DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Malama Maunalua€¦ · July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS > less than °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit μg/L

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT July 2016

HHaawwaaiiii RReeeeff PPrroojjeecctt MMaauunnaalluuaa BBaayy,, OOaahhuu,, HHaawwaaiiii

This document is prepared pursuant to Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes The Applicant: Hawaii Memorial Reefs, LLC Approving Agency: Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

Draft

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hawaii Reef Project

Maunalua Bay, Oahu, Hawaii

Prepared By:

Environet, Inc. 1286 Queen Emma Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

The Applicant:

Hawaii Memorial Reefs, LLC 957A Lehua Avenue

Pearl City, Hawaii 96782

Approving Agency:

Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 2.1 SCOPE AND AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................................................ 9

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ............................. 10

2.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................ 10

2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE SITES ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ............................................................................................................ 11

2.5 THE PROPOSED ACTION – THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................ 12

2.5.1 DESIGN/MANUFACTURE OF THE REEF STRUCTURES ........................................................ 12

2.5.2 TRANSPORTATION AND DEPLOYMENT .................................................................................... 12

2.5.3 CORAL PLANTING / SEEDING / DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 13

2.5.4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING & EVALUATION ................................ 14

2.5.5 SCIENTIFIC AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH .................................................................................. 14

2.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................... 21

2.7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION .................................................................................................... 22

3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 23 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 25

3.1.2 DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 25

3.1.3 BENEFICIAL VERSUS ADVERSE .................................................................................................. 25

3.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 25

3.1.5 MITIGATIVE MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 26

3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................ 26

3.2.1 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 26

3.2.2 PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 32

3.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 33

3.2.4 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................... 48

3.2.5 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................. 52

3.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................. 53

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page ii

3.3.1 LAND/MARINE USE .......................................................................................................................... 53

3.3.2 HISTORICAL AND CULTRAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 57

3.3.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ........................................................................................................ 60

3.3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS ......................................................................................................................... 61

3.3.5 RECREATIONAL / RESOURCE USE ............................................................................................. 64

3.3.6 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 66

3.3.7 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 67

3.3.8 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................. 69

4 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS 71 4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 73

4.1.1 SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899 ................................................ 73

4.1.2 CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) ............................................................................................................ 73

4.1.3 CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA) ..................................................................................................................... 74

4.1.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 / MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972 ...................................................................................................................................................... 74

4.1.5 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT .................................................................................................. 74

4.1.6 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) OF 1972 .......................................................... 75

4.1.7 NATIONAL HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) .......................................................... 80

4.2 STATE LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................. 80

4.2.1 HRS CHAPTER 343 .......................................................................................................................... 80

4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RULES TITLE 11, CHAPTER 200, HAR ............ 81

4.2.3 HAWAI‘I STATE PLAN CHAPTER 226, HRS ................................................................................ 81

4.2.4 STATE CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE .................................................................................... 83

4.2.5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAPTER 6E, HRS ....................................................................... 84

4.2.6 STATE OF HAWAI‘I LAND USE LAW CHAPTER 205, HRS ...................................................... 84

4.3 CITY AND COUNTY LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES ......................................................................... 84

4.3.1 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU ............................................................................................ 84

4.3.2 OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES................................................................................ 85

4.3.3 NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................. 85

5 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS 87

6 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 93

7 REFERENCES 97

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page iii

TABLES Table 3-1: Species Observed Within the 7-acre Project Area ...................................................................... 34

Table 3-2: Infauna Species Observed Within and in the Vicinity of the Project Area .................................. 35

Table 3-3: Water Quality Measurements Summary Within and Vicinity of Project Area ............................. 45

Table 3-4: Monthly Average Temperature, Rainfall, and Wind Speed ........................................................ 50

Table 6-1: Agencies and Organizations Consulted During the Pre-Consultation Period ............................ 95

FIGURES Figure 1: The Evolution of Artificial Reefs ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Reef Modules Overview ................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 3: Project Location Map .................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4: Reef Module Relief Map ............................................................................................................... 17

Figure 5: Reef Module Layout Map .............................................................................................................. 19

Figure 6: Bathymetry Map ............................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 7: Benthic Infauna Study Map ........................................................................................................... 39

Figure 8: Water Quality Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................. 43

Figure 9: ORMA Map ................................................................................................................................... 55

APPENDICES Appendix A: Benthic Study Report

Appendix B: Resource Management and Water Quality Monitoring Plan

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page iv

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

> less than °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit μg/L microgram(s) per liter μmol/L micromole(s) per liter BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CDUP Conservation District Use Permit CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CIA Cultural Impact Assessment CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CZM Coastal Zone Management CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act CWA Clean Water Act CWB Clean Water Branch DAR Division of Aquatic Resources DBEDT Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State of Hawai‘i DFW Division of Forestry and Wildlife DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i DOBOR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation DOH Department of Health, State of Hawai‘i EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft2 square foot (feet) GCRMN Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network GHG greenhouse gas HAR Hawai‘i Administrative Rule HMR Hawaii Memorial Reefs, LLC HRS Hawai‘i Revised Statutes GPS global positioning system lbs pound(s) LUC Land Use Commission M&E monitoring and evaluation MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act M-RAC Maunalua Bay Recreation Advisory Committee MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act msl mean sea level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NFDA National Funeral Directors Association NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page vi

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx nitrogen oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTU nephelometric turbidity unit O3 ozone O&M operation and maintenance OCCL Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands OEQC Office of Environmental Quality Control ORMA Ocean Recreation Management Area PacIOOS Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System Pb lead PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter RBDG Reef Ball Development Group, Ltd. RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHA Rivers and Harbors Act SAP Special Activity Permit SHPD State Historic Preservation Division SO2 sulfur dioxide UH University of Hawai‘i USACE US Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound WQC Water Quality Certification WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION


1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared pursuant to Chapter 343, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) and associated Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR). The intent of this document is to ensure that systematic consideration is given to the environmental, social, and economic consequences of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is the establishment of an artificial reef in Maunalua Bay, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name: Draft EA Hawaii Reef Project

Project Location: Maunalua Bay, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

Applicant: Hawaii Memorial Reefs, LLC (HMR) 957A Lehua Avenue

Pearl City, Hawai‘i 96782 Contact: Richard Filanc, President (808) 783-8859

Agent: Environet, Inc. 1286 Queen Emma Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Contact: Martine Bissonnette (808) 389-5687

Approving Agency: State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands

Kalanimoku Building 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 131

Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813

Tax Map Keys (TMKs): Not Applicable

Land Area: 7 acres (submerged)

State Land Use District: Conservation District

City and County Zoning Designation: None

Implementation Timeframe: December, 2017 to continue as demanded


2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION


2.1 SCOPE AND AUTHORITY

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343 and associated Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) to evaluate the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the proposed establishment of an artificial reef in Maunalua Bay, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Environmental permits and related certifications required for the proposed project are anticipated to include:

Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Section 10 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);

Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) from the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL); and

Special Activity Permit (SAP) from DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR).

Further – supporting and supplementing the regulatory permitting process – consultation, coordination, and outreach with key regulatory agencies (identified above) and other stakeholders will be conducted throughout the EA process; these additional entities may include but not be limited to:

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD);

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS);

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);

DLNR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR);

Office of Planning / Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT); and

US Coast Guard.

2.2 BACKGROUND

Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are one of the most ecologically significant and diverse systems found within the natural environment, providing habitats for many marine species and also supporting a variety of human needs such as subsistence, fisheries, tourism and recreation, and shoreline protection. In spite of their ecological, social, and economical value, coral reefs are in decline primarily from global climate change, impacts from unsustainable fishing, and land-based pollution (Pockley, 2000).

Because of its isolated location and exposure to large open ocean swells and strong tradewinds that have major impacts on the component and structure of the coral reefs, Hawai‘i offers coral reefs with one of the most unique but not extensive biodiversity and ecosystems with extremely high conservation value (DeMartini and Friedlander, 2004; Maragos et al., 2004). Additionally, coral reefs in Hawai‘i provide commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing opportunities, world famous surfing and diving locations, and are vital to the marine tourism industry in the state (Friedlander et al., 2008).


Figure 1: The Evolution of Artificial Reefs

Threats to Natural Coral Reefs

During recent years, Hawai‘i has experienced above average ocean temperatures which have resulted in coral bleaching that has adversely impacted coral species (NOAA, 2015; US News, 2015). Coral bleaching is likely caused by higher than usual ocean temperatures associated with the recent El Niño event and global climate change, during which corals turn white (or bleach) when microalgae living in the coral tissues – which give the coral its color – are expelled during stressful environmental conditions. Corals may take weeks to years to recover from a bleaching event or may die if unfavorable conditions persist or are too extreme and they are unable to recover. Since ocean temperatures are projected to continue to increase (EPA, 2015), and since corals are also threatened through other environmental factors such as sedimentation and disease, DLNR DAR has initiated an artificial reef program whose purpose is to enhance reef habitat, increase fish biomass, and increase species diversity (DLNR, 2015).

Evolution of Engineered / Designed Artificial Reefs

In order to address the decline in coral reef habitats and to create opportunities for establishing new fish or marine habitats, a variety of materials have been used in the United States to develop artificial reefs (Figure 1). The earliest recorded artificial reef was built in the 1830s off South Carolina from used logs from huts to improve fishing. Currently, over 80 percent of artificial reefs in the US have been created using secondary-use materials such as rock, shells, or trees, and man-made materials including concrete, ships, barges, and oil and gas structures, among others (Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, 2004).

Designed reefs built from concrete mixtures emerged as a new category of reef enhancement in order to overcome problems related with using secondary-use materials to construct artificial reefs such as potential corrosion of the materials and leaching of toxic chemicals into the surrounding water over time. It is also hard to predict the effects of ocean currents and storm activities on artificial reefs built from secondary-use materials due to the variation in sizes and weights of the materials used. Concrete designed reefs are modules that offer a more chemically and physically stable platform for establishing artificial reefs by using materials that are closer to the pH of seawater and designed to be more resistant to ocean currents and storm activities (RBDG, 2000). Concrete designed reef structures to create artificial reefs offer the advantage that they can be:

engineered to address specific goals and objectives of an artificial reef program;

standardized to provide valuable opportunities for research monitoring;

produced readily if vendors are local; and

structured for long-term stability.

One drawback of engineered structures is higher cost for design, manufacture and deployment compared to secondary-use materials (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2012). HMR was founded with a mission to help create and perpetuate coral reefs in needed areas of the state by offering to dedicate cremated remains as a memorial in reef-building material, which would provide funding for


design, manufacture, and undersea establishment of the reef structures. The benefits of having a memorial artificial reef include the provision of habitat for fish and other organisms and increase in reef biomass, the potential reduction of human use of natural reefs, and contribution to the local economy through increased aquatic habitat while providing an alternative to traditional burial. Artificial reefs can also be used as a platform for research studies by local universities and other organizations; marine research specialists from the University of Hawai‘i have already expressed interest in using such artificial reefs as a platform for conducting coral and marine ecology studies, particularly in light of changing environmental conditions in Hawaiian waters.

Current Status of Engineered / Artificial Reefs

The proposed project would provide funding to build, monitor, and maintain new artificial reef areas. Reef balls – modules used to establish artificial reefs – are already used in more than 60 countries, including in 17 US states (The Reef Ball Foundation, 2014). Currently there are four existing artificial reefs around O‘ahu:

Maunalua Bay off of Kāhala, the first of which was created in 1961;

Wai‘anae, established in 1963;

Kualoa, established in 1972; and

‘Ewa Deepwater artificial reef, established in 1986.

DLNR DAR hopes to expand these existing artificial reefs as well as add a few more sites around the main Hawaiian Islands; however, this effort is currently limited by lack of available funding under the state’s artificial reef program (DLNR, 2015).

In spite of providing numerous ecological and economic benefits, artificial reefs need to be designed carefully in order to avoid any potential impacts to the surrounding benthic habitats. Issues that need to be closely considered while selecting a site and designing an artificial reef include:

Proximity to existing reefs and the impacts that the artificial reef may have on the existing habitats nearby;

Keeping a low relief profile so that the artificial reef does not compete for species of other reef habitats;

Attracting or providing a habitat for invasive algae or coral species; and

Potential entrainment of sea turtles or marine mammals.

Preliminary dive surveys were conducted at potential sites to determine suitability as artificial reef sites. The Section 2.4 provides an overview of potential artificial sites that were considered but eliminated from further evaluation.

2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to help establish and perpetuate coral reefs in needed areas of the state, increasing coral generation and fish biomass as well as providing an alternative to traditional burial by offering to dedicate cremated remains as a memorial in reef building material.

As mentioned above, in spite of their ecological, social, and economical value, coral reefs are in decline worldwide primarily from global climate change, impacts from unsustainable fishing, and land-based


pollution. According to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), the single largest coral reef monitoring effort in the world, of all the reefs that are monitored worldwide, 19 percent have already been lost, and an additional 35 percent are seriously threatened with destruction mostly due to anthropogenic impacts (GCRMN, 2009). In October 2015, Hawai‘i declared the third global coral bleaching event ever on record as record ocean temperatures caused widespread coral bleaching across the state (NOAA, 2015).

The Proposed Action would provide a funding mechanism to establish an artificial reef while also providing a cost-effective alternative to traditional burial, both of which would benefit the public. Cremation has become increasingly popular due to the rising cost of traditional burial. Traditional burial has been increasingly more expensive as eternal care and land has become harder to sustain. Cemetery plots are now traded like real estate in many places and are more expensive than prime property in some cases. A traditional funeral with embalming and burial can cost up to $25,000 or more (National Funeral Directors Association [NFDA], 2015). Hawai‘i is experiencing a severe shortage in available burial plots and the state’s growing elderly population is expected to tax the available space, and new cemeteries are facing significant challenges in obtaining land and permits (Honolulu Advertiser, 2007).

In addition, the environmental impacts of traditional cemetery burial are considerable due to the use of various chemicals for embalming and other materials used for burial. According to the nonprofit Centre for Natural Burial, 10 acres of cemetery contains nearly 1,000 tons of casket steel, 20,000 tons of concrete for vaults, and enough wood from buried coffins to build more than 40 homes (Funeral Consumers Alliance, 2010).

The Proposed Action would provide a new option to those looking for a more environmentally sustainable and cost-effective alternative to the high cost of burial. For less than a third of the cost of a full burial, the Proposed Action would provide an eternal resting place for the deceased that also helps to support reef growth and ecosystem enhancement.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

As part of the HRS Chapter 343 process, all potential alternatives must be evaluated. For alternatives to be considered reasonable, they must be affordable, implementable, meet the project purpose and need, and meet the established alternative selection criteria. Alternatives considered but eliminated as viable alternatives are described below.

2.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed artificial reef would not be established. Projections indicate that the State of Hawai‘i would continue to experience declines in the numbers and health of coral species, which would result in loss of associated aquatic habitat. Further, the expansion and enhancement of existing artificial reefs initiated by the DLNR DAR would be hampered. HRS Chapter 343 requires an alternatives analysis to include a No Action Alternative. Therefore, although this alternative would not meet the project purpose and need, it is discussed throughout the document to provide the reader with a perspective of the “without-project” scenario.


2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE SITES

Waianae

This potential site would be located approximately one (1) mile outside of Pokai Bay, Wai‘anae and would be established as an expansion to DLNR’s existing artificial reef. Although this site is readily accessible from Wai‘anae boat harbor, it was not carried forward for further evaluation because of its remote location and distance from an available commercial area required for the manufacture of the reef modules.

Kualoa

This potential site would be located approximately 1.5 miles off of Ka‘a‘awa and would be established as an expansion to DLNR’s existing artificial reef. The potential expansion of the artificial reef at this site was not carried forward for further evaluation given its distance from the reef module manufacture site, and the distance from the shore and lack of nearby accessibility for reef module deployment.

‘Ewa Deepwater

This potential site would be located approximately 1.6 miles offshore of ‘Ewa and would be established as an expansion to DLNR’s existing artificial reef. The potential expansion of the artificial reef at this site was not carried forward for further evaluation due to the lack of nearby accessibility for reef module deployment.

Kahe Point

This potential site is a 5-acre area located 0.5 miles offshore of Kahe Point Beach Park. The proposed project area consists of a sandy bottom area that is in close proximity to the Kahe Power Plant and the Ko Olina Marina/ Resort area consisting of the Aulani (Disney) and Ihilani (Four Seasons) hotels and the Ko Olina Beach Club (Marriott). This is an ideal location for the project as it is near an established resort/hospitality area that is in need of marine life enhancement; however, it was not carried forward for further evaluation due to the potential conflict with existing commercial activities within the area.

2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS

As discussed earlier, artificial reefs in the United States have historically been constructed using a variety of secondary-use materials. Although the cost may be less, use of such secondary-use materials for developing an artificial reef was not carried forward due to the potential of corrosion or deterioration of the materials over time, leaching of toxic chemicals, and difficulty in predicting their effects on ocean currents as well as difficulty in predicting their suitability for coral recruitment.

Concrete designed reef modules were considered to be more appropriate for the development of the proposed artificial reef because of the advantages that they provide by allowing the manufacturer to design them to be geared toward enhancing coral reef development with standardized structures that are specifically engineered to be resistant to ocean currents and storm activities. Concrete designed reef modules would also be manufactured from materials that would be close to the pH of seawater and would eliminate concerns over containing potentially hazardous materials that may leach into the surrounding water. As a solution to the relatively high cost to build the designed concrete reef modules, HMR offers to dedicate cremated remains as a memorial in reef building material, which would provide funding for the design and manufacture, as well as the development of the artificial reef.


Figure 2: Reef Modules Overview

2.5 THE PROPOSED ACTION – THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

2.5.1 DESIGN/MANUFACTURE OF THE REEF STRUCTURES

Material and Design

The artificial reef modules would be constructed from a mixture of cement (Type II Portland Cement), W.R. Grace’s Force 10,000 microsilica, ADVATM Flow Superplasticizer (water-reducing admixture), sand (salt free), and aggregates casted into a dome-shaped reef structure with various sizes, shapes, and patterns of holes to mimic the shape of a natural reef structure. These materials would be mixed at an appropriate ratio so that the surface pH of the casted cement would be similar to the pH of seawater and ideal for settlement by corals.

Microsilica contributes to the strength and durability of the cement mixture whereas ADVATM is used to maintain a high water/cement ratio for stronger concrete that does not contain too much water and also adds about 4 percent air entrainment, which aids in microsurface texturing of the reef modules. In addition to the tiny pockets created by ADVATM, the rough texture created by the exposed aggregates on the surface of the reef modules would encourage natural settlement of larval corals.

Three types of reef modules would be deployed, each varying in size from 2.5 to 4 feet wide and up to 2.9 feet height with various numbers of holes / openings. The smallest “Mini Bayball” (Figure 2) would weigh approximately 150 to 200 pounds (lbs). The medium sized “Bay Ball” would weigh approximately 375 to 750 lbs; the largest “Pallet Ball” would weigh approximately 1,500 to 2,000 lbs. The size of the openings would be designed large enough to provide fish and other organisms passage but small enough to avoid reptile (e.g., sea turtle) or marine mammal entrainment. The height of the reef structures would be limited to the maximum height of the closest existing reef in the general vicinity to deter organisms from existing reefs from being attracted to the proposed artificial reef.

Manufacture Location/Procedures

The reef modules would be manufactured at HMR’s base yard located on a commercial property on O‘ahu. HMR’s base yard would be approximately 2,000 to 5,000 square feet (ft2) in area with an office building and a warehouse located on the property. The cure period for the reef modules is 30 days. Once cured, they would be stored at HMR’s base yard until deployment. Up to 100 modules would be stored at HMR’s base yard.

Each reef module would be identified with a serial number and a plaque (upon request) containing information of the deceased. Funeral industry standards of security would be employed at HMR’s base yard to ensure the protection of the reef modules. Interested parties would be allowed to attend ceremonies when ashes are blended with the cement mixture.

2.5.2 TRANSPORTATION AND DEPLOYMENT

Transportation

Once cured, the reef modules would be transported from HMR’s base yard to Koko Marina using a flat-bed truck and placed on HMR’s deployment boat deck to be transported to the deployment site.

Figure 2: Reef modules Overview


Anchoring cones on a reef module (The Reef Ball Foundation, 2014)

Transportation and deployment of the reef modules would be demand-driven. The boat deck would have a capacity of up to 30,000 lbs for transporting multiple modules at a time. HMR anticipates deploying a maximum of approximately 100 modules per month. Interested parties who attend deployment ceremonies would be referred to dive charters or other marine recreational boat charters departing from Koko Marina.1

Deployment Method and Anchoring

The proposed artificial reef site would comprise a total of 7 acres approximately 0.7 miles offshore in Maunalua Bay (Figure 3). The reef modules would be deployed to depths ranging from 50 to 65 feet with a single layer of reef modules placed on the seafloor (Figure 4). Boundaries of the site would be marked with pins or buoys to prevent accidental anchoring to the artificial reef (Figure 5).

Each reef module would be lowered to its specified location on the seafloor determined by global positioning system (GPS) coordinates and by using reusable bladders. A qualified dive team would escort each reef module until it reaches the seafloor at its desired location while the attached bladders are slowly deflated. This method would prevent the modules from inadvertently being placed in the wrong location and allow the reef modules to be settled slowly onto the seafloor without significantly affecting the turbidity and other natural parameters of the water column.

The reef modules are designed to have greater than 50 percent of their weight at the structure base and to withstand heavy tropical storms without movement in as little as 20 feet of water (Reef Ball Foundation, 2014). Since the proposed project site would include a sand bottom location, which provides more stability than a hard bottom, anchoring is not anticipated to be required. If it is deemed necessary, anchoring cones may be cast monolithically to the reef modules to prevent lateral movement. In areas where hard substrate is encountered, fiberglass stakes would be driven into the seabed as necessary to anchor the reef modules.

Monitoring during Deployment

Baseline water quality parameters would be determined prior to each deployment event and compared to the measurements taken during deployment of the reef modules in order to validate that the Proposed Action would not significantly impact the existing environmental conditions. Water quality measurements would be made by profiling with a multi-parameter water quality probe from the surface to the seafloor where the reef modules would be sited.

2.5.3 CORAL PLANTING / SEEDING / DEVELOPMENT

Coral fragments would be used to plant/seed the reef modules, if necessary. The specific source as well as species of coral fragments to be used would be coordinated with coral specialists from UH and DAR.

1 Prior to deployment, interested parties would be required to sign a waiver acknowledging that the reef modules are intended as transitional resting grounds and not permanent structures, indemnifying the state for damage or loss of the reef modules to be deployed.


2.5.4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING & EVALUATION

A Resource Management and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B) will be implemented to periodically monitor and manage the reef modules for the presence of invasive algal species that are known to occur within the project area and may potentially colonize the reef modules. In addition, the Plan will be implemented to monitor for any potential impacts to the surrounding water quality. Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the proposed artificial reef would include activities that are intended to preclude potential impacts to the surrounding environment from the placement of the reef modules in the project area; monitoring and evaluation (M&E) would be regularly performed to document the schedule and results of the O&M activities.

In order to prevent the recruitment and establishment of invasive algal species on the reef modules, periodic monitoring and management of the invasive species will be conducted through a University of Hawai‘i based scientific investigation. A detailed description of the methodology to be used during monitoring and management of the invasive algal species is included in the Resource Management and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B).

In addition, periodic (monthly and quarterly-extended) water quality surveys will conducted at an array of sites within and surrounding the proposed artificial reef area to monitor the long-term effects of the reef modules on the water quality of the surrounding waters. A detailed description of the methods to be used and parameters to be measured during the periodic water quality surveys are also included in the Resource Management and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B).

2.5.5 SCIENTIFIC AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH

The proposed artificial reef would create research opportunities for University of Hawai‘i and other marine research organizations who have already expressed interest in conducting studies on the development of artificial reefs, particularly as they relate to the changing marine environment. Some of the research topics proposed by the University of Hawai‘i include:

2,500 0 2,5001,250Feet

FIGURE3ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED HAWAI'I REEF PROJECT

Scale: 1" = 2,500 ftLegend

Project SiteReference: ESRI, 2015

ÒO'AHU

Area of Detail

PACIFIC OCEAN

PROJECT LOCATION MAPMAUNALUA BAY, O'AHU, HAWAI'I

Scale: 1" = 762 m

762 0 762381Meters


Figure not drawn to scale.

Mini-Bay Ball

ÒO'AHU

Area of Detail

PACIFIC OCEAN

1.75 fee

t

2.0 fee

t

2.9 fee

t

Bay Ball

Pallet Ball

~3 feet

REEF MODULE RELIEF MAPMAUNALUA BAY, O'AHU, HAWAI'I


Area of Detail

ÒO'AHU

LegendReef ModulesAccess AreasProject Area

REEF MODULE LAYOUT MAPMAUNALUA BAY, O'AHU, HAWAI'I

46 0 4623Meters

150 0 15075Feet

Scale: 1" = 150 ft Scale: 1" = 46 m

Maunalua Bay


Study of species of corals and coralline algae that recruit to and colonize the reef modules (i.e., coverage during a given amount of time);

Study of species of fish/crustaceans, etc. that use the reef modules as a habitat;

Evaluation of changes (if any) of the chemistry of water inside/immediately outside of the reef modules over time and calcification rates (i.e., rate of formation of calcium carbonate [CaCO3]) for various types of coralline algal species on the reef modules; and

Evaluation of development of a “community” or ecosystem around the reef modules and production of new biota as an environmental resource.

2.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

This EA has been prepared in accordance with HRS 343 and its implementing regulations, as well as Title 11, Chapter 200 of the HAR. The Proposed Action must comply with all relevant statutes that establish standards and provide guidance on environmental and natural resource management and planning. These regulations include, but are not limited to the following:

Chapter 343 HRS;

Chapter 226 HRS;

HAR Title 11-200;

Clean Air Act (CAA);

Clean Water Act (CWA);

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA);

Coral Reef Conservation Act;

Endangered Species Act (ESA);

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA);

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA);

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA);

Rivers and Harbors Act;

City and County of Honolulu General Plan (Amended October 3, 2002);

East Honolulu Sustainable Communities Plan; and

Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu 1990.

Key provisions of these regulations are discussed throughout the subsequent sections and in detail in Section 4 of this EA.


2.7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION

Meetings and briefings will be held with community stakeholders throughout the Draft EA preparation, review, and processing stages in order to keep the public informed as well as to incorporate any input, concerns, or opinions they may have regarding the project. Pre-assessment consultation letters to gather comments to inform the preparation of this Draft EA were distributed to federal, state, and county agencies, utilities, and community organizations and leaders. Table 6-1 displays all parties consulted during the pre-consultation period. The Draft EA will be published in the State Environmental Notice in order allow public review of the EA in accordance with HRS 343.


3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS


3.1 INTRODUCTION

The environmental, social, and economic setting of the project site and the probable impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action - Preferred Alternative are described in this section of the EA. Impacts are evaluated as to whether they constitute a “significant effect” on a particular environmental setting. Impacts are described as having No Impact, Significant Adverse Impact, or Beneficial Impact to the environment. The terms “impact” and “effect” are used synonymously in this EA. Impacts may apply to the full range of natural, aesthetic, historic, cultural, and economic resources. The following subsections define key terms used throughout Section 3.

3.1.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

A “significant effect” is defined by HRS Chapter 343 as “the sum of effects on the quality of the environment, including actions that irrevocably commit a natural resource, curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment, are contrary to the State’s environmental policies or long-term environmental goals as established by law, or adversely affect the economic welfare, social welfare, or cultural practices of the community and State.”

3.1.2 DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT IMPACTS

Definitions and examples of “direct” and “indirect” impacts as used in this document are as follows:

“Primary impact” or “primary effect” or “direct impact” or “direct effect” means effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (HAR §11-200-2). For direct impacts to occur, a resource must be present in the particular study area.

“Secondary impact” or “secondary effect” or “indirect impact” or “indirect effect” means effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (HAR §11-200-2).

3.1.3 BENEFICIAL VERSUS ADVERSE

Impacts from the Preferred Alternative may also have beneficial or adverse effects to the environment. Beneficial impacts are those that would produce favorable outcomes and add value to the environment. Adverse impacts are those that would produce detrimental effects and cause harm to the environment.

3.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects which, when considered together, compound or increase the overall impact. Cumulative impacts can arise from the individual effect of a single action or from the combined effects of past, present, or future actions. Thus, cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taken over a period of time. The cumulative impacts of implementing the Preferred Alternative along with past and reasonably foreseeable future projects proposed were assessed based upon available information.


3.1.5 MITIGATIVE MEASURES

Mitigative measures are defined as measures taken to avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse impacts to a resource. Mitigative measures are provided to reduce adverse impacts when levels of impact are significant, ensuring levels of impact are reduced to a level of insignificance. Only those mitigative measures that are practical have been identified.

3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.2.1.1 DEFINITION OF RESOURCES

Geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface materials and their inherent properties. Principal geologic factors affecting the ability to support structural development on land or features on the seafloor are seismic properties (i.e., potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance), soil/sediment stability, and topography/bathymetry.

The term soil, in general, refers to unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material. Soils play a critical role in both the natural and human environment. Soil structure, elasticity, strength, shrink-swell potential, and erodibility all determine the ability for the ground to support man-made structures and facilities. Soils typically are described in terms of their complex type, slope, physical characteristics, and relative compatibility or constraining properties with regard to particular construction activities and types of land use.

Sediments are unconsolidated materials produced by the processes of weathering and erosion that are transported by wind, water, or glaciers and deposited to the bottom of a water body, such as the ocean or lakes. Sediment properties are often defined by its texture (size and shape of sediment particles) and variation or distribution of the grain sizes.

Topography is the change in elevation over the surface of a land area. An area’s topography is influenced by many factors, including human activity, underlying geologic material, seismic activity, climatic conditions, and erosion. A discussion of topography typically encompasses a description of surface elevations, slope, and distinct physiographic features (e.g., mountains), and their influence on human activities. Bathymetry is the underwater equivalent to topography and illustrates the seafloor relief or underwater depth of ocean floors.

Natural hazards prone to the area include earthquakes and tsunamis. Earthquakes typically result from release of energy from the earth’s crust and manifest themselves by shaking and sometimes displacement of the ground which can result in property damage. Earthquakes can also trigger landslides and occasionally volcanic activity. When the epicenter of a large earthquake is located offshore, the seabed may be displaced sufficiently to cause a tsunami. A tsunami is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water. Great wave heights can be generated by large events; although the impact of tsunamis is limited to coastal areas, their destructive power can be enormous.


3.2.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING

The Revised Ordinances of Honolulu 14-14 describes proper permitting and inspection procedures necessary for grading, soil erosion, and sediment control during earthwork activities. All work shall be conducted in accordance with current construction standards and all local, state, and federal regulations.

3.2.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Geology

The Hawaiian Archipelago is a chain of seamounts and islands in the North Pacific extending 1,616 miles west by northwest from the largest Island of Hawai‘i. Igneous rocks are the dominant rock type and consist of basaltic flows, caldera and dike complexes, and pyroclastics. The Island of O‘ahu was formed through the emergence and coalescence of two large shield volcanoes: the Waianae and Ko‘olau volcanoes. Eroded remnants of these volcanoes form two of O‘ahu’s four geomorphic provinces: the Waianae Range on the west and the younger Ko‘olau Range on the east. The other two provinces are the Schofield Plateau and the Coastal Plain.

Maunalua Bay is on the southern coast of O‘ahu and extends from Diamond Head to Koko Head Crater. The coast is generally low, mainly on a former coral reef about 25 to 50 feet above mean sea level (msl). Much of the shoreline of Maunalua Bay is artificial, as it consists largely of seawalls bordering residential areas. The offshore area of Maunalua Bay is characterized by one of the shallowest reefs in Hawai‘i. Local patches of sand occur on the reef as well as in a few sand-filled channels that traverse it. The largest offshore sandy area extends southwest from the Kuapā Pond end of the bay (Moberly et al., 1963).

Seabed Types Found

A 2008 and 2009 study conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) determined the dominant seabed grain size at Maunalua Bay is sand (mean = 95 percent) with a small amount of gravel (mean = 4.6 percent). The survey also found that the composition of the sediment on the seabed of Maunalua Bay is primarily bioclastic reef-derived calcium carbonate (mean = 94.6 percent) with a total inorganic carbon content of 11.4 percent and a small percentage of terrigenous material (mean = 5.4 percent) (Storlazzi et al., 2010).

Seafloor Bathymetry Initial research and early consultation with the DLNR DAR determined that the most favorable site for the proposed artificial memorial reef shall have no reef or other hard substrates, and shall be located at least 250 feet away from any identified corals and hard substrates to ensure the proposed project does not impact existing reef habitat.

Figure 6 shows the general bathymetry of the project area. The 7-acre project area in Maunalua Bay is dominated by a relatively uniform sandy substrate with trace amounts of algal cover, and no coral or hard substrates as observed during the benthic studies conducted at the project site. Observations of the seabed were made visually by SCUBA and towed divers during the benthic studies, and confirmed by sonar scans which detected no significant reef or relief profile (Appendix A).

Earthquakes

In Hawai‘i, earthquakes are generally linked to volcanic activity and occur thousands of times annually; the vast majority of which are of a very small magnitude. According to the USGS map of Hawai‘i Seismic Zone Assignments, O‘ahu lies in a seismic zone designated as Zone 2A; in which the zoning


ranges from 0 (no chance of severe ground shaking) to 4 (10 percent chance of severe shaking in a 50-year interval) (USGS, 2001).

Tsunamis

Located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawai‘i is susceptible to tsunamis from earthquakes and tsunamis generated in the Pacific Rim of Fire. The project area is outside of the tsunami evacuation zone, as it is more than 1 nautical mile from the shoreline (NOAAa, 2016).

3.2.1.4 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

Determination of the significance of potential impacts to geological resources is based on 1) the importance of the resource (i.e., commercial, ecological, and/or scientific); 2) the proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; and 3) the susceptibility for deleterious effects on the resource due to the Proposed Action. Impacts to geological resources are significant if the physical structure, chemical composition, or visual aesthetic character are adversely affected over a relatively large area.

250 0 250125Feet


Scale: 1" = 250 ft

LegendProject SiteDepth (meters)0.87 - 2.852.85 - 4.274.27 - 5.935.93 - 7.997.99 - 10.4410.44 - 13.0513.05 - 15.2615.26 - 17.4017.40 - 21.04

ÒO'AHUArea of Detail

PACIFIC OCEAN

BATHYMETRY MAPMAUNALUA BAY, O'AHU, HAWAI'I

76 0 7638Meters

Scale: 1" = 76 m


3.2.1.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no change in ground surface or the seafloor is expected. No significant impacts to soil/sediment, topography/bathymetry, geological resources, susceptibility to natural hazards are expected to result from the No Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative

Reef Module Manufacture

The reef modules would be manufactured at HMR’s base yard located at a suitable commercially zoned facility on O‘ahu. The base yard would comprise approximately 2,000 to 5,000 ft2, with an office building and a warehouse located on the property. Manufacturing of the reef modules would take place within the HMR facility. Disturbance of soil at the base yard that could potentially lead to negative soil impacts or topographic alterations, such as grading or excavating, are unlikely. City and County of Honolulu Construction BMPs would be employed during any needed site work to build the manufacturing facility. Additionally, it is not anticipated that the HMR base yard and its associated activities will increase the area’s susceptibility to natural hazards.

Reef Module Deployment

The reef modules would be deployed in Maunalua Bay to depths ranging from 50 to 65 feet. Each reef module would be lowered to its specified location on the seafloor using reusable bladders. A qualified dive team would escort each reef module until it reaches the seafloor at its desired location while the attached bladders are slowly deflated. This method would prevent the modules from inadvertently being placed in the wrong location and allow the reef modules to settle slowly onto the seafloor without significantly affecting seismic properties, sediment stability, or bathymetry at or near the proposed project site.

Artificial Reef Operation

The establishment of reef modules on the seafloor would inherently alter the existing bathymetric profile of the project area; however, the presence of reef modules is not anticipated to substantially affect seafloor bathymetry or seabed composition at the proposed site or in surrounding areas. Within the project area, the relief would only increase by a maximum of 2.9 feet (Figure 2). Furthermore, the artificial reef modules would be constructed from a mixture of cement (Type II Portland Cement), W.R. Grace’s Force 10,000 microsilica, ADVATM Flow Superplasticizer (water-reducing admixture), sand (salt free), and aggregates casted into a dome-shaped reef structure. Microsilica contributes to the strength and durability of the cement mixture whereas ADVATM is used to maintain a high water/cement ratio for stronger concrete that is less likely to degrade or leach. Therefore, modification of the seafloor composition or the project site’s bathymetry is not considered to be significant.

Finally, the reef modules are designed to have greater than 50 percent of their weight at the structure base and to withstand heavy tropical storms in other areas of the US without movement in as little as 20 feet of water (Reef Ball Foundation, 2014). Since the proposed project site would include a sand bottom location, which provides more stability than a hard bottom, anchoring is not anticipated to be required. If it is deemed necessary, anchoring cones may be cast monolithically to the reef modules to prevent lateral movement. In areas where hard substrate is encountered, fiberglass stakes would be driven into the seabed as necessary to anchor the reef modules. Therefore, in the event of a natural hazard, the reef modules are unlikely to move and cause damage to nearby coral reefs. However, HMR


shall assess the damage, if any, to the reef modules following any natural disaster to ensure damage is repaired and potential destruction to neighboring areas is properly prevented.

3.2.2 PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

3.2.2.1 DEFINITION OF RESOURCE

Physical oceanography refers to the physical conditions and properties such as sea temperature, salinity, and water density as well as physical processes within the ocean, including tides, waves, currents, and circulation. Understanding the existing physical properties and processes in the water is important in predicting the impacts that a certain action may have on the surrounding environment.


NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services gathers oceanographic data along the nation’s coast and is the authoritative source for accurate, reliable, and timely water-level and current measurements that support safe and efficient maritime commerce, sound coastal management, and recreation.


Tides

A mixed tidal cycle occurs in Hawai‘i, characterized by two high tides and two low tides in a 24 hour period that are unequal in height. Tidal currents are produced by the water moving toward and away from the shore due to the changes in tides. In addition to moving water toward and away from the shore, tidal currents cause currents that move along the shoreline. Rising tides tend to cause coastal currents to flow towards the west and falling tides towards the east in waters off of east O‘ahu (University of Hawai‘i, 2016).

Surface Waves

Surface waves are usually calm on the south shore of Oahu during winter since it is shielded from North Pacific waves. During summer, swells arrive from storms in the southern hemisphere. Swells are commonly well sorted and range from 3 to 9 feet high on average, rarely reaching the heights observed on the northern shore of the island during winter. The largest waves on record for the south shore of Oahu, however, reached over 20 feet high in June 1995 (PacIOOS, 2016).

Temperature

A baseline water quality survey was conducted within the project area and adjoining nearshore waters using a series of hydrocasts at selected locations within Maunalua Bay (Appendix A). Temperature of the water within and adjacent to the proposed project area was very uniform at all sites, ranging from a maximum of 25.3 degrees Celsius (°C) at the surface to a minimum of 25.1°C at the seafloor. Temperature differences among the sampled sites were only a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. Slightly warmer (up to 29°C) temperatures are expected during the summer months as observed elsewhere along the coast of Moanalua Bay (PacIOOS, 2016).



Determination of the significance of potential impacts to physical oceanography is based on 1) the importance of the physical oceanographic condition/character (i.e., commercial, ecological, and/or scientific); 2) the proportion of the condition/character that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; and 3) the susceptibility for deleterious effects on the condition/character due to the Proposed Action. Impacts to physical oceanographic characteristics are significant if the physical structure, physical properties, or chemical composition are adversely affected over a relatively large area.



Under the No Action Alternative, the project site would remain unchanged and there would be no impacts to the physical oceanographic conditions within or in the vicinity of the project site.


The proposed artificial reef would be placed in relatively deep water ranging from 50 to 65 feet below sea surface and kept at a low-profile to avoid competing for species of other reef habitats; therefore, impacts to surface waves would be insignificant. In addition, the proposed project site is located offshore from the shoreline where impacts to coastal currents would be negligible. The temperature profile of the water column at the proposed project site is uniform and well mixed; therefore, placement of the reef modules at the bottom of the ocean is not anticipated to result in changes to the temperature profile of the water column within the area.

3.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and animals and the habitats in which they occur. Sensitive biological resources are defined as those plants, animal, and marine species listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed as such, by USFWS, the NMFS, DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DFW), or the State of Hawai‘i DAR.


The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created in order to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA grants USFWS primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms and NMFS primary responsibility for marine wildlife (USFWS, 2013a).

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (as amended in 1994) was enacted to protect and manage population stocks of marine mammals that are, or may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activity. The MMPA establishes a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals and/or their products into the United States. NOAA-Fisheries has defined levels of harassment for marine mammals in general. In the MMPA, Level A Harassment is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B Harassment is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by


causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) mandates the use of annual catch limits and accountability measures to end overfishing, provides for widespread market-based fishery management through limited access privilege programs, and calls for increased international cooperation. The MSFCMA grants NMFS responsibility to implement both regional and national Congressionally-mandated deadlines. MSFCMA established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for those species regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan (FMP). The Act requires Federal action agencies (including those with permit responsibilities) to consult with NMFS on actions that may adversely affect EFH.

EO 13089, Coral Reef Protection was enacted to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and ecological, social, and economic values of US coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment. An interagency task force, the US Coral Reef Task Force, was created in order to fulfill the EO’s protection efforts. The task force works with State, territorial, commonwealth, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, and commercial interests to develop and implement measures to restore damaged coral reefs and to mitigate further coral reef degradation.


Marine Biota

Benthic surveys were conducted on December 7 through 9, 2015; February 4 through 6, 2016; and March 15, 2016 in an approximately 200-acre area within Maunalua Bay (study area) to determine the general benthic profile and topography, and to identify a smaller, suitable area with no reef or other hard substrates that could be impacted by a competing artificial reef. Survey methods included a sonar scan and towed diver (both SCUBA divers and free divers) survey of the benthic environment.

The proposed 7-acre project area, which includes relatively uniform sandy bottom where no hard substrate or corals were observed, was identified as the most suitable area. A buffer zone of 250 feet surrounding the project area, which was also void of existing reef habitat, was established to ensure that there is sufficient distance away from existing reef habitats nearby to avoid potential impacts to them and to avoid competing for species of other reef habitats. The buffer zone of 250 feet was adopted based on a recent artificial reef project implemented by the USACE Jacksonville District (USACE, 2011). Marine species observed within the 7-acre project area are presented below in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Species Observed Within the 7-acre Project Area

Taxa Scientific name Common name(s)

Algae Lyngbya majuscula Stinging limu

Fish Scomberiodes lysan Lai, leatherskin or spotted queen fish

Echinoderm Pentaceraster cumingi Knobby Star

L. majuscule algae was observed floating within the project area with trace amounts attached to the substrate in the buffer zone. The Benthic Study results show that the 7-acre project area is a relatively flat, uniform sandy bottom with very sparse marine species present. The complete Benthic Study Report outlining the detailed methodology used during the survey and results is included as Appendix A.


Benthic Community

On March 13, 2016, benthic infauna sand samples were collected to assess the existing infauna species types and diversity (Appendix A). Sampling locations were collected from areas where there were no existing reef habitat and were representative of areas where the proposed artificial reef would be placed (Figure 7). Laboratory analytical results of the sand samples revealed low species densities and diversity that included common benthic organisms reflective of a clean sandy habitat within nearshore Hawaiian waters (Table 3-2). Additional benthic sand sample collection is underway to provide a more comprehensive coverage of the entire 7-acre project area and the areas surrounding the 7-acre project area; results will be included in the final EA.

Table 3-2: Infauna Species Observed Within and in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Sample ID Major Group Taxon Organisms/Liter

MLB-001

Polychaeta, Hesionidae Microphthalmus sp. 1.2

Polychaeta Westheidesyllis heterocirrata 8.5 Polychaeta, Hesionidae Oxydromus cf. pugettensis 1.2

Echinodermata, Echinoidea Euechinoidea spp. juvenile 1.2

MLB-002

Oligochaeta Oligochaeta spp. indet. 6.1 Oligochaeta Grania sp. 1.2

Polychaeta, Goniadidae Goniadidae--unknown genus and species 1.2

Polychaeta, Syllidae Westheidesyllis heterocirrata 3.6 Polychaeta Erinaceusyllis sp. 1.2

MLB-003 Oligochaeta Oligochaeta spp. indet. 3.6

Polychaeta Caulleriella sp. 1.2 Mollusca, Bivalvia Tellinidae sp. 1 2.4

MLB-004

Polychaeta Magelona nr. montera Mortimer et al. 2012 1.2 Polychaeta Magelona sp. 1.2 Cnidaria, Anthozoa Actinaria spp. indet. 1.2 Oligochaeta Oligochaeta spp. indet. 1.2

Marine Mammals / Sea Turtles

Marine species of concern that are known to occur within and in the vicinity of the proposed project area include the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), the endangered green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). None of these species was observed during the benthic studies conducted at the proposed project site. Each of these species is described in further detail below.

Hawaiian Monk Seal

The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the world and are endemic to Hawai‘i. They are known to occur throughout the main Hawaiian Islands as well as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Only approximately 1,100 seals are left and their overall population is in decline. They are known to dive as deep as 1,500 ft but usually dive less than 200 ft to forage on the seafloor. Their


diet generally depends on what is available and includes many types of common fishes, squid, octopus, eels, and crustaceans (crabs, shrimp, and lobster) (NOAA, 2016b).

Green Sea Turtles

Green sea turtles are found throughout the world, occurring primarily in tropical, and to a lesser extent, subtropical waters. The Hawaiian green sea turtle is genetically distinct from the other green sea turtle populations, with more than 90 percent of the population nesting in the French Frigate Shoals of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and migrating to feed in the coastal areas of the main Hawaiian Islands. The species was in a steep decline in the 1970s because of direct harvest of both turtles and eggs by humans; however, the population has grown steadily over the last thirty years after protection began in 1978. Disease (i.e., fibropapillomatosis that causes tumor growth on the soft tissue) is considered the primary threat to green sea turtles in Hawaii. The species feed primarily on various species of seaweed and to lesser amounts, jellyfish, salps, mollusks, sponges, and tubeworms (NOAA, 2016b).

Hawksbill Sea Turtles

Hawksbill sea turtles can be found in tropical and sub-tropical regions throughout the world. In Hawaii, a few females nest each year on Maui and Molokai but the majority of hawksbill nesting in the Hawaiian Islands are observed on the Big Island of Hawaii. A total of 72 nesting females have been tagged on beaches on the Big Island since 1991. Through satellite tracking, the Hamakua Coast of the Big Island has been identified as an important foraging ground for Hawaiian hawksbill sea turtles. The species feed around coral reefs and rock outcroppings, primarily consuming sponges. Their unique hooked beak is well adapted for probing into holes and crevices to find prey. Hawksbills play an important role in the health of coral reef systems by keeping certain types of sponges from taking over space and resources from corals and other organisms (NOAA, 2016b).

Humpback Whale

Highest population densities have been reported in the four island areas of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, as well as on Penguin Bank, around Niihau Island and along the leeward coast of Hawaii Island, from Keahole Point north to Upolu Point. Kauai, Oahu, and the eastern and southwestern coast of Hawaii had lower densities. Few animals have been reported around the atolls, islands, banks, and reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

In 1993 it was estimated that there were 6,000 whales in the North Pacific Ocean, and that 4,000 of those came to Hawaiʻi. Through an international ban on commercial whaling and protections under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the North Pacific humpback whale population now numbers more than 21,000. The population of humpback whales that uses Hawaiʻi's waters as their principle wintering ground is likely more than 10,000 animals. This number is based on a comprehensive research effort that occurred between 2004 and 2006 that estimated the population at approximately 10,000 animals, and the likelihood that the population is still increasing at some unknown rate (NOAA, 2014).

Though hunting caused a major decline in all humpback whale populations, they are no longer endangered by that activity. However, humpback whales occur adjacent to human population centers and are affected by human activities throughout their range. Both habitat and prey are affected by human induced factors such as subsistence hunting, incidental entrapment or entanglement in fishing gear, collision with ships, and disturbance or displacement caused by noise and other factors associated with shipping, recreational boating, high-speed thrill craft, whale watching or air traffic. Introduction and/or persistence of pollutants and pathogens from waste disposal, disturbance and/or pollution from oil, gas or other mineral exploration and production, habitat degradation or loss associated with coastal development, and competition with fisheries for prey species may also impact the whales.


Invasive Algae

Three species of invasive marine algae have been identified encroaching on Maunalua Bay. These species include Leather Mudweed (Avrainvillea amadelpha), Gorilla Ogo (Gracilaria salicornia), and Spiny (or Prickly) Seaweed (Acanthophera spicifera). These species flourish off of an environment created by nutrient- and sediment-rich runoff from land, and grow over and smother existing coral reef and native algal communities, leading to a decrease in habitat for fish and other marine organisms in the bay (Mālama Maunalua, 2009). None of these species was observed within the proposed project area during the benthic surveys.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

Based on recommendation provided during pre-consultation conducted with NOAA NMFS, an assessment will be conducted to identify EFHs for Management Unit Species (MUS) conserved under the MSFCMRA that may occur within or in the vicinity of the proposed project area. It is anticipated that there would be no adverse effects on EFH since the proposed artificial reef is expected to provide additional habitat for the existing marine species in the area. Existing benthic species may be displaced due to placement of the reef modules on the seafloor; however, it is expected that these species would relocate/migrate to areas in the vicinity that are not covered by the reef modules. Ample space would be provided in between the individual reef modules to provide space for these species. In addition, the total area coverage of the sandy bottom being proposed to be utilized is relatively small in relation to the total area of sandy bottom available for these species in Maunalua Bay; therefore, no significant impacts to the survival of the existing benthic species are anticipated. Once finalized, the results and conclusion of the EFH assessment will be included in the final EA.


Determination of the significance of potential impacts to biological resources is based on 1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, recreation, ecological, or scientific) of the resource; 2) the proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; 3) the sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities; and 4) the duration of ecological ramifications.

Impacts to biological resources are significant if species or habitats of concern are adversely affected over relatively large areas, or if disturbances cause reductions in population size or distribution. Potential physical impacts such as habitat loss, noise, and impacts to water quality were evaluated to assess potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the Proposed Action.



Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed artificial reef would not be established. There would be no impacts to biological resources from the No Action Alternative since the project site and surrounding area would remain unchanged and no marine species would be affected. The state of Hawai‘i would continue to experience declines in the numbers and health of coral species, which would result in loss of associated aquatic habitat.



Once established, the proposed artificial reef would result in an increase in coral habitat which would provide additional habitats for fish and other marine organism, resulting in a positive impact to the overall health of the ecosystem within Maunalua Bay.

The proposed project area consists of a relatively flat, uniform sandy bottom with very sparse marine species present; therefore, it is anticipated that no significant impacts to the existing environment would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Additionally, there is sufficient distance (a buffer zone of 250 feet) between the proposed project area and existing reef habitats in the bay; therefore, impacts to the existing reef habitats and the potential for competing for species of other reef habitats would be avoided.

Although not observed during the benthic surveys conducting at the proposed project site, marine species of concern that are known to occur within the proposed project area include the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi), the endangered green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). The material of the reef modules would not be a hazard to any marine mammals or sea turtles within or in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Additionally, the sizes of the holes in the reef modules would be designed small enough to prevent entanglement hazards to sea turtles and monk seals. During deployment, all on-site project personnel will be notified of the potential presence of the listed species and the protections afforded to them. In-water work will cease if these species are observed by any on-site personnel within 50 yards of the deployment area until they voluntarily leave the area. Although not anticipated, any incidental take of marine mammals or sea turtles will be reported immediately to NOAA. No irrevocable loss of habitat, ongoing takes, or direct mortality of threatened or endangered species would occur due to implementation of the Proposed Action.

In order to prevent the recruitment and establishment of invasive algal species on the reef modules, periodic monitoring and management of the invasive species will be conducted through a University of Hawai‘i based scientific investigation. In-water censuses of the project area will be conducted by university students or staff, under the supervision of a subject matter expert in marine botany, every two months to survey and document the presence of the invasive algal species. Notice of the occurrence of any invasive algal species, if any, will be immediately forwarded to the appropriate agency personnel. It is proposed that invasive algal occurrences be removed and returned to shore for confirmation of the species. A detailed description of the methodology to be used during monitoring and management of the invasive algal species is included in the Resource Management and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B).


Figure 7: Benthic Infauna Study Map


3.2.3.1 WATER RESOURCES


Water resources encompass surface water, groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands. Surface water resources include the ocean, lakes, rivers, and streams, and are important for a variety of reasons including ecological, economic, recreational, aesthetic, and human health. Groundwater comprises subsurface water resources and is an essential resource in many areas as it is used for potable water, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Floodplains are belts of low, level ground present on one or both sides of a stream channel and are subject to either periodic or infrequent inundation by floodwater. Wetlands are defined as: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water (hydrology) at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation (hydrophytes) typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 232.2[r]). Coastal wetlands are important to the ecosystem and provide a critical interface between terrestrial and marine habitats. They also provide various functions such as buffering the coastline, capturing sediment, and retaining and transforming nutrients (Bruland, 2008).


The CWA of 1977 (PL 95-217) expanded provisions related to pollutant discharges and applies regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce point source and non-point source pollution, in addition to setting standards for water quality. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to maintain a list of water bodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet state water quality standards. States must obtain and review all readily available surface water quality data to compare against state standards, and then make a decision on the level of impairment for each water body. The listing applies to both point and non-point sources of pollution, and must include a listing of pollutants for which applicable standards are exceeded.

Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States through the control of discharges of dredged or fill material.” Consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, adverse impacts to wetlands, streams and other special aquatic sites must be avoided or minimized to the full extent practicable. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated consistent with USACE regulations and policies.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health (DOH) CWB is responsible for issuing or denying Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQCs) for any project/activity that requires a federal license or permit and may result in a water pollutant discharge to State surface waters.


Maunalua Bay is classified by DOH as “Class A Open Coastal Marine Waters.” The objective of Class A waters is “that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic enjoyment be protected. 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. These waters shall not act as receiving waters for


any discharge which has not received the best degree of treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for this class (HAR§11-54-3(c)(2)).”

A baseline water quality survey was conducted within the project area and adjoining nearshore waters at selected locations within Maunalua Bay (Figure 8). Water samples were collected for laboratory analysis of inorganic and total nutrients (nitrate and nitrite, ammonia, phosphate, silicate, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) and chlorophyll-a content at all sampling locations. In addition, temperature, conductivity, salinity, depth, pH, turbidity,

Documents

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Malama Maunalua€¦ · July 2016 HAWAII REEF PROJECT Page v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS > less than °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit μg/L