0 \a / 0 U> Asteraceae A-2 Asteraceae Asteraceae Elephantopus mollis Kunth Asteraceae Pluchea carolinensis (Jacq.) G. Don Asteraceae Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski Asteraceae Youngiajaponica (L.) DC. Asteraceae Begonia hirtella Link Begoniaceae Spathodea campanulata P.Beauv. Bignoniaceae Hippobroma Iongiflora (L.) G. Don Campanulaceae )c Trema orientalis (L.) Blume Cannabaceae Casuarina equisetifolia L. Casuarinaceae a w Indicator Code' 0 E 0 z O E O U Scientific Name E 0 U U U U U U 00 0 0_ 0 0 0 U U_ _ Z U LIC u u u LI u u LI Z LI u u u u Z 0 0 false kamani, tropical almond Terminalia catappa L. Combrefaceae Beach moonflower Ipomoea violacea L. Convolvulaceae bitter melon, balsam pear J Momordica charantia Cucurbitaceae Kukui, kukui nut Aleurites moluccanus (L.) Euphorbiaceae spurge, kaliko Euphorbia heterophylla L. Euphorbiaceae 0 0 0 c 0 Canavalia cathartics Thouars Fabaceae partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench Fabaceae Moluccan albizia sensitive plant, sleeping grass 06 N > 0 .0 -c a)0 m 0 D E D 0 o • > U U J • o _o o U N) E 6 .0 .0 E Q o . o T O E -3 11 C6 Fabaceae Fabaceae hairy cowpea, Nile bean Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth. Fabaceae Persea americana Mill. Lauraceae A-3 aloalo, hau Talipariti tiliaceum (L.) Fryxell turk's cap, firecracker hibiscus Malvaviscus penduliflorus DC 1) .? 0 0 Q J U Sida rhombifolia L. arthrostema Arthrostemma ciliatum Pay. ex D. Don 0 .£ 0 U Miconia calvescens DC. Koster's curse, clidemia Miconia crenata (Vahl.) Michelang. a) (I) (1) O 0 0 (1) (1) (1) U 0 U O 0 0 O (1) a) 0 0 0 o o O O O > > > O O O Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) Raven Onagraceae Persicaria chinensis (L.) H.Gross Polygonaceae Water smartweed Persicaria punctata (Elliott) Small Polygonaceae 0) c .E O 0 TD 0▪ ) 0 E a) (I) U c 0 E Z .0 Cestrum nocturnum L. Solanaceae FACU = Facultative Upland, UPL = Upland, OBL = Obligate, and NI = No Indicator Status 1Wetland Indicator Codes: FAC = Facultative, FACW = Facultative Appendix B. Natural Resource Conservation Service Custom Soil Report for the Project Site Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report B ] March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates USDA United States dim Department of Agr culture \CS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Island of Hawaii Area, Hawaii Hakalau Soil Report March 15, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Island of Hawaii Area, Hawaii 13 901—Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes 13 903—Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes 14 909—Hilo-Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes 15 References 17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 M„LE,L oSST M.LEL °SST _S3 Map Scale: 1:2,970 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. z M L oSST z M ,.6SL °SST Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. { { § y 7 CD _o\\/. \ \ E o to \ o_ } - ){2o\ 0 - CO $ $ £ o ®g I / \ j o ( / 00\22 z 2/ ( § -o co * a § E \ L CO §ERE 0 mco # =§c CO </ eo va \ \2/£b - '/ ro j G &/?ter �2 0© § = !a/\) 00 -= co TD / } =k\\\ \} 5 / \ o. • _oE< k� -� \ 2=E t= 9 7 ± ° 4t)2\ F. ®� (\ \) C,/ -= --2 - < -- ®/ �/2 {}222 \k t2 \b ®: O 20o -o L< 0 -co G $cn S®t o 0 ]t0 ƒ\\k f \/ \\ EE m*o ]&5<o %% mm m'— \ 92 /\ 2 < ❑ ❑ Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points ■ Special Point Features Interstate Highways Closed Depression US Routes ) \ Local Roads / 0m Aerial Photography Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry )CD § Perennial Water 03K Severely Eroded Spot § Jan 3, 2019—Jun 28, A 22 {b 0 co o a> co • 0000 coo 0 <>, CD e_E - ka)/ 0002 050 0522 {_/E 0 -CO {3{{ 0Eo %G2§ 0. 0 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 11 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 901 Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes 0.7 2.8% 903 Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes 1.6 6.4% 909 Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes 21.2 84.0% Totals for Area of Interest 25.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 11 Custom Soil Resource Report landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Island of Hawaii Area, Hawaii 901—Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2mcly Elevation: 0 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 130 to 200 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period: 365 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Hilo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hilo Setting Landform: Ash fields on lava flows Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Basic volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile Ap - 0 to 18 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Bw - 18 to 60 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 10 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 18.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R159AY003H1 - Isohyperthermic Perudic Naturalized Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hilo, gullies Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Ash fields, gullies 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear, concave, convex Hydric soil rating: No Hilo, very cobbly substrate Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Ash fields on lava flows Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Hydric soil rating: No 903—Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2mclx Elevation: 0 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 130 to 200 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period: 365 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Hilo and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hilo Setting Landform: Ash fields on lava flows Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Basic volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile Ap - 0 to 18 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Bw - 18 to 60 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 10 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 18.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R159AY003H1 - Isohyperthermic Perudic Naturalized Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hilo, very cobbly substrate Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Ash fields on lava flows Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Hydric soil rating: No Hilo, gullies Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Gullies, ash fields Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, linear, convex Hydric soil rating: No 909—Hilo-Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2mlwb Elevation: 0 to 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 130 to 200 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period: 365 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Hilo and similar soils: 65 percent Rock outcrop, basalt: 35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hilo Setting Landform: Gulches on lava flows 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, linear, convex Parent material: Basic volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile Ap - 0 to 18 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Bw - 18 to 60 inches: hydrous silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 35 to 100 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 18.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R159AY003H1 - Isohyperthermic Perudic Naturalized Grassland Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop, Basalt Setting Landform: Gulches Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, convex, linear Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 8s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating.• No References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 18 Appendix C. USACE Hawaii Pacific Wetland Delineation and OHWM Delineation Data Forms Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report C 1 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region Project/Site: Hakalau Stream Bridge Project Applicant/Owner: Hawaii Department of Transportation Investigator(s): Shahin Ansari and Terrell Erickson Landform (hillslope, coastal plain, etc.): Lat: 155.129365°W City: Hakalau State/Terr/Comlth.: HI Sampling Date: 3/17/23 Time: 7.39 am Island: Hawaii Sampling Point: SP1 TMK/Parcel: Riparian and coastal valley mouth Long: 19.899309°N Soil Map Unit Name: Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Datum: WGS84 Slope (%): 10 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling NWI classification: None No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No 1. 2. Remarks: 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 5• = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 1. 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = 1 square meter Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1 Commelina diffusa(honohono) 0 Yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Sphagneticola trilobata (wedelia) 50 Yes FAC 3. I lrorhlna miitica (California grass) 20 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation x 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain in Remarks or in the delineation report) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 120 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No 2 = Total Cover Remarks: Sample point was in saturated area with muddy standing water and 100 percent vegetative ground cover adjacent to the ponded area on the old mill access road. US Army Corps of Engineers Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region —Version 2.0 SOIL SP1 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-3" 5yr 2.5/1 Organic histic epipedon Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Tadpoles and mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) seen in the wetland which bumps against the higher Hakalau stream bank to the north. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stratified Layers (A5) X Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (F21) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Muck Presence (A8) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Concrete old mill access road X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: Peat -fibrous saturated and some muck also observed and felt in this histic epipedon, suggesting that wetland conditions exist for a long time. Ponding is over a stretch of the old mill access road that appears to provide the restrictive layer and has created aquis conditions over decades. Also, note due to concerns of lead contamination, it was not safe to handle the soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: (Explain observations in Remarks, if needed.) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (Al) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Tilapia Nests (B17) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) X Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Salt Deposits (C5) X Drift Deposits (B3) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Fiddler Crab Burrows (C10) (Guam, CNMI, _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) and American Samoa) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Tadpoles and mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) seen in the wetland which bumps against the higher Hakalau stream bank to the north. US Army Corps of Engineers Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region Project/Site: Hakalau Stream Bridge Project City: Hakalau Sampling Date: 3/17/23 Time: 8.09 am Applicant/Owner: Hawaii Department of Transportation State/Terr/Comlth.: HI Island: Hawaii Sampling Point: SP2 Investigator(s): Shahin Ansari and Terrell Erickson TMK/Parcel: Landform (hillslope, coastal plain, etc.): Riparian and coastal valley mouth Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Lat: 155.129392°W Long: 19.899359°N Datum: WGS84 Slope (%): <10% to north Soil Map Unit Name: Hilo -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 100 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No 2. Pandanus tectorius 5 yes FAC Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No X Yes No X Yes No X OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = Remarks: FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = 1 square meter Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B) VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 2 square meters) % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Cocos nucifera 1. 5 yes FACU 2. Pandanus tectorius 5 yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 6% (A/B) 5. 10 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 1. 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = 1 square meter Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1 Commelina diffusa(honohono) 95 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Sphagneticola trilobata (wedelia) 3 No FAC 3. I lrorhlna miitira (California grass) 3 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation x 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain in Remarks or in the delineation report) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 101 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No 2 = Total Cover Remarks: The sample area was representative of the dry and not saturated zone adjacent to the saturated portions. US Army Corps of Engineers Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region —Version 2.0 SOIL SP2 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-3" 5yr 2.5/2 Organic on top, root mass. Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sample point is upslope of and borders the saturated sample point (SP1). 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (F21) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Muck Presence (A8) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Remarks: Project area has lead contaminated soils that preclude handling of soi . Sample point is immidiately upland of the saturated area and is dry and on a slight upslope toward the north. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: (Explain observations in Remarks, if needed.) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Tilapia Nests (B17) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Salt Deposits (C5) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Fiddler Crab Burrows (C10) (Guam, CNMI, _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) and American Samoa) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sample point is upslope of and borders the saturated sample point (SP1). US Army Corps of Engineers Hawaii and Pacific Islands Region —Version 2.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) INTERIM DRAFT RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. FormApproved- OMB No. 0710-0025 Expires: 01-31-2025 AGENCY DISCLOSURE The public reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions Services, at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil. Respondents NOTICE to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection number. Project ID #: 4639-01 Site Name: Hakalau Bridge Date and Time: 3/16/23 7:30 AM Location (lat/long): Transect 1. 19.899560°N 155.129238°W Investigator(s): Terrell Erickson and Shahin Ansari Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used nX gage data n LiDAR to n evaluate site: geologic maps p land use maps Other: Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Project Area is within the steep hillsides of Hakalan Gulch which was site of old sugar plantation and mill and is now an actac reereattonal site. Ilakalau is a perennial stream with non-channchacd bed and banks. But the each within the Project Area has a reinforced concrete ford toward the western/upstreamendandthereare also concrete bridge footings in the stream bed. Two weeks before the survey this area received heavy rains (NWS 2023). Per the USGS Water Data (20231; over tho tiro-day smvoy period the stream exhibited normal low flows. The Project Area did not experience any recent extreme flood or drought events. >r<climaticdata nX satellite imagery nXaerial photos Fltopographicmaps Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Low flows in stream at time of survey. Transect is located at the lowest/ eastern most reach of the stream just before it enters the Pacific Ocean. There is a gravel bar/berm about 120 feet downstream of this transect. There is a concrete ford about 650 feet upstream. Both right and left banks slope gently to water. The left bank functions as a trail for people accessing the ocean. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just above 'a' the OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach and above the OHWM. From just below 'b', at 'x', or a photo log. bedload indicators obstacle marks, scour, etc.) channels: Geomorphic indicators Break in slope: p x F \I n Channel bar: b erosional n (e.g., smoothing, nSecondary non the bank: X shelving (berms) on bar:a nX unvegetated: b vegetation transition I5 1(go to veg. indicators) X sediment transition n (go to sed. indicators) undercut bank: Sediment indicators 17valley bottom:x b n Soil development: in character of soil: x in particle-sized b from gravel to cobble n Other: b X Changes >X Shelving: a upper limit of deposition I/\I on bar: X Instream bedforms and other Fbedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators n(e.g., imbricated clasts, gravel sheets, etc.) n bedforms (e.g., pools, X riffles, steps, etc.): b Mudcracks: >7shelf at top of bank: a Changes X distribution: natural levee: >7 transition man-made berms or levees: [ 1 upper limit of sand-sized particles other berms- erms b silt deposits: Vegetation Vegetation Indicators XChange in vegetation type and/or density: x Ix n fortis to: n graminoids to: n woody shrubs to: ndeciduous trees to: Exposed roots below intact soil layer: Check the appropriate boxes and select the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the banks, and into the floodplain. [5 vegetation 1 absent to: graminoids Ancillary indicators Wracking organic litter: presence of of large wood: x disturbed or away: b clasts or bedrock: n Presence � Leaf litter h I washed coniferous trees to: b Water staining: 17 Vegetation matted down and/or bent: moss to: Weathered Other observed indicators? Describe: There is destruction of vegetation at the OHWM level. Litter/Debris and driftwood also accumulated at the OHWM level. Vegetation changed from either graminoids (left bank) or forbs and trees (right bank) above OHWM to being absent below OHWM. On the left bank sediment transitioned from fine gravel to cobble but was mostly cobbles on the right bank. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: 4639-01 Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? n Yes n No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: National Weather Service (2023) and USGS Water Data (2023) [USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl] Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM OHWM level selected where either vegetation destruction and/or or deposition of debris and drift wood indicators were present. Transect representative of the lowermost reach of the stream in the Project Area overlapping the pool of water before the gravel bar (just outside the Project boundary) Additional observations or notes Transect is 169 feet wide. Plants above the OHWM were trees: Pandanus tectorius (FAC) and Hibiscus tiliaceus (NI); fern: Diplazium esculentum (FACW); herbs: Persicaria chinensis (NI) and Sphagneticola trilobata (FAC); and grasses: Megathyrsus maximus. Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? n Yes n No If no, explain why not: See Appendix D List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Appendix D, 18 Looking north from the right bank toward the left bank. Presence of drift wood (at and above), destruction of vegetation (below) Appendix D, 19 Looking south at the right bank. Sorting from cobbles to fine sediment (below) and collecting of drift wood and debris. Appendix D, 20 Looking east at right bank; OHWM level indicators—drift wood (at), sediment sorting (below). ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) INTERIM DRAFT RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. FormApproved- OMB No. 0710-0025 Expires: 01-31-2025 AGENCY DISCLOSURE The public reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions Services, at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil. Respondents NOTICE to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection number. Project ID #: 4639-01 Site Name: Hakalau Bridge, Hawaii Date and Time: 3/16/23 9:25 AM Location (lat/long): Transect 2 (19.899161°N 155.129903°W) Investigator(s): Terrell Erickson and Shahin Ansari Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: 7gage data nLiDAR ngeologic maps Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Project Area is within the steep hillsides of Hakalau Gulch which was site of old agar plantation and mill and is now an acts c rcercattonal site. Ilakalau is a perennial stream with non-channchacd bed and banks. But the each within the Project Area has a reinforced concrete ford toward thewestem/upstrenmendandthereare also concrete bridge footings in the stream bed. Two weeks before the survey this area received heavy rains (NWS 2023). Per the USGS Water Data (20231; over tho tu o -day survey period the stream exhibited normal low flows. The Project Area did not experience any recent extreme flood ordrought events. nclimatic data nsatellite ima er nlandusema S imagery p 7 aerial photos 7 topographic maps nOther: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Low flows in stream on day of survey. This transect/site is about 405 feet below the concrete ford and 375 feet above the gravel/sand bar. The concrete footings of the bridge are less than 100 feet downstream from here. The channel is straight with more erosion evident on the right bank (facing down stream) Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by just above 'a' the OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and just below and above the OHWM. From selecting either just below 'b', at 'x', or to attach a photo log. erosional bedload indicators n (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, smoothing, etc.) channels: Geomorphic indicators p n Channel bar: b nBreak in sloe: x F \I nSecondary non the bank: shelving (berms) on bar: n undercut bank: b n unvegetated: Sediment indicators vegetation transition n valley bottom: n (go to veg. indicators) n Soil Changes Mudcracks: Changes distribution: n development: transition silt deposits: soil in character of soil: b in particle -sized b from silt to cobble Other: I/\ sediment transition (go to sed. indicators) b X n Shelving: a n upper limit of deposition on bar: >7shelf at top of bank: a n Instream bedforms and other n bedload transport evidence: 7 n natural levee: deposition bedload indicators n(e.g., imbricated clasts, b man-made berms or levees: gravel sheets, etc.) bedforms (e.g.,upper �/ pools, limit of sand -sized particles roots below layer: x other n erms X riffles, steps, etc.): berms- Vegetation Indicators Vegetation Exposed intact Change in vegetation type n X and/or density: x n fortis to: n Check the appropriate boxes and select n graminoids to: Ancillary indicators the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe woody shrubs to: Wracking presence of organic litter: Presence of large wood: b Leaf litter disturbed or b washed away: Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the ndeciduous trees to: n � h banks, and into the floodplain. coniferous trees to: 7vegetation absent to: graminoids r\� Vegetation matted down Ix and/or bent: x nmoss to: Other observed indicators? Describe: There is more undercutting of the bank with exposed roots below intact soil on the left bank (viewing downstream) than on the right bank. There is a vertical bank on top of shelf on the left side. Top of both banks are heavily vegetated with 100 percent cover. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: 4639-01 Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? n Yes n No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: National Weather Service (2023) and USGS Water data. 2023 [USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl] Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM On right side the OHWM level was chosen where there is undercut in the bank with exposed roots below intact soil layer. On left side the OHWM level chosen where either the undercut in the bank was visible or there was matted down and bent vegetation and/or deposition of debris and drift wood. Transect is representative of stretch of the reach just downstream of the rock island where the flows around the island merge and form a single channel (again) Additional observations or notes Vegetation on both banks is predominantly composed of Megathyrsus maximus [FAC]. Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? n Yes n No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Appendix D, 21 Looking south at right bank; break in bank (at), exposed roots below intact soil layer (below). Appendix D, 22 Looking north at left bank from the right bank. break in slope and matted down and destroyed vegetation (below) ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) INTERIM DRAFT RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. FormApproved- OMB No. 0710-0025 Expires: 01-31-2025 AGENCY DISCLOSURE The public reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions Services, at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil. Respondents NOTICE to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection number. Project ID #: 4639-01 Site Name: Hakalau Bridge, Hawaii Date and Time: 3/17/23 9:34 AM Location (lat/long): Transect 3 [19.898165°N 155.130195°W] Investigator(s): Terrell Erickson and Shahin Ansari Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Project Area is within the steep hillsides of Hakalau Gulch which was site of old sugar plantation and mill and is now an actac recreational site. Ilakalau is a perennial stream with non-channchacd bed and hanks. But the each within the Project Area has a reinforced concrete ford toward the western/upstreamendandthereare also concrete bridge footings in the stream bed. Two weeks before the survey this area received heavy rains (NWS 2023). Per the USGS Water Data (2023h over tha tiro-day survey period the stream exhibited normal low flows. The Project Area did not experience any recent extreme flood or drought events. Xgage data nLIDAR ngeologic maps nclimatic data nsatellite ima er nlandusema S imagery p nXaerial photos l] topographic maps nOther: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Ordinary low flows were observed on survey day. This transect/site is below the concrete ford. There is a densely vegetated rock island in the middle of the stream channel below the ford. The stream splits right below the ford, going around this island. This ford and a rock island affect stream flow at this site. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by just above 'a' the OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and just selecting to below and above the OHWM. From either just below 'b', at 'x', or attach a photo log. erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, x smoothing, etc.) channels: Geomorphic indicators p 1X Channel bar: b nBreak in sloe: a I/ \I XX Fon the bank: shelving (berms) on bar: nSecondary rX undercut bank: b n unvegetated: Sediment indicators n vegetation transition n valley bottom: X (go to veg. indicators) a Soil development: Changes in b Other: 1sediment transition /\(go to sed. indicators) b X >X Shelving: I/\I a 7 upper limit of deposition on bar: Mudcracks: Changes distribution: Ntransition silt deposits: soil character of soil: in particle-sized from cobble to silt x >7shelf at top of bank: a 7 Instreambedload bedforms andevidence: other �/�� transport b 7 natural levee: deposition bedload indicators n(e.g., imbricated clasts, b man-made berms or levees: gravel sheets, etc.) bedforms (e.g.,upper FTpools, limit of sand-sized particles roots below layer: b other riffles, steps, etc.): berms Vegetation Indicators Exposed intact Change in vegetation type n X and/or density: b n fortis to: n Check the appropriate boxes and select n graminoids to: Ancillary indicators the general vegetation change (e.g., 17 I/VI n � h Wracking presence of x organic litter: Presence of large wood: Leaf litter disturbed or washed away: b Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe woody shrubs to: the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the deciduous n trees to: banks, and into the floodplain. coniferous trees to: 7 vegetation absent to: graminoids R71 Vegetation matted down b Ix and/or bent: moss to: Other observed indicators? Describe: Both banks had > 60% slope. Undercutting of bank was a stronger indicator or right than the left bank. On left bank sediment sorted from boulders to cobbles to a mix of gravel and silt. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: 4639-01 Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? n Yes n No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: National Weather Service (2023) and USGS Water data. 2023 [USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl] Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM On the left bank the OHWM was chosen primarily based on matted down vegetation and washed away debris and litter at and below the high water mark. On the right side the OHWM indicator was mainly the undercut bank below soil layer with exposed roots followed by obstruction of vegetation and debris behind tree trunks at the high water mark level. Additional observations or notes Both upper banks were heavily vegetated predominantly with a mix of grasses, forbs, and trees. The island in the channel was also heavily vegetated. Species include Spathodea campanulata (FACU), Falcataria moluccana (FACU), Diplazium esculentum (FACW), Persicaria chinensis (NI), and Epipremnum pinnatum (FAC). Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? n Yes n No If no, explain why not: See Appendix D List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Appendix D, 23 Aerial view of transect 3 location right below the concrete ford and with vegetated rock island in center of channel. Appendix D, 24 Looking upstream (west) at left bank. OHWM indicator—destroyed and matted down vegetation (below). Appendix D, 25 Looking south at right bank. OHWM indicator—cut in bank (at) and matted down vegetation (below). Appendix D, 26 Looking northwest from the right bank toward the rock island and the concrete ford. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) INTERIM DRAFT RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. FormApproved- OMB No. 0710-0025 Expires: 01-31-2025 AGENCY DISCLOSURE The public reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions Services, at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil. Respondents NOTICE to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection number. Project ID #: 4639-01 Site Name: Hakalau Bridge, Hawaii Date and Time: 3/17/23 10:32 AM Location (lat/long): Transect 4 (19.8984336°N 155.1307171°W) Investigator(s): Shahin Ansari and Terrell Erickson Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Project Area is within the steep hillsides of Hakalan Gulch which was site of old agar plantation and rill and is now an active recreational site. Ilakalau is a perennial stream with non-channcliacd bed and banks. But the each within the Project Area has a reinforced concrete ford toward the western/upstreamendandthereare also concrete bridge footings in the stream bed. Two weeks before the survey this area received heavy rains (NWS 2023). Par the USGS Water Data (2023l over the two-day survey period the stream exhibited normal low flows. The Project Area did not experience any recent extreme flood or drought events. Xgage data nLIDAR ngeologic maps nclimatic data nsatellite ima er nlandusema S imagery p nXaerial photos l] topographic maps nOther: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. This transect/site is just upstream of the concrete ford and the old mill road at the western most portion of the Project Area. There are several small vegetated rock islands in the channel. The stream bifurcates at the island. the northern folk flows over the ford and the southern fork flows through the ford culvert The ford crossing below affects flow as more ponding/pooling occurs from the ford with no riffles or waterfalls. Transect is left bank/right bank looking toward the ocean (downstream). Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by just above 'a' the OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and just selecting to below and above the OHWM. From either just below 'b', at 'x', or attach a photo log. erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, x smoothing, etc.) channels: Geomorphic indicators p 1X Channel bar: b nBreak in sloe: x I/ \I XX Fon the bank: m shelving (berms) on barb nSecondary rX undercut bank: b nunvegetated: Sediment indicators n vegetation transition n valley bottom: X (go to veg. indicators) b Soil Changes Mudcracks: Changes distribution: development: transition silt deposits: in character of soil: in particle -sized from to Other: nsediment transition (go to sed. indicators) Shelving: n upper limit of deposition on bar: nshelf at top of bank: I/VI m Instreambedloadtransport bedforms andevidence: other b natural levee: deposition bedload indicators n(e.g., imbricated clasts, b man-made berms or levees: gravel sheets, etc.) bedforms (e.g.,upper I-7\/pools, limit of sand -sized particles other X riffles, steps, etc.): erms berms- Vegetation Vegetation Indicators XChange in vegetation type n Exposed roots below and/or density: b n fortis to: n intact soil layer: b Check the appropriate boxes and select n graminoids to:woody shrubs Ancillary indicators the general vegetation change (e.g., 17 I/VI n F v" Wracking presence of a organic litter: Presence of large wood: Leaf litter disturbed or washed away: b Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe woody shrubs to: the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the deciduous n trees to: banks, and into the floodplain. coniferous n trees to: nvegetation absent to: F Vegetation matted down b I/VI and/or bent: moss to: Other observed indicators? Describe: Destruction of vegetation below the OHWM. Exposed roots of trees on the left bank below the OHWM. More undercutting of bank on right side compared to left bank. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: 4639-01 Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? n Yes n No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: National Weather Service (2023) and USGS Water data. 2023 [USGS 16717700 Hakalau Strean nr alt 1300 feet amsl] Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM The OHWM on both banks is just above where vegetation is observed to be destroyed, matted down or bent. On the left bank this elevation is where large exposed hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) roots are also visible. Additional observations or notes The upper right bank is mostly composed of thick cover of the fern, Diplazium esculentum. The left bank is mostly composed of guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) and thickets of hau trees on the upper bank. Transect is representative of the uppermost reach of the stream in the Project Area above the concrete ford and overlapping rock island in the stream channel Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? n Yes n No If no, explain why not: See Appendix D List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Appendix D, 27 Looking north at the rock island and the concrete ford from where the concrete ford transitions into the old mill access road. Appendix D, 28 . Looking west (upstream) at left bank.Break in slope (at), wracking and presence of litter (above), matted down vegetation (below). Appendix D, 29 Looking south toward the right bank. OHWM indicator—matted down vegetation (at and below). Appendix D, 30 Looking northwest and upstream toward the rocky vegetated island in the center of the stream channel. ENG FORM 6250, DEC 2022 Page 2 of 4 Appendix D. Photographic Documentation of Wetland and OHWM Delineation Photo 1. View from Old Mamalaoha Highway toward the Northern Hillside Hakalau Stream flowing in the center of the gulch over the reinforced concrete ford (far left) and under the overhead Hakalau Stream Bridge (far right). The road in the foreground is the old (remnant) access road to the old sugar mill site. Photo 2. Hakalau Gulch was Narrow with the Upper Banks Sharply Rising to Nearly Vertical Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Hillside Note the footings of the bridge are in the stream bed. View to the north. Photo 3. At the Stream Mouth the Hakalau Stream Backs Up Against a Gravel Bar (Red Arrow), Forming a Deep Pool and Is Above the Mean High Water Mark Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D 2 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 4. Hakalau Stream Flowing Over the Reinforced Concrete Ford Situated in the Western Side of the Project Area Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D 3 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 5. Ponded Stretch (Red Arrow) of the Old Mill Access Road in the Southern Portion of the Project Area Blue arrow points to the eastern end of the ditch where it curves toward the stream bank and terminates close to this old mill access road. View from Old Mamalaoha Highway on top of the southern hillside looking down and north. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-4 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 6. Ponded Portion of the Old Mill Access Road View to the west. The ditch (blue arrow) terminates to the south (left) of the ponded road. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D 5 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 7. View toward the Ditch (Blue Arrow) on the Southern Side of the Ponded Road Old Mamalaoha Highway seen in the background (top left, white arrow) above the southern hillside. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-6 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 8. View to the North from the Ditch (Blue Arrow) toward the Ponded Road and the Stream Bank (Now Seen Here) Northern hillside in the background. Photo 9. Close Up of the Water in the Ditch Dominated with Obligate -Status Water Smartweed (Persicaria punctate) and Surrounded with Facultative Wet -Status Paca Ferns (Diplazium esculentum) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-7 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 12. Western End Where the Row of Banana Trees Photo 11. Central Stretch of the Photo 10. Eastern End Where the Row of Banana Trees s L O Z a) D Zi 0 c o ts D a o N m •C aa0))a0 m2_a U i;) N a)_, 0 -c c a) '- c U (l) - O m a n t • s 00 L _ v a 30 O E � L O a• a )3 a) ht13 N ai 'y a== AN a W -c L' O AA a t c a D 0 c a N mks O 0 o 3 o a ce oo�1- N 0 W a) E c0 •— c t D C) o 0 0) O U t 0 0 O 0 a) -c c •C • - C -0 ,0) 0 a) o m a) N 43 E U O TUB L a a • E a_ --E O D-8 Photo 13. Western End of the Ditch Estimated at the End of the Row of Banana Trees Seen from the Old Mamalaoha Highway on Top of the Southern Hillside • Photo 14. Western End of the Ditch Estimated at the End of the Row of Banana Trees Seen from the Old Mill Access Road in the Gulch Bottom Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 15. SP1. Saturated soils. Mucky peat Histic Epipedon on restrictive layer at three inches. Vegetation dominated by FAC wedelia, FACW honohono, and FACW California grass. Photo 16. SP2. Upland point in dry unsaturated soils. Vegetation dominated by FAC wedelia plants mixed with upland status guinea grass Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 17. Aquis conditions in the ponded old mill access road with obligate water smartweed (Persicaria punctate) and aquatic fauna—tadpole and mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D 3 March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates Photo 18. Transect 1. Looking north from the right bank toward the left bank. OHWM indicators Right bank—presence of drift wood (at and above), destruction of vegetation (below). OHWM indicator Left bank (foreground)—sorting of sediment (below) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-4 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 �••� NV ` ti , • ti: Photo 19. Transect 1. Looking south at the rightbank. OHWM indicators—sorting from cobbles to fine sediment (below) and collecting of drift wood and debris (at and above) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-5 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 20. Transect 1. Looking east at right bank; OHWM level indicators—drift wood (at), sediment sorting (below). Photo 21. Transect 2. Looking south at right bank; OHWM level indicators—break in bank (at), exposed roots below intact soil layer (below). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-6 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 22. Transect 2. Looking north at left bank from the right bank. OHWM indicator—break in slope and matted down and destroyed vegetation (below) Photo 23. Transect 3. Aerial view of transect 3 location right below the concrete ford and with vegetated rock island in center of channel Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-7 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 24. Transect 3. Looking upstream (west) at left bank. OHWM indicator—destroyed and matted down vegetation (below) Photo 25. Transect 3. Looking south at right bank. OHWM indicator—cut in bank (at) and matted down vegetation (below) Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-8 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 26. Transect 3. Looking northwest from the right bank toward the rock island and the concrete ford. Photo 27. Just below (east) of Transect 4. Looking north at the rock island and the concrete ford from where the concrete ford transitions into the old mill access road. Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-9 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 28. Transect 4. Looking west (upstream) at left bank. OHWM indicators—break in slope (at), wracking and presence of litter (above), matted down vegetation (below) Yri .1. -•fins; Photo 29. Transect 4. Looking south toward the right bank. OHWM indicator—matted down vegetation (at and below). Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D-10 H. T. Harvey & Associates March 2024 Photo 30. Transect 4. Looking northwest and upstream toward the rocky vegetated island in the center of the stream channel Hakalau Stream Bridge Project— Wetland Delineation Technical Report D ] ] March 2024 H. T. Harvey & Associates