Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FEA-Kuawa St New Sports Fields Development-December 2015
Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Final Environmental Assessment TMK (3rd) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 South Hilo District, Hawai‘i Island, State of Hawai‘i December 2015 Prepared for: Hawai‘i County Department of Parks and Recreation 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development TMK: (3rd) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 South Hilo District, Island of Hawai‘i PROPOSING/ APPROVING AGENCY: County of Hawai‘i Department of Parks and Recreation 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 CONSULTANT: Geometrician Associates LLC P.O. Box 396 Hilo Hawai‘i 96721 CLASS OF ACTION: Use of State/County Land and County Funds This document is prepared pursuant to: The Hawai‘i Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), and Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawai‘i Department of Health Administrative Rules (HAR). [this page intentionally left blank] i Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ ii PART 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE AND NEED AND E.A. PROCESS ............. 1 1.1 Project Description and Location ................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Environmental Assessment Process .............................................................................. 9 1.4 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination ............................................................ 9 1.5 Cost and Schedule ....................................................................................................... 10 PART 2: ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 11 2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternative Locations for New Sports Fields Park ....................................................... 11 2.3 Alternative Strategies Involving Existing Parks .......................................................... 11 PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ........................... 12 3.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Climate, Geology, Soils and Geologic Hazard ............................................... 12 3.1.2 Drainage, Water Features and Water Quality ................................................. 13 3.1.3 Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems ........................................................................ 15 3.1.4 Air Quality, Noise and Scenic Resources ....................................................... 18 3.1.5 Hazardous Substances, Toxic Waste and Hazardous Conditions ................... 19 3.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural ....................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics ....................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................. 26 3.2.3 Archaeology and Historic Sites ...................................................................... 36 3.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 37 3.3.1 Utilities .......................................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Roadways and Traffic ..................................................................................... 38 3.3.3 Airport Safety ................................................................................................ 43 3.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 43 3.5 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................. 44 3.6 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies ....................................................... 44 3.6.1 Hawai‘i State Plan .......................................................................................... 44 3.6.2 Hawai‘i State Land Use Law ......................................................................... 44 3.6.3 Hawai‘i County Zoning and Property Designations ....................................... 44 3.6.4 Hawai‘i County General Plan ......................................................................... 45 3.6.5 Special Management Area ............................................................................ 48 PART 4: DETERMINATION .................................................................................................... 49 PART 5: FINDINGS AND REASONS ...................................................................................... 49 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 51 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Plant Species Observed on Project Site ....................................................................... 16 TABLE 2 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics ...................................................................... 25 TABLE 3 Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 42 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Location Map ............................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2 Aerial Image of Project Site ........................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 3 TMK Map .................................................................................................................... 4 ii Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development FIGURE 4 Project Site Photos ...................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 5 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 6 Flood Insurance Rate Map ........................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 7 Intersection Map .......................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 8 Portion of City of Hilo Zone Map................................................................................ 45 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1a Comments in Response to Early Consultation APPENDIX 1b Comments to Draft EA and Responses APPENDIX 2a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment APPENDIX 2b Executive Summary, Soil Conditions at Kuawa Street New Fields Development APPENDIX 3 Archaeological Report and Cultural Impact Assessment APPENDIX 4 Traffic Impact Assessment Report SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The County of Hawai‘i Department of Parks and Recreation (P&R) proposes to convert an open area makai of P&R’s Ho‘olulu Park Recreational Complex in Hilo for use as recreational fields. There are currently fewer sports fields than needed in the area, and teams often have a hard time finding a home field or venue. The Proposed Action would prepare a safe, flat soil base and turf suitable for recreation, and then build a multi-use football/soccer/rugby field capable of hosting youth, adult makule level regulation games. This field would include necessary facilities such as goals and goal posts, as well as bleachers on concrete slab, dugouts, fencing, drinking fountains and related amenities. The eastern part of the site would have a field suitable for both youth soccer and baseball games. Driveways from Kuawa Street, fencing, parking, landscaping, and accessible routes and walkways would be provided. Future phases may include field lighting, covers for the bleachers, a concessions facility, a comfort station, a storage facility, an onsite network of walkways for bi-directional walking/jogging and full perimeter fencing. No impacts to any biological or water resources would occur. Historical features that span dates from the kuleana of the 19th ill be honored through naming, signage, and preservation and reuse. Mitigation includes landscaping, timing of clearing to avoid impacts to listed vertebrate species, NPDES and grading permits with best management practices during construction to avoid erosion and sedimentation and precautionary conditions related to inadvertent finds of cultural materials. Evaluations have found concentrations above background levels of arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene in some parts of the site. In order to ensure safety during public use, this is being addressed by a mitigation plan that is currently in development in close coordination with the Department of Health. Traffic impacts are unlikely because peak use will not coincide with work and school peak traffic on adjacent major streets, and there will be no noticeable change to the traffic level of service. Page 1 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development PART 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE AND NEED AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1.1 Project Description and Location The County of Hawai‘i Department of Parks and Recreation (P&R) proposes a project to convert an open, grassed area consisting of five contiguous properties makai of P&R’s Ho‘olulu Park Recreational Complex in Hilo, on the Island of Hawai‘i, into recreational fields and support facilities. The site is between Kuawa Street and Kamehameha Avenue, adjacent to Manono Street (Figures 1-4). All the properties are owned by the State of Hawai‘i and are in the process of being transferred via an Executive Order to the County of Hawai‘i for recreational purposes. The Proposed Action would remove existing vegetation, undertake necessary grading and utility infrastructure, construct new multi-use sports fields with amenities and install new turf grass and landscaping suitable for their intended applications. The western and central portion of the site would have a multi-use football/soccer/rugby field capable of hosting youth, adult and makule level regulation games. This field would include necessary facilities such as moveable goals and removable goal posts as well as accessible bleachers on a concrete slab, drinking fountains, fencing and related amenities. The eastern portion of the site would have a multi-use field suitable for holding youth baseball/softball games that would include accessible dugouts and bleachers, a backstop, fencing, drinking fountain and related amenities. The site would be completely fenced in by a combination of 6-foot and 4-foot high chain-link fencing intended to prevent kicked/batted balls from entering adjoining roadways and property, prevent unauthorized vehicular access and resulting damage to playfields, and to safely contain children within the park. A limited area of the eastern portion of the site was discovered to have lead and/or benzo(a)pyrene content above Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for unrestricted land uses (housing and residential), though not necessarily over the EALs for other types of land uses, such as commercial and industrial. Due to the anticipated greater costs associated with safely addressing the contaminated soils, the project was organized to provide two options to address the contaminated areas, which will be determined principally based on cost. In the project’s Base Bid scope of work, the contaminated areas will be leveled, covered with an approved geotextile fabric overlain with metallic warning tape placed in an orthogonal grid, and then covered with a minimum of 4 inches of uncontaminated topsoil. This area would be entirely fenced off with a 6-foot high chain link fence and grassed, then maintained by Department of Parks and Recreation in that state. In the Alternate Bid scenario, the area with contaminated soils would be mitigated and developed to provide the multi-use youth baseball/softball and soccer fields after the existing surface was graded, covered with an approved geotextile fabric overlain with metallic warning tape placed in an orthogonal grid, and then covered with a minimum of 18 inches of clean topsoil. In either scenario, P&R would develop and manage the contaminated soils in place in a manner approved by the Department of Health and safe for the public and employees. Should cost considerations necessitate proceeding with only the Base Bid scope of work, this does not preclude the area from later being developed into additional multi-use fields when an appropriate funding source is found. Page 2 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 1. Location Map Page 3 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 2. Aerial Image of Project Site Page 4 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 3 TMK Map Source: Real Property Tax Maps. Notes: Yellow frame is project site; red frame denotes extant TMKs. Page 5 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 4. Project Site Photos In central part of site, looking westTypical banyan trees in eastern part Page 6 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 4. Project Site Photos Adult Soccer Field 60 yds x 100 yds SSSSW W W Kuawa Street New Field Development County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation Hilo, Hawaii Island SSFM International, Inc. 1 1 of 10’50’100’ N Comfort Station 30’x30’ Concession 30’x40’ Storage20’x30’Service Area Bleacher Pad 20’ x 110’Plaza 108Parking Spaces 7 Handicap Spaces Rugby Field 70 meters x 120 meters 11 Man Football Field 53.33 yds x 120 yds Kuawa Street Park Sign Field Lighting Parking and Pathway Lighting Chain Link Fence.Chain Link FenceChain Link Fence Chain Link Fence Chain Link Fence Chain Link Fence. Chain Link Fence Chain Link Fence Chain Link Fence Recreational Path 6’Wide Recreational Path 6’Wide Recreational Path 6’WideParking and Pathway Lighting Field Lighting Field Lighting Dug Out Bleacher Pad Field Lighting 20 Bike Racks Water Fountain Parking and Pathway Lighting Concrete Sidewalk (future) Concrete Sidewalk (future) Flood Plain Line Youth Soccer Field 50 yds x 80 yds Area for Potential Future Cultural Display Little League Baseball Field Water Fountain Kamehameha Avenue Manono StreetKuawa Street APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF CONTAMINATED SOILS Page 8 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development [this page intentionally left blank] Page 9 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Historical features that span eras from the kuleana Town would be honored through naming, historic interpretive signs, and preservation/ restoration/reuse of several sites or areas. Parking, landscaping, and accessible routes and walkways to connect and facilitate access would be provided. Vehicular access will be from driveways on Kuawa Street. No public vehicular access from Kamehameha Avenue or Manono Street will be allowed. This Environmental Assessment (EA) also considers future amenities that may be provided subsequent to the initial phase, including weather-protective covering for the bleachers, field lighting, a concessions facility, a comfort station, a storage facility, an onsite network of walkways for bi-directional walking/jogging and full perimeter fencing. 1.2 Purpose and Need Dozens of soccer, rugby, baseball and football youth and adult teams from East Hawai‘i utilize the Hilo Bayfront area for formal or informal recreational fields. The availability of free, public sports fields is vital for providing recreation for this population. There are currently fewer sports fields than needed in the area, and teams often have a hard time finding a home practice field or venue for league games or tournaments. For some sports such as rugby and football, there are very few existing fields that can be configured to accommodate their sport per regulated dimensions. Some informal fields are squeezed in spaces that are too small or too close to roadways for optimum use. The proposed fields would properly accommodate four different sports with correctly sized and shaped fields. This would benefit not only East Hawai‘i teams and their families but also visiting teams and their families from around the island and State. Among urban planners, the extensive recreational open space of the Hilo Bayfront is noted worldwide as possibly the best example of sensible adaptation to tsunami hazard. The proposed use continues and extends this approach by firmly establishing recreational uses for an undeveloped property near the Bayfront. 1.3 Environmental Assessment Process This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being conducted in accordance with Chapter 343 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. This law, along with its implementing regulations, Title 11, Chapter 200, of the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, is the basis for the environmental impact process in the State of Hawai‘i. According to Chapter 343, an EA is prepared to determine impacts associated with an action, to develop mitigation measures for adverse impacts, and to determine whether any of the impacts are significant according to thirteen specific criteria. Part 4 of this document states the anticipated finding that no significant impacts are expected to occur; Part 5 lists each criterion and presents the preliminary findings for each made by the Hawai‘i County Department of Parks and Recreation, the proposing and approving agency. If, after considering comments to the Draft EA, the approving agency concludes that no significant impacts would be expected to occur, then the agency will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the action will be permitted to proceed to other appropriate approval and permit processes. If the agency concludes that significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Action, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. Page 10 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 1.4 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination The following agencies and organizations were consulted by letter during development of the Environmental Assessment. State: Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration Department of Land and Natural Resources, Chairperson Office of Hawaiian Affairs County: Civil Defense Agency County Council Department of Public Works Fire Department Planning Department Police Department Private: Sierra Club Neighboring Property Lessee Responses received are contained in Appendix 1a. Comments to the Draft EA and responses to these comments are contained in Appendix 1b. Various places in the EA have been modified to reflect input received in the comment letters; additional or modified non-procedural text is denoted by double underlines, as in this sentence. 1.5 Cost and Schedule Shortly after the EA is complete and necessary permits are obtained, grading and site mitigation and tree removal will begin on the Proposed Action and the turf will be prepared. The cost of Phase 1 of the improvements, which includes the construction of the fields and associated infrastructure, parking, landscaping and some historic markers and preservation, is estimated at $1,125,000. Mitigation of contaminated soil is expected to cost approximately $200,000. Costs for subsequent phases, which may build weather-protective covering for the bleachers, field lighting, a concessions facility, a comfort station, a storage facility, an onsite network of walkways for bi-directional walking/jogging, perimeter fencing, and a children’s playground, have not yet been determined. These phases have not yet been scheduled. It should be noted that the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DLNR-DOBOR) has used the site in the past for temporary storage and dewatering of dredge deposits from the Wailoa River. DLNR-DOBOR is considering using the site again as part of an upcoming project, prior to construction of the fields, and will coordinate with the P&R concerning utilizing this site or perhaps an alternate site, along with the potential for utilization of the tested and cleared deposits for project fill. Page 11 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development PART 2: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the County of Hawai‘i would not construct sports fields on this or any other site in the area. The benefits provided by sports fields in terms of open space and public health, recreation and enjoyment for both youth and adults would not occur, but there would be no disturbance of the existing ground surface or vegetation, and no impacts to traffic in the area. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the impacts of the proposed project. 2.2 Alternative Locations for New Sports Fields Park As part of its mission to expand recreational opportunities, P&R periodically inventories available recreational areas and compare this against demand. As most of the central Hilo area is fully developed, there are very few vacant properties that lack encumbrances and are capable of accommodating a new sports field. Some vacant State and County lands are present near the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. However, the amount of surveying, environmental studies, landclearing, grading, road improvements and utility improvements necessary to create an active park in this area would cost at least 10 times as much as utilizing the proposed project site. Furthermore, the proximity of the Kuawa Street project site to both the Walter Victor baseballs fields and the Hilo Bayfront soccer fields helps to centralize league activities and support expansion of tournaments. P&R is unaware of any other sites in the area that might be suitable for the sports field that are necessary for the current level of demand. Therefore, no alternative sites have been advanced in this Environmental Assessment. 2.3 Alternative Strategies Involving Existing Parks The recreational purposes that would be met by providing new sports fields could conceivably be met by converting existing passive parks or portions of passive parks into active parks. The only passive parks in the Hilo Bayfront area with sufficient extents of somewhat suitable topography are Wailoa State Recreational Area and Queen Lili‘uokalani Gardens. Converting portions of these to active parks would require extensive grading and removal of ornamental trees and other features. More importantly, it would destroy the character of these historically important, scenic and cherished facilities in Hilo, which have been specifically developed for passive uses. P&R does not consider such an action to be worthy of consideration, and therefore it has not advanced it in this Environmental Assessment as an alternative. Page 12 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Basic Geographic Setting The location for the Proposed Action is referred to throughout this EA as the project site (see Figures 1- 4). The term project area is used to describe the general environs of this part of Hilo. The project site is surrounded by roads on three sides and by a restaurant/bar and Department of Health facility on the other side. Across adjacent streets are recreational uses: Banyan Golf Course, the Ho‘olulu Park Recreational Complex, and Wailoa Small Boat Harbor. 3.1 Physical Environment 3.1.1 Climate, Geology, Soils and Geologic Hazards Environmental Setting The climate in the area is mild and moist, with a high average annual rainfall of about 135 inches and a mean annual temperature of approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (Giambelluca et al 2013; UH Hilo-Geography 1998). The project site is located at about 10 feet in elevation above mean sea level. The underlying geology is a Mauna Loa lava flow dated between 750 and 1,500 years before the present (Wolfe and Morris 1996). Soil on the project site is classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) as Keaukaha series extremely rocky muck. This organic and strongly acid soil is typically found up to 8 inches thick with roughly 30 percent rock outcroppings. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard slight. Its capability subclass is VIIs, which means that this soil has very severe limitations that make it very unsuited for cultivation, and restricts its use to mainly pasture and woodland or wildlife. Erosion hazard is slight (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973). The area was also used to pile dredge deposits from the mouth of the Wailoa River in 2006 to 2007, where the sediments were dewatered and disposed of at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. The entire Big Island is subject to geologic hazards, especially lava flows and earthquakes. Volcanic hazard as assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey in this area of Hilo is 3 on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1 (Heliker 1990:23). The hazard risk is based on the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano. Volcanic hazard zone 3 areas have had 1 to 5 percent of their land area covered by lava flows or ash since the year 1800, but are at lower risk than zone 2 areas because of their greater distances from recently active vents and/or because the local topography makes it less likely that flows would cover these areas. In terms of seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawai‘i is rated Zone 4 Seismic Hazard (Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, Figure 16-2). Zone 4 areas are at risk from major earthquake damage, especially to structures that are poorly designed or built, as the 6.7-magnitude (Richter) quake of October 15, 2006, demonstrated. The project site is flat, with no surrounding steep slopes other than a minor highway embankment, and does not appear to be subject to subsidence, landslides or other forms of mass wasting. Page 13 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geologic conditions impose no constraints on the Proposed Action, and the utilization of the area for sports fields is not imprudent to undertake. Most of the surface of Hawai‘i Island is subject to eventual lava inundation, and any recreational facilities in in Hilo face risk. Given the need for recreation in the area, the County has determined that it is sensible to expand its facilities here. Project design will be taken the seismic setting into account, and no mitigation measures are expected to be required. 3.1.2 Drainage, Water Features and Water Quality Existing Environment The project site is across Manono Street and from the Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, on the Wailoa River, an estuary that connects to Hilo Bay. Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) 11 54 03(c)(2) state that class A waters such as those found in Hilo Bay are valuable for recreational purposes and aesthetic enjoyment. Any other use shall be permitted as long as it is compatible with the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these waters. The closest water bodies are approximately 100 feet to the northwest, but because of the raised rights-of-way of the adjacent streets, there is no direct surface connection to these waters. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 0880c (9/16/1988) shows that most of the project site is in Flood Zone X, outside of the 100-year or 500-year floodplain, although the western fifth of the property is within Zone AE (Figure 6). This zone consists of areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed methods, with Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) shown. The BFE on the project site is shown as 9 to 10 feet above sea level. Maps printed by the Hawai‘i County Civil Defense Agency locate the parcel in the area that should be evacuated during a tsunami warning. Hilo Bay, including the project site, has been struck by several highly destructive tsunami in historic times. The April 1, 1946 tsunami had a runup at Hilo Bay of 25 feet and killed 122 people on the Island of Hawai‘i. The May 23, 1960 tsunami had a runup of 35 feet at Hilo Bay, killing 61 people and destroying about 540 homes and businesses in Hilo alone (Hawai‘i County 2005). Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land clearing and construction activities, including parking, would occur in an area greater than one acre, and thus will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to ensure that erosion and sedimentation impacts to adjacent waters will be minimized. Plans submitted as part of the application for this permit and a County grading permit will specify practices to minimize the potential for sedimentation, erosion and pollution of coastal waters. The County will ensure that its contractor shall perform all earthwork and grading in conformance with: (a) “Storm Drainage Standards,” County of Hawai‘i, October, 1970, and as revised. (b) Applicable standards and regulations of Chapter 27, “Flood Control,” and Chapter 10, “Erosion and Sedimentation Control,” of the Hawai‘i County Code. (c) Conditions of an NPDES permit. Page 14 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 6. Flood Insurance Rate Map Source: http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/fhat/ Best Management Practices may include, but may not be limited to, the following practices: The total amount of land disturbance will be minimized. The construction contractor will be limited to the delineated construction work areas within the lot. The contractor will not allow any sediment to leave the site. Construction activities with the potential to produce polluted runoff will not be allowed during unusually heavy rains or storm conditions that might generate storm water runoff. Cleared areas will be replanted or otherwise stabilized as soon as possible. The Proposed Action has been conceived and designed to minimize construction in the flood zone to the extent consistent with accomplishing key recreational goals. Small portions of the adult multi-sports field and the parking lot are within the AE flood zone. The field will require some fill to have the same level as the rest of the field. In order for this to be allowed, P&R has prepared an application for a “no-rise” certificate and submitted it to the Hawai‘i County Department of Public Works to allow a variance or exemption. There will be no impact on the base flood elevation or the size of the floodplain. The National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, which monitors sudden earth movements throughout the Pacific Basin. Tsunamis generated from earth movements on the Pacific Rim, including South America, Japan, California and Alaska, would allow for warning times between 4 and 15 hours, sufficient time for evacuation of the Hilo Bayfront. Sudden movement along faults close to Page 15 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Hawai‘i are unpredictable, allowing only minutes or perhaps an hour of warning time, and evacuation would be more problematic. Coastal recreational areas in Hilo cannot avoid the tsunami hazard because the entire coast is vulnerable to tsunami. Warning sirens are present at the project site and are easily audible in all locations. 3.1.3 Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems Existing Environment The natural vegetation of this part of Hilo was most likely shoreline or coastal vegetation, dominated grasses such as aki aki (Sporobolus virginicus), sedges and coastal herbs, vines such as pohuehue (Ipomoea pes-caprae) and nanea (Vigna marina), as well as shrubs and trees such as hala (Pandanus tectorius), milo (Thespesia populnea), hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) and naupaka (Scaevola taccada) (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). As discussed previously, this original community has been modified by centuries of human use involving draining of wetlands, fill for railroad beds, highways and urban uses, dumping of dredge spoil, and landscaping for recreational use. The current vegetation of the project site is entirely managed vegetation, i.e., lawns and planted shrubs and trees. None of the above-named species still persist, and instead, various weedy or ornamental grasses, vines, herbs and trees predominate, including Hilo grass (Paspalum conjugatum), Chinese banyan (Ficus microcarpa), mango (Mangifera indica) and many others. A full list of plants found on the project site is provided in Table 1. Only two common native species were observed (one herb and one vine), and no plant species classified as threatened or endangered (USFWS 2014) are present or would be expected on the project site. The urban project site is not habitat for native fauna. Typical expected birds include Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis), Zebra Dove (Geopelia striata), Japanese White-eye (Zosterops japonicus), Saffron Finch (Sicalis flaveola), and House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), most of which were observed during the botany survey on the site. The only native bird identified during site visits that included biologists was the Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva), a migratory bird that resides in Hawai‘i from September to April and commonly forages or rests in grassy areas. It is unlikely that many native forest birds would be expected to use the project site due to its low elevation, alien vegetation and lack of adequate forest resources. One native bird that is increasingly showing up in low elevations after having developed some resistance to the mosquitos that plague the lowlands with avian malaria is the Hawai‘i ‘Amakihi (Hemignathus virens virens). This bird was not observed but could occasionally be present. As with all of the island of Hawai‘i, several endangered native terrestrial vertebrates may overfly, roost, nest, or utilize resources in the general project area of urban Hilo. These include the endangered Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), and the threatened Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli). Page 16 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Table 1 Plant Species Observed on Project Site Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Form Status* Ageratum conyzoides Asteraceae Ageratum Herb A Amaranthus spinosus Amaranthaceae Amaranthus Herb A Archontophoenix alexandrae Arecaceae King palm Tree A Bidens alba Asteraceae Bidens Herb A Bidens pilosa Asteraceae Bidens Herb A Brachiaria mutica Poaceae California grass Herb A Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae Ironwood Tree A Chamaecrista nictitans Fabaceae Partridge pea Herb A Chamaesyce hirta Euphorbiaceae Garden spurge Herb A Chamaesyce hypericifolia Euphorbiaceae Graceful spurge Herb A Chloris sp. Poaceae Swollen finger grass Herb A Clusia rosea Clusiaceae Autograph tree Tree A Cocos nucifera Arecaceae Coconut Tree A Commelina diffusa Commelinaceae Honohono Herb A Conyza bonariensis Asteraceae Hairy horseweed Herb A Crassocephalum crepidioides Asteraceae Crassocephalum Herb A Crotalaria pallida Fabaceae Crotalaria Herb A Desmodium sandwicense Fabaceae Desmodium Herb A Desmodium tortuosum Fabaceae Desmodium Herb A Desmodium triflorum Fabaceae Desmodium Herb A Drymaria cordata Caryophyllaceae Drymaria Herb A Eleusine indica Poaceae Wiregrass Herb A Emilia fosbergii Asteraceae Emilia Herb A Emilia sonchifolia Asteraceae Flora’s paintbrush Herb A Epipremnum pinnatum Araceae Pothos Vine A Eragrostis brownie Poaceae Eragrostis Herb A Eragrostis tenella Poaceae Lovegrass Herb A Ficus microcarpa Moraceae Banyan Tree A Galinsoga parviflora Asteraceae Galinsoga Herb A Hedyotis corymbosa Rubiaceae Hedyotis Herb A Ipomoea indica Convolvulaceae Ipomoea Vine I Ipomoea sp. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea Vine A Ipomoea triloba Convolvulaceae Little bell Vine A Koelreuteria elegans Sapindaceae Koelreuteria Tree A Kyllinga brevifoliua Cyperaceae Kyllinga Herb A Kyllinga nemoralis Cyperaceae Kyllinga Herb A Lindernia crustacea Scrophuariaceae Lindernia Herb A Macaranga mappa Euphorbiaceae Bingabing Shrub A Macroptilium lathyroides Fabaceae Cow pea Herb A Malvastrum coromandelianum Malvaceae Malvastrum Herb A Malvaviscus penduliflorus Malvaceae Turk’s cap Shrub A Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Mango Tree A Melochia umbellata Sterculiaceae Melochia Tree A Page 17 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Table 1, continued Scientific Name Family Common Name Life Form Status* Merremia aegyptia Convolvulaceae Hairy Merremia Vine A Mimosa pudica Fabaceae Sleeping grass Herb A Momordica charantia Cucurbitaceae Bitter melon Vine A Paederia foetida Rubiaceae Maile pilau Vine A Panicum maximum Poaceae Guinea grass Herb A Paspalum conjugatum Poaceae Hilo grass Herb A Paspalum scrobiculatum Poaceae Paspalum Herb A Philodendron sp. Araceae Philodendron Vine A Phlebodium aureum Polypodiaceae Phlebodium Fern A Phyllanthus debilis Euphorbiaceae Niruri Herb A Polygala paniculata Polygalaceae Milkwort Herb A Ricinus communis Euphorbiaceae Castor bean Shrub A Roystonea regia Arecaceae Roystonea Tree A Sacciolepis indica Poaceae Glenwood grass Herb A Sida rhombifolia Malvaceae Sida Herb A Solanum americanum Solanaceae Popolo Herb I Solanum sp. Solanaceae Solanum Herb A Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae Sow thistle Herb A Spermacoce assurgens Rubiaceae Buttonweed Herb A Sporobolus diander Poaceae Sporobolus Herb A Synedrella nodiflora Asteraceae Nodeweed Herb A Thunbergia fragrans Acanthaceae White Thunbergia Vine A A=Alien E=Endemic I=Indigenous END=Federal and State Listed Endangered Apart from the Hawaiian hoary bat, all mammals in the project area are introduced species, including feral cats (Felis catus), small Indian mongooses (Herpestes a. auropunctatus) and various species of rats (Rattus spp.). None are of conservation concern and all are deleterious to native flora and fauna. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Because of the lack of native ecosystems or threatened or endangered species on the project site, the Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts to native vegetation or habitat. Avoidance measures will be instituted in order to avoid impacts to Hawaiian Hawks, Hawaiian hoary bats, and listed seabirds: There will be no clearing of woody vegetation taller than 15 feet during the bat pupping season, which runs from June 1 through September 15 each year. If earthmoving or tree cutting is scheduled during the breeding season for Hawaiian Hawks (March through the end of September), the County will arrange for a hawk nest search to be conducted by a qualified biologist, and if hawk nests are present in or near the project site, all land clearing activity will cease until the expiration of the breeding season. No lighting will occur in Phase I; if lighting is installed in future phases, it will be required to be shielded in conformance with the Hawai‘i County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance to reduce the risk that seabirds may be attracted to and then disoriented by the lighting. Page 18 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development No nighttime construction work will be allowed during the seabird-fledging season, which runs from September 15 through December 15 each year. 3.1.4 Air Quality, Noise, and Scenic Resources Environmental Setting Air pollution in East Hawai‘i is minimal, and is mainly derived from volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide, which convert into particulate sulfate and produce a volcanic haze (vog) that occasionally blankets the district. Persistent trade winds keep the project area relatively free of vog for most of the year. Motor vehicles provide another source of air pollution. Noise on the project site is moderate to high and derived mainly from motor vehicles on Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street and aircraft associated with Hilo International Airport. The Kuawa Street fields are located directly under the flight path during normal trade wind patterns for arriving jets. This condition exists for all the sports facilities at the County’s Ho‘olulu Park Recreational Complex, including Francis F.C. Wong Stadium, the Walter Victor Baseball Complex, Aunty Sally Kaleohano’s Lu‘au Hale and the Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium, as well as the Edith Kanaka‘ole Multi-Purpose Stadium. The project site is near the ocean and Banyan Peninsula but is separated from them by a busy highway. In itself, the project site is not an area considered significant for its scenic character in the Hawai‘i County General Plan, and no other scenic resources exist, aside from several large mango and banyan trees (see photographs in Figure 4). Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise impacts would occur during grading, turf establishment, building construction, and other actions. These activities could generate noise exceeding 95 decibels at times, impacting nearby sensitive uses, which are limited to the restaurant and Health Office on the eastern margin of the site. In cases where construction noise is expected to exceed the Department of Health’s (DOH) “maximum permissible” property-line noise levels, contractors are required to obtain a permit per Title 11, Chapter 46, HAR (Community Noise Control) prior to construction. DOH would review the proposed activity, location, equipment, project purpose, and timetable in order to decide upon conditions and mitigation measures, such as restriction of equipment type, maintenance requirements, restricted hours, and portable noise barriers. There is some potential for fugitive dust emissions during grading and construction. Short-term direct and indirect impacts on air quality could occur during construction, principally through fugitive dust from vehicle movement and soil excavation, and exhaust emissions from onsite construction equipment. The State of Hawai‘i Air Pollution Control Regulations (Chapter 11-60, HAR) prohibit visible emissions of fugitive dust from construction activities beyond the property line. The grading notes on the construction plans will direct the contractor to keep the area free of dust nuisances and to conduct all work in conformance with Chapter HAR 11-60.1, “Fugitive Dust.” Page 19 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Onsite mobile and stationary construction equipment also would emit air pollutants from engine exhaust. The largest of this equipment is usually diesel powered. Nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel engines can be relatively high compared to gasoline-powered equipment, but the standard for nitrogen dioxide is set on an annual basis and is not likely to be violated by short-term construction equipment emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions from diesel engines, on the other hand, are low and should be relatively insignificant compared to vehicular emissions on nearby roadways. Furthermore, to avoid air quality impacts from slow-moving construction vehicles traveling to and from the site on major roadways, heavy construction equipment will be moved on-site during periods of low traffic volume. Operationally, the Proposed Action would not measurably affect air quality, noise levels or scenic sites recognized in the Hawai‘i County General Plan. The increase in vehicular traffic associated with the conversion of the open field into an active park will slightly increase traffic noise and exhaust emissions, but such increases are expected to be modest and in a context of already moderate levels, and require no mitigation. Development of sports fields will require removal of all trees on the site, including banyan, mango and king palm. Although the loss of any trees involves some scenic impact, the park will include landscaping that will soften and enhance the views (see the Site Plan in Figure 5). 3.1.5 Hazardous Substances, Toxic Waste and Hazardous Conditions As discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2, the project site has a long history of residential, commercial, industrial and transportation uses that terminated with the devastation of the 1960 tsunami. Ever since that event the property has been mostly vacant and unused, with the exception of periodic boat storage (Wailoa Small Boat Harbor is across Manono Street) and as a deposit site for dredged sediments from Wailoa River channel and Hilo Bayfront shoreline area. There is also a HELCO fuel line along Kamehameha Avenue. Given the context, the County of Hawai‘i authorized an enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the property to determine whether Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were present. The study was conducted by Myounghee Noh and Associates and is attached as Appendix 2 and summarized below. The enhanced Phase I ESA involved various forms of research on the project site and surrounding properties, including searches of government records and databases, field observations, interviews with agency officials and others familiar with conditions and historical uses in the area, and several phases of soil sampling. Environmental Setting: Surrounding Properties No Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) were identified on immediately surrounding properties, nor were there any records of sites with hazardous or toxic issues that have been identified on various agency lists, including those developed pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). One State CERCLIS site was identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property. The site, identified as the HELCO pipeline anomaly located at 126 Banyan Drive, was located approximately one third of a mile and downgradient from the subject property. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons contamination below the Hawai‘i Department of Health (HDOH) Tier I Environmental Action Level was found. Contaminated soil was removed in 2012 and the site was backfilled and no further action was required. Due to the proximity of this site to the subject property, this is not considered an REC in the context of the project site. Page 20 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Twenty-five state CERLIS sites were identified at greater than 1/2 mile from the project site, but due the distance of the sites from the subject property, they are not considered RECs. Two RCRA Generator sites (i.e., sites that generate a reportable quantity of hazardous materials) were identified on adjoining properties. No violations were listed for either location; therefore, these sites are not considered RECs. Eight LUST sites were identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property. The documented LUST sites have a current site status of Site Cleanup Complete, No Further Action. Due to the distance and proximity of these sites to the subject property, these LUST sites are considered Historical RECs, but are not expected to affect any proposed uses on the project site. Environmental Setting: Project Site No Underground Storage Tanks or Leaking Underground Storage Tanks were identified on the project site that is proposed for sports fields. No records of sites with hazardous or toxic issues that have been identified on various agency lists, including those developed pursuant to RCRA or in the CERCLIS were identified. However, based on former uses, it is possible that several types of hazardous materials or toxic substances are present. Arsenic. The Wailoa River is known to contain arsenic in its lower sediments (Hallacher 1985), and with the history of potential pesticide use and emplacing dredge deposits from the Wailoa River on the property, arsenic was a concern. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earth’s crust. In Hawai‘i, low levels of arsenic are found naturally in native soils at levels between 1.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 20 mg/kg. However, significantly elevated levels of arsenic have been identified in soils at former sugar cane fields, former pesticide storage or mixing areas, former sugar plantation camps, a former canec production plant, and wood-treatment plants. The presence of elevated levels of soil arsenic at some historic sugar plantation areas is believed to be related to the widespread use of sodium arsenite or other arsenic-based herbicides/ pesticides in and around the cane fields and camps in the 1920s through 1940s (Hawai‘i Department of Health 2010). It should be noted that the project site used to pile dredge deposits from the mouth of the Wailoa River in 2006 to 2007, where the sediments were dewatered, tested for total metals, and disposed of at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. No levels of contaminants above environmental action levels were found, probably because the deposits appear to originate from the Wailuku River rather than the Wailoa River. Pesticides. Pesticides have been used in Hawai‘i since the early 20th century for a variety of reasons including structural protection and agricultural uses (Hawai‘i Department of Health 2009). Since the subject property was used as former housing and shops before 1960s, pesticides such as chlordane and heptachlor may have been applied under building foundations. Hydrocarbons. Various types of hydrocarbon products used in fuel and lubricants can still be present in old industrial and commercial settings, and they can also occur because of dumping of motor vehicles or parts. PCBs. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) have been widely used in electrical transformers and also as hydraulic fluids in the U.S. from the 1930s through the 1970s when production was banned. Page 21 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Old equipment containing PCB are still in use today, and therefore releases to the environment from these sources and runoff from contaminated upland sites with industrial uses continue to contribute PCB to aquatic systems. Subsequent to soil testing and site observations, several RECs were noted on the property. During the site reconnaissance, conducted on 30 March 2015 an old motor was observed on the subject property. The motor was in poor condition, showing rust and weathering on all sides. The motor was void of fluids. While there was no staining to the soil or petroleum or oil odors, the motor represents a material threat of release to the surface soil of the subject property, and is therefore considered a REC. Soil sampling and analytical results indicated that arsenic and lead (heavy metals) were present above the HDOH Tier 1 Soil Environmental Action Level (EAL) for unrestricted (residential) land use. Therefore, this is considered a REC. Arsenic was detected in several samples, with concentrations ranging from 25 mg/kg to 42 mg/kg, exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use of 24 mg/kg (although it should be noted that natural background levels in Hawaiian soils may be high as 20 mg/kg). But the results were below the EAL for restricted land use (commercial/ industrial), which is 95 mg/kg. Lead was detected from all samples in the range of 18 mg/kg to 340 mg/kg. The lead results of the samples collected from surface and near-surface soil in one of the sample units was 340 mg/kg exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use of 200 mg/kg. Levels of benzo(a)pyrene higher than the EAL were also detected. Elevated levels of lead and benzo(a)pyrene were detected only in the eastern one third of the project site. Although various other substances were tested for and some detected, the concentrations did not rise to the level of representing an REC. Reportable levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)-Diesel and TPH-Oil; barium, cadmium, chromium, and mercury; and PAHs were detected. However, all concentrations were below the Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. The volatile compounds TPH- Gasoline and BTEX were not detected, nor were organochlorine pesticides. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Recognized Environmental Conditions listed above require remediation. The abandoned car motor will be removed and disposed of as scrap metal in conformance with State and County laws and regulations. Soil impacted by arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene is present on at least some parts of the site exceeding the Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted (residential) land use, but below the restricted (commercial/industrial) land use EALs. Since the site plan is for development and use as a soccer field, unrestricted land use EAL is applied. Based on the need for soil disturbance (grading) as part of the development of the fields, the Phase I ESA recommended further soil assessment for arsenic and lead in certain areas at different depths, specifically: Bioaccessible arsenic and lead test for surface (0-6 inch bgs) and near-surface (6-12 inch bgs) soil Total arsenic and lead test for subsurface soil below 12 inches bgs since arsenic and lead results for the near-surface soil exceeded or approached the EALs. Page 22 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development [Note to reader: text marked with double underlines below has been modified from the text in the Draft EA. in order to provide an update on the testing, soil mitigation and site planning efforts. A summary report of additional testing is contained in Appendix 2b, which has maps and tables of sample data] P&R has addressed these issues to ensure the health and safety of the public for the proposed uses. Additional laboratory tests using the original soil samples were performed to measure the bioaccessible arsenic content in the fine fragment of the soil. In Hawaiian soils, it is often the case that the fraction of arsenic that can be ingested and metabolized is far lower than the total arsenic. Environmental regulatory agencies now consider the degree of bioavailability of arsenic and other metal contaminants in risk assessments and remedial action evaluations (USEPA 2007). Because the total arsenic levels were not highly elevated, it appeared likely that the bioaccessible arsenic data would indicate that the site was appropriate for unrestricted land use. P&R ordered analysis on the original soil samples to determine the bioaccessible arsenic content in the fine soil fraction (<0.25 mm), using the solubility/ bioavailability research consortium (SBRC) - gastric preparation method [also known as physiologically based extraction test (PBET)] and EPA Method SW 6020. The analytical result indicated that the bioaccessible arsenic was within acceptable health risks for long-term exposure, and that the presence of limited levels of arsenic on the project site did not make it unsuitable for unrestricted land use. Similar levels of bioaccessible arsenic are found in many locations throughout the east side of the Island of Hawai‘i. P&R also conducted additional sampling for other contaminants found on the eastern part of the project site. Whereas the original sampling analysis “averaged” the concentrations throughout the eastern one third of the site (in the Phase I ESA, this area was called decision unit 4 or DU-04), the next phase of sampling attempted to ascertain the location of lead- and benzo(a)pyrene-impacted areas. The area was be split into smaller “decision units” and analyzed per a sampling plan to determine whether the entire area or smaller sub-area is the source of the elevated lead. DU-04 was split into four smaller DUs (DU-4-01 to 04) for sampling and analyzed for lead and benzo(a)pyrene (see Appendix 2b, Attachment A, Figure 2, for maps). Each sample combined 33 to 50 increments. Soil samples were collected from three depths, surface (0-6 inches below ground surface [bgs]), near-surface (6-12 inches bgs), and sub-surface (12-24 inches bgs). A professional laboratory analyzed the samples per appropriate methods; EPA Method 8270-SIM for benzo(a)pyrene, and EPA Method 6010B for lead. Analytical results indicated that lead in soil exceeded the EAL for unrestricted and/or restricted land use in two subunits, and benzo(a)pyrene was present in soil exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use in one DU subunit. Once the tests had been conducted and the results analyzed, P&R shared its results with the Department of Health to determine the most appropriate strategy, based on the extent of lead- and or benzo(a)pyrene-impacted soil. Several alternative mitigation strategies were developed and evaluated. Page 23 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Alternative 1 – Minimal cover with land use control This alternative involved leaving the site in its current condition with restricted land use. To prevent potential public exposure to contaminants, the impacted area would be leveled, covered with an approved geotextile fabric overlain with metallic warning tape placed in an orthogonal grid, and then covered with a minimum of 4 inches of uncontaminated topsoil. The area would be grassed and entirely fenced off with a 6-foot high chain link fence. The public would be notified in conformance with procedures determined in consultation with the Department of Health (DOH). If there is any subsequent requirement for tree removal or other soil disturbances, P&R will implement control measures to prevent temporary or ongoing exposure to contaminated soil. Alternative 2 – Grade, mark and fully cover impacted soil The scope of the project within the DU-04 contaminated section is to construct a youth baseball and soccer field. In consultation with DOH, it was determined that a minimum of 1.5 feet of cover was necessary to provide adequate protection for public recreational uses. Grading is required to appropriately lay out the soccer and baseball field in relation to the adjacent property elevations, roads, proposed parking lot and other improvements. In order for the contaminated soil to safely remain on site, it is generally the practice to have an acceptable cover layer of clean soil encapsulating it. The design team performed an analysis to determine how to grade the site appropriately to ensure adequate cover, and determined that it would be feasible. Once graded, the impacted area would be, covered with an approved geotextile fabric overlain with metallic warning tape placed in an orthogonal grid, and then covered with uncontaminated topsoil. In DU-04-01, there would be a cover of approximately 1.7 feet of clean soil, and in DU-04-02, there would be approximately 1.5 feet. DOH will require that a Construction Exposure/Hazard/Management Plan (EHMP) be written for the project and submitted to DOH for review. This document will describe how the lead and benzo(a)pyrene are being managed and will detail cover type and depth, marker layers, dust fences, grassing, etc. It will also describe methods during construction that will be used to protect workers. After review and approval DOH will issue a letter of “No further action with Institutional Controls.” This EHMP will need to be finalized after construction to record compliance and note any changes, and will include a survey map showing the location of the lead and benzo(a)pyrene on the site and sections showing depth and protective layers. This final document will reside with the property deed so should it ever be sold the new owner would have this information and understand the management required. In addition, DOH will require a “fact sheet” that describes the site location, the contaminants, and how they are is being dealt with. This fact sheet would be given to neighbors and/or included in newspaper or press releases to educate the public on the process. DOH will review and approve the fact sheet and its proposed distribution prior to release. The project anticipates utilizing Alternative 2 in conformance with DOH requirements. If during the construction bid process the estimated cost of clean covering and/or soil removal exceeds the project budget, Alternative 1 will be undertaken: the eastern portion of the site will be fenced off to prevent public access, neighbors will be informed of the status of the property, and the area will be periodically mowed by P&R crews. Page 24 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development In addition to the measures related to water quality detailed in Section 3.1.3, in order to ensure to minimize the possibility for spills of hazardous materials, the County will require contractors to adhere to the following conditions: Unused materials and excess fill will be removed and disposed of at an authorized site. During construction, emergency spill treatment, storage, and disposal of all hazardous materials, will be explicitly required to meet all State and County requirements, The contractor will be asked to adhere to “Good Housekeeping” for all appropriate substances, with the following instructions: o Onsite storage of the minimum practical quantity of hazardous materials necessary to complete the job; o Fuel storage and use will be conducted to prevent leaks, spills or fires; o Products will be kept in their original containers unless unresealable, and original labels and safety data will be retained; o Disposal of surplus will follow manufacturer’s recommendation and adhere to regulations; o Manufacturers’ instructions for proper use and disposal will be strictly followed; o Regular inspection by contractor to ensure proper use and disposal; o Onsite vehicles and machinery will be monitored for leaks and receive regular maintenance to minimize leakage; o Construction materials, petroleum products, wastes, debris, and landscaping substances (herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers) will be prevented from blowing, falling, flowing, washing, or leaching into the ocean o All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery, using proper materials that will be properly disposed of; o Regardless of size, spills of toxic or hazardous materials will be reported to the appropriate government agency; and o Should spills occur, the spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent spills from re-occurring and for modified clean-up procedures. 3.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural 3.2.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics The Proposed Action would affect and benefit primarily residents of East Hawai‘i who belong to sports teams that practice and compete in the Hilo Bayfront area, by providing several sports fields that are currently in short supply or altogether lacking. It would also benefit visiting teams and their families. Table 2 provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of Hilo from the U.S. 2010 Census of Population. The majority of the population is Asian or Pacific Islander. Those over 65 years old make up 18 percent of the population. Several segments of the population that typically exhibit disadvantaged measures of social welfare are disproportionately represented in the population of Hilo as compared to the State of Hawai‘i. Median family income is less than 65 percent that of the County as a whole. More than 15 percent of individuals have income below the poverty level, double the statewide rate. Similar patterns hold for households receiving welfare, food stamps, and disability payments. The availability of free, public sports fields for soccer, rugby, baseball and football are important for providing recreation for the population of East Hawai‘i and for promoting a health social environment. Page 25 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Table 2: Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of Hilo SUBJECT NUMBER PERCENT SEX AND AGE Total population 43,263 100.0 Median age (years) 40.5 ( X ) 16 years and over 35,193 81.3 65 years and over 7,807 18.0 85 years and over 1,382 3.2 RACE Total population 43,263 100.0 One Race 29,199 67.5 White 7,617 17.6 Black or African American 227 0.5 American Indian and Alaska Native 132 0.3 Asian 14,833 34.3 Asian Indian 49 0.1 Chinese 645 1.5 Filipino 2,637 6.1 Japanese 9,550 22.1 Korean 419 1.0 Native Hawaiian 4,467 10.3 Two or More Races 14,064 32.5 Black or African American alone 198 0.5 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 82 0.2 Asian alone 14,450 33.4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 5,771 13.3 Some Other Race alone 51 0.1 Two or More Races 11,316 26.2 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households 15,483 100.0 Family households (families) 10,287 66.4 With own children under 18 years 3,766 24.3 Husband-wife family 7,034 45.4 With own children under 18 years 2,307 14.9 Male householder, no wife present 975 6.3 With own children under 18 years 432 2.8 Female householder, no husband present 2,278 14.7 With own children under 18 years 1,027 6.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Page 26 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Impacts The Proposed Action would benefit recreational users by providing an additional area for active sports in Hilo Bayfront. This is particularly important given the high demand for youth activities from the large population of youths and an active senior population which depends upon public sports activities to maintain physical health and mental acuity. Despite a large inventory of facilities in the County parks closer to downtown, demand currently outstrips availability, and teams often have a difficult time finding a venue. No adverse socioeconomic effects are expected, as the project site is not near neighborhoods and would not affect residents through noise or traffic. 3.2.2 Cultural Setting Ahupua‘a, particularly McEldowney (1979), Kelly (1981) and Maly (1996). In addition, the archaeological inventory survey and limited cultural impact assessment included in Appendix 3 involved documentary research and interviews focused on this particular project site. Traditional Cultural Background The earliest historical knowledge of Hilo comes from legends written by Kamakau (1961) of a 16th century chief ‘Umi-a-Liloa (son of Liloa), who at that time ruled the entire island of Hawai‘i. Descendants of Umi and his sister-wife were referred to as 1981:1). According to Kamakau (1961), both sides fought over control of the island, desiring access to resources such as feathers, tapa, and canoes on the Hilo side, and wauke tapa, and warm lands and waters on the Kona side (c.f. Kelly 1981:3). As part of an archaeological assessment study, Maly (1996) conducted historical research for the landdiscussed the significance of the use of the Hawaiian word wai in the place Wainaku, and Wailuku (River). According to Maly, the word wai (water) has strong metaphorical associations with the Hawaiian concept of wealth (waiwai), stressing its cultural importance (Maly 1996:A-2). In this context, the importance of Hilo can be better understood, with its copious streams that fed taro pondfields and its numerous fishponds. Sometime near the end of the 16th century or early in the 17th century, the lands of Hilo were divided into ahupua‘a, which till today retain their original names (Kelly 1981:3). These include the ahupua‘a of Pu‘u‘eo, hawai a (where the current project site is located). The design of these land divisions was such that residents could have access to all that they needed to live, with ocean resources at the coast, and agricultural and forest resources in the interior. However, only Pi‘ihonua and Wai kea provided access to the full range of resources stretching from the sea up to 6,000 feet along the slopes of Mauna Kea (Kelly 1981:5). “broad waters” (Pukui et al. 1974:220) is home to the Wailoa River and portions of Hilo, Reed’s, Kuhio, and Puhi Bays. Historically, the ocean resources of Hilo Bay were vital to everyday subsistence, Kamakau describes various fishing techniques as follows: Page 27 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development “… with basket traps; with hook and line… by drugging. A man could also fish with his hands, or with crab or shrimp nets, or with a pole from a ledge or the seashore or catch fish in tide pools with a scoop net, or go along the seashore with a net, or set a fishline; or search for fish with a small basket trap or draw a net over sandy spots in the sea or up onto the shore; or drive fish into nets by splashing; or with a pole. But these were not expert ways of fishing; they were just for the taking of fish to make living more pleasurable…” (Kamakau 1976:59-60 cited in Kelly et al. 1981:16-17), Marine-based subsistence was also strongly linked to social organization. Strict kapu were enforced, which dictated when and where certain varieties of fish such as ‘ and aku could be caught. A dedicated aku fishing ground or ko‘a known as Maka-o- peninsula, north of the current study area near present day Coconut Island (Maly 1996). Theoretically, access rights to fishing areas and ocean resources were defined by ahupua‘a boundaries, with residents of a specific ahupua‘a residents of the adjacent ahupua‘a only limited rights in the fishery (Kelly et al. 1981). Extensive fishponds were developed in the vicinity of Hilo Bay including the royal fish ponds, five spring-fed inland ponds whose yield was reserved solely for the highest of ali‘i. The largest of these royal ponds, known as , was located southwest of the project site in the Wailoa River . Religious ritual accompanied the creation and maintenance of the royal ponds, which according to a historic account from 1823, were surrounded by small huts for their caretakers (Kelly et al. 1981). was cultivated on mounds built into the existing marshlands along the Wailoa River behind the sand dunes of Hilo Bay using the kipi or kipikipi method, which made a landscape of raised islands and ditches (Maly 1996). According to historical accounts in by Handy and Handy (1972) dry taro was planted n the rivers. Post-European Contact 1794, recorded that Kamehameha was there preparing for his invasion of the neighbor islands, and that Hilo was an important center because his Peleleu fleet of 800 canoes were being built there (Moniz n.d.; Tolleson 2001). The people of Hilo had long prepared for Kamehameha’s arrival and collected a large number of hogs and a variety of plant foods, to feed the ruler and his retinue. Kelly et al. (1981) surmised that the people of Hilo had actually prepared for a year prior to Kamehameha’s visit and expanded their fields into the open lands behind Hilo to accommodate the increased number of people that would be present. It was d personal land holdings (Moniz n.d.). In addition to providing valuable subsistence resources, the protected waters and sandier shores of Hilo Bay offered a calm and safe alternative for landfall for ocean going vessels involved in whaling and the sandalwood trade. The sandalwood trade was initiated in the 1790s but did not become successful until 1812; Kamehameha held the monopoly on the trade and oversaw its management by his chiefs until his Page 28 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development death. Thereafter, King Liholiho’s favored chiefs mismanaged the trade, which lead to the depletion of the forests and the end of the sandalwood trade by 1830 (Kelly et al 1981). According to Kelly et al. (1981), historic accounts about whaling suggest that Hilo Bay was not a preferred port for the whalers due to the missionary influence and the resultant lack of liquor and women; sailors preferred Honolulu and Lahaina as ports-of-call. At the end of the 1830s, industrial development was on the rise in Hilo, despite the decline in whaling and the end of the sandalwood trade. In a letter written in 1840, Reverend Titus Coan remarked on the conditions in Hilo: “Industry is increasing. Our ports and places of trade begin to put on the air of activity and life. Temporal improvements and comforts are fast increasing at Hilo, that is, near the station. Two stores of goods are opened here, and three sugar-mills have recently gone into operation near us. Sugar-cane is being planted to a considerable extent; business assumes more tone and energy, and many of the people are approximating towards industry and competence. Probably the amount of cloth worn by the people has increased ten or twenty fold during four years past. Labor is in better demand and wages are rising continually” (Kelly et. al.1981:49). ended in 1848 with the formal land division known as the Great . The introduction of new spiritual concepts combined with an increased involvement in international trade and global politics lead to a shift in settlement patterns from traditionally dispersed Hawaiian villages to more concentrated urban population centers. Then, on November 7, 1837 at 7 p.m. a tsunami wave hit Hilo Bay, Reverend Coan described the scene as follows: “… we heard a heavy sound as of a falling mountain upon the beach. This noise was followed by loud wailing and cries of distress, extending for miles around the shores of the bay… House furniture, calabashes, fuel, timber, canoes, food, clothing, everything floated wild upon the flood. The waters rushed up valleys, carried away fish-ponds, and swept over many plantations of food” (Maly 1996:18). After the tsunami, Hilo became the site of a large scale religious revival that lasted from 1837 until 1840 and included mass conversions and meetings of up to 10,000 worshippers. Other events that had a profound effect on the demography of Hilo was the measles epidemic of 1848, which claimed one third of the population of the island, followed by an outbreak of smallpox in 1853; later outbreaks of plague and leprosy caused the population to dwindle further (McEldowney 1979). Pressure from foreign investors, combined with the above-described demographic and socioeconomic change, resulted in a shift from traditional land tenure to a system of private land ownership that culminated in the formal land division known as the or Great Mahele of 1848. During the all the lands of Hawai‘i were classified into one of three categories: Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne), Konohiki Lands (to be divided among 245 chiefs) and Government Lands. Conditions of the also afforded native tenants the right to claim, and acquire title to, parcels that they actively lived on or cultivated for a living (Maly 1996). These kuleana claims were essentially Page 29 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development transfers of ownership from the (high chief) or konohiki (lesser chief/overseer), who had been awarded ownership of the ahupua‘a by Kamehameha III, to the commoners. The Board of Commissioners oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as Land Commission Awards (LCAw.). Historically, the entire ahupua‘a , who and passed it -daughter of Keawemauhili and kahu of Alexander Liholiho (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992), who later relinquished the ahupua’a during the As a result of the Ahupua‘a was set aside as Crown Lands for Kamehameha III. In addition, twenty-six kuleana house lots and cultivation. Most were located along major inland roads or fishponds near Hilo Bay, (Devereux et. al. 1997; Moniz n.d.). Portions of three kuleana claims lie within the Kuawa sports field project site, as detailed within Appendix 3 in Table 1 and Figure 11. The southern portion of LCAw. 1-E that was awarded to Mahoe falls within the northwest quarter of the project site. According to Board of Land Commission documentation from 1849, the cultivated field on the east bank of the Wailoa River was unfenced and had no house, the claimant had it from Konohiki Pea for years, undisturbed. LCAw. 4004 awarded to Hale extends from the east bank of the Wailoa River at the western edge of the project site (just south of LCAw. I-E) to the southeast corner (at present day Kuawa St). According to Records of Land Commission dated 1848, the four cultivated fields included one house that belonged to the claimant. Mahi (“who has no right in the soil”) had another house that had descended to him from his forefathers time during Kamehameha’s reign without objection. Most of the land associated with LCAw. 2603 awarded to Napeahi falls within the southwestern portion of the project site. According to Records of Land Commission from 1848, the unfenced house lot contained one house that belonged to the claimant and three other houses that belonged to Paakai, Kamokualiiole, and Kalua; Napeahi had inherited the land from his forefathers and “no one had ever disputed his right”. Furthermore, “Pikaka had given up his claim in favor of Napeahi” (1848). Wai Following the the population of Hilo grew and the scattered upland habitations gave way to sugar outside interests for pasture and sugarcane cultivation (Moniz 1992). In 1861 S. Kipi leased the Crown per year to be used as pasture land for five years (Kelly et al. 1981; Maly 1996). In 1874 the first lease for sugarcane cultivLyman for a term of 25 years. The lease granted him all the privileges of the land including the use of the fishponds and the cutting of firewood (Maly 1996). This lease was eventually transferred to the Waiakea Mill Company, founded by Alexander Young and Theo H. Davis, and the Waiakea sugar plantation was established in 1879. The Waiakea Mill Company started with about 350 acres of cultivated lands they had acquired from Lyman. In 1888 the company acquired a 30-year lease that increased their land holdings in 1918, the acreage under cultivation had increased to nearly 7,000; but without a lease the ahupua‘a fell under the homesteading laws, which required the government to lease the land to individual growers. Waiakea Mill Company was expected to grind the crop for the independent growers under a contract that Page 30 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development gave the company 40 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the refined sugar. Contractual and legal problems, combined with a declining sugar market and the devastating tsunami of 1946, led the Waiakea Mill Company to cease operation in 1947, and offer its property under General Lease 2741 to private cultivators for the purpose of growing cane (Maly 1996). During its 68 years of operation, the Waiakea Mill Company was a major force in shaping the economic and social growth of Hilo, and certainly left its mark on both the cultural and physical landscapes of the area. The productive sugar cane areas were interconnected with a plantation railroad system connecting fields with the mill at Wailoa Stream, about a half mile southwest of the project site. The railroad in Hilo was in operation from 1899 until 1946. The railroad’s primary business centered on the transport of raw sugar from the mills to the harbor and hauling plantation freight while the transport of passengers was merely a secondary interest. On April 18, 1899 the Republic of Hawai‘i and the Hilo Railroad Company (HRC) reached an agreement for the HRC to “build and operate a railroad in, from between and through the agreement granted the following to the HRC, subject to the approval of the Minister of the Interior: Government lands for the HRC to build their stations, depots and other structures; a free right of way across Government Lands and roads; and free use of water for the construction of the railroad (Kelly et al. 1981). Six experienced Honolulu businessmen who hoped to recreate their success on O‘ahu in the cultivation and transport of sugarcane were behind the HRC venture on the island of Hawai‘i. In the fall of 1899, the HRC Mill near Kea‘au, Puna District (Kelly et al. 1981). The investors behind the HRC chose this route as their first rail service because they were backing the Olaa Sugar enterprise as well. Interestingly, the first product transported by rail from Olaa Sugar Company was not sugar, but rather timber that had been recently cleared from forests in the area and supplied to the HRC as 35,000 railroad ties (Kelly et al 1981). In 1900, a small wharf was constructed along the eastern bank of the Wailoa River near the current project site for the landing of material necessary to build the tracks, buildings and railroad cars. The first locomotive made landfall on May 15, 1900, The Wailoa River railroad wharf was expanded in 1901 and a large warehouse was built to store up to 15,000 bags of sugar (Kelly et al 1981). By the end of 1901, HRC had completed construction of more than 35 miles of railroad line, which included 25.1 miles -mile branch to Wailoa River near the project site. In 1903, a new railroad wharf was built north of the mouth of the bridges over the Wailoa River just west of the project site. The HRC ran mostly deficits during 1901-1905, but the advent of trans-Pacific steamship service in Hilo Bay promised to make the venture profitable. In 1906, the HRC directors paid to put together a proposal to construct a breakwater in order to accommodate the steamships and presented it to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The HRC was able to secure the appropriation for the breakwater in 1907, by making assurances to the U.S. government that they would construct a railroad north of Hilo in addition to wharf facilities (Kelly et al. 1981). Breakwater construction began in 1908 and the HRC hauled most of the rock Page 31 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development from Puna to Hilo for the breakwater project, which compensated for the decline in the sugar industry and resulted in increased revenue for the years 1908-1910. From 1909 to 1913, the HRC laid track from Hilo rd through Puna. This expansion was funded by $4.5 million worth of stocks and bonds with annually rising interest rates that the HRC could not afford to pay. The HRC’s failure to meet their bond interest obligations resulted in foreclosure in 1916. Later that year, the Hilo Railroad Company was reorganized as the Hawaii Consolidated Railway (HCR) under the leadership of businessmen who represented the companies that ran the sugar plantations along the railroad. project site, as illustrated in Figures 13, 14, and 15 of Appendix 3, including the former site of the main railroad tracks, the commissary, main office, and railroad workers’ residences. A town sprung up around it. Gloria Kobayashi and Richard Nakamura open their book The Yashijima Story: The History of Waiakea Town: “… a community located on the banks of the Wailoa River with an economy based on fishing, stevedoring, sugar, railroading and service industries. At its peak, some 5,000 people lived in very close quarters covering some 10 square miles. It was a community of blue-collar workers and shop owners of predominantly Japanese, Hawaiian and Portuguese extraction and haole supervisors for the Hilo Railroad and Waiakea Mill” (2008:23). In the 1920s and 1930s, WaiYashijima, which means “coconut island” in as opposed to Yashijima iloa River to orth and Reed’s Bay to the eastroadways Manono Street (west boundary), Piilani (south boundary), Kalanikoa (east boundary) and Banyan Drive (north boundary). The project site sits squarely within see Figure 18 of Appendix 3 language school (Yashijima Nippon Go Gakko), Waiakeakai Elementary and Intermediate Schools and a fire station. Additionally, within the project site there were numerous restaurants and stores, residential structures and a Shinto Shrine (Hilo Daijingu). In 1898, Kakuta Koshi completed building a Shinto shrine known as Yamato Shrine on Pi‘opi‘o Street in Hilo. His successor, Jikko Koshi took over in 1902 and changed the name of the shrine to Hilo Daijingu in 1903. In 1926, the membership of the Shrine desired to rebuild the Shrine on fee simple land, and in 1928 the Hilo Daijingu shrine was built near the corner of Manono Street and present day Kuawa Street in the southwest portion of the project site, within the Napeahi LCAw. According to Kobayashi and Nakamura (2008), there was a sumo ring next to the Shinto shrine, where amateur wrestlers could be seen practicing throughout the week and goodwill tournaments were held between the locals and visiting Japanese sailors. In 1941, the U.S. government seized the shrine and its lands and interned the head priest, Rev. Isamu Kudo before repatriating him to Japan. In the absence of a head priest, no activities were conducted by the shrine from 1941 until 1955. Page 32 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Tsunami Devastation and the Legacy of Open Space The tsunami of April 1, 1946 damaged a great deal of industry and property in HiloTown. The HCR sustained overwhelming damage to the main tracks and structures in the rail yard at the western end of the project site, closer to the Wailoa River and Manono Street. The businesses located at the northern edge of the project site on the south side of Kamehameha Avenue remained standing largely because the brunt of the destructive force was absorbed by the buildings along the north side of Kamehameha Avenue. The storefronts and homes did not escape water damage however, and some of the businesses never recovered (Kobayashi and Nakamura 2008). The Wai businesses destroyed by the May scattered inland after this disastrous event. The tsunami destroyed the shrine buildings, but Rev. Miyazaki fled inland and was able to rescue the sacred objects (Goshintai), which were then enshrined in Onomea until 1966, when the Hilo Daijingu was rebuilt at their current location on Anela Street in Hilo. Many businesses were relocated and remain active in the Hilo community today, such as KTA Super Stores, Kuhio Grill and Café 100. The State and County responded to the hazards of occupying Hilo’s tsunami zone so painfully demonstrated in two events just 14 years apart with the Kaiko‘o project of the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency. During 1962 and 1963, the County of Hawai‘i exercised eminent domain and acquired numerous were designated for “Open” land use in order to minimize the danger of loss of life or damage to property in areas subject to possible inundation and flooding from future tsunami. Consultation Appendix 3 contains summaries of interviews conducted with five individuals who had extensive knowledge of the historic and cultural values of the project site. The five informants included a former (Gloria Kobayashi and Donald Leopoldino), a member of the Hilo Daijingu congregation (Richard Kunimoto), and two descendants of original LCAw. kuleana recipients (Terri Napeahi and Earl Viloria). The reader is referred to Appendix 3 for details; the following is a brief summary. Born Shotaro Suzuki on August 8, 1920 to a Japanese father and half Hawaiian/ half Caucasian mother, Roy Wilson worked for Hawai‘i Consolidated Railway Ltd. from 1939 until 1946. He has clear memories of the land uses and individuals associated with the project site. The railway operations were staffed by a multi-ethnic crew, many of whom actually lived on the project site. Shusei Kondo, one of two yard men who was responsible for operating the swing bridge that was cranked into position by hand for boats to pass and for trains to cross Wailoa River; Herbert Watson, who was the master mechanic and lived in the northernmost residence on Puhala Lane, even after he retired; Robert Stevens, who eventually took over as master mechanic; Frank Tavares, who was the warehouse supply master, and as Roy explained “he got you everything you needed” including parts for the engines and cars, etc.; Stanley Can, who was a mechanic and machinist; and Dan Correa, who was foreman for the wharf operation and who swept away (never to be found) by the second wave of the 1946 tsunami when he returned to the rail yard from the Page 33 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development bay front to turn off the switch that controlled the electricity to the yard. When asked how he felt about the County developing a park on this land he said he thought it was a good idea. In particular, Roy stressed that if the land is getting used then they would have to maintain it. He suggested that the flagpole is the only thing that can be identified as part of the railroad and that they should preserve the concrete and keep it from deteriorating maybe with paint or sealant. He also made the following recommendation for the flagpole: “dress it up with gravel or flowers around the edges with a plaque or something that should mention how the railroad got started in the 1880s and about it”. Gloria Kobayashi is a retired librarian and active historian. She was born Gloria Miyashiro in 1946, to Hawaiian born parents of Okinawan descent. Her father, Richard Miyashiro, was studying in Honolulu at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. As a result, he enlisted with the 100th Battalion and served in Italy. After the war, he returned to Hawai‘i and moved to the Big Island because his brother was already set up in Hilo with a restaurant business. On January 21, 1946, Gloria’s father started his own restaurant in , that he called Café 100 in reference to his Battalion. Café 100 was located at the corner of Manono Street and Kamehameha Avenue, at the northwest end of the project site. Gloria’s mother was six months pregnant with her when the tsunami struck on April 1, 1946. She and her mother were carried to safety from the Wailoa Bridge to higher ground by a stevedore. In the aftermath, her family repaired the damage to the cafe and her two sisters were born shortly thereafter. Gloria and her family lived above Café 100 until she was 13 years old. In 1959 they moved into a brand new three bedroom house at the corner of Ulu and Manono Streets, just north of the Hilo Daijingu shrine, near the southwest end of the project site. Her father built a brand new location for Café 100, which celebrated their Grand Opening three short weeks before the 1960 tsunami. On May 23, 1960, Gloria’s family decided not to evacuate in response to the tsunami warning because they had experienced a false alarm a few weeks before. As a result, Gloria and her family were home when disaster struck. A large wave broke the picture window in the living room of their home, and as the house filled with water the tsunami lifted it off its foundations and “turned it into a boat”. The family’s harrowing story is chronicled in her memoir Our House Became a Boat, published as part of her edited volume . In the end, the tsunami destroyed the new Café 100 building and everything inside. Although a devastating loss, the restaurant building had acted as a buffer between the surge from the Wailoa River and Gloria’s home and as a result, it saved their lives. By August of 1962, Gloria’s father had rebuilt Café 100 for the third time at its current location at 969 Kilauea Avenue. Today the Café 100 legacy is being carried on by Gloria’s son Rick. Gloria’s family home survived its night as a boat and was relocated to Iwalani Street, where it remains to this. When asked about the proposed park, Gloria responded that she thinks it is a good idea and that the land is just sitting there doing nothing today. She mentioned that there is a need for more places for kids to play. As a historian she would like to see a historic element included in the park project. Donald Leopoldino was born in 1935 worked as an engineer/engine operator for the railroad and his family lived in a three bedroom house, at served two years in Korea and while overseas he was given the nickname “Leo”. Today, he is retired after having passed his local business Leo’s Rubbish Service to one of his sons. According to Donald, the population Portuguese. Donald has fond memories of evenings spent around the Hawai‘i Consolidated Railway, Ltd. flagpole during the war. He was 12 years old when the Page 34 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development waves. The waves were “very black” because they had churned up the sand on the beach in Hilo Bay. The waves derailed the train his father was on and he and the crew were forced to abandon it. They sought refuge in the Coca-Cola building, which was made of cement and tile and effectively “saved their lives”. Leo had moved inland with his wife by the time the 19 mother and father still resided in his childhood home. Leo and his brother waded thru waist deep water to help his parents out of their house. When asked about the proposed park project, Leo responded “that would be a beautiful thing.” Leo refers to the flagpole feature as “the monument” and he has made efforts in the past to clean and preserve it. He recommends that the monument be protected and that the sports aiakeakai. Richard Kunimoto was born in 1941 and resided in Onomea. He became a member of the Hilo Daijingu congregation during the 1960s, when the Goshintai were relocated to Onomea and the shrine was rebuilt there as a result of the 1960 tsunami. He never saw the shrine at Manono Street but as an active member of the Daijingu, he was able to confirm some of its history. According to Richard, the residence and activity center were in one building and the Goshintai and shrine were in the other. He was able to corroborate that the building was used as a school for a time during WWII and that the U.S. military took it over. He also stated that there were likely no activities or ceremonies between the years of 1941 and 1955 because there was no head priest until Rev. Kanno took over as interim priest in 1955. Terri Napeahi is a descendant of the original recipient of one of the three kuleana properties that fall within the current study area. Terri was born in 1961 to Hawaiian parents who trace their roots to the early the past twenty years Terri has been pursuing her family’s history and in particular, seeking evidence of the Napeahi Family link to an ancient heiau known as Kuakaananuu, which was located on the shore opposite Mokuola (Coconut Island), about a half mile north of the project site. According to family oral history, her ancestors were associated with the traditional activities that took place at Kuakaananuu Heiau. Terri Napeahi’s quest also led her to identify a pile of large water rounded stone that are currently situated in the Wailoa Boat Ramp parking lot under a tree as additional from the former Kuakaananuu Heiau. These stones were moved to this location from the vicinity of the Moku Ola parking lot when it was renovated, and she believes that these are some of the stones that her family oral traditions recount as be retrieved and curated. When asked about the proposed park project, Terri was in favor of creating more sports fields for the community youth. She did express that the early history of the area (the use of the area by her ancestors) should be an important element of public interpretation associated with park development. She also requested that an area in a portion of the park in the vicinity of her family’s former kuleana land be used for the establishment of a cultural preserve where all of the known –including Makaoku‘i Ka Lani–from Kuakaananuu Heiau could be assembled, where interpretive material can be displayed telling the story of the events and practices associated with the heiau, and where Terri and others could exercise modern cultural practice. Earl Veloria was born in 1939 to parents who the 1920s and 1930s in Earl’s maternal grandfather’s (Isaac Hale) house, which was sold by 1938. This house was located on a remnant portion of the former kuleana parcel that was awarded to one of the Hale families ancestors (likely Earl’s 4th or 5th great grandfather). Earl, the oldest of the living Hale family members, has no direct recollection of their former property, but his family retains knowledge of its existence. Earl was interviewed by phone and expressed no opposition to the proposed park project. Page 35 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development A seventh individual was also contacted (Tom Goya) whose historical expertise was more associated with the nearby Shinmachi region of Hilo. Tom simply offered that the history of the project site should be incorporated into the proposed park development. Existing Cultural Resources The project site is currently a vacant, grassed lot. It does not contain nature features that might important in gathering or ritual, such as caves, springs, pu‘u, native forest groves, etc. The vegetation is highly disturbed and does not contain the quality and quantity or resources that would be important for native gathering. The project site does not currently support any traditional resource uses. However, although the project site has experienced extensive disturbance through construction and demolition of roads, highways, buildings in various eras, as well as limited damage from a tsunami and later earthmoving, dredge deposits and later removals, the memories of cultural uses through the year, linger, along with a few archaeological remnants from the 20th century (see Section 3.2.3, below). Consultation with knowledgeable individuals indicates that there is still active interest in the former native Hawaiian kuleana association with Japanese immigrant culture, and particularly the history of the Japanese Daijingu Shrine. Cultural Resources: Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Proposed Action will not have an adverse effect on the cultural/historical resources of the project site. However, to develop a complex of sports fields without honoring the rich multi-cultural history of the area would be to miss a critical opportunity to incorporate history and planning into land use, which would be out of keeping with the Hawai‘i County General Plan and Special Management Area goals and objectives for the storied Hilo Bayfront. The following actions are being implemented to interpret and celebrate this heritage: The flagpole structure, which is the only built historic property on the project site, will be preserved and rehabilitated and put back into use to support a flagpole (see Section 3.2.3). In partnership with interested organizations, P&R will support interpretive signage for various locations within the sports fields to interpret the native Hawaiian kuleana use of the area, Daijingu Shrine, and An area in the southwestern portion of the project site, in the vicinity of the former Napeahi kuleana parcel, will be set aside for a future interpretive cultural display and for cultural practice that is expected to be developed through a partnership with family descendants of the former Kuakaananuu Heiau that were historically retrieved and curated by the Napeahi family. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State Historic Preservation Division, and parties who shared information about cultural practices were supplied a copy of the Draft EA, which will also offered for review by agencies and the general public, in order to help finalize the mitigation measures. No party reviewing the Draft EA supplied any cultural information. Page 36 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 3.2.3 Archaeology and Historic Properties An archaeological inventory survey and limited cultural impact assessment of the property and action was conducted by ASM Affiliates, Inc. The report is attached as Appendix 3 and summarized below. Existing Environment The methods used for the project including review of documentary sources, fieldwork and consultation. Documentary sources included maps, local histories and ethnographic accounts, and records of lands use. Fieldwork consisted of a pedestrian survey of the entire project site conducted by three archaeologists augmented with six mechanically excavated test trenches. The cultural consultation included five individuals, who participated in informal (unrecorded) “talk story” interviews conducted by the archaeologists. Historic maps and photographs were provided to the informants, when appropriate, in order to facilitate discussion of the project site and proposed sports fields. In some cases the informants provided additional historic resources to the interviewers in the form of books and images. The information obtained through the documentary and interview portions of the work have been presented in the previous section. The archaeological fieldwork determined that three surface sites were present, all dating from the early to middle twentieth century were recorded (see Appendix 3 for detailed maps, photographs and descriptions of all sites). Two of these (SIHP Site T-1 and T-2) are remnant asphalt pavements (perhaps the former roadways Puhala Lane and Ulu Street), and the third (SIHP Site T-3) is a concrete foundation associated with Hawaii Consolidated Railway. Subsurface testing did not reveal any intact buried cultural deposits or features from either the Precontact or Historic Periods. While Historic Period cultural material was encountered during the subsurface testing, an assessment of the stratigraphy indicates that the study area experienced a high level of prior ground disturbance and there were no intact deposits encountered. Site T-1, Puhala Lane, was constructed in the early 1900s and Site T-2, Ulu Street, was built in the middle 1900s. Both roads were abandoned after the 1960 tsunami, and both are evaluated to be significant according to the criteria under which historic properties are evaluated in the State of Hawai‘i under Town region of Hilo. Site T-3 is a concrete foundation structure that once supported a flagpole associated with Hawaii Consolidated Railway Ltd., which operated on the study property from 1899 to 1946 (from 1899-1916 as the Hilo Railroad Company). This foundation appears to have been built in 1926. Site T-3 is evaluated as significant under Criterion a as it is one of the few physical reminders of the railway industry that was instrumental in the development of Hilo and the greater east Hawai‘i region. This site is also significant under Criterion d for the information it adds to the understanding of the use and development of the Impacts and Mitigation Measures For Sites T-1 and T-2, the archaeologist recommended that that the archival and archaeological documentation presented in the AIS will serve to mitigate any potential impacts from future development, and thus no further historic preservation work was recommended for these two sites. The archaeologist is Page 37 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development recommended that Site T-3 be preserved as part of the proposed sports field park, and that it be rehabilitated and put back into use as a flagpole feature with interpretive information provided to the public concerning its origin and significance. An archaeological preservation plan would be prepared in accordance with HAR 13§13-277 and submitted to DLNR-SHPD for review and approval. The subsurface testing conducted as a part of the AIS demonstrated that the likelihood of encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits is remote; therefore, archaeological monitoring was not recommended with respect to development of the property. However, in the unlikely event that any unanticipated archaeological resources are unearthed during development activities, in compliance with HAR 13§13-280, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds will be halted and DLNR-SHPD contacted. The AIS was officially transmitted to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) for review, comment and concurrence in June 2015. The Final EA will report on this review. 3.3 Infrastructure 3.3.1 Utilities Existing Facilities and Services and Impacts Electrical power to the site is supplied by Hawai‘i Electric Light Company (HELCO), a privately owned utility company, via its island-wide distribution network, with poles and lines on Kuawa Street. No electricity would be required in Phase I, but future phases will require it for lighting and other power requirements of the comfort station and concession stand. Telephone and cable TV service are available, although not anticipated to be required, from Hawaiian Telcom and Oceanic Time Warner Cable. An existing 12-inch water line runs along Kamehameha Avenue, and an 8-inch water line runs along Manono Street, which will be the line used for the sports fields. Water service in this first phase will only be to park drinking fountains and temporary irrigation. This connection will also service future planned facilities, including comfort stations and a concession stand. An existing 8-inch wastewater line bisects the project site east to west and outlets to the wastewater main on Manono Street. Existing manhole tops located along this line that are at or above future grade will be lowered and buried six to twelve inches below grade so as not to impact the playability of the sports fields. No wastewater connection is required for the first phase. The proposed connection for the future comfort station and concession stand is anticipated to be through a manhole located on the project site. Capacity is not anticipated to be an issue, as previous connections to the line from this area are no longer in use and the future usage will not exceed the previous usage. However, the existing sewer line is old and the viability of connection will need to be verified at the appropriate time. An alternate connection could be to the existing 10-inch sewer line along Kuawa Street. An existing drainage culvert at Manono Street collects runoff from the lot and discharges it into the Wailoa Boat Harbor and thence to Hilo Bay. Future development of the park will utilize this existing drainage outlet. A surface retention basin or shallow seepage pits will be utilized to help retain the net increase in runoff generated by new parking lots in the initial phase. Similar drainage measures will need to be implemented in future phases of the project to account for additional impervious areas added. Page 38 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development In summary, the Proposed Action of sports field development would not have any substantial impact on existing utilities. 3.3.2 Roadways and Traffic A Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) for the Proposed Action was conducted by SSFM International, Inc. The report is attached as Appendix 4 and summarized below. Existing Facilities As shown in Figure 7, Kamehameha Avenue (State Route 19) is a four-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with bike lanes and paved sidewalks on both sides of the street. It is a State-owned highway with the functional classification of urban principal arterial and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The road travels along the Hilo Bay coastline. The street name changes along its extent and is also called Kalaniana‘ole Street, Bayfront Highway, and Hawai‘i Belt Road in places. However, the street name adjacent to the project site is Kamehameha Avenue and is oriented in the east-west direction. There are no bus stops along Kamehameha Avenue adjacent to the project site. The closest bus stop is located along Banyan Drive less than a quarter of a mile north of the intersection of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street. The intersection of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street is signalized with marked crosswalks on all legs. Dedicated left and right turn lanes exist along the Kamehameha Avenue approaches. Manono Street approaches have a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane with right-turn acceleration lane along Kamehameha Avenue. Manono Street is a two-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with paved shoulders and sidewalks on both sides of the street from Kamehameha Avenue to Pi‘ilani Street. It is owned by the County of Hawai‘i and has the functional classification of urban major collector and posted speed limit of 35 mph. This road is oriented in the north-south direction. Manono Street becomes Lihiwai Street north of Kamehameha Avenue. Kuawa Street is a two-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with no paved shoulders or sidewalks. There are no posted speed limit signs along the roadway and therefore the speed limit is 25 mph. It is a County of Hawai‘i owned road and oriented in the east-west direction, parallel to Kamehameha Avenue. A driveway connecting to the Wailoa Small Boat Harbor is located at the west leg of the intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street. The intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street is controlled with a stop sign on the Kuawa Street/driveway approaches. It has marked crosswalks on the west, north, and east legs. There are no dedicated turn lanes along any approach. The Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway is about 80 feet wide. The wider driveway allows for vehicles with boat trailers to make wide turning movements in and out of the boat harbor area. However, the wider driveway also has the consequence of allowing vehicle movements to occur in different areas. Page 39 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Figure 7. Intersection Map In 2013, average daily traffic (ADT) during the weekdays along Kamehameha Avenue in the project area was 23,000 vehicles, based on Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Historical Traffic Station Maps. The ADT along Manono Street in the project area in 2013 was 10,700 vehicles. Appendix 4 evaluated directional movements examines directional movements during the weekday and weekend peaks. During the weekend peak hour, which is during the mid-day on Saturday and coincides with the greatest expected use of the sports fields, there were approximately 1,100 vehicles travelling along Kamehameha Avenue, with an equal eastbound and westbound split of about 550 vehicles per direction, or 275 vehicles per lane per hour, much less than the weekday peaks. During the weekend peak hour, there were approximately 750 vehicles traveling along Manono Street with an equal northbound and southbound split. This equates to approximately 375 vehicles per lane per hour, which is about the same as the weekday peak. Both of these are under the roadway capacity. Although there are higher traffic volumes along Kamehameha Avenue during the weekday peak hours, it was assumed that the magnitude of the project generated trips during the weekday peak hours will not have as much of an effect on the roadway and intersection operations as it will over the weekend. It is because of this that weekend intersection volumes were analyzed. Intersection counts were taken during the weekend to account for the volume of traffic generated by the various sporting events for the existing facilities and projected uses of the Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development. Multi-modal turning movement traffic counts were taken at the study intersections on Saturday, March 14, 2015 during the midday peak period from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. This time period was selected after a review of the numerous sporting events occurring at the adjacent facilities at the Ho’olulu Park Recreational Complex on that particular date and time. Page 40 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development The turning movement traffic counts included classification of passenger vehicles, heavy vehicles (buses, trucks, vehicles with trailers), bicycles, and pedestrians. Table 3 and Figure 4 of Appendix 4 provide details on the numbers of each type of traffic at the intersection. The percentage of heavy vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians volumes are each less than 1% of the total intersection volumes, but it is important to note over the two hour peak period, there were 23 pedestrians and 24 bicycles counted at the intersection of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street/Lihiwai Street. At the intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street/Bayfront driveway, there were 13 pedestrians and 14 bicycles counted over the two-hour peak period. The sidewalks and bike facilities in the area make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel along the roadways. Level of service (LOS) is a rating system used in traffic engineering to measure the effectiveness of roadway operating conditions. There are six LOS ranging from A to F. LOS A is defined as being the least interrupted flow conditions with little or no delays, whereas LOS F is defined as conditions where extreme delays exist. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO 2011) states that an “appropriate” LOS for an urban arterial, which is the classification of Kamehameha Avenue through the study area, is LOS C or D. An “appropriate” LOS for an urban collector, which is the classification of Manono Street is LOS D or better. Another measure of intersection operation is the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio. This is the ratio of the volume of traffic utilizing the intersection compared to the maximum volume of vehicles that can be accommodated by the intersection during a specific period of time. A v/c ratio under 0.85 means the intersection is operating under capacity and excessive delays are not experienced. An intersection is operating near its capacity when v/c ratios range from 0.85 to 0.95. Unstable flows are expected when the v/c ratio is between 0.95 and 1.0. Any v/c ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 indicates that the intersection is operating at or above capacity which results in a LOS F per the HCM (TRB, 2010). A traffic movement can have a poor LOS but low v/c which suggests that the traffic volumes along that movement are low but have to wait a long time to make the movement. This is common for low volume protected turn movements or side streets that have to wait through a long cycle length for their split to come up. As detailed in Appendix 4, the existing (2015) LOS for the unsignalized and signalized intersection and traffic movements operated at an appropriate LOS D or better during the weekend peak hour (see Table 6). V/C for all movements were under capacity. Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed above, the metric for analysis of traffic impacts was whether the Proposed Action would cause the intersection LOS to fall below LOS D during the time period where traffic generated from the new sports fields would be expected to be by far at its highest – the weekend mid-day period. Intersection LOS and delay were determined for the weekend peak hour using traffic analysis software, as documented in Appendix 4. To assess future conditions, the analysis used a cumulative perspective, assessing all past, current and future foreseeable projects and their potential contribution to traffic. The year 2020 was used as the baseline, which is 5 years after the Proposed Action would be undertaken. From research into the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP), it was determined that no roadway construction Page 41 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development is expected to be completed along Kamehameha Avenue, Manono Street or Kuawa Street near the project site by the year 2020. Research into the State of Hawai‘i Office of Environmental Quality Control library, determined that no future developments are expected to be complete by the year 2020 that would affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes along Kamehameha Avenue, Manono Street and Kuawa Street in the project area. Even without any new projects nearby, traffic is expected to grow. The Hawai‘i Long Range Land Transportation Plan (LRLTP) TransCAD model (CH2MHill 2013) projects a compounded annual increase of 1.3% along Kamehameha Avenue and 1.4% along Manono Street near the project area. The increase was applied to the existing traffic along Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street to get the forecasted volumes for Future (2020) Without Project conditions. With the Proposed Action, traffic will be greater. To estimate by how much, the TIAR examined the level of traffic that is typically generated by new sports fields of this particular size. By a methodology explained in Appendix 4, it was determined that in a worst-case scenario, about 44 trips in and 44 trips out would during the peak hour. The trips were then “distributed” to their expected origins and destinations based on Hawai‘i Long Range Land Use Transportation Plan data (Ibid.). This allowed calculations of how these new trips would affect the project area intersections. As shown in Tables 3a and 3b, both the unsignalized and signalized intersection and movements would continue to operate at an appropriate LOS D or better during the weekend peak hour with all v/c under capacity in the year 2020. Additionally, in a letter in response to early consultation of March 25, 2015 (see Appendix 1a for letter), the Hawai‘i County Police Department stated that it did not anticipate any significant impacts to traffic or public safety concerns. No impacts to pedestrian or bicycle safety are expected. As shown in the Site Plan in Figure 5, a future phase of the Proposed Action will construct a pedestrian/bicycle path that will improve conditions. 3.3.3 Airport Safety Use of the park at night would require lighting, which would not be provided initially but would possibly be constructed in a later phase. Sports lighting for County parks are generally between 60 and 110 feet high. The project site is under a principal flight path for Hilo International Airport (west approach to Runway 8/26). It is within 1,400 feet of the airport boundary and 3,200 feet of Runway 8. Therefore, the Airports Division of the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation was contacted by letter on April 3, 2015, to determine if the agency had concerns regarding the height of the lighting facilities. By letter of May 5, 2015 (see Appendix 1a for full text), the Airports Division determined that the project site is within the approach/departure path to Runway 8/26. Due to this proximity, the County will be required to file Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1 “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration” for each proposed light pole, as well as for the temporary erection of the crane equipment that will be required during construction. The airlines have commented that any light pole above 85 feet in height above existing terrain would impact their takeoff performance. Therefore, the Airports Division Page 42 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Table 3a. Traffic Conditions in 2020 Without Project Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Bayfront driveway EB LTR 17.8 0.08 C WB LTR 16.7 0.25 C NB L 8.1 0.01 A SB L 8.3 0.04 C Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street Intersection 23.1 - - L 13.2 0.29 B T 17.3 0.30 B R 17.9 0.30 B L 14.5 0.12 B T 18.9 0.31 B R 16.4 0.05 B L 26.5 0.70 C TR 30.6 0.41 C L 29.7 0.15 C TR 41.5 0.88 D Table 3b. Traffic Conditions in 2020 With Project Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Bayfront driveway EB LTR 21.1 0.09 C WB LTR 21.6 0.43 C NB L 8.1 0.01 A SB L 8.4 0.08 A EB LTR 21.1 0.09 C Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street Intersection 23.6 - - EB L 13.9 0.29 B T 18.2 0.31 B R 19.5 0.36 B WB L 15.1 0.14 B T 19.7 0.32 B R 17.1 0.06 B NB L 25.9 0.76 C TR 29.8 0.41 C SB L 29.7 0.14 C TR 41.5 0.88 D Notes: Delays are in seconds. Page 43 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development recommended that the maximum height of the light poles for the recreational fields be limited to 85 feet. The direction of the lights should also be aimed such that it will not impact the pilots’ vision. The Airports Division also expressed concern about all uses near the airport being potential wildlife (bird) attractants, which could create hazards for operations at the airport. In response to these concerns, the project has adopted the following mitigation: P&R will file Form 7460-1 if and when they proceed with installing lighting for the sports fields. No lighting structures taller than 85 feet will be installed without prior concurrence of the Airports Division. All lights will be aimed such that they do not impact the vision of pilots landing or taking off at Hilo International Airport. No landscaping that attracts birds into the approach or departure airspace, including ponds, will be utilized. 3.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Action will not involve any substantial secondary or cumulative impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. Traffic can be considered a secondary impact of park development, and it has been fully evaluated through a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR). Cumulative impacts result when implementation of several projects that individually have limited impacts combine to produce more severe impacts or conflicts in mitigation measures. The Proposed Action will have very limited and temporary construction period impacts, such as noise, traffic, dust and sedimentation. Several other projects, all recreationally related, are occurring in the area. As discussed above in Section 1.5, DLNR-DOBOR has used the site in the past for temporary storage and dewatering of dredge deposits from the Wailoa River and is again considering use of the site for an upcoming dredging project prior to construction of the sports fields. They are currently coordinating with P&R concerning utilizing this site or perhaps an alternate site, along with the potential for utilization of the tested and cleared deposits for project fill. Because of the coordination, no cumulative effects are expected, other than perhaps beneficial ones. DLNR Division of State Parks is currently planning some repair and maintenance activities at Wailoa State Park, which would also include construction of minor new facilities. The construction would occur on the Wailoa River side of the park, at least a quarter mile southwest of the project site. Due to the minor nature and location of these activities, no adverse interaction would be expected. Finally, the Hilo Bayfront Trails project will be constructing a shared use path that would have one terminus the southwest corner of the project site. According to project officials at P&R and Hilo Bayfront Trails, Inc., the non-profit in charge of the project, this section of the trail would not be constructed during the construction period of the Kuawa Street sports fields project. In any case, the construction of a 12-foot wide shared use path would be very minor and the construction period temporary. Ultimately, there would be a beneficial interaction between the projects. None of these projects would generate impacts that would be likely to accumulate with those from development and operation of a sports field. Operationally, future traffic impacts were explicitly assessed in the TIAR from a cumulative perspective that considered other traffic in the area, and found to be non-significant. Page 44 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 3.5 Required Permits and Approvals The following permits and approvals would be required: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (State DOH) Grading, Grubbing and Driveway Permits (County DPW) Building Permits and Plan Approval (County DPW and Planning) Variance or exemption from HCC Chapter 27 – Flood Control to allow minor fill in Flood Zone Chapter 6e, HRS, determination from State Historic Preservation Division on historic property effects Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) plan review and approval Approval from Department of Health of soil mitigation plans 3.6 Consistency with Government Plans and Policies 3.6.1 Hawai‘i State Plan Adopted in 1978 and last revised in 1991 (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, as amended), the Plan establishes a set of themes, goals, objectives and policies that are meant to guide the State’s long-run growth and development activities. The three themes that express the basic purpose of the Hawai‘i State Plan are individual and family self-sufficiency, social and economic mobility and community or social well-being. The Proposed Action would promote these goals by providing an appropriate site for additional recreational and educational opportunities for the project area, thereby enhancing quality-of-life and community and social well-being. 3.6.2 Hawai‘i State Land Use Law and Hawai‘i County Zoning Hawai‘i State Land Use District. All land in the State of Hawai‘i is classified into one of four land use categories – Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation – by the State Land Use Commission, pursuant to Chapter 205, HRS. The property is in the State Land Use Urban District. The Proposed Action for use of the project site as a park is consistent with intended uses for this Land Use District. 3.6.3 Hawai‘i County Zoning and Property Designations The project site is zoned Open, and the sports fields are a permitted use in this zoning category. The Tax Map for the project site (Figure 3) reveals five current and a number of former legal properties that comprise the project site, reflecting the complex land use history of the site discussed in Section 3.2. All five extant properties are owned by the State of Hawai‘i and are in the process of being transferred via an Executive Order to the County of Hawai‘i for recreational purposes. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, a sewer easement crosses the project site, which will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The TMK map also shows the former course of Ulu Street, which is no longer a valid right-of-way and thus will not be adversely affected by uses which span its former course. The Hawai‘i County Planning Department noted in its April 14, 2015 letter in response to early consultation (see Appendix 1a for full text) that the official zoning map in the Hawai‘i County Code, Chapter 25, Section 35-8-33 (City of Hilo Page 45 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Zone Map), adopted on December 26, 1968, indicates a 60-foot right-of-way for a realignment of Manono Street that crosses through the project area (see Figure 8). Although there have been no proposals, or indeed reasons, to undertake this realignment in at least the last four decades, and it is no longer practical because of both traffic circulation and topography, the Manono Street Realignment has never been removed from the map. The Planning Department suggested that if the right-of-way is no longer an applicable alignment, the City of Hilo map should be amended appropriately. 3.6.4 Hawai‘i County General Plan The General Plan for the County of Hawai‘i is a policy document expressing the broad goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawai‘i. The plan was adopted by ordinance in 1989 and revised in 2005 (Hawai‘i County Planning Department). The General Plan itself is organized into thirteen elements, with policies, objectives, standards, and principles for each. There are also discussions of the specific applicability of each element to the nine judicial districts comprising the County of Hawai‘i. Most relevant to the proposed project are the following Goal and Policies, and Courses of Action of particular chapters of the General Plan: RECREATION 12.2 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. (c) Provide a diversity of environments for active and passive pursuits. Figure 8. Portion of City of Hilo Zone Map Page 46 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 12.3 POLICIES (a) Strive to equitably allocate facility-based parks among the districts relative to population, with public input to determine the locations and types of facilities. (c) Recreational facilities shall reflect the natural, historic, and cultural character of the area. (d) The use of land adjoining recreation areas shall be compatible with community values, physical resources, and recreation potential. (g) Facilities for compatible multiple uses shall be provided. (h) Provide facilities and a broad recreational program for all age groups, with special considerations for the handicapped, the elderly, and young children. (i) Coordinate recreational programs and facilities with governmental and private agencies and organizations. Innovative ideas for improving recreational facilities and opportunities shall be considered. 12.4 STANDARDS (c) Community Parks: Community recreation area serving surrounding urban areas, and entire community in rural areas. Provides active and passive activities. Between 4 and 8 acres, within the center of the community or several neighborhoods. Facilities include: multi-purpose building; gymnasium (where not serviceable from a district park); courts for basketball, volleyball and tennis; ballfields for softball/ baseball, soccer, football; play area and equipment for young children; walking and jogging paths; picnic and passive area; night lights and an adequate parking area. 12.5.2.2 COURSES OF ACTION FOR SOUTH HILO (f) Expand the depth of coastal recreation areas. Park areas should be connected with trails to increase public access. (m) Develop a center/complex for major cultural, educational and recreational activities. Discussion: The Proposed Action is an appropriately scaled community park planned to serve the growing demand among a broad range of age groups for active sports facilities. It is adjacent to the Ho‘olulu Park Recreational Complex and near the Hilo Bayfront soccer fields, and it complements these facilities. It will also connect to planned area shared-use paths. It satisfies relevant goals, policies, standards and course of action for recreation. HISTORIC SITES 6.2 GOALS (a) Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawai‘i. (b) Appropriate access to significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest should be made available. Discussion: The Proposed Action has involved appropriate inventory survey to determine the presence and significance of historic sites, and to propose preservation of one site. Therefore the action satisfies relevant goals, policies, and courses of action for historic sites in Hawai‘i County. Page 47 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development NATURAL BEAUTY 7.2 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. 7.3 POLICIES (a) Increase public pedestrian access opportunities to scenic places and vistas. (d) Access easement to public or private lands that have natural or scenic value shall be provided or acquired for the public. (i) Do not allow incompatible construction in areas of natural beauty. Discussion: The Proposed Action does not involve scenic areas or vantages and would not be inconsistent with the natural beauty of the Hilo area. Therefore the action is consistent with relevant goals, policies, and courses of action of the Natural Beauty section of the Hawai‘i County General Plan. NATURAL RESOURCES 8.2 GOALS (a) Protect and conserve the natural resources from undue exploitation, encroachment and damage. (b) Provide opportunities for recreational, economic, and educational needs without despoiling or endangering natural resources. (c) Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawaii’s unique, fragile, and significant environmental and natural resources. (e) Protect and effectively manage Hawaii’s open space, watersheds, shoreline, and natural areas. 8.3 POLICIES (b) Encourage a program of collection and dissemination of basic data concerning natural resources. (h) Encourage public and private agencies to manage the natural resources in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse effects on the environment and depletion of energy and natural resources to the fullest extent. (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. (u) Ensure that activities authorized or funded by the County do not damage important natural resources. Discussion: The Proposed Action does not involve destruction of natural resources and is consistent with the goals, standards and policies of the Natural Resources chapter of the Hawai‘i County General Plan. The Hawai‘i County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG). The LUPAG map component of the General Plan is a graphic representation of the Plan’s goals, policies, and standards as well as of the physical relationship between land uses. It also establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the planned public and cultural facilities, public utilities and safety features, and transportation corridors. The project site is classified as Open in the LUPAG. Use of the project site for a park is consistent with this designation. Page 48 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 3.6.5 Special Management Area The property is located within the County’s Special Management Area (SMA). Public parks, public uses, and structures are allowed in the Special Management Area. After the EA is complete, P&R will prepare an SMA Assessment describing the characteristics of the project that are relevant to the SMA, the potential impacts on SMA resources, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts. The following presents and analysis of the project’s effect on key SMA resources: Recreational Resources. The proposed sports fields would not in any manner adversely affect any recreational resources, and the Proposed Action expands recreational uses in the highly popular Hilo Bayfront area. The Proposed Action would not restrict any shoreline uses such as hiking, fishing, or water sports, The Proposed Action would help P&R in its mission to provide adequate, accessible and diverse recreational opportunities. Historic Resources. The historic resources of the project site have been inventoried and evaluated in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Division. The Proposed Action would preserve one of the sites and provide opportunities for interpretation of an interesting aspect of Hilo’s history. Scenic and Open Space Resources. The guidelines contained in Rule 9 of the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission Rules (which governs the SMA) express the intent to minimize development that would “substantially interfere with or detract from the line of site toward the sea from the State Highway nearest the coast or from other scenic areas identified in the General Plan.” The proposed improvements would not adversely affect any sight lines or scenic resources in any way. Furthermore, the project maintains the quality of scenic and open space resources. Coastal Ecosystems. The nature, location and design of the proposed sports fields, along with precautions that will be undertaken during construction, would minimize impacts to coastal biological resources. No coastal ecosystems are present on or directly adjacent to the property, and no threatened or endangered animal or plant species would be affected. Economic Uses. The Proposed Action use would not impact adversely affect any economic aspects of the coastal zone, and it would positively contribute to the economy by providing safe and accessible facilities for residents and some visitors. Coastal Hazards. The proposed improvements would be undertaken mainly outside designated coastal floodplains, with all structures entirely outside. The proposed land use, sports fields, are consistent with approved open-space uses and will not adversely affect any floodplain. Maps printed by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center/Hawai‘i County Civil Defense Agency locate the project site within an area that should be evacuated during a tsunami warning (http://www5.hawaii.gov/tsunami/maps.asp). Recreation is a generally allowed and appropriate use within the coastal flood zones. Warning sirens are present nearby and the area can readily be evacuated in the event of a tsunami or other coastal hazard emergency. No aspect of the Proposed Action would adversely affect the public exposure to coastal hazards. Page 49 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development In summary, the Proposed Action would benefit and/or not adversely impact Special Management Area resources, including beaches, recreation, native species or ecosystems, historic sites, water quality, and susceptibility to hazards. Minor impacts and mitigation measures are discussed individually in the resource sections of Chapter 3, above. The Proposed Action does not involve any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources or any substantial adverse environmental impact that cannot be avoided. The Planning Department will review the SMA Assessment and determine the level of permitting required in order to implement the Proposed Action. PART 4: DETERMINATION Based on the findings above, and in consideration of comments received, the County of Hawai‘i, Department of Parks and Recreation has determined that the proposed project will not have any significant effect in the context of Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statues and section 11-200-12 of the State Administrative Rules, and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). PART 5: FINDINGS AND REASONS Chapter 11-200-12, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, outlines those factors agencies must consider when determining whether an Action has significant effects: 1. The proposed project will not involve an irrevocable commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resources. No valuable natural or cultural resources would be committed or lost by the Proposed Action, which would not involve significant historic sites or native species or habitat. 2. The proposed project will not curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment. The Proposed Action expands and in no way curtails beneficial uses of the environment, and through proposed remediation of minor levels of soil contamination, expands potential beneficial uses. 3. The proposed project will not conflict with the State's long-term environmental policies. The State’s long-term environmental policies are set forth in Chapter 344, HRS. The broad goals of this policy are to conserve natural resources and enhance the quality of life. The Proposed Action is minor, environmentally beneficial, and fulfills aspects of these policies calling for an improved social environment by improving and expanding recreational opportunities. It is thus consistent with all elements of the State’s long-term environmental policies. 4. The proposed project will not substantially affect the economic or social welfare of the community or State. The Proposed Action will benefit the social welfare of the community and State by allowing for recreational use of public property for public benefit. 5. The proposed project does not substantially affect public health in any detrimental way. The Proposed Action will promote public health through provision of recreational opportunities. Remediation of minor levels of soil contamination will be undertaken, which will protect public health during construction and use of the site and improve the environment. Evaluations have found concentrations above background levels of arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene in some parts of the site. In order to ensure safety during public use, this is being addressed by a mitigation plan to make the site safe that is currently in development in close coordination with the Department of Health. Page 50 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development 6. The proposed project will not involve substantial secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public facilities. No secondary effects are expected to result from the Proposed Action, which would not induce in-migration or unduly affect roads or other public facilities. 7. The proposed project will not involve a substantial degradation of environmental quality. The Proposed Action is minor and environmentally benign, and would thus not contribute to environmental degradation with adherence to Best Management Practices. 8. The proposed project will not substantially affect any rare, threatened or endangered species of flora or fauna or habitat. The project site supports overwhelmingly alien vegetation. Impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species of flora or fauna will not occur, with planned restrictions of the timing of vegetation removal. 9. The proposed project is not one which is individually limited but cumulatively may have considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions. Effects to resources and conditions, including traffic flow, have been considered from a cumulative perspective. The Proposed Action is not related to other activities in the region in such a way as to produce adverse cumulative effects or involve a commitment for larger actions. 10. The proposed project will not detrimentally affect air or water quality or ambient noise levels. Slight increases in noise and effects to air quality will occur, but below levels that would require mitigation. 11. The project does not affect nor would it likely to be damaged as a result of being located in an environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal area. Although the project site is in an area with volcanic and seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawai‘i shares this risk, and the Proposed Action is not imprudent to undertake. The Proposed Action has been conceived and designed to minimize construction in the flood zone to the extent consistent with accomplishing key recreational goals. Small portions of the adult multi-sports field and the parking lot are within the AE flood zone. The field will require some fill to have the same level as the rest of the field. In order for this to be allowed, P&R has prepared an application for a “no-rise” certificate and submitted it to the Hawai‘i County Department of Public Works to allow a variance or exemption. There will be no impact on the base flood elevation or the size of the floodplain. 12. The project will not substantially affect scenic vistas and viewplanes identified in county or state plans or studies. The Proposed Action would not adversely impact any scenic sites or viewplanes. Loss of several large trees will be compensated for by landscaping. 13. The project will not require substantial energy consumption. The Proposed Action involves only minor use of energy for construction and operation. For the reasons above, the Proposed Action would not have any significant effect in the context of Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statues and section 11-200-12 of the State Administrative Rules. Page 51 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development REFERENCES Bird, I. 1974. Six months in the Sandwich Islands. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. CH2M Hill. 2013. State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Hawai‘i Long Range Land Transportation Plan, TransCAD model. Devereux, T., D. Borthwick, H. Hammatt, and M. Orr. 1997. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Keaukaha Military Reservation, South Hilo District, Hawai‘i Island (Hawai‘i National Guard) 503.6-acre parcel, TMK: 2-1-12:3 and 2-1-13:10. Prepared by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i. Prepared for Earth Tech. Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. “Vegetation,” pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte, 2013: Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1. Hallacher, L. E., Kho, E. B., Bernard, N. D., Orcutt, A. M., Dudley, J. W., & Hammond, T. M. (1985). “Distribution of Arsenic in the Sediments and Biota of Hilo Bay, Hawaii.” Pacific Science 39(3):266-273. Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy. 1972. Native Planters in Old Hawai‘i: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu Hawai‘i County Planning Department. 2005. The General Plan, County of Hawai‘i. Hilo. Hawai‘i State Department of Health (HDOH). 2009. Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan. _____. 2010. Arsenic in Hawaiian Soils: Questions and Answers on Health Concerns. (Pamphlet). Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawai‘i. Washington: U.S. GPO. Kamakau, S. 1961. Ruling Chiefs of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: The Kamehameha Schools Press. Kelly, M. 1981. “Archaeological and Historical Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo Hawai‘i. Report 1. Background History.” Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean. Kelly, M., B. Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrére. 1981. A Chronological History, Land and Water Use in the Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Page 52 Environmental Assessment, Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Kobayashi, G., and R. Nakamura. 2008. The Yashijima Story: The History of Waiakea Town. Pacific Tsunami Museum, Hilo, Hawai‘i Maly, K. 1996a. Appendix In: “Archaeological Assessment Study Hilo Judiciary Complex Project, Lands -6- 15:1,2; 2-6-16:2; 2-4-49:18,19; 2-2-15:33; 2-4-1:12).” Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo. PHRI Report 1721- 061496. Prepared for State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. _____. 1996b. Historical Documentary Research and Oral History Interviews, Cane Lots (12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 20A). Hilo: Kumu Pono Associates. McEldowney, H. 1979. “Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo Hawai‘i.” Manuscript on file, Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division. Moniz, J.J. 1992. Summary of Prior Archaeological Work: Historical and Archaeological Synthesis of Land . UH Anthropology 645. Historic Preservation, Fall 1992, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K., Elbert, S.H., and E.T. Mookini. 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Tolleson, W. 2001. From Trail to Road: A Late Historic Way Station on the Puna Trail on the Hawai‘i Army National Guard Keaukaha Military Reservation, Hilo, Hawai‘i Island (TMK: 2-1-13 & 10 and 2-1- 12:3). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 2010, http://factfinder2.census.gov/. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawai‘i, State of Hawai‘i. Washington: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Dept. of Geography. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i. 3rd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Guidance for evaluating the oral bioavailability of metals in soil for use in human health risk assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 28 (USEPA), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). OSWER 9285.7-80. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). Washington: GPO. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public. Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai‘i. USGS Misc. Investigations Series Map i-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 1a Comments in Response to Early Consultation [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] William P.Kenoi Mayor March 25,2015 Mr.Ron Terry,Principal Geometrician Associates P.O.Box 396 Hilo,HI 96721 Dear Mr.Terry: County of Hawai"i POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi'olani Street •Rilo,Rawai'i 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 •Fax (808)961-2389 Harry S.Kubojiri Police Chief Paul K.Ferreira Deputy Police Chief SUBJECT:EARLY CONSULTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR KUAWA STREET RECREATIONAL FIELDS,HILO,ISLAND OF HAWAII, TMKs (3)2-2-032:003,004,008, 019,087 AND 088 Staff,upon reviewing the provided documents,does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or other public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,please contact Captain Richard Sherlock,S.Hilo Patrol Commander,at 961-2214. Sincerely, 1 ~-.S{~HENR .AVARE ,J ASSIS NT POUC ClEF AREA I OPERATIONS BUREAU RS:lli 150192 "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" William P.Kenoi Mayor West Hawai'i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kailua-Kona,Hawai'i 96740 Phone (808)323-4770 Fax (808)327-3563 April 14,2015 County of Hawai'i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Duane Kanuha Director Bobby Command DeputyDirector East Hawai'i Office 101Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 Phone (808)961-8288 Fax (808)961-8742 Ron Terry,Ph.D. Geometrician Associates,LLC P.O.Box 396 Hilo,HI 96721 Dear Mr.Terry: Subject:Pre-Consultation for Draft Environmental Assessment Project:Kuawa Street Recreational Fields TMK:2-2-032:003,004,008,019,087 and 088,South HUo,Hawai'i Thank you for your letter dated March 13,2015,requesting comments from this office regarding the preparation ofa Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)for the subject project. The County ofHawai'i Department ofParks and Recreation (P &R)proposes to convert an open area makai of P &R's Ho'olulu Complex into recreational fields and support facilities.The project would remove existing vegetation,provide turf grass suitable for recreation,and construct a new multi-use football/soccer/rugby field capable of hosting adult level regulation games.This field would include necessary facilities such as goals and goal posts,as well as bleachers on concrete slab (with provisions for future weather-protective covering),fencing, drinking fountains and related amenities. The subject parcels contain 9.053 contiguous acres.The subject parcels are zoned Open by the County.They are situated within the State Land Use Urban District.In addition,the Hawai'i County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)Map designates the parcels as Open.They are within the Special Management Area (SMA);however,they do not have frontage along the coastline. Please note that public uses,structures,and buildings and community buildings are permitted uses in any district,provided that the director has issued plan approval for such use.Therefore, the proposed project will require a Plan Approval issued by this office. Finally,according to Hawai'i County Code,Chapter 25,Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo zone map),there is a proposed sixty (60)foot right-of-way extension alignment for Manono Street www.cohplanningdept.com Hawai'i County is an Equal OpportunityProvider andEmployer planning@hawaiicounty.gov Ron Terry,Ph.D. Geometrician Associates,LLC April 14,2015 Page 2 that crosses through the project area.If this right-of-way is no longer an applicable alignment, the City ofHilo zone map should be amended appropriately. We have no further comments to offer,at this time.However,please provide our department with a copy ofthe Draft Environmental Assessment for our review and comment. If you have.any questions,or if you need further assistance,please feel free to contact Bethany Morrison ofthis office at (808)961-8138. Sincerely, ~DUA KANUHAUPlanningDirector BJM:cs P:\wpwin60\Bethany\EA-EIS Review\preconsultdraftea Kuawa Street Recreational Fields.doc cc:Mr.Clayton Honma,Director Department ofParks and Recreation DAVIDY.IGE GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION AIRPORTS DIVISION 400 RODGERS BOULEVARD,SUITE 700 HONOLULU,HAWAII 96819-1880 May 5,2015 Mr.Ron Terry Principal Geometrician Associates P.O.Box 396 Hilo,Hawaii 96721 Dear Mr.Terry: Subject:Kuawa Street Recreational Fields,Hilo,Hawaii Early Consultation for Environmental Assessment FORD N.FUCHIGAMI DIRECTOR Deputy Directors JADET.BUTAY ROSS M.HIGASH EDWIN H.SNIFFENI DARRELL T.YOUNG IN REPLY REFERTO: AIR-EP 15.0035 In response to your letter dated April 3,2015,Airports Division has the following comments: •The proposed park falls within Hilo International Airport's approach/departure path to Runway 8/26. •Due to its close proximity to the Hilo International Airport,the developer is required to file the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Form 7460-1 "Notice ofProposed Construction or Alteration"for each proposed light pole,as well as for the temporary erection of the crane equipment that will be required during construction.The form can be filed online at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaexternal/portal.jsp. •The airlines have commented that any light pole above eighty-five (85)feet would impact their takeoffperformance.Therefore,it is recommended that the maximum height ofthe light poles for the recreational fields be limited to 85 feet.The direction ofthe lights should also be aimed such that it will not impact the pilots'vision. •The Airports Division is also very concerned about the proposed land uses of surrounding developments due to the potential wildlife attractants which could create hazards for operations at the Airfield.In accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B,Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports,the developer should ensure that land use practices such as landscaping,will not cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Thank you for providing us an opportunity to comment on this proposed project.Please keep the Airports Division apprised on this project,and provide us with a copy ofthe Draft Environmental Assessment when it is completed. Mr.Ron Terry May 5,2015 Page 2 AIR-EP 15.0035 Should you have any questions regarding the above,please contact Ms.Lynn Becones,Planner, at (808)838-8817. Sincerely, ROSS M.SRI Deputy Director -Airports c:Mr.Gordon Wong,Federal Aviation Administration [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 1b Comments to Draft EA and Responses [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] DAVIDY. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D. DIRECTOR OF HEAL TH STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P. 0. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378 In reply, please refer to: File: . EPO 15-150 Dr. Ron Terry Geometrician Associates P.O. Box 396 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com Dear Dr. Terry: July 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development, South Hilo, Hawaii Island TMK: (3) 2-2-032:003,004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 The Department of Health (DOH), Environmental Planning Office (EPO), acknowledges receipt of your email to our epo@doh.hawaii.gov account and receipt of the DEA to our office via the OEQC link: http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/EA and EIS Online Library/Hawaii/201 Os/2015-06-23-HA-5B- DEA-Kuawa-Street-New-Sports-Fields-Development-Hilo.pdf EPO thanks you for this opportunity to comment and recommends that you carefully consider: 1. That a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be required for this project. Relevant information should be reviewed at: a. http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb b. http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/site-map/clean-water-branch-home-page/standard-npdes-permit- conditions c. http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/site-map/clean-water-branch-home-page/forms 2. Describing the likely effects associated with the flood plain inside the proposed sports field development, pursuant to HAR Chapter 11-200-12, "Significance Criteria". 3. The noise created during the construction phase of the project may exceed the maximum allowable levels as set forth in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control". A noise permit may be required and should be obtained before the commencement of work. Please call the Indoor and Radiological Health Branch at (808) 586-4700 and review relevant information online at: a. http://health.hawaii.gov/irhb b. http://health.hawaii.gov/irhb/noise 4. Contacting the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office's Site Discovery and Response (SOAR) Section. The SOAR section protects human health and the environment by identifying, investigating, and remediating sites contaminated with hazardous substances (non-emergency site investigations and cleanup). The HEER Office's SOAR Section can be contacted at: (808) 586-4249 and relevant information can be reviewed at: http://eha-web.doh.hawaii.gov/eha-cma/Leaders/HEER/site- assessment-and-cleanup-programs Dr. Ron Terry Page 2 July 17, 2015 5. That if a large amount of dust may be created during the construction phase of the project then the Clean Air Branch should be consulted at: Clean Air Branch, Hawaii Department of Health, 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 203, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 or via e-mail: cab@doh.hawaii.gov or via phone: (808) 586- 4200 between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. or via fax: (808) 586-4359. You may also wish to call toll-free from the neighbor islands. From Hilo call 933-0401. 6. Reviewing our EPO standard comments and available strategies to support sustainable and healthy design provided at: http://health.hawaii.gov/epo/home/landuse-planning-review-program/. Projects are required to adhere to all applicable standard comments. EPO encourages everyone to examine and utilize the Hawaii Environmental Health Portal. The portal provides links to our e-Permitting Portal, Environmental Health Warehouse, Groundwater Contamination Viewer, Hawaii Emergency Response Exchange, Hawaii State and Local Emission Inventory System, Water Pollution Control Viewer, Water Quality Data, Warnings, Advisories and Postings. The Portal is continually updated. Please visit it regularly at: https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov You may also wish to review the revised Water Quality Standards Maps that have been updated for all islands. The Water Quality Standards Maps can be found at: http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/site-map/clean-water-branch-home-page/water-quality-standards/. We request that you utilize all of this information on your proposed project to increase sustainable, innovative, inspirational, transparent and healthy design. aura Leialoha Phillips Mclnt e, AICP Program Manager, Environm ntal Planning Office Attachment: Location map: Project Area c: County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation CWB, HEER, OHO HI (via e-mail only) ....... '.!-11'"1 l.lrt"'"OQ "-1111~"""" '"'"'•1'<111~.A.~ C"'IM~~~.i.,o,,N~I """"'""'"c..n...,tro1c.,c,i,, _ _,.U,aJPork(fEA.FOlliSII ~~ ............ ff·;'OH<~I 1<1oloBorti<n1 T,. .. ilXA.UN$1j ~~·.~,1 ~"""IPf-~14"'-..,.IPhol J/to illEANN511 ~:n,,,tntM ............ ~,'""* .... , IIIJIIOMAl,IJtiNIWllf-lil.O iHMONSQ ~~......_..,:~., -~EH-mlfEA.Fotol511 ti--·~~~.t.:1(,11:,n::, ~~..,Pl'~11,~l-1'huo MO (llEl,AFNIII ~~~.·....-11r; Ki.lmllS $.lfff-EMtHM:I ,VrnlMill T .. _, P,•~• -fffAIOHMI ~~ .............. ,.~ .. "'-nl M Vthll:" AtGl•~•Don ""4 .._ --.. ~ .. ·-(l)EJ,lvk-511 ~'1/Ntfftl/tl~f~JI fl'.on(ot-COnmfft~I C-r AM lodut.1111l l>.lrk (llEA.AFKSII ~:,H"iltl'l'-~·.'Qff'1:,1 HOii l)lfll(nl T,• .. !FE.UON!oQ &1111'~~1~,1 -l\lrllH<hP.,l*"l)to,'-MI iFE,U'llfl5Q ~~,,._........,.,lli9ffij,1 llumllllir..t ___ ~ IIIOlrotllOIIO:.rgo t•nnno11ou. ~N"I Source: OEQC Viewer: http://eha-web.doh.hawaii.gov/oegc-viewer/ Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning and informational purposes only. geometrician A S S O C I A T E S , L L C integrating geographic science and planning phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com November 23, 2015 Laura Leialoha McIntyre, Program Manager Hawai‘i State Department of Health EPO epo@doh.hawaii.gov Subject: Comment to Draft Environmental Assessment on Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Dear Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your comment letter dated July 17, 2015, on the Draft EA. In answer to your specific comments: 1. Need for NPDES permit. As discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the Draft EA, an NPDES permit will be required for the project and will be applied for at the appropriate time. 2. Likely effects on the floodplain should be described inside significance criteria evaluation. As discussed in the Draft EA in Section 3.1.2, the Proposed Action has been conceived and designed to minimize construction in the flood zone to the extent consistent with accomplishing key recreational goals. Small portions of the adult multi-sports field and the parking lot are within the AE flood zone. The field will require some fill to have the same level as the rest of the field. In order for this to be allowed, P&R has prepared an application for a “no-rise” certificate and submitted it to the Hawai‘i County Department of Public Works to allow a variance or exemption. There will be no impact on the base flood elevation or the size of the floodplain. The proposed recreational use is highly consistent with the open space land uses on the Hilo Bayfront and represents a model, sustainable use of the floodplain. A summary of this has been added to the evaluation of the Chapter 343 significance criteria in Part 5 of the Final EA. 3. A noise permit as set forth in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control” may be required and should be obtained before the commencement of work. As construction work is planned, the contractor will coordinate with the DOH IRH Branch and obtain permits, if they are required. A discussion of this has been added to the Final EA. 4. Contact with HEER Office. The County of Hawai‘i has been closely coordinating with HEER throughout the project and will continue to do so. P&R appreciates the assistance and advice that has been offered by John Peard of HEER. The Final EA contains the latest information concerning that effort. 5. Dust control. The grading notes on the construction plans will direct the contractor to keep the area free of dust nuisances and to conduct all work in conformance with Department of Health Rules at HAR 11-60.1, Fugitive Dust. A discussion of this has been added to the Final EA. 6. EPO standard comments, Environmental Health Portal and Water Quality Standards. Thank you for referencing these websites. The design team is developing the project with water quality standards in mind, and P&R believes the action is a socially sustainable and community friendly use of a property that has for many decades has occasionally served as a site for dredge disposal but has mostly been vacant. We very much appreciate your review of the document. If you have any questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 969-7090. Sincerely, Ron Terry, Principal Geometrician Associates Cc: James Komata, P&R; Austen Drake, SSFM Int’l DAVIDY. IGE GC~OR OF HJ.WAii Mr. Clayton Honma Director STATE OF HAV'.fA!t ~ ; r'Fn;F .~·; :,/, DEPARTMENT OF Hf&l~.'1..:':_, 'L1-t-:' ~-~,,.\ ii P.o.sox3378 -"tuUti1 1 • :1, .... HONOLULU, HI 96801-3378 July 28, 2015 Department of Parks and Recreation County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 6 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Honma: SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Hilo, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii VIRG1HIA PRESSLER, M.O. Cl RECTOR OF HEAL Tii In reply, please reler 1o: EMDICWB 07040PJF.15 The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of your letter, dated June 8, 2015, requesting comments on your project. The DOH-CWB has reviewed the subject document and offers these comments. Please note that our review is based solely on the information provided in the subject document and its compliance with the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapters 11-54 and 11-55. You may be responsible for fulfilling additional requirements related to our program. We recommend that you also read our standard comments on our website at: http://health.hawaii.gov/epo/files/2013/05/Clean-Water-Branch-Std-Comments.pdf. 1. Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the following criteria: a. Antidegradation policy (HAR, Section 11-54-1.1 ), which requires that the existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the receiving State water be maintained and protected. b. Designated uses (HAR, Section 11-54-3), as determined by the classification of the receiving State waters. c. Water quality criteria (HAR, Sections 11-54-4 through 11-54-8). 2. You may be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NP DES) permit coverage for discharges of wastewater, including storm water runoff, into State surface waters (HAR, Chapter 11-55). Mr. Clayton Honma July 28, 2015 Page2 07040PJF.15 For NPDES general permit coverage, a Notice of Intent (NOi) form must be submitted at least 30 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge. An application for an NPDES individual permit must be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge. To request NPDES permit coverage, you must submit the applicable form ("CWB Individual NPDES Form" or "CWB NOi Form") through thee-Permitting Portal and the hard copy certification statement with the respective filing fee ($1,000 for an individual NPDES permit or $500 for a Notice of General Permit Coverage). Please open thee-Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-cloud.doh.hawaii.gov/epermit/. You will be asked to do a one-time registration to obtain your login and password. After you register, click on the Application Finder tool and locate the appropriate form. Follow the instructions to complete and submit the form. 3. If your project involves work in, over, or under waters of the United States, it is highly recommended that you contact the Army Corp of Engineers, Regulatory Branch (Tel: 835-4303) regarding their permitting requirements. Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control Act [commonly known as the "Clean Water Act" (CWA)J, Paragraph 401 (a){1 ), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for "[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters ... " (emphasis added). The term "discharge" is defined in CWA, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6); Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 122.2; and HAR, Chapter 11-54. 4. Please note that all discharges related to the project construction or operation activities, whether or not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 WQC are required, must comply with the State's Water Quality Standards. Noncompliance with water quality requirements contained in HAR, Chapter 11-54, and/or permitting requirements, specified in HAR, Chapter 11-55, may be subject to penalties of $25,000 per day per violation. 5. It is the State's position that all projects must reduce, reuse, and recycle to protect, restore, and sustain water quality and beneficial uses of State waters. Project planning should: a. Treat storm water as a resource to be protected by integrating it into project planning and permitting. Storm water has long been recognized as a source of irrigation that will not deplete potable water resources. What is often overlooked is that storm water recharges ground water supplies and feeds streams and estuaries; to ensure that these water cycles are not disrupted, storm water cannot be relegated as a waste product of impervious surfaces. Any project planning must recognize storm water as an asset that sustains and protects Mr. Clayton Honma July 28, 2015 Page 3 07040PJF.15 natural ecosystems and traditional beneficial uses of State waters, like community beautification, beach going, swimming, and fishing. The approaches necessary to do so, including low impact development methods or ecological bio-engineering of drainage ways must be identified in the planning stages to allow designers opportunity to include those approaches up front, prior to seeking zoning, construction, or building permits. b. Clearly articulate the State's position on water quality and the beneficial uses of State waters. The plan should include statements regarding the implementation of methods to conserve natural resources (e.g., minim+zing potable water for irrigation, gray water re-use options, energy conservation through smart design) and improve water quality. c. Consider storm water Best Management Practice (BMP) approaches that minimize the use of potable water for irrigation through storm water storage and reuse, percolate storm water to recharge groundwater to revitalize natural hydrology, and treat storm water which is to be discharged. d. Consider the use of green building practices, such as pervious pavement and landscaping with native vegetation, to improve water quality by reducing excessive runoff and the need for excessive fertilization, respectively. e. Identify opportunities for retrofitting or bio-engineering existing storm water infrastructure to restore ecological function while maintaining, or even enhancing, hydraulic capacity. Particular consideration should be given to areas prone to flooding, or where the infrastructure is aged and will need to be rehabilitated. If you have any questions, please visit our website at: http:1/health.hawaii.gov/cwb/, or contact the Engineering Section, CWB. at (808) 586-4309 .. Sincerely, ~ ALEC WONG, P.E.~ Clean Water Branch v• 11V JF:ay c: DOH-EPO [via e-mail only} geometrician A S S O C I A T E S , L L C integrating geographic science and planning phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com November 23, 2015 Alec Wong, P.E., Chief Clean Water Branch Hawai‘i State Department of Health PO Box 3378 Honolulu HI 96801-3378 Subject: Comment to Draft Environmental Assessment on Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Dear Mr. Wong: Thank you for your comment letter dated July 28, 2015, on the Draft EA in which you noted requirements in Chapters 11-54 and 11-55, HAR, related to water quality criteria and NPDES, recommended contact with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and discussed green building practices. The County of Hawai‘i understands the need to comply with the water quality regulations. No water bodies including streams, bays, ponds or wetlands are included in the project area and it does not appear that permits related to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are required. As stated in the EA, the project is expected to disturb more than an acre of surface, and the project will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Department of Health before the project commences. The project involves mainly development of sports fields and related improvements, and all drainage will be contained onsite. Aside from initial establishment of turf grass, no irrigation is required. We very much appreciate your review of the document. If you have any questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 969-7090. Sincerely, Ron Terry, Principal Geometrician Associates Cc: James Komata, P&R; Austen Drake, SSFM Int’l PHONE (808) 594-1888 Ron Terry Geometrician Associates PO Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 STATE OF HAWAl'I OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS 560 N. NIMITZ HWY., SUITE 200 HONOLULU, HAWAl'l 96817 July 20, 2015 FAX (808) 594-1938 HRD 15-7431B Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Waiakea Ahupua'a, Hilo Moku, Hawai'i Mokupuni TMK: (3)-2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Aloha Mr. Sato: The Office of Hawaiian Affairs received your letter requesting comments on a draft environmental assessment for the Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development. Oui; agency has no comments at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact Everett Ohta at 594-0231 or everetto@oha.org. KC: kkk 'O wau iho no me ka 'oia 'i 'o, ~ a 'opono M. Crabbe, Ph.D. Ka Pouhana, Chief Executive Officer Dr. Kamana 'opono Crabbe Attn: OBA Compliance Enforcement 560 N Nimitz Hwy., Ste. 200 Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96817 geometrician A S S O C I A T E S , L L C integrating geographic science and planning phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com November 23, 2015 Lisa Victor, COE Office of Hawaiian Affairs 560 N. Nimitz Hwy., Suite 200 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 Subject: Comment to Draft Environmental Assessment on Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Dear Ms. Victor: Thank you for your comment letter on the Draft EA dated July, 2015, in which you stated that your agency had no comments at this time. We very much appreciate your review of the document. If you have any questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 969-7090. Sincerely, Ron Terry, Principal Geometrician Associates Cc: James Komata, P&R; Austen Drake, SSFM Int’l ll·\Yll>Y. l(;E ti{I\Tl{~ll~(IJ·ll.\\\':\11 (fi:1'J ''ii' ~ \~?l;]f;f;Sf;;f";,~i STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATllRAL RESOL'RCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU. HA WAii 96809 July 22, 2015 ~l'ZANNE D. CA~E 1·11\ml1J<\11N 1111.\J{lll!rl .\~ll '<NllN.\lllJ:\I H1·.,•1l'IWI·-~ t'!l,\!l,1(';:iJr1~11~\\',\TJ,I{ kl·"(•l'l!!'l ;\l \S·\l;l·MI ~I Geometrician Associates Attention: Mr. Ron Terry P.O. Box 396 via email: rterry@hawaii.rr.com Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact, Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation, Applicant, South Hilo, Hawaii, TM Ks: (3) 2-2- 032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR) Land Division distributed or made available a copy of your report pertaining to the suhject matter to DLNR Divisions for their review and comments. At this time, enclosed are comments from the (i) Division of Aquatic Resources and (ii) Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, (iii) Engineering Division, (iv) Division of State Parks, and (v) Hawaii District Land Office on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call Kevin Moore at (808) 587-0426. Enclosure(s) Sincerely, Russell Y. Tsuji Land Administr tor DAVID 1'. IGE GOVERNOR OF !!AWAI! SUZANNE D. CASE CHIJR.PERsor..: BO.:.RDOF LA."ID ANC NATIIRAL R£.',Ql/JtCe COMMISSION ON WATI!R RESOURCE MA.NAG!:MT!Nl STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DI\'1SION RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2015 POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 Division of Aquatic Resources i) :Ji< tf ~) 1 3E TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: June 25, 2015 MEMORANDUM DLNR Agencies: ..K._Div. of Aquatic Resources ..K._Div. of Boating & Ocean Recreation ...K_Engineering Division _Div. of Forestry & Wildlife X Div. of State Parks _Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands ..K_Land Division -Hawaii District X Historic Preservation -~ / .-.-; 0 . .) L/Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator ~ { Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact South Hilo, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced project. One hard copy of the DEA is available in the Land Division office in Honolulu. The DEA is also available in the June 23, 2015 edition of The Environmental Notice available at: http://health.hawaii.gov/oegc/. We would appreciate your comments on this project. Please submit any comments by July 22, 2015. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kevin Moore at 587-0426. Thank you. Attachments { ) (Y)_ ( ) Signed: We have no objections. We have no c.onm1ents. Conm1ents are attached. ·'·1 . Print name: Al ton Miyasaka, Acting Administrator Date: 1,.. l':!, -1 ( cc: Central Files ; I D~\lDY. IGE GOVERNOR OI· It,\\\ All TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 62J HONOLUUJ, HAWAll 96809 June 25, 2015 MEMORANDUM DLNR Agencies: XDiv. of Aquatic Resources XDiv. of Boating & Ocean Recreation XEngineering Division _Div. of Forestry & Wildlife XDiv. of State Parks _Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands XLand Division -Hawaii District XHistoric Preservation ~UZANNE D. CASE nlAIRT'FkSnN JlO,\RD Of L'\ND AND NA 1'URAI IU:..'-ot mrES CIJJ\IMl'iSION fl)\WAIBt RBUillln MJ\J'.",\!WMENT (..::-VRussell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator ~ ( Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact APPLICANT: South Hilo, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced project. One hard copy of the DEA is available in the Land Division office in Honolulu. The DEA is also available in the June 23, 2015 edition of The Environmental Notice available at: http://health.hawaii.gov/oeqc/. We would appreciate your cormnents on this project. Please submit any comments by July 22, 2015. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kevin Moore at 587-0426. Thank you. Attachments cc: Central Files We have no objections. (-:><) We have no comments. ~ig~~LJ J Print name~(,<'. ( ~/,_.,,~ Date: 6-t> 'S ) JUH2S'15P!'li2:13BOR ~[ M DA\'ID \'. IGE GflVERNOJ-: DI· HA WAii 1D: ~: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 June 25, 2015 MEMORANDUM DLNR Agencies: XDiv. of Aquatic Resources XDiv. of Boating & Ocean Recreation XEngineering Division _Div. of Forestry & Wildlife XDiv. of State Parks _Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands XLand Division -Hawaii District XHistoric Preservation SUZANNE D. CASE . ~"'.H!\fKl'.f:.RS(?~ IW,\Rn (IF l.,\NIJ .-\NL) J,,:,(TURALll.£.<.'.Ol!JtCJ~ n 1:-ifMlSSI! IN ON \\'All~ ~ESOllRrE MANAGEMENT fv:Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator ~ Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact South Hilo, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced project. One hard copy of the DEA is available in the Land Division office in Honolulu. The DEA is also available in the June 23, 2015 edition of The Environmental Notice available at: http://health.hawaii.gov/oegc/. We would appreciate your comments on this project. Please submit any comments by July 22, 2015. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kevin Moore at 587-0426. Thank you. Attachments cc: Central Files ( ) We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. ( /) Comments are, attached. I! / /_,_-/ .·.· /../r Signed: (_ I ·i_. ··_,_-c-·----- ,' I f j Print nai~1~/ !' CortJS Chang. CJiieUngineer D " , , 1/ It_ ate: I/,:,. , , ) I I DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGJNEERING DIVISION LO/ Russell Y. Tsuji REF: DEA for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development, South Hilo Hawaii.035 COMMENTS (X) We confrrm that the project site, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is located in Flood Zones AE and X. The National Flood Insurance Program regulates developments within Zone AE, but not Zone X. () Please take note that the remainder of the project site according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map {FIRM), is located in Zones_. ( ) Please note that the correct Flood Zone Designation for the project site according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is _. (X) Please note that the project site must comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) presented in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR), whenever development within a Special Flood Hazard Area is undertaken. If there are any questions, please contact the State NFIP Coordinator, Ms. Carol Tyau-Beam, of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Engineering Division at (808) 587-0267. Please be advised that 44CFR indicates the minimum standards set forth by the NFIP. Your Community's local flood ordinance may prove to be more restrictive and thus take precedence over the minimum NFIP standards. ff there are questions regarding the local flood ordinances, please contact the applicable County NFIP Coordinators below: ( ) Mr. Mario Siu Li at (808) 768-8098 of the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting. (X) Mr. Carter Romero (Acting) at (808) 961-8943 of the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works. () Mr. Carolyn Cortez at (808) 270-7253 of the County of Maui, Department of Planning. () Mr. Stanford Iwamoto at (808) 241-4896 of the County of Kauai, Department of Public Works. () The applicant should include project water demands and infrastructure required to meet water .demands. Please note that the implementation of any State-sponsored projects requiring water service from the Honolulu Board of Water Supply system must first obtain water allocation credits from the Engineering Division before it can receive a building permit and/or water meter. () The applicant should provide the water demands and calculations to the Engineering Division so it can be included in the State Water Projects Plan Update. () Additional Comments:------------------------ () Other:-------------------------~- Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Dennis Imada of the Planning Branch at 587-0257. FLOOD ZONE DEFINITIONS SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD-The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include Zone A, AE, AH, AO, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is lhe water-surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. Mandatory flood insurance purchase applies in these zones: • Zone A: No BFE determined. • Zone AE: BFE determined . • Zone AH: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); BFE determined [] Zone AO: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined . • Zone V: Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no BFE determined. • Zone VE: Coastal flood zone with velocily hazard (wave action), BFE determined • Zone AEF: Floodway areas in Zone AE. The floodway is the channel of stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1 % annual chance flood can be carried without increasing the BFE NON-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA -An area in a low-to-moderate risk flood zone No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply, but coverage is available in participating communities • Zone XS (X shaded): Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 % annual chance 11(1(.'d ! Zone X: Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain OTHER FLOOD AREAS 1· I :i Zone D: Unstudied areas where flood hazards are undelerminsd. bul flood11>~ is possible. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply. but coverage is available in participating communities ZONEX PROPERTY INFORMATION COUNTY: TMK NO: PARCEL ADDRESS: FIRM INDEX DATE: LETTER OF MAP CHANGE(S): FEMA FIRM PANEL(S): PANEL EFFECTIVE DATE: PARCEL DATA FROM: IMAGERY DATA FROM: HAWAII 13) 2-2-032-003 APRIL 02, 2004 NONE 1551660880C SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 JUNE 2013 MAY 2005 IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS County NFIP Coordinator County of Hawaii Frank DeMarco. CFM State NFIP Coordinator Carol Tyau-Bearn, P.E. CFM (808) 961-8042 (808) 587-0267 Ci~dwnw,· Tf1t1 Dt.:partment of Limtf Hrld Narum! Rei'iOllr(CS 1DL NRI .'J!.Mm1t:.<., 110 rt::spo11~1h1/lly au,..,mu 'rum /f1p u~e of me mf01mat1fJ!i 1-uufR1nr1d Jfl tl1is repCHt V1ewe,~1Use1s un• ,t:~puns,blt: fot vartty,ng tl•r. l/U.uraty 1.1f the ,nfornwrion and nqrce to mriemnify tile DLNR from any !1alJ11ify. wt11ch may arise from 1b use II tt11s muµ !>as /Jeen 1d~ntilwd as 'PRElil.11NARY' or 'UNOFFICIAL' ;1/f:a5u nvt<: that 1/ i:i t;e111y pruvit(<Jd for mfu:mat1unal purpo~11s and 15 not to t1(J u.wi<i for ufficml/lt~ga! r1ec1s,om; rl'gufatory compfurnc.c. or f/,,rn! :nsurnna:. rnting Contar:r ynur county f.JFJP crwrrfm,1lnt for flood lOWJ dMerrninatmn.<"i tn he 11.secf for 1:nm{ll!enr:e vvitl, Jucal floodplain management regulations DA \'ID Y. !GE G0\1~RHOR or llA\\'All TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ( f STATE OF HAWAII SUZANNE D. CASE Cll,\IH.PERSO~ ll<JARDOr l,A"flJ A.Nil HATI:RAL RE~C)l1Jh1:S fllMML'>SlvN UN WATI:.1-l REW11RCI.: MANA(iFMIJ., DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATUR.\.L RESOURhlS ii ii~ Ll) :i ' '.[12 LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 62 J HONOLULU. HAW All 96809 June 25, 2015 MEMORANDUM DLNR Agencies: JlDiv. of Aquatic Resources ]lDiv. of Boating & Ocean Recreation ]lEngineering Division _Div. of Forestry & Wildlife ]lDiv. of State Parks _Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands ]lLand Division -Hawaii District ]lHistoric Preservation (,) .. •'/ ,-_:, ('/ /7.--' - \ Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator V......:,:- Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact South Hilo, Hawaii, T.MKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Depaitment of Parks and Recreation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced project. One hard copy of the DEA is available in the Land Division office in Honolulu. The DEA is also available in the June 23, 2015 edition of The Environmental Notice available at: http://health.hawaii.gov/oeqc/. We would appreciate your comments on this project. Please submit any comments by July 22, 2015. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kevin Moore at 587-0426. Thank you. Attachments cc: Central Files ( jwe have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. ( ) Comments are' attached. Signed_;~- Print name:"T~1a1-J S 6lut0v1 Date: '.'7,/i 'Z/is DAYIDY. IGE GO\'l..:RNOR OF l LA WAH TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: '! ·~ ! :~ STA TE OF HA WAil DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAW Aii 96809 June 25, 2015 MEMORANDUM DLNR Agencies: XDiv. of Aquatic Resources XDiv. of Boating & Ocean Recreation XEngineering Division _Div. of Forestry & Wildlife XDiv. of State Parks _Commission on Water Resource Management _Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands XLand Division -Hawaii District XHistoric Preservation SllZANNE D, CASE Cl!..IJRl'F.:l:.So:,; l50A!m ()f l_l\f'-.:l) ANDNA11lkl\l RESt)\fl{r'&; CO~l),.flSSION Ot-:WATEH l!E<;OURt:t ~.H ... 'li\Gl:.Me,/1 . . . i'·. ' ,I..;.· l [ I \If : f.:.....-Russell Y. Tsuji, Land Administrator ~ f r Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development and Anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact South Hilo, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Geometrician Associates, LLC for the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation Transmitted for your review and comment is information on the above-referenced project. One hard copy of the DEA is available in the Land Division office in Honolulu. The DEA is also available in the June 23, 20 l 5 edition of The Environmental Notice available at: http://health.hawaii.gov/oeqc/. We would appreciate your comments on this project. Please submit any comments by July 22, 2015. If no response is received by this date, we will assume your agency has no comments. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kevin Moore at 587-0426. Thank you. Attachments ( 0 We have no objections. ( ) We have no comments. ( ) Comments are attached. Signe.+J.-=._.--;::;;··~~ cc: Central Files Print name: o/..-.Do~C:. /-k// Date: ~ 1 1?' I geometrician A S S O C I A T E S , L L C integrating geographic science and planning phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com November 23, 2015 Russell Y. Tsuji, Administrator Hawai‘i State DLNR Land Division P.O. Box 621 Honolulu HI 96809 Subject: Comment to Draft Environmental Assessment on Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Dear Mr. Tsuji: Thank you for your comment letter dated July 22, 2015, on the Draft EA. We first wish to acknowledge the no-comment/no objection memos by the Division of Aquatic Resources, the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, the Division of State Parks, and the Hawai‘i District Land Office. We appreciate the information on the flood zone status of the property supplied by the Engineering Division, which was contained in the Draft EA. We very much appreciate your review of the document, including circulation to various DLNR agencies. If you have any questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 969-7090. Sincerely, Ron Terry, Principal Geometrician Associates Cc: James Komata, P&R; Austen Drake, SSFM Int’l William P. Kenoi Mayor West Hawai'i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalolc Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 Phone(S08)323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 July 24, 2015 Ron Terry, Ph.D. Geometrician Associates, LLC P.O. Box 396 Hilo, HI 96721 Dear Mr. Terry: County of Hawai 'i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Project: Kuawa Street Recreational Fields Duane Kanuha Director Bobby Command Deputy Director East Hawai' i Office IO I Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 TMK: 2-2-032:003. 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088, South Hilo. Hawai'f This is in regards to the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) provided to our office for comments on June 23, 2015, for the above-referenced project. The County of Hawai'i Department of Parks and Recreation (P & R) proposes to convert an open area makai of P & R's Ho'olulu Complex into recreational fields and support facilities. The project would remove existing vegetation, provide turf grass suitable for recreation, and construct a new multi-use football/soccer/rugby field capable of hosting adult level regulation games. This field would include necessary facilities such as goals and goal posts, as well as bleachers on concrete slab (with provisions for future weather-protective covering), fencing, drinking fountains and related amenities. The subject parcels contain 9.053 contiguous acres. The subject parcels are zoned Open by the County. They are situated within the State Land Use Urban District. In addition, the Hawai'i County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUP AG) Map designates the parcels as Open. They are within the Special Management Area (SMA); however, they do not have frontage along the coastline. As such, the project will require a review against the SMA rules and regulations and Plan Approval issued by this office. We have no further comments to offer, at this time. If you have any questions, or if you need further assistance, please feel free to contact Bethany Morrison of this office at (808) 961-8138. Sincerely, BJM: P:\wpwin60\Bethany\EA-EIS Reviewiconsultdraftea Kuawa Street Recreational Fields.doc flawai '1 County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer geometrician A S S O C I A T E S , L L C integrating geographic science and planning phone: (808) 969-7090 PO Box 396 Hilo Hawaii 96721 rterry@hawaii.rr.com November 23, 2015 Duane Kanuha, Director Hawaii County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo HI 96720 Subject: Comment to Draft Environmental Assessment on Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Dear Mr. Kanuha: Thank you for the comment letter dated July 24, 2015, in which you provided the land use designation information for the property. Your office supplied similar information in its early consultation letter, which was then listed in the Draft EA. P&R understands the need to obtain a Special Management Area Permit and Plan Approval for the activity, which it will be applying for at the conclusion of the EA process. We very much appreciate your review of the document. If you have any questions about the EA, please contact me at (808) 969-7090. Sincerely, Ron Terry, Principal Geometrician Associates Cc: James Komata, P&R; Austen Drake, SSFM Int’l Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Note: Environmental Data Report (EDR) portion (Appendix A) not included, but available for inspection upon request of P&R [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, Hawaii, USA 96720 • 808.935.8727 99-1046 Iwaena Street, Suite 210A, Aiea, Hawaii, USA 96701 • 808.484.9214 TMK (3) 2-2- Environmental Studies and Consulting Services Geometrician Associates, LLC PO Box 396 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 DRAFT Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088 Hilo, Island of Hawaii 96720 9.053 acres MNA Job No. 01927_3 June 5, 2015 I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Jessica Walsh, Author Myounghee Noh Environmental Planner Principal Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 99-1046 Iwaena Street, Suite 210A Aiea, Hawaii 96701 Tel (808) 484-9214 www.noh-associates.com Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 iii Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS .............................................................................. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ viii FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. viii LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... x RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................................................. x 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Site History ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Regulatory Records ................................................................................................... 3 1.2.3 Site Reconnaissance .................................................................................................. 3 1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................ 3 1.2.5 Data Evaluation and Reporting ................................................................................ 4 1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 4 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................. 4 1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 4 1.6 USER RELIANCE ........................................................................................................... 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 5 2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................ 5 2.2.1 Geology ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................ 6 2.3 CURRENT USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ........................................................ 8 2.4 STRUCTURES, ROADS, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ....................................... 8 2.5 PAST USES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ............................................................... 8 2.6 CURRENT AND PAST USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES ................................... 9 3.0 `RECORDS REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 11 3.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES .......................................... 11 3.1.1 Federal National Priorities List .............................................................................. 12 3.1.2 Federal RCRA CORRACTS TSD Facilities List ..................................................... 12 3.1.3 Delisted NPL Site List ............................................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Federal CERCLIS List ............................................................................................. 12 3.1.5 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP Site List ........................................................................ 12 3.1.6 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities List .............................................. 12 3.1.7 State Brownfield Sites .............................................................................................. 12 3.1.8 State CERCLIS Site List .......................................................................................... 13 3.1.9 State Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites ............................................................... 14 3.1.10 State LUST List .................................................................................................... 14 3.1.11 State Voluntary Cleanup Sites .............................................................................. 15 3.1.12 Federal RCRA Generators List ............................................................................ 15 3.1.13 State Registered UST List .................................................................................... 16 3.1.14 Federal ERNS List ............................................................................................... 16 3.1.15 State IC and EC Registries ................................................................................... 16 3.1.16 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System List .............................................. 17 3.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ....................................... 17 3.2.1 Subject Property ...................................................................................................... 17 Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 iv Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.2.2 Surrounding Properties ........................................................................................... 17 3.3 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ................... 21 3.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs ................................................................................ 21 3.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps ................................................................................. 22 3.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................................................... 22 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................. 23 4.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................. 23 4.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING .......................................................................................... 23 4.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................... 23 4.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 24 4.5 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ............................ 24 4.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ....................................................................... 24 5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 26 5.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) ................................................................. 26 5.2 Field Methodology ......................................................................................................... 27 5.3 Preservation and Transportation .................................................................................... 30 5.4 Decontamination and Investigation Derived Waste ....................................................... 30 5.5 Analytical Results .......................................................................................................... 30 5.5.1 Analytical Results for TPH, BTEX, PAH, Pesticides and PCB ............................... 32 5.5.2 Analytical Results for Metals .................................................................................. 32 5.5.2.1 Arsenic and Lead Analytical Results ............................................................................ 32 5.5.2.2 Arsenic/Lead Upper and Lower Range Values ............................................................ 33 5.6 Data Quality Review ...................................................................................................... 33 5.6.1 Sample Holding Times ............................................................................................. 33 5.6.2 Laboratory Blank Results ........................................................................................ 33 5.6.3 Laboratory Performance Review ............................................................................ 33 6.0 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................... 38 6.1 John Peard ...................................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Gordon Heit .................................................................................................................... 38 6.3 Dickey Lee ..................................................................................................................... 38 7.0 DATA GAPS AND DEVIATIONS .................................................................................. 38 8.0 KEY FINDINGS AND OPINION .................................................................................... 39 8.1 Subject Property ............................................................................................................. 39 8.1.1 REC ......................................................................................................................... 39 8.2 Surrounding Properties .................................................................................................. 39 8.2.1 Non-REC ................................................................................................................. 39 8.2.2 Historical REC ........................................................................................................ 41 9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 41 9.1 RECs .............................................................................................................................. 41 9.2 Historical RECs .............................................................................................................. 41 9.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 43 FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. TMK Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3. Site Map .................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 4. Soil Sampling Locations and Results ...................................................................... 28 Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 v Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. TABLES Table 1. Subject Property Acreage per TMK .......................................................................... 5 Table 2. Hilo Aquifer Classification System ........................................................................... 8 Table 3. Users and Primary Uses of Subject Property ............................................................ 8 Table 4. Users and Primary Uses of Adjoining Properties ...................................................... 9 Table 5. State CERCLIS Sites ............................................................................................... 13 Table 6. State LUST Sites ..................................................................................................... 14 Table 7. Federal RCRA Generator Sites ............................................................................... 15 Table 8. State Registered UST .............................................................................................. 16 Table 9. Transformer Near the Subject Property ................................................................... 17 Table 10. Historical Photograph Details ................................................................................. 21 Table 11. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analytes ............................................................... 29 Table 12. Field Performance Review Data .............................................................................. 31 Table 13. Soil Analytical Results for DU-01, DU-02, and DU-03 ......................................... 34 Table 14. Soil Analytical Results for DU-04 and DU-05 ....................................................... 36 APPENDICES Appendix A Environmental Data Resources Report and Maps Appendix B Site Reconnaissance and Soil Sampling Photographs Appendix C Laboratory Analytical Reports CONTRIBUTORS Project Manager Jessica Walsh Site Assessors Phillip Cabanila, Kristin Cabanila, Bryan Chinaka Report Writers Jessica Walsh, Bryan Chinaka Drafter/Illustrator Kristin Cabanila Environmental Professional Jessica Walsh Quality Assurance Myounghee Noh Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 vi Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS AST Aboveground Storage Tank AVG Average bgs Below Ground Surface B/W Black and White BTEX Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and Xylenes C Celsius CCA Chromated Copper Arsenate CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators CFR Code of Federal Regulations COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern CORRACTS RCRA Facilities that are undergoing “corrective action” DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DU Decision Unit EAL Environmental Action Level EC Engineering Control EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EHE/EHMP Environmental Hazard Evaluation/Environmental Hazard Management Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment HDOH Hawaii Department of Health HELCO Hawaii Electric Light Company HEER Office Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response HFD County of Hawaii Fire Department HMIRS Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition IC Institutional Control IDW Investigation Derived Waste LCS/LCSD Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LQG Large Quantity Generators LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MIS Multi-Increment Sample MNA Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. MS/MSD Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 vii Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. NA Not Available ND Not Detected NFRAP CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned NLR No Longer Regulated NPL National Priorities List PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls PPE Personal Protective Equipment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Condition RSD Relative Standard Deviation SHWB Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch SIR Statistical Inventory Reconciliation SQG Small Quantity Generators STDEV Standard Deviation TMK Tax Map Key TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSD Treatment/Storage/Disposal UIC Underground Injection Control UST Underground Storage Tank USGS United States Geological Survey Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 viii Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. (MNA) was retained in March 2015 to conduct an Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the approximately 9-acre subject property located in Hilo, Island of Hawaii, and identified by the Tax Map Key (TMK) of Island 3, Zone 2, Section 2, Plat 032, and Parcels :003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088 (TMK (3) 2-2- 032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088). At the time of this Phase I ESA, the subject property was owned by the State of Hawaii. This Phase I ESA was completed for the County of Hawaii and Geometrician Associates, LLC. The purpose of this Enhanced Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the subject property, with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. A Phase I ESA consists of four components. Three of those components are intended to collect information that will aid in the identification of RECs at the subject property. The information collected and reviewed consists of state, federal, and local environmental records; a site reconnaissance visit; and interviews with key site personnel and other individuals with knowledge regarding the subject property. The fourth part of a Phase I ESA is a report that documents the collection of information about the subject property and evaluation of that information towards making a determination of the presence of REC at the subject property. Additionally, the “enhanced” portion pertains to a limited soil sampling on the subject property to identify the presence of potentially hazardous soil contaminants that might be RECs. Based on the information collected from record review and interviews, the Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) were identified as follows. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)-Gasoline, Diesel, and Oil Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes Priority Pollutant Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polychlorinated biphenyls Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 8 metals Organochlorine pesticides The analytical results for the COPC were compared to the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) Tier 1 Soil Environmental Action Levels (EALs) with unrestricted (residential) and restricted (commercial/industrial) land uses above a nondrinking water resource and located less than 150 meters from surface water (Fall 2011; revised Jan. 2012). The 9 acre subject property is at the intersection of Kamehameha Avenue (Highway 19) and Manono Street, across from the Wailoa River Harbor and Park, approximately 675 feet southeast of the mouth of the Wailoa River, where it empties into Hilo Bay. The subject property was unused and vacant at the time of this Phase I ESA. FINDINGS Subject Property. No Underground Storage Tank (UST) or Leaking UST (LUST) were identified at the vacant subject property which is located within50 yards from a small boat harbor to the west. No records of National Priority List (NPL) sites, RCRA CORRACTS TDS or non-CORRACTS facilities, State Sites of Interest, delisted NPL sites, CERCLIS or CERCLIS NFRAP sites, State Brownfield sites, landfill or solid waste disposal sites, RCRA generator sites, State Voluntary Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 ix Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Cleanup sites, Institutional Control/Engineering Control (IC/EC) registries, or Federal ERNS sites at the subject property. REC. Soil sampling and analytical results indicated that arsenic and lead were present, exceeding the HDOH Tier 1 Soil EALs for unrestricted (residential) land use. Therefore, this is considered a REC. During the site reconnaissance conducted on 30 March 2015, MNA observed an old motor in the subject property. While there was no staining to the soil or petroleum or oil odors, the discarded motor represents a material threat of release to the surface soil of the subject property, and is therefore considered a REC. Surrounding Properties. No records of NPL sites, RCRA CORRACTS facilities, delisted NPL sites, CERCLIS sites, Brownfield sites, landfill or solid waste disposal sites, State Voluntary Cleanup sites, IC/EC registries, or Federal ERNS sites were reported at the surrounding properties. Non-REC. One State CERCLIS site was identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property. The site, identified as “HELCO pipeline anomaly” located at 126 Banyan Drive, was located approximately one third of a mile and downgradient from the subject property. TPH-G contamination below the HDOH Tier I EAL was identified onsite. Contaminated soil was removed and the site was backfilled. A No Further Action - Unrestricted Land Use letter was issued on 16 July 2012. Due to the proximity of this site to the subject property, this is not considered a REC. One CERCLIS NFRAP site was identified in the vicinity, identified as Hilo Bayfront Soccer Field, located south of Kamehameha Avenue between Pauahi and Ponahawai Streets. This site is located approximately 1/2 mile west of and at equal gradient to the subject property. Due to the distance and proximity of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. Refer to Section 8.0 KEY FINDINGS AND OPINION for additional non-REC evaluations. Historical RECs (HREC). Eight LUST sites were identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Table 6). A few of the LUST sites were located upgradient. The documented LUST sites have a current site status of Site Cleanup Complete, No Further Action. Due to the distance and proximity of these sites to the subject property, these LUST sites are considered HRECs: Facility Name Location Distance (feet) Direction Potential Impact? Y/N S.K. Oda, Ltd. 180 Kalanikoa St. 707 SE Undetermined* Jack's Tours 226 Kanoelehua Ave. 1,103 ESE N* Mid Pac Petroleum 2705956 1801 Kamehameha Ave. 1,309 E N* Kumu Street Kumu St. and Kamehameha Ave. 1,378 E N* H. Harada Contractor, Inc. 24 Railroad Ave. 1,431 SE N Tesoro Gas Express 82 1672 Kamehameha Ave. 1,695 E N Harper Car & Truck Rentals of Hawaii 456 Kalanianaole Ave. 1,721 E N Phillips U Drive Inc. 920 Piilani St. 1,906 SSE N *Assumed due to no HDOH records were available to determine potential impacts to the subject property. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 x Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. LIMITATIONS The sampling and analytical results represent the soil condition in 0-12 inches below ground surface (bgs) at the time of the sampling, and the soil conditions below 12 inches bgs are unknown. There was a data gap in this Phase I ESA. Detailed information about the dredged spoils from Wailoa River were spread over the subject property was not available at the time of this writing. Moreover, except for Tesoro Gas Express, no HDOH records were made available to determine potential historical impacts of the LUST sites to the subject property. Limitations, page x: Add information on dredged spoils sampling – Letter indicates sampling showed residues were below EALS. There was a deviation from the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process conducted (ASTM International, 2013). The User Questionnaire was not completed as the user did not have actual or potential CERCLA liability and was not seeking to qualify for the Landowner Liability Protections. RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This assessment has revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, as follows: RECs Subject Property Arsenic and Lead in Soil. Soil sampling and analysis of COPC indicated that heavy metal arsenic and lead were present, exceeding the HDOH Tier 1 Soil EAL for unrestricted (residential) land use. Therefore, this is considered a REC (Section 5.0). Additional soil sampling is being planned at this writing, and the findings will be included in the final Phase I ESA. Discarded Motor in DU-02. While there was no staining to the soil or petroleum or oil odors, the discarded motor represents a material threat of past release to the surface soil of the subject property, and is therefore considered a REC (Figure 4). Historical REC Surrounding Area LUST Sites. A few of the 8 LUST sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property are upgradient and have a current status of Site Cleanup Completed and No Further Action. Limited historical information was available at the HDOH, and this is a data gap. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 1 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the 9-acre subject property identified by Tax Map Key (TMK) of Island 3, Zone 2, Section 2, Plat 032, and Parcels :003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088 [TMK (3) 2-2- 032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088]. According to the County of Hawaii Real Property Tax Office, the subject property has no physical address. Figure 1 presents the location of the subject property. This Phase I ESA was conducted by Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C., herein referred to as MNA, for the County of Hawaii and Geometrician Associates, LLC. At the time of this Phase I ESA, the subject property was owned by the State of Hawaii. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Enhanced Phase I ESA is to identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at a subject property, with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. The “enhanced” portion of this Phase I ESA pertains to soil sampling that was conducted on the subject property to determine if soil contaminants were present in the surface and subsurface soil in concentrations that might be of concern to public health. The term recognized environmental condition denotes the presence, or likely presence, of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release into structures on the property, or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. 1.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES A Phase I ESA has four components: records review, site reconnaissance, interview, and report. MNA conducted this ESA using information sources with the potential to identify past or current releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products that may have impacted the subject property. Adjoining and surrounding properties were also evaluated for their potential to affect the subject property. Per the Phase I ESA Standard ASTM E 1527-13, adjoining properties include parcels touching the subject property, as well as those properties positioned across a roadway (ASTM International, 2013). 1.2.1 Site History Where available, and as needed, MNA researched historical and current topographic maps, tax records, publications, fire insurance maps, and aerial photographs to identify previous and current uses of the property, adjoining properties, and the general surrounding area. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 3 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 1.2.2 Regulatory Records MNA examined government records with respect to environmental conditions, citations, complaints, and permits at the subject property, at adjoining properties, and within the surrounding area. MNA utilized a records search provided by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR), to review records from the following federal and state programs. National Priorities List (NPL) Delisted NPL Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities that are undergoing “corrective action” (CORRACTS) RCRA-Treatment, Storage, & Disposal (TSD) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS) List CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) List Federal and Hawaii State Brownfields Solid Waste and Landfill Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) RCRA – Generators, including those No Longer Regulated (NLR) Hawaii Sites of Interest Hawaii Releases Federal and Hawaii State Land Use Controls Hawaii Voluntary Cleanup Sites Tribal Lands Additionally, MNA reviewed state environmental databases and case files from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), and requested information from the Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO), and the County of Hawaii Fire Department (HFD). 1.2.3 Site Reconnaissance MNA performed a site reconnaissance to obtain information indicating the likelihood of contamination, to interview available site personnel, and to conduct a brief assessment of the adjoining properties. During the site reconnaissance, MNA looked for a variety of indicators of environmental hazards including, but not limited to, stained surface soil, dead or stressed vegetation, hazardous substances, aboveground and underground storage tanks, disposal areas, groundwater wells, drywells, and sumps. Sampling and testing of groundwater or area air quality investigation was not part of this assessment. 1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology MNA reviewed published information for the property and surrounding area regarding surface and subsurface conditions such as topography, drainage, surface water bodies, subsurface geology, and groundwater. MNA used this information to assess the potential for migration, and impacts, of hazardous substances or petroleum products released to the subject property from off-site properties. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 4 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 1.2.5 Data Evaluation and Reporting MNA evaluated the information collected, and prepared this report as part of the assessment. Section 2 presents the site background information; Section 3 information collected from records review; Section 4 site reconnaissance; Section 5 limited soil sampling results, Section 6 interviews; Section 7 data gaps; Section 8 key findings and opinion; and Section 9 conclusion. Per client’s request, MNA’s recommendations are included in Section 9. 1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS The conclusion presented in this report is based upon the assumption that reasonably ascertainable and relevant information pertaining to the environmental condition of the subject property was made available to MNA during the assessment. Information obtained from government agencies and other resources is presumed to be accurate and updated. Additionally, information provided in interviews is collected in “good faith” and believed to be true and accurate to the best knowledge of the interviewee. 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The Phase I ESA provides a “snapshot” of the conditions of the property at the time of the assessment. Findings, opinions, and conclusions apply to the existing conditions of the property at the time of the investigation and those reasonably foreseeable. They do not apply to conditions at, or changes to, the property, of which MNA is not aware, could not reasonably be aware, and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. This report is based upon visual observations of property and vicinity, interpretation of the available historical and regulatory information and documents reviewed, and interviews of individuals with knowledge of the subject or surrounding properties. MNA cannot ensure the accuracy of the historical or regulatory information. This report is intended exclusively for the purpose outlined in Section 1.1 and applies only to the subject property. This Enhanced Phase I ESA excludes investigation of asbestos, lead paints, geophysical, or geotechnical concerns. MNA performed an Enhanced Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13 of the property located at TMK (3) 2-2- 032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 7.0 of this report. 1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Enhanced Phase I ESA was conducted and prepared by MNA for the exclusive use of the County of Hawaii and Geometrician Associates, LLC. This report shall not be relied upon or transferred to any other party without written authorization from the County of Hawaii and Geometrician Associates, LLC. 1.6 USER RELIANCE This report is an instrument of service of MNA, which summarizes its findings and opinions with respect to RECs at the subject property. Findings and opinions are predicated on information that MNA obtained on the dates and from individuals stated herein, from public records reviewed, a site reconnaissance, and ancillary Phase I ESA activities. This assessment relies Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 5 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. upon the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. The information obtained for this assessment is used without extraordinary verification. It is possible that other information exists and may be discovered, or environmental conditions change subsequent to the submittal of this Enhanced Phase I ESA report, to which MNA shall not be held responsible for exclusion. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION This section contains: location and legal description; site and vicinity general characteristics; current uses of the subject property; structures, roads, and other improvements; past uses of the subject property; and current and past uses of adjoining properties. 2.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in Hilo, an urban region in the eastern area of the Island of Hawaii (Figure 1). The County of Hawaii Real Properties Tax Office identified TMK (3) 2-2- 032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088 as not having physical addresses. Figure 2 presents a TMK map of the subject property and adjoining properties. According to the County of Hawaii Real Properties Assessment Division, the subject property is approximately 9 acres with its zoning as agricultural (County of Hawaii, 2014). A breakdown of the acreage per parcel is shown below (Table 1). The western quarter of the subject property was located inside of the 100-year floodplain (Hawaii-National Flood Insurance Program, 2014). Table 1. Subject Property Acreage per TMK Parcel Acreage 2-2-032:003 2.901 2-2-032:004 2.761 2-2-032:008 0.677 2-2-032:019 2.036 2-2-032:087 0.618 2-2-032:088 0.06 2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is on the south side of Kamehameha Avenue (Highway 19), on the east side of Manono Street, across from the Wailoa River Harbor and Park approximately 675 feet southeast of the mouth of the Wailoa River. The Walter Victor CK Baseball Complex and Wailoa River Harbor and Park are adjoining properties to the south and east, respectively. The Naniloa Golf Course is the adjoining property to the north; County offices, Coqui’s Hideaway Bar and Grill, and AKW Environmental operate on adjoining properties to the east and south. Topographic maps generally depict the surface at the subject property sloping toward the north (Appendix A). The subject property is located approximately one quarter mile south of Hilo Bay. 2.2.1 Geology The Island of Hawaii is the youngest and most southeasterly of the emerged volcanic edifices of the Hawaiian chain largest of the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain. The area spans 90 miles from North to south and 80 miles east to west (10,478 km2). Five large volcanoes (Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualalai, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea) coalesce to make the visible part of the island. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 6 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. A sixth, Loihi Seamount, 20 miles from the coast lies 3,100 feet beneath the waves. The geology of the Island of Hawaii has been extensively studied because of the island’s recent geological history, the stages of volcano development has barely advanced beyond the erosional stage as seen in Kohala [the oldest at about 0.7 mega-annum (Ma), or 0.7 million years before the present time]. Mauna Kea and Hualalai (last active in 1800-01, its oldest rocks may be greater than 0.12 Ma) have reached the post-caldera stage, while Mauna Loa and Kilauea [divided into two ages, Hilina Basalt (>25,000 years) and the younger Puna Basalt (<25,000 years)] have only advanced to the caldera development and filling stages (George A.L. Yuen and Associates, Inc., 1990). In 1990, Mink and Lau described the geology in the vicinity of the subject property as follows: Virtually the entire region is covered with pre-historic lavas of the Kau Basalt, onto which long tongues of historic lavas from the northeast rift have flowed. Other than scanty recent alluvium, no sediments occur (Mink & Lau, 1990). The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies the soil at the subject property as 100% Opihikao highly decomposed plant material. This Opihikao material is typically composed of decomposed plant material from 0 - 3 inches and bedrock from 3 - 13 inches. It has a slope of 2 - 20%, is well drained, and has a very low chance of storing water (United States Department of Agriculture, 2015). 2.2.2 Hydrogeology The HDOH Safe Drinking Water Branch has established an Underground Injection Control (UIC) line to serve as a boundary between drinking water and non-drinking water portions of aquifers. Areas above (mountain side) the UIC line are within drinking water portions of the aquifer, while areas below (ocean side) the UIC are in non-drinking water portions of the underlying aquifer. The subject property, identified by TMK (3) 2-2- 032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, is located below the UIC line in drinking water portion of the aquifer (HDOH Safe Drinking Water Branch, 1999). The hydraulic gradient of the basal groundwater within the basaltic formation is, in general, from mountain areas to the shoreline. At the location of the subject property with the shoreline to the east/southeast, the general direction of the basal groundwater would naturally flow to the east/southeast without tidal influences. According to the Mink and Lau Technical Report #191, the subject property is located below the Kilauea Aquifer. Mink and Lau described the hydrogeology and aquifer as follows: The northern boundary of the Northeast Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector is the contact between the Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea rocks, which is nearly coincident with the Wailuku River. The inland boundary is a north-south trace along the saddle between the northeast rift zone of Mauna Load and the Meeting of Mauna Load and Mauna Kea. The southern boundary starts at the summit of Mauna Load, follows the rift zone, then bends toward Mountain View along the Kilauea/Mauna Loa contact, reaching the sea at Keaau. Total area is about 400 square miles divided between the Hilo Aquifer System and the Keaau Aquifer System. All rocks originated from Mauna Loa. The oldest series is the Kahuku Basalt, on top of which the Pahala Ash occurs in many places. The youngest formation, the Kau Basalt, lies on the Pahala Ash. The Kau Basalt includes recent and historic lava flows (Mink & Lau, 1990). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 8 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Aquifer classification information for the Hilo Aquifer is provided in Table 2 (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2013). Mink and Lau classification is drinking water utility; however, based on the SDWB map, the subject property is below the UIC line, rendering the groundwater at the site non-drinking water utility. Table 2. Hilo Aquifer Classification System Aquifer Code 80401111 Island Code 8 – Hawaii Aquifer Sector 04 – Northeast Mauna Loa Aquifer System 01 – Hilo Aquifer Type, hydrogeology 1 – Basal Aquifer Condition 1 – Unconfined Aquifer Type, geology 1 – Flank; Horizontally extensive lavas Status Code 11111 Development Stage 1 – Currently Used Utility 1 – Drinking Salinity (in mg/L Cl-) 1 – Fresh (<250) Uniqueness 1 – Irreplaceable Vulnerability to Contamination 1 – High mg/L Cl--milligrams per liter chloride 2.3 CURRENT USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is currently vacant and unused. Scattered banyan, mango, and palm trees can be found on the relatively flat property. 2.4 STRUCTURES, ROADS, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The subject property is at the intersection of Manono Street and Kamehameha Avenue (Highway 19). The property is accessed from Kuawa Street, a 2-lane road. There are subsurface sewer and water lines located on the subject property, as evidenced by the multiple manholes identified onsite (Figure 3). 2.5 PAST USES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Information regarding past uses of the subject property was obtained from a review of tax records, scientific publications, historic topographic maps, historic aerial photographs, user provided information, and interviews. Table 3 summarizes the information available regarding the historical uses of the subject property. Table 3. Users and Primary Uses of Subject Property Period (approx.) Owner/Lessee/Sub-Lessee Area (acres) Primary Use TMK (2) 2-2-032:003 1965 – present State of Hawaii 2.901 Vacant 1962 – 1965 Hawaii Development Agency 0.88 Vacant 1955 – 1962 Hilo Daijingu 0.86 Vacant 1949 – 1955 Office of Alien Property Department of Justice 0.86 Vacant Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 9 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Period (approx.) Owner/Lessee/Sub-Lessee Area (acres) Primary Use TMK (2) 2-2-032:004 1965 – present State of Hawaii 2.741 Vacant 1961 – 1965 Hawaii Development Agency 0.37 Vacant 1957 – 1961 Chikao Mukai 0.37 Vacant 1945 – 1957 Izo Mukai Shimane Mukai 0.52 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:008; Hilo 1965 – present State of Hawaii 0.68 Vacant 1961 – 1965 Hawaii Development Agency 0.27 Vacant 1957 – 1961 Yuichi & Sumiko Abuyamen Trust George L. Machado Trustee Sunrise Products, Ltd. 0.27 Vacant 1952 – 1957 Yuichi & Sumiko Abuyamen Trust 0.27 Vacant 1951 – 1952 George L. Machado Yuichi & Sumiko Abuyamen Trust 0.27 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:019; Hilo 1964 – present State of Hawaii 2.04 Vacant 1948 – 1964 Territory of Hawaii 42.25 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:087; Hilo 1970 – present State of Hawaii 0.62 Vacant 1969 – 1970 Hawaii Redevelopment Agency 0.62 Vacant 1968 – 1969 State of Hawaii 0.62 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:088; Hilo 1970 – present State of Hawaii 0.06 Vacant 1969 – 1970 Hawaii Redevelopment Agency 0.06 Vacant 1968 – 1969 State of Hawaii 0.06 Vacant 2.6 CURRENT AND PAST USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES Information regarding current and past uses of the adjoining properties was obtained from review of tax records, historic topographic maps, aerial photographs, and interviews. Property use information is summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Users and Primary Uses of Adjoining Properties Period (9pprox..) Owner/Lessee/Sub-Lessee Area (acres) Primary Use TMK (2) 2-1-003:028; Hilo Adjoining property to the Northwest 1971 – present State of Hawaii 1.79 Vacant 1946 – 1971 Territory of Hawaii 1.79 Vacant TMK (2) 2-1-001:012; 1713 Kamehameha Ave., Hilo Adjoining property to the North 2013 – present State of Hawaii WHR, LLC 62.58 Golf Course 2007 – 2013 State of Hawaii Hawaii Outdoor Tours, Inc. 62.58 Golf Course 2006 – 2007 State of Hawaii 62.58 Golf Course Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 10 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Period (9pprox..) Owner/Lessee/Sub-Lessee Area (acres) Primary Use 2002 – 2006 State of Hawaii Country Club Hawaii, Inc. Hawaii Naniloa Resort, LLC 63.25 Golf Course 1987 – 2002 State of Hawaii Country Club Hawaii, Inc. Nakano Co., Ltd. 63.25 Golf Course 1981 – 1987 State of Hawaii Bayshore Realty Investment, Inc. 63.25 Golf Course 1975 – 1981 State of Hawaii Mike Dietz Golf Shops, Inc. 63.25 Golf Course 1970 – 1975 State of Hawaii Alflo Ronco Development, Inc. 63.25 Golf Course 1966 – 1970 State of Hawaii 0.10 Vacant 1961 – 1966 Hawaii Development Agency 0.10 Vacant 1956 – 1961 Michie Sakomoto 0.10 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:010; 1550 Kamehameha Ave., Hilo Adjoining property to the East 2000 – present State of Hawaii Pubtime, Inc. 0.99 Bar 1996 – 2000 State of Hawaii Rus Sho Den, Inc 0.99 Restaurant 1969 – 1996 State of Hawaii K. Kobata & Sons, Inc. 0.99 Restaurant 1967 – 1969 State of Hawaii Kiyami & Fumio Kobata 0.99 Restaurant 1960 – 1967 State of Hawaii 1.53 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:060; 191 Kuawa St., Hilo Adjoining property to the East 1960 – present State of Hawaii Board of Health 1.94 Vacant 1955 – 1960 Territory of Hawaii Board of Health 2.05 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:091; 200 Kuawa St., Hilo Adjoining property to the East 2013 – present Kuawa Storage 17 (HI), LLC 0.77 Storage 2007 – 2013 MRP Kuawa Storage, LLC 0.77 Storage 2006 – 2007 Kuawa Storage, LLC 0.77 Storage 1973 – 2006 Constructors Hawaii, Inc. 0.77 Vacant TMK (2) 2-2-032:090; 190 Kuawa St. Hilo Adjoining property to the Southeast 1970 – present Better Brands, Ltd. 0.73 Liquor Warehouse TMK (2) 2-2-032:084; Hilo Adjoining property to the East & South 1964 - present State of Hawaii 2.377 Roadway TMK (2) 2-2-032:0035; Hilo Adjoining property to the South 1961 – present State of Hawaii 6.12 Baseyard 1952 – 1961 Territory of Hawaii 4.22 Baseyard Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 11 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Period (9pprox..) Owner/Lessee/Sub-Lessee Area (acres) Primary Use TMK (2) 2-2-031:016; Hilo Adjoining property to the West 1968 – present State of Hawaii 0.36 Waterway 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW Under ASTM E 1527-13, records are to be reviewed by the environmental professional that may help identify RECs in connection with the subject property. 3.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES MNA used Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), to search standard federal and state government databases for hazardous substance or petroleum product releases that could impact the subject property. A copy of the EDR report is provided in Appendix A. ASTM E 1527-13 specifies a minimum search distance for specific environmental record sources. The following sources are specified for incidents or sites within one mile of the subject property: Federal NPL site list Federal RCRA CORRACTS TSD facilities list The following sources are specified for incidents or sites within one-half mile of the subject property: Federal Delisted NPL site list Federal CERCLIS list Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list Federal and State Brownfield Sites State CERCLIS list State landfill and/or solid waste disposal site list State leaking UST list State voluntary cleanup program sites State Sites of Interest The following sources are for incidents on the subject and adjoining properties: Federal RCRA generators list State registered UST list Finally, the following are for incidents on the subject property: Federal ERNS list State and Federal Institutional Control (IC) and Engineering Control (EC) Registries State releases list Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 12 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.1.1 Federal National Priorities List The NPL, maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a list of highly contaminated sites that have been identified by Superfund. EDR identified no NPL sites within one mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.2 Federal RCRA CORRACTS TSD Facilities List The RCRA CORRACTS TSD facilities list, maintained by the EPA, contains treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste that have reported violations and are subject to corrective actions. EDR identified one RCRA CORRACTS TSD site within 1/4 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). The site was identified as Shipman Generating Station located at 20 Banyan Drive in Hilo, approximately 0.15 miles north and downgradient from the subject property. Refer to Section 3.2.2 for additional discussion regarding this site. 3.1.3 Delisted NPL Site List This list, maintained by the EPA, contains delisted NPL sites. EDR identified no delisted NPL sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.4 Federal CERCLIS List The CERCLIS list, maintained by the EPA, contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the NPL list, as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. EDR identified no CERCLIS sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.5 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP Site List The CERCLIS NFRAP list, maintained by the EPA, contains designated CERCLA sites that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment has been completed, and it has been determined that no further steps will be taken to list the sites on the NPL. EDR identified no CERCLIS NFRAP sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). EDR identified on CERCLIS NFRAP site within the same zip code as the subject property. The site was identified as Hilo Bayfront Soccer Field, located south of Kamehameha Avenue between Pauahi and Ponahawai Streets. This site is located approximately 1/2 mile west of and at equal gradient to the subject property. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings regarding this site. 3.1.6 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities List The RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list, maintained by the EPA, contains RCRA permitted facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EDR identified no RCRA TSD facilities within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.7 State Brownfield Sites This database, maintained by the HDOH HEER Office, provides an inventory of state designated brownfield sites. Under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, a brownfield is defined as “real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 13 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. contaminant.” EPA provides grants and loans to state and local governments for the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of these properties. Properties located on the State Brownfield list may have received federal funding under this program or be designated a Brownfield for state administration or funding purposes. EDR identified no State Brownfield Sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.8 State CERCLIS Site List The HDOH Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER) Office maintains a list of sites where it has an interest, has investigated, or may investigate. EDR identified 26 sites in the area surrounding the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015) (Table 5). One site was within 1/2 mile of the subject property. Twenty sites were greater than 1/2 mile distance from the subject property, and five sites were at a non-geocoded location with the zip code. Table 5. State CERCLIS Sites Facility Name Location Distance (mile) Direction Relative Elevation Notes HELCO Pipeline Anomaly at Northeast Side of Seaside Hotel 126 Banyan Wy. 0.34 ENE Lower Refer to Section 8.2 HELCO Pipeline Release Hualani Hilo Kanoelehua Ave. and Hualani St. 0.54 SSE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Bayside Chevron Service 774 Kamehameha Ave. 0.57 W Lower Refer to Section 8.2 Wood Protection Company (HPM Building Supply) 150 Keaa St. 0.57 E Higher Refer to Section 3.2.2 Larry's Kaikoo Chevron 835 Kilauea Ave. 0.65 SW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Pacific Machinery 456 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.67 ENE Lower Refer to Section 8.2 Exempt UST Closure at Excelsior Dairy 458 Kekuanaoa St. 0.68 SSW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 500 Kalanianaole Avenue, Truck/Car Accident 500 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.72 ENE Lower Refer to Section 8.2 Alamo Rent-a-Car, Hilo International Airport 131 Kekuanaoa Pl. 0.76 SSW Higher Refer to Section 3.2.2 Tesoro Hawaii Terminal Department - 607 Kalanianiole 607 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.84 ENE Lower Refer to Section 8.2 Stationers Corporation of Hawaii 708 Kanoelehua Ave. 0.84 SSE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Hilo Shopping Center 1255 Kilauea Ave. 0.86 SSW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 187 Silva Street 187 Silva St. 0.86 E Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Equilon Enterprises, LLC - Hilo Terminal (Shell Oil Co.) 661 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.87 ENE Lower Refer to Section 8.2 Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 14 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Facility Name Location Distance (mile) Direction Relative Elevation Notes Hilo Quality Washerette 210 Hoku St. 0.88 WSW Higher Refer to Section 3.2.2 Hilo Terminal 666 Kalanianaole Avenue 666 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.89 ENE Lower Refer to Section 3.2.2 Tesoro Hawaii Corporation Terminal Department - 701 Kalanianiole 701 Kalanianaole Ave. 0.91 ENE Lower Refer to Section 3.2.2 Hatada Bakery (Former) 55 Kukuau St. 0.93 W Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Hilo Quality Cleaners 865 Kinoole St. 0.93 WSW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Sun Sun Lau Chop Suey House 1055 Kinoole St. 0.94 SW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Hilo Macaroni Factory 639 Kinoole St. 0.98 WSW Higher Refer to Section 8.2 3.1.9 State Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites The HDOH records contain an inventory of permitted landfills in the State of Hawaii. EDR identified no permitted solid waste landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.10 State LUST List The state LUST list, maintained by the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch (SHWB), contains an inventory of sites with leaking underground storage tanks. EDR identified eight LUST tanks within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015) (Table 6). Table 6. State LUST Sites Facility Name Location Distance (mile) Direction Relative Elevation Notes S.K. Oda, Ltd. 180 Kalanikoa St. 0.134 SE Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Jack's Tours 226 Kanoelehua Ave. 0.209 ESE Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Mid Pac Petroleum 2705956 1801 Kamehameha Ave. 0.248 E Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Kumu Street Kumu Street and Kamehameha Ave. 0.261 E Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 H. Harada Contractor, Inc. 24 Railroad Ave. 0.271 E Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Tesoro Gas Express 82 1672 Kamehameha Ave. 0.321 E Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Harper Car & Truck Rentals of Hawaii 1690 Kamehameha Ave. 0.326 E Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 Phillips U Drive Inc. 920 Piilani St. 0.367 SSE Higher SCC/NFA Refer to Section 8.2 NFA – No Further Action SCC – Site Cleanup Complete Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 15 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.1.11 State Voluntary Cleanup Sites The state voluntary cleanup sites list, maintained by the HDOH HEER Office, contains sites participating in the State’s Voluntary Response Program. EDR identified no sites participating in the State’s Voluntary Response Program within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.12 Federal RCRA Generators List The RCRA Generators list, maintained by the EPA, contains small and large quantity generators of RCRA hazardous waste. The determination of generator size is used to establish the risk that the facility poses to public health and the environment, and consequently, the amount of regulation and reporting required. Large Quantity Generators (LQG) are facilities that generate more than a 1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste and/or more than 1 kg/month of acute hazardous waste. Small Quantity Generators (SQG) are facilities that generate less than 1,000 kg/month, but more than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste and/or less than 1 kg/month of acute hazardous waste. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) are facilities that generate less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste and/or less than 1 kg/month of acute hazardous waste. The EPA also maintains the RCRA NLR list. This list contains facilities that were once on the RCRA generators list, but are no longer in business, no longer in business at the listed address, or are no longer generating hazardous waste in quantities that require reporting. This list also identifies the facilities of hazardous waste transporters. EDR identified no LQG, SQG, CESQG, or NLR facilities on the subject property or adjoining properties (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). Eight RCRA generator facilities were identified within 1/4 mile of the subject property; four CESQG, three SQG, and one NLR (Table 7). Table 7. Federal RCRA Generator Sites Facility Name Facility Type Location Distance (mile) Direction Relative Elevation Notes AKW Environmental, LLC CESQG 190 Kuawa St. 0.01 SSE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Tractor Supply Company #4604 CESQG 199 Kalanikoa St. 0.15 SE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Rex Tire and Supply CESQG 266 Kanoelehua Ave. 0.23 ESE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc. - Puhi Plant CESQG 1801 Kamehameha Ave. 0.25 E Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Unitek Solvent Services, Inc. NLR 110 Kalanikoa Ave. 0.09 ESE Higher Refer to section 3.2.2 Beachside Roofing, LLC SQG 1266 Kamehameha Hwy. 0.10 WNW Lower Refer to Section 8.2 HDOH V C Branch SQG 191 Kuawa St. 0.010 SSE Higher Refer to Section 8.2 Shipman Generating Station SQG 20 Banyan Dr. 0.138 NNW Lower Refer to section 3.2.2 CESQG – Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator NLR – No Longer Regulated SQG – Small Quantity Generator Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 16 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.1.13 State Registered UST List The HDOH SHWB maintains a database of known underground storage tanks. EDR identified five UST facilities within 1/4 mile of the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015) (Table 8). Table 8. State Registered UST Facility Name Location Distance (mile) Direction Relative Elevation Facility ID Facility Status S.K. Oda, Ltd. 180 Kalanikoa St. 0.134 SE High 9-600449 1-6,000 Gal Gasoline - Permanently Out of Use Firestone Tire/Rubber 200 Kanoelehua & Kuawa St. 0.197 ESE High 9-601362 1 - 280 Gal Used Oil - Permanently Out of Use Jack's Tours 226 Kanoelehua Ave. 0.209 ESE High 9-603750 1-10,000 Gal Gasoline - Permanently Out of Use 1-10,000 Gal Diesel - Permanently Out of Use 1-1,000 Gal Used Oil - Permanently Out of Use DLNR - Land Division 71-1555 Hawaii Belt Rd. 0.222 ESE High 9-603753 1-1,000 Gal Gasoline - Permanently Out of Use Mid Pac Petroleum 2705956 1801 Kamehameha Ave. 0.248 E High 9-600013 1 - 8,000 Gal Gasoline - Currently in Use 1-4,000 Gal Diesel - Currently in Use 1-12,000 Gal Gasoline - Currently in Use 2-8,000 Gal Gasoline - Permanently Out of Use 1 - 550 Gal Used Oil - Permanently Out of Use 3.1.14 Federal ERNS List The ERNS list, maintained by the EPA, contains CERCLA hazardous substance releases or spills, as maintained by the National Response Center. EDR identified no release incidents on the subject property or within the zip code (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.1.15 State IC and EC Registries The State of Hawaii maintains a list of properties that have been remediated to a particular standard. Because the sites may continue to be impacted by past use, future use of the properties may be restricted in order to protect human health and the environment. Land Use Controls can be either IC or EC. ICs are limitations on how the properties may be used, such as limiting its use to industrial activities. ECs are physical structures or devices located on the properties that contain or limit exposure to contamination. ECs need to be maintained or protected to be effective. No IC or EC sites were identified within 1/4 mile of the subject property or within the zip code (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 17 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.1.16 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System List The U.S. Department of Transportation maintains a list of hazardous material spill incidents reported on the Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (HMIRS), SPILLS90. EDR identified no SPILLS sites in the area surrounding the subject property (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). 3.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES MNA reviewed additional environmental records as needed and available. Record sources filed by HELCO, the County Fire Department, State HEER, SHWB, and Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) were requested. Refer to Section 8.0 for opinions associated with the findings of the records review. 3.2.1 Subject Property MNA submitted a request to the HFD on 22 April 2015. HFD had not responded at the time of this writing. MNA submitted records request to the HEER Office and SHWB for the subject property on 07 April 2015. SHWB had no records on file for the subject property. No records of registered UST or LUST facilities were identified at the subject property from the HDOH UST database (Hawaii Department of Health, 2015). MNA submitted records request to HELCO on 24 April 2015. HELCO confirmed that there were no transformers on the subject property. A letter, dated August 14, 2007, issued by the HDOH to DLNR Engineering indicated that Wailoa Small Boat Harbor was dredged as part of the harbor maintenance. The dredge material was tested, and the results were reported as “below the DOH Environmental Action Levels and the dredge material is approved for reuse.” 3.2.2 Surrounding Properties MNA identified three pole-mounted transformers on adjoining properties to the south and west of the subject property. The observed transformers were in fair condition, and no stains were observed on the transformers or the ground surface below them. MNA submitted records request to HELCO on 24 April 2015. HELCO confirmed that there were five transformers on adjoining properties. The transformers were known to be free of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Table 9 summarizes the transformer information provided by HELCO. Table 9. Transformer Near the Subject Property Transformer Information Location Date Purchased PCB Status KVA CO# Structure ID Pole # Street Name 10 25134 114132 2 Manono St. 8/17/1992 Non-PCB 10 24674 114141 9 5/11/1992 Non-PCB 50 45466 113936 7 Kuawa St. 7/10/2013 Non-PCB 75 38119 1/13/2006 Non-PCB 50 45465 7/10/2013 Non-PCB ID- Identification PCB- Polychlorinated biphenyls No UST or LUST facilities were identified for the adjoining properties in the HDOH UST database (Hawaii Department of Health, 2014). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 18 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. MNA requested a review of the HEER Office and SHWB case files for the adjoining properties and properties with any potential to affect the subject property. The HEER Office provided records, which are summarized as follows: 666 Kalanianaole Ave., TMK (3) 2-1-008:006 The site, identified as Chevron Hilo Terminal, was located less than one mile east and downgradient from the subject property. On 02 December 1994, there was a release of 10-gallon of an oil/water/gasoline mixture from a vacuum truck. Some of the spill entered the water causing a sheen. Response was taken immediately and the spill was remediated. No further action was necessary. On 24 August 1995, there was a release of 20-gallon of unleaded gasoline due to a valve failure. The release occurred within a bermed area. No further action was necessary. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 150 Keaa Street, TMK (3) 2-1-006:087 The site, identified as Wood Protection Company (HPM Building Supply), was located approximately 1/2 mile east and downgradient from the subject property. On 22 July 1990, 2,500 - 4,000 gallons of 2% solution Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) wood treating solution was spilled from a pressure vessel and spread to the ocean, due to operator error. Response was thwarted by heavy rains and the spill went uncontrolled. Remediation began immediately, and the impacted soil was removed and transferred to a landfill. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 191 Kuawa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-032:060 The site, identified as Hawaii District Lab, was located approximately 50 feet south and upgradient from the subject property. On 26 December 1991, there was a spill of 10-gallon of picric acid. Due to the potential danger of the acid, PENCO was contracted to remove it from the site and had the substance detonated. No further action was required. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 131 Kekuanaoa Place, TMK (3) 2-1-012:101 The site, identified as Alamo Rent-a-Car, was located approximately 3/4 mile south-southwest and upgradient from the subject property. On 21 December 1994, there was a spill of 40-gallon of gasoline. An attendant drove a car while it was being filled at the pump. The hose was released from the fuel tank, and fuel was released onto the ground (Section 8.2). 210 Hoku Street, TMK (3) 2-2-018:038 The site, identified as Hilo Quality Washerette, was located just less than one mile south- southwest and upgradient from the subject property. On 12 December 1995, 200 gallon of diesel fuel was released to the soil. A routine fuel-level check of a UST indicated a large loss of fuel. Walker Consultants, Ltd., was contracted, and the UST was removed on 19 December 1995. Upon removal of the UST it was evident that the soil around the lower walls and bottom of the UST were impacted by the diesel release. Soil was removed from the UST excavation to approximately 25 ft. bgs (the extent the backhoe would allow), however; diesel-impacted soil remained at the bottom of the excavation. In a letter dated 03 April 1997, the HDOH concluded that due to the unknown extent of diesel contamination in the soil, Hilo Quality Washerette was identified as a medium priority site. The site required further investigation and/or monitoring Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 19 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. according to the Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 701 Kalanianaole Avenue, TMK (3) 2-1-007:016 The site, identified as Tesoro Hawaii Corporation Terminal, was located just less than one mile east-northeast and downgradient from the subject property. On 14 May 1997, an excavator released 20 gallon of oil from its hydraulic line. The spill was stopped and cleaned with absorbents. An excavation was planned to remove the residual oil. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 865 Kinoole Street, TMK (3) 2-2-017:040 The site, identified as Hilo Quality Cleaners, was located less than a mile west-southwest and upgradient from the subject property. On 08 October 1997, equipment failed and 20 gallon of diesel fuel was released into the ocean. The equipment was repaired and cleanup operations were completed by the responsible party. No further action was required. On 11 January 1995, a 7,000 gallon diesel fuel UST was removed from the site by Walker Consultants, Ltd. Upon excavation it was observed that a relatively small area of soil/basalt lining one end of the UST-removal excavation was impacted by diesel fuel. The impacted soil was excavated from the site. Soil samples taken from the excavation indicated that the site was not significantly impacted by the release. In a letter dated 18 July 1995, the HDOH stated that no further action was necessary in response to the release. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 20 Banyan Drive, TMK (3) 2-1-001:024 The site, identified as HELCO Generating Station: Shipman, was located less than 1/4 mile north and downgradient from the subject property. On 10 November 1996, a release of approximately 100 gallon of fuel oil entered an inspection well. Most of the spill material was recovered in a cleanup conducted by Unitek. No further action was required. On 11 November 2002, there was a release of 90 gallon of fuel oil from the terminal due to a leak in a guage line. The release was inside a concrete secondary containment. No further action was required. On 03 February 2003, 100 gallon of lube oil was released from a line within a concrete containment trench. No further action was required. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. The SHWB provided records, which are summarized as follows: 200 Kanoelehua and Kuawa Street, No TMK Listed The site (facility ID 9-601362), identified as Firestone Tire/Rubber, was located little more than 1/4 miles southwest and upgradient from the subject property. One 280 gallon used oil UST was installed in approximately 1977 at the property. It is permanently out of use, and no violations were listed. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 131 Kekuanaoa Place, TMK 2-2-012:101 The site (facility ID 9-601537), identified as Alamo Rent-a-Car Inc., was located approximately 3/4 miles southwest and upgradient from the subject property. One 1,000 gallon gasoline UST was installed at the property in 1992. It has since been taken out of use. Alamo Rent-a-Car was Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 20 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. inspected on 07 February 2005 by the HDOH. During the inspection the following violations were cited: Failure to perform test of operability. Failure to maintain 3rd party certificate as automatic line leak detector. Failure to maintain the certificate of financial responsibility. Failure to have an overfill prevention device installed on UST system. Failure to monitor tanks at least every 30 days. Failure to maintain statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) 3rd party certificate for tanks. Failure to monitor pipes using a monthly method. Failure to maintain SIR 3rd party certificate for SIR method for pipe. A follow up inspection was done on 05 June 2007. The facility did not receive any citations. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 210 Hoku Street, TMK (3) 2-2-018:038 The site, identified as Hilo Quality Washerette, was located approximately a mile southeast and upgradient from the subject property. The site (Facility ID 9-600467) had one unregulated UST to store heating oil. It was removed in 1996. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 865 Kinoole Street, TMK (3)2-2-017:040 The site (Facility ID 9-601694), identified as Hilo Quality Cleaners, was located approximately a mile west-southwest and upgradient from the subject property. The site had 1,000 gallon fuel oil UST, 1,000 gallon dry-cleaning solvent UST, and a 6,000 gallon diesel UST all of unknown age or installation date. Due to the location of the tanks within the main facility, they were abandoned in place; in October 1990, the tanks were abandoned in place by the Fuel Oil Polishing Company of Hawaii. In a letter dated 12 March 2002, the HDOH issued a No Further Action for the site. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 190 Kuawa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-032:090 The site (Facility ID HW-6522), identified as AKW Environmental, LLC, was located approximately 500 feet south-southeast and slightly upgradient from the subject property. The site was inspected by the HDOH on 21 March 2014. No violations were noted during the inspection. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 150 Keaa Street, TMK (3)2-1-006:087 The site (Facility ID HW-6402), identified as Wood Protection Company (HPM Building Supply), was located approximately 1/2 a mile east and downgradient from the subject property. The site was inspected by the HDOH on 23 August 2002. After the inspection, a warning letter was issued to Wood Protection Company/HPM requesting further documentation. That documentation was provided. It was again inspected by the HDOH on 06 February 2009. No violations were noted during the inspection. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 110 Kalanikoa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-32:085 The site (Facility ID HW-2114), identified as Unitek Solvent Services, Inc., was located approximately less than 1/4 mile southeast and upgradient from the subject property. In a letter Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 21 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. dated 06 October 2014 issued by the HDOH, the site was notified of having operating as an unpermitted used oil transporter and transfer facility. This action had continued for six months after having received a letter and a site visit regarding the lapsed permits. Refer to Section 8.2 for findings related to this record. 3.3 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MNA reviewed historical use information for the subject property including aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. 3.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs Aerial photographs of the subject, adjoining, and surrounding properties were provided by EDR (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015). Photographs from the years 1954, 1975, 1977, 1985, 1988, 1992, and 2000 were reviewed (Table 10). Table 10. Historical Photograph Details Year Image Type Approximate Scale 1954 B/W 1”:750’ 1975 C 1”:1000’ 1977 B/W 1”:500’ 1985 C 1”:500’ 1988 C 1”:500’ 1992 C 1”:500’ 2000 C 1”:500’ B/W - Black and White C – Color Photograph For the reviewed aerial photographs, the following observations were made: 1954: The subject property was visibly covered with vegetation. A road was visible going east to west through the property. Adjoining to the north was Kamehameha Avenue, and adjoining to the west was Manono Street. 1975: The subject property was vacant. The area north of the subject property appeared to be in use as a golf course. The area to the southeast of the subject property was a mix of residential and commercial. 1977: The subject property was vacant. Kuawa Street was visible south of the subject property. Further south of Kuawa Street was a baseball field. Large warehouse structures were visible to the east, and boats were visible, docked in the water to the west. 1985: Small structures were visible on the west side of the subject property. The east side of the property remained vacant. Modernization of the roadways in the area is apparent. 1988: More small structures were visible on the south side of the subject property. More than half of the subject property was still covered with vegetation. The adjoining area to the east of the subject property included denser commercial development. 1992: No visible changes were depicted in the 1992 photograph. 2000: Small structures were visible in the southwest corner of the subject property. More than 75% of the site remained covered in vegetation. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 22 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 3.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps USGS topographic maps that cover the subject property and vicinity were reviewed. Maps were available for the years 1914, 1932, 1963, 1980, 1981, and 1995 (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015) (Appendix A). The maps depicted the following: 1914: The area of the subject property was developed and labeled Waiakea. To the south Waiakea Fish Pond was visible. The area appeared to be primarily residential. 1932: Kamehameha Avenue was visible north of the subject property. To the east, Hilo Airport was depicted. 1963: Structures were visible on the northeast side of the subject property. Hoolulu Park was to the south. East of the subject property were a mix of residential and commercial structures. 1980: Liliuokalani Gardens and the Golf Course were visible north of the subject property. South of the subject property was vacant. The structures were still present on the northeast side of the subject property. 1981: No visible changes were depicted in the 1981 map. 1995: The structures previously depicted on the subject property were no longer present. To the south Hoolulu Park was visible. 3.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps Fire insurance maps for the subject property and vicinity were reviewed. Maps were available for the years 1991, 1987, 1978, 1974, 1957, 1921, and 1914 (Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2015) (Appendix A). The maps depicted to following: 1991: The subject property and surrounding area were vacant. Kamehameha Avenue was to the north, and Manono Street was to the west. 1987: No changes from the 1991 map are observed to the subject property. 1978: No changes from the 1987 map are observed to the subject property. 1974: No changes from the 1978 map are observed to the subject property. 1957: The subject property and surrounding area were in use as a residential area. North of Kamehameha Avenue there were more residences, as well as the Waiakea Theatre and several small store fronts. 1921: The northwest portion of the subject property was in use as a commercial area. A tailor and drug store were depicted. The remaining portion of the subject property appeared vacant. 1914: The subject property and surrounding area were in use as a commercial area with small vendors occupying the area. To the south of the subject property was a freight warehouse and a railroad depot. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 23 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE MNA personnel conducted site reconnaissance on 30 March 2015. The weather was sunny with partly cloudy skies and light trade winds. The site reconnaissance focused on the identification of RECs that may have the ability to impact the subject property. Refer to Section 8.0 for opinions related to the findings during the site reconnaissance. 4.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The site reconnaissance was conducted by Kristin Cabanila and Phillip Cabanila of MNA. MNA visually inspected the subject property, adjoining properties, and associated streets and roadways. MNA looked for a variety of environmental hazard indicators at and around the subject property including, but not limited to, stained surface soil, dead or stressed vegetation, hazardous substances, aboveground or underground storage tanks, disposal areas, pole-mounted or pad-mounted transformers, groundwater wells, drywells, and sumps. Structures and or building materials were not observed onsite during the assessment. Photographs of the site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix B. 4.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING The subject property is bordered by Kamehameha Avenue (Highway 19) to the north, Manono Street to the west, and Kuawa Street to the south (Figure 1). The subject property is set 2-4 feet below the grade of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street, with a cross grade to Kuawa Street. Scattered banyan, mango, and palm trees are found on the relatively flat property. Evidence of heavy equipment operating onsite was observed. There was bare soil with evenly spaced scrape marks within the subject property. 4.3 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS During the 30 March 2015 site reconnaissance, MNA personnel observed the conditions of the subject property and the adjoining properties. The entrance to the property was accessible along Kuawa Street (Photograph 1). The adjoining property to the north, and across Kamehameha Avenue was the Naniloa Golf Course (Photograph 2). The adjoining properties to the south and across Kuawa Street included the Walter Victor CK Baseball Complex and AKW Environmental, LLC. (Photographs 3 and 4). Adjoining properties to the east included County of Hawaii Offices and Coqui’s Hideaway Bar and Grill (Photographs 5 and 6). The adjoining property to the west and across Manono Street was the Wailoa River Harbor and Park (Photograph 7). No building structures were present on the subject property. A monument base was observed onsite, approximately 100 feet north of Kuawa Street near the center of the property (Photograph 8). A soil stockpile was also observed onsite, approximately 250 feet north of Kuawa Street, near the center-east portion of the subject property (Photograph 9). Six sewer manholes and one storm drain were observed in various areas on the subject property (Photograph 10; Figure 3). Eleven concrete fence anchors were observed on the western end of the property (Photograph 11). Sewer markers were observed on the subject property (Photographs 12 and 13). On the central northern area of the property, a discarded motor was observed near the banyan tree (Photograph Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 24 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 14). The motor was in poor condition, showing rust and weathering on all sides. Vegetation in the area surrounding the motor appeared to be stressed. Three pole-mounted transformers were observed on an adjoining property to the south and west. All observed transformers were in good condition, showing no signs of leaking or staining (Photographs 15 through 19). 4.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS No structures were observed onsite. Therefore, no interior observations were made. 4.5 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS The discarded motor observed onsite appeared to be in poor condition and void of fluids. There was no apparent staining to the soil surrounding the motor, and no petroleum or oil odors were detected. 4.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS Review of HDOH online records verified that no USTs were associated with the subject property. No evidence of USTs, such as dispensers, vent pipes, or fill ports were observed on the subject property. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 26 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) Petroleum Contaminants There is a HELCO fuel line along Kamehameha Avenue, and a former rail station ran through one of the adjoining properties. The subject property was formerly used as housing and shops during the 1950s and 1960s before they were demolished. Based on information obtained by interviews (Section 6.0), a portion of the subject property was fenced off and used for boat storage, and there was a former rail maintenance facility at an adjoining property. Even though there are no historical records of oil storage tanks [i.e. aboveground storage tanks (AST), UST] and releases at the subject property and adjoining properties, there were potential uses of AST/UST and fuel releases for heating and fueling and maintenance of vehicles, rails, and boats prior to 1960s. Therefore, petroleum contaminants including petroleum hydrocarbons; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX); heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, barium, chromium, selenium, silver, and mercury); and PAH were identified as the COPC. Arsenic and Pesticides Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earth’s crust. In Hawaii, low levels of arsenic are found naturally in native soils between 1.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) - 20 mg/kg. However, significantly elevated levels of arsenic have been identified in soils at former sugar cane fields, former pesticide storage or mixing areas, former sugar plantation camps, a former canec production plant, and wood-treatment plants. The presence of elevated levels of soil arsenic at some historic sugar plantation areas is believed to be related to the widespread use of sodium arsenite or other arsenic-based herbicides/pesticides in and around the cane fields and camps in the 1920s through 1940s (Hawaii Department of Health, 2010). Based on the information obtained from an interview, proximity to the Wailoa River and the associated known arsenic contamination was of concern. Pesticides have been used in Hawaii since the early 1900s for a variety of reasons including structural protection and agricultural uses (State of Hawaii, Department of Health, 2009). Since the subject property was used as former housing and shops before 1960s, pesticides such as chlordane and heptachlor may have been applied under building foundations. The following pesticides may have been routinely applied to control termites and other pests in Hawaii (Naval Facility Engineering Command, 2013). Chlordane, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide (an oxidation product of chlordane and heptachlor) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) Aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin Endosulfan Due to potential use of herbicides and pesticides at the subject property, those chemicals were included in the COPC. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) PCB was widely used in electrical transformers and also as hydraulic fluids in the U.S. from the 1930s through the 1970s when production was banned. They were manufactured for their chemical and thermal stability and used as liquid insulators in electrical equipment. Old Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 27 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. equipment containing PCB are still in use today, and therefore releases to the environment are still occurring. In addition, contaminated upland sites and runoff from many industrial environments continue to contribute PCB to aquatic systems (Battelle Memorial Institute, GeoChem Metrix Inc., U.S. Navy SPAWR Systems Center, and U.S.EPA ORD, 2012). While PCB may have not have been used or released in the subject property, it is possible that it can be present on the subject property by flood history, tsunami impacts, dredging, and illegal dumping. Based on the literature review and potential chemical use as described in this section, the COPC were identified as follows: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)-Gasoline, Diesel, and Oil BTEX Priority pollutant PAH Organochlorine Pesticides RCRA 8 metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, barium, chromium, selenium, silver, and mercury) PCB 5.2 Field Methodology During 31 March and 01 April 2015, MNA conducted surface and near surface soil sampling on the subject property. The subject property was divided into 4 decision units (DU) based on the historical geophysical boundary in the 1950s before the housing and shops were demolished. During the site reconnaissance, a stockpile was discovered on the subject property (Figure 4). The stockpile was approximately 30 cubic yards (12 feet wide by 6.5 feet tall). The stockpile was identified as an additional DU. The five DUs are described as follows: DU-01: Former Dense Shop and Housing Area, on the northwest side of the subject property DU-02: Former housing and landscape area, located on the west side of the subject property DU-03: Former housing and landscape area, located on the southwest side of the subject property DU-04: Former housing and landscape area, located on the east side of the subject property DU-05: Stockpile that was located in the DU-04 area MNA used a multi-incremental sampling (MIS) method. Each sample combined fifty 30-gram increments. Each DU was divided into 50 equally spaced areas, and the 50 boreholes were advanced using a hand auger and a metal digging bar. When the 12-inch depth was achieved, loose soil was removed from the borehole using a garden shovel, and the incremental samples were collected. From each borehole, the lower near-surface sample (6-12 inches bgs) was collected first by loosening the soil along the sidewalls with a metal trowel and collecting the soil using a 10-gram TerraCore® sampler. Surface soil (below the grass cover 0-6 inches bgs) samples were then collected using a second 10-gram TerraCore® sampler, scraping the sidewall in the borehole. The soil increments were transferred into two separate laboratory-supplied containers. VOC samples were collected from the lower 6-12 inches bgs in the same boreholes, using a 10-gram TerraCore® scraping the side walls, then placed directly into an amber glass jar with methanol preservative. Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 1927_3 Figure 4. Soil Sampling Locations and Results Kuawa Street Enhanced Phase I ESA TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, :088 Hilo, Island of Hawaii May 2015 Page 29 DU-01 DU-02 DU-03 DU-04 DU-05 Kuawa Street Kamehameha Avenue Manono StreetFormer Puhala Street Former U l u S t r e e t N Wailoa Pond Analytical Results for the Contaminants Exceeding EAL Note: 1) DU-01 through DU-04: The DU boundaries were delineated based on the historical geophysical boundary in the 1950s before the housing and shops were demolished. 2) DU-05: Stockpile discovered during the site reconnaissance in March 2015 3) Upper Range Value: Mean plus the standard deviation evaluated by the triplicate samples Scale 100' Criteria: HDOH, Tier 1 Soil EAL with unrestricted land use Acronyms andAbbreviations bgs: below ground surface HDOH: Hawaii Department of Health EAL: EnvironmentalAction Level mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 29 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. The soil samples were transported under a chain-of-custody for analysis to Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories in Berkeley, California. The samples were analyzed by the following methods: TPH-Gasoline Diesel, and Oil by EPA Method 8015B BTEX by EPA Method 8021B Priority PAH by EPA Method 8270C-SIM PCB by EPA Method 8082 Organochlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8081A RCRA 8 metals by EPA 6010B and 7471A TPH-Gasoline and BTEX were analyzed for the near-surface samples only. Since these analytes are volatile, they were unlikely present in the surface soil. During sample transit to the laboratory, three sample containers were damaged. The affected samples were Sample IDs DU-03-A, DU-04-B, and DU-05-A. MNA conducted resampling for the affected samples on 06 April 2015. A summary of the soil sampling and analyses is presented in Table 11. Table 11. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analytes Decision Unit Sample ID Sample Depth (inches below ground surface) Sample Type Date of Sample Collection (mm/dd/yy) Analytes (Analytical Method No.) TPH-Diesel/Oil (8015B) TPH-Gasoline (8015B) & BTEX (8021B) PAHs (8270C-SIM) PCB (8082) Organichlorine pesticides (8081A) Total RCRA8 Metals (6010B/7471A) DU-01 DU-01-A 0-6 MIS-50 Increments 03/31/15 X X X X X DU-01-B 6-12 MIS-50 Increments 03/31/15 X X X X X X DU-02 DU-02-A 0-6 MIS-50 Increments [Primary] 03/31/15 X X X X X DU-02-B 6-12 MIS-50 Increments 03/31/15 X X X X X X DU-03 DU-03-A 0-6 MIS-50 Increments 04/06/15 Resampling X X X X X DU-03-B 6-12 MIS-50 Increments 03/31/15 X X X X X X DU-04 DU-04-A-1 0-6 MIS-50 Increments [Primary] 04/01/15 X X X X X DU-04-A-2 0-6 MIS-50 Increments [Duplicate] 04/01/15 X X X X X DU-04-A-3 0-6 MIS-50 Increments [Triplicate] 04/01/15 X X X X X DU-04-B 6-12 MIS-50 Increments 04/01/15 04/06/2015 Resampling for TPH-G and BTEX analyses X X X X X X DU-05 DU-05-A Entire Stockpile MIS-50 Increments 04/06/15 Resampling X X X X X BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon DU Decision Unit PCB Polychlorinated Biphynels EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ID Identification TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 30 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 5.3 Preservation and Transportation All samples were labeled and recorded in a chain-of-custody document. The samples were placed in a cooler and chilled to 4˚ Celsius (C) with frozen gel ice for transport to Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories in Berkeley, California, via FedEx. 5.4 Decontamination and Investigation Derived Waste Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) was minimized through the selection of sampling techniques and the use of disposable sampling equipment. IDW included disposable personal protective equipment (PPE) and disposable sampling tools. Less than one trash bag of PPE and disposable sampling tools were generated and disposed of in a municipal waste dumpster. 5.5 Analytical Results The analytical results for contaminants were compared to the HDOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels (EAL) with unrestricted (residential) and restricted (commercial/industrial) land uses above a nondrinking water resource and located less than 150 meters from surface water (State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Fall 2011; revised Jan 2012). MNA collected a set of triplicate surface soil samples from DU-04 (DU-04-A-1, DU-04-A-2, and DU-04-A-3) to support the reproducibility of the sampling technique and analytical practice and representativeness of the subject property. Field performance was reviewed by comparing the results of primary, duplicate, and triplicate samples. Standard Deviation (STDEV), Average (AVG), and/or the percent Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) between triplicates were evaluated when analytes are detected above the reporting limits (Table 12). If the percent RSD between field triplicate MIS is 35% or less, then the total error is considered within a reasonable range for precision and reproducibility. The percent RSD was calculated by using the following equations. ( ) ̅ Where: ̅ = Average s = Standard deviation The percent RSDs of TPH-Diesel, TPH-Oil, and heavy metals in the replicate set were below 35. The percent RSDs for fluoranthene and pyrene in the soil replicate set were 75.4 and 87.2 respectively. The fluoranthene results in the triplicate data set were in the range of 0.17 to 0.73 mg/kg and the average level was 0.30 mg/kg. The pyrene results were in the range of 0.19 to 0.98 mg/kg and the average level was 0.49 mg/kg. Although percent RSDs exceeded the acceptance level, 35% RSD, the detected concentrations and the average levels were below the soil EAL for the unrestricted land use, 87 mg/kg for fluoranthene and 44 mg/kg for pyrene. Thus, it was considered that the variations of the results are acceptable, and the incremental sample results are determined to be representative. The RSD was used to calculate the upper and lower range of analytes with concentration near, or exceeding the EALs for unrestricted land use which are arsenic (%RSD: 7.0) and lead (%RSD: 7.4). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 31 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Table 12. Field Performance Review Data Analytes Tier 1 EAL (mg/kg) Unrestricted (Residential) Sample Results (mg/kg) Field Performance Data DU-04-A-1 (Primary) DU-04-A-2 (Duplicate) DU-04-A-3 (Triplicate) Average (mg/kg) Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation (%) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (8015B) TPH-Diesel 500 29 15 23 22 7.0 31.4 TPH-Oil 500 160 160 180 167 11.5 6.9 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (8270C) Acenaphthene 120 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Acenaphthylene 13 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Anthracene 4.3 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Benzo[a]anthracene 1.5 0.098 0.35 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Benzo[a]pyrene 0.15 0.16 0.43 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.5 0.24 0.57 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 27 0.11 0.17 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Benzo[k]fluoranthene 15 0.08 0.21 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Chrysene 10 0.21 0.64 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.15 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Fluoranthene 87 0.28 0.73 0.17 0.4 0.3 75.5 Fluorene 100 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 0.093 0.17 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Naphthalene 4.5 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- 1-methylnaphthalene 0.79 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- 2-methylnaphthalene 0.87 ND (0.07) ND (0.07) ND (0.17) --- --- --- Phenanthrene 69 0.16 0.6 ND (0.17) --- --- --- Pyrene 44 0.3 0.98 0.19 0.49 0.43 87.3 Chlorinated Pesticides (8081) Aldrine 0.92 ND (0.034) ND (0.034) ND (0.033) --- --- --- Hexachlorocyclohexane [including alpha-BHC,beta- BHC,delta-BHC, & gamma-BHC] 0.037 ND (0.034) ND (0.034) ND (0.033) --- --- --- Heptachlor epoxide 0.053 ND (0.034) ND (0.034) ND (0.033) --- --- --- Endosulfan (including endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate) 18 ND (0.034) ND (0.034) ND (0.033) --- --- --- Dieldrin 1.5 ND (0.066) ND (0.065) ND (0.065) --- --- --- Endrin (including endrin aldehyde) 3.7 ND (0.066) ND (0.065) ND (0.065) --- --- --- 4,4'- Dichlorodiphenyldichloro ethylene (DDE) 1.4 ND (0.066) ND (0.065) ND (0.065) --- --- --- 4,4'- Dichlorodiphenyldichloro ethane (DDD) 2 ND (0.066) ND (0.065) ND (0.065) --- --- --- 4,4'- dichlorodiphenyltrichloroe thane (DDT) 1.7 ND (0.066) ND (0.065) ND (0.065) --- --- --- Chloradane (Technical) 16 ND (0.6) ND (0.6) ND (0.59) --- --- --- Methoxychlor 16 ND (0.34) ND (0.34) ND (0.33) --- --- --- Toxaphene 0.44 ND (1.2) ND (1.2) ND (1.2) --- --- --- Polychlorinated Biphenyls (8082) Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 32 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Analytes Tier 1 EAL (mg/kg) Unrestricted (Residential) Sample Results (mg/kg) Field Performance Data DU-04-A-1 (Primary) DU-04-A-2 (Duplicate) DU-04-A-3 (Triplicate) Average (mg/kg) Standard Deviation Relative Standard Deviation (%) Aroclor-1016 1.1 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- Aroclor-1221 ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) --- --- --- Aroclor-1232 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- Aroclor-1242 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- Aroclor-1248 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- Aroclor-1254 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- Aroclor-1260 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0095) --- --- --- RCRA 8 Metals (6010 and 7471) Cadmium 14 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.12 6.7 Barium 1,000 60 55 55 56.7 2.9 5.1 Silver 78 ND (0.27) ND (0.23) ND (0.25) --- --- --- Arsenic 24 35 31 35 33.7 2.3 7.0 Lead 200 340 300 300 313 23.1 7.4 Selenium 78 ND (0.53) ND (0.47) ND (0.50) --- --- --- Chromium 1,100 56 50 47 51 4.6 9.0 Mercury 4.7 0.4 0.42 0.4 0.41 0.01 2.9 Acronyms and Abbreviations: DU: Decision Unit mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram ND (00) : Not Detected (Reporting Limit) ---: Not Available 5.5.1 Analytical Results for TPH, BTEX, PAH, Pesticides and PCB A summary of the analytical results and Tier 1 soil EAL is presented in Table 13 and Table 14. A complete laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix C. Reportable levels of TPH-Diesel, TPH-Oil and PAHs were detected; however, the concentrations were below the Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. None of TPH-Gasoline, BTEX, and chlorinated pesticides were detected. 5.5.2 The none-detect benzo(a)pyrene laboratory reporting levels were over the EAL, and the relative standard deviation, a measure of precision in data, for PAHs in the triplicate samples was small. Therefore, it is interpreted that the benzo(a)pyrene is over the EAL in DU-4, though not far over, with considerable uncertainty.Analytical Results for Metals Reportable levels of barium, cadmium, chromium, and mercury were detected; however, the concentrations were below the Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use. Silver and selenium were not detected. Arsenic and lead were found above the Tier 1 EALs for unrestrained land use (Table 13 and Table 14). 5.5.2.1 Arsenic and Lead Analytical Results Measurable levels of arsenic was detected in the samples collected from DU-01, DU-04 and DU- 05, ranging from 25 mg/kg to 42 mg/kg; exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use, 24 mg/kg. However, the results were below the EAL for restricted land use, 95 mg/kg. The arsenic results of the samples collected from DU-02 and DU-03 were in the rage of 19 mg/kg - 22 mg/kg approaching the EAL for unrestricted land use. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 33 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Lead was detected in all samples ranging from 18 mg/kg to 340 mg/kg. The lead results of the samples collected from surface and near-surface soil in DU 4, on the east end of the subject property, were 340 mg/kg exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use, 200 mg/kg. 5.5.2.2 Arsenic/Lead Upper and Lower Range Values Since arsenic and lead were the only contaminates detected near or above the Tier 1 EAL for unrestrained land use, the upper and lower range values were calculate by adding or subtracting the respective %RSD to the analytical results. The upper (high) range values mean conservative estimates of the contaminant levels; thus, the values were compared to the Tier 1 EAL for unrestricted land use. Based on the upper range values, the arsenic or lead results for the samples collected from DU-01, DU-04, and DU-05 exceeded the Tier 1 EAL. DU-01 is the narrow DU along Kamehameha Avenue, and DU-04 and DU-05 are about one-third of the subject property at the east end. 5.6 Data Quality Review MNA conducted the analytical data quality review to determine the usability of the data generated by performing a data check for sample preservation methods, technical sample holding times, method blanks, laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCS/LCSD), matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD), and surrogate recoveries. 5.6.1 Sample Holding Times Technical holding times for all analytes were met. 5.6.2 Laboratory Blank Results None of the analytes were found in the laboratory blank sample which indicated that the analytical processes were free of the contaminants. 5.6.3 Laboratory Performance Review The LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, and surrogate recoveries were within the laboratory acceptable ranges. Based on this analytical data review, MNA concluded that the analytical results are considered valid and useable. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 34 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Table 13. Soil Analytical Results for DU-01, DU-02, and DU-03 Sample ID (Sampling Depth) Analytes Sample Analytical Result (mg/kg) Tier 1 EAL(mg/kg) DU-01-A (0-6 inches) DU-01-B (6-12 inches) DU-02-A (0-6 inches) DU-02-B (6-12 inches) DU-03-A (0-6 Inches) DU-03-B (6-12 inches) Unrestricted (Residential) Restricted (Commercial/ Industrial) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (8015B) TPH-Gasoline NA ND (3.8) NA ND (2.9) NA ND (2.7) 100 400 TPH-Diesel 16 18 12 12 6.5 20 500 500 TPH-Oil 87 88 53 59 50 130 500 1,000 BTEX (8021B) Benzene NA ND (0.019) NA ND (0.015) NA ND (0.014) 0.67 1.9 Toluene NA ND (0.019) NA ND (0.015) NA ND (0.014) 10 10 Ethylbenzene NA ND (0.019) NA ND (0.015) NA ND (0.014) 21 36 Xylenes NA ND (0.019) NA ND (0.015) NA ND (0.014) 11 11 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (8270C-SIM) Acenaphthene ND (0.041) ND (0.0068) ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 120 120 Acenaphthylene ND (0.041) 0.011 0.0091 ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 13 13 Anthracene ND (0.041) 0.0091 ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 4.3 4.3 Benzo[a]anthracene ND (0.041) 0.05 0.02 0.047 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 1.5 10 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.045 0.067 0.047 0.084 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 0.15 2.1 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.079 0.1 0.061 0.12 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 1.5 21 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND (0.041) 0.026 0.027 0.052 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 27 27 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND (0.041) 0.03 0.019 0.037 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 15 39 Chrysene 0.052 0.081 0.034 0.11 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 10 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND (0.041) 0.007 ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 0.15 2.1 Fluoranthene 0.081 0.14 0.047 0.18 ND (0.019) 0.067 87 87 Fluorene ND (0.041) ND (0.0068) ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 100 100 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND (0.041) 0.025 0.022 0.043 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 1.5 21 Naphthalene ND (0.041) ND (0.0068) ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 4.5 6.2 1-methylnaphthalene ND (0.041) ND (0.0068) ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 0.79 0.79 2-methylnaphthalene ND (0.041) ND (0.0068) ND (0.0061) ND (0.029) ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 0.87 0.87 Phenanthrene ND (0.041) 0.066 0.018 0.18 ND (0.019) ND (0.058) 69 69 Pyrene 0.082 0.13 0.057 0.2 ND (0.019) 0.075 44 44 Chlorinated Pesticides (8081A) Aldrin ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.0085) ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.086) 0.92 8.4 Hexachlorocyclohexane [including alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, and gamma-BHC] ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.0085) ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.086) 0.037 0.037 Heptachlor epoxide ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.0085) ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.086) 0.053 0.19 Endosulfan (including endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate) ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.0085) ND (0.017) ND (0.017) ND (0.086) 18 18 Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 35 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Sample ID (Sampling Depth) Analytes Sample Analytical Result (mg/kg) Tier 1 EAL(mg/kg) DU-01-A (0-6 inches) DU-01-B (6-12 inches) DU-02-A (0-6 inches) DU-02-B (6-12 inches) DU-03-A (0-6 Inches) DU-03-B (6-12 inches) Unrestricted (Residential) Restricted (Commercial/ Industrial) Dieldrin ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.017) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.17) 1.5 11 Endrin (including endrin aldehyde) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.017) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.17) 3.7 30 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.017) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.17) 1.4 5.1 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.017) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.17) 2 7.2 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.017) ND (0.033) ND (0.033) ND (0.17) 1.7 5.6 Chloradane (Technical) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.15) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (1.5) 16 29 Methoxychlor ND (0.17) ND (0.17) ND (0.085) ND (0.17) ND (0.17) ND (0.86) 16 16 Toxaphene ND (0.6) ND (0.59) ND (0.3) ND (0.6) ND (0.6) ND (3) 0.44 1.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (8082) Aroclor-1016 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) 1.1 6.3 Aroclor-1221 ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) Aroclor-1232 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1242 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1248 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1254 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1260 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0095) ND (0.0097) RCRA 8 Metals (6010B and 7471A) Cadmium 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.5 0.75 1.1 14 120 Barium 24 30 13 14 13 23 1,000 2,500 Silver ND (0.26) ND (0.26) ND (0.25) ND (0.23) ND (0.24) ND (0.27) 78 1,000 Arsenic 29 25 22 22 21 19 24 95 Lead 86 110 18 36 15 47 200 800 Selenium ND (0.53) ND (0.51) ND (0.49) ND (0.47) ND (0.48) ND (0.53) 78 1,000 Chromium 130 120 100 92 86 50 1,100 1,100 Mercury 0.2 0.23 0.077 0.095 0.047 0.1 4.7 61 Calculated upper and lower range values for Arsenic and Lead which the concentrations are near or above the EAL for Unrestricted Land Use. Arsenic-High 31.0 26.7 23.5 23.5 22.5 20.3 24 95 Arsenic-Low 27.0 23.3 20.5 20.5 19.5 17.7 24 95 Lead-High 92.4 118.1 19.3 38.7 16.1 50.5 200 800 Lead-Low 79.6 101.9 16.7 33.3 13.9 43.5 200 822 Criteria: Hawaii Department of Health, Tier 1 Soil EAL with unrestricted (residential) and restricted (industrial and commercial) land use above a non-drinking water resource and located less than 150 meters from surface water (State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Fall 2011; revised Jan 2012) Acronyms and Abbreviations: BTEX: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram DU: Decision Unit NA: Not Analyzed EAL: Environmental Action Levels ND (00) : Not Detected (Reporting Limit) Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 36 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Table 14. Soil Analytical Results for DU-04 and DU-05 Sample ID (Sampling Depth) Analytes Sample Analytical Result (mg/kg) Tier 1 EALs (mg/kg) DU-04-A-1 (0-6 inches) DU-04-B (6-12 inches) DU-05-A (Entire stockpile) Unrestricted (Residential) Restricted (Commercial/ Industrial) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (8015B) TPH-Gasoline NA ND (3.0) NA 100 400 TPH-Diesel 29 17 17 500 500 TPH-Oil 160 170 120 500 1,000 BTEX (8021B) Benzene NA ND (0.015) NA 0.67 1.9 Toluene NA ND (0.015) NA 10 10 Ethylbenzene NA ND (0.015) NA 21 36 Xylenes NA ND (0.015) NA 11 11 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (8270C-SIM) Acenaphthene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 120 120 Acenaphthylene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 13 13 Anthracene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 4.3 4.3 Benzo[a]anthracene 0.098 ND (0.13) 0.11 1.5 10 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.16 ND (0.13) 0.14 0.15 2.1 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.24 0.18 0.2 1.5 21 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.11 ND (0.13) 0.11 27 27 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.08 ND (0.13) 0.056 15 39 Chrysene 0.21 0.14 0.16 10 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 0.15 2.1 Fluoranthene 0.28 0.19 0.3 87 87 Fluorene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 100 100 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.093 ND (0.13) 0.085 1.5 21 Naphthalene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 4.5 6.2 1-methylnaphthalene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 0.79 0.79 2-methylnaphthalene ND (0.07) ND (0.13) ND (0.049) 0.87 0.87 Phenanthrene 0.16 ND (0.13) 0.15 69 69 Pyrene 0.3 0.21 0.25 44 44 Chlorinated Pesticides (8081A) Aldrine ND (0.034) ND (0.085) ND (0.034) 0.92 8.4 Hexachlorocyclohexane [including alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, and gamma-BHC] ND (0.034) ND (0.085) ND (0.034) 0.037 0.037 Heptachlor epoxide ND (0.034) ND (0.085) ND (0.034) 0.053 0.19 Endosulfan (including endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate) ND (0.034) ND (0.085) ND (0.034) 18 18 Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 37 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Sample ID (Sampling Depth) Analytes Sample Analytical Result (mg/kg) Tier 1 EALs (mg/kg) DU-04-A-1 (0-6 inches) DU-04-B (6-12 inches) DU-05-A (Entire stockpile) Unrestricted (Residential) Restricted (Commercial/ Industrial) Dieldrin ND (0.066) ND(0.17) ND (0.067) 1.5 11 Endrin (including endrin aldehyde) ND (0.066) ND(0.17) ND (0.067) 3.7 30 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) ND (0.066) ND(0.17) ND (0.067) 1.4 5.1 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) ND (0.066) ND(0.17) ND (0.067) 2 7.2 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) ND (0.066) ND(0.17) ND (0.067) 1.7 5.6 Chloradane (Technical) ND (0.6) ND(1.5) ND (0.61) 16 29 Methoxychlor ND (0.34) ND (0.85) ND (0.34) 16 16 Toxaphene ND (1.2) ND(3) ND (1.2) 0.44 1.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (8082) Aroclor-1016 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) 1.1 6.3 Aroclor-1221 ND (0.019) ND (0.019) ND (0.019) Aroclor-1232 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1242 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1248 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1254 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) Aroclor-1260 ND (0.0096) ND (0.0096) ND (0.0097) RCRA 8 Metals (6010B and 7471A) Cadmium 1.8 1.8 0.89 14 120 Barium 60 62 37 1,000 2,500 Silver ND (0.27) ND (0.27) ND (0.25) 78 1,000 Arsenic 35 41 42 24 95 Lead 340 340 140 200 800 Selenium ND (0.53) ND (0.54) ND (0.49) 78 1,000 Chromium 56 57 92 1,100 1,100 Mercury 0.4 0.46 0.21 4.7 61 Calculated upper and lower range values for Arsenic and Lead which the concentrations are near or above the EAL for Unrestricted Land Use. Arsenic-High 37.4 43.9 44.9 24 95 Arsenic-Low 32.6 38.1 39.1 24 95 Lead-High 365.2 365.2 150.4 200 800 Lead-Low 314.8 314.8 129.6 200 822 Criteria: Hawaii Department of Health, Tier 1 Soil EAL with unrestricted (residential) and restricted (industrial and commercial) land use above a non-drinking water resource and less than 150 meters from surface water (State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Fall 2011; revised Jan 2012) Acronyms and Abbreviations: BTEX: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram DU: Decision Unit NA: Not Analyzed EAL: Environmental Action Levels ND (00) : Not Detected (Reporting Limit) 6.0 INTERVIEWS MNA interviewed John Peard, HDOH HEER Office Remediation Project Manager, who is familiar with the subject property and surrounding area. The interview with Mr. Peard was conducted via email. MNA interviewed Gordon Heit, land agent for the DLNR. The interview with Mr. Peard was conducted via email. MNA contacted Dickey Lee from the DLNR Engineering Division. 6.1 John Peard Mr. Peard stated that there was institutional knowledge indicating that at one point a portion of the subject property was fenced off and used for boat storage. Mr. Peard referenced the former use of an adjoining property as a rail maintenance facility. Proximity to the Wailoa River and the associated known arsenic contamination was of concern. Mr. Peard suggested the potential for pesticide use at the subject property, if there were previously buildings located onsite. 6.2 Gordon Heit Mr. Heit, stated that the past use of the property was mostly private land prior to the 1960 tsunami. He stated that portions of the property have been identified as the location of a train depot. Mr. Heit mentioned that portions of the property were used as a deposit site for material dredged from the adjacent Wailoa river entrance during the past 10 years. The rest of the dredging material was either hauled away by the county DPW or removed by private individuals who loaded their pick-up trucks with the material. He also stated that there is an active County of Hawaii sewer line that runs through the property. The approximate location can be identified on TMK (3) 2-2-032. 6.3 Dickey Lee MNA contacted Mr. Lee via telephone on 29 April 2015. Mr. Lee was unavailable at the time of the call and a message was taken with the receptionist. Mr. Lee had no responded at the time of this writing. 7.0 DATA GAPS AND DEVIATIONS There was a data gap in this Phase I ESA. Detailed information about the dredged spoils from Wailoa River, spread over the subject property, was not available at the time of this writing. Moreover, except for Tesoro Gas Express, no HDOH records were made available to determine potential historical impacts of the LUST sites to the subject property. The sampling and analytical results represent the soil condition in 0-12 inches bgs at the time of the sampling, and the soil condition below 12 inches bgs is unknown. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 39 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. There was a deviation from the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process conducted (ASTM International, 2013). The User Questionnaire was not completed. 8.0 KEY FINDINGS AND OPINION This section evaluates the key findings of this assessment and makes a determination as to the presence of a REC. 8.1 Subject Property No UST or LUST were identified at the vacant subject property which is located within 50 yards from a small boat harbor to the west. . No records of NPL sites, RCRA CORRACTS TDS or non- CORRACTS facilities, State Sites of Interest, delisted NPL sites, CERCLIS or CERCLIS NFRAP sites, State Brownfield sites, landfill or solid waste disposal sites, RCRA generator sites, State Voluntary Cleanup sites, IC/EC registries, or Federal ERNS sites at the subject property. 8.1.1 REC The 2007 HDOH letter to the DLNR Engineering indicated that the dredge material from the Wailoa Small Boat Harbor was tested, and the results were below the EALs. However, the MIS soil sampling and analysis conducted for this Phase I ESA indicated that arsenic and lead were present, exceeding the HDOH Tier 1 Soil EALs for unrestricted (residential) land use. Therefore, this is considered a REC. Additional soil sampling is being planned at this writing, and the findings will be included in the final Phase I ESA. During the site reconnaissance, conducted on 30 March 2015, MNA observed an old motor on the subject property. The motor was in poor condition, showing rust and weathering on all sides. The motor was void of fluids. While there was no staining to the soil or petroleum or oil odors, the motor represents a material threat of release to the surface soil of the subject property, and is therefore considered a REC. 8.2 Surrounding Properties No records of NPL sites, RCRA CORRACTS facilities, delisted NPL sites, CERCLIS sites, Brownfield sites, landfill or solid waste disposal sites, State Voluntary Cleanup sites, IC/EC registries, or Federal ERNS sites were reported at the surrounding properties. 8.2.1 Non-REC One State CERCLIS site was identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property. The site, identified as “HELCO pipeline anomaly” at 126 Banyan Drive, was approximately one third of a mile and downgradient from the subject property. TPH-G contamination below the HDOH Tier I EAL was identified at the site. Contaminated soil was removed and the site was backfilled. A No Further Action - Unrestricted Land Use letter was issued on 16 July 2012. Due to the proximity of this site to the subject property, this is not considered a REC. One CERCLIS NFRAP site was identified within the same zip code as the subject property. The site was identified as Hilo Bayfront Soccer Field, located south of Kamehameha Avenue Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 40 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. between Pauahi and Ponahawai Streets. This site is located approximately 1/2 mile west of and at equal gradient to the subject property. Due to the distance and proximity of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 666 Kalanianaole Avenue, TMK (3) 2-1-008:006: Chevron Hilo Terminal was located less than one mile east and downgradient from the subject property. Due to the distance and proximity of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 191 Kuawa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-032:060: Hawaii District Lab was located 50 feet south and upgradient from the subject property. Due to the small amount of spill and prompt removal from site, this is not considered a REC. 131 Kekuanaoa Place, TMK (3) 2-1-012:101: Alamo Rent-a-Car was located 3/4 mile south- southwest and upgradient from the subject property. Due to the distance of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 210 Hoku Street, TMK (3) 2-2-018:038: Hilo Quality Washerette was located just less than one mile south-southwest and upgradient from the subject property. Due to the distance of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 701 Kalanianaole Avenue, TMK (3) 2-1-007:016: Tesoro Hawaii Corporation Terminal was located less than one mile east-northeast and downgradient from the subject property. Due to the distance of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 865 Kinoole Street, TMK (3) 2-2-017:040: Hilo Quality Cleaners was located just less than one mile west-southwest and upgradient from the subject property. Due to the distance of this site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. 20 Banyan Drive, TMK (3) 2-1-001:024: HELCO Generating Station Shipman was located less than a quarter mile north and downgradient from the subject property. Both documented releases were into secondary containment, and therefore this is not considered a REC. 200 Kanoelehua and Kuawa Street, No TMK Listed: One 280 gallon used oil UST was installed in approximately 1977. It is permanently out of use, and no violations were listed. Due to the UST being out of use and no violation listed, this is not considered a REC. 210 Hoku Street, TMK (3) 2-2-018:038: the site had one unregulated UST for heating oil. It was removed in 1996. Due to the UST being removed, this is not considered a REC 190 Kuawa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-032:090: The site was inspected by the HDOH on 21 March 2014. No violations were noted during the inspection. Based on no violation listed, this is not considered a REC. 150 Keaa Street, TMK (3)2-1-006:087: The site was located approximately a 1/2 mile northeast and downgradient from the subject property. On 22 July 1990, 2,500 - 4,000 gallons of 2% Chromated Copper Arseniate (CCA) wood treating solution was spilled from a pressure vessel and spread to the ocean. Remediation began immediately, and the impacted soil was removed and transferred to a landfill. Due to the downgradient and distance of the site from the subject property, this is not considered a REC. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 41 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. 110 Kalanikoa Street, TMK (3) 2-2-32:085: In a letter dated 06 October 2014, issued by the HDOH, the site was notified of operating as an unpermitted used oil transporter and transfer facility. This action had continued for six months after having received a letter and a site visit regarding the lapsed permits. Due to this being a administrative concern, this is not considered a REC Twenty-five state CERLIS sites were identified at greater than 1/2 mile from the subject property. Due the distance of the sites from the subject property, they are not considered a REC (Table 5). Two RCRA Generator sites were identified on adjoining properties. No violations were listed for either location; therefore, these sites are not considered REC. AKW Environmental, LLC, a CESQG, located at 190 Kuawa Street, and identified as TMK (3) 2-2-032:090 approximately 60 feet south-southeast. HDOH VC Branch, a SQG, located at 191 Kuawa Street, and identified as (3) 2-2- 032:060 approximately 50 feet south-southeast. 8.2.2 Historical REC Eight LUST sites were identified within 1/2 mile of the subject property (Table 6). A few of the LUST sites were located upgradient. The documented LUST sites have a current site status of Site Cleanup Complete, No Further Action. Due to the distance and proximity of these sites to the subject property, these LUST sites are considered HREC. 9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C., performed a Phase I ESA Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13 at the subject property located at TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 7.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, as follows: 9.1 RECs Subject Property Arsenic and Lead in Soil. Soil sampling and analysis of COPC indicated that heavy metal arsenic and lead were present, exceeding the HDOH Tier 1 Soil EAL for unrestricted (residential) land use. Therefore, this is considered a REC. Additional soil sampling is being planned at this writing, and the findings will be included in the final Phase I ESA. Discarded Motor. While there was no staining to the soil or petroleum or oil odors, the discarded motor represents a material threat of past release to the surface soil of the subject property, and is therefore considered a REC. 9.2 Historical RECs Surrounding Area Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 42 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. LUST Sites. A few of the 8 LUST sites within 1/2 mile of the subject property are upgradient and have a current status of Site Cleanup Completed and No Further Action. Limited historical information was available at the HDOH, and this is a data gap. 9.3 Recommendations Arsenic- and lead-impacted soil is present on the site (DU-01, DU-04, and DU-05), exceeding the Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted (residential) land use, but below the restricted (commercial/industrial) land use EALs. Since the site plan is a development and use as a soccer field, unrestricted land use EAL is applied. If the development plan involves soil disturbance, MNA recommends a further soil assessment for arsenic and lead in DU-01, DU-04, and DU-05 as follows: Bioaccessible arsenic and lead test for surface (0-6 inch bgs) and near-surface (6-12 inch bgs) soil Total arsenic and lead test for subsurface soil below 12 inches bgs since arsenic and lead results for the near-surface soil exceeded or approached the EALs. Based on the total and bioaccessible arsenic and lead results, mitigation measures must be designed and implemented. In addition, MNA recommends reporting the finding to HDOH- HEER office. The HEER office may review the future plans and provide guidance on managing impacted soil. Based on the bioaccessible arsenic and lead results and potential health risks for short-term and long-term exposures, engineering control or site clean-up may be required. If the final plan is to keep the impacted soil onsite, a site-specific Environmental Hazard Analysis/Environmental Hazard Management Plan (EHE/EHMP) will be required for long-term site management. If the bioaccessible arsenic and lead results exceed the acceptable health risk range, engineering control (i.e. encapsulation) or disposal of impacted soil may be required. This engineered control measures must be approved by the HDOH. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 43 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. REFERENCES ASTM International. (2013). Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. West Conshohocken: ASTM International. Battelle Memorial Institute, GeoChem Metrix Inc., U.S. Navy SPAWR Systems Center, and U.S.EPA ORD. (2012). A Handbook for Determining the Sources of PCB Contamination in Sediments. \Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (2015). Environmental FirstSearch Report for Kuawa Street New Fields Development PH1 ESA. Shelton: EDR. George A.L. Yuen and Associates, Inc. (1990, June). Commission on Water Resource Management. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from Commission on Water Resource Management: http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/cwrm/planning/wrpp1990.pdf Giero R. and Stille P. (2004). Energy, Waste and the Environment: A Geochemical Perspective. Geological Society of London. Hallacher, L. E., Kho, E. B., Bernard, N. D., Orcutt, A. M., Dudley, J. W., & Hammond, T. M. (1985). Distribution of Arsenic in the Sediments and Biota of Hilo Bay, Hawaii. Honolulu: Pacific Science. Hawaii Department of Health. (2010). Arsenic in Hawaiian Soils: Questions and Answers on Health Concerns. Hawaii Department of Health. (2015). Hawaii Department of Health Solid and Hazardous Waste Section - Undergound Storage Tank Section. Retrieved 2015 27-April from Hawaii UST- LUST Database: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/waste/ust/data.html Hawaii-National Flood Insurance Program. (2014, June 28). NFIP. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from Flood Hazard Assessment Tool: http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/fhat/# Hazlett, R. W., & Hyndman, D. W. (1996). Roadside Geology of Hawai'i. Missoula, Montana: Montana Press Pubishing Company. HDOH Safe Drinking Water Branch. (1999, September). UIC Map of Oahu. Retrieved September 17, 2014, from Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/water/sdwb/uic/pdf/oahuic.pdf MacDonald, G. A., & Abott, A. T. (1996). Volcanoes in the Sea. Honolulu: Univeristy of Hawaii Press. Mink, J. F., & Lau, L. S. (1990). Technical Report No. 191: Aquifer Identification and Classification for Hawaii: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawaii. University of Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center. Naval Facility Engineering Command. (2013). Technical Memorandum for Evaluating Sites in Hawaii with Soil Potentially Impacted by Pesticides Applied to Control Ermites and Other Pests and an Approach for Developing a Remedial Response. State of Hawaii, Department of Health. (2009). Technical Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Hawaii State Contingency Plan. State of Hawaii, Department of Health. (Fall 2011; revised Jan 2012, December). Screening for Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 44 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Stearns, H. T. (1985). Geology of the State of Hawaii. Palo Alto: Pacific Books. Stearns, H., & Macdonald, G. (1946). Geology and Ground-Water Fesources of the Island of Hawaii: Hawaii Division of Hydrography Bulletin. United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved 2015 15-April from Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 A Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. APPENDIX A Environmental Data Resources Report and Maps Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. APPENDIX B Site Reconnaissance and Soil Sampling Photographs Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-1 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 1. A view of the entrance to the subject property on Kuawa Street to the west (30 March 2015). Photograph 2. A view of the adjoining property to the north, Naniloa Golf Course. Kamehameha Avenue is in the foreground (30 March 2015). Photograph 3. A view of the adjoining property to the south, Walter Victor CK Baseball Complex (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-2 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 4. A view of the adjoining property to the south, AKW Environmental, LLC. The green area in the foreground is the southeast corner of the subject property (30 March 2015). Photograph 5. A view of the adjoining property to the east, Coqui’s Hideaway. Kamehameha Avenue is shown in the foreground (30 March 2015). Photograph 6. A view of the adjoining property to the east, County of Hawaii Offices (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-3 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 7. A view of the adjoining property to the west, across Manono Street (30 March 2015). Photograph 8. A view of the monument base located near the center portion of the subject property (30 March 2015). Photograph 9. A view of the stockpile observed near the center-east portion of the subject property. Refer to Table 14 for multi-incremental sample analytical results (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-4 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 10. A view of a sewer manhole, one of six observed on the subject property (30 March 2015). Photograph 11. A view of concrete fence anchors located on the west end of the subject property (30 March 2015). Photograph 12. A view of sewer markers on the subject property (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-5 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 13. A view of larger metal debris located on the subject property (30 March 2015). Photograph 14. A view of a discarded motor located near the central portion of the subject property, at the base of a banyan tree (30 March 2015). Photograph 15. A view of pole mounted transformers located on the adjoining property to the south (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-6 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 16. A view of pole mounted transformers located on the adjoining property to the south (30 March 2015). Photograph 17. A view of pole number 7 with three transformers, on the adjoining property to the south (30 March 2015). Photograph 18. A view of a pole mounted transformer on the adjoining property to the west (30 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-7 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 19. A view of pole number 2 with a transformer, on the adjoining property to the west (30 March 2015). Photograph 20. A view of DU-01 facing east along Kamehameha Avenue (31 March 2015). Photograph 21. A general area of DU-02 facing west (31 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-8 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 22. A view of DU-03 facing west. Kuawa Street is on the left (31 March 2015). Photograph 23. A view of DU-04 facing northeast (31 March 2015). Photograph 24. A view of DU-05 stockpile facing west (31 March 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3)2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 B-9 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Photograph 25. A view of MNA personnel advancing a hole, using a digging bar (1 April 2015). Photograph 26. A view of MNA personnel collecting soil samples (1 April 2015). Photograph 27. A view of a sampling point, restored after sampling (1 April 2015). Geometrician Associates, LLC – Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project, TMK (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, Hilo, Hawaii 01927_3 C Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. APPENDIX C Laboratory Analytical Reports Laboratory Job Number 265795 ANALYTICAL REPORT Myounghee Noh & Associates Project : 1927_3 99-1046 Iwaena Street Location : Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Aiea, HI 96701 Level : II Sample ID Lab ID DU-01-A 265795-001 DU-01-A 265795-002 DU-01-B 265795-003 DU-01-B 265795-004 DU-02-A 265795-005 DU-02-A 265795-006 DU-02-B 265795-007 DU-02-B 265795-008 DU-03-B 265795-009 DU-03-B 265795-010 DU-04-A-1 265795-011 DU-04-A-1 265795-012 DU-04-A-2 265795-013 DU-04-A-2 265795-014 DU-04-A-3 265795-015 DU-04-A-3 265795-016 DU-04-B 265795-017 DU-04-B 265795-018 This data package has been reviewed for technical correctness and completeness. Release of this data has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or the Manager's designee, as verified by the following signature. The results contained in this report meet all requirements of NELAC and pertain only to those samples which were submitted for analysis. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety. Signature: Date: 04/10/2015 Isabelle Choy Project Manager isabelle.choy@ctberk.com CA ELAP# 2896, NELAP# 4044-001 1 of 65 CASE NARRATIVE Laboratory number: 265795 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Project: 1927_3 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Request Date: 04/03/15 Samples Received: 04/03/15 This data package contains sample and QC results for nine soil samples, requested for the above referenced project on 04/03/15. The samples were received on ice and intact. Multi-Increment Sampling (ISM) was performed on all samples in accordance per HDOH. TPH-Purgeables and/or BTXE by GC (EPA 8015B and EPA 8021B): No analytical problems were encountered. TPH-Extractables by GC (EPA 8015B): Many samples were diluted due to the dark and viscous nature of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM (EPA 8270C-SIM): Many samples were diluted due to the dark and viscous nature of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. Pesticides (EPA 8081A): All samples underwent sulfur cleanup using the copper option in EPA Method 3660B. All samples underwent florisil cleanup using EPA Method 3620C. Matrix spikes QC783341,QC783342 (batch 222015) were not analyzed because the parent sample required a dilution that would have diluted out the spikes. Many samples were diluted due to the color of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. PCBs (EPA 8082): All samples underwent sulfuric acid cleanup using EPA Method 3665A. All samples underwent sulfur cleanup using the copper option in EPA Method 3660B. Matrix spikes QC783341,QC783342 (batch 222015) were not analyzed because the parent sample required a dilution that would have diluted out the spikes. No other analytical problems were encountered. Metals (EPA 6010B and EPA 7471A): No analytical problems were encountered. Moisture (ASTM D2216/CLP): No analytical problems were encountered. Page 1 of 1 # 43.0 2 of 65 3 of 65 4 of 65 Detections Summary for 265795 Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this summary. Client : Myounghee Noh & Associates Project : 1927_3 Location : Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client Sample ID : DU-01-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-001 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 16 Y 4.0 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 87 20 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 81 41 ug/Kg Dry 6.250 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 82 41 ug/Kg Dry 6.250 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 52 41 ug/Kg Dry 6.250 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 79 41 ug/Kg Dry 6.250 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 45 41 ug/Kg Dry 6.250 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.20 0.023 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-01-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-002 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 29 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 24 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.9 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 130 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 86 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-01-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-003 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 18 Y 4.1 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 88 21 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Acenaphthylene 11 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 66 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Anthracene 9.1 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 140 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 130 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 50 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 81 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 100 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 30 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 67 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 25 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 26 6.8 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.23 0.025 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Page 1 of 5 45.0 5 of 65 Client Sample ID : DU-01-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-004 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 25 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 30 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.9 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 120 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 110 0.26 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-02-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-005 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 12 Y 3.6 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 53 18 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Acenaphthylene 9.1 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 18 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 47 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 57 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 20 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 34 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 47 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 22 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 27 6.1 ug/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.077 0.020 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-02-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-006 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 22 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 13 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.6 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 100 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 18 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Page 2 of 5 45.0 6 of 65 Client Sample ID : DU-02-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-007 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 12 Y 3.5 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 59 18 mg/Kg Dry 3.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 180 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 180 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 200 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 47 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 110 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 120 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 37 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 84 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 43 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 52 29 ug/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.095 0.021 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-02-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-008 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 22 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 14 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.5 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 92 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 36 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-03-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-009 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 20 Y 5.9 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 130 30 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 67 58 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 75 58 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.10 0.019 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-03-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-010 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 19 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 23 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.1 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 50 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 47 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Page 3 of 5 45.0 7 of 65 Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-1 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-011 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 29 Y 7.0 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 160 35 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 160 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 280 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 300 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 98 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 210 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 240 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 80 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 160 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 93 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.40 0.025 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-1 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-012 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 35 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 60 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.8 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 56 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 340 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-2 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-013 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 15 Y 6.9 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 160 34 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 600 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 730 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 980 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 350 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 640 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 570 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 210 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 430 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 170 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 170 70 ug/Kg Dry 10.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.42 0.024 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Page 4 of 5 45.0 8 of 65 Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-2 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-014 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 31 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 55 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.8 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 50 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 300 0.23 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-3 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-015 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 23 Y 6.7 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 180 33 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 170 170 ug/Kg Dry 25.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 190 170 ug/Kg Dry 25.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.40 0.022 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-04-A-3 Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-016 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 35 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 55 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.6 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 47 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 300 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-04-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-017 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 17 Y 6.6 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 170 33 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 190 130 ug/Kg Dry 20.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 210 130 ug/Kg Dry 20.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 140 130 ug/Kg Dry 20.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 180 130 ug/Kg Dry 20.00 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.46 0.022 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-04-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265795-018 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 41 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 62 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 1.8 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 57 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 340 0.27 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Y = Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard Page 5 of 5 45.0 9 of 65 Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/31/15 Basis: dry Received: 04/03/15 Batch#: 222007 Field ID: DU-01-B Moisture: 27% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 25.00 Lab ID: 265795-003 Analyzed: 04/07/15 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 3.8 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 19 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 19 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 19 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 19 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 19 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 107 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 100 70-137 EPA 8021B Field ID: DU-02-B Moisture: 15% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 25.00 Lab ID: 265795-007 Analyzed: 04/08/15 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 2.9 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 113 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 99 70-137 EPA 8021B ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 2 7.0 10 of 65 Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 03/31/15 Basis: dry Received: 04/03/15 Batch#: 222007 Field ID: DU-03-B Moisture: 15% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 25.00 Lab ID: 265795-009 Analyzed: 04/08/15 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 2.7 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 14 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 14 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 14 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 14 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 14 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 107 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 97 70-137 EPA 8021B Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783303 Analyzed: 04/07/15 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 112 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 101 70-137 EPA 8021B ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 2 of 2 7.0 11 of 65 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222007 Units: mg/Kg Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: BS Lab ID: QC783348 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Gasoline C7-C12 1.000 0.9833 98 80-121 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 110 78-138 Type: BSD Lab ID: QC783349 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Gasoline C7-C12 2.000 1.962 98 80-121 0 20 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 118 78-138 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 8.0 12 of 65 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5030B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Diln Fac: 1.000 MSS Lab ID: 265886-001 Batch#: 222007 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/07/15 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/07/15 Type: MS Lab ID: QC783362 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Gasoline C7-C12 0.6264 10.64 8.816 77 50-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 112 78-138 Type: MSD Lab ID: QC783363 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Gasoline C7-C12 10.53 7.439 65 50-120 16 31 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 115 78-138 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 9.0 13 of 65 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8021B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222007 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: BS Lab ID: QC783425 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Benzene 20.00 20.01 100 80-120 Toluene 20.00 19.96 100 80-120 Ethylbenzene 20.00 20.89 104 80-120 m,p-Xylenes 20.00 22.19 111 80-120 o-Xylene 20.00 22.04 110 80-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 101 70-137 Type: BSD Lab ID: QC783426 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Benzene 20.00 20.87 104 80-120 4 20 Toluene 20.00 20.77 104 80-120 4 20 Ethylbenzene 20.00 21.44 107 80-120 3 20 m,p-Xylenes 20.00 22.93 115 80-120 3 20 o-Xylene 20.00 22.66 113 80-120 3 20 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 102 70-137 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 10.0 14 of 65 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/06/15 Batch#: 221960 Field ID: DU-01-A Moisture: 25% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 3.000 Lab ID: 265795-001 Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 16 Y 4.0 Motor Oil C24-C36 87 20 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 78 59-140 Field ID: DU-01-B Moisture: 27% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 3.000 Lab ID: 265795-003 Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 18 Y 4.1 Motor Oil C24-C36 88 21 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 73 59-140 Field ID: DU-02-A Moisture: 17% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 3.000 Lab ID: 265795-005 Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 12 Y 3.6 Motor Oil C24-C36 53 18 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 77 59-140 Field ID: DU-02-B Moisture: 15% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 3.000 Lab ID: 265795-007 Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 12 Y 3.5 Motor Oil C24-C36 59 18 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 78 59-140 Y= Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 3 4.0 15 of 65 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/06/15 Batch#: 221960 Field ID: DU-03-B Moisture: 15% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265795-009 Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 20 Y 5.9 Motor Oil C24-C36 130 30 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 73 59-140 Field ID: DU-04-A-1 Moisture: 28% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265795-011 Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 29 Y 7.0 Motor Oil C24-C36 160 35 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 80 59-140 Field ID: DU-04-A-2 Moisture: 27% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265795-013 Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 15 Y 6.9 Motor Oil C24-C36 160 34 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 81 59-140 Field ID: DU-04-A-3 Moisture: 25% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265795-015 Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 23 Y 6.7 Motor Oil C24-C36 180 33 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 78 59-140 Y= Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 2 of 3 4.0 16 of 65 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/06/15 Batch#: 221960 Field ID: DU-04-B Moisture: 24% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265795-017 Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 17 Y 6.6 Motor Oil C24-C36 170 33 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 73 59-140 Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783119 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 ND 1.0 Motor Oil C24-C36 ND 5.0 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 91 59-140 Y= Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 3 of 3 4.0 17 of 65 Batch QC Report Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783120 Batch#: 221960 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/06/15 Units: mg/Kg Analyzed: 04/07/15 Cleanup Method: EPA 3630C Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Diesel C10-C24 49.94 42.30 85 58-137 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 92 59-140 Page 1 of 1 5.0 18 of 65 Batch QC Report Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 221960 MSS Lab ID: 265804-003 Sampled: 04/02/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/06/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: MS Moisture: 16% Lab ID: QC783121 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Diesel C10-C24 <0.3650 59.88 46.07 77 46-154 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 82 59-140 Type: MSD Moisture: 16% Lab ID: QC783122 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Diesel C10-C24 59.37 48.37 81 46-154 6 50 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 84 59-140 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 6.0 19 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b015, B 20 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b016, B 21 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b017, B 22 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b019, B 23 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b020, B 24 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b021, B 25 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\096b028, A 26 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\096b029, A 27 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\096b030, A 28 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b010, B 29 of 65 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC15B\Data\096b009, B 30 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-01-A Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-001 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 6.250 Moisture: 25% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 41 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 41 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 41 Acenaphthylene ND 41 Acenaphthene ND 41 Fluorene ND 41 Phenanthrene ND 41 Anthracene ND 41 Fluoranthene 81 41 Pyrene 82 41 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 41 Chrysene 52 41 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 79 41 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 41 Benzo(a)pyrene 45 41 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 41 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 41 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 41 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 100 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 107 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 104 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 11.0 31 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-01-B Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-003 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Moisture: 27% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 6.8 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 6.8 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 6.8 Acenaphthylene 11 6.8 Acenaphthene ND 6.8 Fluorene ND 6.8 Phenanthrene 66 6.8 Anthracene 9.1 6.8 Fluoranthene 140 6.8 Pyrene 130 6.8 Benzo(a)anthracene 50 6.8 Chrysene 81 6.8 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 100 6.8 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 30 6.8 Benzo(a)pyrene 67 6.8 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 25 6.8 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 7.0 6.8 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 26 6.8 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 75 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 84 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 76 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 12.0 32 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-02-A Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-005 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Moisture: 17% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 6.1 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 6.1 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 6.1 Acenaphthylene 9.1 6.1 Acenaphthene ND 6.1 Fluorene ND 6.1 Phenanthrene 18 6.1 Anthracene ND 6.1 Fluoranthene 47 6.1 Pyrene 57 6.1 Benzo(a)anthracene 20 6.1 Chrysene 34 6.1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61 6.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 6.1 Benzo(a)pyrene 47 6.1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 22 6.1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 6.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 27 6.1 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 96 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 102 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 100 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 13.0 33 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-02-B Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-007 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Moisture: 15% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 29 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 29 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 29 Acenaphthylene ND 29 Acenaphthene ND 29 Fluorene ND 29 Phenanthrene 180 29 Anthracene ND 29 Fluoranthene 180 29 Pyrene 200 29 Benzo(a)anthracene 47 29 Chrysene 110 29 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 120 29 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 37 29 Benzo(a)pyrene 84 29 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 43 29 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 29 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 52 29 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 82 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 99 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 96 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 14.0 34 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-03-B Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-009 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Moisture: 15% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 58 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 58 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 58 Acenaphthylene ND 58 Acenaphthene ND 58 Fluorene ND 58 Phenanthrene ND 58 Anthracene ND 58 Fluoranthene 67 58 Pyrene 75 58 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 58 Chrysene ND 58 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 58 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 58 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 58 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 58 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 58 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 58 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 DO 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl DO 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 DO 43-120 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 15.0 35 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-04-A-1 Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-011 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Moisture: 28% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 70 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 70 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 70 Acenaphthylene ND 70 Acenaphthene ND 70 Fluorene ND 70 Phenanthrene 160 70 Anthracene ND 70 Fluoranthene 280 70 Pyrene 300 70 Benzo(a)anthracene 98 70 Chrysene 210 70 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 240 70 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 80 70 Benzo(a)pyrene 160 70 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 93 70 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 70 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 70 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 DO 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl DO 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 DO 43-120 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 16.0 36 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-04-A-2 Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-013 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Moisture: 27% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 70 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 70 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 70 Acenaphthylene ND 70 Acenaphthene ND 70 Fluorene ND 70 Phenanthrene 600 70 Anthracene ND 70 Fluoranthene 730 70 Pyrene 980 70 Benzo(a)anthracene 350 70 Chrysene 640 70 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 570 70 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 210 70 Benzo(a)pyrene 430 70 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 170 70 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 70 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 170 70 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 DO 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl DO 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 DO 43-120 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 17.0 37 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-04-A-3 Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-015 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 25.00 Moisture: 25% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 170 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 170 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 170 Acenaphthylene ND 170 Acenaphthene ND 170 Fluorene ND 170 Phenanthrene ND 170 Anthracene ND 170 Fluoranthene 170 170 Pyrene 190 170 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 170 Chrysene ND 170 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 170 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 170 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 170 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 170 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 170 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 170 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 DO 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl DO 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 DO 43-120 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 18.0 38 of 65 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-04-B Batch#: 221975 Lab ID: 265795-017 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 20.00 Moisture: 24% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 130 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 130 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 130 Acenaphthylene ND 130 Acenaphthene ND 130 Fluorene ND 130 Phenanthrene ND 130 Anthracene ND 130 Fluoranthene 190 130 Pyrene 210 130 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 130 Chrysene 140 130 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 180 130 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 130 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 130 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 130 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 130 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 130 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 DO 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl DO 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 DO 43-120 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 19.0 39 of 65 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783183 Batch#: 221975 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/06/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/07/15 Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 5.0 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.0 Acenaphthylene ND 5.0 Acenaphthene ND 5.0 Fluorene ND 5.0 Phenanthrene ND 5.0 Anthracene ND 5.0 Fluoranthene ND 5.0 Pyrene ND 5.0 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 5.0 Chrysene ND 5.0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 5.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 5.0 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 5.0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 5.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 5.0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 5.0 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 92 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 101 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 102 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 20.0 40 of 65 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783184 Batch#: 221975 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/06/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/07/15 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Acenaphthene 33.19 28.62 86 49-120 Pyrene 33.19 28.20 85 48-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 91 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 96 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 98 43-120 Page 1 of 1 21.0 41 of 65 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 221975 MSS Lab ID: 265802-001 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/06/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 2.000 Type: MS Moisture: 16% Lab ID: QC783185 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Acenaphthene 20.56 39.83 54.84 86 43-120 Pyrene 43.93 39.83 78.88 88 18-144 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 93 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 101 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 106 43-120 Type: MSD Moisture: 16% Lab ID: QC783186 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Acenaphthene 39.39 60.98 103 43-120 11 45 Pyrene 39.39 82.03 97 18-144 4 72 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 101 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 109 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 110 43-120 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 22.0 42 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-01-A Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-002 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 17 beta-BHC ND 17 gamma-BHC ND 17 delta-BHC ND 17 Heptachlor ND 17 Aldrin ND 17 Heptachlor epoxide ND 17 Endosulfan I ND 17 Dieldrin ND 33 4,4'-DDE ND 33 Endrin ND 33 Endosulfan II ND 33 Endosulfan sulfate ND 33 4,4'-DDD ND 33 Endrin aldehyde ND 33 4,4'-DDT ND 33 Chlordane (Technical) ND 300 alpha-Chlordane ND 17 gamma-Chlordane ND 17 Methoxychlor ND 170 Toxaphene ND 600 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 25.0 43 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-01-B Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-004 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 17 beta-BHC ND 17 gamma-BHC ND 17 delta-BHC ND 17 Heptachlor ND 17 Aldrin ND 17 Heptachlor epoxide ND 17 Endosulfan I ND 17 Dieldrin ND 33 4,4'-DDE ND 33 Endrin ND 33 Endosulfan II ND 33 Endosulfan sulfate ND 33 4,4'-DDD ND 33 Endrin aldehyde ND 33 4,4'-DDT ND 33 Chlordane (Technical) ND 300 alpha-Chlordane ND 17 gamma-Chlordane ND 17 Methoxychlor ND 170 Toxaphene ND 590 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 26.0 44 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-02-A Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-006 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 8.5 beta-BHC ND 8.5 gamma-BHC ND 8.5 delta-BHC ND # 8.5 Heptachlor ND 8.5 Aldrin ND 8.5 Heptachlor epoxide ND 8.5 Endosulfan I ND 8.5 Dieldrin ND 17 4,4'-DDE ND 17 Endrin ND 17 Endosulfan II ND 17 Endosulfan sulfate ND 17 4,4'-DDD ND 17 Endrin aldehyde ND 17 4,4'-DDT ND 17 Chlordane (Technical) ND 150 alpha-Chlordane ND # 8.5 gamma-Chlordane ND # 8.5 Methoxychlor ND 85 Toxaphene ND 300 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 115 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl 115 39-121 #= CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 27.0 45 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-02-B Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-008 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 17 beta-BHC ND 17 gamma-BHC ND 17 delta-BHC ND 17 Heptachlor ND 17 Aldrin ND 17 Heptachlor epoxide ND 17 Endosulfan I ND 17 Dieldrin ND 33 4,4'-DDE ND 33 Endrin ND 33 Endosulfan II ND 33 Endosulfan sulfate ND 33 4,4'-DDD ND 33 Endrin aldehyde ND 33 4,4'-DDT ND 33 Chlordane (Technical) ND 300 alpha-Chlordane ND 17 gamma-Chlordane ND 17 Methoxychlor ND 170 Toxaphene ND 600 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 28.0 46 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-03-B Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-010 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 50.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 86 beta-BHC ND 86 gamma-BHC ND 86 delta-BHC ND 86 Heptachlor ND 86 Aldrin ND 86 Heptachlor epoxide ND 86 Endosulfan I ND 86 Dieldrin ND 170 4,4'-DDE ND 170 Endrin ND 170 Endosulfan II ND 170 Endosulfan sulfate ND 170 4,4'-DDD ND 170 Endrin aldehyde ND 170 4,4'-DDT ND 170 Chlordane (Technical) ND 1,500 alpha-Chlordane ND 86 gamma-Chlordane ND 86 Methoxychlor ND 860 Toxaphene ND 3,000 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 29.0 47 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-04-A-1 Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-012 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 20.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 34 beta-BHC ND 34 gamma-BHC ND 34 delta-BHC ND 34 Heptachlor ND 34 Aldrin ND 34 Heptachlor epoxide ND 34 Endosulfan I ND 34 Dieldrin ND 66 4,4'-DDE ND 66 Endrin ND 66 Endosulfan II ND 66 Endosulfan sulfate ND 66 4,4'-DDD ND 66 Endrin aldehyde ND 66 4,4'-DDT ND 66 Chlordane (Technical) ND 600 alpha-Chlordane ND 34 gamma-Chlordane ND 34 Methoxychlor ND 340 Toxaphene ND 1,200 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 30.0 48 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-04-A-2 Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-014 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 20.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 34 beta-BHC ND 34 gamma-BHC ND 34 delta-BHC ND 34 Heptachlor ND 34 Aldrin ND 34 Heptachlor epoxide ND 34 Endosulfan I ND 34 Dieldrin ND 65 4,4'-DDE ND 65 Endrin ND 65 Endosulfan II ND 65 Endosulfan sulfate ND 65 4,4'-DDD ND 65 Endrin aldehyde ND 65 4,4'-DDT ND 65 Chlordane (Technical) ND 600 alpha-Chlordane ND 34 gamma-Chlordane ND 34 Methoxychlor ND 340 Toxaphene ND 1,200 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 31.0 49 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-04-A-3 Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-016 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 20.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 33 beta-BHC ND 33 gamma-BHC ND 33 delta-BHC ND 33 Heptachlor ND 33 Aldrin ND 33 Heptachlor epoxide ND 33 Endosulfan I ND 33 Dieldrin ND 65 4,4'-DDE ND 65 Endrin ND 65 Endosulfan II ND 65 Endosulfan sulfate ND 65 4,4'-DDD ND 65 Endrin aldehyde ND 65 4,4'-DDT ND 65 Chlordane (Technical) ND 590 alpha-Chlordane ND 33 gamma-Chlordane ND 33 Methoxychlor ND 330 Toxaphene ND 1,200 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 32.0 50 of 65 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-04-B Batch#: 222015 Lab ID: 265795-018 Sampled: 04/01/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/07/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/08/15 Diln Fac: 50.00 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 85 beta-BHC ND 85 gamma-BHC ND 85 delta-BHC ND 85 Heptachlor ND 85 Aldrin ND 85 Heptachlor epoxide ND 85 Endosulfan I ND 85 Dieldrin ND 170 4,4'-DDE ND 170 Endrin ND 170 Endosulfan II ND 170 Endosulfan sulfate ND 170 4,4'-DDD ND 170 Endrin aldehyde ND 170 4,4'-DDT ND 170 Chlordane (Technical) ND 1,500 alpha-Chlordane ND 85 gamma-Chlordane ND 85 Methoxychlor ND 850 Toxaphene ND 3,000 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 33.0 51 of 65 Batch QC Report Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783336 Batch#: 222015 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/07/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/08/15 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 1.7 beta-BHC ND 1.7 gamma-BHC ND 1.7 delta-BHC ND 1.7 Heptachlor ND 1.7 Aldrin ND 1.7 Heptachlor epoxide ND 1.7 Endosulfan I ND 1.7 Dieldrin ND 3.3 4,4'-DDE ND 3.3 Endrin ND 3.3 Endosulfan II ND 3.3 Endosulfan sulfate ND 3.3 4,4'-DDD ND 3.3 Endrin aldehyde ND 3.3 4,4'-DDT ND 3.3 Chlordane (Technical) ND 30 alpha-Chlordane ND 1.7 gamma-Chlordane ND 1.7 Methoxychlor ND 17 Toxaphene ND 60 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 81 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl 85 39-121 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 34.0 52 of 65 Batch QC Report Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783340 Batch#: 222015 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/07/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/08/15 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits gamma-BHC 13.50 9.679 # 72 44-121 Heptachlor 13.50 11.05 # 82 45-129 Aldrin 13.50 9.089 67 45-120 Dieldrin 13.50 12.07 89 49-131 Endrin 13.50 12.52 93 43-135 4,4'-DDT 13.50 12.56 # 93 37-141 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 78 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl 93 39-121 #= CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements Page 1 of 1 35.0 53 of 65 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222015 Units: ug/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID: DU-01-A Sampled: 03/31/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/09/15 Lab ID: 265795-002 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 96 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 96 25-135 Field ID: DU-01-B Sampled: 03/31/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-004 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.5 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 94 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 86 25-135 Field ID: DU-02-A Sampled: 03/31/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-006 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 90 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 97 25-135 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 4 39.0 54 of 65 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222015 Units: ug/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID: DU-02-B Sampled: 03/31/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-008 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 105 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 107 25-135 Field ID: DU-03-B Sampled: 03/31/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-010 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.7 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 69 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 63 25-135 Field ID: DU-04-A-1 Sampled: 04/01/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-012 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 77 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 85 25-135 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 2 of 4 39.0 55 of 65 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222015 Units: ug/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID: DU-04-A-2 Sampled: 04/01/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-014 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.5 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 76 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 69 25-135 Field ID: DU-04-A-3 Sampled: 04/01/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-016 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.5 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 105 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 115 25-135 Field ID: DU-04-B Sampled: 04/01/15 Type: SAMPLE Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: 265795-018 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 107 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 101 25-135 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 3 of 4 39.0 56 of 65 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222015 Units: ug/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/07/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: BLANK Analyzed: 04/08/15 Lab ID: QC783336 Cleanup Method: EPA 3620B Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.6 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.6 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 87 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 87 25-135 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 4 of 4 39.0 57 of 65 Batch QC Report Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783337 Batch#: 222015 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/07/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/08/15 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Aroclor-1016 168.6 208.0 123 64-140 Aroclor-1260 168.6 234.6 139 65-146 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 115 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 131 25-135 Page 1 of 1 40.0 58 of 65 Mercury by Cold Vapor AA Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: METHOD Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 7471A Analyte: Mercury Batch#: 222065 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/08/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID Type Lab ID Result RL Moisture Sampled DU-01-A SAMPLE 265795-001 0.20 0.023 25% 03/31/15 DU-01-B SAMPLE 265795-003 0.23 0.025 27% 03/31/15 DU-02-A SAMPLE 265795-005 0.077 0.020 17% 03/31/15 DU-02-B SAMPLE 265795-007 0.095 0.021 15% 03/31/15 DU-03-B SAMPLE 265795-009 0.10 0.019 15% 03/31/15 DU-04-A-1 SAMPLE 265795-011 0.40 0.025 28% 04/01/15 DU-04-A-2 SAMPLE 265795-013 0.42 0.024 27% 04/01/15 DU-04-A-3 SAMPLE 265795-015 0.40 0.022 25% 04/01/15 DU-04-B SAMPLE 265795-017 0.46 0.022 24% 04/01/15 BLANK QC783515 ND 0.017 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 36.0 59 of 65 RCRA Metals Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222102 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/09/15 Field ID: DU-01-A Lab ID: 265795-002 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 29 0.26 Barium 24 0.26 Cadmium 1.9 0.26 Chromium 130 0.26 Lead 86 0.26 Selenium ND 0.53 Silver ND 0.26 Field ID: DU-01-B Lab ID: 265795-004 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 25 0.26 Barium 30 0.26 Cadmium 1.9 0.26 Chromium 120 0.26 Lead 110 0.26 Selenium ND 0.51 Silver ND 0.26 Field ID: DU-02-A Lab ID: 265795-006 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 22 0.25 Barium 13 0.25 Cadmium 1.6 0.25 Chromium 100 0.25 Lead 18 0.25 Selenium ND 0.49 Silver ND 0.25 Field ID: DU-02-B Lab ID: 265795-008 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 22 0.23 Barium 14 0.23 Cadmium 1.5 0.23 Chromium 92 0.23 Lead 36 0.23 Selenium ND 0.47 Silver ND 0.23 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 3 37.1 60 of 65 RCRA Metals Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222102 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/09/15 Field ID: DU-03-B Lab ID: 265795-010 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 03/31/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 19 0.27 Barium 23 0.27 Cadmium 1.1 0.27 Chromium 50 0.27 Lead 47 0.27 Selenium ND 0.53 Silver ND 0.27 Field ID: DU-04-A-1 Lab ID: 265795-012 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 35 0.27 Barium 60 0.27 Cadmium 1.8 0.27 Chromium 56 0.27 Lead 340 0.27 Selenium ND 0.53 Silver ND 0.27 Field ID: DU-04-A-2 Lab ID: 265795-014 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 31 0.23 Barium 55 0.23 Cadmium 1.8 0.23 Chromium 50 0.23 Lead 300 0.23 Selenium ND 0.47 Silver ND 0.23 Field ID: DU-04-A-3 Lab ID: 265795-016 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 35 0.25 Barium 55 0.25 Cadmium 1.6 0.25 Chromium 47 0.25 Lead 300 0.25 Selenium ND 0.50 Silver ND 0.25 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 2 of 3 37.1 61 of 65 RCRA Metals Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222102 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/03/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/09/15 Field ID: DU-04-B Lab ID: 265795-018 Type: SAMPLE Sampled: 04/01/15 Analyte Result RL Arsenic 41 0.27 Barium 62 0.27 Cadmium 1.8 0.27 Chromium 57 0.27 Lead 340 0.27 Selenium ND 0.54 Silver ND 0.27 Type: BLANK Lab ID: QC783652 Analyte Result RL Arsenic ND 0.25 Barium ND 0.25 Cadmium ND 0.25 Chromium ND 0.25 Lead ND 0.25 Selenium ND 0.50 Silver ND 0.25 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 3 of 3 37.1 62 of 65 Batch QC Report Mercury by Cold Vapor AA Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: METHOD Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 7471A Analyte: Mercury Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID: DU-01-A Batch#: 222065 MSS Lab ID: 265795-001 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/08/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/09/15 Type Lab ID MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Moisture RPD Lim BS QC783516 0.2083 0.2392 115 80-120 BSD QC783517 0.2083 0.2281 109 80-120 5 20 MS QC783518 0.1992 0.2874 0.4881 101 69-142 25% MSD QC783519 0.2688 0.4614 98 69-142 25% 2 36 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 38.0 63 of 65 Batch QC Report RCRA Metals Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222102 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Analyzed: 04/09/15 Type: BS Lab ID: QC783653 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Arsenic 50.00 45.28 91 80-120 Barium 50.00 45.54 91 80-120 Cadmium 50.00 47.82 96 80-120 Chromium 50.00 45.24 90 80-120 Lead 50.00 44.71 89 80-120 Selenium 50.00 45.60 91 80-120 Silver 50.00 43.73 87 80-120 Type: BSD Lab ID: QC783654 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Arsenic 50.00 47.02 94 80-120 4 20 Barium 50.00 46.87 94 80-120 3 20 Cadmium 50.00 49.35 99 80-120 3 20 Chromium 50.00 46.45 93 80-120 3 20 Lead 50.00 45.95 92 80-120 3 20 Selenium 50.00 47.87 96 80-120 5 20 Silver 50.00 45.19 90 80-120 3 20 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 41.0 64 of 65 Batch QC Report RCRA Metals Lab #: 265795 Location: Kuawa St New Field Development EPH1 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Field ID: DU-01-A Batch#: 222102 MSS Lab ID: 265795-002 Sampled: 03/31/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/03/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/09/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/09/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Type: MS Moisture: 25% Lab ID: QC783655 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Arsenic 39.32 62.66 89.56 80 69-120 Barium 32.27 62.66 89.08 91 35-154 Cadmium 2.558 62.66 57.92 88 71-120 Chromium 171.7 62.66 250.5 126 57-133 Lead 114.6 62.66 177.8 101 53-125 Selenium <0.2256 62.66 44.34 71 61-120 Silver <0.05631 62.66 55.20 88 69-120 Type: MSD Moisture: 25% Lab ID: QC783656 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Arsenic 69.74 99.07 86 69-120 3 35 Barium 69.74 96.80 93 35-154 1 36 Cadmium 69.74 65.20 90 71-120 2 25 Chromium 69.74 256.0 121 57-133 1 33 Lead 69.74 189.7 108 53-125 3 42 Selenium 69.74 52.70 76 61-120 7 33 Silver 69.74 62.52 90 69-120 2 22 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 42.0 65 of 65 Laboratory Job Number 265987 ANALYTICAL REPORT Myounghee Noh & Associates Project : 1927_3 99-1046 Iwaena Street Location : Kuawa Soccer Field Aiea, HI 96701 Level : II Sample ID Lab ID DU-04-B 265987-001 DU-03-A 265987-002 DU-03-A 265987-003 DU-05-A 265987-004 DU-05-A 265987-005 This data package has been reviewed for technical correctness and completeness. Release of this data has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or the Manager's designee, as verified by the following signature. The results contained in this report meet all requirements of NELAC and pertain only to those samples which were submitted for analysis. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety. Signature: Date: 04/20/2015 Isabelle Choy Project Manager isabelle.choy@ctberk.com CA ELAP# 2896, NELAP# 4044-001 1 of 35 CASE NARRATIVE Laboratory number: 265987 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Project: 1927_3 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Request Date: 04/09/15 Samples Received: 04/09/15 This data package contains sample and QC results for three soil samples, requested for the above referenced project on 04/09/15. The samples were received cold and intact. Multi-Increment Sampling (ISM) was performed on all samples in accordance per HDOH. TPH-Purgeables and/or BTXE by GC (EPA 8015B and EPA 8021B): No analytical problems were encountered. TPH-Extractables by GC (EPA 8015B): DU-03-A (lab # 265987-002) and DU-05-A (lab # 265987-004) were diluted due to the dark and viscous nature of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM (EPA 8270C-SIM): DU-03-A (lab # 265987-002) and DU-05-A (lab # 265987-004) were diluted due to the dark and viscous nature of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. Pesticides (EPA 8081A): All samples underwent sulfur cleanup using the copper option in EPA Method 3660B. All samples underwent florisil cleanup using EPA Method 3620C. Matrix spikes QC784108,QC784109 (batch 222211) were not analyzed because the parent sample required a dilution that would have diluted out the spikes. High recovery was observed for endrin in the LCS for batch 222211; this analyte was not detected at or above the RL in the associated samples. DU-03-A (lab # 265987-003) and DU-05-A (lab # 265987-005) were diluted due to the color of the sample extracts. No other analytical problems were encountered. PCBs (EPA 8082): All samples underwent sulfuric acid cleanup using EPA Method 3665A. All samples underwent sulfur cleanup using the copper option in EPA Method 3660B. High response was observed for Aroclor-1016 in the CCV analyzed 04/14/15 20:20; affected data was qualified with "b". Matrix spikes QC784108,QC784109 (batch 222211) were not analyzed because the parent sample required a dilution that would have diluted out the spikes. No other analytical problems were encountered. Metals (EPA 6010B and EPA 7471A): Low recoveries were observed for mercury in the MS/MSD for batch 222238; the parent sample was not a project sample, the BS/BSD were within limits, and the associated RPD was within limits. High recoveries were observed for Page 1 of 2 # 30.0 2 of 35 CASE NARRATIVE Laboratory number: 265987 Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Project: 1927_3 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Request Date: 04/09/15 Samples Received: 04/09/15 Metals (EPA 6010B and EPA 7471A): chromium in the MS/MSD of DU-03-A (lab # 265987-003); the BS/BSD were within limits, and the associated RPD was within limits. No other analytical problems were encountered. Moisture (ASTM D2216/CLP): No analytical problems were encountered. Page 2 of 2 # 30.0 3 of 35 4 of 35 5 of 35 Detections Summary for 265987 Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this summary. Client : Myounghee Noh & Associates Project : 1927_3 Location : Kuawa Soccer Field Client Sample ID : DU-04-B Laboratory Sample ID : 265987-001 No Detections Client Sample ID : DU-03-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265987-002 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 6.5 Y 6.2 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 50 31 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Mercury 0.047 0.020 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Client Sample ID : DU-03-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265987-003 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 21 0.24 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 13 0.24 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 0.75 0.24 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 86 0.24 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 15 0.24 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Client Sample ID : DU-05-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265987-004 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Diesel C10-C24 17 Y 6.9 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Motor Oil C24-C36 120 35 mg/Kg Dry 5.000 EPA 8015B EPA 3550B Phenanthrene 150 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Fluoranthene 300 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Pyrene 250 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)anthracene 110 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Chrysene 160 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(b)fluoranthene 200 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(k)fluoranthene 56 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(a)pyrene 140 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 85 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 49 ug/Kg Dry 7.000 EPA 8270C-SIM EPA 3550B Mercury 0.21 0.024 mg/Kg Dry 1.000 EPA 7471A METHOD Page 1 of 2 33.0 6 of 35 Client Sample ID : DU-05-A Laboratory Sample ID : 265987-005 Analyte Result Flags RL Units Basis IDF Method Prep Method Arsenic 42 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Barium 37 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Cadmium 0.89 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Chromium 92 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Lead 140 0.25 mg/Kg As Recd 1.000 EPA 6010B EPA 3050B Y = Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard Page 2 of 2 33.0 7 of 35 Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Field ID: DU-04-B Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/10/15 Batch#: 222151 Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 25.00 Lab ID: 265987-001 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 3.0 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 15 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 110 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 98 70-137 EPA 8021B Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783850 Analyte Result RL Units Analysis Gasoline C7-C12 ND 0.20 mg/Kg EPA 8015B Benzene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Toluene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Ethylbenzene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B m,p-Xylenes ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B o-Xylene ND 1.0 ug/Kg EPA 8021B Surrogate %REC Limits Analysis Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 107 78-138 EPA 8015B Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 96 70-137 EPA 8021B ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 4.0 8 of 35 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783851 Batch#: 222151 Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 04/10/15 Units: mg/Kg Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Gasoline C7-C12 1.000 0.9898 99 80-121 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 108 78-138 Page 1 of 1 5.0 9 of 35 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5035 Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8021B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222151 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/10/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: BS Lab ID: QC783852 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Benzene 10.00 9.814 98 80-120 Toluene 10.00 9.893 99 80-120 Ethylbenzene 10.00 10.29 103 80-120 m,p-Xylenes 10.00 10.98 110 80-120 o-Xylene 10.00 10.79 108 80-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 95 70-137 Type: BSD Lab ID: QC783853 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Benzene 10.00 9.509 95 80-120 3 20 Toluene 10.00 9.647 96 80-120 3 20 Ethylbenzene 10.00 10.28 103 80-120 0 20 m,p-Xylenes 10.00 11.04 110 80-120 1 20 o-Xylene 10.00 10.97 110 80-120 2 20 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (PID) 97 70-137 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 6.0 10 of 35 Batch QC Report Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories Analytical Report Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 5030B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Diln Fac: 1.000 MSS Lab ID: 265953-004 Batch#: 222151 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/07/15 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/09/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/10/15 Type: MS Moisture: 13% Lab ID: QC783854 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Gasoline C7-C12 0.7044 12.63 11.72 87 50-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 112 78-138 Type: MSD Moisture: 13% Lab ID: QC783855 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Gasoline C7-C12 11.27 10.99 91 50-120 4 31 Surrogate %REC Limits Bromofluorobenzene (FID) 109 78-138 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 7.0 11 of 35 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/06/15 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/09/15 Basis: dry Prepared: 04/10/15 Batch#: 222169 Analyzed: 04/12/15 Field ID: DU-03-A Moisture: 20% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265987-002 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 6.5 Y 6.2 Motor Oil C24-C36 50 31 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 86 59-140 Field ID: DU-05-A Moisture: 28% Type: SAMPLE Diln Fac: 5.000 Lab ID: 265987-004 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 17 Y 6.9 Motor Oil C24-C36 120 35 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 73 59-140 Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783920 Analyte Result RL Diesel C10-C24 ND 1.0 Motor Oil C24-C36 ND 5.0 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 114 59-140 Y= Sample exhibits chromatographic pattern which does not resemble standard ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 11.0 12 of 35 Batch QC Report Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC783921 Batch#: 222169 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/10/15 Units: mg/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Cleanup Method: EPA 3630C Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Diesel C10-C24 50.15 44.94 90 58-137 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 95 59-140 Page 1 of 1 12.0 13 of 35 Batch QC Report Total Extractable Hydrocarbons Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8015B Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 222169 MSS Lab ID: 265953-004 Sampled: 04/07/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/10/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/12/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: MS Moisture: 13% Lab ID: QC783922 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Diesel C10-C24 0.5327 57.27 56.31 97 46-154 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 109 59-140 Type: MSD Moisture: 13% Lab ID: QC783923 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Diesel C10-C24 57.49 55.93 96 46-154 1 50 Surrogate %REC Limits o-Terphenyl 112 59-140 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 13.0 14 of 35 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\102a028, A 15 of 35 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\102a029, A 16 of 35 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\102a018, A 17 of 35 Minutes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 \\Lims\gdrive\ezchrom\Projects\GC17A\Data\102a017, A 18 of 35 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-03-A Batch#: 222216 Lab ID: 265987-002 Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 3.000 Moisture: 20% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 19 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 19 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 19 Acenaphthylene ND 19 Acenaphthene ND 19 Fluorene ND 19 Phenanthrene ND 19 Anthracene ND 19 Fluoranthene ND 19 Pyrene ND 19 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 19 Chrysene ND 19 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 19 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 19 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 19 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 19 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 19 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 19 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 100 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 105 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 93 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 14.0 19 of 35 Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: DU-05-A Batch#: 222216 Lab ID: 265987-004 Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 7.000 Moisture: 28% Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 49 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 49 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 49 Acenaphthylene ND 49 Acenaphthene ND 49 Fluorene ND 49 Phenanthrene 150 49 Anthracene ND 49 Fluoranthene 300 49 Pyrene 250 49 Benzo(a)anthracene 110 49 Chrysene 160 49 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 200 49 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 56 49 Benzo(a)pyrene 140 49 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 85 49 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 49 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 49 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 97 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 103 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 90 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 15.0 20 of 35 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC784127 Batch#: 222216 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Analyte Result RL Naphthalene ND 5.0 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.0 Acenaphthylene ND 5.0 Acenaphthene ND 5.0 Fluorene ND 5.0 Phenanthrene ND 5.0 Anthracene ND 5.0 Fluoranthene ND 5.0 Pyrene ND 5.0 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 5.0 Chrysene ND 5.0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 5.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 5.0 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 5.0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 5.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 5.0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 5.0 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 85 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 94 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 96 43-120 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 16.0 21 of 35 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC784128 Batch#: 222216 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Acenaphthene 33.47 30.53 91 49-120 Pyrene 33.47 26.91 80 48-120 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 95 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 99 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 92 43-120 Page 1 of 1 17.0 22 of 35 Batch QC Report Semivolatile Organics by GC/MS SIM Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8270C-SIM Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 222216 MSS Lab ID: 266057-001 Sampled: 04/11/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 3.000 Type: MS Lab ID: QC784129 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Acenaphthene 8.483 33.52 36.17 83 43-120 Pyrene 586.1 33.52 367.5 -652 NM 18-144 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 93 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 99 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 90 43-120 Type: MSD Lab ID: QC784130 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Acenaphthene 33.67 31.04 67 43-120 16 45 Pyrene 33.67 202.0 -1141 NM 18-144 58 72 Surrogate %REC Limits Nitrobenzene-d5 91 40-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 95 46-120 Terphenyl-d14 83 43-120 NM= Not Meaningful: Sample concentration > 4X spike concentration RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 18.0 23 of 35 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-03-A Batch#: 222211 Lab ID: 265987-003 Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 10.00 Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 17 beta-BHC ND 17 gamma-BHC ND 17 delta-BHC ND 17 Heptachlor ND 17 Aldrin ND 17 Heptachlor epoxide ND 17 Endosulfan I ND 17 Dieldrin ND 33 4,4'-DDE ND 33 Endrin ND 33 Endosulfan II ND 33 Endosulfan sulfate ND 33 4,4'-DDD ND 33 Endrin aldehyde ND 33 4,4'-DDT ND 33 Chlordane (Technical) ND 300 alpha-Chlordane ND 17 gamma-Chlordane ND 17 Methoxychlor ND 170 Toxaphene ND 600 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 19.0 24 of 35 Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Field ID: DU-05-A Batch#: 222211 Lab ID: 265987-005 Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 20.00 Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 34 beta-BHC ND 34 gamma-BHC ND 34 delta-BHC ND 34 Heptachlor ND 34 Aldrin ND 34 Heptachlor epoxide ND 34 Endosulfan I ND 34 Dieldrin ND 67 4,4'-DDE ND 67 Endrin ND 67 Endosulfan II ND 67 Endosulfan sulfate ND 67 4,4'-DDD ND 67 Endrin aldehyde ND 67 4,4'-DDT ND 67 Chlordane (Technical) ND 610 alpha-Chlordane ND 34 gamma-Chlordane ND 34 Methoxychlor ND 340 Toxaphene ND 1,200 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX DO 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl DO 39-121 DO= Diluted Out ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 20.0 25 of 35 Batch QC Report Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Type: BLANK Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC784103 Batch#: 222211 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Analyte Result RL alpha-BHC ND 1.7 beta-BHC ND 1.7 gamma-BHC ND 1.7 delta-BHC ND 1.7 Heptachlor ND 1.7 Aldrin ND 1.7 Heptachlor epoxide ND 1.7 Endosulfan I ND 1.7 Dieldrin ND 3.3 4,4'-DDE ND 3.3 Endrin ND 3.3 Endosulfan II ND 3.3 Endosulfan sulfate ND 3.3 4,4'-DDD ND 3.3 Endrin aldehyde ND 3.3 4,4'-DDT ND 3.3 Chlordane (Technical) ND 30 alpha-Chlordane ND 1.7 gamma-Chlordane ND 1.7 Methoxychlor ND 17 Toxaphene ND 60 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 64 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl 79 39-121 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 21.0 26 of 35 Batch QC Report Organochlorine Pesticides Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8081A Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC784107 Batch#: 222211 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits gamma-BHC 13.40 10.21 76 44-121 Heptachlor 13.40 10.03 75 45-129 Aldrin 13.40 9.708 72 45-120 Dieldrin 13.40 10.63 # 79 49-131 Endrin 13.40 19.35 # 144 * 43-135 4,4'-DDT 13.40 9.616 72 37-141 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 82 44-125 Decachlorobiphenyl 71 39-121 #= CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements *= Value outside of QC limits; see narrative Page 1 of 1 22.0 27 of 35 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/06/15 Units: ug/Kg Received: 04/09/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/13/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/14/15 Batch#: 222211 Field ID: DU-03-A Lab ID: 265987-003 Type: SAMPLE Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.5 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 123 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 113 25-135 Field ID: DU-05-A Lab ID: 265987-005 Type: SAMPLE Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.7 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.7 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 101 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 81 25-135 Type: BLANK Lab ID: QC784103 Analyte Result RL Aroclor-1016 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1221 ND 19 Aroclor-1232 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1242 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1248 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1254 ND 9.5 Aroclor-1260 ND 9.5 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 84 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 100 25-135 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 25.0 28 of 35 Batch QC Report Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Type: LCS Diln Fac: 1.000 Lab ID: QC784104 Batch#: 222211 Matrix: Soil Prepared: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Analyzed: 04/14/15 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Aroclor-1016 167.0 185.5 b 111 64-140 Aroclor-1260 167.0 189.7 114 65-146 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 93 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 101 25-135 b= See narrative Page 1 of 1 26.0 29 of 35 Batch QC Report Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3550B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 8082 Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 222211 MSS Lab ID: 266047-003 Sampled: 04/11/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/13/15 Units: ug/Kg Prepared: 04/13/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/16/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Type: MS Lab ID: QC784105 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Aroclor-1016 <2.394 168.3 171.2 102 60-161 Aroclor-1260 63.13 168.3 181.4 70 42-166 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 79 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 71 25-135 Type: MSD Lab ID: QC784106 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Aroclor-1016 168.6 173.6 103 60-161 1 43 Aroclor-1260 168.6 193.4 77 42-166 6 51 Surrogate %REC Limits TCMX 75 46-141 Decachlorobiphenyl 68 25-135 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 27.1 30 of 35 Mercury by Cold Vapor AA Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: METHOD Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 7471A Analyte: Mercury Batch#: 222238 Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/06/15 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/09/15 Basis: dry Prepared: 04/14/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/14/15 Field ID Type Lab ID Result RL Moisture DU-03-A SAMPLE 265987-002 0.047 0.020 20% DU-05-A SAMPLE 265987-004 0.21 0.024 28% BLANK QC784212 ND 0.017 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 8.0 31 of 35 RCRA Metals Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Sampled: 04/06/15 Units: mg/Kg Received: 04/09/15 Basis: as received Prepared: 04/16/15 Diln Fac: 1.000 Analyzed: 04/16/15 Batch#: 222312 Field ID: DU-03-A Lab ID: 265987-003 Type: SAMPLE Analyte Result RL Arsenic 21 0.24 Barium 13 0.24 Cadmium 0.75 0.24 Chromium 86 0.24 Lead 15 0.24 Selenium ND 0.48 Silver ND 0.24 Field ID: DU-05-A Lab ID: 265987-005 Type: SAMPLE Analyte Result RL Arsenic 42 0.25 Barium 37 0.25 Cadmium 0.89 0.25 Chromium 92 0.25 Lead 140 0.25 Selenium ND 0.49 Silver ND 0.25 Type: BLANK Lab ID: QC784517 Analyte Result RL Arsenic ND 0.25 Barium ND 0.25 Cadmium ND 0.25 Chromium ND 0.25 Lead ND 0.25 Selenium ND 0.50 Silver ND 0.25 ND= Not Detected RL= Reporting Limit Page 1 of 1 9.1 32 of 35 Batch QC Report Mercury by Cold Vapor AA Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: METHOD Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 7471A Analyte: Mercury Diln Fac: 1.000 Field ID: ZZZZZZZZZZ Batch#: 222238 MSS Lab ID: 266071-001 Sampled: 04/14/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/14/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/14/15 Basis: as received Analyzed: 04/14/15 Type Lab ID MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim BS QC784213 0.2083 0.1780 85 80-120 BSD QC784214 0.2083 0.1755 84 80-120 1 20 MS QC784215 0.1229 0.2155 0.1042 -9 * 69-142 MSD QC784216 0.2155 0.1059 -8 * 69-142 2 36 *= Value outside of QC limits; see narrative RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 10.0 33 of 35 Batch QC Report RCRA Metals Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Matrix: Soil Batch#: 222312 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/16/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Analyzed: 04/16/15 Type: BS Lab ID: QC784518 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits Arsenic 50.00 42.16 84 80-120 Barium 50.00 43.40 87 80-120 Cadmium 50.00 44.11 88 80-120 Chromium 50.00 43.15 86 80-120 Lead 50.00 40.95 82 80-120 Selenium 50.00 44.86 90 80-120 Silver 50.00 41.48 83 80-120 Type: BSD Lab ID: QC784519 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Arsenic 50.00 43.80 88 80-120 4 20 Barium 50.00 45.83 92 80-120 5 20 Cadmium 50.00 46.19 92 80-120 5 20 Chromium 50.00 45.46 91 80-120 5 20 Lead 50.00 42.52 85 80-120 4 20 Selenium 50.00 46.98 94 80-120 5 20 Silver 50.00 43.68 87 80-120 5 20 RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 28.0 34 of 35 Batch QC Report RCRA Metals Lab #: 265987 Location: Kuawa Soccer Field Client: Myounghee Noh & Associates Prep: EPA 3050B Project#: 1927_3 Analysis: EPA 6010B Field ID: DU-03-A Batch#: 222312 MSS Lab ID: 265987-003 Sampled: 04/06/15 Matrix: Soil Received: 04/09/15 Units: mg/Kg Prepared: 04/16/15 Basis: dry Analyzed: 04/16/15 Diln Fac: 5.000 Type: MS Moisture: 20% Lab ID: QC784520 Analyte MSS Result Spiked Result %REC Limits Arsenic 25.73 62.38 89.33 102 69-120 Barium 16.42 62.38 88.29 115 35-154 Cadmium 0.9352 62.38 66.28 105 71-120 Chromium 108.0 62.38 195.3 140 * 57-133 Lead 19.23 62.38 83.85 104 53-125 Selenium <0.1748 62.38 62.20 100 61-120 Silver <0.08933 62.38 62.92 101 69-120 Type: MSD Moisture: 20% Lab ID: QC784521 Analyte Spiked Result %REC Limits RPD Lim Arsenic 61.82 87.56 100 69-120 1 35 Barium 61.82 86.99 114 35-154 1 36 Cadmium 61.82 65.16 104 71-120 1 25 Chromium 61.82 197.4 145 * 57-133 1 33 Lead 61.82 82.60 103 53-125 1 42 Selenium 61.82 59.50 96 61-120 4 33 Silver 61.82 60.99 99 69-120 2 22 *= Value outside of QC limits; see narrative RPD= Relative Percent Difference Page 1 of 1 29.0 35 of 35 Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 2b Executive Summary Soil Conditions at Kuawa Street New Fields Development Note: Attachments B, C and D are not included but are available for inspection upon request of P&R [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Environmental Studies and Consulting Services 200 Kohola St, Hilo, Hawaii USA 96720 • Tel 808.935.8727 99-1046 Iwaena St. 210A, Aiea, Hawaii USA 96701 • Tel 808.484.9214 myounghee@noh-associates.com • www.noh-associates.com VIA EMAIL [adrake@ssfm.com] September 23, 2015 Austen Drake, P.E. SSFM International, Inc. 99 Aupuni Street, Suite 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Drake: Subject: Executive Summary Soil Conditions at Kuawa Street New Fields Development Project Site, Hilo The subject site is approximately 9 acres comprised of Tax Map Keys (3) 2-2-032:003, :004, :008, :019, :087, and :088, bound by Kamehameha Avenue, Manono Street, and Kuawa Street (Figure 1). This executive summary provides a description of the existing soil conditions and potential impact on the soccer field development project. Two rounds of soil testing were conducted in 2015. After soil sampling and analysis, the analytical results were compared to the HDOH Tier 1 Environmental Action Levels (EAL) with unrestricted (residential) and restricted (commercial/industrial) land uses, above a nondrinking water resource located less than 150 meters from surface water (State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Fall 2011; revised Jan 2012). Initial Soil Sampling, March – April 2015 During a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the subject site was divided into four decision units (DU), and multi-increment sampling (MIS) at two depths, surface and near surface soil, was conducted to identify the presence of potentially hazardous soil contaminants (Attachment A, Figure 1). Sampling depths were surface soil at 0-6 inches below ground surface (bgs) and near-surface at 6-12 inches bgs. Each sample combined 50 soil increments, and a set of triplicate samples was collected from surface soil of DU-04 for quality control. Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories analyzed the samples as follows (Attachment B, Table 1): • TPH-Gasoline Diesel, and Oil by EPA Method 8015B • BTEX by EPA Method 8021B • Priority PAH by EPA Method 8270C-SIM • PCB by EPA Method 8082 • Organochlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8081A • RCRA 8 metals by EPA 6010B and 7471A TPH-Gasoline and BTEX were analyzed for the 6-12 inches bgs samples only; since these contaminants are volatile and are unlikely present in the surface soil. SSFM International – Executive Summary, Soil Conditions Kuawa Street New Fields Development, Hilo, Island of Hawaii 1927_3 2 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. Laboratory analytical results indicated that arsenic, lead, and benzo(a)pyrene were present, exceeding the HDOH Tier 1 EALs for unrestricted land use (Attachment B, Tables 2 and 3). Arsenic results were in the range of near to slightly higher than the HDOH Tier 1 Soil EAL. Based on recommendation from HDOH, SSFM International ordered arsenic bioaccessibility analysis on the original soil samples to determine the bioaccessible arsenic content in the fine soil fraction (<0.25 mm), using the solubility/ bioavailability research consortium (SBRC) - gastric preparation method [also known as physiologically based extraction test (PBET)] and EPA Method SW 6020. The analytical result indicated that the bioaccessible arsenic was within acceptable health risks for long-term exposure. Additional Soil Sampling, June 2015 The purpose of the additional sampling was to determine the location of lead and benzo(a)pyrene, as the MIS sampling and analysis “averaged” the concentrations throughout the DU-04. The DU-04 was split into four smaller DUs for MIS sampling and analyzed for lead and benzo(a)pyrene (Attachment A, Figure 2). Each sample combined 50 increments, except for DU-04-04. The samples for DU-04-04 had 33 increments since the size of this DU was relatively smaller than the other DUs. A set of triplicate samples was collected from surface soil in DU-04-01. Soil samples were collected using LaMotte Handheld Soil Samplers® from three depths, surface (0-6 inches bgs), near-surface (6-12 inches bgs), and sub-surface (12-24 inches bgs). Curtis & Tompkins Laboratories analyzed the samples as follows (Attachment B, Table 4): • Benzo(a)pyrene by EPA Method 8270-SIM • Lead by EPA Method 6010B Analytical results indicated that lead in soil exceeded the EAL for unrestricted and/or restricted land use in DU-04-01 (central area of the original DU-04, in the eastern third of the subject property) and DU-04-02 (northeast corner of the subject site). Benzo(a)pyrene was present in soil, exceeding the EAL for unrestricted land use in DU-04-01 (Attachment B, Table 5). Potential Impacts of Soil Conditions on the Kuawa Project The purpose of the project is to develop the site into athletic fields and appurtenant improvements for use by the Hilo community. Lead and benzo(a)pyrene were identified in the soil at DU-04-01. Due to the planned future use as sports field, the impacted soil should not be left in its current conditions. Hazard mitigation alternatives must be considered. Alternative 1 - No action with land use control This alternative involves no soil removal actions, leaving the site in its current conditions with restricted land use. To prevent potential public exposure to contaminants, the impacted area must be secured and the public notified. For site maintenance activities, such as tree removal or vegetation clearance, exposure control measures must be in place, such as soil cover as physical barrier. Alternative 2 - Excavate and dispose of impacted soil SSFM International – Executive Summary, Soil Conditions Kuawa Street New Fields Development, Hilo, Island of Hawaii 1927_3 3 Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. The scope of the project within the DU-04 contaminated section is to construct a youth baseball and soccer field. Grading is required to appropriately layout the fields in relation to the adjacent property elevations, roads, proposed parking lot and other improvements. In order for the contaminated soil to remain on site, it was generally understood that a minimum layer of 24 inches of clean soil would need to encapsulate it. The design team performed an analysis to determine where, based on the proposed grading scheme to make the improvements work, the 24 inches of fill would be provided. In areas where the fill layer was less than 24 inches, the volume of contaminated soil that needed to be removed to achieve the 24 inch layer was calculated. See attachment D for a graphic showing the area of “overexcavation.” The volume equates to approximately 1,300 cubic yards of material that would need to be trucked to the West Hawaii Landfill with a disposal cost of $85 per ton (tipping fee only without excavation, hauling, or monitoring costs) or roughly $138,000, assuming the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Test (TCLP) result is acceptable by the landfill. The total lead concentrations in soil ranged from 34 mg/kg to 2,300 mg/kg, and if the TCLP fails, off-island disposal would be required. All of these would add to the material tonnage and escalate the cost substantially, likely exceeding available funds allocated for the project and forcing the County to eliminate these improvements from the scope or terminate the project completely. If you have any questions, please reach us at 808-484-9214. Sincerely, Jessica Walsh Environmental Planner Attachments Attachment A Figures Figure 1. Soil Sampling Locations and Results (March – April 2015) Figure 2. Soil Sampling Locations and Results (June 2015) Attachment B Tables Table 1. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analytes (March - April 2015) Table 2. Soil Analytical Results for DU-01, DU-02, and DU-03 (March - April 2015) Table 3. Soil Analytical Results for DU-04 and DU-05 (March - April 2015) Table 4. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analytes for DU-04 (June 2015) Table 5. Summary of Soil Sampling and Analysis for DU-04 (June 2015) Attachment C Lab Reports Attachment D Draft Grading Plans SSFM International – Executive Summary, Soil Conditions Kuawa Street New Fields Development, Hilo, Island of Hawaii 01927 A Myounghee Noh & Associates, L.L.C. ATTACHMENT A FIGURES Myounghee Noh & Associates,L.L.C. 1927_3 Figure 5.June 2015 Soil Sampling Locations and Results Combined Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report TMK (3)2-2-032:003,:004,:008,:019,:087,:088 Hilo,Island of Hawaii July 2015 Page 40 DU-01 DU-02 DU-03 DU-05 (Stockpile) Kuawa Street Kamehameha Avenue ManonoStreetFormerPuhalaStreetFormerUluStreet N Wailoa Pond Analytical Results for the Contaminants Exceeding HDOH Tier 1 EAL Note: 1)The June2015roundsoil sampling and analysis was conducted for DU-04only. 2)DU-04-01throughDU-04-03:The DU boundaries were delineated based on the 1950's geophysical boundary beforethehousing andshops weredemolished. 3)DU-04-04:The DU boundarywas delineated based on the future planneduse (parking area). 4)Upper Range Value:Mean plus the standard deviation,evaluatedbythetriplicate sample results. 5)J =Estimated Value(LaboratoryFlag).Indicate that a certain substance is presentinasample,but the actualamount is an estimatedvalue.Thevalueisabove the methoddetection limitbutbelowthemethod reporting limit. Scale 100' DU-04 Criteria:HDOH Tier 1 EALwithunrestricted land use Unit:milligrams perkilogram(mg/kg) BOLD:Theresult exceeded the EAL. Acronyms and Abbreviations:bgs:belowground surface EAL:EnvironmentalActionLevel DU:Decision Unit HDOH:Hawaii Departmentof Health Legend: DUthat benzo(a)pyreneand/or lead results exceededHDOHTier 1 EAL. DU-04-02 DU-04-03 DU-04-04 DU-04-01 (excluding DU-05) Myounghee Noh & Associates,L.L.C. 1927_3 Figure 4.March-April 2015 Soil Sampling Locations and Results Combined Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report TMK (3)2-2-032:003,:004,:008,:019,:087,:088 Hilo,Island of Hawaii July 2015 Page 29 DU-01 DU-02 DU-03 DU-05 Kuawa Street Kamehameha Avenue ManonoStreetFormerPuhalaStreetFormerUluStreet N Wailoa Pond Analytical Results for the Contaminants Exceeding HDOH Tier 1 EAL Note: 1)DU-01 through DU-04:The DU boundaries were delineated based on the 1950's geophysical boundary beforethehousing andshops weredemolished. 2)DU-05:Stockpilediscovered during the site reconnaissance in March 2015. 3)Upper Range Value:Mean plusthe standard deviation,evaluatedbythetriplicate sample results. Scale 100' Criteria:HDOHTier 1 EAL with unrestrictedlanduse Unit:milligramsper kilogram (mg/kg)BOLD:The result exceeded the EAL. Acronyms andAbbreviations: bgs:below ground surface HDOH:Hawaii Department ofHealth DU:Decision Unit ND (00):Not Detected(ReportingLimit) EAL:Environmental Action Level DU-04 Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 3 Archaeological Report and Cultural Impact Assessment [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Cultural Assessment of the Proposed County of Hawai‘i Sports Complex along Kuawa Street TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088 Wai kea Ahupua‘a South Hilo District Island of Hawai‘i DRAFT VERSION Prepared By: Teresa Gotay, M.A. and Robert B. Rechtman, Ph.D. Prepared For: Austen Drake SSFM International 501 Sumner Street Suite 620 Honolulu, HI 96817 May 2015 ASM Project Number 24120.00 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Cultural Assessment of the Proposed County of Hawai‘i Sports Complex along Kuawa Street Wai Executive Summary ii AIS of TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087 and 088, Wai kea, South Hilo, Hawai‘i The proposed park development was supported by everyone contacted during the consultation effort that was conducted as a part of the current study. It is our conclusion that the conversion of the current study area by the County of Hawai‘i into a sports complex will not negatively impact any traditionally valued cultural or natural resources or constitutionally protected customary practices. Based on information shared during consultation, there are several recommendations and cultural consideration that are offered. The first of these is that the name of the proposed park should contain the appropriate geohistorical reference, that being Wai kea Town. Thus, we offer the name “Wai kea Town Sports Complex” for the proposed park; the name Kuawa is relatively new and historically unfamiliar. A second recommendation is that all proposed buildings and fixtures (e.g., concessions, restrooms, light posts, etc.) within the park be designed in such a way that their façades are visually reminiscent of late teens- to middle 1920s-era architecture that is seen in railway-related buildings. This can serve as a visual aid in the historical interpretation of former activities that took place within the study area and provide for the thematic integration of the rehabilitated flagpole feature (Site 30290). It is also recommended that interpretive signage be developed In partnership with interested organizations, and displayed at various locations within the proposed park that describe the following historical contexts: native Hawaiian kuleana use of the area, development and use of the Wai kea Rail Yard, land use history associated with the Japanese Daijingu Shrine, and history of Wai kea Town. As a result of the consultation with Terri Napeahi, it is the recommendation of the current study that an area in the southwestern portion of the proposed park, in the vicinity of the former Napeahi kuleana parcel, be set aside for an interpretive cultural display and for cultural practice, the specifics of which are expected to be developed through a partnership with family descendants of the former kuleana. Lastly, we suggest that some consideration be given to linking the proposed park with the Hilo Bayfront Trails project so that the preserved historical and cultural features and their associated interpretive displays are not only accessible to the park users, but also to the larger community and visitor populations. 6. Significance Evaluation, Site Treatment Recommendations, and Cultural Considerations 62 AIS of TMKs: (3) 2-2-032:003, 004, 008, 019, 087, and 088, Wai kea, South Hilo, Hawai‘i The proposed park development was supported by everyone contacted during the consultation effort that was conducted as a part of the current study. It is our conclusion that the conversion of the current study area by the County of Hawai‘i into a sports complex will not negatively impact any traditionally valued cultural or natural resources or constitutionally protected customary practices. In fact, if the recommendations presented below are implemented, the proposed development could provide for positive cultural and historical effects. Based on information shared during consultation, there are several recommendations and cultural consideration that are offered. The first of these is that the name of the proposed park should contain the appropriate geohistorical reference, that being Wai kea Town. Thus, we offer the name “Wai kea Town Sports Complex” for the proposed park; the name Kuawa is relatively new and historically unfamiliar. A second recommendation is that all proposed buildings and fixtures (e.g., concessions, restrooms, light posts, etc.) within the park be designed in such a way that their façades are visually reminiscent of late teens- to middle 1920s-era architecture that is seen in railway-related buildings. This can serve as a visual aid in the historical interpretation of former activities that took place within the study area and provide for the thematic integration of the rehabilitated flagpole feature (Site 30290). It is also recommended that interpretive signage be developed and displayed in partnership with interested organizations at various locations within the proposed park that describe the following historical contexts: native Hawaiian kuleana use of the area, development and use of the Wai kea Rail Yard, land use history associated with the Japanese Daijingu Shrine, and history of Wai kea Town. As a result of the consultation with Terri Napeahi, it is the recommendation of the current study that an area in the southwestern portion of the proposed park, in the vicinity of the former Napeahi kuleana parcel, be set aside for an interpretive cultural display and for cultural practice. The exact nature of this cultural area should be developed through a partnership with family descendants of the former kuleana. As determined by the family descendants, this display may feature the p haku (including Makaoku‘i ka lani) from Kuakaananuu Heiau that were historically retrieved and curated by the Napeahi family. Although this heiau was originally located on the shore opposite Moku‘ola, the activities that took place there were associated with the Napeahi ‘Ohana. Lastly, while not a full-blown recommendation, we suggest that some consideration be given to linking the proposed park with the Hilo Bayfront Trails project so that the preserved historical and cultural features and their associated interpretive displays are not only accessible to the park users, but also to the larger community and visitor populations. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Kuawa Street New Sports Fields Development Environmental Assessment APPENDIX 4 Traffic Impact Assessment Report [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] DRAFT Kuawa Street New Fields Development Traffic Impact Analysis Report Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i April 8, 2015 Prepared for County of Hawai‘i Prepared by Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 3 A. Geometric Configuration.............................................................................................................. 3 B. Volumes....................................................................................................................................... 3 1. 24-Hour Roadway Volumes ...................................................................................................... 3 2. Intersection Peak Hour Volumes .............................................................................................. 7 3. Transit Bus Volumes ................................................................................................................. 8 4. Pedestrians and Bicycle Volumes.............................................................................................. 8 C. Vehicle Level of Service ................................................................................................................ 9 1. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 9 2. Existing (2015) Intersection Conditions................................................................................... 10 III. FUTURE (2020) CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 12 A. Surrounding Area Conditions ..................................................................................................... 12 1. Roadway Construction ........................................................................................................... 12 2. Surrounding Developments .................................................................................................... 12 B. Geometric Conditions ................................................................................................................ 12 C. Future (2020) Volumes .............................................................................................................. 12 1. Background Growth ............................................................................................................... 12 2. Surrounding Area Development ............................................................................................. 12 3. Project Related Volumes ........................................................................................................ 13 4. Future (2020) With Project Volumes ...................................................................................... 16 D. Future (2020) Level of Service .................................................................................................... 16 1. Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................................... 16 IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 19 V. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 20 i Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International List of Figures Figure 1: Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Kamehameha Avenue between Kalanikoa Street and Manono Street, 24-Hour Volume Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Manono Street between Pi‘ilani Street and Kuawa Street, 24-Hour Volume Distribution ........... 6 Figure 4: Existing (2015) Weekend Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Future (2020) Without Project Weekend Peak Hour Volumes ................................................. 13 Figure 6: Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Project Related Trips ............................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Future (2020) With Project Weekend Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Sporting Events Occurring on Saturday March 14, 2015.............................................................. 7 Table 3: Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles and Pedestrian Volumes during the Two-Hour Peak Period .................. 7 Table 4: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ................................................................................. 9 Table 5: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections ................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................. 11 Table 7: Project Related Volumes Trip Generation Based on ITE Land Use Rates .................................... 14 Table 8: Project Related Volumes Trip Generation ................................................................................. 14 Table 9: Future (2020) Without Project Intersection Level of Service ..................................................... 17 Table 10: Future (2020) With Project Intersection Level of Service......................................................... 18 List of Appendices Appendix A – 24-Hour HDOT Traffic Data and Weekend Peak Period Traffic Counts Appendix B – Hele-On Bus Schedules and Maps Appendix C – Analysis Report Existing (2015) Conditions Appendix D – Analysis Report Future (2020) Without Project Conditions Appendix E – Analysis Report Future (2020) With Project Conditions ii Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The County of Hawai‘i, Department of Parks and Recreation, is proposing to develop two new recreation multi-use fields and associated improvements on an approximately eight-acre undeveloped parcel. It will be located in the southeast corner of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street across Kuawa Street from the Walter Victor Baseball Complex, Wong Stadium, and Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium (see location map in Figure 1). Access to the parking lots is proposed to be off of Kuawa Street. The proposed project is anticipated to occur in multiple design/construction phases. Phase 1 will include the construction of two new recreation multi-use fields. The first field will be capable of hosting adult level regulation games for football, soccer and rugby. The second field will be capable of hosting youth games for baseball, softball and soccer. In addition to the two fields, covered bleachers, team seating, appropriate fencing, drinking fountain and other amenities will also be provided. Phase 1 is anticipated to be constructed by the end of 2015. Additional park improvements completed in a subsequent phase or phases will include the installation of field lighting, comfort station, storage building, walkway, fencing and children’s playgrounds. Field lighting will include lighting for the multi-use fields, buildings, walkways and parking lots for nighttime play or use. The storage building will be provided for use by sport organizations and teams. An onsite path network will be provided for park users who want to walk or jog within the park. The entire park perimeter will be fenced to prevent unauthorized motor vehicle access onto the site. The designated area for the children’s playground equipment will include a system for two to five year olds and a system for five to 12 year olds. Subsequent improvements are anticipated to be constructed by the year 2020. This traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) will evaluate existing conditions and assess traffic impacts in the surrounding area as a result of the full-build conditions for this development. The TIAR was prepared in support of an Environmental Assessment. 1 Hilo Waiakea High Kapiolani Elementary School Hilo Bay Hilo International Airport Banyan Golf Course Liliuokalani Gardens Walter Victor Baseball Complex Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium Francis Wong Stadium Edith Kanakaole Multi-Purpose Stadium Wailoa Small Boat Harbor Mooheau Park University of Hawaii at Hilo Project Location K I LAU EA A V E KI N O O L E S T KAMEHAMEHA AVE KAMEHAMEHA AVE MANONO STKANOELEHUA AVELEILANI ST KEKUANAOA ST KALANIKOA STHINANO STBAYFRONT HWY LAUKAPU STPIILANI ST W KAWILI ST MOHOULI ST HUALANI ST E LANIKAULA ST U L U L A N I S T MAKAALA STMAMALAHOA HWYHUALALAI STW LANIKAULA ST KUAWA ST PARK RDBANYAN DR BANYAN DR PAUAHI STHOLOMUA STE MAKAALA STHOKU STKALANIANAOLE STKALILI STKAMANA ST WAILOA STKEAA STLONO ST AUP U N I S T KOHOLA ST K A P I O L A N I S TLANIHULI STKUKUAU STKUKILA STLIHIWAI STLOKELANI STE KAWILI ST LE I S T OLONA STPONAHAWAI STNOE ST E OHEA ST KUMUKOA ST MAMO ST MAILE ST OCEAN VIEW D R W OHEA STOHUOHU STBA N Y A N W A Y KE K E L A S T K A P I O L A N I S T E LANIKAULA ST RA I LRO AD AVE U L U L A N I S T E KAWILI ST Hilo Project LocationKona Waimea Puna Pahala Legend Study Intersections 0 0.1 0.2 Miles N Figure 1: Location Map Kuawa Street New Fields Development – Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Geometric Configuration Kamehameha Avenue (State Route 19) is a four-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with bike lanes and paved sidewalks on both sides of the street. It is a State owned road with the functional classification of urban principal arterial and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The road travels along the Hilo Bay coastline. The street name changes along its extent and is also called Kalaniana‘ole Street, Bayfront Highway, and Hawai‘i Belt Road in places. However, the street name adjacent to the project site is Kamehameha Avenue and is oriented in the east-west direction. There are no bus stops along Kamehameha Avenue adjacent to the project site. The closest bus stop is located along Banyan Drive less than a quarter of a mile north of the intersection of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street. The intersection of Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street is signalized with marked crosswalks on all legs. Dedicated left and right turn lanes exist along the Kamehameha Avenue approaches. Manono Street approaches have a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane with right-turn acceleration lane along Kamehameha Avenue. Manono Street is a two-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with paved shoulders and sidewalks on both sides of the street from Kamehameha Avenue to Pi‘ilani Street. It is owned by the County of Hawai‘i and had the functional classification of urban major collector and posted speed limit of 35 mph. This road is oriented in the north-south direction. Manono Street becomes Lihiwai Street north of Kamehameha Avenue. Kuawa Street is a two-lane, two-way, undivided roadway with no paved shoulders or sidewalks. There are no posted speed limit signs along the roadway and therefore the speed limit is 25 mph. It is a County of Hawai‘i owned road and oriented in the east-west direction, parallel to Kamehameha Avenue. A driveway connecting to the Wailoa Small Boat Harbor is located at the west leg of the intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street. The intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street is controlled with a stop sign on the Kuawa Street/driveway approaches. It has marked crosswalks on the west, north, and east legs. There are no dedicated turn lanes along any approach. The Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway is about 80-feet wide. The wider driveway allows for vehicles with boat trailers to make wide turn movements in and out of the boat harbor area. However, the wider driveway also has the consequence of allowing vehicle movements to occur in different areas. B. Volumes 1. 24-Hour Roadway Volumes In 2013, average daily traffic (ADT) during the weekdays along Kamehameha Avenue in the project area was 23,000 vehicles, based on Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Historical Traffic Station Maps. The ADT along Manono Street in the project area in 2013 was 10,700 vehicles. Table 1 provides the roadway weekday ADT along Kamehameha Avenue and along Manono Street. Appendix A includes the detailed 24-hour HDOT traffic count data. 3 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table 1: Roadway Traffic Volumes Roadway Location 2013 ADT (vehicles) Kamehameha Avenue Between Kalanikoa Street and Manono Street 23,000 Manono Street Between Pi‘ilani Street and Kuawa Street 10,700 Source: Historical Traffic Station Maps (HDOT) A graph of directional weekday hourly distribution along Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street are shown in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. Of the approximately 1,800 vehicles traveling along Kamehameha Avenue during the AM peak hour (7:15-8:15 AM), about 800 vehicles were traveling in the eastbound direction and 1,000 in the westbound direction. This equates to approximately 400 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) eastbound and 500 vphpl westbound. There were approximately 1,800 vehicles along Kamehameha Avenue during the PM peak hour (2:30-3:30 PM) with an equal eastbound and westbound split. This equates to approximately 900 vehicles per direction and 450 vphpl. This would suggest that there is additional roadway capacity along Kamehameha Avenue hours however traffic congestion does exist in the area during the peak hours. During the weekend peak hour, there were approximately 1,100 vehicles travelling along Kamehameha Avenue with an equal eastbound and westbound split. This equates to approximately 550 vehicles per direction and 275 vphpl which is much less than the weekday peaks. There were approximately 650 vehicles traveling along Manono Street during the AM peak hour (7:30- 8:30 AM) with an equal northbound and southbound split. This equates to approximately 325 vphpl. During the PM peak hour (4:00-5:00 PM), there were approximately 900 vehicles traveling along Manono Street. There were about 400 vehicles traveling in the northbound direction and 500 vehicles traveling in the southbound direction. During the weekend peak hour, there were approximately 750 vehicles traveling along Manono Street with an equal northbound and southbound split. This equates to approximately 375 vphpl which is equal to the weekday peak. Both of these are under the roadway capacity. 4 Figure 2: Kamehameha Avenue between Kalanikoa Street and Manono Street,24-Hour Volume DistributionKuawa Street New Fields Development – Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i Figure 3: Manono Street between Pi‘ilani Street and Kuawa Street,24-Hour Volume DistributionKuawa Street New Fields Development – Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International 2. Intersection Peak Hour Volumes Although there are higher traffic volumes along Kamehameha Avenue during the weekday peak hours, it was assumed that the magnitude of the project generated trips during the weekday peak hours will not have as much of an effect on the roadway and intersection operations as it will over the weekend. It is because of this that weekend intersection volumes were analyzed. Multi-modal turning movement traffic counts were taken at the study intersections on Saturday, March 14, 2015 during the midday peak period from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. This time period was selected after a review of sporting events occurring at the adjacent facilities (see Table 2). Intersection counts were taken during the weekend to account for the volume of traffic generated by the various sporting events for the existing facilities and projected uses of the Kuawa Street New Fields Development. Table 2: Sporting Events Occurring on Saturday March 14, 2015 Location Sporting Event Time Walter Victor Baseball Complex T-Ball Tournament 6:30 AM – 5:00 PM Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium Youth Volleyball Tournament 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Francis Wong Stadium High School BIIF Baseball Game 12:00 PM – 5:00 PM The turning movement traffic counts included classification of passenger vehicles, heavy vehicles (buses, trucks, vehicles with trailers), bicycles, and pedestrians. Table 3 provides the two-hour peak period volumes for the heavy vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at each intersection. The percentage of heavy vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians volumes are each less than 1% of the total intersection volumes. Table 3: Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles and Pedestrian Volumes during the Two-Hour Peak Period Intersection Heavy Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Volume % Volume % Volume % Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street/Lihiwai Street 20 0.5 24 0.6 23 0.6 Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway 4 0.2 14 0.9 13 0.8 The peak hour at the study intersections occurred from 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM. Peak hour turning movement volumes at each study intersection are presented in Figure 4. Appendix A includes the detailed turning movement classification count data. 7 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Figure 4: Existing (2015) Weekend Peak Hour Volumes 3. Transit Bus Volumes The Hawai‘i County transit system (Hele-On Bus) has three bus routes in the project area. The three bus routes are “Intra Hilo Waikea-Uka”, “Intra Hilo Kaumana”, and “Keaukaha.” Appendix B includes the detailed bus route schedule and map for these routes. The “Intra -Uka” bus route runs from 7:05 AM to 4:45 PM typically from Monday through Saturday and serves the downtown Hilo area from -Uka. There are five buses that travel in each direction throughout the day. There is one bus in each direction that passes the project site during the weekend peak hour. The “Intra-Hilo Kaumana” bus route runs from 7:15 AM to 5:20 PM. There are six buses that travel from downtown Hilo and five buses that travel from Kaumana. During the weekend peak hour, there are three buses that pass the project site. The average ridership of -Uka” combined with “Intra-Hilo Kaumana” is approximately 2,200 passengers per month. The “Keaukaha” bus route runs from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. There are nine buses that travel from Keaukaha and eight buses that travel from downtown Hilo throughout the day. During the weekend peak hour, there are no buses that pass the project site. The average ridership is approximately 2,950 passengers per month. 4. Pedestrians and Bicycle Volumes Pedestrian and bicycles were counted at the study intersections during the peak period. Over the two- hour peak period, there were 23 pedestrians and 24 bicycles counted at the intersection of Kamehameha 8 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Avenue and Manono Street/Lihiwai Street. At the intersection of Manono Street and Kuawa Street/Bayfront driveway, there were 13 pedestrians and 14 bicycles counted over the two-hour peak period. There are sidewalks and bike facilities in the area which make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel along the roadways. C. Vehicle Level of Service 1. Methodology Level of service (LOS) is a rating system used in traffic engineering to measure the effectiveness of roadway operating conditions. There are six LOS ranging from A to F. LOS A is defined as being the least interrupted flow conditions with little or no delays, whereas LOS F is defined as conditions where extreme delays exist. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2011) states that an “appropriate” LOS for an urban arterial, which is the classification of Kamehameha Avenue through the study area, is LOS C or D. An “appropriate” LOS for an urban collector, which is the classification of Manono Street is LOS D or better. Therefore, it is assumed that appropriate LOS for study intersections and turning movements should be LOS D or better. Intersection LOS and delay was determined for the weekend peak hour using HCS 2010 traffic analysis software. As stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (TRB, 2010), LOS for a two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection is determined by the measured control delay (see Table 4) and is defined for each minor movement, not for the intersection as a whole. Vehicles traveling along the major, free-flow road, of a TWSC intersection, proceed through with minimal delay. Those vehicles approaching the intersection along the minor movement are controlled by a stop sign and thus experience delay attributable to the volume of vehicles passing along the free-flow road and the gaps available. Table 4: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay (s/veh) LOS by v/c Ratio <=1.0 >1.0 A F B F C F D F E F >50 F F Source: Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2010) The LOS analysis for signalized intersections is based on average total vehicle delay based on the methodologies of the HCM (TRB, 2010) shown in Table 5. High numbers of vehicles passing the intersection, long cycle lengths, inappropriate signal phasing, or a poor signal progression can result in long delays, and consequently poor LOS. 9 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table 5: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay (s/veh) LOS by v/c Ratio <=1.0 >1.0 A F B F >20 and C F D F E F >80 F F Source: HCM (TRB, 2010) Another measure of intersection operation is the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio. This is the ratio of the volume of traffic utilizing the intersection compared to the maximum volume of vehicles that can be accommodated by the intersection during a specific period of time. A v/c ratio under 0.85 means the intersection is operating under capacity and excessive delays are not experienced. An intersection is operating near its capacity when v/c ratios range from 0.85 to 0.95. Unstable flows are expected when the v/c ratio is between 0.95 and 1.0. Any v/c ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 indicates that the intersection is operating at or above capacity which results in a LOS F per the HCM (TRB, 2010). A traffic movement can have a poor LOS but low v/c which suggests that the traffic volumes along that movement are low but have to wait a long time to make the movement. This is common for low volume protected turn movements or side streets that have to wait through a long cycle length for their split to come up. 2. Existing (2015) Intersection Conditions Existing (2015) LOS for the unsignalized and signalized intersection and traffic movements operated at an appropriate LOS D or better during the weekend peak hour (see Table 6). V/C for all movements were under capacity. Appendix C provides the detailed analysis reports for the Existing (2015) conditions. 10 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table 6: Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service Unsignalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway EB LTR 16.6 0.07 C WB LTR 15.7 0.23 C NB L 8.0 0.01 A SB L 8.2 0.04 A Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street Intersection 22.5 - C EB L 12.3 0.25 B T 16.0 0.27 B R 16.5 0.27 B WB L 13.4 0.10 B T 17.3 0.28 B R 15.2 0.05 B NB L 27.0 0.67 C TR 31.6 0.41 C SB L 30.7 0.14 C TR 42.2 0.88 D 11 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International III. FUTURE (2020) CONDITIONS Future conditions are assessed for Year 2020, the year of full build out. A. Surrounding Area Conditions 1. Roadway Construction From research into the Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP), no roadway construction is expected to be completed along Kamehameha Avenue, Manono Street or Kuawa Street near the project site by the year 2020. 2. Surrounding Developments From research into the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control library, no future developments are expected to be complete by the year 2020 that would affect the roadway geometrics or traffic volumes along Kamehameha Avenue, Manono Street and Kuawa Street in the project area. B. Geometric Conditions Currently, there is no defined driveway location for the existing project site. No dedicated turn lanes exist for the existing or adjacent properties along Kuawa Street. The project proposes to provide one parking lot serviced by multiple driveways off of Kuawa Street. C. Future (2020) Volumes 1. Background Growth The Hawai‘i Long Range Land Transportation Plan (LRLTP) TransCAD model (CH2MHill, 2013) projects a compounded annual increase of 1.3% along Kamehameha Avenue and 1.4% along Manono Street near the project area. The increase was applied to the existing traffic along Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street to get the forecasted volumes for Future (2020) Without Project conditions. 2. Surrounding Area Development No additional increase in traffic volumes were assumed for future developments in the surrounding area. Figure 5 shows the Future (2020) Without Project weekend peak hour volumes at the two study intersections. 12 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Figure 5: Future (2020) Without Project Weekend Peak Hour Volumes 3. Project Related Volumes Phase 1 includes the development of an adult multi-use field (soccer/football/rugby) and a youth multi- use field (baseball/softball/soccer) and will be constructed by 2015. Additional park improvements completed in subsequent phases will include field lighting, comfort station, storage building, walkway, fencing and children’s playgrounds. Subsequent improvements will be completed by 2020. Future conditions were analyzed for 2020 to assess the worst case impact on the area. a) Trip Generation The approximately eight-acre project site will be developed to include an adult multi-use field (soccer/football/rugby) and a youth multi-use field (baseball/softball/soccer) with field lighting, comfort station, storage building, walkway, fencing and children’s playgrounds. Trips generated from the proposed development were calculated using nationally accepted land use rates for a “County Park.” The Trip Generation, 8th Edition (ITE, 2008) defines a “County Park” as a park that is owned and operated by a county and includes ball fields, picnic facilities and open space which was determined to be applicable for use with this project. The trip generation rates during the AM and PM weekday peak hours were small, resulting in a negligible impact on intersection and roadway operations. Therefore, the trips generated for a Saturday peak hour of generator were calculated and used to account for the impact occurring during a weekend when sporting events are likely to occur at the project site and in the surrounding area. This also includes an anticipated higher use of the adjacent Wailoa Small Boat 13 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Harbor. The resulting trips (see Table 7) calculated for a Saturday during the peak hour of the project were still lower than expected for a park with two sports fields. Table 7: Project Related Volumes Trip Generation Based on ITE Land Use Rates Land Use [ITE Code] Quantity Trip Generation on Saturday Daily Peak Hour Volumes In Out Total County Park [412]* 8 acres 97 11 7 18 *Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition (ITE, 2008) For comparison, the (Fehr & Peers, 2013) devised a separate methodology for calculating trips generated based on the number of attendees for various sporting events (soccer, baseball, volleyball, and basketball). A soccer game was considered to generate the most traffic. Therefore, to account for the highest generating scenario, trip generation was calculated for two soccer games. For a multi-use field being used for a soccer game, it was assumed that each team would attract 47 people, including coaches, players, parents, and spectators. For a game that includes two teams and three officials, this results in a total of 97 people per game. With an estimated vehicle occupancy of 2.2 persons per vehicle, this results in a trip generation of 44 vehicles. It was also assumed that during the given peak hour, one game would end and another would begin. Therefore, for each field, two teams would arrive and two teams would depart during the period of one hour. To account for a worst-case scenario, it was assumed that both fields will be used at the same time each having one game end and another begin. This results in a total of 88 vehicles arriving and leaving during the peak hour (see Table 8). Table 8: Project Related Volumes Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Trip Generation* Peak Hour Volumes In Out Total Multi-Use Field (1st field) 1 Game 44 44 88 Multi-Use Field (2nd field) 1 Game 44 44 88 Total 88 88 176 *For assumption source: TIAR (Fehr & Peers, 2013) b) Trip Distribution/Assignment Trip distribution matches trip maker’s origins and destinations to determine the number of trips originating in each region. Traffic assignment involves the selection of routes between the specified origins and destinations. Origin-destination data taken from the Hawai‘i LRLTP suggests distribution of trips in the area in relation to the project site as: 7% east, 19% immediately south, 33% west, and 41% further south. It was determined that this appropriately reflects the breakdown of residential development in the area and therefore vehicles generated by the proposed project will have a similar distribution. Figure 6 illustrates this project trip distribution. Figure 7 shows the forecast project related trips at the two study intersections during the weekend peak hour. 14 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Figure 6: Trip Distribution Figure 7: Project Related Trips 15 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International 4. Future (2020) With Project Volumes Project related trips were added to the Future (2020) Without Project volumes to calculate the Future (2020) With Project volumes (see Figure 8). The impact of the project related volumes resulted in less than a 2% increase in traffic at each study intersection in comparison to Future (2020) Without Project traffic volumes during the weekend peak hour. Figure 8: Future (2020) With Project Weekend Peak Hour Volumes D. Future (2020) Level of Service 1. Intersection LOS a) Future (2020) Without Project LOS Future (2020) Without Project LOS for the unsignalized and signalized intersection and movements continued to operate at an appropriate LOS D or better during the weekend peak hour with all v/c under capacity (see Table 9). Appendix D provides the detailed analysis reports for the Future (2020) Without Project conditions. 16 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table 9: Future (2020) Without Project Intersection Level of Service Unsignalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway EB LTR 17.8 0.08 C WB LTR 16.7 0.25 C NB L 8.1 0.01 A SB L 8.3 0.04 A Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street Intersection 23.1 - C EB L 13.2 0.29 B T 17.3 0.30 B R 17.9 0.30 B WB L 14.5 0.12 B T 18.9 0.31 B R 16.4 0.05 B NB L 26.5 0.70 C TR 30.6 0.41 C SB L 29.7 0.15 C TR 41.5 0.88 D b) Future (2020) With Project LOS Future (2020) With Project LOS for the unsignalized and signalized intersection and movements continued to operate at an appropriate LOS D or better during the weekend peak hour with all v/c under capacity (see Table 10). Some delay and v/c ratios slightly increased but not sufficient to change the LOS from Future (2020) Without Project conditions. Appendix E provides the detailed analysis reports for the Future (2020) With Project conditions. 17 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International Table 10: Future (2020) With Project Intersection Level of Service Unsignalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Manono Street at Kuawa Street/Bayfront driveway EB LTR 21.1 0.09 C WB LTR 21.6 0.43 C NB L 8.1 0.01 A SB L 8.4 0.08 A Signalized Intersection App Mvmt Saturday Midday Delay v/c LOS Kamehameha Avenue at Manono Street Intersection 23.6 - C EB L 13.9 0.29 B T 18.2 0.31 B R 19.5 0.36 B WB L 15.1 0.14 B T 19.7 0.32 B R 17.1 0.06 B NB L 25.9 0.76 C TR 29.8 0.41 C SB L 29.7 0.14 C TR 41.5 0.88 D 18 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The two multi-use recreational fields and associated improvements are being proposed on an undeveloped, approximately eight-acre, project site by the County of Hawai‘i, Department of Parks and Recreation. Access to the proposed facility parking lots will be off of Kuawa Street. It is anticipated that the largest traffic impact on the area will result from trips generated during a Saturday mid-day as a result of multiple sporting events. Although there are higher traffic volumes along Kamehameha Avenue during the weekday peak hours, it was assumed that the magnitude of the project generated trips during the weekday peak hours will not have as much of an effect on the roadway and intersection operations as the weekend. Existing (2015) intersection operations at Kamehameha Avenue and Manono Street and at Manono Street and Kuawa Street/Wailoa Small Boat Harbor driveway during the weekend peak hour have appropriate LOS D or better conditions. No surrounding area developments or roadway construction are anticipated by 2020. With the increase in background traffic, Future (2020) Without Project intersection operations at the two study intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or better. Trips generated from the proposed project were calculated for the weekend peak hour to assess the largest vehicular impact in the area. With those trips added to Future (2020) Without Project conditions, there were a slight increase in delay and v/c ratio but the intersection operations continued to operate at LOS D or better for the Future (2020) With Project conditions. Multi-modal access is good with bus, pedestrian walkways, and bike routes all available to the site. In conclusion, the two multi-use recreational fields are anticipated to have minimal impact to traffic in the surrounding roadway network following the full build-out in 2020. The impact following the Phase 1 development in 2015 will be negligible as well. 19 Kuawa Street New Fields Development TIAR SSFM International V. REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011. CH2M Hill. State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Kaua‘i Long Range Land Transportation Plan, TransCAD model, 2013. Fehr & Peers. , December 23, 2013. Hawai‘i County Mass Transit Agency. Hele-On Bus Map and Schedule, Accessed March 2015, <http://www.heleonbus.org>. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 8th Edition: An ITE Informational Report, December 2008. Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC). EA and EIS Online Library, Accessed January 2015, <http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/default.aspx>. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Federal-Aid Functional Classification Update: Policy and Procedures, 2012. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Historical Traffic Station Maps. State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Statewide Transportation Improvements Program, Revised October 27, 2014, <http://hawaii.gov/dot/highways/STIP>. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2010 Edition. 20 Appendix A 24-Hour HDOT Traffic Data and Weekend Peak Period Traffic Counts Island: Hawaii Area: Pahoa Traffic Data Service Traffic Station Sketch N Section ID/Station #: B71001900093 1 Meter #File Name GPS1. bg75 D1106015_B71001900093 19.72255, -155.0694D1106016_B71001900093 Station Description: Kamehameha Ave: Kalanikoa St to Manono St Survey Beginning Date/Time:11/6/13 @ 0000 Survey Ending Date/Time:11/7/13 @ 2400 Survey Method:Road Tube Data Type:Vol Survey Crew:LM V2 Sketch Updated:By:SR Remarks:1318 FACILITY NAME JURI FUNCCLASS AREATYPE ROUTENO. MILE Kamehameha Ave 14 0019 D1= Direction to End D1: Manono St / Palani Rd (Rte 190)D2= Direction to Begin D2: Kalanikoa St / ent to Kuhio Wharf D2 D1 Kamehameha Ave Kalanikoa St Manono St Run Date:Hawaii Department of Transportation2014/05/30Highways Planning Survey SectionFinal AADT:Route No:2050019TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALHighways DivisionProgram Count - Summary2013Site ID:Functional Class:B71001900093URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - OTHERKamehameha Ave - Kalanikoa St to Manono StLocation:Counter Type:DIR 1:+MPTube HawaiiTown:Count Type:VOLUMEDIR 2:-MPDIR 1DATE :11/06/201306:00-06:1512:00-12:1512:00-12:1506:00-06:15131277702211761833594141472519306:15-06:3012:15-12:3012:15-12:3006:15-06:30111493952091551483034251882521606:30-06:4512:30-12:4512:30-12:4506:30-06:4512101051082151391743134112132219606:45-07:0012:45-01:0012:45-01:0006:45-07:0014152061552211071092164003612917907:00-07:1501:00-01:1501:00-01:1507:00-07:1513141461742461321032354723202722607:15-07:3001:15-01:3001:15-01:3007:15-07:30420229214214122952174484432423407:30-07:4501:30-01:4501:30-01:4507:30-07:451511312190217110661764485022623107:45-08:0001:45-02:0001:45-02:0007:45-08:005531723422781771584255511019808:00-08:1502:00-02:1502:00-02:1508:00-08:15342661932218176157402459718108:15-08:3002:15-02:3002:15-02:3008:15-08:309222120321995711664024241118308:30-08:4502:30-02:4502:30-02:4508:30-08:459422420421964891534474281322808:45-09:0002:45-03:0002:45-03:0008:45-09:0010620721723272771494234241619109:00-09:1503:00-03:1503:00-03:1509:00-09:1511219917324764541184473721320009:15-09:3003:15-03:3003:15-03:3009:15-09:302281961572215742994313533021009:30-09:4503:30-03:4503:30-03:4509:30-09:4526923117724255601154534083521109:45-10:0003:45-04:0003:45-04:0009:45-10:0020101922072254237794263993020110:00-10:1504:00-04:1504:00-04:1510:00-10:152582102142192936654414243322210:15-10:3004:15-04:3004:15-04:3010:15-10:3036131901952103233654063854919610:30-10:4504:30-04:4504:30-04:4510:30-10:4530151851932274037774503784522310:45-11:0004:45-05:0004:45-05:0010:45-11:0046312022532543032624554557720111:00-11:1505:00-05:1505:00-05:1511:00-11:1549412252142172925543734399015611:15-11:3005:15-05:3005:15-05:3011:15-11:30575318819819925275237338611017411:30-11:4505:30-05:4505:30-05:4511:30-11:4536502231631822417413593868617711:45-12:0005:45-06:0005:45-06:0011:45-12:009776208221189182341366429173177TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM COMMUTER PERIOD (15:00-19:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)DIRECTIONAL PEAKDIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM PERIOD (12:00-24:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)6-HR, 12-HR, 24-HR PERIODSTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM 6-HR PERIOD (06:00-12:00)PEAK HR TIMEAM 12-HR PERIOD (00:00-12:00)PEAK HR VOLUMEPM 6-HR PERIOD (12:00-18:00)DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM 12-HR PERIOD (12:00-24:00)PEAK HR TIME24 HOUR PERIODPEAK HR VOLUMED (%)DIR 1112457.4907:15 AM to 08:15 AM1124112457.4988901:00 PM to 02:00 PM889DIR 283142.5107:45 AM to 08:45 AM83483142.5101:00 PM to 02:00 PM90419558.20100.008.20DIR 182246.7803:15 PM to 04:15 PM84488949.58DIR 14,8525,4254,8046,58312,00850.35DIR 24,4224,8555,2936,98411,83949.65DIR 293553.2203:00 PM to 04:00 PM93590450.42Total9,27410,28010,09713,56723,847100.00AM COMMUTER PERIOD (05:00-09:00)AM PERIOD (00:00-12:00)NON-COMMUTER PERIOD (09:00-15:00)17577.37100.0017937.52100.0007:15 AM to 08:15 AM07:15 AM to 08:15 AM01:00 PM to 02:00 PM03:00 PM to 04:00 PM01:00 PM to 02:00 PM9041955100.001793 Run Date:Hawaii Department of Transportation2014/05/30Highways Planning Survey SectionFinal AADT:Route No:2050019TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALHighways DivisionProgram Count - Summary2013Site ID:Functional Class:B71001900093URBAN:PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - OTHERKamehameha Ave - Kalanikoa St to Manono StLocation:Counter Type:DIR 1:+MPTube HawaiiTown:Count Type:VOLUMEDIR 2:-MPDIR 1DATE :11/07/201306:00-06:1512:00-12:1512:00-12:1506:00-06:15151266541921521683204001202720806:15-06:3012:15-12:3012:15-12:3006:15-06:309991862291561823384011771817206:30-06:4512:30-12:4512:30-12:4506:30-06:451151151011671411302713292161616206:45-07:0012:45-01:0012:45-01:0006:45-07:001116136121233108962044382572720507:00-07:1501:00-01:1501:00-01:1507:00-07:15117184144232103972004203281818807:15-07:3001:15-01:3001:15-01:3007:15-07:3013421018618290871774003961721807:30-07:4501:30-01:4501:30-01:4507:30-07:451010244195187101931944194392023207:45-08:0001:45-02:0001:45-02:0007:45-08:0041024021619398961943874561419408:00-08:1502:00-02:1502:00-02:1508:00-08:15101022817019588831713753982018008:15-08:3002:15-02:3002:15-02:3008:15-08:3010717717822488691574523551722808:30-08:4502:30-02:4502:30-02:4508:30-08:451161721222414550954902941724908:45-09:0002:45-03:0002:45-03:0008:45-09:0010518616522169681374503511522909:00-09:1503:00-03:1503:00-03:1509:00-09:1517817516719657741314203422522409:15-09:3003:15-03:3003:15-03:3009:15-09:3015918015620854521064243362421609:30-09:4503:30-03:4503:30-03:4509:30-09:45211316916521554611154293343421409:45-10:0003:45-04:0003:45-04:0009:45-10:002561571652213938774203223119910:00-10:1504:00-04:1504:00-04:1510:00-10:1517111831531963034644053362820910:15-10:3004:15-04:3004:15-04:3010:15-10:3015191811851803729663853663420510:30-10:4504:30-04:4504:30-04:4510:30-10:4537122071822283233654663894923810:45-11:0004:45-05:0004:45-05:0010:45-11:0052282031912122426503923948018011:00-11:1505:00-05:1505:00-05:1511:00-11:1542321841891972026464063737420911:15-11:3005:15-05:3005:15-05:3011:15-11:3048391681891942538633713578717711:30-11:4505:30-05:4505:30-05:4511:30-11:45584814619017524234734133610616611:45-12:0005:45-06:0005:45-06:0011:45-12:005764186197172141226354383121182TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM COMMUTER PERIOD (15:00-19:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)DIRECTIONAL PEAKDIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM PERIOD (12:00-24:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)6-HR, 12-HR, 24-HR PERIODSTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM 6-HR PERIOD (06:00-12:00)PEAK HR TIMEAM 12-HR PERIOD (00:00-12:00)PEAK HR VOLUMEPM 6-HR PERIOD (12:00-18:00)DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM 12-HR PERIOD (12:00-24:00)PEAK HR TIME24 HOUR PERIODPEAK HR VOLUMED (%)DIR 192254.5907:15 AM to 08:15 AM92292254.5988602:00 PM to 03:00 PM886DIR 276745.4107:15 AM to 08:15 AM76776745.4102:00 PM to 03:00 PM88116897.66100.007.66DIR 185350.3803:00 PM to 04:00 PM85393051.32DIR 14,1884,7174,8846,53311,25050.99DIR 23,8674,2574,8906,55510,81249.01DIR 284049.6203:00 PM to 04:00 PM84088248.68Total8,0558,9749,77413,08822,062100.00AM COMMUTER PERIOD (05:00-09:00)AM PERIOD (00:00-12:00)NON-COMMUTER PERIOD (09:00-15:00)16937.67100.0018128.21100.0007:15 AM to 08:15 AM07:15 AM to 08:15 AM02:00 PM to 03:00 PM03:00 PM to 04:00 PM02:15 PM to 03:15 PM8811689100.001767 Island: Hawaii Area: Hilo Traffic Data Service Traffic Station Sketch N Section ID/Station #:B71277000332 1 Meter #File Name GPS1. bw89 D0718009_B71277000332 19.72071, -155.07D0718010_B71277000332 Station Description: Manono Street: Piilani Street to Kuawa Street Survey Beginning Date/Time:7/18/13 @ 0000 Survey Ending Date/Time:7/19/13 @ 2400 Survey Method:Road Tube Data Type:Class Survey Crew:LM C1B Sketch Updated:By:SR Remarks: FACILITY NAME JURI FUNCCLASS AREATYPE ROUTENO. MILE Manono Street 17 2770 D1= Direction to End D1: Kuawa Street / Kamehameha AvenueD2= Direction to Begin D2: Piilani Street / Haihai Street D2 D1 Manono Street Piilani Street Kuawa Street Run Date:Hawaii Department of Transportation2014/05/29Highways Planning Survey SectionFinal AADT:Route No:103002770TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALHighways DivisionProgram Count - Summary2013Site ID:Functional Class:B71277000332URBAN:COLLECTORManono Street - Piilani Street to Kuawa StLocation:Counter Type:DIR 1:+MPTube HawaiiTown:Count Type:CLASSDIR 2:-MPDIR 1DATE :07/18/201306:00-06:1512:00-12:1512:00-12:1506:00-06:15793333114326294223661610906:15-06:3012:15-12:3012:15-12:3006:15-06:3051042431144576121222851510806:30-06:4512:30-12:4512:30-12:4506:30-06:451283036115556311820966209406:45-07:0012:45-01:0012:45-01:0006:45-07:0067576711639701092261241311007:00-07:1501:00-01:1501:00-01:1507:00-07:15146451118315283226115510807:15-07:3001:15-01:3001:15-01:3007:15-07:30127169125345589245140312007:30-07:4501:30-01:4501:30-01:4507:30-07:45559887101274572197185109607:45-08:0001:45-02:0001:45-02:0007:45-08:00477584111383371195159118408:00-08:1502:00-02:1502:00-02:1508:00-08:15597579100363874185154148508:15-08:3002:15-02:3002:15-02:3008:15-08:3022837710930285819116048208:30-08:4502:30-02:4502:30-02:4508:30-08:45237681113314273220157510708:45-09:0002:45-03:0002:45-03:0008:45-09:0044807513723204323615589909:00-09:1503:00-03:1503:00-03:1509:00-09:1541768112616203622315759709:15-09:3003:15-03:3003:15-03:3009:15-09:3021888011720163619816838109:30-09:4503:30-03:4503:30-03:4509:30-09:4554878912422295120717698309:45-10:0003:45-04:0003:45-04:0009:45-10:00648398132212142214181108210:00-10:1504:00-04:1504:00-04:1510:00-10:15348779134231942251166711710:15-10:3004:15-04:3004:15-04:3010:15-10:309085831089142320416899610:30-10:4504:30-04:4504:30-04:4510:30-10:45838098138131124237178119910:45-11:0004:45-05:0004:45-05:0010:45-11:001678312311769152292062311211:00-11:1505:00-05:1505:00-05:1511:00-11:151511109103876612171212268411:15-11:3005:15-05:3005:15-05:3011:15-11:30178811189271118153199256111:30-11:4505:30-05:4505:30-05:4511:30-11:451518921261089211161218335311:45-12:0005:45-06:0005:45-06:0011:45-12:002616871076179161301944269TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM COMMUTER PERIOD (15:00-19:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)DIRECTIONAL PEAKDIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM PERIOD (12:00-24:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)6-HR, 12-HR, 24-HR PERIODSTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM 6-HR PERIOD (06:00-12:00)PEAK HR TIMEAM 12-HR PERIOD (00:00-12:00)PEAK HR VOLUMEPM 6-HR PERIOD (12:00-18:00)DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM 12-HR PERIOD (12:00-24:00)PEAK HR TIME24 HOUR PERIODPEAK HR VOLUMED (%)DIR 133150.3007:30 AM to 08:30 AM33136543.7143212:45 PM to 01:45 PM434DIR 232749.7007:30 AM to 08:30 AM32747056.2912:30 PM to 01:30 PM4746586.33100.008.03DIR 142446.0404:00 PM to 05:00 PM42442446.04DIR 11,8222,0022,2362,8164,81846.33DIR 21,9672,1142,7173,4685,58253.67DIR 249753.9603:45 PM to 04:45 PM51249753.96Total3,7894,1164,9536,28410,400100.00AM COMMUTER PERIOD (05:00-09:00)AM PERIOD (00:00-12:00)NON-COMMUTER PERIOD (09:00-15:00)9218.86100.009218.86100.0007:30 AM to 08:30 AM10:45 AM to 11:45 AM12:30 PM to 01:30 PM04:00 PM to 05:00 PM04:00 PM to 05:00 PM474835100.00906 Run Date:Hawaii Department of Transportation2014/05/29Highways Planning Survey SectionFinal AADT:Route No:103002770TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTAL TIME-AM DIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 2 TOTALTIME-PMDIR 1 DIR 2 TOTALHighways DivisionProgram Count - Summary2013Site ID:Functional Class:B71277000332URBAN:COLLECTORManono Street - Piilani Street to Kuawa StLocation:Counter Type:DIR 1:+MPTube HawaiiTown:Count Type:CLASSDIR 2:-MPDIR 1DATE :07/19/201306:00-06:1512:00-12:1512:00-12:1506:00-06:15892227114556812320349178906:15-06:3012:15-12:3012:15-12:3006:15-06:3062323411178701482076689606:30-06:4512:30-12:4512:30-12:4506:30-06:458433421074769116229751212206:45-07:0012:45-01:0012:45-01:0006:45-07:0035474011561591202088789307:00-07:1501:00-01:1501:00-01:1507:00-07:15610475611656641202201031610407:15-07:3001:15-01:3001:15-01:3007:15-07:30325658114407111121011459607:30-07:4501:30-01:4501:30-01:4507:30-07:45258188113567312920516979207:45-08:0001:45-02:0001:45-02:0007:45-08:003583749940498918715788808:00-08:1502:00-02:1502:00-02:1508:00-08:1505627711139407920013958908:15-08:3002:15-02:3002:15-02:3008:15-08:30205610010340458520115629808:30-08:4502:30-02:4502:30-02:4508:30-08:4524856910925356019315468408:45-09:0002:45-03:0002:45-03:0008:45-09:00408699105334376215185411009:00-09:1503:00-03:1503:00-03:1509:00-09:1550879013033326521917758909:15-09:3003:15-03:3003:15-03:3009:15-09:3013888910850368618217747409:30-09:4503:30-03:4503:30-03:4509:30-09:455472120117334073228192911109:45-10:0003:45-04:0003:45-04:0009:45-10:00808411312142307221719789610:00-10:1504:00-04:1504:00-04:1510:00-10:156471951213341742401661011910:15-10:3004:15-04:3004:15-04:3010:15-10:301067591144273259242166169810:30-10:4504:30-04:4504:30-04:4510:30-10:4597731091182923522241821610610:45-11:0004:45-05:0004:45-05:0010:45-11:0095921111364028682392031410311:00-11:1505:00-05:1505:00-05:1511:00-11:15881031041091727442162071610711:15-11:3005:15-05:3005:15-05:3011:15-11:30111311212080142337148232246811:30-11:4505:30-05:4505:30-05:4511:30-11:45181810613399192645181239368211:45-12:0005:45-06:0005:45-06:0011:45-12:00262711095991415291662055367TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM COMMUTER PERIOD (15:00-19:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)DIRECTIONAL PEAKDIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM PERIOD (12:00-24:00)TWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM - PEAK HR TIMEPM - PEAK HR TIMEAM - PEAK HR VOLUMEPM - PEAK HR VOLUMEAM - K FACTOR (%)PM - K FACTOR (%)AM - D (%)PM - D (%)6-HR, 12-HR, 24-HR PERIODSTWO DIRECTIONAL PEAKAM 6-HR PERIOD (06:00-12:00)PEAK HR TIMEAM 12-HR PERIOD (00:00-12:00)PEAK HR VOLUMEPM 6-HR PERIOD (12:00-18:00)DIRECTIONAL PEAKPM 12-HR PERIOD (12:00-24:00)PEAK HR TIME24 HOUR PERIODPEAK HR VOLUMED (%)DIR 128945.5808:00 AM to 09:00 AM28943148.8143111:00 AM to 12:00 PM431DIR 234554.4208:00 AM to 09:00 AM34545251.1910:45 AM to 11:45 AM4686345.74100.007.99DIR 142645.0804:00 PM to 05:00 PM42642645.08DIR 11,7631,9262,2813,2025,12846.42DIR 22,0342,1802,6993,7385,91853.58DIR 251954.9204:00 PM to 05:00 PM51951954.92Total3,7974,1064,9806,94011,046100.00AM COMMUTER PERIOD (05:00-09:00)AM PERIOD (00:00-12:00)NON-COMMUTER PERIOD (09:00-15:00)9458.56100.009458.56100.0008:00 AM to 09:00 AM11:00 AM to 12:00 PM11:00 AM to 12:00 PM04:00 PM to 05:00 PM04:00 PM to 05:00 PM452883100.00883 2014/05/28Run Date: Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division Highways Planning Survey Section Vehicle Classification Data Summary 2013 Location: Manono Street - Piilani Street to Kuawa St Functional Classification: 17 URBAN:COLLECTOR Date From: Date To:2013/07/19 23:45 2013/07/18 0:00 REPORT TOTALS - 48 HOURS RECORDED VOLUME % NUMBER OF AXLES Cycles 244 PC 30788 2A-4T HEAVY VEHICLES Bus 185 SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2A-6T 114 3A-SU 48 4A-SU 12 SINGLE-TRAILER TRUCKS 4A-ST 84 5A-ST 6A-ST MULTI-TRAILER TRUCKS 5A-MT 6A-MT 0 7A-MT HEAVY VEHICLE TOTALS 507 CLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS (A) 43032 (B) UNCLASSIFIED VEHICLES TOTALS AXLE CORRECTION FACTOR (A/C) =0.997 ROADTUBE EQUIVALENT(B/2) =21516 (C) PEAK HOUR VOLUME : PEAK HOUR TRUCK VOLUME % TOTAL PEAK HOUR VOLUME 24 HOUR TRUCK VOLUME AADT % OF AADT HPMS K-FACTOR (PEAK/AADT) (ITEM 66) 10300 11492 50 14 (65A-1) COMBINATION (TYPE 8-13)2 0.21% 16 9.17% SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS (TYPE 4-7)1 0.11% 75 9.17% (65B-1) (65A-2) (65B-2) 945 0.57% 71.78% 26.79% 122 15394 5746 0.35% 0.27% 0.07% 0.01% 0.10% 0.05% 74 57 16 3 21 10 0 0 0 LIGHT VEHICLE TOTALS 21262 99.14%42525 2013/07/19 16:00 0.73% 0.16% 2 0.00% 0 0 100.00% 183 21445 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.85% 0.00% Site ID: B71277000332 Route No: 2770 Town: Hawaii Direction:+MP File Name : 150314 SAT Manono_KamAve Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 3/14/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger - Bicycle - Heavy Vehicle Lihiwai Street Southbound Kamehameha Avenue Westbound Manono Street Northbound Kamehameha Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 11:30 AM 9 32 34 1 76 17 102 13 1 133 40 31 13 3 87 31 131 47 0 209 505 11:45 AM 18 28 34 1 81 9 101 3 1 114 50 24 13 1 88 33 96 63 0 192 475 Total 27 60 68 2 157 26 203 16 2 247 90 55 26 4 175 64 227 110 0 401 980 12:00 PM 5 33 37 0 75 11 113 9 0 133 36 25 19 1 81 24 96 47 1 168 457 12:15 PM 13 40 36 0 89 5 119 9 2 135 49 21 24 0 94 35 122 41 0 198 516 12:30 PM 7 47 39 1 94 11 82 2 0 95 46 32 15 0 93 36 109 43 0 188 470 12:45 PM 16 32 28 2 78 13 90 11 1 115 25 25 10 0 60 26 127 45 0 198 451 Total 41 152 140 3 336 40 404 31 3 478 156 103 68 1 328 121 454 176 1 752 1894 01:00 PM 24 34 42 1 101 8 87 8 0 103 38 27 12 0 77 36 106 37 1 180 461 01:15 PM 19 41 32 1 93 9 90 4 1 104 26 29 6 2 63 48 131 30 1 210 470 Grand Total 111 287 282 7 687 83 784 59 6 932 310 214 112 7 643 269 918 353 3 1543 3805 Apprch %16.2 41.8 41 1 8.9 84.1 6.3 0.6 48.2 33.3 17.4 1.1 17.4 59.5 22.9 0.2 Total %2.9 7.5 7.4 0.2 18.1 2.2 20.6 1.6 0.2 24.5 8.1 5.6 2.9 0.2 16.9 7.1 24.1 9.3 0.1 40.6 Passenger 111 284 278 7 680 81 774 59 6 920 309 211 110 7 637 265 908 348 3 1524 3761 % Passenger 100 99 98.6 100 99 97.6 98.7 100 100 98.7 99.7 98.6 98.2 100 99.1 98.5 98.9 98.6 100 98.8 98.8 Bicycle 0 3 2 0 5 2 4 0 0 6 0 3 2 0 5 4 2 2 0 8 24 % Bicycle 0 1 0.7 0 0.7 2.4 0.5 0 0 0.6 0 1.4 1.8 0 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.6 0 0.5 0.6 Heavy Vehicle 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 3 0 11 20 % Heavy Vehicle 0 0 0.7 0 0.3 0 0.8 0 0 0.6 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.9 0.8 0 0.7 0.5 SSFM International, Inc 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 (808) 531-1308 File Name : 150314 SAT Manono_KamAve Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 3/14/2015 Page No : 2 Lihiwai Street Southbound Kamehameha Avenue Westbound Manono Street Northbound Kamehameha Avenue Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:30 AM to 01:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 9 32 34 1 76 17 102 13 1 133 40 31 13 3 87 31 131 47 0 209 505 11:45 AM 18 28 34 1 81 9 101 3 1 114 50 24 13 1 88 33 96 63 0 192 475 12:00 PM 5 33 37 0 75 11 113 9 0 133 36 25 19 1 81 24 96 47 1 168 457 12:15 PM 13 40 36 0 89 5 119 9 2 135 49 21 24 0 94 35 122 41 0 198 516 Total Volume 45 133 141 2 321 42 435 34 4 515 175 101 69 5 350 123 445 198 1 767 1953 % App. Total 14 41.4 43.9 0.6 8.2 84.5 6.6 0.8 50 28.9 19.7 1.4 16 58 25.8 0.1 PHF .625 .831 .953 .500 .902 .618 .914 .654 .500 .954 .875 .815 .719 .417 .931 .879 .849 .786 .250 .917 .946 SSFM International, Inc 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 (808) 531-1308 File Name : 150314 SAT Manono_Kuawa Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 3/14/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger - Bicycle - Heavy Vehicle Manono Street Southbound Kuawa Street Westbound Manono Street Northbound Bayfront driveway Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 11:30 AM 10 85 6 3 104 12 2 13 0 27 2 75 22 2 101 1 2 2 0 5 237 11:45 AM 16 84 2 0 102 6 1 16 0 23 1 66 16 1 84 4 0 4 0 8 217 Total 26 169 8 3 206 18 3 29 0 50 3 141 38 3 185 5 2 6 0 13 454 12:00 PM 11 79 4 0 94 8 1 12 1 22 3 69 16 1 89 2 1 2 0 5 210 12:15 PM 7 76 2 0 85 7 0 17 0 24 1 81 15 1 98 4 0 1 0 5 212 12:30 PM 13 79 7 1 100 9 1 17 0 27 2 68 9 1 80 1 1 1 0 3 210 12:45 PM 13 81 1 0 95 7 1 4 0 12 2 57 10 0 69 3 2 2 0 7 183 Total 44 315 14 1 374 31 3 50 1 85 8 275 50 3 336 10 4 6 0 20 815 01:00 PM 10 66 2 1 79 7 0 6 0 13 1 72 20 1 94 3 1 2 0 6 192 01:15 PM 8 73 1 0 82 10 0 10 0 20 6 50 10 1 67 3 1 1 0 5 174 Grand Total 88 623 25 5 741 66 6 95 1 168 18 538 118 8 682 21 8 15 0 44 1635 Apprch %11.9 84.1 3.4 0.7 39.3 3.6 56.5 0.6 2.6 78.9 17.3 1.2 47.7 18.2 34.1 0 Total %5.4 38.1 1.5 0.3 45.3 4 0.4 5.8 0.1 10.3 1.1 32.9 7.2 0.5 41.7 1.3 0.5 0.9 0 2.7 Passenger 88 616 22 4 730 66 6 95 1 168 18 535 118 8 679 19 7 14 0 40 1617 % Passenger 100 98.9 88 80 98.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.4 100 100 99.6 90.5 87.5 93.3 0 90.9 98.9 Bicycle 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 4 14 % Bicycle 0 0.6 12 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.4 9.5 12.5 6.7 0 9.1 0.9 Heavy Vehicle 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 % Heavy Vehicle 0 0.5 0 20 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 SSFM International, Inc 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 (808) 531-1308 File Name : 150314 SAT Manono_Kuawa Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 3/14/2015 Page No : 2 Manono Street Southbound Kuawa Street Westbound Manono Street Northbound Bayfront driveway Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:30 AM to 01:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 10 85 6 3 104 12 2 13 0 27 2 75 22 2 101 1 2 2 0 5 237 11:45 AM 16 84 2 0 102 6 1 16 0 23 1 66 16 1 84 4 0 4 0 8 217 12:00 PM 11 79 4 0 94 8 1 12 1 22 3 69 16 1 89 2 1 2 0 5 210 12:15 PM 7 76 2 0 85 7 0 17 0 24 1 81 15 1 98 4 0 1 0 5 212 Total Volume 44 324 14 3 385 33 4 58 1 96 7 291 69 5 372 11 3 9 0 23 876 % App. Total 11.4 84.2 3.6 0.8 34.4 4.2 60.4 1 1.9 78.2 18.5 1.3 47.8 13 39.1 0 PHF .688 .953 .583 .250 .925 .688 .500 .853 .250 .889 .583 .898 .784 .625 .921 .688 .375 .563 .000 .719 .924 SSFM International, Inc 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 (808) 531-1308 Appendix B Hele-On Bus Schedules and Map W KAWILI STR A I L R O A D K I L A U E A A V E Waiakea PondKAMEHAMEHAHWY 11AVEHilo BayW PUAINAKO STHAIHAI STKILAUEA STOHUOHU HUALALAIK A P IO L A N IBANYANKUPULAU RDW KAWAILANI STAINAOLA DRHAILIU L U L A N IE KAWILI STPAUAHIAU PUN IK A PI O L A N IE MAAKALAKUKILA±INTRA-HILO WAIAKEA-UKADowntown/Waiakea-UkaBus Route7/6/10In consideration of others and for your safety: 1. Shirts and footwear are required. 2. Remain seated. The following are prohibited on transit buses: 1. Obstructing or interfering with operator. 2. Smoking. 3. Refusing to vacate priority seating for the elderly and disabled passengers. 4. Consumption of food and beverage. 5. Talking on cell phones. 6. The playing of radios, tape players, dvd players, without headphones/earphones. 7. Horseplaying, yelling or talking loudly. 8. Surboards and bodyboards. 9. Flammable, explosive or toxic materials. 10. Expectorating or spitting. The following will be charged $1.00: 1. Pets provided they are kept in an enclosed pet carrier or cage (except service animals). 2. Any item larger than 16 x 10 and/or more than one item ($1.00 per item). 3. Bicycle 4. Skateboard How to board the bus: 1. Please utilize designated bus stops zones whenever possible. 2. Wait on the proper side of the roadway for the bus. 3. Flag the bus (please call for bus stop information). 4. Wait until the bus makes a complete stop. How to exit the bus: 1. Before reaching your desired “get off” spot, pull cord located by the window of the bus. 2. Remain seated until the bus comes to a complete stop. 3. Exit from front of bus. DISCLAIMER: The County of Hawaii will not be responsible for any inconvenience, expense, or damages resulting from the failure to depart or arrive at stated times or for any items brought on the bus. For more information visit www.co.hawaii.hi.us County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider COUNTY OF HAWAIIMASS TRANSIT AGENCY961-8744INTRA-HILO WAIAKEA-UKABUS SCHEDULEOperates Monday-Saturday INTRA HILO WAIAKEA-UKA BUS SCHEDULE Operates Monday through Saturday Effective August 2, 2011 Downtown Hilo to Waiakea-Uka (Bus is marked "6 WAIAKEA-UKA") Mooheau Aupuni Hilo Shopping U.H.H.H.C.C.Prince Kuhio Kilauea/Haihai/Waiakea-Uka Bus Terminal Center Center Plaza Haihai Ainaola Gym 7:05 7:15 7:18 7:20 7:22 7:25 7:40 7:45 7:50 9:30 9:35 9:40 9:45 9:47 9:50 9:55 10:00 ---- 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:07 11:10 11:15 11:20 ---- 12:05 12:10 12:15 12:20 12:22 12:25 12:30 12:35 12:40 3:20 3:25 3:28 3:33 3:36 3:40 3:50 3:55 4:00 Waiakea-Uka to Downtown Hilo (Bus is marked "7 DOWNTOWN HILO") Waiakea-Uka Life Care Prince Kuhio H.C.C.U.H.H.Hilo Shopping Aupuni Banyan Mooheau Bus Gym Center Plaza Center Center Drive Terminal 7:50 7:55 8:05 8:07 8:10 8:15 8:20 8:25 --------10:10 ----------------10:20 10:25 --------11:30 ----------------11:40 11:45 12:40 12:45 12:50 ----------------1:05 1:10 4:00 4:05 4:20 4:25 4:28 4:33 4:38 ----4:45 Bold = Morning ±W KAWILIR A I L R O A D K I L A U E A AV EWaiakea PondKAMEHAMEHAHWY 11Hilo BayW PUAINAKO STIWALANI STHAIHAI STKILAUEA AVEAINAOLA DROHUOHU PONAHAWAI STWAIANUENUE AVEKAUMANA DRAINAKO AVEBANYANS WILDER RDCoconutIslandHUALALAIK A P I O L A N I E KAWILIWAIANUENUE AVEKUKILAPUNAHELEHiloINTRA-HILO KAUMANA±Downtown/Ainako/KaumanaBus RouteCOUNTY OF HAWAIIMASS TRANSIT AGENCY961-8744INTRA-HILO KAUMANABUS SCHEDULEOperates Monday-SaturdayIn consideration of others and for your safety: 1. Shirts and footwear are required. 2. No flammable, explosive or toxic material. 3. No smoking, consumption of food or beverage. 4. Discarding of litter. 5. Expectorating or spitting. 6. The playing of radios, tape players, dvd players, and cell phones are prohibited without headphones. 7. Refrain from horseplaying, yelling or talking loudly. 8. The following items are prohibited unless prior permission is granted: a. Bodyboards 9. $1.00 charge for pets (except service animals) provided they are kept in an enclosed container or cage 10. $1.00 charge per item larger than 16” x 10”or more than one item that cannot fit underneath your seat. $1.00 charge for bicycle. 11. Please utilize designated bus stop zones whenever possible. How to board the bus: 1. Wait on the proper side of the roadway for the bus. 2. Flag the bus (please call for bus stop information). 3. Wait until the bus makes a complete stop. 4. Boarding will be denied if passengers appear to be intoxicated on liquor or drugs; engaged in activities that violate any other law or ordinance. How to exit the bus: 1. Before reaching your desired “get off” spot, pull cord located by the window of the bus. 2. Remain seated until the bus comes to a complete stop. 3. Exit from front of bus. DISCLAIMER: The County of Hawaii will not be responsible for any inconvenience, expense, or damages resulting from the failure to depart or arrive at stated times or for any items brought on the bus. For more information visit www.heleonbus.org County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider 7/9/09 INTRA HILO KAUMANA BUS SCHEDULE Operates Monday through Saturday Effective 12/09/2013 Downtown Hilo to Ainako and Kaumana (Bus is marked "4 KAUMANA") Prince Kuhio Aupuni Banyan Mooheau Bus Hilo Hilo Medical Ainako/Chong/Gentry Kaumana Plaza Center Drive Terminal Library Center Kaumana Kaumana Subdivision City 7:15 7:25 ----7:35 ---7:45 7:50 ------------ --------8:30 8:35 8:40 8:45 8:50 --------9:00 10:10 ----10:20 10:25 10:30 10:35 10:40 ------------ 11:30 ----11:40 11:50 11:55 12:00 12:05 --------12:15----2:15 ----2:20 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:40 ----2:50 4:20 4:38 ----4:45 4:50 4:55 5:00 ----5:10 5:20 Kaumana and Ainako to Downtown Hilo (Bus is marked "7 DOWNTOWN HILO") Kaumana Gentry Chong/Kaumana Ainako Kawaena Mooheau Aupuni Prince Kuhio Banyan City Subdivision Kaumana Terrace Lapaau Bus Terminal Center Plaza Drive ----------------7:50 ----8:00 8:05 ----8:30 9:00 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:20 9:25 9:30 9:35 9:50 ---- ----------------10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:10 11:40 12:15 12:20 12:25 12:30 12:35 12:40 12:45 ------------ 2:50 2:55 3:00 3:05 3:10 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:40 ---- Bold = Morning R A I L R O A D Waiakea PondHilo BayKAMEHAMEHA AVEK I L A UE A AVE W KAWILI STHWY 11B A K E R A V E A N D R E W S A V EKALANIANAOLE STKRAUSS AVECoconutIslandBANYANE MAKAALAKUKILAE KAWILI STW LANIKAULALakoakaPondHWY 11A UPU N IKALANIANAOLE ST±KEAUKAHAMooheau/KeaukahaBus Route7/6/10In consideration of others and for your safety: 1. Shirts and footwear are required. 2. Remain seated. The following are prohibited on transit buses: 1. Obstructing or interfering with operator. 2. Smoking. 3. Refusing to vacate priority seating for the elderly and disabled passengers. 4. Consumption of food and beverage. 5. Talking on cell phones. 6. The playing of radios, tape players, dvd players, without headphones/earphones. 7. Horseplaying, yelling or talking loudly. 8. Surboards and bodyboards. 9. Flammable, explosive or toxic materials. 10. Expectorating or spitting. The following will be charged $1.00: 1. Pets provided they are kept in an enclosed pet carrier or cage (except service animals). 2. Any item larger than 16 x 10 and/or more than one item ($1.00 per item). 3. Bicycle 4. Skateboard How to board the bus: 1. Please utilize designated bus stops zones whenever possible. 2. Wait on the proper side of the roadway for the bus. 3. Flag the bus (please call for bus stop information). 4. Wait until the bus makes a complete stop. How to exit the bus: 1. Before reaching your desired “get off” spot, pull cord located by the window of the bus. 2. Remain seated until the bus comes to a complete stop. 3. Exit from front of bus. DISCLAIMER: The County of Hawaii will not be responsible for any inconvenience, expense, or damages resulting from the failure to depart or arrive at stated times or for any items brought on the bus. For more information visit www.co.hawaii.hi.us County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider COUNTY OF HAWAIIMASS TRANSIT AGENCY961-8744Effective 2/17/09KEAUKAHABUS SCHEDULE Appendix C Analysis Reports Existing (2015) Conditions HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency SSFM International, Inc Duration, h 0.25 Analyst jtw Analysis Date 3/24/2015 Area Type Other Jurisdiction County of Hawaii Time Period Saturday Midday PHF 0.95 Intersection at Manono Street Analysis Year 2015 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 File Name Project Description 150324 jtw Manono_KamAve SAT.xus Kuawa S Field Development Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 123 445 198 42 435 34 175 101 69 45 133 141 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 3.5 2.1 45.7 3.7 0.8 19.1 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 2 4 5 6 7 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 10.7 52.8 8.5 50.7 14.5 30.0 8.7 24.1 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 Queue Clearance Time (gs),s 5.6 3.3 9.3 10.5 4.1 18.3 Green Extension Time (ge),s 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.9 Phase Call Probability 0.97 0.71 0.99 1.00 0.73 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 129 468 208 44 458 36 184 179 47 288 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1792 1791 1594 1792 1791 1594 1792 1753 1792 1722 Queue Service Time (gs), s 3.6 7.8 7.8 1.3 8.0 1.2 7.3 8.5 2.1 16.3 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 3.6 7.8 7.8 1.3 8.0 1.2 7.3 8.5 2.1 16.3 Capacity (c), veh/h 516 1713 763 442 1637 729 274 438 337 329 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X)0.251 0.273 0.273 0.100 0.280 0.049 0.674 0.409 0.141 0.876 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 959 1713 763 1191 1637 729 551 690 880 577 Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile)1.4 3.2 2.9 0.5 3.2 0.5 3.1 3.6 0.9 7.0 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ)(50th percentile)0.11 0.00 0.24 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.18 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 12.2 15.7 15.7 13.4 16.9 15.1 25.9 31.3 30.7 39.3 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 2.9 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 12.3 16.0 16.5 13.4 17.3 15.2 27.0 31.6 30.7 42.2 Level of Service (LOS)B B B B B B C C C D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.6 B 16.9 B 29.2 C 40.6 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.5 C Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.2 A 0.9 A 1.1 A 1.0 A Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.41 Generated: 3/24/2015 11:04:02 PM HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.6 _______________________TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY___________________________ Analyst: jtw Agency/Co.: SSFM International Date Performed: 3/24/2015 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Intersection: Jurisdiction: County of Hawaii Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: Existing (2015) Project ID: Kuawa S Field Development East/West Street: Kuawa Street North/South Street: Manono Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 ______________________Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments_________________________ Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 | 4 5 6 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 7 291 69 44 324 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 316 74 47 352 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No ______________________________________________________________________________ Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 33 4 58 11 3 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 4 63 11 3 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service___________________ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 | 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR | LTR | LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ v (vph) 7 47 102 23 C(m) (vph) 1203 1180 439 332 v/c 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.12 0.89 0.22 Control Delay 8.0 8.2 15.7 16.6 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 15.7 16.6 Approach LOS C C ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix D Analysis Reports Future (2020) Without Project Conditions HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency SSFM International, Inc Duration, h 0.25 Analyst jtw Analysis Date 3/24/2015 Area Type Other Jurisdiction County of Hawaii Time Period Saturday Midday PHF 0.95 Intersection at Manono Street Analysis Year Future (2020) Analysis Period 1> 7:00 File Name Project Description Without Project 150325 jtw Manono_KamAve SAT 2020wo.xus Kuawa S Field Development Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 132 476 212 45 465 36 187 108 74 48 142 151 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 3.7 2.4 43.7 3.8 1.0 20.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 2 4 5 6 7 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 11.1 51.2 8.7 48.7 14.8 31.4 8.8 25.4 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 Queue Clearance Time (gs),s 6.0 3.4 9.6 11.0 4.2 19.4 Green Extension Time (ge),s 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 Phase Call Probability 0.98 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 139 501 223 47 489 38 197 192 51 308 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1792 1791 1594 1792 1791 1594 1792 1753 1792 1721 Queue Service Time (gs), s 4.0 8.8 8.8 1.4 8.9 1.4 7.6 9.0 2.2 17.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 4.0 8.8 8.8 1.4 8.9 1.4 7.6 9.0 2.2 17.4 Capacity (c), veh/h 488 1654 736 412 1566 697 280 463 348 351 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X)0.285 0.303 0.303 0.115 0.312 0.054 0.704 0.414 0.145 0.880 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 913 1654 736 917 1566 697 409 880 423 761 Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile)1.5 3.6 3.3 0.6 3.7 0.5 3.2 3.8 0.9 7.4 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ)(50th percentile)0.12 0.00 0.28 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.46 0.00 0.19 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 13.1 16.8 16.8 14.4 18.3 16.2 25.3 30.4 29.7 38.6 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 2.9 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 13.2 17.3 17.9 14.5 18.9 16.4 26.5 30.6 29.7 41.5 Level of Service (LOS)B B B B B B C C C D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.8 B 18.3 B 28.5 C 39.8 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 23.1 C Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.2 A 1.0 A 1.1 A 1.1 A Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.41 Generated: 3/25/2015 10:35:55 AM HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.6 _______________________TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY___________________________ Analyst: jtw Agency/Co.: SSFM International Date Performed: 3/24/2015 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Intersection: Jurisdiction: County of Hawaii Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: Future (2020) Without Project Project ID: Kuawa S Field Development East/West Street: Kuawa Street North/South Street: Manono Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 ______________________Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments_________________________ Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 | 4 5 6 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 7 311 74 47 347 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 338 80 51 377 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No ______________________________________________________________________________ Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 33 4 58 11 3 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 4 63 11 3 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service___________________ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 | 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR | LTR | LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ v (vph) 7 51 102 23 C(m) (vph) 1177 1152 409 304 v/c 0.01 0.04 0.25 0.08 95% queue length 0.02 0.14 0.97 0.24 Control Delay 8.1 8.3 16.7 17.8 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 16.7 17.8 Approach LOS C C ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendix E Analysis Reports Future (2020) With Project Conditions HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency SSFM International, Inc Duration, h 0.25 Analyst jtw Analysis Date 3/24/2015 Area Type Other Jurisdiction County of Hawaii Time Period Saturday Midday PHF 0.95 Intersection at Manono Street Analysis Year Future (2020) Analysis Period 1> 7:00 File Name Project Description With Project 150330 jtw Manono_KamAve SAT 2020wproj.xus Kuawa S Field Development Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 132 476 241 51 465 36 216 108 80 48 142 151 Signal Information Green Yellow Red 3.9 2.3 42.5 3.8 2.2 20.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 2 4 5 6 7 Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 Phase Duration, s 11.2 49.8 8.9 47.5 16.0 32.6 8.8 25.4 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 Queue Clearance Time (gs),s 6.1 3.7 10.6 11.3 4.2 19.4 Green Extension Time (ge),s 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 Phase Call Probability 0.98 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 139 501 254 54 489 38 227 198 51 308 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1792 1791 1594 1792 1791 1594 1792 1747 1792 1721 Queue Service Time (gs), s 4.1 9.0 10.4 1.7 9.1 1.4 8.6 9.3 2.2 17.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 4.1 9.0 10.4 1.7 9.1 1.4 8.6 9.3 2.2 17.4 Capacity (c), veh/h 477 1604 714 397 1521 677 301 482 358 351 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X)0.291 0.312 0.355 0.135 0.322 0.056 0.756 0.411 0.141 0.880 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 807 1604 714 805 1521 677 570 808 577 672 Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile)1.6 3.7 4.0 0.7 3.8 0.5 3.6 3.8 0.9 7.4 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ)(50th percentile)0.12 0.00 0.33 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.52 0.00 0.19 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 13.8 17.7 18.1 15.1 19.2 17.0 24.4 29.6 29.6 38.6 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.1 2.9 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 18.2 19.5 15.1 19.7 17.1 25.9 29.8 29.7 41.5 Level of Service (LOS)B B B B B B C C C D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.9 B 19.1 B 27.7 C 39.8 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 23.6 C Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2.3 B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.2 A 1.0 A 1.2 A 1.1 A Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.41 Generated: 3/30/2015 3:13:06 PM HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.6 _______________________TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY___________________________ Analyst: jtw Agency/Co.: SSFM International Date Performed: 3/24/2015 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Intersection: Jurisdiction: County of Hawaii Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: Future (2020) With Project Project ID: Kuawa Street New Fields Development East/West Street: Kuawa Street North/South Street: Manono Street Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 ______________________Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments_________________________ Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 | 4 5 6 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 7 311 91 82 347 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 338 98 89 377 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No ______________________________________________________________________________ Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 L T R | L T R ______________________________________________________________________________ Volume 50 4 93 11 3 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 4 101 11 3 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service___________________ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 | 7 8 9 | 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR | LTR | LTR ______________________________________________________________________________ v (vph) 7 89 159 23 C(m) (vph) 1177 1134 373 246 v/c 0.01 0.08 0.43 0.09 95% queue length 0.02 0.26 2.07 0.31 Control Delay 8.1 8.4 21.6 21.1 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 21.6 21.1 Approach LOS C C ______________________________________________________________________________