COMMUNITY PROFILE Draft (December 2010) 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Purpose of the Community Profile 1 1.2. Planning Area 1 1.3. Process Used to Compile the Community Profile 1 1.4. Previous Plans 3 2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1 2.1. Geology & Topography 1 2.2. Soils 5 2.3. Climate 7 2.4. Hydrology 15 2.5. Flora/Fauna 23 3 NATURAL HAZARDS & CLIMATE RISKS 1 3.1. High Winds, Tropical Cyclones & Hurricanes 1 3.2. Earthquakes 4 3.3. Landslides & Rockfalls 7 3.4. Tsunami 10 3.5. Floods & Dam Failures 12 3.6. Droughts 14 3.7. Wildfires 16 3.8. High Surf 18 3.9. Lava Flows, Volcanic Gas (VOG) and Ashfall 19 3.10. Coastal Erosion 21 3.11. Vulnerability Assessment 21 3.12. Implications of Climate Change 26 4 COASTAL RESOURCES 1 4.1. Shoreline Type 1 4.2. Coastal Habitats. 7 4.3. Coastal Access and Recreation. 7 4.4. Nearshore Water Quality. 8 4.5. Coastal Managed Areas and Planning. 8 5 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 5.1. Roads 1 5.2. Transit 6 5.3. Water 7 5.4. Wastewater 12 5.5. Solid Waste 14 5.6. Parks 16 i 5.7. Schools and Libraries 18 5.8. Fire 20 5.9. Police 20 5.10. Medical 22 6 HERITAGE RESOURCES 1 6.1. Planning Area’s History 1 6.2. Historical and Cultural Resources 6 6.3. Scenic Resources 8 6.4. Exceptional Trees 9 6.5. Heritage Corridor 9 6.6. Public Access 12 7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1 7.1. Population Change 1 7.2. Population demographics 2 7.3. Housing 5 7.4. Employment and Employers 7 8 LAND USE 1 8.1. Landownership 1 8.2. State Land Use Districts 4 8.3. General Plan LUPAG 20 8.4. County Zoning 24 8.5. Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback Area 25 8.6. DHHL Memorandum of Agreement 25 8.7. Development Potential 28 9 COMMUNITY VALUES & VISION 1 9.1. Talk Story Sessions and Survey 1 9.2. Sub-Regional Workshops 8 9.3. Using the Values and Visions to Guide the Plan Development Phase 21 10 REFERENCES AND GIS METADATA 1 10.1. Previous Plans 1 10.2. Physical Environement, Coastal Resources, Natural Hazards 1 10.3. Historic and Cultural Resources; Public Access 3 10.4. Infrastructure and Public Facilities 4 10.5. Land Use, Agriculture, Economic Development 4 ii List of Figures Figure 1-1. Planning Area 2 Figure 2-1. Elevation 2 Figure 2-2. Geology 3 Figure 2-3. Youthful Phase of Geomorphic Cycle 4 Figure 2-4. Soil Types 6 Figure 2-5. Land Study Bureau (LSB) Agricultural Suitability Classification 8 Figure 2-6. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaiÿi (ALISH) Classification 9 Figure 2-7. Rainfall (Average Annual) 10 Figure 2-8. Median Monthly Rainfall 11 Figure 2-9. Wind Patterns 13 Figure 2-10. Solar Insolation 14 Figure 2-11. Streams and Watersheds 16 Figure 2-12. Aquifers and Wetlands 22 Figure 2-13. Vegetation 24 Figure 2-14. Reserves 25 Figure 2-15. Extent of Native Forest Protected by Reserves 31 Figure 3-1. Residences Vulnerable to Hurricane and Earthquake 1 Figure 3-2. Effective Wind Speed 3 Figure 3-3. Peak Ground Acceleration from Kiholo Earthquake 6 Figure 3-4. Probabilistic Ground-Motion Maps 7 Figure 3-5. Landslide susceptibility map of Hawaiÿi Island 9 Figure 3-6. Tsunami-Prone Communities. Tsunami-Prone Communities 11 Figure 3-7. Dam Locations 13 Figure 3-8. Drought Vulnerability to the Water Supply Sector 15 Figure 3-9. Drought Vulnerability to the Agricultural Sector 15 Figure 3-10. Wildfire At-Risk Communities 17 Figure 3-11. Lava Flow Hazard Zones 20 Figure 3-12. Shelters 23 Figure 3-13. Emergency Warning Sirens 25 Figure 3-14. Sea Level Rise Hazards 28 Figure 4-1. Shoreline Types 2 Figure 5-1. Roads 2 Figure 5-2. County Water Systems 8 Figure 5-3. Lower Hämäkua Ditch 11 Figure 5-4. County Wastewater Systems and Critical Wastewater Disposl Areas 13 Figure 5-5. Parks 17 Figure 5-6. Schools and Libraries 19 Figure 5-7. Fire Stations 21 Figure 6-1. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources 7 Figure 8-1. Major Landowners 3 Figure 8-2. State Land Use Districts Comparison by Judicial Districts 4 Figure 8-3. State Land Use Districts 5 iii Figure 8-4. Special Permits 7 Figure 8-7. Agricultural Suitability Comparisons: ALISH vs. LSB vs. General Plan IAL 17 Figure 8-8. Nonconforming Parcels < 1 Acre in the Agricultural District 19 Figure 8-9. Rural Districts 21 Figure 8-10. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) 22 Figure 8-11. Comparison of LUPAG-Urban Designations with State Land Use Urban District 23 Figure 8-12. County Zoning 24 Figure 8-13. DHHL Lands and MOA Designations 27 Figure 8-14. Building Permits (2005-2010) 29 Figure 8-15. Pre-Existing Lots of Record Determinations 38 Figure 8-16. Vacant Parcels in the Urban District 39 iv 1 Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the Community Profile The purpose of the community profile is to comprehensively describe the existing conditions of the plan- ning area to provide a fact-based foundation to build policies. The sources of information include previ- ous plans and studies, available mapping data, interviews with agencies, and input from the residents of the area who possess local knowledge. This profile describes the physical, social, cultural, and economic conditions, and also highlights the community’s values, stakeholders, and issues. 1.2. Planning Area The Hämäkua CDP planning area, totaling approximately 1,164 square miles (745,144 acres), encom- passes the judicial districts of Hämäkua (57%) and North Hilo (32%), and a portion of South Hilo referred to as Rural South Hilo (11%) (“Planning Area”). The southern boundary follows the Council District 1 boundary, which is located north of Wailuku River and follows an unnamed stream just north of Puke- hae Stream, thence along stretches of Waiau and Awehi Streams. The Planning Area includes the com- munities of Ähualoa, Waipi‘o Valley, Kukuihaele, Honoka‘a, Kalöpä, Pa‘auilo, ‘O‘ökala, Laupähoehoe, Päpa‘aloa, Nïnole, Umauma, Wailea, Hakalau, Honomü, Pepe‘ekeö, Päpa‘ikou, Pauka‘a, Wainaku, Kai- wiki and other small communities and subdivisions (see Figure 1-1). 1.3. Process Used to Compile the Community Profile This community profile resulted from the following steps: 1. Community Values. Between September 2009 and May 2010, the County of Hawai‘i invited the residents in the Planning Area to respond to two questions by survey or dur- ing small group “Talk Story” meetings: What do you LOVE about Hämäkua? and What would you like to SEE in Hämäkua in 20 years? Responses to those questions were used to identify the community’s values and vision, as discussed in chapter 9 of this profile document. 2. Background Research. The consultant reviewed previous plans and studies, and orga- nized available mapping data into a geodatabase. The references used for the profile are listed at the end of this profile, including the information sources for the mapped informa- tion. 3. Consultation with the Community and Agencies. Data gathering workshops open to the public were held in Rural South Hilo, North Hilo, and Hämäkua during October and November 2010. Interviews were also held as necessary with various agencies and stake- holders to followup on more detailed information. 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction Figure 1-1. Planning Area 1-2 Community Profile Section: Previous Plans 4. Regional Workshop. A regional workshop, held in _____ and attended by ___ persons, verified the information gathered from a broader Planning Area-wide geographical per- spective. 1.4. Previous Plans The Planning Area has been the subject of several previous planning efforts: • A Plan for the Hämäkua District. In 1970, the County prepared a plan for the Hämäkua District (Kasamoto, et al 1970). The succinct style with its focus on pragmatic recommen- dations and a financing plan provided a useful historical backdrop to understand some of today’s patterns of roads and public facilities. The Hämäkua District Development Coun- cil played an active role in developing the plan, and the plan encouraged the continued role of this community-based entity to advise the Planning Department. Although not adoptedy b ordinance or resolution, the plan was intended to be used as a guide, par- ticularly when formulating the capital improvements budget. For this current Community Development Plan, this 1970 plan was used as a historical reference. • Northeast Hawaii Community Development Plan. In 1979, the County adopted the Northeast Hawaii Community Development Plan by Ordinance No. 445 that encom- passed most of the Planning Area (EDAW and Tanaka 1979) (referred to as the “1979 CDP”). This 1979 CDP included urban design plans for Honokaÿa (Ordinance No. 463) and Laupähoehoe (Ordinance No. 444). The 1979 CDP followed the organization of the General Plan into 12 subject elements. Upon review, most of the 1979 recommendations were found in need of update or too general. In contrast, the urban design plans were quite detailed and provided a starting point to update the plans for these areas. The cur- rent Community Development Plan, also adopted by ordinance, updates and supersedes the 1979 CDP and companion urban design plans. • Hämäkua Regional Plan. In 1990, the State and County jointly formed the Hämäkua Steering Committee (not to be confused with the Steering Committee setup for this cur- rent Community Development Plan) to prepare a strategic plan to save the sugar industry (Hämäkua Steering Committee 1990).