Attachment a Record of Adoption Council Resolution 03-09, FD1

Attachment A

Record of Adoption Council Resolution 03-09, FD1 Establishing a City Policy That Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Should Not be Located Over the City’s Underground Drinking Water Sources

DATA FOR THIS RECORD AS OF 12/I 6/04

Resolution 03-09 FD1 Introduced: 0 1/10/03 by: MIKE GABBARD Re: POLICY RE LOCATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS LANDFILL. MIKE GABBARD. POLICY. SOLID WASTE. WASTE DISPOSAL. WATER. WATER CONTAMINATION. WATER MISCELLANEOUS. WATER POLLUTION. WATER SAFETY. Present status: Adopted 04/16/03

Title: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY POLICY THAT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SHULD NOT BE LOCATED OVER THE CITY’S UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER SOURCES.

Gist:

Resolution History:

0 1/16/03 PW COUN Committee Rept. No. 14(2003) Resolution reported out of committee for adoption as amended in CD! form. 01/29/03 COUNCIL COMM Resolution 03-09, CDL. and PW CR-14 referred back to Public Works Committee. 04/02/03 PW COUN Committee Rept. No. 108 (2003) Resolution reported out of committee for adoption. 04/I 6/03 COUNCIL ADOPT PW CR-I 08 adopted. Resolution amended to FD I and subsequently adopted as amended (Res. 03-09, FDI).

CACHOLA. ROMY Y DELA CRUZ. DONOVAN Y DJOU, CHARLES Y GABBARD. MIKE Y GARCIA. NESTOR Y KOBAYASHI. ANN Y MARSHALL. BARBARA Y OKINO. GARY Y TAM, ROD Y

Related Communications:

CC 15, 2003 by: MIKE GABBARI) Submitting a Disclosure of interest Statement reporting that lie is founder/president of Healthly Hawaii Coalition.

CC 136, 2003 by: ANN KOBAYASHI Informing of the circulation of a proposed Fl) 1.

D 42, 2003 by: BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY Supporting Resolution.

1)342.2003 by: BOARI) OF WATER SIJPPLY Supporting Resolution.

D 344. 2003 by: BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY Supporting Resolution.

M 23, 2003 by: U.S. EPA. REGION IX Concurring that alternative sites for the proposed Kunia landfill should be considered.

M 24, 2003 by: BRENNON MORIOKA Opposing Resolution.

M 33, 2003 by: S. SANAETOKUMURA Opposing Resolution.

M 42, 2003 by: STEPHEN H. MACMILLAN THE ESTATE OF JAMES CAMPBELL Asking that consideration be given to the need for landfill sites.

M 45, 2003 by: CAROL MITSUYASU URS CORPORATION Testifying on behalfof URS Corporation in opposition Resolution 03-09, CD!.

M 375, 2003 by: STEPHEN H. MACMILLAN THE ESTATE OF JAMES CAMPBELL Testifying on behalf of The Estate of James Campbell in commenting on the proposed measure.

M 376, 2003 by: GEORGE FOX ADVOCATES FOR CONSUMER RIGHTS Testifying on behalf of Advocates For Consumer Rights in support of Resolution 03-09. CITY COUNCIL

1~i~ ) CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU 03-09, FDI

HONOLULU, HAWAII No. ______RESOLUTION

ESTABLISHING A CITY POLICY THAT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED OVER THE CITY’S UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER SOURCES.

WHEREAS, both the groundwater protection zone, established by the City’s Board of Water Supply, and the underground

injection control line (“UIC”) , established by the State Department of Health, are intended to protect the City’s precious underground drinking water from contamination; and

WHEREAS, the State Department of Health has expressed its preference for the City’s “non~-degradationapproach” of protecting drinking water sources by siting landfills seaward of the UIC line; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Board of Water Supply also opposes the placement of a municipal solid waste (“MSW”) landfill over the City’s drinking water sources; and

WHEREAS, there is no current landfill technology that can guarantee that hazardous or other harmful substances from a MSW landfill placed over the city’s aquifer will not, over the long~- term, enter the city’s drinking water sources and pose a risk to the public health and welfare of Honolulu’s citizens; and

WHEREAS, in Hawaii, a number of toxic waste contaminated sites are former landfills; and

WHEREAS, prevention of contamination of the City’s drinking water, through the placement of MSW landfills outside the groundwater protection zone and the UIC, is preferable to the remediation of contaminated drinking water; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that it hereby establishes as a policy of the City that municipal solid waste landfills should not be located anywhere above the Department of Health’s Underground Injection Control line, within the Board of Water Supply’s groundwater protection zone, or over any of the City’s drinking water sources; and

0CS00233 . R03 RESOLUTION

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Clerk is requested to send copies of this resolution to the Director of Environmental Services, the Director of Planning and Permitting, the State Director of Health, the Board of Water Supply and the Mayor.

INTRODUCED BY:

Mike Gabbard

DATE OF INTRODUCTION:

January 10, 2003 Honolulu, Hawaii Councilmeinbers

(OC5/040503/ct)

ADOPTED CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU HONOLULU, HAWAII 4/16/03 Reference: AYE NO NE I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was cACHOLA x Report No. 108 adopted by the COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY DELAcRUZ X OF HONOLULU on the date and by the vote indicated to DJOU X the right. GABBARD

ATTEST: GARCIA — X KOBAYASHI X Resolution No. MARSHALL X 03—09, PDI GENEVIEVE G. WON~ GA H.OKINO OKINO X CITY CLERK CHAFR AN RESLOING OFFTCER TAM X Dated 4/16/03 0 dITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU HONOLULU, HAWAII No. 03-09. CDI RESOLUTION

ESTABLISHING A CITY POLICY THAT LANDFILLS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED OVER THE CITY’S UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER SOURCES.

WHEREAS, recently, a solid waste firm has approached the City to propose development of a landfill in an agricultural area in Central Oahu that is within the groundwater protection zone and above the underground injection control line (“UIC”) and

WHEREAS, both the groundwater protection zone, established by the City’s Board of Water Supply, and the UIC, established by the State Department of Health, are intended to protect the City’s precious underground drinking water from contamination; and

WHEREAS, the State Department of Health has expressed its preference for the City’s “non-degradation approach” of protecting drinking water sources by siting landfills seaward of the UIC line; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Board of Water Supply also opposes the placement of a landfill over the City’s drinking water sources; and

WHEREAS, there is no current landfill technology that can guarantee that hazardous or other harmful substances from any landfill placed over the city’s aquifer will not, over the long- term, enter the city’s drinking water sources and pose a risk to the public health and welfare of Honolulu’s citizens; and

WHEREAS, in Hawaii, a number of toxic waste contaminated sites are former landfills; and

WHEREAS, prevention of contamination of the City’s drinking water, through the placement of landfills outside the groundwater protection zone and the UIC, is preferable to the remediation of contaminated drinking water; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that it hereby establishes as a policy of the City that landfills, including but not limited to landfills for the

OCS00021 .RO3 RESOLUTION

disposal of municipal solid waste, construction waste, hazardous waste, or biological waste, should not be located anywhere above the Department of Health’s Underground Injection Control line, within the Board of Water Supply’s groundwater protection zone, or over any of the City’s drinking water sources; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Clerk is requested to send copies of this resolution to the Governor, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Hawaii State Legislature, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Mayor, the Director of Environmental Services, the Director of Planning and Permitting, the State Director of Health, and the Board of Water Supply.

INTRODUCED BY:

Mike Gabbard

DATE OF INTRODUCTION:

January 10, 2003 Honolulu, Hawaii Councilmembers

(OCS/0l2203/ct) 2

ADOPTED CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU HONOLULU, HAWAII Reference: AYE NO NE I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was CACHOLA Report No. adopted by the COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY DELA CRUZ OF HONOLULU on the date and by the vote indicated to DJOU the right. GABBARD ATTEST: GARCIA KOBAVASHI Resolution No. MARSHALL 03—09, CD1 GENEVIEVE G. WONG GARY H. OKINO OKINO CITY CLERK CHAIR AND PRESIDING OFFICER TAM

Dated ______6c% CITY COUNCIL CITY AND couNTy OF HONOLULU No 1 ~ —

RESOLUTION

ESTABLISHING A CITY POLICY THAT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED OVER THE CITY’S UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER SOURCES.

WHEREAS, recently, a solid waste firm has approached the City to propose development of a municipal solid waste (“MSW”) landfill in an agricultural area in Central Oahu that is within the groundwater protection zone and above the underground injection control line (“UIC”); and

WHEREAS, the City’s Board of Water Supply also opposes the placement of a MSW landfill over the City’s drinking water sources; and

WHEREAS, there is no current landfill technology that can guarantee that hazardous or other harmful substances from a MSW landfill placed over the city’s aquifer will not, over the long- term, enter the city’s drinking water sources and pose a risk to the public health and welfare of Honolulu’s citizens; and

WHEREAS, in Hawaii, a number of toxic waste contaminated sites are former landfills; and

Pw.

0C500009 - R03 c~, CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU p 3 0 HONOLULU, HAWAII No. ______RESOLUTION

2 RESOLUTION

INTR DU

kCflJ~ 1’

DATE OF INTRODUCTION: :jAN 10 21)03

Honolulu, Hawaii Councilmembers

(OCS/011003/ct)

ADOPTED CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU HONOLULU, HAWAII Reference: AYE NO A/E I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was CACHOLA Report No. adopted by the COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY DELA CRUZ OF HONOLULU on the date and by the vote indicated to DJOU the right. GABBARD ATTEST: GARCIA KOBAYASHI Resolution No. MARSHALL GENEVIEVE G. WONG GARY H. OKINO OI~NO CITY CLERK CHAIR AND PRESIDING OFFICER (1 €••‘ ~?•) f~ TAM — (ii Dated

Attachment B

Record of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection (MACLSS) January 2011 through April 2012

Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu

Meeting No. 1 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection January 20, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

AGENDA MEETING NO. 1 MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011 9 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

1. Welcome and Introduction

2. Purpose of Committee and Desired Outcomes

3. Public Comments

4. Preliminary Issues Identification

5. Next Steps, Thank You, and Adjournment.

Meeting No. 1 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

January 20, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: Bruce Anderson, David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West Committee Members Absent: David Cooper, John DeSoto, Janice Marsters Welcome and Opening Remarks: Doug Chin, Tim Steinberger Department of Environmental Services (ENV) Staff: Steve Serikaku Consultants: Brian Takeda, Gail Atwater, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

The meeting began at 9:00 AM and opened with a welcome by Acting Mayor Doug Chin who thanked the Committee for agreeing to serve and noted that he and the Mayor looked forward to receiving their recommendations. Tim Steinberger, Director, ENV, also thanked the Committee and echoed the comments of Doug Chin.

The purpose and outcome for the Committee were next shared – the purpose is to share information and sites under consideration for the next solid waste landfill on O‘ahu, identify additional sites, if any, and to develop criteria from a community perspective to measure the identified sites against – the outcome is to forward to the Mayor a list of ranked sites based on the criteria.

The Committee agreed to guidelines and ground rules for their deliberations around this issue; they agreed to be courteous in their discussions, that it was OK to disagree as long as the disagreements were around issues and not personalities, that they would listen as an ally meaning that they would listen for agreements as well as disagreements, that they would state their concerns openly, and agree that every opinion is important to the discussion.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

Brian Takeda from R. M. Towill Corporation (RMTC) then provided an overview to the Committee regarding the City’s present solid waste management system and scope of the process. He clarified that the committee is tasked with helping to identify the next landfill site on O‘ahu and that the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (WGSL) will not be considered in this process. Key points covered included the following:

 The basis for the formation of the Committee is Condition No. 4 of the Special Use Permit (SUP) for the operation of the WGSL dated October 2009 which required the ENV to begin the process of identifying O‘ahu’s next landfill site by November 2010.

Meeting No. 1 Group Memory Page 1 of 4  The City is pursuing all feasible alternatives to landfilling. However, all present alternative processes result in the generation of waste by-products that cannot be further reused, recycled or otherwise combusted. For these forms of waste a solid waste landfill remains the most viable alternative for the City.  The planned landfill will be designed to accept municipal solid waste, ash and residue, and construction and demolition debris waste.  He explained the package of materials that was distributed to the Committee members.  The schedule of 7 meetings was explained and it was noted that if more meetings are necessary, that they would be scheduled at the Committee’s discretion.  An overview of the City’s refuse handling system including solid waste collection, transfer stations, H-POWER, landfills, recycling and bioconversion, source reduction and reuse, special waste management, and education.

After the presentation the Committee asked questions and began to develop preliminary issues for discussion. The following is a summary of the discussion and the issues raised:

Q: Are we talking about the identification of just one site or is there the potential to look at multiple sites depending on the waste stream? A: The Committee can make comments on appropriate sites for waste streams however the Committee’s task is to rank the sites from the best to the least satisfactory and not pick one; the further charge to the Committee at this point is to rank sites that can accommodate all waste streams including Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), ash and residue, and construction and demolition (C&D) debris, in part because of economies of scale and costs associated with multiple EISs and operators, etc.

Q: Can we have a copy of the LUC Conditions? A: Yes we will provide

Q: Can we get information on waste stream composition by region and from the various transfer stations? A: Yes and we will do our best to get it as well defined as possible

Q: Interested in drinking water retention and recharge areas. A: We can get the Committee the current UIC or underground injection control line information.

Q: Are there other watershed restrictions? A: Yes, but it will depend on the location of the site in question

Q: Can we have a presentation by DOH on environmental issues? A: Yes, we can request this from DOH

Q: Can we get some parameters around the area that would be required for the site? A: Yes we will get that

Meeting No. 1 Group Memory Page 2 of 4 Q: Will we look at cultural sites that might be located in any of the sites we are looking at? A: Existing information would be available and we will supply it to the Committee – any site ultimately chosen would be subject to the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment as part of the EIS process.

Q: Can we have a briefing by the LUC staff? A: There was discussion around this and the group decided to look at the Decision and Order (D&O) first and then decide if a presentation would be helpful to the Committee in reference to the work they are being asked to do.

The Committee next discussed issues that they needed to address as part of their work:

 What is the timeframe to develop the new site  What is the City’s overall vision for waste stream disposal  Precipitation patterns  Existing cultural sites  Current land use designations for sites under consideration and whether there are land use conflicts at any of the sites being considered  Transportation costs  Wind patterns  RCRA Subtitle D requirements  Information on the Waimanalo North and Bellows alternative sites, should the state and military say we can continue to look at those sites  Problem of landfills that were closed in the past so we can be aware of these in our deliberations  Availability of cover material and other engineering requirements at sites  Different requirements for sites by type of waste disposed  A lot of what we have mentioned is technical criteria; we need to make sure that we fulfill our charge of developing criteria from the community’s perspective  The site needs to accommodate C&D waste also

The committee next discussed the dates for future meetings understanding that the dates are tentatively set and may be adjusted:

February 10: 9 AM to +/-5 PM – There will be a tour of solid waste handling facilities– Committee members will meet at Kapolei Hale at 9:00 AM – we will furnish additional information to the Committee as the details are finalized. March 10: 9 AM to 12 PM March 31: 9 AM to 12 PM May 12: 9 AM to 12 PM – (Note: This date is corrected from an earlier date) June 23: 9 AM to 12 PM

Meeting No. 1 Group Memory Page 3 of 4 July 21: 9 AM to 12 PM

All meetings will be in the Mayor’s Conference Room unless the Committee is otherwise notified. Materials necessary for each meeting will be available no later than 7 days prior to the meeting.

The Committee requested that as the process progresses they would like an additional field trip to the top sites and also requested: (1) that maps be furnished when appropriate for discussion; and (2) that the appropriate Development Plans also be provided for the final sites.

Meeting No. 1 Group Memory Page 4 of 4

Materials for Committee Members

Mayor’s Community Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu

January 20, 2011

In order to assist this Committee with its task we have prepared the following information contained in the folders each of you will receive. The contents are for the Committee’s reference and use:

1. The Advisory Committee Member’s Description of Service – this is essentially a job description to help identify what you will be asked to do.

2. Summary of Planned Meeting Content – this is a summary of the meetings that are planned.

3. A Summary of Regulatory Requirements for MSW and Ash, and C&D Landfills – this contains the regulations under which the disposal of these forms of waste is governed.

4. An excerpt from the City’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update, 2008, containing Section 1, Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System – this excerpt is based on the use of data from 2006, but provides a good summary of the City’s system for the handling and management of solid waste on O‘ahu.

5. The City previously identified two potential landfill sites that may be available to this Committee for consideration. To assist this Committee the City has prepared two letters to document the availability of the sites.

One letter is to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources requesting the availability of the potential landfill site known as Waimānalo North, located in Waimānalo, O‘ahu.

The second letter is the to the U. S. Marine Corps requesting the availability of a potential landfill site in the Bellows Air Force Station, also located in Waimānalo, O‘ahu.

6. Finally, the Committee is provided with a CD containing: A complete copy of the Solid Waste Integrated Management Plan Update, 2008; and a copy of the Final EIS for the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, 2008.

Additional information will be furnished to the Committee as the series of meetings progress. Advisory Committee Member's Description of Service Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

January 20, 2011

The members of this Committee are asked to provide advisory recommendations to the City concerning the selection of a future site for a landfill that will accept Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), ash and residue from facilities such as H-POWER, and construction and demolition debris waste (C&D) for the Island of O‘ahu. The City Administration asks that the Advisory Committee identify the optimal landfill site recognizing that its role is advisory and that the final decision will rest with the Administration and City Council. Once this decision is made the final siting process will require public hearings and environmental and land use processes that are outside of the Committee's role of providing advisory recommendations. The Committee will be working with R. M. Towill Corporation (RMTC) who has been selected by the City to assist with this process. All Committee meetings will be facilitated and Committee members will be asked to: attend meetings of the Committee; review information provided to you about landfill siting requirements (federal, state and City & County of Honolulu); and ask questions and work through processes that will assist with identifying the optimal site(s) for a landfill. Committee members will be asked to raise issues and questions based on their own background and expertise, as well as those of the communities they live in. They are also encouraged to share the information discussed at the meetings with others. Committee members will be asked to listen with an open mind and to honestly put issues of concern on the table with the intent of working through these issues in a collaborative problem solving manner. The Committee will be working with sites previously identified by the City in various reports that have been prepared over several decades. Additional information to assist the Committee in its deliberations will be provided. It is expected that there will be approximately 7 meetings to allow the Committee sufficient time to review and consider all of the information that will be provided. These meetings are expected to span a period of approximately 6 months with meetings planned to occur once every 3 to 4 weeks. All meetings are planned to take place during the day. In the weeks to come, we will be contacting each of you to provide additional information and detail. The City thanks you for agreeing to assist with this important task. Summary of Planned Meeting Content

Mayor’s Community Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu

January 20, 2011

Meeting 1 • Introduction and Description of the Committee’s objectives, ground rules, and administration • Solid Waste and Description of the City’s Solid Waste Management System Meeting 2 • Site Visit to Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, H-POWER, and other facilities • Relationship of facilities to the City’s Solid Waste Management System Meeting 3 • Review landfill engineering necessary to the siting of a landfill: Present siting requirements from Federal, State, and City & County of Honolulu • Previous alternative landfill sites considered by the City • Request Committee’s identification of additional sites for consideration and obtain Committee’s preliminary siting criteria Meeting 4 • Request additional community-based siting criteria from Committee • Consultant’s description of process for developing measurable criteria to score and rank landfill sites Meeting 5 • Review alternative LF sites under consideration and apply RCRA Subtitle D and State/City & County of Honolulu siting criteria. Provide results to Committee. • Distribute Draft Landfill Siting Evaluation Sheets to Committee and review landfill evaluation process. Review how data is measured and scored in the data sheets. Revise as required based on Committee’s input. • Discuss and obtain Committee’s weighting of the criteria Meeting 6 • Present results of the analysis • Reveal sites selected by the Committee and discuss • Discuss content of the Committee’s Report to the Mayor • Consultant directed to prepare the Committee’s Draft Report to the Mayor. Meeting 7 • Discuss Draft Report to the Mayor with Committee. Revise as required and prepare Final Report. • Submit the Committee’s Report to the Mayor and conclude the Committee’s role.

Summary of Regulatory Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste; Ash (and Residue); and Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills

January 20, 2011

The following summary of regulatory requirements is taken from Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 342H1, Solid Waste Pollution., and assumes the total disposal of 450,000 to 500,000 tons per year (TPY).

Ash is included in Hawai‘i regulations as part of the definition of “solid waste” or “waste” where ash is referred to as “residues from air pollution control facilities”. Ash is referred to in a similar way in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D, definition of “wastes” (that definition is referenced in the Hawai‘i regulations). Ash is specifically listed as a “special waste”. Regulations relating to ash are in RCRA Subtitle D, Subchapter 5, Special Waste Management. It requires that ash be disposed in a monofill that meets the requirements of RCRA Subtitle D, Subchapter 2, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The Subchapter 2 requirements are for MSW and ash and are summarized in the following table in the column titled MSW/Ash.

The definitions related to these categories of landfill follow this table.

Regulation Topic MSW/Ash C&D The engineering report must include a Leachate Management Leachate controls Considered as part of the design requirements. Plan, but there are no specific requirements. Explosive gas Operators must have routine monitoring program and Not addressed controls develop a control plan if limits are exceeded. The upper component must consist of a minimum 30‐ mil flexible membrane liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10‐7 cm/second. A minimum of two feet thick layer of soil, with a maximum Liner requirements The lower component must consist of at least a two‐ permeability of 1 x 10‐5 cm per foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic second conductivity of no more than 1 x 10‐7 cm/sec. It must tie into the leachate collection system.

Not addressed directly in the Daily cover Regs, but the Operations Plan At least six inches of soil. requirements that is required may include daily cover.

Interim cover Included in the Operations Plan A minimum of six inches as

1 Revised statutes downloaded from the Department of Health web page on December 21, 2010.

Pacific Waste Consulting Group Page 1 of 3 Regulation Topic MSW/Ash C&D required by DOH. There are two provisions:  The final cover shall consist of eighteen inches of earthen material to minimize infiltration Two feet of soil, or as approved Final cover and six inches of earthen material. by DOH.  Permeability less than or equal to the bottom liner. Not addressed, but might be Alternative Daily Allowed if approved by DOH; use of plastic materials as allowed through the Operations Cover (ADC) ADC may conserve significant space. Plan, if approved by DOH. Closure/Post Requires the same provisions as closure/financial Required an MSW landfill. assurance Ground‐water Required, with extensive monitoring, testing, and A minimum of three wells is monitoring reporting provisions. specified, if required by DOH. Siting requirements RCRA Subtitle D requirements Lesser restrictions

The definitions from the Hawai‘i regulations relating to the table are below:

"Ash" Means the residue including any air pollution flue dust or bottom ash from combustion or the incineration of material including solid wastes.

"Construction and demolition waste" Means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads, or other structures, such as concrete, rock, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, plaster, and minor amounts of other metals, such as copper. Construction and demolition waste does not include cleanup materials contaminated with hazardous substances, friable asbestos, waste paints, solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials. Permit requirements are in Section 11‐58.1‐19.

"Solid waste" or "waste" Means garbage, refuse, and other discarded materials, including solid, liquid, semi‐solid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, sludge from waste treatment plants and water supply treatment plants, and residues from air pollution control facilities and community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage or other substances in water sources such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows, or other common water pollutants, or source, special nuclear, or by‐product material as defined by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).

Pacific Waste Consulting Group Page 2 of 3 "Special wastes" Means any solid waste which, because of its source or physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, require special consideration for its proper processing or disposal, or both. This term includes, but is not limited to, asbestos, used oil, lead acid batteries, municipal waste combustion ash, sewage sludge that is non‐ hazardous, medical wastes, tires, white goods, and derelict vehicles.

"Municipal solid waste landfill unit" or "MSWLF unit" Means a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR section 257.2. A MSWLF unit also may receive other types of RCRA subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. The landfill may be publicly or privately owned. A MSWLF unit may be a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit, or a lateral expansion.

RCRA Subtitle D Wastes are defined in RCRA as “Solid waste means any garbage, or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi‐solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 U.S.C. 1342, or source, special nuclear, or by‐product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).”

Pacific Waste Consulting Group Page 3 of 3 Section 1 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

1.1 Background The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 342G, requires each county to develop an integrated solid waste management plan (Plan) and revise the Plan once every five years. Beyond the State of Hawaii (State) solid waste management planning requirement, the City and County of Honolulu (the City) adopted legislation1 that requires the development of a 25-year plan that is updated every 5 years. Therefore, in 2005, the City Refuse Division of the Department of Environmental Services (Refuse Division) began preparing a revised Plan that identifies the infrastructure, operating systems, policies and funding mechanisms to manage the City’s solid waste through 2030.

Over the past 25 years the City and County of Honolulu has progressed its management of solid waste from an all manual collection system to an eighty-five percent automated system; constructed three major waste transfer stations and six convenience centers; established the H-POWER waste-to-energy facility, which over the past eighteen years has converted over 10 million tons of refuse to 550 million kilowatt hours of electricity and saved the importation of over 600 million barrels of imported oil; increased the material recycling recovery rate from 5% to some 35% and significantly reduced the volume of waste to landfill.

This Plan continues the City’s primary solid waste management objective set forth in previous plans and used to design an integrated system to maximize the recovery of solid waste and minimize the amount of waste that requires landfill disposal.

The Plan begins with an overview of Honolulu’s existing solid waste management system (Section 1) and a look at the current and projected waste stream (Section 2). Sections 3 through 11 of the Plan discuss individual elements of the City’s solid waste management system, including the details of the current system and future options until 2030. Financial issues including costs and rates are addressed in Section 12. To comply with HRS Chapter 342G, the timeframe for the financial analysis is detailed for the first six years of the Plan’s implementation, and provides 5-year highlights until 2030. The Plan contains an implementation strategy in Section 13, a detailed

1 Section 9-.13 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu 1990

B1664 October 2008 Section 1 roadmap for how the City will manage waste between July 1, 2009 (beginning of FY 2010) and June 30, 2014 (end of FY 2014), and initiatives that are necessary for the City to manage solid waste through 2030. Section 14, describes the Enterprise Zone program and its relevance to solid waste industries on Oahu. With assistance from City staff, R. W. Beck gathered data to characterize how solid waste is managed within the City including a list of programs and quantities managed. The components of the current solid waste management system include:  Solid waste collection;  Transfer stations;  Energy recycling;  Landfilling;  Recycling and bioconversion (green waste);  Source reduction;  Special waste management;  Household hazardous waste (HHW) management; and  Public education. Each of these components, as well the City’s current and future demographics, is described in more detail below.

1.2 Demographics The population of Oahu is unique because in addition to a resident population of over 912,000 in 2005, there are 4.7 million visitors to the island each year. Therefore, it is important to consider the “de facto” population when evaluating waste management options. The de facto population is defined by the Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism as “the number of persons physically present in an area, regardless of military status or usual place of residence; it includes visitors present but excludes residents temporarily absent.” Table 1-1 shows the projected resident population and the projected de facto population of Honolulu every five years from 1995 through 2030. The de facto population was about 4.5 percent higher than the residential population in 1995. By 2030, it is projected to be nearly 8 percent higher, suggesting that visitors will comprise a growing portion of the population that generates the waste that must be managed. These data indicate why in Honolulu it is necessary to consider de facto population when planning for waste management.

1-2 R. W. Beck October 2008 B1664 Table 1-1 Residential and De Facto Population

Resident De Facto Year Population Population

2005 912,900 960,940 2010 952,650 1,006,850 2015 995,550 1,056,950 2020 1,037,250 1,095,080 2025 1,078,050 1,151,770 2030 1,117,300 1,197,930

B1664 October 2008 Section 1

Figure 1-1 shows the Development Plan Areas that the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) uses when it collects and analyzes demographic data. The DPP projects change in each of the Development Plan Areas. The projections indicate that during the planning period, the resident population is expected to continue to be concentrated on the southern half of the island with the highest growth rate expected in Ewa. Although the DPP does not provide the de facto population by Development Plan Area, it does project growth in visitor accommodation units. The projections suggest that visitor accommodations will continue to be concentrated in the Primary Urban Center with significant growth in Ewa.

1-2 R. W. Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

Figure 1-1 Development Plan Areas

B1639 R.W.Beck 1-3 Section 1

Different types of businesses generate different amounts and types of waste. Thus, a look at the commercial sector on Oahu can provide information about the waste generated. Nearly 40 percent of the half million jobs on Oahu jobs were in the service sector with another 18 percent in retail in 2005. Table 1-2 shows that nearly three-quarters of the jobs in 2005 were located in the Primary Urban Center. Most of the remainder of the commercial activity is in Ewa, Central Oahu, and Koolaupoko. The number of jobs on Oahu is projected to increase by 4.0 percent during the planning period. The majority of jobs will continue to be located in the Primary Urban Center. The largest rate of job growth is projected to be in Ewa. Some areas, such as East Honolulu and Waianae, are projected to experience a decrease in jobs over the planning period.

Table 1-2 Jobs by Sector 2005 Military Admin Hotel Culture Utilities Industria Real Services Retail Constr Total l Estate

Primary Urban 20,115 29,124 15,747 1,369 33,943 24,701 27,799 143,970 72,254 10,675 379,697 Center Ewa 354 1,274 257 349 1,063 1,683 1,553 11,147 2,590 7,296 27,566 CentralOahu 12,229 3,294 94 714 2,158 1,910 2,136 19,878 8,331 5,344 56,088 EastHonolulu 0 248 168 53 451 221 592 3,094 1,481 550 6,858 Koolaupoko 7,500 2,158 25 752 1,346 1,098 1,284 14,786 6,337 854 36,140 Koolauloa 33 141 269 409 238 103 228 3,279 1,005 128 5,833 NorthShore 126 59 8 451 142 373 153 1,465 1,130 93 4,000 Waianae 47 401 230 532 193 112 244 3,588 1,306 237 6,890 OAHUTOTAL 40,404 36,699 16,798 4,629 39,534 30,201 33,989 201,207 94,434 25,177 523,072 Source: Honolulu DPP

1.3 Solid Waste Collection

1.3.1 Residential Curbside Collection The Refuse Division (Refuse Division) of the Department of Environmental Services of the City provides municipal solid waste (MSW) collection for all single-family residences and a limited number of multi-family properties, non-residential customers, and City agencies on the island of Oahu. The Refuse Division serves nearly 200,000 accounts as shown in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3 Refuse Division Collection Customers FY 2006 Single Family Households- Manual 21,013 Automated 154,580

1-4 R. W. Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

Apartment Units 18,348 Multi-Family Households 2,682 Church/School 139 Other City/Government Agencies 56 City Parks 84 Highway Routes 1,956 Stake Routes 404 OAHU TOTAL 199,262

Residential MSW is collected by the Refuse Division curbside two times each week. Most routes are collected using automated vehicles with one staff person on each vehicle. Manual service, using three-manned trucks, is currently used in a few areas on the island where access is limited including areas of steep terrain or one-way or narrow streets. Bulky items are collected by the Refuse Division on a monthly basis and recycled or delivered to the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill (Landfill). Green waste is collected every other week by the Refuse Division and composted by a private company. No direct user fee is currently charged to residential generators for any of the collection services. The geographic area served by the Refuse Division covers approximately 600 square miles. In order to more efficiently provide service, the Refuse Division has seven collection districts, each with its own yard, located throughout the island. Figure 1-2 provides a map of the island showing the boundaries of the collection districts and the locations of the yards serving them.

B1664 October 2008 R.W.Beck 1-5 Section 1

Figure 1-2 Division Collection Districts

The Honolulu District has the largest population, with a high density of homes and some neighborhoods with older, narrow streets and dense commercial development. This District includes generators served mostly by private haulers including the Wakiki tourist area, the major business area downtown, and the densely populated multifamily area of Makiki. The narrow streets with restricted turning area limit the potential for automated collection in some areas of this District. The Ewa District is one of the fastest growing areas on the island, as described earlier (although the boundaries of the Development Plan areas do not correspond exactly to the boundaries of the Collection Districts, there is significant overlap). Both the Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-POWER) energy recycling plant and the Landfill are located in this District, so waste collected here is frequently delivered directly to these facilities rather than to a transfer station. Both single- and multi-family homes are located in this District and most receive automated collection. The Koolaupoko District is on the windward side of the island and receives more precipitation, resulting in generation of more green waste, than in the Districts on the leeward side. This District has single-family dwellings that are accessible by automated vehicles, as well as some multi-family dwellings and agricultural land. The Wahiawa District is in the center of the island and includes Mililani, a residential area experiencing high growth. There are both single- and multi-family homes in this District.

1-6 R. W. Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

The Waianae District is on the western side of the island where it is relatively dry. As a result, there is less green waste generated than elsewhere. Single family homes and agricultural land comprise much of this District. Koolauloa, on the northeastern part of the island is sparsely populated with single-family homes. Table 1-4 summarizes the average number of daily routes operated, by yard. Some of the average daily routes are fractional since the same number of routes is not always operated daily. Based on this data, approximately 55 automated cart routes are operated by the Refuse Division every Monday through Saturday.

Table 1-4 Automated Collection Routes by Yard

Average Daily Refuse Yard Routes

Honolulu 17 Kapaa 8.33 Laie 1.67 Pearl City 17.33 Wahiawa 6 Waialua 1 Waianae 4 Total 55.3 Source: Operations Cost Study, R.W. Beck, Inc.. Draft April 2007.

1.3.2 Convenience Centers In addition to curbside collection, the Refuse Division operates six convenience centers throughout the City where residents can drop off up to two loads of waste per day. Figure 1-3 indicates their location on a map. Residents can also drop-off MSW and recyclables at one of the three transfer stations (described in Section 1.4) or at the Landfill. Residents drop off MSW and other materials at all of these sites at no cost.

B1664 October 2008 R.W.Beck 1-7 Section 1

Figure 1-3 Convenience Centers and Transfer Stations

Only residential waste is accepted at the convenience centers, including residential MSW, green waste, auto batteries, and appliances. Refuse is separated as follows and delivered to the appropriate disposal or recycling location:  Combustable MSW which is sent to the H-POWER energy recycling plant.  Non-combustable MSW which is disposed at the landfill.  Yard waste which is delivered to the mulching and composting operation.  Large appliances, tires, and auto batteries which are set aide for separate collection and delivery to recycling facilities. Table 1-5 shows the amount of material received at each of these facilities in FY 2006. More than 36,000 tons of MSW was received at the convenience centers, most of which was non- combustible and sent to the Landfill. Another 5,582 tons of green waste was received at the convenience centers and transported to one of two Hawaiian Earth Products (HEP) facilities for composting. Section 5 on Special Wastes addresses how the other materials collected at the convenience centers are managed.

1-8 R. W. Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

Waipahu, located in the center of Ewa, receives most of the MSW delivered to the convenience centers while the majority of the green waste is delivered to Waimanalo and Laie which are located on the wetter, windward side of Oahu. All the convenience centers receive significant amounts of special wastes including white goods, tires, batteries, and propane tanks.

Table 1-5 Receipts at Convenience Centers, July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006

Combustible Non- Green White Propane Tires Batteries Name Refuse Combustible Waste Goods Tanks (Units) (Units) (Tons) Refuse (Tons) (Tons) (Units) (Units)

Waimanalo 2,369 1,625 1,509 2,777 4,220 1,749 710 Ewa 0 6,051 867 3,590 4,879 2,777 755 Waipahu 0 10,341 459 5,745 5,401 2,348 988 Laie 2,143 1,797 1,477 3,525 3,348 1,139 564 Waianae 0 5,733 439 4,320 6,373 2,885 606 Wahiawa 247 5,825 831 4,028 5,581 2,600 906 TOTAL 4,759 31,372 5,582 23,985 29,802 13,498 4,529

1.3.3 Commercial Solid Waste Collection Except for the limited number of businesses served by the Refuse Division, shown in Table 1-3, commercial MSW is collected by private haulers. The private haulers compete to haul waste from these generators, including commercial and industrial facilities, condominiums, and military bases. Waste received from condominiums and apartments is considered commercial waste if collected by a private hauler. Condominium and apartment complexes can receive public collection, if their development meets the physical requirements of the City. These requirements are given to the developers during the planning stages of their development. Developers have the option to either meet these requirements or opt for private collection of their trash. Most private haulers deliver their waste directly to the City disposal facilities at H- POWER or the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill. A small number of commercial loads are delivered to the City transfer stations. Honolulu Disposal Service, the largest private hauler, operates its own transfer station, which is permitted at 1000 tons per day. On a daily basis, the City determines which of its disposal facilities receive commercial waste and notifies the private haulers accordingly. Construction and demolition waste is not permitted at either H-POWER or the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, and is required to be taken to the privately-owned C&D landfill operated by PVT in Nanakuli. In FY 06 some 384,000 tons of commercial waste were disposed of at H-POWER and 114,000 tons at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill. Approximately 200,000 tons of C&D waste were received at the PVT landfill.

B1664 October 2008 R.W.Beck 1-9 Section 1

1.4 Transfer Stations The Refuse Division operates three transfer stations in Kapaa, Keehi, and Kawailoa, shown on Figure 1-3. These transfer stations serve to consolidate waste from MSW collection trucks into large transfer trailers for more efficient and economical transport to H-POWER or the Landfill. Residents may also dispose of their MSW and special waste materials at the transfer stations for free. The tipping fee for businesses and commercial users at the transfer stations is $110.60 per ton plus 12 percent for recycling and a 35 cent per ton state surcharge. The Keehi and Kapaa transfer stations are the largest transfer stations operated by the City, each with a design throughput of 500 tons per day. This throughput is exceeded at times at both facilities. The Keehi Transfer Station is located at 606 Middle Street on a 5-acre site in Honolulu, between Nimitz Highway and the H-1 Freeway. It is operated by a staff of 24, including supervisors, equipment operators, truck drivers, scale attendants, and ramp attendants. The transfer station is open from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The primary customer during the morning is the Refuse Division. Due to the congested traffic from the large trucks in the morning hours, public self-haul customers are allowed to deliver waste from 12:00 p.m. to closing. The Kapaa Refuse Transfer Station is located at Kapaa Quarry Access Road. The transfer station has 31 authorized positions, including supervisors, equipment operators, truck drivers, scale attendants, and ramp attendants. This facility operates seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The primary customers are the Refuse Division haulers, private haulers, public self-haulers, commercial self-haulers, and small contractors. Waste types received include residential, commercial, institutional (small), and combustible construction and demolition. The Kawailoa Refuse Transfer Station is located on 62-180 Kawailoa Drive next to the closed Kawailoa Landfill. The facility is operated by six employees, including the lead operator, two equipment operators, and three truck drivers. The primary customers are the Refuse Division collection vehicles and residential self-haulers. Waste types received include residential, green, and combustible construction and demolition. The facility operates seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The convenience center located at the same facility operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week. A total of 239,065 tons of combustible MSW and 31,229 tons of non-combustible MSW were delivered to the City’s transfer stations between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The majority of this waste goes to the Keehi transfer station in southern Oahu. In addition a total of 4,404 tons of green waste were delivered to Kawailoa and Keehi transfer stations. In the Kapaa collection area, green waste was directed to the nearby composting location. Over 15,000 white goods and 15,000 tires were also handled at these facilities. Table 1-6 shows the quantities of materials by type transferred at each of the three public transfer stations.

1-10 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

Table 1-6 Receipts at Transfer Stations, July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006

Green White Propane Combustible Non-Combustible Scrap Metal Tires Batteries Name Location Waste Goods Tanks Refuse (Tons) Refuse (Tons) (Tons) (Units) (Units) (Tons) (Units) (Units)

Kawailoa Northern Oahu 17,560 0 2,196 0 2,742 5,560 2,052 645 Keehi Southern Oahu 142,775 0 2,208 0 0 0 1,316 0 Kapaa Eastern Oahu 78,730 31,229 0 1,925 12,594 10,337 4,929 2,124 Total 239,065 31,229 4,404 1,925 15,336 15,897 8,297 2,769

In addition to the three City transfer stations, two additional private transfer stations operate on Oahu, the Honolulu Disposal transfer station and the Island Demo transfer station. The Honolulu Disposal transfer station accepts MSW from the company’s own trucks. The Island Demo facility receives construction and demolition debris (C&D), sorts materials for recycling, and transfers the non-recyclable portion to disposal facilities.

1.5 H-POWER H-POWER is a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility operated by the City through a sale/lease-back arrangement with DFO Partners, Bank of America, Inc., and the Ford Credit Corporation, and managed through a full-service vendor contract since 1990. The facility, located in Campbell Industrial Park on property owned by the City, uses combustion technology to recycle combustible solid waste materials into energy. The MSW is processed into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) that is used as fuel to generate electricity. Approximately 90 percent of the volume and 70 to 75 percent of the weight of the MSW received at H-POWER is diverted from the landfill, and converted into renewable electric energy. The ash and residue from H-POWER are delivered to the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill. The City has a waste supply commitment with the facility operator to deliver 561,600 tons of solid waste per year to H-POWER. The majority of residential and commercial MSW collected on the island is delivered here. In FY 2006, 602,520 tons of waste was recycled for renewable energy recycling at H-POWER. An additional 153,801 tons was characterized as suitable for energy recycling at H-POWER, but had to be redirected from the H-POWER facility to the Landfill, because of capacity limitations or the need for periodic maintenance. A total of 71,381 vehicles delivered waste (or would have delivered waste, if not diverted, to the Landfill at facility closure) to H-POWER in 2006. Nearly half of these were Refuse Division vehicles. The other half were private haulers delivering waste from commercial generators. The current tipping fee paid by the private haulers and other commercial vehicles at the H-POWER is $91 per ton (includes $0.35 state surcharge and 12 percent City recycling surcharge). The City currently has a power purchase agreement with Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to purchase the electricity generated at H-POWER. Over 320 million kilowatt hours of electricity were generated in FY 2006. The sale of electricity to HECO generated nearly $35 million in revenues for the City.

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-11 Section 1

H-POWER also extracts ferrous metals from the waste using magnets and non-ferrous metals from the ash using an eddy current. Approximately 18,600 tons of ferrous metals and 2,100 tons of non-ferrous metals were recycled in FY 2006 from H-POWER. The sale of ferrous and non- ferrous metal generated approximately $1.5 million per year for the City. As previously discussed, H-POWER is presently operating beyond its design capacity. To attempt to address this situation, the City has announced its intention to expand H-POWER to increase overall capacity and operating efficiency. More details on the expansion of H-POWER are provided in Section 8.

1.6 Landfills The Landfill is the only permitted landfill accepting MSW on Oahu. It has been in operation since September 1989. The Landfill is owned by the City. Operations of the Landfill are under contract to Waste Management of Hawaii Inc. (WMI), except for the scales which are operated by the City. The Landfill is located in Kapolei on the leeward side of Oahu in Waimanalo Gulch, Kahe Valley. The Landfill property is 200 plus acres. About half of the property is permitted for landfilling and support operations. It is the intent of the City that the Landfill accept two types of MSW: 1) noncombustible MSW and 2) ash and residue from the H-POWER facility. In FY 2006 (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006), the Landfill received 337,667 tons of MSW. However, nearly half of this was combustible MSW diverted from H-POWER, as shown in Table 1-7. Additionally, the Landfill received 88,380 tons of ash and 79,443 tons of residue from the H-POWER waste-to-energy facility. Per the permit renewal issued by the State in April 2003, the peak daily disposal rate can not exceed 3,300 tons per day of MSW and 800 tons per day of ash and residue. In FY 2006, the landfill averaged 930 tons per day of MSW and 460 tons per day of ash and residue.

Table 1-7 Received at Waimanalo Gulch Landfill FY 2006

Average Daily Daily Amount Allowed Material Total Delivered (Tons) Delivery (Tons) by Permit (Tons)

MSW 153,801+183,8661 930 3,300 Ash + Residue 88,380 + 79,443 460 800 Total 505,490 1,390 4,100 1 153,801 tons of MSW was combustible MSW diverted from H-POWER due to closure because of capacity or maintenance issues.

Of the 183,866 tons that directly entered the Landfill in 2006 (apart from the 153,801 tons that were diverted from H-POWER as described above), 22 percent was residential bulky or non- combustible waste delivered by the Refuse Division, 17 percent was sludge delivered by private

1-12 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System haulers from the City’s wastewater treatment plants, and 16 percent was from the City’s convenience centers. The remaining 45 percent was non-combustible materials delivered by other entities. R. W. Beck conducted a composition study of the MSW delivered to the landfill in September 2006 as part of the planning process to identify materials that have the potential for landfill diversion. Description of the results of the composition study are discussed in Section 2 and the full report is included in Appendix A. The current tipping fee paid by the private haulers and other commercial vehicles at the Landfill is $91. This includes a $0.35 per ton state surcharge and a 12 percent City recycling surcharge. On March 14, 2008, an amendment to the State Special Use Permit was approved that requires the Landfill to cease accepting any additional waste material and be closed in accordance with an approved closure plan by November 1, 2009, or until the approved area reaches permitted capacity, whichever occurs first. To extend the life of the Landfill beyond 2009, the Landfill would need to be expanded. An expansion would require completion of an Environmental Impact Statement, which is currently in draft stages of development (the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice was issued in November 2006 and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on May 23, 2008). More details of this process are provided in Section 8. In addition to the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill, a private landfill (PVT) is located in Nanakuli and is permitted to accept C&D waste and petroleum contaminated soils. Information on the exact quantity of material received at this facility was not available, but is estimated at approximately 200,000 tons per year. This estimate is used for planning purposes only.

1.7 Recycling and Bioconversion

1.7.1 Recycling The City has implemented recycling programs that have contributed to an increase of residential, commercial, and industrial recyclables from approximately 74,000 tons in 1988 to approximately 609,698 (another 18,675 was reported as reused resulting in a total of 628,373 diverted) in 2005. In January of each year, recyclers report to the City the quantity of each material recycled over the past year. At the time of preparation of this Plan the recyclable data available was for 2005. Rather than estimating the amounts of recyclables for FY06 it was determined that the actual 2005 data would be used throughout the report. All other waste material quantities are based on FY06 data. Some of the more notable recovery programs, excluding energy recycling, that have contributed to this increase include:  The island-wide, Community Recycling Bin program;  The curbside green waste collection program, serving 150,000 households;  The curbside island-wide bulky item collection program;

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-13 Section 1

This Section provides an overview of these programs.

1.7.1.1 Recycling Collection Programs The Refuse Division partners with schools and shopping centers to provide seventy-seven 40 cubic yard drop-off bins island-wide (Community Recycling Bins.) The locations are listed at www.opala.org. Forty additional recycling bins are planned in both schools and City parks. The Community Recycling Bins are divided into two sections: one for mixed containers and one for paper. Mixed containers include aluminum, glass, and plastics. Paper includes newspaper, corrugated cardboard, and white and color office paper. The host school receives the revenue from the sale of recyclables as an incentive for siting a drop box on their property. Since the program began in 1990, participating schools have received more than $1 million in this revenue sharing agreement. Employees and students of the participating schools can also deposit recyclable materials in the drop boxes which results in extra revenue to the host school and lower disposal costs. The City recently negotiated a new contract with Honolulu Disposal Service to manage the Community Recycling Bins, as well as to process and market the materials collected. Under this new contract, schools and other organizations will receive $15 per ton for paper (an increase from $1 per ton) and $75 per ton for the mixed containers (an increase from $45 per ton). The vast majority of these recyclables are processed outside of Hawaii. More information on recycling markets is provided in Section 9. In FY 2006, 10,488 tons of paper and 1,842 tons of commingled containers were collected at these Community Recycling Bins. In addition to the Community Recycling Bins program, residents can bring appliances, batteries, and tires to the six convenience centers and three transfer stations for recycling as described in Section 1.3.2. Appliances and other bulky items are collected at the curb, island-wide in all residential areas, on a monthly basis and recycled. These programs are described in more detail in the subsequent sections on Special Waste and Bioconversion. The City has been evaluating mixed curbside recycling for single-family residents. As part of this effort, the City is presently conducting pilot programs to determine the best way to implement a City-wide program. A discussion of these pilot programs is included in Section 4. The majority of multi-family residences on the island are serviced by private waste haulers. These haulers offer a variety of recycling services and container options for their multi-family customers. The City provides a list of six companies that provided recycling collection to multifamily units on the island on its web site. Residents in multi-family units that do not have recyclables collected by a private hauler may self-haul recyclables, using maintenance personnel and/or volunteer residents.

1.7.1.2 Advance Disposal Fee on Glass The City administers the Glass Recycling Program with funding and authorization from the State of Hawaii’s advance disposal fee (ADF) program. The advance disposal fee is 1.5 cents for every glass container that is not part of the Deposit Beverage Container Program (DBCP). In turn, the City receives a grant from the State, from which they pay glass processors 8 cents per pound ($160 per ton) for non-deposit glass (wine, spirit, and food jars, primarily). Deposit glass containers are generally not processed through this system, as there is an incentive for processors to return those materials through the DBCP that pays a 2-cent-per container handling fee.

1-14 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System

1.7.1.3 Deposit Beverage Container Program (HI5) In the State of Hawaii, a 5-cent deposit per beverage container (DBC) is charged for the purchase of glass, aluminum, and plastic containers defined under the law. A 1-cent non-refundable container fee is also assessed to support the costs of recycling and program administration. Beverages included under the law are soft drinks, beer, juices, water, teas, and sports drinks. Excluded beverages include wine, milk, and hard liquor. Residents receive a 5-cent deposit refund per container, or an equivalent segregated weight payment for loads of 200 containers or more, when containers are brought to a redemption center to be recycled. In turn, Certified Redemption Centers are reimbursed by the DOH for the 5-cent deposit, and also receive a handling fee, currently set at 2 cents per container on Oahu. Currently, over 60 Redemption Centers are privately operated throughout the island. Redemption centers operate on different schedules, with some offering very limited days and hours of operation. Redemption center locations and hours of operation are listed at www.opala.org. Currently all redemption center operators are transporting the redeemed DBCs to Reynolds Recycling, Honolulu Recovery Systems, Island Recycling or RRR Recyclers Services for processing and marketing. The quantity of deposit beverage containers redeemed in FY 2006 from Oahu was approximately 925 million units. In 2008, the City will offer schools and organizations event bins to increase collection of HI5 containers. The bins have three sections so that aluminum, plastic, and glass deposit containers can be collected separately. Each school or organization will receive the 5 cents for each beverage container.

1.7.1.4 Commercial Recycling The recycling of “targeted” materials is required by law for most businesses and government agencies on Oahu. Mandatory recycling laws affect restaurants, bars, hotels, office buildings, shopping centers, retail and grocery stores, hospitals, food courts, food manufactures and processors, golf courses, parks, tree trimmers (as yard waste), auto shops, and appliance dealers. Most large businesses on Oahu are affected by the City’s recycling ordinances. The requirements identify the types of businesses that are required to implement a recycling system and which materials are targeted. Table 1-8 summarizes the laws impacting the commercial sector.

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-15 Section 1

Table 1-8 Commercial Recycling Ordinances

Ordinance Material Generator Type Ordinance Number Requirement

Green Waste Commercial and Restricted to a 9-1.7 government maximum of 10% per load at H- POWER & and transfer stations Banned at landfill Cardboard Commercial and Restricted to a 9-1.7 government maximum of 10% per load at all disposal facilities Tires, auto All generators Banned at all 9-1.7 batteries, white disposal facilities goods, scrap metal Glass Barsandrestaurants Recyclingrequired 9-3.1 Office paper, Office building with 20,000 Recycling required 9-3.1 newspaper, square feet of more cardboard Food waste Hotels, restaurants, Recycling required 9-3.1 grocery stores, food courts, food manufacturers/processors, hospitals meeting specific size criteria City agencies Newspaper, cardboard, Recycling required 9-1.11 office paper, aluminum, glass, plastics

Some of the mandatory recycling ordinances are enforced at the point of generation. The City conducts annual site inspections of businesses that are required to recycle. If during a site inspection the business is not in compliance with the mandatory recycling ordinance(s), a City Recycling Specialist will work with management to improve and/or correct the system. Other recycling ordinances are enforced at the point of disposal. Inspectors monitor trucks unloading at the landfill, H-POWER, and transfer stations. By visual inspection, an inspector determines if a truckload is over the limit on restricted material or contains any amount of banned material. The offending vehicle/hauler can be denied access to City disposal facilities for up to two weeks per violation. As required, City offices recycle paper, cardboard, and other materials at approximately 20 of its buildings. The City collects paper in 96-gallon wheeled carts labeled with the type of paper that is included in the program. Cardboard is either put in specially designated dumpsters or flattened

1-16 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System and stacked at buildings that do not have dumpsters. A contractor collects, processes, and markets the material collected. Table 1-9 shows the tons of paper and cardboard recycled from City offices in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Table 1-9 City Office Building Recycling (Tons)

Material 2004 2005 2006(1) Jan-May 2007 WhiteOfficePaper 40.5 87 67.0 18 ColoredOfficePaper 18.5 25 18.2 6 Newspaper 5.3 31 21.4 8 Cardboard 15.6 25 18.1 6 Total: 80.0 168 124.7 39 (1) May and June data were extrapolated from previous 10 months

The City also promotes commercial recycling through the Partnership for the Environment (Partnership). The Partnership was created by the City and the business community to enhance the recycling resources for businesses in an effort to divert more materials from the landfill. The City initiated the program and its recycling staff provides technical assistance, education, and leadership training. An extensive resource guide and recycling manual had been produced and is available for businesses interested in starting recycling programs. In addition, the City’s Recycling Specialist assists businesses with recycling, waste reduction, and waste diversion issues and conducts waste assessments upon request.

1.7.1.5 Other Recycling Programs  The State of Hawaii – Funding for public school disposal is provided by the State of Hawaii. Collection is provided by private haulers under contract to the State. The schools that host City recycling bins can use them for school generated recyclables.  Backhauling – During 2005, large retailers “backhauled” 12,188 tons of corrugated cardboard by shipping these materials back to the mainland in empty shipping containers.  H-POWER – Over 18,000 tons of metals are extracted and recycled each year at H- POWER.  Schnitzer Steel Hawaii (formerly Hawaii Metals Recycling) – This company is the oldest and largest recycling company in the islands, exporting more than 100,000 tons of scrap metal annually. All metals, including junk cars and white goods are recycled at Schnitzer.  Unitek - Unitek recycles the islands used tires. The tire treads are shredded and burned as fuel to generate electricity, or ground into crumb rubber to be used in landscaping. Tire recycling is described in more detail in Section 1.9.  Computer recycling - Described in Section 1.9.

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-17 Section 1

1.7.2 Bioconversion 1.7.2.1 Green Waste Green waste is one of the few materials that can be collected, processed and reused on Oahu. In addition, green waste is one of the largest components of the waste stream so diversion can have an impact on landfill life and recycling goals. The City provides curbside collection of green waste twice per month to over 150,000 households on the island. Approximately two-thirds of the households place green waste in bags and bundles at the curb (using a manual collection system), while one-third use the automated blue-bin collection system (as of March 2006) for green waste. The City replaced the blue bins with green bins between 2006 and 2008. The new automated green bin collection system is expected to increase the amount of green waste collected by making it more convenient for households to recycle. The City collected approximately 35,000 tons of green waste through the curbside residential program and the drop-off program, including convenience centers and transfer stations, in FY 2006. With the expansion of the automated collection system, the City expects to increase green waste recycling to approximately 50,000 to 80,000 tons annually. A total of nearly 10,000 tons of green waste was collected at convenience centers and transfer stations in FY 2006. Residents may also drop off green waste at one of two of the composter’s sites, one at Kailua (Windward) and the other at Campbell Industrial Park. Residential green waste, along with commercial green waste and food waste, are composted by HEP at a 17 acre site at the Campbell Industrial Park and a 26-acre site in Kailua. Mulch is available free to City residents and compost can be purchased directly from the composters or at local garden shops. The City also encourages residents to leave grass clippings on the lawn after mowing to return the nutrients to the soil2. Green waste generated by commercial and government sources is banned from disposal pursuant to Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu 1990 (ROH), Chapter 9-1.7. Trucks hauling commercial and government waste are limited to a maximum of ten percent green waste per load at H-POWER and at City transfer stations. The material is completely banned from landfill disposal. HEP accepts this material for a fee and processes it into soil amendment products. Generators are also encouraged to consider small-scale do-it-yourself mulching and composting. A landfill ban for all green waste went into effect in January 2003, although the City has been restricting most green waste at disposal facilities since the mid 1990s. The City reported that in 2005 approximately 200,200 tons of green waste was generated and 79,500 tons, or 40 percent, was recycled.

1.7.2.2 Food Waste and Biosolids Oahu has been recycling food waste for decades, primarily by hog farmers and a local company, Island Commodities. However, diversion of food waste became more widespread in the 1990s. In 1997, the City passed a mandatory recycling ordinance (ROH Chapter 9-3.1) for large commercial food waste generators, such as restaurants, grocery stores, food courts, hotels, hospitals and manufacturers. Food waste is being recycled through a mix of technologies. For

2 The City discourages residents from raking grass clippings into the street as this can block storm sewers.

1-18 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System example, food waste is used as animal feed (low technology) composted (medium technology) and converted into biodiesel for use in vehicles, such as City vehicles (high technology). The City reports that a total of 32,450 tons of food waste was recycled on Oahu in 2005. Biosolids are also processed and reused on Oahu. Biosolids from the Honouliuli Waste Water Treatment Plant in Ewa were composted at the Navy facility in Kalaeloa (former Barbers Pt.) until 2006. Approximately 10,000 tons were composted in 2005. The City has contracted with Synagro to generate fertilizer pellets from approximately 20,000 tons of sewage sludge from the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

1.7.3 Processing and Markets Honolulu Recovery Systems processes and markets materials collected at the community recycling bins. Another processor, Island Recycling, handles the office paper collected from City offices. Recyclers process and sell commodities on the mainland (usually the west coast) or the Pacific Rim, usually through brokers. Typically, materials are baled or otherwise reduced in volume before being shipped to market. In some cases, end products are processed and used in final products locally. Some of these Oahu recyclers also accept materials generated on other Hawaiian islands. There are unique challenges to marketing recyclables from a remote island and these are highlighted in Section 9. However, the City has undertaken several initiatives to develop and promote end uses for materials on the island and these include:  The City adopted the specifications for using crushed glass in road construction in 1993;  The City buys only recycled-content paper to support the recycled paper market;  The City continues to explore other types of products made from recycled material - such as recycled plastic lumber - which could be used in place of products currently being purchased;  The City has also showcased recycled-content products at the Honolulu Zoo;  The City coordinates a display at the annual “Made In Hawaii” festival at the Blaisdell Center each August, which showcases goods that are made locally from recycled materials; and  The annual Discover Recycling Fair features in September recycled products as well. Markets are developing locally for materials that are generated in high volumes, have relatively low value, and for which large and costly production facilities are unnecessary. These materials include organics (untreated wood, green waste, food waste), aggregate (concrete, brick, aggregate), glass, and waste tires. In the case of glass and tires, some of these materials are still shipped off-island; however, it is not always cost-effective to do so.

1.7.4 Amount Diverted through Recycling and Bioconversion The Refuse Division reports that 609,698 tons were recycled in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. Another 18,675 tons were reused as described in Section 1.8

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-19 Section 1 resulting in a total of 628,373 tons diverted in 2005. Table 1-10 shows that two types of material, construction and demolition debris and metal (particularly ferrous metal) comprised over half of all material recycled. Paper, other metal, glass, plastic, green waste, tires, auto batteries, electronic scrap, wood waste and pallets, and sewage sludge were also recycled.

Table 1-10 Total Tons Recycled Calendar Year 2005 Material Tons Percent of Total Recycled

Corrugated Cardboard 45,334 Newspaper 18,372 Magazines 14 Office Paper 3,568 Mixed Waste Paper 5,746 Telephone Books 521 Total Paper 73,555 12.1% Ferrous 145,391 Non-Ferrous 14,078 Total Metals 159,470 26.2% Glass 19,313 3.2% Plastic 3,753 0.6% Tires 8,719 1.4% Auto Batteries 4,761 0.8% Chemicals/Oils 15,374 2.5% Green Waste 79,500 Wood 8,229 Food Waste 32,447 Total Organics 120,176 19.7% Sewage Sludge 10,270 1.7% Construction & Demolition Debris 193,829 31.8% E-Scrap 478 0.1% TOTAL 609,698 100.00% Source: Honolulu Department of Environmental Services.

1.8 Source Reduction and Reuse Source reduction is any action that causes a net reduction in the generation of solid waste before the waste is collected. Source reduction programs include, but are not limited to replacing

1-20 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System disposable materials and products with reusable ones, reducing packaging, reducing the volume of green waste set out for collection through home composting or leaving grass clippings on the lawn, and reusing materials ranging from paper and containers to clothes.

1.8.1 Existing Programs Reusing products is part of Hawaii's heritage and contributes to saving landfill capacity. Although sometimes difficult to identify all reuse activities, Table 1-11 indicates a total of 18,675 tons were reported as reused on Oahu in 2005.

Table 1-11 Reported Reuse, 2005 (tons) Furniture 3,530 Appliances 2,757 Misc. Household 2,321 Clothing/Textiles 10,059 Hardware Fixtures 6 Freon 2 Total 18,675

Some of the programs operating on Oahu that contribute to the tonnage diverted for source reduction or reuse include:  Thrift Stores – Numerous nonprofit organizations around Oahu are involved in reuse operations. Some provide pickup service; others ask that items be delivered to their location or collection box sites. A donation of goods to a qualified nonprofit organization with 501(c) (3) status may provide a tax deduction for the donor. Residents can check the City’s website www.opala.org for a list of these organizations.  Aloha Shares Network –– Aloha Shares Network accepts surplus materials from businesses and residents and distributes them to nonprofits and schools.  Nanakuli Housing Corporation –– The Base Yard at Sand Island receives construction materials donated by contractors, homeowners, and businesses and distributes these to families needing materials to repair their homes. By diverting these materials from disposal, the amount of materials going to landfills is reduced while giving a tax donation opportunity to donors. Families with very limited income, including the elderly and disabled, are their focus.  Grasscycling – Grasscycling is the practice of leaving grass clippings on the lawn after mowing. The City grasscycles at all City parks and recreation facilities. The www.opala.org website also promotes grasscycling, educating readers on the benefits of grass cycling, such as the return of nutrients to the soil, and reducing the amount of waste disposed.

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-21 Section 1

 Backyard composting – The City has partnered with HEP to offer free composting workshops at both HEP locations. Residents learn about composting, receive free mulch, and tour compost facilities. The City provides free backyard composting handbooks upon request. Residents can also learn about home composting on the web site. In addition, the City’s Recycling Office will train interested high school students in the techniques of small- scale home composting.  Business Waste Prevention Guide – The Waste Prevention Guide for businesses is available on the website, www.opala.org. It provides information about producing less waste and dealing with excess waste. Businesses can produce a large amount of waste in daily operations and therefore may have an opportunity for cost savings by reducing waste.  Freecycle™ Honolulu – This is an email-based exchange that “connects people with things they want to throw away with others who would like to have those things.” All items posted are available at no cost.

1.9 Special Waste Management Special waste is any material in the solid waste stream that requires unusual handling and/or has disposal restrictions or that the City desires to handle separately. Special wastes typically are not collected with other municipal solid waste. They require specialized processing, preparation, or treatment before reuse, recycling, or disposal. These materials include:  Asbestos;  Used motor oil;  Auto batteries ;  Combustion residue (Ash);  Municipal wastewater sludge;  Agricultural waste;  Medical waste;  Tires;  White goods;  Derelict vehicles;  Construction and demolition debris;  Foreign wastes; and  Electronic waste. White goods and other bulky items are collected at the curb on a monthly basis. White goods, tires, and batteries are collected at the City’s convenience centers and transfer stations. Asbestos, medical waste, and foreign wastes can be disposed at the landfill after certain procedures related to their handling have been followed. While municipal wastewater sludge can also be landfilled after being treated, the City is working with private vendors to keep this material out of the landfill. Some special wastes, such as used motor oil and auto batteries also

1-22 R. W.Beck October 2008 B1664 Overview of Existing Solid Waste Management System are handled by businesses on Oahu. Section 5 describes requirements and existing programs on Oahu to handle special wastes, as well as options for future management.

1.10 Public Education The City maintains an active and innovative Education and Awareness program about their solid waste management programs. The cornerstone of these programs is the City’s website, www.opala.org. Other programs and educational materials used by the City include:  Waste Line, an electronic newsletter;  Videos;  Tour de Trash;  School Teacher Kits;  Partnership for the Environment, a coalition of businesses working with the City to reduce waste;  Print advertisements;  Refuse and Recycling Guide;  Environmental Concern Line; and  Special events and public education campaigns. These programs are described in more detail in Section 7.

B1664 October 2008 R. W. Beck 1-23 DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALSERVICES CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU 1000 ULUOHIASTREET, SUITE 308, KAPOLEI,HAWAII96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3486 . FAX: (808) 768-3487 • WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHYE. STEINBERGER, RE. MAYOR DIRECTOR

MANUELS. LANUEVO,P.E., LEEDAP DEPUTY DIRECTOR

ROSS S. TANIMOTO,P.E. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 10-060 January 7, 2011

Mr.WilliamAila, Acting Chairperson Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii P. 0. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809

Dear Mr.Aila:

Subject: Use of Land Owned by the State of Hawaii (Tax Map Key: 4-1-008:013) for a Future Landfillfor the Island of Oahu

The City and County of Honolulu (City) is currently undertaking an island-wide site inventory of potential locations for a new landfill. Land owned by the State of Hawaii, (Tax Map Key: 4-1-008:013) has been identified as a possible location for a new landfillfacility. Attached is a map that shows the proposed location of the site.

The City understands that the site of any new landfill is very difficultwith many community and technical issues to be overcome. Therefore, we would like to receive any preliminary comments, concerns, or objections you may or may not have on the potential use of the indicated site. A written reply concerning this request would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your response on this important issue. Should there be any questions please contact Steven Serikaku, P.E., of the Refuse Division Planning Branch at 768-3428.

Sincerely,

Timothy P.E. Director

Attachment ______

:‘ Legend - - .. Boundary of Potential Site Under Invesfigation (TM 4;% Parcel K) Boundary 1 I Street r \\\\ Zoning \\ _/ AG-i Restricted Agriculture District P-2 AG-2 General Agriculture District Country District F-i Federal and Military P-i General Preservation District P-2 General Preservation District R-5 Residential District )\ R-7.5 District /_ Residential r ?tzjffØ% [ R-5 R-7.5 V

Pacific Ocean

P-i 1 /-i( , J t’ P-2 S TMK (1) 4-1-008:013

-I ‘4, Potential Site Under Investigation Waimanalo North Site O’ahu O’ahu, Hawaii

0 625 1250 2500 3750 5,000 Project Location Feet

7- O GIS Layer Source: City &County of Honolulu - HoLIS HawaIIStatewide GIS Program DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALSERVICES CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU 1000 ULUOHIASTREET, SUITE 308, KAPOLEI,HAWAII96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3486 • FAX: (808) 768-3487 • WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHYE. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

MANUELS. LANUEVO,P.E., LEED AP DEPUTYDIRECTOR

ROSS S. TANIMOTO,P.E. DEPUTYDIRECTOR

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 10-061 January 7, 2011

Colonel Robert Rice Base Commander Building216 Box 63002 Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe, Hawaii 96863-3002

Dear Colonel Rice:

Subject: Use of Land Located Within Bellows Air Force Station for a Future Landfillfor the Island of Oahu

The City and County of Honolulu (City) is currently undertaking an island-wide site inventory of potential locations for a new landfill. Land located within the Bellows Air Force Station has been identified as a possible location for a new landfillfacility. Attached is a map that shows the proposed location of the site.

The City understands that the site of any new landfillis very difficultwith many community and technical issues to be overcome. Therefore, we would like to receive any preliminary comments, concerns, or objections you may or may not have on the potential use of the indicated site. A written reply concerning this request would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your response on this important issue. Should there be any questions, please contact Steven Serikaku, P.E., of the Refuse Division Planning Branch at 768-3428.

Sincerely,

Timothy Steinberger, .E. Director

Attachment ______\.. Legend Boundary of Potential Site Under Investigation Parcel (TMK)Boundary

1 Street Zoning AG-i Restricted Agriculture District AG-2 General Agriculture District j Country District F-i Federal and Military P-i General Preservation District P-2 General Preservation District / R-5 Residential District r— R-7.5 Residential District ‘4 *1

R-5 : R-7.5 (

AG-2 7 •,. ‘ Potential Site Under Investigation Pacific Ocean I 11i ‘MK(1)41015:OO1

P-i

P-2 S

Country :

Bellows Site O’ahu O’ahu,Hawaii H 0 625 1,250 2,500 3,750 5000 Feet

GIS Layer Source: City & County of Honolulu - HoLIS Hawaii Statewide GIS Program

Meeting No. 2 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection February 10, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALSERVICES CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIASTREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI,HAWAII96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401 • FAX: (808) 768-3434 • WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHYE. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMANAMUMNART,P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-006

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S LANDFILL SITE COMMITTEE MEETINGNO.2 KAPOLEI HALE, CONFERENCE ROOM A 1000 ULUOHIA STREET KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M.

AGENDA

I. Meet at Kapolei Hale — Conference Room A

II. Public Comments

III. Review Meeting No. I

IV. Site Visit to Solid Waste Management Facilities

V. Next Steps, Thank You, and Adjournment Meeting No. 2 (Field Visits) Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

February 10, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Janice Marsters, Richard Poirier, George West Committee Members Absent: Bruce Anderson, David Cooper, John DeSoto, Chuck Prentiss Department of Environmental Services (ENV) Staff: Steve Serikaku Consultants: Brian Takeda, Gail Atwater Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

A short meeting was held at Kapolei Hale, prior to departure for a field visit to the Waimānalo Gulch Landfill, PVT Landfill, H-POWER, Schnitzer Steel, and RRR Recycling.

Brian clarified the Committee’s tasks as follows:

Regarding separate landfills for certain types of solid waste: The City is asking the Committee to consider alternative landfill sites that can accept three refuse streams: municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris waste, and ash & residue. Reasons for this are (a) economies of scale from a single facility to handle all three waste streams; (b) the potential for significantly greater environmental impacts if multiple sites are used to handle separate waste streams; and (c) significant costs of developing a site for each waste stream.

The City will be pursuing an extension of use of the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill beyond 2012. However, that effort is not a part of the Committee’s charge by the Mayor.

John Goody asked if the information requested at the first meeting was available yet. Dee Dee indicated that as much as possible that information requested by the Committee would be delivered no less than about a week before the Committee’s next meeting on March 10, 2011.

Dee Dee indicated that a disclosure had been made by one of the members since Meeting No. 1 was held on January 20, 2011. George West explained that he is a retired employee of Ameron where he was employed for over 40 years where he is presently working as a part-time consultant on safety and labor issues. Ameron was one of the original sites identified in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Waimānalo Gulch in 2008. George indicated that he remains willing and able to serve in a impartial manner to assist the Committee with its task of evaluating landfill sites for the Mayor. There were no further comments offered by the members of the Committee present regarding George West’s continuation of service.

Meeting No. 2 Group Memory Page 1 of 2 Dee Dee asked the Committee if any other member had a conflict to report and none did.

Dee Dee next asked members to review the list of prior alternative landfill sites evaluated by the City (which is a matter of public record) and to disclose if any Committee member had any potential conflicts associated with those locations at the next upcoming Meeting No. 3.

There being no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 9:30 AM.

Meeting No. 2 Group Memory Page 2 of 2

Materials for Committee Members

Mayor’s Community Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu

March 10, 2011

The following information is one of two envelopes you will receive in anticipation of our upcoming meeting on March 10, 2011, when the second envelope will be distributed. The following are contained in this transmittal:

1. Meeting No. 1 Group Memory – this is the record of our last meeting of February 10, 2011.

2. State Special Use Permit Order, 2009 – this is the approved SUP permit for the expansion of the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill.

3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D Regulations – this is a summary of RCRA Subtitle D criteria for the siting of landfills.

4. Underground Injection Control and Groundwater Protection Zone Maps – this contains two maps outlining the locations of the UIC and GPZ maps for the island of O‘ahu.

5. State Response to Request for Availability of Waimānalo North Site – this is the response from the Department of Land and Natural Resources, January 31, 2011.

Also included in this package are copies of the information distributed during the February 10th field visit that not all members were able to attend. This includes information furnished by Schnitzer Steel Company, H-POWER, and the PVT Landfill.

Previous Meeting Group Memory Passed Out to Committee Members See Meeting No. 1 Section

959 •\1_

BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI’I

In The Matter Of The Application Of The ) DOCKET NO. SPO9-403

)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY

SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF ) AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

HONOLULU ) PLANNING COMMISSION’S

) FINDINGS OF FACT,

For A New Special Use Permit To ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND

Supersede Existing Special Use Permit To ) DECISION AND ORDER WITH

Allow A 92.5-Acre Expansion And Time ) MODIFICATIONS

Extension For Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary ) Landfill, Waimãnalo Gulch, O’ahu, ) Hawai’i, Tax Map Key: 9-2-03: 72 And 73 )

)

ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER WITH MODIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order was served upon the following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the U. S. Postal Service by regular or certified mail as noted:

DEL. Abbey Seth Mayer, Director Office of Planning P. 0. Box 2359 Honolulu, Hawaii 96804-2359

Docket No. SPO9-403 Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 11 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications Bryan Yee, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Hale Auhau, Third Floor 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

REGULAR David Tanoue, Director MAIL Department of Planning and Permitting City and County of Honolulu 650 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

REGULAR Carrie Okinaga, Esq. MAIL Corporation Counsel City & County of Honolulu 530 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

CERT. Gary Takeuchi, Esq. Jesse Souki, Esq. Deputy Corporation Counsel City and County of Honolulu 530 South King Street, Room 110 Honolulu, HI 96813

CERT. Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu 1000 Uluohia Street, 3rd Floor Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

CERT. COLLEEN HANABUSA, Esq. 220 So. King St. , Suite 1230 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dated: Octobei22, 2009 , Honolulu ,Hawaii.

Orlando Davidson, Executive Officer

Docket No. SPO9-403 Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 12 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications ______

7ec- / r LA

RECEIVED CORPORATI0C1.EL Ci\ND O HOCLULL 4v 59

09 OCT23 P1 .42

BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIi

In The Matter Of The Application Of The ) DOCKET NO. SPO9-403

)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY

SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF ) AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

HONOLULU ) PLANNING COMMISSION’S

) FINDINGS OF FACT,

For A New Special Use Permit To ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND

Supersede Existing Special Use Permit To ) DECISION AND ORDER WITH

Allow A 92.5-Acre Expansion And Time ) MODIFICATIONS

Extension For Waimãnalo Gulch Sanitary )

Landfill, Waimãnalo Gulch, O’ahu, ) Hawai’i, Tax Map Key: 9-2-03: 72 And 73 )

)

ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER WITH MODIFICATIONS

This is to certify that this is a true and correct copy of the document on file in the office of the State Land Use Commission, Honolulu, Hawaii.

October 22wo9 by

Executive 0 icer Orlando Davidson, Executive Officer

Docket No. SPO9-403 Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 13 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications ______

RECEIVED CQiPORATiWCC!J!SE! 4.•95 q, CANDCDFf:

09 OCT23 P1:42

BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI’I

In The Matter Of The Application Of The ) DOCKET NO. SP09-403 )

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY

SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF ) AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

HONOLULU ) PLANNING COMMISSION’S

) FINDINGS OF FACT,

For A New Special Use Permit To ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND

Supersede Existing Special Use Permit To ) DECISION AND ORDER WITH

Allow A 92.5-Acre Expansion And Time ) MODIFICATIONS Extension For Waimãnalo Gulch Sanitary ) Landfill, Waimanalo Gulch, O’ahu,

Hawai’i, Tax Map Key: 9-2-03: 72 And 73 ) )

ORDER ADOPTING THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU PLANNING COMMISSION’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER WITH MODIFICATIONS

On July 31, 2009, the City and County of Honolulu Planning

Commission (“Planning Commission”) met at the City Council Committee

Meeting Room, Second Floor, in Honolulu, Hawai’i, to consider a new special use permit application (“Application”) filed by the Department of Environmental

Services, City and County of Honolulu (“Applicant”), to supersede the existing special use permit to allow a 92.5-acre expansion and time extension for the existing Waimänalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (“WGSL”) located at Waimãnalo

Gulch, O’ahu, Hawai’i, Tax Map Key: 9-2-03: 72 and 73 (“Property”).

After due deliberation and consideration of the record in this matter, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Application

(County Special Use Permit File No. 2008/SUP-2), subject to ten conditions, and further recommended approval of the withdrawal of County Special Use Permit

File No. 86/SUP-5 upon 2008/SUP-2 taking effect, and that all conditions previously placed on the Property under County Special Use Permit File No.

86/SUP-5 shall be null and void.

On August 11, 2009, the Land Use Commission (“LUC”) received the decision and a portion of the record of the Planning Commission’s

proceedings on the Application.

On August 20, 2009, the LUC received the remaining portion of the

record.

On September 10, 2009, the Ko Olina Community Association,

Colleen Hanabusa, and Maile Shimabukuro (“Intervenors”) filed a Motion To 1Intervene.

1 At the September 24, 2009 meeting the LUC recognized Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. Shimabukuro and the Ko Olina Community Association as intervenors in the LUC’s proceeding based upon their intervenor status before the Planning Commission and therefore denied the Motion to Intervene as moot. Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 2 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications On September 17, 2009, the Applicant filed a Memorandum In

Opposition To Intervenors Ko Olina Community Association, Colleen Hanabusa,

And Maile Shimabukuro’s Motion To Intervene.

On September 21, 2009, Intervenors filed a Motion To Deny

Petition.

On September 23, 2009, the Applicant filed a Memorandum In

Opposition To Intervenors Ko Olina Community Association, Colleen Hanabusa

And Maile Shimabukuro’s Motion To Deny Petition.

On September 24, 2009, the LUC conducted a meeting on the

Application in the Kaua’i Meeting Room, Sheraton Waikiki Hotel, in Honolulu,

Hawai’i. Gary Y. Takeuchi, Esq., and Jesse K. Souki, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Colleen Hanabusa, Esq.; Ken Williams; and Maile Shimabukuro were present on behalf of the Intervenors. Bryan C. Yee, Esq., and Abbey Mayer were also present on behalf of the State Office of Planning, and Don Kitaoka,

Esq., and Robert Bannister were present on behalf of the Department of Planning and 2Permitting. At the meeting, both the Applicant and Intervenors provided

Pursuant to section 92-3, I-IRS,the LUC heard public testimony from Fred Dodge; William Aila, Jr.;2 City Council Chair Todd Apo; Mel Kahele; Abbey Mayer; and Robert Bannister. The LUC also received written testimony from Ka’eo Gouveia; Nobuko Maria Mori; Au Mahmoodi; Laura Kay Rand; Mario Beekes; Lorita Nordlum; Paulette Dibibar; Clara Batongbacal; Elizabeth Dunne; Kalena Hew Len; Kamaki Kanahele; Ralph F. Harris; James C. Banigan ifi; Greg Nichols; Howard Perry, Jr.; and Michael Nelson. At the meeting, the LUC denied Intervenors’ Motion To Deny Petition. Docket No. SPO9-403 Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 3 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications oral argument in support of their respective positions on the Application.

Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to grant the Application subject to (1) the withdrawal of County Special Use Permit File No. 86/SUP-5 and

LUC Docket No. SP87-362, provided that the existing conditions therein shall be

incorporated to the extent they are consistent with and applicable to this decision

and are not duplicative of any additional conditions imposed hereafter; (2) the

conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission in County Special Use

Permit File No. 2008/SUP-2 (LUC Docket No. SPO9-403) and modified as

appropriate; and (3) the following additional conditions: municipal solid waste

shall be allowed at the WGSL up to July 31, 2012, provided that only ash and

residue from H-POWER shall be allowed at the WGSL after July 31, 2012; the

Honolulu City Council through the City Administration shall report to the public

every three months on their efforts regarding the continued use of the WGSL,

including any funding arrangements that are being considered by the City

Council and the City Administration; and the City Council and the City

Administration shall have a public hearing every three months to report on the

status of their efforts to either reduce or continue the use of the WGSL. By a vote

of 5 ayes, 3 nays, and 1 absent, the motion carried.

The LUC, upon consideration of the Planning Commission’s

Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And Decision And Order, the oral

Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 4 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications Commission’s as State subject and arguments Water offsite Hawai’i well prevent that Applicant construction, Docket hold addresses Conclusions Order its upon effective construction, harmless Department own Adopting No. Resource improvements to any Administrative the SPO9-403 motion Findings all shall of of visible Law, HEREBY activities dust 2. 1. following and 3. the the Findings the develop Management, City parties and duly Department operation of and control State dust Of The In That Health, Decision and involving wastewater Fact, that accordance passed ORDERS conditions: of Of Rules, a Applicant emission and County the measures dust Hawai’i Fact, have of Conclusions Department of and the City by Environmental and the the control of access, Conclusions Order that record a the Honolulu from and landfill potential with Applicant disposal. Board shall and during LUC, the With County management storm impacting all Chapter and obtain LUC Of of of Planning expansion of Modifications Services, all Transportation, to Law, Water files its Of shall drainage, shall generate phases of all agencies Law, 11-60.1 herein, Honolulu And necessary surrounding Commission’s be Supply City adopt plan are responsible And of Decision and leachate fugitive “Air and development, provided and/or that the for Decision County shall Commission approvals good Pollution Plaiming identifies all Findings areas. And dust. employees control, indemnify onsite for of cause to Honolulu And Order, ensuring minimize The of Control,” from and and existing Fact, water, on Order for and the or 5 any lawsuit or legal action relating to any groundwater contamination and noise

and odor pollution relative to the operation of the landfill.

4. On or before November 1, 2010, the Applicant shall begin to identify and develop one or more new landfill sites that shall either replace or

supplement the WGSL. The Applicant’s effort to identify and develop such sites

shall be performed with reasonable diligence, and the Honolulu City Council is

encouraged to work cooperatively with the Applicant’s effort to select a new

landfill site on Oahu. Upon the selection of a new landfill site or sites on Oahu,

the Applicant shall provide written notice to the Planning Commission. After

receipt of such written notice, the Planning Commission shall hold a public

hearing to reevaluate 2008/SUP-2 (SPO9-403)and shall determine whether

modification or revocation of 2008/SUP-2 (SPO9-403)is appropriate at that time.

The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Land Use

Commission.

5. The Applicant shall continue its efforts to use alternative

technologies to provide a comprehensive waste stream management program

that includes H-POWER, plasma arc, plasma gasification and recycling

technologies, as appropriate. The Applicant shall also continue its efforts to seek

beneficial reuse of stabilized, dewatered sewage sludge.

Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 6 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications 6. The Applicant shall provide, without any prior notice, annual reports to the Planning Commission and the Land Use Commission regarding the status of identifying and developing new landfill sites on Oahu, the WGSL’s operations, and Applicant’s compliance with the conditions imposed herein. The annual reports also shall address the Applicant’s efforts to use alternative technologies, as appropriate, and to seek beneficial re-use of

stabilized, dewatered sewage sludge. The annual reports shall be submitted to

the Planning Commission and Land Use Commission on June 1 of each year

subsequent to the date of this Decision and Order.

7. Closure Sequence “A” for the existing landfill cells at WGSL

as shown on Exhibit “A12” must be completed, and final cover applied, by

December 31, 2012.

8. WGSL shall be operational only between the hours of 7:00

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. daily, except that ash and residue may be accepted at the

Property 24 hours a day.

9. The Applicant shall coordinate construction of the landfill

cells in the expansion area and operation of WGSL with Hawaiian Electric

Company, with respect to required separation of landfill grade at all times and

any accessory uses from overhead electrical power lines.

Docket No. SPO9-403 Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 7 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications 10. The operations of the WGSL under 2008!STJP-2 (SPO9-403) shall be in compliance with the requirements of Section 21-5.680 of the Revised

Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu 1990, to the extent applicable, and any and all applicable rules and regulations of the State Department of

Health.

11. The Planning Commission may at any time impose additional conditions when it becomes apparent that a modification is necessary and appropriate.

12. Enforcement of the conditions to the Planning Commission’s approval of 2008/SUP-2 (SPO9-403) shall be pursuant to the Rules of the Planning

Commission, including the issuance of an order to show cause why 2008/SUP-2

(SPO9-403)should not be revoked if the Planning Commission has reason to believe that there has been a failure to perform the conditions imposed herein by this Decision and Order.

13. The Applicant shall notify the Planning Commission and

Land Use Commission of termination of the use of the Property as a landfill for appropriate action or disposition of 2008/SUP-2 (SPO9-403).

14. Municipal solid waste shall be allowed at the WGSL up to

July 31, 2012, provided that only ash and residue from H-POWER shall be allowed at the WGSL after July 31, 2012.

Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 8 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications 15. The Honolulu City Council through the City Administration shall report to the public every three months on the efforts of the City Council and the City Administration in regard to the continued use of the WGSL, including any funding arrangements that are being considered by the City

Council and the City Administration.

16. The City Council and the City Administration shall have a public hearing every three months to report on the status of their efforts to either reduce or continue the use of the WGSL.

LAND USE COMMISSION APPROVED AS TO FORM STATE OF HAWAI’I

Deputy Attorney General RANSOM PIL. Chairperson and Commissioner

By (Excused) VLADIMIR PAUL DEVENS Vice-Chairperson and Commissioner

BZ’REU13ENS. F. WONG Vice-Chairperson and Commissioner

By (Nay) KYLE CHOCK Commissioner

Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 9 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications By J THOMAS CONTRADES Commissioner

By (Nay) LISA M. JUDGE Commissioner AEUHA Commissioner

ByJNav-- NORMAND LEZY Commissioner Filed and effective on: October 22, 2009 By4 NICHAS W. TEVES, JR. Certified by: Comiissioner

ORLANDO DAVIDSION Executive Officer

Docket No. SPO9-403Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu 10 Order Adopting the City and County of Honolulu Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order With Modifications Summary of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D, 40 CFR Part 258, Landfills

February 8, 2011

1. Introduction Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 258, governs the development, operation and closure of landfills. This Federal regulation is administered by the EPA, and delegated to the State of Hawaii, Department of Health (DOH). The State’s implementation of 40 CFR 258 is through the DOH Solid Waste Permit Program, in particular, through Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 342, Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The State DOH, Solid Waste Permit Program, which incorporates the Federal Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) Criteria, identifies six criteria related to the location of existing and new municipal solid waste landfills. The criteria and a brief summary is provided below:

2. Overview Operators and owners must comply with each of the criteria and maintain records in the facility operating record demonstrating that each of the criteria have been met. These criteria include the following: Restriction No. 1: Airport Restriction - Owners/operators must demonstrate that the landfill does not constitute a bird hazard if the facility is located within 10,000 feet of the end of any airport runway used by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 of any airport runway used only by piston driven aircraft. If the owner/operator proposes construction of a landfill or expansion of an existing landfill within 5 miles of any airport, the airport and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be notified. Restriction No.2: Floodplains - Landfills located within a 100 year floodplain cannot restrict stormflows within the floodplain, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or allow the washout of solid waste. Restriction No. 3: Wetlands - Owners/operators of a new or existing landfill may not build or expand into wetlands. An exception to this rule may be permitted by EPA- approved permitting programs to construct or expand a landfill only if the following can be demonstrated: • No other siting alternative is available; • Construction and operation of the landfill will not violate applicable State regulations governing water quality or discharges of toxic or hazardous effluent; jeopardize threatened or endangered species, or critical wildlife habitat; or, violate protection of a marine sanctuary; • The landfill will not contribute to the significant deterioration of the wetland; • Steps are taken to achieve no net loss of wetlands by avoiding potential for impacts where possible, sufficiently minimizing unavoidable impacts; or, making proper

Summary of RCRA Subtitle D Regulations Page 1 of 5 compensation for example, through the restoration of damaged wetlands or the creation of manmade wetlands; Restriction No. 4: Fault Areas - New landfills or landfill expansions are generally prohibited within 200 feet of fault areas that have shifted since the last Ice Age. However, the director of an authorized EPA permitting program may permit an alternative setback distance of less than 200 feet if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the landfill will maintain structural integrity in the event of a fault displacement. Restriction No. 5: Seismic Impact Zones - Landfills located in a seismic impact zone must demonstrate that the facility including, but not limited to, its liners, leachate collection system, surface water control system, et. al., has been designed to resist the effects of ground motion due to earthquakes. Restriction No. 6: Unstable Areas - All owners/operators must demonstrate that the structure of their units will not be compromised during geologically destabilizing events including: • Debris flows resulting from heavy rainfall or storm conditions; • Fast formation of sinkholes caused by excessive groundwater withdrawal; • Rockfalls which are initiated by explosives or sonic booms; and, • The sudden liquefaction of soil after prolonged periods of repeated wetting and drying.

2. Operation Owners/operators must comply with requirements for the management of municipal solid waste landfills. A range of procedures must be adhered to and include: • Receipt of Regulated Hazardous Waste - A program to detect and prevent the disposal of regulated quantities of hazardous wastes and PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) wastes. The program must provide appropriate protocol and procedures for random inspections, record keeping, personnel training to recognize hazardous and PCB waste, and notification of appropriate authorities if such waste is discovered at the landfill. • Cover Material - The owner/operator must cover disposed solid waste with a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material at the end of each work day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. The State DOH may permit the owner or operator to use an alternative cover material or depth, and/or grant a temporary waiver of the cover material if local climate conditions make this requirement impractical. • Vectors - The owner/operator is responsible for controlling vector populations which include any rodents, flies, mosquitoes, or other animals or insects capable of transmitting disease to humans. Application of cover at the end of each work day will generally control vectors. • Explosive Gases - The owner/operator must set up a program to check for methane gas emissions at least every three months. If the regulatory limits are exceeded, the owner/operator mst immediately notify the State DOH and take immediate steps to protect human health and the environment. The owner/operator must also develop

Summary of RCRA Subtitle D Regulations Page 2 of 5 and implement a remediation plan within 60 days. The State DOH may modify this interval as appropriate and as consistent with the protection of public health. • Air Quality - Open burning of waste is not permitted by the State DOH. ACCESS - The owner/operator must control public access to prevent illegal dumping, unauthorized vehicular traffic, and public exposure. • Storm Water Runoff and Run On - The owner/operator must build and maintain a control system designed to prevent storm waters from running on to the active part of the landfill. The run-on control system must also be designed to the 25-year storm flow. The run-off system must similarly be designed to handle storm flows from a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. Run-off waters must be managed in accordance to requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-54, Water Quality Standards. • Surface Water Protection - All landfills must be operated in such as way that pollutants that violate the Federal Clean Water Act are not inadvertently or intentionally released into waters of the U.S. Appropriate storm water and drainage control measures should be designed to protect surface waters and avoid violations.

3. Design Criteria for the design of landfills are only applicable to new units and lateral expansions. Existing landfills will not be required to retrofit liner systems. Two options are provided for landfill design criteria: Option 1 - States such as Hawaii, with EPA- Approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs, may authorize the construction of landfills. The Director of the State DOH must ensure that Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, as defined by EPA), will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at a relevant point of compliance. This point is determined by the State DOH, but must be no further than 150 meters from the landfill unit boundary and on land owned by the landfill owner. Approved authorizing State agencies, such the DOH, must also consider other factors such as the hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land, the local climate, and the amount and nature of the leachate. Option 2 - This option involves use of a design developed by EPA that consists of a composite liner and leachate collection system. In general, landfills in jurisdictions without EPA approved programs must use this design. The composite liner system combines an upper liner of a synthetic flexible membrane and a lower layer of soil at least 2 feet thick with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 1 x 10-7centimeters/ second. The leachate collection system must be designed to keep the depth of the leachate over the liner to less than 30 centimeters.

4. Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Groundwater monitoring is used to demonstrate that the performance of the landfill liner and leachate collection system is operating correctly and poses no potential for negative impacts to groundwater resources. As with all federally mandated requirements, the State DOH may adopt requirements that are more stringent than the Federal criteria. The promulgated criteria for State of Hawaii water quality standards is in HAR, Chapter 11-

Summary of RCRA Subtitle D Regulations Page 3 of 5 54, Water Quality Standards. In general, the State water quality standards are consistent with Federal requirements. Ground water quality monitoring systems must be undertaken for all municipal solid waste landfills. Owner/operators are required to install monitoring wells in appropriate locations to assess water quality: (1) beneath the landfill before any migrating water has passed the landfill boundary. This is to assess pre-existing or ambient conditions; and, (2) at a relevant point of compliance downgradient from the surface of the landfill. Installation and monitoring of monitoring wells shall be in accordance with a qualified water quality monitoring program approved by the State DOH. Analysis of water quality samples should include specific constituents as required by DOH and EPA. Monitoring frequency may vary depending on requirements. In the event of significant spikes or anomalies involving specific water quality parameters, owners/operators should first assess whether the potential contamination is due to sources other than the landfill, sampling error, or naturally occurring conditions which have caused the deviant readings. If ground water analysis indicates there is significant contamination that is due to activities at the landfill, and does not include external activities beyond the landfill, errors in monitoring protocol, or naturally occurring conditions, then corrective action or remediation will be required. The level of treatment to which groundwater resources must undergo will be established by the State DOH. During the remediation or clean up phase ground water quality monitoring must continue at a frequency to be determined by DOH. Public notification is required and a public meeting must be held to advise the public of the groundwater contamination and the proposed corrective action. During implementation of the remediation or clean up phase, water quality monitoring will be used to measure the effectiveness of treatment. In general, once it has been demonstrated by water quality monitoring that clean up efforts are effective, the clean up standard must continue to be met for a specified period of time as determined by DOH or EPA. According to Federal standards, this period must last for approximately three consecutive years.

5. Closure and Post Closure Care All owners/operators are required to follow specific standards when closing a landfill. This includes preparation of a closure monitoring and maintenance plan which becomes part of the landfill operating record. The final landfill cover must be designed and constructed to have a permeability less than or equal to the bottom liner system or natural subsoils, or a permeability no greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/second, whichever is lower. The final cover must also be constructed of an infiltration layer composed of a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material to minimize the flow of water into the closed landfill. The cover must also contain an erosion layer to prevent the disintegration of the cover. The erosion layer must be a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material capable of sustaining plant growth. The above standards may be modified by the owner/operator and approved by DOH, if there is an equivalent reduction in infiltration and protection from erosion. Finally, the owner/operator is responsible for a period of 30 years for maintaining the integrity of the final cover, monitoring groundwater and methane gas, and continuing leachate management and control.

Summary of RCRA Subtitle D Regulations Page 4 of 5 6. Financial Assurance The owner/operator must demonstrate financial capability of payment for closure, post closure care, and corrective action for releases of leachate, methane or other landfill contaminants. This requirement may be demonstrated with the following financial instruments: Trust Fund with a pay-in period; Surety Bond; Letter of Credit; Insurance; Guarantee; Assumption of responsibility by the State; and A combination of the above instruments. Other financial mechanisms may be employed, but must be approved by the EPA and/or State DOH.

Summary of RCRA Subtitle D Regulations Page 5 of 5 Underground Injection Control (UIC) and Groundwater Protection Zone (GPZ) Island of O‘ahu

February 10, 2011

Groundwater recharge areas for O‘ahu have been previously identified by the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS). Prior to 1987 these areas were identified as the Groundwater Protection Zone (GPZ), which indicates locations outside of a boundary that may be acceptable for sanitary landfill development. Figure 1.

Since 1987, the Department of Health (DOH) has administered the No Pass Program. The No Pass Zone is similar to the GPZ and identifies a boundary outside of which sanitary landfills and waste disposal systems are generally not developed. The boundary line is known as the UIC line.

Rules for the DOH’s UIC program are promulgated in Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-23. The purpose of the program is to protect the State’s potable groundwater resources from pollution by subsurface wastewater disposal. The program regulations are accompanied by UIC maps which demarcate the UIC Line. Lands that are makai of this line are not restricted from subsurface wastewater disposal by underground injection. Figure 2.

On January 10, 2003 the Honolulu City Council introduced Resolution 03-09 to apply the use of the UIC line to protect Oahu’s groundwater by precluding the siting of landfills mauka of the line. The resolution has since been adopted. See Attachment.

Laie

Haleiwa

Waianae

Kaneohe Nanakuli Aiea Kailua

Honolulu

Hawaii Kai

Groundwater Protection Zone

Figure 1 BWS Groundwater Protection Zones Department of Environmental Services

0 6 Miles 12

R.M. TOWILL CORPORATION March 2008

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement Expansion of Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, 2008 Laie

Haleiwa

Waianae Kaneohe

Nanakuli Aiea Kailua

Honolulu

Hawaii Kai

UIC "No Pass" Zone

Figure 2 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Line Department of Environmental Services

0 6 Miles 12

R.M. TOWILL CORPORATION May 2008

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement Expansion of Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, 2008 03-09.htm - Honolulu City Council Policy Resolutions Page 1 of 2

Search: GO

Government | Online Services | Business / Industry | Residency / Community | Tourism

You are here:

Honolulu City Council Policy Resolutions

(Link to original Word Processing Version)

03-09

ESTABLISHING A CITY POLICY THAT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED OVER THE CITY'S UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER SOURCES.

WHEREAS, both the groundwater protection zone, established by the City's Board of Water Supply, and the underground injection control line ("UIC"), established by the State Department of Health, are intended to protect the City's precious underground drinking water from contamination; and

WHEREAS, the State Department of Health has expressed its preference for the City's "non-degradation approach" of protecting drinking water sources by siting landfills seaward of the UIC line; and

WHEREAS, the City's Board of Water Supply also opposes the placement of a municipal solid waste ("MSW") landfill over the City's drinking water sources; and

WHEREAS, there is no current landfill technology that can guarantee that hazardous or other harmful substances from a MSW landfill placed over the city's aquifer will not, over the long-term, enter the city's drinking water sources and pose a risk to the public health and welfare of Honolulu's citizens; and

WHEREAS, in Hawaii, a number of toxic waste contaminated sites are former landfills; and

WHEREAS, prevention of contamination of the City's drinking water, through the placement of MSW landfills outside the groundwater protection zone and the UIC, is preferable to the remediation of contaminated drinking water; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that it hereby

http://www1.honolulu.gov/refs/cclpol/03-09.htm 2/9/2011 03-09.htm - Honolulu City Council Policy Resolutions Page 2 of 2

establishes as a policy of the City that municipal solid waste landfills should not be located anywhere above the Department of Health's Underground Injection Control line, within the Board of Water Supply's groundwater protection zone, or over any of the City's drinking water sources; and

INTRODUCED BY:

Mike Gabbard

DATE OF INTRODUCTION:

January 10, 2003 Honolulu, Hawaii Councilmembers

(OCS/040803/ct)

Policy Resolutions

http://www1.honolulu.gov/refs/cclpol/03-09.htm 2/9/2011 NVILLIAMI AILA. JR. INTERIM CHAIRPERSON NEIL ABERCROMBIE BOARD OF lAND AND NATURAL RESOUR( LA GOVERNOR OF HAWAII COMMISSION I\ RATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

GUY H KAULUKUKUI FIRST DEPLEY

WILLIAM El. TAM INlERIM FIEPITV DIRECTOR - VAI ER

AQUAIIC RESOURCES BOATING ND) OCEAN RECREATION RUREAL OF CONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON SCAlER RESOURCE MAIAOESIENT C0NSI)EV.-VFI0N ANI) COASIAL LANDS CONSERS ATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCFPIENT STATE OF HAWAII ENGINEERING I’OR.ESTRV SAl) \VILDLIFE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ISISTORICPRESERVATION KANOOLAWE ISL.SND RESRRVR COMMISSION LANE POST OFFICE BOX 621 STATE PARKS HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809

January31, 2011 Ref: 97od-308

Mr. Timothy Steinberger, P.E. Director Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu 1000 Uluohia Street, Suite 308 Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Steinberger:

Subject: Future Landfill for Oahu, TMK (1) 4-1-008:013

Thank you for your letter dated January 7, 2011 requesting our input regarding proposed use of the subject State land as a future landfill for Oahu.

The Department considers the subject parcel, zoned primarily conservation district, as an important addition to the Waimanalo Forest Reserve because of its watershed, aesthetic and recreational values. Following a public hearing regarding this matter, the Land Board approved and recommended to the Governor the set-aside of the subject land to our Department?sDivision of Forestry and Wildlife for Addition to Waimanalo Forest Reserve. My staff is currently processing this request including preparation of survey maps and an executive order for review and approval by the Department of the Attorney General, and subsequently the Governor. Therefore, we do not support the idea of placing the future landfill at the subject location.

Sincerely, r’i

William J. Aila, Jr. Interim Chairperson $

cc: DOFAW, DLNR

C, C)’ Information Distributed by Solid Waste Facilities

February 10, 2011

The attached information was distributed on February 10, 2011, during a field visit to solid waste handling facilities. This information is from:

(1) Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc./Schnitzer Steel Hawai‘i Corporation (2) H-POWER (Honolulu Program on Waste Energy Recovery) (3) PVT Landfill Company, Ltd. (Info on CD)

Notice: All information furnished by the facilities visited was not subject to review and verification by the City. Accordingly, the City cannot vouch for the validity or accuracy of the information provided to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection.

Campbe 1 Indus·fat Par!\. ~t4. SCHN1TZ:ER, STEEL 91 -056 Hanua Str.:et Kapolei, Hawa-j 96707 HAWAII CORP. Telephor-e- (60S) 652-5810 ;:-acsim· L~ (SOS) ~2.-GSO~

E Komo Mail Welcome to the Scrap Metal Recycling World!

Schnitzer Steel Hawaii Corp. (SSHIC) recycles Hawai'i's scrap metal, old automobiles, metal appliances (without freon/gas), pipes, beams, bicycles, and we will pay you top dollar for the weight of your material.

We shred the scrap metal, and it is shipped to steel mills who melt the processed metal and produce new metal for re-use. The photo at right, represents 20,000 tons of shredded metal. Annually, 140,000 tons of metal is diverted from our landfills.

* reduce your disposal cost ~MI!~.,i * preserve landfill space * help our environment * turn trash into cash

A roll-off bin can be delivered to your property/job site. After you've filled the container, call for pick-up; and depending on the amount of metal, you will be compensated for the total tonnage scaled in at SSHIC. Call Rene: (808) 306-1876. lIT'S TIME TO GIVE BACK TO OUR COMMUNIT~

IMonthly ~~/oha 'Aina Earth Day Recycling Community Clean-Up" Project$,

Participants: Hongwanji Mission School Leeward Community College Nani 0 Waianae Waipahu HS Project Grad Leilehua High School Farrington H. S. Laie Community Association Kaimuki High School K.E.Y. Project Moanalua High School Mililani High School Hui Nalu Canoe Club Waialua Community Association McKinley High School Kapolei High School Waikiki Community Center Castle HighSchool Boy Scouts Troop 32 Roosevelt High School Pearl City High School We recycle: scrap metal, computers, batteries, plastic bags, green waste, cardboard, newspaper, beverage containers, telephone b90ks, cell phones, cooking oil, magazines, printer cartridges. Clean up and turn trash into cash! E-mail ReneManshoforre~ervat i onsormoreinformat i on- [email protected] ISCHNITZER STEEL MARINE DEBRIS RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP PROJEClj

PIER 38 BIN for FISHERMEN NETS COLLECTED by NOAA SSHIC SHEARS Ten years ago; when General Manager James Banigan discovered that the nets were being buried in our landfills, he offered the shears to cut the nets in foot long pieces, and haul them to HPOWER for burning and conversion to electricity. We help recycle 100 t ons a year to generate enough electricity to fuel 42 homes.

HOURS of OPERATION: FREE SCHOOL TOURS - Mon.-Sat.. - 7:30 AM - 2:45 PM CLASSROOM LESSONS: Closed on Sundays Call Rene: (808) 306 -1876 Vleighmaster : SCHNIT~~K ~~~~L tlaWa~~ Weighed at 91- 05 6 HFNUA STREET ~~OLEI , HI 96707 808-682-5810 TICKET DATE: 12/06/10

TRIP: 006 SCALE: 1 (TRUCK/DOCK SCALE) Vendor Number 346 CUSTOMER COpy Vendor Name CITY & COUNTY DIR. OF FINA~CE LIC# Vehicle-384TTG ~ARKS/RECREATION DEPT. Driver - 1000 ULUOHIA ST., #309 Trailer- KAPOLEI, HI 96707 Che y enne l,ahulu - 3540 Measure Mas ter This is to certify that the follO\vin9 merchandise was we ighed, measured, or counted by a 11censed '<1e:asure I'taster Signature by the State of Ha\Y'ai i. Date and Time - In: 12/'0~6~/'1~0~1~3-:~4~2~O-u~t-:~1~2'/~0~6'/~1~0~13:48 Commodity Description - Ferrous Net Weight 192-00 Tin 6880.0 LB

Comment: 384TTG/SSHIC54-CLIFF WAIPAHU Total Wt- Gross: 40460.0 lbs Tare: 33580.0 lbs Net: 6880.0 lbs

Vleighmaster: SCHNITZER STEEL HAWAI I CORP 0 We ighed at 91-056 HFNUA STREET KAPOLEI , HI 96707 808-682-5810 TICKET DATE: 12/14/10

TRIP: 487 SCALE: 1 (TRUCK/DOCK SCALE) Vendor Number 346 CUSTOMER COpy Vendor Name CITY & COUNTY DIR. OF FINANCE LIC# Vehicle-384TTG PARKS/RECREATION DEPT . Driver -x 1000 ULUOHIA ST., #309 Trailer- KAPOLEI, HI 96707 ·Measure Master Cheyenne Nahulu - 3540 This i's to certify that the f ollo\·ling merchandise '.... as \Y'eighed, measured , or counted by a l1censed Heasure l.'Jaster Signature by the State of Hawaii. Da te and Time - In : 12 /-;:1:-4~/7:1:-0::--:1:-:3::--::2:-:3::--:0~u-:t -:---::1:-::2:-/;-::1-:4-:/;-::1~0~13 : 31 Commodity Description - Ferrous Net Weight 192-00 Tin 3540.0 LB

Comment : 384TTG/HMR40-CLIFF

Total Wt- Gross: 36820.0 lbs Tare: 33280.0 lbs Net: 3540.0 lbs We i ghmaster : u'-ll.L'4..L...L"-I.&.:.I.&.'\o ~.-.. ______Il\Te i ghed at 91- 056 ~NUA STREET KAPOLEI , HI . 96707 8 08-682-581 0 TICKET DATE: 12/01/10

TRIP: 027 SCALE: 1 (TRUCK / DOCK SCALE ) Vendor Number 346 CUSTOMER CO py Vendor Name CITY & COUNTY DIR. OF FINANCE LIC# Vehicle-322TTG PARKS/RECREATION DEPT . Driver - x 1000 ULUOHIA ST. , #309 Trailer- KAPOLEI, HI 96707 Cheye nne Nahulu - 354 0 Measure Master Th is i s t o cert i fy that t he followi ng merchandi se \~'a s weighed, measu;:ed , o~ . c ounte d by a l l.censed I~easu r e l-1aster Signature by the st a te o r Hawa l. l. . Date and Time - In : 12/TO~1~/T1~0~1~2~:~3~4~O~u~t-:~1~2~/'-0~1~/~1~0~12:38 Commodity Description - Ferrous Net Weight 192-00 Tin 8000 . 0 LB

Comment: 322TTG/SSHIC54-SAM JR BEHIND WAIP~BU HIGH

Total wt~ Gr o ss: 413 00 . 0 lbs Tare; 333 00 .0 lbs Net: 8000 . 0 lbs

Weighmaster: SCHNITZER STEEL HAWAII CORP. Weighed at 91-056 HANUA STREET KAPOLEI, HI 96707 808-682-5810 TICKET DATE: 12 /02/10

TRIP: 302 SCALE: 1 (TRUCK/DOCK SCALE) Vendor Number 346 CUSTOMER COPY Vendor Name CITY & COUNTY DIR. OF FINANCE LIC# Vehicle-384TTG PARKS/RECREATION DEPT . Driv er - 1000 ULUOHIA ST . , #309 Trailer- KAPOLEI, HI 96707 Measure Master Cheyenne Hahulu - 3:;>40 This i s to cer tify that the foll o\',\' i n9 merchandise ,·,as weighed , measured , or counted by a ll.censed ).1easure l1aster Signature by t he stat e of Hawa i i. Da te a nd Time - In: 1 2 /T;0::-;2:;-/-':1;-:0~1;-;2-::-:~1;-:0~O-::-u~t-:~1~2~/'-0~2~/'-1~0'----::-1 2 : 21 Commodity De scription - Ferrous Net Weight 192 - 00 Tin 7560.0 LB

Comment : 3 84TTG /HMR52

Total Wt- Gross: 41140.0 lbs Tare: 33580 . 0 lbs Net : 7560 . 0 lbs MARINE DEBRIS to ENERGY PARTNERSHIP "Our mission: Sustainability, diverting marine debris from our landfills." Contact: Rene Mansho · [email protected] - (808) 306-1876

Recycling started in 2002 Nets are from Oahu, Big Island, North West Hawaiian NOAA & USCG gathers nets Islands Monument - "Papahanaumokuakea"

Schnitzer hauls nets from Honolulu Harbor to their scrap metal recycling site.

Schnitzer uses hydraulic shears to cut nets and fishing lines into foot-long pieces which are trucked to the City's waste-to-energy facility, HPOWER. (Next: East & West Coast)

...... ~ HPOWER ':" .f ...... * 100 tons of nets incinerated per year will generate electricity to fuel 42 homes * Partners: NOAA, USCG, Schnitzer Steel ' '' CI ~~~ Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, NOAA Hawaii, City &County of Honolulu, State Rene Mansho, Schnitzer Steel HI Dept. of Bus. Econ. Dev. &Tourism, Schnitzer Steel HI U.S. Sec. Carlos Gutierrez, Commerci Alliance Trucking, Hawaii fishing industry www.hawaiimetal.com www.schn.com Chris Woolaway, Multi-Agency Chair Camp beLL Industrial Park

January 2011

MARINE DEBRIS TO ENERGY PARTNERSI-llP ABSTRACT

. Hawai'i's limited landfill space is a critical issue for the island state, and Schnitzer Steel Hawaii Corp. has stepped forward as a paliner in diveliing waste from the landfills at no cost to the government and NOAA. Helping the environment, doing the right thing, is Schnitzer's bottom line.

Since 2002, the nets that NOAA, the US Coast Guard, Hawaii fishennan, and several cOlmnunity non-profit organizations have been collecting at their clean-up projects, have been hauled from the harbors, chopped into foot-long pieces, and trucked to HPOWER, where one hundred tons a year are incinerated and will generate enough electricity to fuel 42 homes a year.

Schnitzer worked with NOAA to service a bin at Honolulu Harbor Pier 38 regularly to encourage fishermen to collect marine debris and derelict fishing gear such as fishing liIl.eS for recycling instead of dumping them in trash containers.

The Big Island of Hawai'i had a shoreline clean-up project sponsored by NOAA and Schnitzer coordinated the pick-up of a Matson container at Honolulu Harbor with the voluntary assistance of a specialized truck with a snorkel provided by Alliance Trucking. All free to NOAA.

Connnunity Relations Director Rene Mansho coordinates the Marine Debris to Energy Palinership which involves several steps: a) NOAA staff works with Rene to have a container delivered to the POlt b) NOAA !USCG off-loads nets, Rene schedules pick-up c) Pacific Ocean Producers calls Rene to empty Pier 38 bin d) Rene contacts HPOWER to set up the schedule for delivery of chopped nets e) · Rene gathers all data on t0l1l1age of nets recycled into electricity

The Island of Kaua'i has a group collecting nets and a Schnitzer barge that hauls scrap metal will also be bringing nets to O'ahu for recycling. The B.E.A.C.H. non-profit group brings their nets to the scrap metal yard for recycling, as have Kaneohe Bay fishermen in the past.

While Schnitzer Steel Hawai'i has spent thousands of dollars for manpower, equipment, and fuel, saving the enviromnent is priceless.

At the end of the day, Planet Earth says, "Thank you for caring."

wwvv.hawaii meta!.com \WNI.schnitzersteel.com o 2 2 10 t o 2 119 o 2 4 12 o 2 93 020 0·2 1 1 o 2 8 95 Q 20 9 98 * 2 10 ==6 o iota~ S 3 ~~n§ · - . ------:. . - .

Campbell Industrial Park 91-056 Hanua Street Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 Tele phone (808) 68 2.-5810 ({ConserrJil1 f) the Fu ture by t?ec'!-ctiI1tJ the Past" Facsimile (808) 682.-0604

January 24, 2011

ALOHA 'AJlNA EARTH DAY PROGRAM in our 8th YEAR ofRECYCJLING

It's unbelievable! Our public/private palinership conducting monthly recycling cOlmnunity clean-up projects stalted with responding to cleaning up illegal dump sites, and now our work is described as sustainable and green. We've been going green since April 2004, and we just keep growing and growing. The program is a win-win to help residents beautify their neighborhood, recycle, and the hosting non-profit organization turns trash into cash. Here's a synopsis ofthe items we are keeping out of the landfills, preserving natural resources, and saving trees! Per event average Scrap metal - 3,087,080lbs 24,000 lbs. Tires - 12,000 200 Green waste - 84 containers 1 Newspaper, cardboard 96 containers 1 Beverage containers - 96 containers 1 Computers 122 truckloads 2 Cell phones 5,000 100 Pi' inter caltridges 4,000 75 Goodwill Industries truckloads 72 1 Telephone books 30,500 300 Magazines 10,000 200 Athletic shoes 3,800 200 Batteries 20,500 300 Cooking oil 8500 gallons 20 Curbside truck service 505 flatbed trucks with lift gates

A big mahalo to all ofthe private recycling businesses who come out pro bono to help residents recycle, and the State of Hawaii who provides school facilities, and most impOltantly, to the City and County of Honolulu who are our solid pmtners to ensure success of this program. The bottom line is that people want to recycle, we make it convenient, and it wouldn't be possible if any of the pmtners pulled out. The environment wins; planet emth is a better place for all of us. Why do we do it? Because we want to give back to our community for their dedication and sacrifice to help the envil'Olmlent, too.

Please call Rene Mansho@ 306-1 876 for infonnation about the 2009 events or check website: wwvv.hawaiimetal.com.

W\!"'\/>!. hawaii me tal. co m \'I,'\N'-N. schnitzerst ee i.com ALOHA 'A~~A IEtU~u~=4l DAV RECYCLING COMMl\jN~TI CILIEAN=lUJP P~OG~AM Twice a month, Schnitzer Steel Hawaii coordinates the "Aloha 'Aina Earth Day Recycling

Community Clean-Up Project, JJ which is a private-public partnership of generous businesses who donate their time and resources to:

® reduce waste and expand recycling o divert waste from our landfills o clean illegal dump sites o preserve natural resources o help schools and community organizations raise needed funds o increase awareness about solid waste management and disposal. o save taxpayers' dollars & save businesses' bottom line during these tough times How you ask? Simple! We organize at a large parking lot with containers and trucks ready to accept recyclable material from the public. Schnitzer Steel Hawaii's front loader is hauled free of charge by Alliance Trucking to the site to assist with heavy materials that need to be loaded in their roll-off bins. Volunteers turn out on Saturdays from 8:00 AM - 2:00 PM , ro ll up their sleeves, put on work gloves, and assist the customers bringing their trash, or they jump in a Penske Truck to do curbside pick-ups in the neighborhood, and many times, far away, too! At the end of the day, the school or non-profit organization receives 4 checks for their efforts: o scrap metal - Schnitzer Steel Hawaii Corp. o newspaper, cardboard, beverage containers - Honolulu Recovery Systems o cell phones, ink cartridges, laptop computers - Intrade Corporation o cooking oil- Pacific Biodiesel "A loha 'Aina Earth Days" started in April 2004, to address illegal dumping issues. The first event was held with Nani 0 Wai'anae, at Waianae Boat Harbor collecting only scrap metal, and has progressed to include 20 items that are being re-used, and/or recycled. On March 5, 2009, the Hawaii State Senate presented a certificate to commemorate the "5th Anniversary of Aloha 'Aina Earth Day.". The State House of Representatives . presentation was on May 5, 2009. Governor Linda Lingle and Lt. Governor Duke Aiona and Mayor Mufi Hannemann's 5th Anniversary Proclamations were presented on June 15, and April 24, 2009, respectively; and the Honolulu City Council presented their Honorary Certificate on November 18, 2009, commending their 5th Anniversary. Often, many recycling businesses are unable to offer pro-bono community services, so we take this opportunity to say "thank you" to the environmental partners of "Aloha 'Aina Earth Day." A strong supporter is the City's partnership every month. Currently, Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi is working on educating the public to use Aloha 'Aina Earth Days for community bu lky items recycling year round. Planet Earth is a better place because of everyone working together. HONORING & CELEBRATING THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY of the ALOHA 'AINA EARTH DAY RECYCLING COMMUNITY CLEAN-UP PROGRAM

The Honolulu City Council is proud to recognize those special individuals who selflessly utilize their knowledge and talents to faithfully serve the community and have contributed significantly to the recycling and sustainability efforts of the community. Their commitment has also fostered important recycling education and wondeliul opportunities for friendship and goodwill to be shared among the people of Hawaii. The Aloha 'Aina Earth Day recyclers' mission is to divert waste from our landfills, re-use, recycle, and promote environmental protection. Schnitzer Steel Hawaii played a vital role in staliing and coordinating the effort. The first event was hosted by Nani 0 Wai' anae in April 2004, and Kaimuki High School was the first school to participate in the program in October 2004.

On designated days, with the community's help, all types of recyclable items are collected at a location within the community. These one-stop locations allow residents to recycle many household items that can be difficult to dispose of. The list of recyclable items includes scrap metal, green waste, computers, cell phones, tires, athletic shoes, batteries, eye glasses, hearing aids, telephone books and magazines, cooking oil, incandescent light bulbs, as well as the towing of unwanted cars.

Proceeds from the recyclables are donated to community organizations. As a result, natural resources are preserved, the environment is cleaned, and worthy programs earn needed funds to provide valuable community services. More than 1,100 net tons of scrap metal have been recycled over 5 years and $67,500 has been raised from various companies. Over fifty schools and community groups have participated and benefitted from this program. Most of all, critical landfill space is saved.

The Council of the City and County of Honolulu, in the State of Hawai'i, would like to honor the generous environmental partners who host monthly Aloha 'Aina Earth Days:

Access Information Management Interstate Battery Systems Alliance Trucking/Contracting Intrade Corporation Alternate Energy Menehune Water Company Blue Planet Foundation Pacific Biodiesel City Depaliment of Environmental Services Pacific Corporate Solutions Goodwill Industries of Hawaii . Paradise Lua, Inc. Family Towing Penske Truck Rental 1-800 Got Junk Refrigerant Recycling Inc. Grace Pacific Corporation Schnitzer Steel Hawaii Corporation Hagadone Printing Company State Department of Education Hawaii Lions District 50 T&N Computer Recycling Services Hawaiian Earth Products Unitek Solvent Services Honolulu Recovery Systems \Nalmart/Sam's Club

FUlihermore, The Council recognizes the auspicious occasion of Aloha 'Aina Ealih Day Recycling Community Clean-Up's Fifth Anniversary and joins the citizens of the State of Hawai'i in their celebration and extends its best wishes for continued success in all their future endeavors. Planet Earth is a better place. CONGRATULATES & CELEBRATES THE FIFTH ANN IVERSARY ofthe ALOHA AINA EARTH DAY RECYCLING COMMUNITY CLEAN-UP PROGRAM

The House of Representatives is proud to recognize those special individuals who selflessly utilize their knowledge and talents to faithfully serve the community and have contributed significantly to the recycling and sustainability efforts of the community. Their commitment has also fostered important recycling education and wonderful opportunities for friendship and goodwill to be shared among the people of Hawaii.

On designated days, · with the community's help, all types of recyclable items are collected at a location within the community. The list of recyclable items collected includes scrap metal, green waste; plastic, glass and . aluminum containers; cell phones; computers; printer cartridges, tires; newspaper and cardboard; telephone books and magazines, athletic shoes, plastic bags, plastic hangers, batteries, used household goods and clothing; eye glasses, hearing aids, cooking oil, as well as the towing of unwanted cars. The schools and community organizations that host the events also receive money for recyclables such as scrap metal, HI-5 containers, cell phones, printer cartridges, and cooking oil. As a result, natural resources are preserved; the environment is cleaned, and worthy programs earn needed funds to provide valuable community services. More than 1,100 net tons of scrap metal have been recycled over 5 years and $67,500 from various companies, has been raised for schools and community groups. Most of all, critical landfill space is saved.

Access Information Management, City Dept. of Environmental Services, Family Towing, Goodwill Industries of Hawaii, Grace Pacific Corp., Hawaii Lions District 50, Hawaiian Earth Products, Honolulu Fire Dept., Honolulu Recovery Systems, Interstate Battery Systems, Intrade Corporation, Menehune Water Co., Nike Town Re-Use a Shoe, Pacific Allied Products, Ltd., Paradise Lua, Inc., Penske Truck Rental, Refrigerant Recycling Inc., Schnitzer Steel Hawaii Corp., State Dept. of Education, T&N Computer Recycling Services, Unitek Solvent Services, and Walmart are proud partners of the Aloha Aina Community Clean-U p days.

Boy Scout Troop 32, Campbell High Sch., Farrington High Sch., Friends Makiki Community Learning Center, Waialua Community Association, Hau'ula Elem. Sch ., Hawaii Nature Center, Hui Nal u Canoe Club, Imu a Athletics, K.E. Y. Proj ect, Ka imuki High Sch., Kalani High Sch., Kanoelani Elem. Sch., Kapahulu Center, Moiliili Community Center, Kapolei High Sch., Koolaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, La ie Community Association, Lanakila Multi Purpose Senior Center, Leeward Community College, Leilehua High Sch., McKinley High Sch., Mililani High Sch. Moanalua High Sch., Nanakuli High Sch., Nani 0 Waianae, Paiolu Kai aulu, Nani 0 Wai'anae, Wai'anae Maritime Academy, Pearl City High Sch., Radford High Sch., Roosevelt High Sch., Sylvester Foundation, Wahiawa Lions Club, Waialua Community Association, Waialua High Sch.Foundation, Waikiki Community Center, Waimanalo Construction Coalition, Waipahu High Sch., Waipahu Intermediate Sch., Waipahu Elem. Sch., August Ahrens Elem. Sch., Waikele Elem. Sch., Kaleiopu'u Elem. Sch., Honowai Elem. Sch., Windward Ahupua'a Alliance, and Alvah Scott Elem. Sch. are the schools and non-profit organizations who enthusiastically and diligently host the recycle events.

The Representatives of the State of Hawai'i recognize the auspicious occasion of Aloha 'Aina Earth Day Recycling Community Clean-Up's Fifth Anniversary and joins the citizens of the State of Hawai'i in their celebration, and also extends its best wishes for continued success in all their future endeavors. Planet Earth is a better place. Future generations are counting on us to do our part to preserve precious our natural resources. As an isolated archipelago in the middle of the Pacific, Hawai'i must be self-sustaining. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 80 percent of what Americans throwaway is recyclable, yet the recycling rate of U.S. citizens is only 28 percent. Recycling involves processing used materials into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials and reduce the use of limited resources, energy usage and air and water pollution.

For the past five years, Aloha' Aina Earth Day Recycling COlrununity Clean-Up, a public-private partnership, has contributed a great deal to sustainability efforts in our neighborhoods by educating the public about recycling and providing opportunities for people to beccme involved. The proceeds from the fundraisers and coIIDnwlity service events are donated to organizations such as schools and senior centers. Since 2004, Aloha 'Aina Earth Day Recycling COIIDnunity Clean-Up has raised $67,500, diverted waste from our land fills and recycled 1,100 tons of scrap metal.

The success of the Aloha 'Aina Earth Day Recycling Community Clean-Up relies on the participation of organizations and recyclers. Our Administration would like to reccguize those who have contributed to creating a brighter future for the people of our state: Boy Scout Troop 32; Campbell High School; Farrington High School; Friends ofMakiki Conunmlity Learning Center; Waialua CommWlity Association; Hau'ula Elementary School; Hawai'i Nature Center; Hui Nalu Canoe Club; Imua Athletics; K.E.Y. Project; KaimukI High School; Kalani High School; Kanoelani Elementary School; Kapahulu Center, Mo'ili'ili Community Center; Kapolei High School Graphics; Ko'olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club; Ui'ie Commwlity Association; Lanakila Multi-Purpose Senior Center; Leeward COrWIlunity College; Leilehua High School; McKinley High School; Mililani High School; Moanalua High School; Nanakuli High School; Nani 0 Wai'anae; Pai'olu Kia'aulu; Wai'anae Maritime Academy; Pearl City High Sc11001; Radford High School; Roosevelt High School; Sylvester Foundation; Wahiawa Lions Club; Waialua COIllmunity Association; Waialua High School FOWidation; WaiklkI Commnnity Center; Waimanalo Construction Coalition; Waipahu Complex; Waipahu High School; and Windward Allllpua' a Alliance. We are pleased to join Aloha' Aina Earth Day Recycling COrWIlunity Clean-Up in celebrating its fifth milestone anniversary on the same year we COlfnuemorate Hawai'i's 50 years of statehood.

THEREFORE, I, LINDA LINGLE, Governor, and I, JAMES R. "DUKE" AIONA, JR., Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawa{'i, do hereby proclaim June 15,2009, as AILOIT=ilA GAUNA EARTIT=illDAY RECYCLllNG COMMUNllTY ClLEAN"'llJP day in Hawai'i, and encourage our citizens to do their part to help save the planet through re<:ycling and sustainability efforts to ensure a healthy enviroilluent for future generations.

DONE at the State Capitol, in the Executive Chambers, Honolulu, State ofHawai' i, this fifteenth day of June 2009.

Govemor, State ofHawai'i WHEREAS, Aloha Aina Earth Day promotes recycling,diverts waste from our landfills, preserves natural resources and cleans up our environment; .and .

WHEREAS, the program enlists the help of community groups, school programs and other worthy organizations in collecting recyclable items at a convenient community location with proceeds from the recyclables donated to these organizations; and

WHEREAS, more than 1,100 net tons of scrap metal have been recycled over five years, and $67,500 has been raised for schools and community groups; and

WHEREAS, Access Information Management, the City's Department of Environmental Services, Family Towing, Goodwill Industries of Hawaii, Grace Pacific Corp., Hawaii Lions District 50, Hawaiian Earth Products, the Honolulu Fire Department, Honolulu Recovery Systems, Interstate Battery Systems, Intrade Corporation, Menehune Water Company, Nike Town Re-Use a Shoe, Pacific Allied Products, Pacific Biodiesel, Paradise Lua, Penske Truck Rental, Refrigerant Recycling, Schnitzer Steel Hawaii, Hawaii Department of Education, T&N Computer Recycling Services, Unitek Solvent Services, and Walmart are proud partners of this outstanding program; and : ~ ,>

!' .. WHEREAS, Aloha Aina Earth Day celebrates its fifth year of contributing significantly to recycling and sustainability efforts in our community,

NOW, THEREFORE, ~,MUFI HANNEMANN, Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu, do hereby proclaim April 24, 2009, to be

ALOHA AINA EARTH DAY

in the City and County of Honolulu, in honor of this valuable program that conserves resources, ' I preserves and protects our environment, and benefits worthy projects and groups in our community.

Done this 24th day of April, 2009, onolulu, Hawaii,

.p"

~ L==~~~-.;;~ Aloha 'Aina Earth Day #94 ~ Recycling Community Clean-Up and Fundraiser for t." WAIPAHJUI II Nj TER~ SCHO)OlW J94-455 Farrington Hwy. February 12, 2011 - 8:00 AM-2:00 PM Please save your recyclable waste for this date and help turn trash into cash for our student programs. The following will be accepted at the site: • Scrap metal • Incandescent light bulb exchange • ID-S beverage containers for 2 CFLs - 2 per person • Unwanted cars - FREE TOWING • Cooking oil • Computers, printers, scanner by appointment only-ph. 306-1876 • Cellular phones - UNLIMITED • WILL NOT ACCEPT: residents, businesses welcomed Tires, Motor Oil, TVs, Paints, o Printer Cartridges • Usable clothing /household items Hazard Fluids, Microwave Newspaper,cardboard • Telephone books, magazines Ovens, Green waste It Plastic bags • Cardboard egO" cartons/drink trays • FREE roll-off bin service for scrap Used eye glasses, hearing aids .,,\0 .... b • , .• Collecting canned goods for the metal - call for mfo- 306.;.1876 " Batteries - all kinds ~_ . ~;:> HAWAII FOOD BANK ! RokZ Mahalo to: Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, Governor Neil Abercrombie, Senator Clarence Nishihara, Productions Senator Mike Gabbard, Rep. Henry Aquino, Rep. Rida Cabanilla, Mayor Peter Carlisle, Councilmember Nestor Garcia

•IlNl. ' . ' ~J aDE. i .~' C;:'DqJorqti'Q,Il l 1 ~,4~" - ~~ PACIFIC CORPORATE SOLUTIONS .lu 1'(n'a.rtctclln'A logl. I...... rv l::.

Refrigerant Recycling Inc. I ~ALLJAN()E ~ 'Truclcing/contracti ng _ ,. Honafu/o RI!COVi:ry SyStems /rll5\o711/ftl'ifiJ"'lft.Irn IPENSA'E] ,~"~~~I~~~~ Environmental I'I'l1cJi:LelTSlng' Manufacturing

I FAMILY TOWING-I ~ OUR TOWN 808 ' ~2~~~,i,!~. iI blue P~~,~ D ~~t HAGADONE ~I " ' PRINT•I N G CO MPA N Y Call Zoe Tanaka for curbside pick-up @ 671-3950 / Rene Mansho @306-1876 e-mail: [email protected] "Earth Day is Every Day" - www.hawaiimetal.com - www.schn.com Campbell Industrial Park . ~-- ~-"""I-H SCHNI:TZER -STEEL 91 -056 Hanua 5qeet Kapolei, Hawaii 96701 HAWAII CORP. . Telephone (808) 682-5~10 "u,nsereJinlJ the Future 11" KeclJclinlJ tire PastU Facsimi le (808) 682-0604

ALOHA 'AINA EARTH DAY - 2011 (as of 02-08-11) Mini Events - "Nourishing Our Neighborhoods"

Jan. 8- Castle High School ACCESS SHREDDING 22 - Hui 0 Ko'olaupoko - Waimanalo Beach Park Feb. 12- Waipahu Inter. Sch.- Olelo 26 - 808 Dragons Baseball - Washington Middle School - ACCESS SHREDDING Mar. 5- Waianae High School 12 - Mini-event - Kalaheo High School Project Grad 2011 19 - Farrington High School 26 - Mini event - UH Lab School Moanalua Craft Fair - SHRED-IT SHREDDING . April 2- Mini event -Waipahu Project Grad 2011 9 - Leilehua High School 16 - Kalihi Waena Elem. School - KAUPA 30 Hawaii United Okinawa Association May 7- Hawaii Lions District 50 - Windward Auto Spa 28 - Moanalua High School June 4- Hawaii D.A.R.E. Program 18 - 25 - Pearl City High School ACCESS SHREDDING July 9 - Oahu Veterans Center 16 - 23 - Kahaluu Regional Park -K.E.Y. Project Aug. 6- Saint Louis School 13 - Nanakuli High & Inter. School 27 - McKinley High School ACCESS SHREDDING

Sept. 10 - Mini event - Kapolei High School 17- Waikiki 20.00 Lions Club - Ala Wai Elementary School 24 - st. Timothy's - Pearl Ridge Oct. 1- Waialua Community Association 8- 15 - Kaimuki High School 22 - Nov. 5- Campbell High School ACCESS SHREDDING 12 - 19 - Dec. 3- Kapolei High School 17 -

Schedule may change due to ship loading. Call Rene Mansho @ (808) 306-1876 or e-mail: [email protected] www.hawaiimetal.com

www.hawaiimetal.com www.schnitzersteel.com Receiving Log

Order # Date Received Customer Name Description of Material Material Weight Item Count Received By 1591 06/19/10 Aloha Aina - Washington Middle School Misc. Electronics 27,119 N/A Lance Furuyama 1591 06/19/10 Aloha Aina - Wash ington M id dle School Food 1,091 N/A Lance Furuyama 1592 07/10/10 Aloha Aina - Veterans Center Misc. Electronics 8,650 N/A Lance Furuyama 1592 07/10/10 Aloha Aina - Veterans Center Food 493 N/A Lance Furuyama 1593 07/24/10 Aloha Aina - Kahaluu Regional Park Misc. Electronics 13,296 N/A Lance Furuyama 1593 07/24/10 Aloha Aina - Kahaluu Regional Pa rk Food 408 N/A Lance Furuyama 1594 07/31/10 Aloha Aina - I(apolei High School Misc. Electronics 12,874 N/A Lance Furuyama 1594 07/31/10 Aloha Aina - Kapo lei High School Food 524 N/A Lance Furuyama 1595 08/07/10 Aloha Aina - Mcl(inley High School Misc. Electronics 8,712 N/A Lance Furuyama 159S 08/07/10 Aloha Aina - McKinley High School Food 637 N/A Lance Furuyama 1596 08/21/10 Aloha Aina - Waikiki Li ons Cl ub . Misc. Electronics 6,881 N/A . Lance Furuyama 1596 08/21/10 Aloha Aina - Wa ikiki Lions Club Food 615 N/A Lance Furuyama 1597 08/28/10 Aloha Aina - Laie Community Association Misc. Electronics 4,732 N/A Lance Furuyama 1597 08/28/10 Aloha Aina - Laie Community Association Food 248 N/A Lance Furuyama 1665 09/11/10 Aloha Aina - Campbell High School Misc. Electronics 9,487 N/A Lance Furuyama 1665 09/11/10 Aloha Aina - Campbe ll High School Food 186 N/A Lance Furuyama 1666 09/18/10 Aloha Aina - Pearl City High School Misc. Electronics 7,211 N/A Lance Furuyama 1666 09/18/10 Aloha Aina - Pearl City High School Food 224 N/A Lance Furuyama 1667 09/25/10 Aloha Aina - Kapo lei Middle School Misc. Electronics 6,120 N/A Lance Furuyama 1667 09/25/10 Aloha Aina - Kapole i Middle Schoo l Food 175 N/A Lance Furuyama 1668 10/02/10 Aloha Aina - Wa ialua Community Association Misc. Electronics 5,364 N/A Lance Furuyama 1668 10/02/10 Alo ha Aina - Waialua Community Association Food 97 N/A Lance Furuyama 1669 10/03/10 Aloha Aina - State Cap itol M isc. Electronics 988 N/A Lance Furuyama 1669 10/03/10 Aloha Aina - State Cap itol Food 73 N/A Lance Furuyama H-POWER H-POWER Facts and Figures

1. H-POWER stands for Honolulu Project of Waste and Energy Recovery.

2. H-POWER capacity is 2000 tons per day of MSW (municipal solid waste). The Third Boiler Expansion will add another 900 tons per day starting in Mid-20l2.

3. From starting operations in 1990 to the end of 2009, H-POWER received 12,100,000 tons of MSW. This is 870,000 tons more than the guaranteed capacity or the equivalent of 1.5 additional years. A very good deal for the tax-paying residents of Oahu!

4. Reduction of waste is 90% by volume. 250-300 trucks deliver waste 6 days a week (Monday - Saturday) to H-POWER. The tipping fee is $911ton, the same as the landfill. 25-30 truck loads of ash are taken to the landfill each day. H-POWER has saved over 500 acres of hll1dfill space.

5. H-POWER receives half residential and half commercial MSW. Residential MSW comes from three transfer stations (Keehi, Kapaa, and Kawailoa) and from the Pearl City and Waianae Yards. Commercial MSW comes from haulers who pick up MSW from the apartments, businesses, and hotels. H-POWER does not accept any hazardous or liquid wastes.

6. H-POWER is a base-load facility that produces 50 MW of electricity (45 MW net). The electricity is sold to Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and is enough to power 40,000 homes every day. The Expansion will add another 25-30 MW.

7. H-POWER consistently achieves 85-90% annual availability. This is about double that of wind. 2-3 regularly scheduled outages per year are required to perform maintenance on the boilers and other critical equipment. These outages are planned up to 5 years in advance by Covanta and HECO.

8. H-POWER is a renewable energy source along with solar, wind, and geothermal. H-POWER makes a significant contribution to the State's Renewable Portfolio Standards, which set a goal of 25% energy from renewable sources by 2020. H-POWER saves 800,000 barrels of imported oil every year. This also offsets greenhouse gas emissions.

9. Covanta Energy is the contract operator for H-POWER. The City and County of Honolulu "owns" the plant through financial arrangements with Covanta Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture.

10. 150 local employees keep H-POWER running 2417. They are all skilled employees who receive training from Covanta Energy programs, local community college, craft training shop programs, military service, outside technical seminars, environmental compliance programs, and the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). The Expansion will add another 30-40 employees.

11. H-POWER safety standards meet or exceed OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), their top safety program. H-POWER is the only VPP power facility in the State. Covanta conducts Step-Up for Safety training for all employees. Covanta's on-site Quick Response Team (QRT) is trained in First Aid, CPR, and AED use by the Honolulu Fire Department and HeartStart. The QRT can respond immediately to any medical emergency.

12/8/2010 2 "-POWER Facts and Figures

12. H-POWER environmental controls are excellent and meet the EPA's most stringent requirements. An acid gas scrubber and fabric filter baghouses remove pollutants from the exhaust gases and the exhaust is continuously monitored by state-of-the-art sensors and instrumentation (Continuous Emissions Monitoring System or CEMS) which provides complete real-time data and all requirements for reporting to plant operators, managers, and the Hawaii Department of Health (state EPA). H-POWER's environmental record is exemplary!

13. H-POWER ash is non-hazardous and is currently being landfilled. Initiatives to recycle the ash into asphalt, concrete, and other materials have been extensively researched and successfully demonstrated.

14. H-POWER recycles waste into energy. It also recovers materials for recycling. The Waste Processing Facility (WPF) is the front-end waste preparation equipment system within H-POWER, utilizing a picking station, shredders, magnets, and trommels. MSW is prepared for combustion through this process into RDF (Refuse-Derived Fuel). Magnets and the Bottom Ash Metals Recovery System (BAMRS) recover 20,000 tons of ferrous and non-ferrous metals per year from the front-end and from the ash. These metals are delivered to local metals recyclers. H-POWER also recovers other items such as tires, white goods, and propane tanks.

15. The RDF is then combusted through the Waste-to-Energy Boilers producing steam, which drives a steam turbine-generator to produce electricity. The boiler walls are composed of waterwall tubes, which are metal pipes filled with water. The heat from RDF combustion turns the water into steam, which drives the turbine-generator. The Expansion will add a second turbine-generator. The Expansion will be of a mass-burn design. This design allows for combustion of a greater variety of waste, including bulky waste, which is currently being disposed of at the landfill.

16. H-POWER generates net revenues from user tip fees and from the sale of energy products and recovered materials.

17. H-POWER saves landfill space, produces electrical energy, recovers metals, and is the only proven method of large quantity waste disposal for Oahu.

H-POWER - the cornerstone of a proven, self-sustaining Waste Management program.

12/8/2010 3 H FlOWER GENERATES CLEAN, RENEWASLE POWER PROVIDING 796 OF" OAHU'S ELECTRICITY.

HPaWER CONSERVE. PRECIOUS LANDFlLL SPACE, WITH HUNDREDS OF' ACRES SAVI!;D TO DATE.

HPDWER ELIMINATES THE NEED F"CR SOO,OOO BARRELS OF' IMPORTED OIL EACH YEAR.

H POWER RECOVERS AND RECYCLES 20,000 TONS OF" METAL EACH YEAR.

HPOWER UTIUZES PRCVEN TECHNCL.CGY, TC MEET STRICT ENVIRONMENTAL REaULATICNS.

H POWER ASH IS SAFE AND BEINfI BTUDIED FDR

M~HCD. OF" REUSE.

H fSOWt:R U:: DOelT-CrT'I::DTIVC: AND AN IMPORTANT PART OF" OUR COMMUNITY.

CALL YOUR HFlDW~ F"ACIUTY AT (BelB) ~a2-~Ogg FDR !"lORE INFDRMATION DR TO SCHEDUhlt A TOUR-

eONV.NTA HONOLULU Ih:aoulltt'" IiIlttlovlUN V"'NTUAJr: 9 1 ·1 74 MANUA STREET I(.&""II.. CI. HI 96707

12/812010 4 -' -~. ~. -. --_._---- . -- - l. - ~ THE HPow R RDCESS: (MATCH~S !.JP TO NUMB!;;IU! ON DIA,aRAM)

T HP W R FelLI Y TRUCKS DELIVER MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

PI'lII MAI'IY SHREDDERS OPEN AND SPI'lIEAO WAsYE

HE~E. 24 MOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR, ELECTROMAGNETS REMOVE MEYALS FOR RECYCLING

ORDINARY HOUISEHOLD GARSAG£ IS CONVERTED SCI'lIEENR REMOVE DIRT, SAND AND OLA!!!S INTO ENVIRONMENTALLY !!IOUND, REN£WASLE SEcoNDARY SHREDDER PROCESSES REMAINING WASTE ELECTRICITY THAT POWERS THDU&ANDIi OF" OAHU WAST£ I!!! COMDUSTED IN !!!OILlt R PAODUCINO ST£AM HOU!!IEHOLDS. IN THE PROCESS, PREC'OUS LANDF1LL STl:AM DRIVES TURBINE TO GENERA,.E ELECTRICITY SPACE IS PRESERVED, BCC,oCC BARRELS OF" IMPORTED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT CLEAN!!! OIL PER YEAR ARE BAVED, AND THE SEAUTY OF E)(,HA,UIilT GAS CUR IBLAND HOME PROTECTED. '15 .. AeH lEI HAULED Tg ...... NDF"lLL FOR CISPOSAL • RENEWASL.I;; EL.ECTRICITY POWERS 45,000 HAWAII HOMES

12/8/2010 5 H -POWER Reso,!!ce Reco~evy Facility PARSDNS Honolulu, Hawaii 9Q,O TPD ExpaRsion _1IIIIR...... _ !l ~l:Ii

10 9 11 12

1______

l. TIpping Floor 2. Refuse Holding Pit 3. Refuse Grapple 9. Radiant Zone (furnace) 4. Feed Chute 10. Convection Zone 5. Martin Stoker Grate 11. Superheater 17 6. Combustion Air Fan 12. Economizer 15. Fly Ash Hanclling System 16 7. Martin Ash Discharger 13. Flue Gas Scrubber 16. Induced Draft Air Fan 8. Combustion Chamber 14. Baghouse 17. Stack

12/812010 6 Tcal W

CAUl BAR ~'EAR 2,I).TJ,ooo ,------t C "' D = ConSIr 1 on &. emo itJOn 1.a)),OCO - . - "-"------1 r ------1

- SW= -:--~~ ...... --- -4 ill ;Ii _ iii iI 1,f:A.TJ ,OOJ . , , 1.J11(I P 131 So 1 W ~s t

.- Sf) ,000 to ns estir ate d for 05 -'07

rlOHPOVVER l5, . 22. 7 AsN esrdue tons are 2.1H

shOV'Ir'l se \J r.. tely to -- -- ....'(I i d I.b Ie untir 19 In botll i l OV\l~R and land fI ll re celvab Ie s.

'1005 2006 2D 09 193.000 121.00 '118,670 250 ,00 0 250,000 279,787 231,22 5 453.3 2

0 0 0 0 13,142 3 8~ . 1 2 7 4£04 ,068 3c 8.218 'l3"l,5g9 422 ,M5

169.011 191 ,800 189.351 19 1,713 1 §4 ,69 6 391.5 79 28f3 ,S4 ') :~ OB . G I 1-'B ,51 2 55 1c;.' 57 . % 62 .2%

e .805,386 1,7'"4)82 1.143 .6' 2 l,80rl,785 1,57 3,797

Source: Opala.org Recycling and Landfill Diversion http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/archive/facts2.html

12/8/2010 7

Meeting No. 3 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection March 10, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBER GER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION FASI MUNICIPAL BUILDING 9TH FLOOR – DDC CONF. ROOM MEETING NO. 3 THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW PREVIOUS MEETINGS

III. PUBLIC COMMENTS

IV. PRIOR ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL SITES EVALUATED BY CITY

V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF LANDFILLS

VI. NEXT STEPS, THANK YOU, AND ADJOURNMENT Meeting No. 3 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

March 10, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: Bruce Anderson, David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Janice Marsters, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West Committee Members Absent: John DeSoto Consultants: Brian Takeda, Gail Atwater, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

Agenda Timeline: 9:00 Welcome and Introduction 9:10 Public Comment 9:20 Overview 9:30 Prior Alternative Landfill Sites 9:45 Questions and Answers 10:00 Break 10:20 Review of Criteria for Evaluation of Landfill Sites 10:50 Questions and Answers 11:00 Criteria Areas, Next Steps 12:00 Adjourn

The meeting was held at the Fasi Municipal Building, 9th Floor, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the agenda and the agreed to guidelines for the group. It was announced that: (1) David Cooper has resigned from the Committee due to pressing commitments that prevent him from completing his service; and (2) John DeSoto has been unable to attend the past three meetings and so will be removed from further service on the Committee. Both will be thanked for their willingness to serve. Due to the amount of time the Committee has been working together and the amount of information shared neither position will be replaced.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

Answers to questions raised from the previous meeting were shared.

The City is asking the group to rank sites that will handle all material (Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D), and H-POWER Ash/Residue). Accordingly, due to the cost of siting, studies and Operations & Maintenance (O&M), it is infeasible for the City to consider multiple sites for each of the different waste streams; and,

Meeting No. 3 Group Memory Page 1 of 5 Because the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (WGSL) is not under consideration in this process, a presentation by LUC staff regarding this issue will not be scheduled.

The meeting continued with Brian Takeda from R. M. Towill Corporation (RMTC) providing an overview to the Committee regarding the selection of a landfill site and previously identified sites. He clarified that sites ranked will have to handle MSW, C&D, and Ash, and reiterated that the Committee should not consider the WGSL expansion as a possible site. The Committee’s charge from the City Administration is to rank sites as to their potential to be the next landfill site for O‘ahu.

An unfiltered list of all the possible landfill sites was provided to the Committee so that the Committee could understand how the filtering process would be carried out. The following criteria for evaluation of landfill sites were provided. Key points covered included the following:

1. RCRA-D criteria 2. Converted to developed land 3. City considerations a. Developed land b. Located within groundwater protected Underground Injection Control (UIC) and Board of Water Supply Pass/No-Pass zones c. Landfill capacity d. Federal/State/Private Ownership as constraints 4. Community Factors

Brian also informed the Committee that at the next meeting he will present the sites that passed the first two filters.

After the presentation the Committee asked questions and raised some issues:

Q: Would like to review and consider sites that were eliminated because they were above the UIC line. Q: Please define the Pearl Harbor aquifer? Q: The requirement for a site to dispose of C&D waste are less restrictive and therefore development of such a site would be cheaper and easier to site so should the Committee consider a separate site for C&D waste? A: The Administration has asked the Committee to identify one site for all waste streams. Q: Since the City is asking for a 15 year extension at Waimānalo Gulch, should ranking of the sites be based now or 15 years from now? A: The site is to replace or supplement the WGSL site so the site should be chosen with the best current waste stream information we can supply. Q: When does the new landfill site come into play? A: This depends on the timing for the extension of the WGSL which requires time before the Land Use Commission LUC and several other variables. Q: Do we have to consider sewage sludge?

Meeting No. 3 Group Memory Page 2 of 5 A: City and County has entered into a contract with a private contractor to divert a majority of the sewage sludge currently taken to the landfill by converting it to a usable by-product, but sewage sludge still should be considered. Q: What is the goal of the group? A: To identify and rank sites that will handle all waste streams as the next landfill site for O‘ahu. Q: Does the City want weigh in from Committee on whether an expansion is better than a new site? A: This is not within the scope of what the Committee is being asked to do as the City will be addressing the matter of the future of the WGSL. Ultimately the Committee’s Final Report to the Mayor should contain its ranking of sites without the Waimānalo Gulch.

Next Mark White of Pacific Waste Consulting Group gave a presentation on the criteria needed for new landfill sites. Key points covered included the following:

 Siting criteria for MSW and C&D Landfills  C&D Debris Disposal Need Estimate  Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill  Landfill Area and Capacity

After the presentation the Committee asked questions and raised issues:

Q: What capacity are we seeking? A: The City is looking for 15 years of capacity based on current waste disposal projections. However, because the City wants to maximize the use of the site, the landfill is planned to be operated longer if there is still capacity remaining. Q: Is it feasible to backfill a site? A: Yes, but it will depend on several factors. Q: Selected sites should be considered even if they are mauka of the UIC line A: The City Council passed a Resolution that no sites mauka of the UIC should be considered, however if there are such sites after the exclusionary criteria are applied we can revisit that issue. Q: Should we look at sites that were eliminated based on cost? A: Cost was not an exclusionary criteria

Q: The City should consider the addition of the WGSL in this process given its capacity. If it doesn’t the City would be shooting itself in the foot. Why is it not being considered?

A: The WGSL was not included as a part of the Committee’s charge as it was evaluated in the last process and the City is moving forward with its request for expansion – this group is to rank sites in view of the need for a next landfill site.

C: The problem with including WGSL is that besides the instructions given to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee, if it is included: it would cause the Committee to focus on

Meeting No. 3 Group Memory Page 3 of 5 Waimānalo Gulch and all of the issues associated with it including past problems and its capacity; and if we do this we will never adequately look at or address the issue of a new site.

The Committee then moved on to discuss the rest of the agenda.

The Committee asked for a cost matrix of all potential sites including:

 Development of the site  Operation costs  System costs  Transportation costs  Lost opportunity costs  Social costs  Transfer of Development Rights

The Committee was then asked if they had any other sites that they would like to recommend as potential landfill sites. One suggestion was received, windward side of the Wai‘anae Mountains west of Kunia. The Committee also asked if a map of O‘ahu could be provided at the next meeting.

Finally, the Committee was asked to provide community criteria that should be considered during the evaluation process. Below is a listing of the criteria suggested (the Committee asked that they be grouped by topic area by the consultants so this has been done):

Community  Physical impact on adjacent lands, including but not limited to visual, traffic, noise, odor etc.  Proximity to schools, health clinics and parks  Proximity to residential units and visitor attractions  View planes  Dust Legal  Ceded land issues and Hawaiian Home Lands  Environmental Justice Issues Infrastructure  Multiple egress and ingress  Proximity to H-POWER  Storm water control  Wear and tear on transportation infrastructure  Roadway capacities Economic  All Costs Meeting No. 3 Group Memory Page 4 of 5  Opportunity cost  Proximity to economic opportunities  Closure Costs  Proximity to resource recovery opportunities Environmental  Wetlands  Endangered species  Groundwater  Flooding  Precipitation  Proximity to protected areas  Proximity to State Class “AA” waters  Hydrology and Geography of site  Climate change Cultural  Archeology  Cultural and Historical Sites Land Use  Important agricultural land  Roadway capacity Other  Energy change uses  Use after closure  Post closure opportunities  Worst case scenario

The meeting came to a close with a reminder of the date, time and place for the next meeting, which is March 31st, from 9AM to 12PM in the Mayor’s Conference Room.

The Committee also asked for a more detailed agenda before the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30AM.

Meeting No. 3 Group Memory Page 5 of 5 Information Distributed to Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection

March 10, 2011

The following information was distributed to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on March 10, 2011:

• Group Memory No. 2, Meeting of February 10, 2011

• Handout Materials:

1. Siting Criteria for MSW and C&D Landfills

2. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Disposal Need Estimate

3. Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the WGSL

4. Landfill Area and Capacity

• Alternative Landfill Sites, Island of O‘ahu

• Sample Data Sheet Example

• Information Distributed by Solid Waste Facilities

1. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc./Schnitzer Steel Hawai‘i Corporation

2. H-POWER (Honolulu Program on Waste Energy Recovery)

3. PVT Landfill Company, Ltd. (Info on CD)

Previous Meeting Group Memory Passed Out to Committee Members See Meeting No. 2 Section

1. Siting Criteria for MSW and C&D Landfills Pacific Waste Consulting Group March 7, 2011

The primary source of criteria for siting a landfill is in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 11‐58 which regulates the siting and operation of disposal facilities. The siting criteria in HAR 11‐58 are the same as those in the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D.

The following table lists the siting criteria and operational requirements applicable to MSW and C&D landfills, according to the regulations. The General Parameters are considerations that are needed for either of the types of sites.

Applicable to Item MSW C&D Hawaii State and RCRA D Exclusionary Criteria Airport X Floodplain X Wetlands X Fault Areas X Seismic X Unstable Areas X Tidal Wave/Tsunami X Operational Requirements Solid Waste Management Permit X X Leachate management plan X X Explosive gas controls X X Liner X X Daily cover X X Operations Plan X X Groundwater Monitoring X X General Parameters Buffer X X Access X X

Handout Materials Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection March 10, 2011

The following documents are submitted for the Committee’s information:

1. Siting Criteria for MSW and C&D Landfills 2. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Disposal Need Estimate 3. Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the WGSL 4. Landfill Area and Capacity

2. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Disposal Need Estimate Pacific Waste Consulting Group March 9, 2011

This estimate of the future need for C&D disposal capacity is to identify the proportion of the C&D waste stream that the new City landfill could receive. The estimate reflects several unknown factors:

 The growth in C&D production is based in large part on the economy, the recovery of which is difficult to predict.

 The amount of C&D from the City’s project, such as the rail project, will be estimated prior to the start of the phases of construction.

 The growth in C&D production is difficult to project from past data since some of the C&D disposal is reported to occur at non‐permitted disposal sites.

The estimate is based on several published factors:

 Information included in the City’s 2008 Draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (IWMP). The 2008 IWMP estimates that the annual disposal at the PVT Landfill is approximately 200,000 tons per year.

 The IWMP estimates that the annual C&D disposal need in 2008 was 247,780 tons. That C&D estimate is used as the starting point for this analysis.

The estimate matches the time horizon of the 2008 IWMP, ending in 2030. It projects that the City’s new landfill will not start operations until 2021, 10 years after the completion of work by the MACLSS. This estimated start date for the new landfill is strictly for convenience for this analysis. THERE IS NO EXPECTATION IMPLIED THAT A NEW LANDFILL WILL BE IN OPERATION IN 10 YEARS.

The growth assumptions used are listed below. They were selected to try to estimate the minimum and maximum C&D waste.

 Zero percent growth in generation as the lower bound of the estimate. Zero percent was felt to be unrealistically low for as long a period as 2011 to 2030 as there will certainly be increases in construction in that period.

 One percent growth as more likely. One percent was felt to be a reasonable long‐term estimate.

 Two percent as the upper bound. Two percent, annually, was felt to be too high a sustained annual growth.

2. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Disposal Need Estimate Page 1 of 2 The total amount of C&D that may need disposal at the City’s site is summarized in Table 1, Summary of Potential C&D Disposal at City Site. The table assumes that PVT accepts 200,000 tons per year. If the landfill accepts more, the estimated disposal at the City’s site may decrease and it may increase if the PVT site accepts less material.

While the C&D disposal needs vary in Table 1, use of 100,000 TPY of C&D in the new City site is a good general assumption.

Table 1, Summary of Potential C&D Disposal at City Site

TPY of C&D Dispoal at Growth Rate Year 0% 1% 2% 2021 47,780 73,703 102,042 2022 47,780 76,440 108,083 2023 47,780 79,205 114,245 2024 47,780 81,997 120,530 2025 47,780 84,817 126,940 2026 47,780 87,665 133,479 2027 47,780 90,542 140,149 2028 47,780 93,447 146,952 2029 47,780 96,381 153,891 2030 47,780 99,345 160,969

2. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Disposal Need Estimate Page 2 of 2 3. Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the WGSL Pacific Waste Consulting Group March 9, 2011

The table below summarizes the Collection District of origin for the waste that was disposed at the WGSL in fiscal year 2008/2009. That period was selected because it was before September 1, 2009, when the City started sending some waste to Hawaiian Waste Systems for transporting to the mainland. Coincidentally, this period also pre‐dates the October 2008 start of the downward trend in the economy, which also reduced disposal and recycling. The data in this table includes the following:  Only the disposal from customers 100 TPY or greater is included. The customers with less than 100 TPY of disposal were less than one percent of the total waste received at the WGSL.  Only the types of waste that are expected to go to the WGSL are included. For example, some of the waste from Convenience Centers will go to H–POWER, some will be recycled, and some will be sent to the WGSL. All of the sludge from the wastewater treatment plants and all of the auto fluff will be sent to the WGSL.  All waste from the City collection vehicles, commercial haulers, and the transfer stations was assigned to H–POWER.  This table does not include any waste from H–POWER that is disposed at WGSL.  Some of the current sources of waste allocated to the WGSL may be redirected to other projects. For example, sludge is proposed as a feedstock to the new in‐vessel compost plant designed to handle food waste, green waste and sludge. The percentage of waste from each of the collection Areas is shown in Table 1, Waste Originating in Collection Areas.

Table 1, Waste Originating in Collection Areas

Collection Area % Honolulu 16% Ewa 55% Wainanae 12% Wahiawa 7% Waialua 5% Koolauloa 4% Koolaupoko 2%

3. Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the WGSL Page 1 of 2 The type of materials in the waste is estimated in Table 2, Estimated Composition of Convenience Center Waste. This information is taken from the Waste Composition Studies done for the City in 1999 and 2006. Both results are provided to show how the percentages have not changed much in several years. It is important to recognize that the composition of waste expected at WGSL is primarily non‐combustible, meaning that the paper, plastic and wood are not expected in the waste going to WGSL. Those material types are grayed out in the table. Table 2, Estimated Composition of Convenience Center Waste

Percentage of Composition Material 2006 1999 Paper 5% 7% Plastic 6% 5% Metals 19% 11% Glass 1% 0.6% Other Inorganics 7% 5% Other Watse 22% 21% Green Waste 11% 17% Wood 25% 25% Other Organics 5% 10% HHW <0.5% <0.5%

3. Collection District of Origin MSW Going to the WGSL Page 2 of 2 4. Landfill Area and Capacity

The area needed for a landfill depends on the configuration of the land being considered.

Three types of typical landfill configurations: • Canyon Fill • Hillside Fill • Flat Fill

7 Local Examples

The use of these local properties to illustrate the different types of terrain for landfills is FOR EXAMPLE ONLY. Nothing is implied or intended by the use of these properties for these examples. The Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill is a typical Canyon Fill.

Three of the potential sites from the 2003 Mayor's Committee evaluation are used here only as examples of other configurations.

• Ameron - Modified Canyon Fill • Nanakuli B - Modified Hillside Fill • Maili - Flat Fill

8 Canyon Fill

WGSL is used as an example of a Canyon Fill

• Bordered by ridges on the Northwest and Southeast. • "'1,000 feet of elevation difference existing bottom to potential top of fill.

9 Canyon Fill The waste fill configuration is a major factor in determining the volume of a Canyon Fill.

The amount of excavation into the existing slope will influence the available capacity.

10 Canyon Fill

To estimate the volume of a Canyon Fill, the final surface must be designed.

Final Fill Surface ......

11 ...···,'···· ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

11 Modified Canyon Fill • Ameron Quarry is used for example only. • Bordered by ridges on the Northwest and a partial ridge on the Southeast. • "'325 feet of elevation difference existing bottom to potential top of waste fill.

Northwest Ridge

12 Modified Canyon Fill Example

To estimate the volume of this example of a Modified Canyon Fill: • Use existing surfaces as excavation has already been completed. • Fill to the natural ridge line.

13 Modified Canyon Fill Example

The top fill surface would be graded at an appropriate slope to drain and blend with the surrounding terrain. A side slope fill surface will be necessary in this example and would also be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain. Modified Hillside Fill • Nanakuli B is used for example only. • Bordered by a ridge on the East. • "'180 feet of elevation difference between the existing bottom to potential top of waste fill.

15 Modified Hillside Fill Example To estimate the volume of this Modified Hillside Fill, assume that the excavation will be constrained by historical groundwater elevations.

16 Modified Hillside Fill To estimate the volume of this Modified Hillside Fill:

• Total fill depth from bottom liner to the top surface is 180 feet. • Height is restricted due to conservation zone.

17 Flat Fill Example

• Maili is used as and example of a Flat Fill type. • Historical high groundwater elevation prevents excavating the surface. • A SO foot fill depth is assumed to avoid visual impacts to the surrounding property.

18 Flat Fill Example To estimate the volume of this Flat Fill, use the bottom and top areas and fill height of 50 feet with no excavation.

19 Alternative Landfill Sites March 2011 Island of O‘ahu Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu

Source: Table 9-2, Final EIS, Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill Lateral Expansion, 2008 No. Site Name Tax Map Key Size (Acres) 1 Auloa 4-2-14:por 1 55 2 Ameron Quarry 4-2-15:01 391 3 Barbers Point 9-1-16:18, por 1 15 4 Bellows 4-1-15 173 5 Diamond Head Crater 3-1-42:por 6 115 6 ‘Ewa No. 1 (Developed) 9-1-17 - 7 ‘Ewa No. 2 (Developed) 9-1-10 - 8Hālawa A 9-9-10:8,9,por 10 & 26 40 9Hālawa B 9-9-10:27, por 10 60 10 He‘eia Kai (Developed) 4-6 - 11 He‘eia Uka 4-6-14:01 163 12 Honouliuli 9-1-17:por 4 22 13 Ka‘a‘awa 5-1 150 14 Ka‘ena 6-9-1:por 3, 33 & 34 40 15 Kahaluu 4-7 - 16 Kahe 9-2-3:por 27 200 17 Kalāheo (Closed) 4-2-15:por 1 & 6 134 18 Kaloi 9-2-02:por 1; 9-2-3:por 2; 9-2-4:por 5 400 19 Kapa‘a No. 1 4-4-14:por 2 60 20 Kapa‘a No. 2 & 3 (Closed) 4-2-15:por 1, 3, 4, 7 - 21 Kaukonahua 7-1 34 22 Kawailoa (Closed) - - 23 Ke‘eke‘e 6-9-1:por 3 & 4, 6-9-3: por 2 40 24 Koko Crater 3-9-12: por 1 140 25 Kunia A 9-4-4: por 4 150 26 Kunia B 9-4-3: por 19 190 27 Mā‘ili 8-7-10:3 200 28 Makaiwa 9-2-3 338 29 Makakilo Quarry 9-2-3:82 175 30 Makua 8-1-1, 8-2-1 600 31 Mililani 9-5 34 32 Nānākuli A 8-7-9:1 &3 and 8-7-21:26 179 33 Nānākuli B 8-7-9:1 &3 and 8-7-21:26 432 34 Ohikilolo 8-3-1:13 706 35 Olomana 4-2 - 36 Poamoho 7-1 5 37 Punalu‘u 5-3 200 38 Sand Island (Developed) 1-5-41 150 39 Waiahole 4-8 60 40 Wai‘anae (Closed) 8-5 - 41 Wai‘anae Expansion 8-5-3 and 6 140 42 Waihe‘e 4-7 61 43 Waikane 4-8 200 44 Waimānalo Gulch 9-2-3: 72 & 73 60 45 Waimānalo North 4-1-08:13 171 46 Waimānalo South 4-1 355 47 Waipi‘o 9-3-2 60 Sites = 48 Alternative Landfill Sites Island of O‘ahu Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu

Kawailoa (Closed) 061 2 3 Miles R. M. Towill Corporation 2011 Kaena Punaluu LEGEND Keekee UIC Line Groundwater Protection Zone Landfill Site Boundary Kaaawa Makua Waikane Ohikilolo Poamoho Waiahole Kaukonahua Waihee

Kahaluu

Kalaheo (Closed) Waianae (Closed) Heeia Kai Kunia Site A (Developed) Kapaa #2 & #3 Mililani (Closed) Waianae Expansion Kunia Site B Kapaa #1

Heeia Uka Auloa

Maili Olomana (Developed) Halawa Site A Kaloi Gulch Bellows Nanakuli Halawa Site B Ameron Site A & B Quarry Waimanalo North Waipio Kahe Waimanalo South

Waimanalo Gulch Makaiwa Gulch Ewa #2 (Developed) (Developed) Makakilo Quarry Honouliuli Sand Island Barbers Point (Developed Ewa #1 (Developed) Koko Crater Diamond Head Crater Example Criterion Data Sheets 1. Wind direction relative to populated areas

A site that is located so that trade winds blow away from populated areas is considered better to one where winds blow toward populated areas. The “site” is the landfill property. Populated areas are defined as locations with a collection of housing units comprising a subdivision; a delineated housing development; a group of homes located along a street or road; or a visitor serving facility, e.g., a hotel.

Point Value Measure

1 The wind blows from the site toward populated areas

2 Not applicable

3 The wind does not blow from the site toward populated areas

Source of the wind data: Atlas of Hawaii, 2nd & 3rd Edition (1983, 1998). See Appendix ##. How the point value of the criterion was determined: Visual examination of maps (landfill site location maps and wind maps in references cited). Complications getting the data: No site-specific data are available for all sites to allow for more detailed evaluation of factors such as wind speed, frequency, and duration. Complications calculating the point value: None Are there populated areas immediately southwest of the site? Yes Homes on far (west) side of XXXXX Street, stretching from the site’s property boundary to XXXXXX Highway. Point Value: 1

Example Criterion Data Sheets Page 1 of 4 MACLSS, March 10, 2011 2. Visibility from a general use public road

This criterion measures the degree with which the landfill footprint would be visible from the nearby general use public roads. The landfill “footprint” is the area in which operations will begin at a new landfill. A “general use public road” is a road with a county, state or federal numerical designation. Average daily traffic is the measure used by the state and federal agencies to characterize the number of vehicles that commonly use a roadway. “Highly visible” means the view to the footprint of the site from the road is unimpeded. “Moderate visibility” means the view to the footprint of the site from the road is impeded by natural land features for about half of the portion of the road that is adjacent to the site. “Low visibility” means the view to the footprint of the site from the road is impeded by natural land features for most of the portion of the road that is adjacent to the site.

Point Value Measure

1 Highly visible from a general use public road

2 Moderately visibility from a general use public road

3 Low visibility from non-general use public roads

Source of the data on which the point value was determined: Site observation from along XXXXXX Highway, and XXXXXXX Road/Street. See Appendix XXX. How the point value of the criterion was determined: Qualitative assessment based on direct observation from the highway and adjoining roadway. Complications getting the data: The viewplane from the highway offers only limited views and elevation changes in proximity to the site constrains views. Views of the site from XXX roadway along various points clearly show the extent of the landfill footprint. Complications calculating the point value: None A general use public road is one with a county, state, or federal numeric designation. 1. Numeric designation of a road adjacent to the site from which the footprint of the site is visible: XXX Highway, State Route ###.

Example Criterion Data Sheets Page 2 of 4 MACLSS, March 10, 2011 a. Impediment to viewing the footprint of the site: Views toward the site footprint are limited due to elevation changes from the level of the road. This road, however, is more distant than XYZ Road. b. Percentage of the road that the impediment prevents viewing the footprint: 90%. 2. Numeric designation of a road adjacent to the site from which the footprint of the site is visible: XXXXX Highway, Route ###. a. Impediment to viewing the footprint of the site: Views from the road fronting the area of the footprint are good. b. Percentage of the road that the impediment prevents viewing the footprint: 10% Numeric designation of the road from which the footprint of the site is most visible: XXXXX Highway, Route ###. The visibility of the site from that road is: highly visible Point Value: 1

Example Criterion Data Sheets Page 3 of 4 MACLSS, March 10, 2011 Example of Matrix of Scores

Site Scores Criterion Weighting Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Factor Pt Score Pt Score Pt Score Category, e.g., Environmental 1 Wind direction relative to populated areas 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 Visibility from a general use public road 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 4 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 5 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 6 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 7 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 8 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 9 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # # 10 XXXXXXX ## # # # # # #

Other Categories as Applicable Other criterion as applicable

Site Score Totals 61 5 51 3 60 5

Example Criterion Data Sheets Page 4 of 4 MACLSS, March 10, 2011 Previous Information Hand-outs Distributed by Solid Waste Facilities See Meeting No. 2 Section

Meeting No. 4 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection March 31, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM MEETING NO. 4 THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To finalize community criteria development and address elements to make criteria measurable.

Outcome: A finalized list of community criteria and ideas on how each will be measured so that the consultant can prepare a draft for review and discussion at the next meeting.

2. Review of Mtg. No. 3

• Report back on list of cost items for development of a landfill

• Information on the Southern O’ahu Basal Aquifer

• Definition of Community Criteria

3. Public Comments

4. Additional Sites Recommended by Committee

5. Discussion on Additional Criteria for Evaluation of Landfills

• Finalization of criteria areas and discussion of language for each criterion

6. Discussion on Evaluation Process

• How should criteria be quantified to make them measurable

7. Next Steps, Thank You, and Adjournment Meeting No. 4 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

March 31, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West Committee Members Absent: Bruce Anderson, Janice Marsters Consultants: Brian Takeda, Gail Atwater, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

Agenda Timeline: 9:00 Welcome and Introduction 9:05 Review of Meeting No. 3 9:25 Public Comment 9:45 Additional Sites Recommended by Committee 10:00 Discussion on Additional Criteria for Evaluation of Landfills 11:30 Discussion on Evaluation Process 11:45 Next Steps, Thank You, and Adjournment

The meeting was held in the Mayor’s Conference Room, Honolulu Hale, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the agenda. The consultants then reported back to the committee on issues raised at the previous meeting.

 A handout was provided to the committee on a list of cost items for development of a landfill.

 Brian provided an overview and handout on the Southern O’ahu Basal Aquifer.

The EPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Program for the Southern O‘ahu Basal Aquifer (SOBA) does not apply to the City and County of Honolulu in its designation of landfill sites because no federal funding is being used to establish the landfill.

The protection of O‘ahu’s potable aquifer resources, as intended by the federal Sole Source Aquifer Program, is addressed by the City in its coordination for the development of landfills with the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS) and the State Department of Health (DOH), Safe Drinking Water Branch, and Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch. The review of landfill sites and the protection of aquifer systems with these agencies will involve detailed analysis and assessment of O‘ahu’s groundwater resources by a geologist, hydrogeologist, and/or other specialized disciplines as required by the BWS and DOH.

Meeting No. 4 Group Memory Page 1 of 3  A handout was also provided from the City and County explaining their reasoning for not including Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill as a site for consideration in the current process and the definition for Community Criteria.

 Lastly the committee, at the request of Janice Marsters, was provided the link to the PBS TV program regarding Waimanalo Gulch and the future of waste disposal on O’ahu.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

Next the Committee reviewed the community criteria developed by the consultants based on information provided by the committee at the last meeting. They discussed and finalized the language and considered consolidation of the some of the criteria. Below are the results of that discussion (a list of the final criteria is attached to these notes):

 Removed criterion Physical Effect on Adjacent Lands as it is covered in the other criteria.

 Changed the language on Location Relative to Public Schools. The Committee asked that the term “Public Schools” be removed and replaced with “Educational Institutions”.

 Added language to the end of Location Relative to Public Parks to include “Recreational Facilities”.

 Asked that Location Relative to Residential Concentrations, Visitor Accommodations and Commercial Uses (retail/office) be restated as three separate criteria.

 Asked that Dust, Litter and Odor be combined into a subset with Noise from Landfill Traffic and Operations.

 Asked that Effect on Local Traffic be combined into a subset with Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways and Effect on Roadway Usage.

 Removed criterion Location Relative to Resource Recovery Facilities.

 Asked that Location Relative to Wetlands be combined into a subset with Location Relative to Listed Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species and Location Relative to Identified Groundwater Resources.

 Changed description of Location Relative to Class “AA” Waters from “distance of landfill sites from Class ‘AA’ Waters” to “potential discharge into Class ‘AA’ Waters”.

 Asked that the DLNR stream and intermittent stream classifications be included in the description of Surface Water Resources.

 Removed criterion Post-Closure Reuse.

 Asked that potential landfill problems, such as adverse effect on fisheries, a methane explosion, liner failure and operational disruptions, be included in the Worst-Case Scenario discussion.

Meeting No. 4 Group Memory Page 2 of 3  Asked that a new criterion be created for Landfill Site Capacity – and that the measures be 20+ years or 15+ years.

The Committee was then asked if they would like to recommend any additional potential landfill sites. One suggestion was received: the windward side of the Wai‘anae Mountains west of Kunia. Mr. Goody drew on the O‘ahu map the area he suggested.

Finally, the Committee discussed the evaluation process and was provided a handout of examples. Point values would be provided by the consultants and finalized by the Committee for each of the criteria. The weighting of the criteria would be decided by the Committee without the City or Consultant present. The consultant would apply the criteria to all of the sites and produce a site ranking for the Committee with no names or locations assigned to the sites. Once the Committee and the Consultant accept the way the criteria were applied, the weighting for the criteria will be shared and the scores re-calculated resulting in a final ranking of sites.

The meeting came to a close with a reminder of the date, time and place for the next meeting, which is May 12, 2011, from 9AM to 12PM in the Mayor’s Conference Room.

The meeting adjourned at 12PM.

Meeting No. 4 Group Memory Page 3 of 3

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

Information Package for Committee Meeting No. 4

March 31, 2011

This information package is for Meeting No. 4 and contains the following items for discussion:

1. Handout: 1-LF Cost Categories

2. Handout: 2-Southern O‘ahu Basal Aquifer (EPA SOBA Information)

3. Handout: 3-City Statement on WGSL and Community Criteria

4. Handout: 4-Committee Information Regarding PBS Island Insights Aired Thursday, March 17, 2011

5. Handout: 5-Draft Language for Site Selection Criteria

6. Handout: 6-Siting Criteria Evaluation Examples (Data Sheet Examples) 1

Cost Categories for the Development of Landfills PWCG 2011

The categories of cost that are customarily evaluated for the development of a landfill includes:

1. Cost of property for new landfill 2. Improvements to the highway or roads that will access the site 3. Construction of internal roadways 4. Landfill support facilities, such as the scalehouse, equipment yard or building(s) and office building 5. Erosion control facilities, such as siltation basins 6. Drainage control system 7. Landfill gas recovery system 8. Other site work and infrastructure, such as the septic system and landscaping 9. Water and fire systems 10. Landfill liner and LCRS (leachate collection and removal system). 11. Liner for final closure. 12. Post‐closure costs.

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 1 2

Southern O‘ahu Basal Aquifer RMTC 2011

The following attached information was obtained from the EPA Website:

http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/ssa.html

The attached documents describe the U. S. EPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Program (1977) which is intended to protect groundwater aquifers from contamination by federally funded projects. On the Island of O‘ahu, the EPA designation of the critical system is known as the Southern O‘ahu Basal Aquifer or SOBA.

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 1 United States Environmental Region 9 Ground Water EPA Protection Agency Office (WTR-9) JUNE 2000

Sole Source Aquifer Designations in EPA, Region 9

The U.S. EPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Program was established under Section 1424(e) of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA.) Since 1977, it has been used by communities to Scotts Valley help prevent contamination of groundwater from federally- funded projects. It has increased public awareness of the Fresno vulnerability of groundwater resources.

How did this program star t? SDWA regulations implementing the sole source aquifer statute were first Campo-Cottonwood Ocotillo/Coyote Wells proposed in 1977 for the Edwards Underground Reservoir in San Antonio, Texas. These regulations guided U.S. EPA in Santa Cruz - Avra Naco Bisbee the subsequent designation of 64 sole source aquifers across the United States. Oahu Molokai What does the Sole Source Aquifer Program do? The Guam (not pictured) Sole Source Aquifer program allows for EPA environmental review of any project which is financially assisted by federal grants or federal loan guarantees. These projects are evaluated to determine whether they have the potential to contaminate a sole source aquifer. If there is such a potential, local agency may petition the U.S. EPA for sole source aquifer the project should be modified to reduce or eliminate the risk, designation, provided the petition includes sufficient or federal financial support may be withdrawn. This doesn’t hydrogeologic information. An outline describing how such mean that the Sole Source Aquifer program can delay or stop petitions should be prepared is contained in The Sole Source development of landfills, roads, publicly owned wastewater Aquifer Designation Petitioner Guidance, copies of which are treatment works or other facilities. Nor can it impact any direct available at EPA Regional offices (see contact information federal environmental regulatory or remedial programs, such below.) as permit decisions. What about Boundaries? Determination of sole source The Sole Source Aquifer Program’s review authority extends aquifer boundaries is a difficult aspect of the designation only to projects funded with federal assistance that are to process since the “designated area includes the surface area be implemented in designated sole source aquifer areas. (For above the aquifer and its recharge area.” Thus, some sole regulations applicable to new private development, you should source aquifers extend across state boundaries. The 10,000 consult with your local, county or state environmental health square-mile Eastern Snake River Aquifer, for example, agency.) includes portions of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

Typical projects reviewed by the U.S. EPA include housing In Region 9: nine sole source aquifers have been designated projects undertaken by Housing and Urban Development, and in the following areas as shown on the map: Upper Santa highway construction and expansion projects undertaken by Cruz and Avra Basin Aquifer, covering parts of Pima, Pinal, the Federal Highway Administration. In 1991, the U.S. EPA and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona; Naco-Bisbee Aquifer, reviewed 152 federal assistance projects totaling $571 million; Arizona; Ocotillo-Coyote Wells, Imperial County, California; of these projects, 25 had to be modified to prevent Fresno Aquifer, California; Scotts Valley Aquifer, Santa Cruz contamination of sole source aquifers. Modifications included County, California; Campo-Cottonwood Aquifer, San Diego the redesign of bridges and highways to prevent spills of County, California; Northern Guam Aquifer, Guam; Southern hazardous materials. Oahu Aquifer, Hawaii; and Molokai Aquifer, Hawaii.

How do you designate an aquifer as a “Sole Source” Region 9 SSA maps are on the web at www.epa.gov/safewater/ Aquifer? As the name implies, only a “sole source” aquifer ssanp.html. For more information about SSA designation and can qualify for the program. To be a sole source, the aquifer project reviews, please call David Albright, manager of the must supply more than 50% of a community’s drinking water. Ground Water Office, at (415) 972-3971 or email Any individual, corporation, association, or federal, state or [email protected]. ! Kawela ! Oahu Sole Source Aquifer Hawaiian Islands Designated Area ! Kahuku Pupukea! !

Laie ! Waimea !

K Oahu Sole o W o lau Source Aquifer ai lo alu a a

D D i Hauula is s t ! tr r i i c c t t Haleiwa Punaluu ! ! Mokuleia ! ! Waialua W Kaaawa ai ! alu W a D ai istr Notes and Explanation: an ic ae t Di The Oahu Sole Source Aquifer was str i Distric t c lua Koolauloa District designated under the authority of t aia W is awa D tri c t Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking hi W a Water Act, Federal Register Citiation-61 ! Whitmore Village

FR 47752, Publication Date - 09/10/96. ! a District ! Waikane ! WAHIAWA hiaw Please contact US EPA Region 9 Wa SCHOFIELD BARRACKS ! strict Makaha Valley Wheeler Field a Di (John Ungvarsky, 415-972-3963) for Ew ! ! assistance in determining place Wheeler AFB locations with respect to the Makaha ! Waipio Acres ! Kahaluu K ! project review area. ! o KANEOHE STATION o

l !

MILILANI TOWN a E u ! Ahuimanu ! w p

WAIANAE ok t t a

o Heeia c D D

Map Status and Disclaimer: i is i ! t s r r tr Please note that this working map is a computer t i ic s WAIPIO c t ! Maili i t ! ! representation compiled by the Environmental D t c

i r

e KANEOHE t

a Protection Agency (EPA) from sources which have s KAILUA n i Village Park PEARL CITY ! supplied data or information that may not have been a ! i D ! ! a WAIMALU a t t verified by the EPA. This data is offered ! W ric c w Aiea t i ! HALAWA is r E t here as a general representation only, and is not NANAKULI ! ! D i s WAIPAHU wa D E lu to be used for commercial purposes without lu ! no Maunawili verification by an independent professional Ho qualified to verify such data or information. ! Aliamanu MAKAKILO CITY ! Ewa Villages The EPA does not guarantee the accuracy, ! ! ! Waimanalo Waimanalo Beach ! ! Ewa ! Hickam Village ! K completeness, or timeliness of the information Hickam Housing oolau po shown, and shall not be liable for any loss or Iroquois Point H ko Dist ! on ric ! olul t injury resulting from reliance upon the Barbers Point Housing u EWA BEACH Di s information shown. ! trict ! Honolulu

Legend Designation Boundary Water District Boundaries Highways Major Roads Streams ® 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 ! Cities & Towns Miles WTR0801656.8 Oct. 2008 3 City Statement on Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill and Community Criteria

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection

March 31, 2011

Consideration of Waimānalo Gulch in This Process The Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (WGSL) will not be a part of the consideration of alternative landfill sites by this Committee. In response to several questions from Committee members, the rationale for it not being considered in this process are as follows:  The City per the LUC Condition needs to identify the supplemental or subsequent site to the current WGSL site. Since Waimānalo Gulch can neither supplement nor replace itself it can not be considered in this process.  The last committee assessed Waimānalo Gulch and scored it so its importance and placement as a site for the present and future was noted in the previous Committee’s report.  The City is pursuing the course of action it feels is appropriate regarding current and continued use of the WGSL site and as part of that process may at some point in the future apply the criteria that this Committee is developing to that site.  Due to changes in technology, the addition of the third boiler at H-POWER, the city’s high rate of success in recycling, and the need to look at C&D waste streams, much has changed since the previously identified sites were looked at, and these and any additional sites need to be re-evaluated for future use and that is what this Committee is charged to do.

Community Criteria Definition These criteria are those that are not exclusionary such as RCRA-D. They may be issues that will be looked at in an EIS process but are deserving of identification here due to their importance to the communities of O‘ahu. They are issues that should from a community perspective be looked at early. These issues may have more detailed information that will be developed through an EIS process but are still worthy of being used as a filter with the level of information currently available.

2024 North King Street Planning Suite 200 Engineering Honolulu, HI 96819 Environmental Services Tel 808 842 1133 Photogrammetry Fax 808 842 1937 Surveying eMail: [email protected] Construction Management

Please contact our office at 842-1133 should problems occur with transmission or receipt of facsimile documents.

To: Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Sent By: Brian Takeda Landfill Site Selection Planning Project Coordinator 1-21717-00P cc: Janice Marsters, Ph.D. Committee Information Re PBS Date: March 31, 2011 Subject: Island Insights, Aired Thursday, March 17, 2011

Note: We assume that the mentioned items are stated correctly and that any future work or development will be based on these statements unless notified to the contrary within 7 days of the date shown on this document in writing.

Dear Committee Members:

Janice Marsters, Ph.D., has requested in her absence the dissemination of the following link to a PBS TV program regarding the expansion of Waimānalo Gulch and the future of waste disposal on O‘ahu. The discussion group included Doug Chin, City Managing Director; Gary Gill, DOH, Deputy Director for the Environment; Bruce Anderson, Ph.D.; and Maeda Timson, Chair, Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board.

http://www.pbshawaii.org/indexee.php/site/vidpopdream/182/

Janice sends her regards and apologizes that she could not attend our fourth meeting.

Thank you,

Brian

1 5

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Draft Language for Site Selection Criteria

March 31, 2011

City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services Refuse Division

R. M. Towill Corporation Pacific Waste Consulting Group SMS Research

Table of Contents

A. COMMUNITY ...... 3 1. Physical Effect on Adjacent Lands ...... 3 2. Location Relative to Public Schools...... 3 3. Location Relative to Health Care Facilities ...... 3 4. Location Relative to Public Parks ...... 3 5. Location Relative to Residential Concentrations and Hotels...... 3 6. Location Relative to Visitor Attractions...... 3 7. Effect on Established View Planes ...... 3 8. Dust, Litter and Odor ...... 3 9. Effect on Local Traffic ...... 4

B. LEGAL...... 4 10. Zoning ...... 4 11. Ceded Land and Hawaiian Home Lands ...... 4 12. Location Relative to Identified Environmental Justice Populations ...... 4

C. INFRASTRUCTURE...... 4 13. Ingress and Egress to Landfill Site...... 4 14. Location Relative to H-POWER ...... 4 15. Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways...... 4 16. Effect on Roadway Usage...... 5 17. Stormwater Control...... 5

D. ECONOMIC ...... 5 18. Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost...... 5 19. Opportunity Cost ...... 5 20. Location Relative to Resource Recovery Facilities...... 5 21. Potential for Solid-Waste Related Land Uses ...... 5

March 31, 2011 Page i

E. ENVIRONMENTAL ...... 5 22. Location Relative to Wetlands ...... 5 23. Location Relative to Listed Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 6 24. Location Relative to Groundwater Resources...... 6 25. Location Relative to Flood Zone and/or Tsunami Evacuation Zone...... 6 26. Location Relative to Natural Area Reserves ...... 6 27. Precipitation ...... 6 28. Location vs. and Potential Discharge to Class “AA” Waters ...... 6 29. Surface Water ...... 6 30. Soils ...... 6 31. Noise from Landfill Operations ...... 7

F. CULTURAL ...... 7 32. Archaeological and Cultural Resources...... 7

G. LAND USE ...... 7 33. Quality of Agricultural Lands ...... 7

H. OTHER ...... 7 34. Post-Closure Reuse ...... 7 35. Worst-Case Scenarios ...... 7

March 31, 2011 Page ii

COMMUNITY 1. Physical Effect on Adjacent Lands

Discharge of stormwater‐borne waste or airborne material from landfill along a course or path makai of the site. See following criteria for types of measures. 2. Location Relative to Public Schools

Distance from the landfill site property line to a public school. 3. Location Relative to Health Care Facilities

Distance from the landfill site property line to the health care facility (clinic or hospital). 4. Location Relative to Public Parks

Distance from the landfill site property line to a public park. 5. Location Relative to Residential Concentrations and Hotels

Distance from landfill site property line to concentrations of residential units and hotels. 6. Location Relative to Visitor Attractions

Distance from landfill site property line to identified visitor attractions. 7. Effect on Established View Planes

Degree to which a landfill site falls within a view plane established by the City and County of Honolulu in the applicable Community Development Plan or Sustainable Community Plan. 8. Dust, Litter and Odor

Prevailing wind direction at a landfill site relative to location of residential concentrations, visitor attractions, and/or commercial facilities.

March 31, 2011 Page 3

9. Effect on Local Traffic

Projected increase in vehicular traffic along roads within a given distance from a landfill site. B. LEGAL 10. Zoning

The zoning of the landfill site permits construction and operation of a landfill on the property. 11. Ceded Land and Hawaiian Home Lands

The landfill site contains lands that are either designated ceded land or Hawaiian Home Lands. 12. Location Relative to Identified Environmental Justice Populations

The landfill site can be shown to have a disproportionate adverse effect on an identified Environmental Justice population (minority and/or low‐income in relation to other landfill site areas). C. INFRASTRUCTURE 13. Ingress and Egress to Landfill Site

The landfill site provides multiple existing or potential ingress and egress points for efficient operation and traffic circulation. 14. Location Relative to H‐POWER

The distance the entrance to the landfill site is from H–POWER. [The H–POWER contract has cost adjustments for distances greater than 12 miles.] 15. Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways

The landfill site will be reached by which type of road(s): interstate highway, state highway, county road, and non‐designated road.

March 31, 2011 Page 4

16. Effect on Roadway Usage

The existing and planned capacity of the road(s) needed to reach the landfill site is (are) adequate for projected landfill traffic. 17. Stormwater Control

Compares physical attributes of landfill sites that would promote stormwater control that is, prevent stormwater from running onto the working face of the landfill or discharging from the site. Physical attributes include slope (the most important element) and the type of soils. D. ECONOMIC 18. Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost

Cost of site acquisition, site development and landfill operation, and closure based on the number of years of expected capacity for the landfill site. 19. Opportunity Cost

Lost economic benefit in situations where the owner of a potential landfill site possesses entitlements for an alternative land use. 20. Location Relative to Resource Recovery Facilities

Distance to existing recycling facilities and vendors to potential landfill sites. 21. Potential for Solid‐Waste Related Land Uses

Acres of suitable land near potential landfill sites to accommodate businesses that would benefit from operating close to the landfill, e.g., metal and other material recyclers.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL 22. Location Relative to Wetlands

Distance from the perimeter of a landfill site from a wetland, as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It also considers the relative value of established wetlands.

March 31, 2011 Page 5

23. Location Relative to Listed Threatened or Endangered Species

Distance from the perimeter of a landfill site to an area with habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals, as identified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 24. Location Relative to Groundwater Resources

Location of landfill site relative to the O‘ahu No‐Pass Zone and Groundwater Protection Zone. 25. Location Relative to Flood Zone and/or Tsunami Evacuation Zone

Location of all or a portion of the landfill site within an identified flood plain or tsunami evacuation zone. 26. Location Relative to Natural Area Reserves

Distance from the perimeter of potential landfill sites to identified Natural Area Reserves. 27. Precipitation

Inches of annual rainfall at potential landfill sites. 28. Location vs. and Potential Discharge to Class “AA” Waters 1

Distance of landfill sites from Class “AA” waters. 29. Surface Water

Distance of landfill sites from identified perennial streams. 30. Soils

Relative suitability of soil types for landfill use.

1 Class “AA” means waters that are to remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from human caused source or actions.

March 31, 2011 Page 6

31. Noise from Landfill Operations

Distance from landfill sites to sensitive noise receptors such as residential or resort development, health care facilities, and public schools. F. CULTURAL 32. Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Distance to identified historic and/or archaeological sites listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places or identified as a culturally significant site by the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). G. LAND USE 33. Quality of Agricultural Lands

Distance from landfill sites to agricultural lands identified as valuable for agronomic purposes by the Agricultural Lands of Importance to Hawai‘i (ALISH) or Land Study Bureau (LSB) classification systems. H. OTHER 34. Post‐Closure Reuse

Suitability of a landfill site for reuse after future closure. Reuse could include open space, public park, and/or non‐residential structures that are not sensitive to ground settling. 35. Worst‐Case Scenarios

Number of people with residences or in hotels or visitor facilities that are in the path of potential discharges of litter or stormwater from the site. The path of the discharge is the unimpeded path makai of the site.

March 31, 2011 Page 7 6 Siting Criteria Evaluation Examples PWCG 2011

3. Proximity to residential units and visitor attractions The better site will be further from residential units and visitor attractions. The distance is calculated from the property line of the landfill to the residential units and visitor attractions. The “site” is the landfill property.

Point Value Measure (for the purposes of this example we have made the following assumptions X = 0.25 miles and Y = 0.5 miles)

1 The nearest residential unit or visitor attraction is located less than 0.25 miles from the landfill property line

2 The nearest residential unit or visitor attraction is located between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from the landfill property line

3 The nearest residential or unit visitor attraction is located more than 0.5 miles from the landfill property line

Point Value: 1 Source of the data on which the point value was determined: Residences and Visitor attractions were identified using the HIS real property database and maps. Then distances between the site’s boundaries and the apparent nearest residential unit and visitor attraction was calculated using the City and County Geographic Information Service (GIS) maps. See Appendix C. How the point value of the criterion was determined: Distances were measured from the nearest point on the boundary of the subject parcel and what appears to be the nearest edge of the landfill site, as described on maps provided by RM Towill and Pacific Waste Management. Complications getting the data: None. To assure consistency in using multiple maps, sites between which distances were measured were identified by TMK identifiers. Complications calculating the point value: None Distance from the property line to the nearest residential unit or visitor attraction: 875 feet or 0.16 miles Type of facility that is closest: Residential unit

9. Proximity to H‐POWER The cost of hauling the ash and residue will be greater if the site is further than 12 miles from H–POWER due to the terms of the H–POWER operating contract. The cost of hauling is renegotiated with the operator of the H–POWER facility if greater than 12 miles. The distance of the site from H–POWER is used as the Measure for this criterion. The distance of the sites from H–POWER will be listed in order from highest to lowest. The list is divided into three groups. The sites 12 miles or less from H–POWER will be in the third group (three points). The remainder of the sites will be divided into two groups with the most distant sites in the first group (one point) and the others in the second group (two points).

Point Value Measure

1 The site is in the group that is the greatest distance from H– POWER

2 The site is in the group that is greater than 12 miles away from H– POWER but closer than the group of most distant sites

3 The site is in the group that is 12 miles or less from H–POWER.

Point Value: 3 Source of the data on which the point value was determined: IDS for estimation of distances between points on Oahu; Rand McNally sectional maps for determination of routes to H‐Power. How the point value of the criterion was determined: Comparing the distance in miles for this site to H–POWER . Complications getting the data: None Complications calculating the point value: None A table is located in Appendix F that summarizes the calculation of haul distance for this site. Group which includes the distance from H–POWER: Further group Middle group Closest group

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 2

Appendix C Supporting Information for Criteria #3 Proximity to residential units and visitor attractions

Distance from the property line to the nearest residential unit: 875 feet Address of residential unit: The data sheet will show the address(s) Name of residential unit: N/A Distance from the property line to the nearest visitor attraction: 1,139 feet Address of visitor attraction: The data sheet will show the address(s) Name of visitor attraction: The data sheet will show the names(s)

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 3

Appendix F Supporting Information for Criteria #9 Proximity to H‐POWER

Site No. Route Name 1 H HPP→ Interstate Highway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route → Site Entrance 2 I HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route → Fourth Route→Site Entrance 3 J HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route →Second Route → Third Route →Fourth Route→Fifth Route→Site Entrance 4 K HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route →Site Entrance 5 L HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route → Fourth Route→ Site Entrance 6 M HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route → Site Entrance 7 N HPP→ Interstate Roadway → First Route → Second Route → Third Route → Site Entrance

Approximate Distance (miles) Traveled from H-POWER

HPP to First to Third to Site Second to Fourth to To Site Total No. Interstate Second Fourth Name Third Route Fifth Route Entrance Miles Highway Route Route

1 H 0.6 12 14.4 5 0.5 32.5

2 I 0.6 8 5 3 1 3.2 20.8

3 J 0.6 3.5 4 8 4 1 21.1

4 K 0.6 17 3.5 3 1.5 25.6

5 L 0.6 12 2 1 1 2.3 18.9

6 M 0.6 6 13 12 4.8 36.4

7 N 0.6 13 1 1 2 17.6

Point Assignment; Proximity of H-POWER to Site

Total No. Site Name Point Value Miles 7 N 11.9 3 5 L 18.9 2 2 I 20.8 2 3 J 21.1 2 4 K 25.6 2 1 H 32.5 1 6 M 36.4 1

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 4

Meeting No. 5 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection May 12, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAW AII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM MEETING NO. 5 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To review the criteria list and select criteria that should be combined, deleted, or revised, to arrive at a final list of criteria

Outcome: A final list of criteria and a review of the consultant’s next steps

2. Review of Mtg. No. 4

• Report back on letter requests for information to the DOH, Solid Waste Branch, and Board of Water Supply

• Review of Kunia area identified for further consideration as a landfill site

3. Public Comments

4. Discussion on Landfill Site Selection Criteria

• Consultant’s Explanation of List Distributed to Committee

• Committee Discussion and Comment

5. Consultant’s Next Steps

• Prepare site data sheets and report progress next meeting

• Discuss criteria weighting

6. Thank You and Adjournment. Meeting No. 5 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

May 12, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West, Janice Masters Committee Members Absent: None Consultants: Brian Takeda, Gail Atwater, Mark White, Jim Dannemiller Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

Agenda: Welcome and Introduction Review of Mtg. No. 4 Public Comment Discussion on Landfill Site Selection Criteria Consultant’s Next Steps Thank You and Adjournment

 Copies of letters sent to the Department of Health and the Board of Water Supply requesting further information and assistance were provided to the committee. No response had been received from either agency at the time of the meeting.

 The consultants presented information on the Kunia area and its suitability for a landfill site. Maps were provided showing the tax map keys, state land use district, and agricultural ratings. Lands mauka of the State Agricultural District including the gulches are in the State Conservation District. All lands in the area were identified as agricultural lands of the highest quality. The area is also located in the state and city’s underground injection control and groundwater protection zones. The Committee briefly discussed the information presented and no further action to consider this area was deemed necessary.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

Dr. Bruce Anderson submitted an e-mail resigning from the Committee on May 5, 2011 due to his new position which requires his full attention. Dr. Anderson’s e-mail was shared with the Committee.

Meeting No. 5 Group Memory Page 1 of 4 The Committee next reviewed the community criteria identified at the last meeting and discussed the language, descriptions, and opportunities for consolidation, or deletion of criteria. Below is a summary of the major changes (see attached Final Criteria List):

Summary List of Changes to Criteria

 The Committee was reminded that Criterion 1 – Potential for Worst Case Scenarios was moved from a criterion to a discussion point on worst case scenarios for the top ranked sites based on the individual characteristics of each site. This change will be included in the Committee’s Report.

 Combined Criterion 3 – Location Relative to Educational Institutions, Health Care Facilities, or Parks and Recreation Facilities; Criterion 4 – Location Relative to Health Care Facilities; and Criterion 5 – Location Relative to Public Parks and Recreation Facilities.

 Combined Criterion 8 – Location Relative to Commercial Facilities and Local/Visitor Attractions, and Criterion 9 – Location Relative to Visitor Attractions.

 Combined Criterion 13 – Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways which affects Roadway Usage, and Criterion 14 - Effect on Roadway Usage. The Committee requested that roadway congestion be included in this criterion and asked “Where does the residential road begin?” Residential roads will be evaluated on a case by case basis, but generally would begin on the secondary road serving the residences.

 Moved Criterion 15 – State Land Use Designation (SLUD) and County Zoning, to an item of discussion in the Committee’s Report. The land use designation for a site does not by itself constitute a criterion because it can be changed. The Committee’s Report should also discuss land use patterns discussed in the City’s adopted Sustainable Communities Plans.

 Moved Criterion 16 – Ceded Land and Hawaiian Home Lands to a discussion item in the Committee’s Report.

 Changed Criterion 17 – Location Relative to Identified Community Disamenities so that it will be based on ahapua‘a boundaries rather than distance from the site. The Committee compiled a list of disamenities to include:

o Existing landfills – closed and open o Power plants o Prisons, Juvenile Centers, Correction Facilities o Public Housing o Quarry Sites o Shelters o Waste Water Treatment Plants o Treatment Plants o Slaughter Houses

 Deleted Criterion 18 – Ingress and Egress to Landfill Site as it would be the same for each site.

Meeting No. 5 Group Memory Page 2 of 4  For Criterion 19 – Location Relative to H-POWER the Committee asked if there was a time element that should be considered based on the amount of time it takes ash to solidify in the trucks. Steve will check on this and get back to the Committee.

 Deleted Criterion 20 – Storm Water Control as it is covered in Criterion 21 – Effect of Precipitation on Landfill Operations, and Criterion 22 – Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost.

 Criterion 21 – The Committee asked the consultants to include peak rainfall events and not just average rainfall.

 Criterion 22 – The cost of operations needs to include the cost for storm water control. Cost factors should include: costs of a system necessary to handle peak storm events, the cost per mile to H-POWER, displacement costs, and purchase costs.

 Deleted Criterion 23 – Opportunity Cost as it would be covered in zoning and other land use discussions.

 The Committee developed a new criterion, Displacement Costs, to assess costs associated with the displacement of a current land use, including but not limited to, impact on the local economy, tax base contributions, and costs to move the land use. This should include situations where an existing land use is stopped before a resource is exhausted.

 Combined Criterion 25 – Location Relative to Wetlands, and Criterion 29 - Location Relative to Areas in the Natural Area Reserve System (NARS).

 The Committee asked that Criterion 26 – Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species include critical habitats identified by DLNR and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to insure coverage of both fauna and flora resources.

 Moved Criterion 27 – Location Relative to Groundwater Resources to serve as a filter.

 Moved Criterion 28 – Flooding Potential to serve as a filter.

 Deleted Criterion 30 – Location Relative to Class “AA” Waters and modified Criterion 22 – Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost, by adding costs for stormwater controls to address discharges to Class “AA” waters of the State.

 Changed Criterion 31 – Surface Water Resources, by changing the measurement to include the “potential to discharge untreated storm water runoff from a landfill site to an identified perennial or intermittent stream…”

 Combined Criterion 34 – Soils Suitable for Use as Daily Cover, with Criterion 22 – Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost.

The Committee next discussed the weighting process. Each Committee member will be assigned a given number of votes or points but only one vote or point per Committee member would be allowed to be given to any single criterion. In general the process will work like this:

Meeting No. 5 Group Memory Page 3 of 4 Point values will be provided by the Consultants for each criterion but the weighting assigned to each criterion will be decided by the Committee in a closed-door meeting without the Consultants present.

The Consultants will work independently to complete the site data sheets providing scores for each criterion. The Committee will receive the results of the completed site data sheets but the landfill sites will remain anonymous, identified only with an alpha descriptor, e.g., A, B, C... The Consultants will answer any questions about how the criteria were measured and applied to obtain the point values.

After all questions from the Committee have been answered the Consultants will be presented with the Committee’s weighting of the criteria, performed in an earlier step. The Consultants will next apply the weighting to each criterion to arrive at the final score for each landfill site evaluated. This is planned to be accomplished during the course of one of our meetings.

The preparation of the site data sheets and the analysis to complete them, including a summary of the results, is estimated to be completed in about two months. The Committee will be notified of progress being made during this period.

The meeting came to a close with a reminder of the date, time and place for the next meeting, which is tentatively set for July 21st, 9:00 AM. (Note: This meeting date has been changed to July 19th, 9:00 AM, and will be held in the Mayor’s Conference Room). There will be no meeting the month of June to allow the consultants to prepare the data information sheets and conduct related research.

The meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM.

Attachment

Meeting No. 5 Group Memory Page 4 of 4 Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu 5-12-11

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) N/A 1 Potential for Worst-Case Number of people and/or Number of TBD Committee chose to not make Scenarios the value of property persons and/or this a criterion based on several Moved from Criterion to within a specially- current dollar issues with measurement. Discussion Point in designed impact area value of Committee has recommended Report (e.g., between the site developed that for the top 3-4 sites that the and the nearest properties in the potential worst case scenarios shoreline, to include an area. be identified and described in area extending into the the Committee’s Final Report. ocean to the nearest reef). 1 2 Capacity Estimate the number of The number of The minimum acceptable The minimum capacity in years years the landfill can be years between years is 15. The years the was determined by the MACLSS used. opening the site can be used as a landfill with input from ENV. landfill and filling will be listed and the site. transformed to deciles with 1 indicating the least number of years of use and 10 the greatest. 2 3 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into “Educational Institutions” Educational Institutions, nearest landfill site measured along a deciles1 where 1 is the include any school for children Health Care Facilities, or boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the up to age 182, public or private, Parks and Recreation boundary of an aerial path. nearest school and 10 is the academic or vocational; and Facilities educational institution, greatest distance to the public and private colleges and Combined with Criteria health care facility, or nearest school, health care universities. It excludes 4 and 5 park or recreational facility, park or recreational commercial training institutions facility. facility. for adults, included in Criterion 8.

1 The method of calculating deciles here classifies cases in the lowest ten percent of the range from the lowest to highest measure as score=1, and so forth. 2 Includes day care facilities.

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) Health care facilities include medical and dental health centers/offices, hospitals (general, specialized, rehab), skilled nursing facilities, and clinics (except school clinics), and day care, elderly day care, or outpatient surgery centers.

Public recreational facilities include national, state, and county parks, sports facilities, playgrounds (except school playgrounds), zoos, and community meeting centers. The concern regarding the proximity of schools (with playgrounds) to landfills is addressed in Criterion 3.

N/A 4 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into Health Care Facilities nearest landfill site measured along a deciles where 1 is the Incorporated into boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the Criterion 3 (New No. 2) boundary of a health care aerial path. nearest health care facility facility. and 10 is the greatest distance to the nearest health care facility.

N/A 5 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into Public Parks and nearest landfill site measured along a deciles where 1 is the Recreation Facilities boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the Incorporated into boundary of a public aerial path. nearest public recreational Criterion 3 (New No. 2) recreational facility. facility and 10 is the greatest distance to the nearest public recreational facility.

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 2 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 3 6 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into A residence is defined as an Residential nearest landfill site measured along a deciles where 1 is the occupied housing unit. Concentrations boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the boundary of a residential aerial path. nearest residential concentration. concentration and 10 is the greatest distance to the nearest residential concentration.

4 7 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into Visitor accommodations include Visitor Accommodations nearest landfill site measured along a deciles where 1 is the hotels, motels, vacation boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the condominium units, time share CAC commented: This is boundary of a visitor aerial path. nearest visitor units, and hostels. Bed and an “economic engine” accommodations facility. accommodations facility and breakfast and temporary visitor 10 is the greatest distance to rentals are covered in the the nearest visitor residential criterion and we accommodations facility. know of no way to separate them out for treatment here.

5 8 Location Relative to Distance from the Number of miles Transform the range into Recommend combining Criteria Commercial Facilities nearest landfill site measured along a deciles where 1 is the 8 and 9 as many visitor and Local/Visitor boundary to the nearest point-to-point shortest distance from the attractions are commercial Attractions (retail, office, boundary of a aerial path. nearest commercial facility based and combining them paid attractions) commercial or and 10 is the greatest would eliminate double Combined with Criteria local/visitor attraction. distance to the nearest counting. 9 commercial facility. Commercial facilities include individual stores (except those attached to visitor accommodations facilities), shopping centers, and office buildings (except medical office buildings which would be considered a health care facility that is addressed in Criterion 4). Local/Visitor attractions include

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 3 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) visitor centers, major attractions (public and private), and museums. N/A 9 Location Relative to See above See above See above See above Visitor Attractions Incorporated into Criterion 8 (New No 5) 6 10 Effect on Established Measure whether or not Binary measure, 0 = any effect on established The Consultants will develop Public View Planes a landfill at a specific site 0 or 1. view planes; 1 = no effect on measure based on existing will obstruct or otherwise established public view public policy documents relating affect established public planes to public view planes. view planes. 7 11 Wind Direction Relative Prevailing wind direction Single measure Transform the range into This criterion measures the to Landfill Site and velocity as measured that combines deciles where 1 is the least effects of wind on the by available data at each prevailing wind appropriate prevailing wind transmittal of dust, litter, and Landfill Site (LS) relative direction and pattern and 10 is the most odor from a landfill. to location of residential velocity at LS appropriate wind rose concentrations, visitor relative to pattern for all sites. accommodation facilities, affected or target and commercial land areas. Change scale to 1 to 10. uses.

8 12 Effect on Local Roads Measure the estimated Miles of roadways Transform the range into The measure will reflect both and Traffic in Residential distance that must be leading to the LS deciles where 1 is the largest the increased traffic and the Neighborhoods traveled through that pass through distance in vehicle miles and length of a roadway when residential residential areas. 10 is the smallest distance in passing through a residential CAC commented: neighborhoods to reach a vehicle miles. neighborhood is required to consider secondary LS. access a LS. roads leading to the This will require obtaining DOT landfill through and County traffic data and residential areas; not assessing their availability. residences on main roads, e.g. Farrington Highway

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 4 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 9 13 Wear and Tear on Measure the estimated The estimated Transform the range into Recommend combining Criteria Highways and Roadways cost of upgrading average cost per deciles where 1 is the 13 and 14 as they are essentially Which Affects Roadway affected roadways mile to upgrade highest average cost per similar. Calculate costs in current Usage serving each LS to a roadways along mile and 10 is the lowest dollars. Include construction and Combined with Criterion standard suitable for the LS access average cost per mile. maintenance costs for 15 years. 14 usage by landfill roadway to a level Values will be expressed as the associated traffic. sufficient for average cost per mile to avoid heavy truck duplication of the impact of traffic. vehicle miles in Criterion 12. Estimates of the required level N/A 14 Effect on Roadway Combined with Criterion Combined with Combined with Criterion 13. of change will be based on Usage 13. See above. Criterion 13. See See above. current roadway type. (Recommend Combining above.

with Criterion 13, above) Incorporated into Criterion 13 (New No. 9)

N/A 15 State Land Use Measure whether or not Measure as 0 = landfills are not allowed Consultants will review each LS’s Designation (SLUD) and current SLUD and County allowed under under either SLUD or County SLUD and City & County of County Zoning or land Zoning designations and both SLUD and Zoning, and 1 = landfills are Honolulu zoning. use in APPROVED DP allows landfills as a County Zoning or allowed under both SLUD Development Plan or land use. not. Binary and County Zoning. Sustainable measure, 0 or 1. Communities Plan Moved from Criterion to Discussion Point in Report

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 5 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) N/A 16 Ceded Land and Measure whether or not LS Measure based 0 = one or more parcels Consultants request input from Hawaiian Home Lands includes ceded lands on land comprising a LS contains the Committee regarding the 3 Moved from Criterion according to the Office of ownership and ceded lands or is owned by expectations of this criterion . to Discussion Point in Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) or tax map key DHHL, and 1 = no subject Please see footnote. Report lands belonging to the records. Binary parcel contains ceded lands Department of Hawaiian measure, or is owned by DHHL. Home Lands (DHHL). 0 or 1.

10 17 Location Relative to Measure the number of No. of sites Transform the range into Use ahupua‘a maps available Identified Community community disamenities considered a deciles where 1 is the from Bishop Museum (circa Disamenities within the ahupua‘a community lowest number of sites or 0 1850). Changed to base containing a landfill site. disamenity, e.g., and 10 is the highest measurements on waste water number of sites considered ahupua‘a boundary. treatment plants, as a community disamenity. slaughterhouses, other landfill sites, public housing, correctional facilities, operating quarry sites, power plants N/A 18 Ingress and Egress to LS Measure the number of Number of Transform the range into For most sites we will have one Deleted by Committee points of vehicular ingress points of ingress deciles where 1 is the or two points of ingress and and egress at each LS. and egress. lowest number of points egress. This criterion may be the and 10 is the highest same for all sites, so may be number of ingress and considered for elimination. egress points.

3 The criterion seems to treat lands under the control of OHA and DHHL as if they cannot be used for a landfill. Consultants are aware of no ordinance that suggests this is true. Private, preliminary, and unofficial conversations with DHHL and persons familiar with ceded land issues suggest that some benefit might accrue to Native Hawaiians and their representative agencies from using their lands as landfill sites. Either agency, for instance, might wish to trade a landfill- suitable parcel for land located elsewhere better suited to residential or commercial uses. It was also noted that either agency might wish to become a partner in the landfill enterprise and receive a percentage of operating revenues for their investment. Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 6 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 11 19 Location Relative to H- Measure the distance along Distance in miles. Transform the range into This is a measure of the distance POWER suitable truck accessible deciles where 1 is the trucks will have to travel from Action Item: Steve roadways from the H- greatest distance and 10 is H–POWER to the site. (Note: Serikaku to check on POWER facility to each LS. the shortest distance. This is to reflect the H-POWER time it takes for ash to contract which has cost solidify in trucks adjustments for distances > 12 miles.) N/A 20 Storm Water Control Measure the annual Sum the scores Transform the range into This criterion is redundant to Deleted by Committee rainfall, average slope, soil for each of the deciles where 1 is the the other criteria and is (Issue addressed in types, and vegetation at the four items to get greatest need for storm recommended for removal: Criterion 21 and 22) LS, in terms of their an overall storm water control and 10 is the Criterion 21 – measures the contribution to the need for water control lowest need for storm water effects of precipitation greater storm water runoff score. control. important to the operation of control efforts at the site. earthmoving equipment and the generation of leachate; Criterion 22 – accounts for the cost of developing a site to address stormwater runoff; and Criterion 28 – accounts for the location of a LS relative to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s designation of a flood plain.

12 21 Effect of Precipitation Measure inches of annual Inches of rainfall. Transform the range into Compare to Criterion 20. It on Landfill Operations rainfall. deciles where 1 is the would be better to have CAC commented: Add greatest rainfall and 10 is precipitation as a stand-alone peak events as well as the least rainfall. criterion. It impacts landfill average precipitation, operations from the standpoint and cumulative rainfall of affecting earthmoving (such as in the Ameron machinery and generating Quarry where no leachate which will need to be discharge off-site is controlled. allowed)

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 7 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 13 22 Landfill Development, Estimate the total cost of Net present Transform the range into To eliminate duplication, we Operation and Closure site acquisition, site value of deciles where 1 is the should consider deleting the Cost development, landfill annualized cost highest estimated annual costs for off-site road CAC commented: operation, and closure. of acquisition, cost and 10 is the lowest improvements shown in Criteria Should include cost for development, estimated annual cost. 18 and 19, and any other criteria stormwater controls operation, and measuring project costs. including storm water closure over the and peak rain events number of years (Criterion 20); the LS will be stormwater active. containment and/or treatment (Criterion 30); cost per mile to HPOWER (Criterion 19), opportunity cost (Criterion 23); soil suitability for daily cover (Criterion 34); displacement cost (new) and cost to purchase LS land.

N/A 23 Opportunity Cost Estimate the economic TBD TBD Suggest removing this criterion. Deleted by Committee. benefit foregone by Serious problems exist in CAC comment: There is landowners (some with determining which possible land no limit to what could entitlements) for uses might be applied to each be done with land and alternative land uses. LS. However, the cost of land is impossible to acquisition is factored in quantify. Criterion 22 – Landfill Future uses should be Development, Operation and as described in Closure Cost. approved DPs and SCPs. Covered in Criterion 15. See new Criterion 14, DISPLACEMENT COST.

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 8 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 14 Displacement Cost Cost of displacing current TBD TBD New Criterion land use. Community will lose economy, tax base contribution and cost to move the facility. Also includes situation where existing use is stopped prior to resource being exhausted. 15 24 Potential for Solid Measure acres of suitable Acres of Use 1 to 10 scoring system. Land located within the LS might Waste-Related Land land near LS to contiguous be treated as being more Uses accommodate businesses developable suitable than off-site land. CAC commented: that would benefit from land. Will discuss further with the Ability to put these operating close to the Committee. uses within the LS is landfill (e.g., metal and best. Has less potential other material recyclers, for impact on farms, etc.) surrounding community. 16 25 Location Relative to Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into The official classification of Wetlands and Natural LS boundary to the nearest measured along deciles where 1 is the wetlands is by the U. S. Army Area Reserve System boundary of a parcel a point-to-point shortest distance from the Corps of Engineers. However, (NARS). classified as containing aerial path. nearest wetlands and 10 is for the MACLSS evaluation, a Combined with wetlands. the greatest distance to the biological assessment can be Criterion 29. nearest wetlands parcel. undertaken including the basis CAC commented: for the designation of a site as a Combine with No.29 wetland. because both are sensitive receptors. 17 26 Location Relative to Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into Habitats for threatened or Listed Threatened and boundary of each LS to the measured along deciles where 1 is the endangered plants or animals Endangered Species nearest boundary of a land a point-to-point shortest distance from the are identified by the parcel classified as a habitat aerial path. nearest habitat and 10 is the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and for listed threatened or greatest distance to the DLNR. Both will be consulted for endangered plants or nearest habitat for listed this assessment.

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 9 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) animals. threatened or endangered species. N/A 27 Location Relative to Classify each LS according GPZ/UIC status. 0 = located in a This exclusionary criterion is Groundwater Resources to its location relative to Binary measure, Groundwater Protection duplicative of the initial Moved from Criterion the Groundwater 0 or 1. Zone or UIC Pass Zone; 1 = screening process where to a Filter for the Protection Zone (GPZ) and located in neither. groundwater resources are evaluation of sites. Underground Injection evaluated. Suggest deletion. Control (UIC) Zone boundaries.

N/A 28 Flooding Potential Determine whether or not Location in flood 0 = located in either a flood Assign 0 if any part of the LS is Moved from Criterion each LS is located within a plain and plain or a tsunami located in a flood plain or to a Filter for the flood plain or tsunami tsunami evacuation zone; tsunami evacuation zone. Flood evaluation of sites. evacuation zone. evacuation zone. 1 = not located in a flood plain designations include High zone or tsunami evacuation Risk and Moderate Risk areas zone. among others so the scaling list could be revised.

N/A 29 Location Relative to Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into There are three NAR facilities Areas in the NARS boundary of each LS to the measured along deciles where 1 is the on O‘ahu, managed by the Incorporated into nearest boundary of the a point-to-point shortest distance from the Department of Land and Criterion 25 (New No. nearest NAR. aerial path. nearest NAR and 10 is the Natural Resources, the NARS 16) greatest distance to the government affiliate. nearest NAR. N/A 30 Location Relative to Classify each LS according Location which 0 = possibility of LS Assign 0 if runoff from any part Class “AA” Waters to its possibility of would make discharging untreated runoff of the LS can discharge into Incorporated into discharging runoff into discharge of into Class “AA” marine Class AA marine waters. Criterion 22 (New No. Class “AA” marine waters. runoff Class waters; 1 = no possibility of 13) “AA” marine discharging runoff into Class waters possible. “AA” marine waters. Binary measure, 0 or 1.

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 10 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 18 31 Surface Water Distance Potential to Number of miles Transform the range into Protected intermittent streams Resources discharge untreated measured along deciles where 1 is the have been identified in the CAC modified criterion stormwater runoff from LS a point-to-point greatest distance from the Hawai‘i Stream Assessment language to identified perennial aerial path. nearest perennial stream or Report, Department of Land streams or intermittent Under Revision intermittent stream and Natural Resources (DLNR). streams classified as classified as important and important in the Hawai‘i 10 is the shortest distance to Stream Assessment Report, the nearest such stream. Department of Land and Under Revision Natural Resources (DLNR). 19 32 Noise from Landfill Measure the potential for Sum the scores Transform the range into Suggest measurement based on Operations adverse impacts of noise for each of these deciles where 1 is the evaluation of terrain and from construction and potential highest adverse impact score distance from sensitive noise operations of a solid waste adverse impacts and 10 is the lowest adverse receptors. landfill at each LS, as noise to get an overall impact score. affects nearby residential or noise impact visitor accommodations, score. health care facilities, and educational institutions. 20 33 Archaeological and Measure the distance from Number of miles Transform the range into Archaeological and cultural Culturally Significant the nearest boundary of measured along deciles where 1 is the resources include all sites listed Resources each LS to the nearest a point-to-point shortest distance from the or eligible for listing on the boundary of an identified aerial path. nearest archaeological or State Register of Historic Places archaeological or culturally culturally significant or are identified as a culturally significant resource. resource and 10 is the significant site by the DLNR, greatest distance to the State Historic Preservation nearest such resource. Division (SHPD). N/A 34 Soils Suitable for Use as Measure the suitability of TBD Transform the range into The soils classification system in Daily Cover LS soils for landfill use as deciles where 1 is the lowest Hawai‘i has been updated and CAC commented: daily cover, including soil suitability score and 10 is the is managed by the Department Include cost for daily association. highest suitability score. of Agriculture. cover. Compare to Criterion 35. Incorporated into Criterion 22 (New No. 13)

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 11 of 12

As of Tentative Comments New 5/12 # Criterion Measurement Measure Score (Criterion # refers to # Method “New #”) 21 35 Quality of Agricultural Measure the suitability of Agricultural TBD The value of agricultural lands Lands LS soils for agricultural uses. Lands of will be identified using the ALISH CAC commented: Importance to classification system. Include “Important the State of Agricultural Lands” Hawai‘i (ALISH) (IAL) in analysis. rating system to develop an overall score.

Final Criteria List Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 12 of 12 NVILLIAMI AILA. JR. INTERIM CHAIRPERSON NEIL ABERCROMBIE BOARD OF lAND AND NATURAL RESOUR( LA GOVERNOR OF HAWAII COMMISSION I\ RATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

GUY H KAULUKUKUI FIRST DEPLEY

WILLIAM El. TAM INlERIM FIEPITV DIRECTOR - VAI ER

January31, 2011 Ref: 97od-308

Mr. Timothy Steinberger, P.E. Director Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu 1000 Uluohia Street, Suite 308 Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Steinberger:

Subject: Future Landfill for Oahu, TMK (1) 4-1-008:013

Thank you for your letter dated January 7, 2011 requesting our input regarding proposed use of the subject State land as a future landfill for Oahu.

Sincerely, r’i

William J. Aila, Jr. Interim Chairperson $

cc: DOFAW, DLNR

C, C)’ UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII BOX 63002 KASEOHE BAY HAWAII 96863-3002

IN NEPIY REFER P0: 5000 0&T/C PLO February 9, 2011 Timothy Steinberger Director, Department of Environmental Services 1000 Uluohia Street, Suite 308 Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Steinberger:

Subject: USE OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN BELLOWS AIR FORCE STATION FOR A FUTURE LANDFILL FOR THE ISLAND OF OAHU

This letter is provided in response to your 7 January 2011 letter requesting to site a landfill within the training area at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows. Marine Corps Base Hawaii manages and schedules Marine Corps Training Area Bellows (MCTAB) to support our tenant units’ training requirements. Nearly all of the land is required to support our training needs. Our units use the area primarily for reconnaissance, withdrawal, various attack and defense scenarios, and vehicle driving training in preparation for overseas contingency operations. We also maintain a 300 foot buffer zone to control encroachment. Regrettably, we need all the space we currently possess in order to meet our training mission and cannot support your request to site a landfill at MCTAP, or any other Marine Corps property. If you need more information on this matter, the point of contact is the Community Plans and Liaison Officer, Ms. Tiffany Patrick at (808) 257-8815. Best wishes in your search for a suitable site. Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER E. BLANCHARD Chief of Staff Marine Corps Base Hawaii

p.) -o

We understand that the UIC Program was established in 1984 to protect Oahu’s potable groundwater resources from subsurface wastewater disposal. Accordingly, we ask ifthe DOH offers any statement of policy to the Mayor’s Committee as it moves forward with the evaluation of new landfill sites on the Island of Oahu, specifically, with regards to site a new landfill mauka or in the near vicinity of the UIC line.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward to your reply. If you have any questions, please contact Steven Serikaku of the Refuse Division at 768-3428.

Sincerely,

,/t’Eteinberger, RE. Director #2B Mr. Wayne Hashiro, RE. March 29, 2011 Page 2

(3) On February 15, 2008, the Board submitted, to the City Council, its Final Report entitled, “Oahu Inactive Landfills, Relative Risk Evaluation, December 2006.” Certain information contained in this report would be of value to us in better evaluating the potential for environmental effects in the siting of landfills. We request ifthree (3) files referenced in Table 8-1, Geoqrajhic Information System Coverace Details could be made available, specifically, the following GIS data files:

No-Pass Line: nopass nad83.shp Oahu Landfills/Dumps: oahlandfill_n83.shp and schofield landfills.shp

(4) Finally, we ask ifthe Board wishes to offer any policy guidance to the Mayor’s Committee as it moves forward with the consideration of landfill sites, especially with regards to the importance of maintaining the protection of Oahu’s groundwater resources.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above and if a data disc could be provided for the requested files it would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to your reply. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Steven Serikaku of the Refuse Division at 768-3428.

Sincerely, tteinbeer,P.E. Director FW: Pls Post Mtg Agenda for May 12th Mtg for Mayor's Landfill Siting Committee Page 1 of 2 #3A Brian Takeda

From: Brian Takeda Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 5:50 PM To: 'Bruce S. Anderson' Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Serikaku, Steven; Namumnart, Wilma; DeeDee Letts; Jim Dannemiller; Mark White; Gail Atwater Subject: RE: Mayor's Landfill Siting Committee Agenda: May 12, 2011 Importance: High Dear Bruce,

I am saddened to hear of your decision and understand that this decision is not something you take lightly, especially given your dedicated past service to the City and County of Honolulu. We appreciated the time you spent with us too, having constructive and sometimes challenging discussions and wish you well with your new responsibilities.

I noticed that at the end of your message that you have offered to assist us if only in a review or related capacity. We thank you for this kind offer as the Committee moves forward with its mission. We may yet be in touch.

Best Regards,

Brian Takeda Planning Project Coordinator mailto:[email protected]

R. M. Towill Corporation 2024 North King Street Suite 200 Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 voice: 808 842 1133 fax: 808 842 1937 web: www.rmtowill.com

From: Bruce S. Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 5:12 PM To: Brian Takeda; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Serikaku, Steven; Namumnart, Wilma; DeeDee Letts; Jim Dannemiller; Mark White; Gail Atwater Subject: RE: Mayor's Landfill Siting Committee Agenda: May 12, 2011

Hi Brian,

This is to inform you that I must resign from the Landfill Site Selection Committee. I recently accepted the position as President and CEO of Hawaii Health Systems Corporation and I am finding that this new job

5/11/2011 FW: Pls Post Mtg Agenda for May 12th Mtg for Mayor's Landfill Siting Committee Page 2 of 2

requires my full attention now. I do not anticipate that this will change in the near future.

It has been a pleasure to work with you, DeeDee, Wilma, Steve, Jim, Mark, Gail and all the members of the committee. You all have a tough job ahead in finding a site as good or better than Waimanalo Gulch. If I can be of any assistance in this endeavor, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,

Bruce

Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D. President and CEO Hawaii Health Systems Corporation Office Phone: (808) 733-4151 Cell: (808) 738-6482 Email: [email protected]

From: Brian Takeda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:24 PM To: Bruce S. Anderson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Serikaku, Steven; Namumnart, Wilma; DeeDee Letts; Jim Dannemiller; Mark White; Gail Atwater Subject: Mayor's Landfill Siting Committee Agenda: May 12, 2011

Dear Committee Members,

Please find attached our agenda for our upcoming meeting on May 12th. If you have any questions or if you will not be able to attend please let us know in advance.

Thank you and I look forward to seeing you there.

Sincerely,

Brian Takeda Planning Project Coordinator mailto:[email protected]

R. M. Towill Corporation 2024 North King Street Suite 200 Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 voice: 808 842 1133 fax: 808 842 1937 web: www.rmtowill.com

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

5/11/2011 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011 #4

The attached chart describes 35 criteria that are based on comments and input received from the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landﬁll Site Selection (MACLSS) at a meeting on March 31, 2011. For each of the 35 criteria we have added descriptions of how the criteria will be measured; the nature of the measurement that would result; and, a method for scoring that combines the results of evaluating each of the 35 criteria into a single measure of the relative suitability of each potential landﬁll site. You will see two sets of criterion numbers on the following pages. The “New #” column represents a sequential regrouping of criteria; the “Old #” is the criterion number assigned during Meeting 4.

The list of criteria and descriptive information are intended for the review and approval of the MACLSS. In places, we have noted the need for further clarification of the Committee’s expectations for individual landfill site selection criteria. We have also noted areas where two or more criteria appear to be measuring very similar content that may prompt MACLSS members to combine or eliminate individual criteria. With this new information in hand, the final details of measurements, calculations, and transformation of the measurements to scores will be prepared for all criteria.

The scoring system is based on the following: At the base level of assessment there is a “site”. Around that site is a potential “impact area” (also called study area, economic zone, etc.). For these sites and impact areas a set of “criteria” are deﬁned that constitutes the elements of the site assessment. The criteria will measure “suitability” (or alternatively, “adverse impact”). The measurement system will assign numeric values to each of the site criterion such that a higher number represents greater suitability for a landﬁll site. This will result in a “measure” or units of measurement for each site for each criterion. The measurement values can be positive or negative, lie within a designated range, be normally distributed, and have the same format across all sites and all measures, but must all conform to the suitability requirement. Finally, the measures are transformed into “scores”, secondary measures that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, have the same range, and the same valence relative to the suitability criterion. Finally, we will combine all criterion scores to arrive at an “average weighted score”1 for each site.

We are recommending a ten-point criterion scale for the majority of the criteria to replace the three-point scale used in prior work. Greater dispersion will allow for more detail in the assessment system and avoid producing identical or nearly identical scores for two sites that are actually quite diﬀerent.

The MACLSS will provide the consultants a set of criterion weights for use in calculating ﬁnal weighted average scores for each potential landﬁll site. The use of weights suggests that MACLSS members feel that some criteria are more important than others. The method of assigning the individual criterion scores is designed to be compatible with the calculation of average weighted scores.

1 The average weighted score is defined by the equation, WASj = Cij * Wi) / n; where WASj is the weighted average suitability score for the jth landfill site, Cjj is the ith criterion score for the jth landfill site, Wi is the MACLSS assigned weight for the ith criterion score, and n is the number of criteria. SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 1 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 1 1 Potential for Number of people and/or the Number of persons TBD Committee chose to not make this a Worst‐Case value of property within a and/or current criterion based on several issues with Scenarios specially‐designed impact dollar value of measurement. Committee has area (e.g., between the site developed recommended that for the top 3‐4 sites and the nearest shoreline, to properties in the that the potential worst case scenarios include an area extending area. be identified and described in the into the ocean to the nearest Committee’s Final Report. reef). 2 2 Capacity Estimate the number of years The number of years The minimum acceptable years is The minimum capacity in years was the landfill can be used. between opening 15. The years the site can be used determined by the MACLSS with input the landfill and as a landfill will be listed and from ENV. filling the site. transformed to deciles with 1 indicating the least number of years of use and 10 the greatest. 3 3 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles2 “Educational Institutions” include any to Educational landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance school for children up to age 183, public Institutions nearest boundary of an point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest school and 10 is or private, academic or vocational; and educational institution. path. the greatest distance to the public and private colleges and nearest school. universities. It excludes commercial training institutions for adults, included in Criterion 8. 4 4 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles Health care facilities include medical to Health Care landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance and dental health centers/offices, Facilities nearest boundary of a health point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest health care hospitals (general, specialized, rehab), care facility. path. facility and 10 is the greatest skilled nursing facilities, and clinics distance to the nearest health (except school clinics), and day care, care facility. elderly day care, or outpatient surgery centers.

2The method of calculating deciles here classifies cases in the lowest ten percent of the range from the lowest to highest measure as score=1, and so forth. 3 Includes day care facilities. SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 2 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 5 5 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles Public recreational facilities include to Public Parks landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance national, state, and county parks, sports and Recreational nearest boundary of a public point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest public facilities, playgrounds (except school Facilities recreational facility. path. recreational facility and 10 is the playgrounds), zoos, and community greatest distance to the nearest meeting centers. The concern regarding public recreational facility. the proximity of schools (with playgrounds) to landfills is addressed in Criterion 3.

6 6 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles A residence is defined as an occupied to Residential landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance housing unit. Concentrations nearest boundary of a point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest residential residential concentration. path. concentration and 10 is the greatest distance to the nearest residential concentration.

7 7 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles Visitor accommodations include hotels, to Visitor landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance motels, vacation condominium units, Accommodations nearest boundary of a visitor point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest visitor time share units, and hostels. Bed and accommodations facility. path. accommodations facility and 10 is breakfast and temporary visitor rentals the greatest distance to the are covered in the residential criterion nearest visitor accommodations and we know of no way to separate facility. them out for treatment here.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 3 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 8 8 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles Recommend combining Criteria 8 and 9 to Commercial landfill site boundary to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance as many visitor attractions are Facilities and nearest boundary of a point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest commercial commercial based and combining them Local/Visitor commercial or local/visitor path. facility and 10 is the greatest would eliminate double counting. Attractions (retail, attraction. distance to the nearest Commercial facilities include individual office, paid commercial facility. stores (except those attached to visitor attractions) accommodations facilities), shopping centers, and office buildings (except medical office buildings which would be considered a health care facility that is addressed in Criterion 4). Local/Visitor attractions include visitor centers, major attractions (public and private), and museums.

9 9 Location Relative See above See above See above See above to Visitor Attractions 10 10 Effect on Measure whether or not a Binary measure, 0 = any effect on established view The Consultants will develop measure Established Public landfill at a specific site will 0 or 1. planes; 1 = no effect on based on existing public policy View Planes obstruct or otherwise affect established public view planes documents relating to public established public view viewplanes. planes. 11 11 Wind Direction Prevailing wind direction and Single measure that Transform the range into deciles This criterion measures the effects of Relative to velocity as measured by combines prevailing where 1 is the least appropriate wind on the transmittal of dust, litter, Landfill Site available data at each Landfill wind direction and prevailing wind pattern and 10 is and odor from a landfill. Site (LS) relative to location velocity at LS the most appropriate wind rose of residential concentrations, relative to affected pattern for all sites. visitor accommodation or target areas. facilities, and commercial land uses.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 4 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 12 12 Effect on Local Measure the estimated Miles of roadways Transform the range into deciles The measure will reflect both the Roads and Traffic distance that must be leading to the LS where 1 is the largest distance in increased traffic and the length of a in Residential traveled through residential that pass through vehicle miles and 10 is the roadway when passing through a Neighborhoods neighborhoods to reach a LS. residential areas. smallest distance in vehicle miles. residential neighborhood is required to access a LS. This will require obtaining DOT and County traffic data and assessing their availability.

13 18 Wear and Tear on Measure the estimated cost The estimated Transform the range into deciles Recommend combining Criteria 13 and Highways and of upgrading affected average cost per where 1 is the highest average 14 as they are essentially similar. Roadways Which roadways serving each LS to a mile to upgrade cost per mile and 10 is the lowest Calculate costs in current dollars. Affects Roadway standard suitable for usage roadways along the average cost per mile. Include construction and maintenance Usage by landfill associated traffic. LS access roadway costs for 15 years. Values will be to a level sufficient expressed as the average cost per mile for heavy truck to avoid duplication of the impact of traffic. vehicle miles in Criterion 12. Estimates of the required level of change will be 14 19 Effect on Combined with Criterion 13. Combined with Combined with Criterion 13. See based on current roadway type. Roadway Usage See above. Criterion 13. See above.

(Recommend above. Combining with Criterion 13, above) 15 13 State Land Use Measure whether or not Measure as allowed 0 = landfills are not allowed under Consultants will review each LS’s SLUD Designation current SLUD and County under both SLUD either SLUD or County Zoning, and and City & County of Honolulu zoning. (SLUD) and Zoning designations allow and County Zoning 1 = landfills are allowed under County Zoning landfills as a land use. or not. Binary both SLUD and County Zoning. measure, 0 or 1.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 5 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 16 14 Ceded Land and Measure whether or not LS Measure based on 0 = one or more parcels Consultants request input from the Hawaiian Home includes ceded lands land ownership and comprising a LS contains ceded Committee regarding the expectations 4 Lands according to the Office of tax map key records. lands or is owned by DHHL, and 1 of this criterion . Please see footnote. Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) or Binary measure, = no subject parcel contains ceded lands belonging to the 0 or 1. lands or is owned by DHHL. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL).

17 15 Location Relative Measure the number of No. of sites Transform the range into deciles Criterion There are some reservations to Identified community disamenities considered a where 1 is the lowest number of about the current EJ system developed Community within a 1 mile of the center community sites or 0 and 10 is the highest for Honolulu. Disamenities of a landfill site. disamenity, e.g., number of sites considered as a Consultants request input from the wastewater community disamenity. Committee. treatment plant, slaughterhouse, etc. 18 16 Ingress and Egress Measure the number of Number of points of Transform the range into deciles For most sites we will have one or two to LS points of vehicular ingress ingress and egress. where 1 is the lowest number of points of ingress and egress. This and egress at each LS. points and 10 is the highest criterion may be the same for all sites, number of ingress and egress so may be considered for elimination. points.

19 17 Location Relative Measure the distance along Distance in miles. Transform the range into deciles This is a measure of the distance trucks to H‐POWER suitable truck accessible where 1 is the greatest distance will have to travel from H–POWER to the roadways from the H‐POWER and 10 is the shortest distance. site. (Note: This is to reflect the H‐ facility to each LS. POWER contract which has cost adjustments for distances > 12 miles.)

4The criterion seems to treat lands under the control of OHA and DHHL as if they cannot be used for a landfill. Consultants are aware of no ordinance that suggests this is true. Private, preliminary, and unofficial conversations with DHHL and persons familiar with ceded land issues suggest that some benefit might accrue to Native Hawaiians and their representative agencies from using their lands as landfill sites. Either agency, for instance, might wish to trade a landfill‐suitable parcel for land located elsewhere better suited to residential or commercial uses. It was also noted that either agency might wish to become a partner in the landfill enterprise and receive a percentage of operating revenues for their investment. SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 6 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 20 20 Storm Water Measure the annual rainfall, Sum the scores for Transform the range into deciles This criterion is redundant to the other Control average slope, soil types, and each of the four where 1 is the greatest need for criteria and is recommended for vegetation at the LS, in terms items to get an storm water control and 10 is the removal: of their contribution to the overall storm water lowest need for storm water Criterion 21 – measures the effects of need for greater storm water control score. control. precipitation important to the operation runoff control efforts at the of earthmoving equipment and the site. generation of leachate; Criterion 22 – accounts for the cost of developing a site to address stormwater runoff; and Criterion 28 – accounts for the location of a LS relative to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s designation of a flood plain.

21 29 Effect of Measure inches of annual Inches of rainfall. Transform the range into deciles Compare to Criterion 20. It would be Precipitation on rainfall. where 1 is the greatest rainfall better to have precipitation as a stand‐ Landfill and 10 is the least rainfall. alone criterion. It impacts landfill Operations operations from the standpoint of affecting earthmoving machinery and generating leachate which will need to be controlled.

22 21 Landfill Estimate the total cost of site Net present value of Transform the range into deciles To eliminate duplication, we should Development, acquisition, site annualized cost of where 1 is the highest estimated consider deleting the costs for off‐site Operation and development, landfill acquisition, annual cost and 10 is the lowest road improvements shown in Criteria 18 Closure Cost operation, and closure. development, estimated annual cost. and 19, and any other criteria measuring operation, and project costs. closure over the number of years the LS will be active.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 7 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 23 22 Opportunity Cost Estimate the economic TBD TBD Suggest removing this criterion. Serious benefit foregone by problems exist in determining which landowners (some with possible land uses might be applied to entitlements) for alternative each LS. However, the cost of land land uses. acquisition is factored in Criterion 22 – Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost.

24 23 Potential for Solid Measure acres of suitable Acres of contiguous TBD Land located within the LS might be Waste‐Related land near LS to accommodate developable land. treated as being more suitable than off‐ Land Uses businesses that would benefit site land. from operating close to the Will discuss further with the Committee. landfill (e.g., metal and other material recyclers, farms, etc.) 25 24 Location Relative Distance from the nearest LS Number of miles Transform the range into deciles The official classification of wetlands is to Wetlands boundary to the nearest measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. boundary of a parcel point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest wetlands and 10 However, for the MACLSS evaluation, a classified as containing path. is the greatest distance to the biological assessment can be wetlands. nearest wetlands parcel. undertaken including the basis for the designation of a site as a wetland.

26 25 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles Transform the range into deciles Habitats for threatened or endangered to Listed boundary of each LS to the measured along a where 1 is the shortest distance plants or animals are identified by the Threatened and nearest boundary of a land point‐to‐point aerial from the nearest habitat and 10 is U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service who will Endangered parcel classified as a habitat path. the greatest distance to the serve as a consulting agency for this Species for listed threatened or nearest habitat for listed assessment. endangered plants or threatened or endangered animals. species.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 8 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Measurement Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 27 26 Location Relative Classify each LS according to GPZ/UIC status. 0 = located in a Groundwater This exclusionary criterion is to Groundwater its location relative to the Binary measure, Protection Zone or UIC Pass duplicative of the initial screening Resources Groundwater Protection 0 or 1. Zone; 1 = located in neither. process where groundwater Zone (GPZ) and resources are evaluated. Suggest Underground Injection deletion. Control (UIC) Zone boundaries.

28 27 Flooding Determine whether or not Location in flood plain and 0 = located in either a flood plain Assign 0 if any part of the LS is Potential each LS is located within a tsunami evacuation zone. or a tsunami evacuation zone; located in a flood plain or tsunami flood plain or tsunami 1 = not located in a flood zone or evacuation zone. Flood plain evacuation zone. tsunami evacuation zone. designations include High Risk and Moderate Risk areas among others so the scaling list could be revised.

29 28 Location Relative Distance from the nearest Number of miles measured Transform the range into deciles There are three NAR facilities on to Areas in the boundary of each LS to the along a point‐to‐point where 1 is the shortest distance O‘ahu, managed by the Department Natural Area nearest boundary of the aerial path. from the nearest NAR and 10 is of Land and Natural Resources, the Reserve System nearest NAR. the greatest distance to the NARS government affiliate. (NARS) nearest NAR.

30 30 Location Relative Classify each LS according to Location which would 0 = possibility of LS discharging Assign 0 if runoff from any part of to Class “AA” its possibility of discharging make discharge of runoff runoff into Class “AA” marine the LS can discharge into Class AA Waters runoff into Class “AA” Class “AA” marine waters waters; 1 = no possibility of marine waters. marine waters. possible. Binary measure, discharging runoff into Class “AA” 0 or 1. marine waters.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 9 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Measurement Method (Criterion # refers to “New #”) 31 31 Surface Water Distance from LS to Number of miles measured Transform the range into deciles Protected intermittent streams have Resources identified perennial streams along a point‐to‐point where 1 is the greatest distance been identified in the Hawai‘i or intermittent streams aerial path. from the nearest perennial Stream Assessment Report, classified as important in the stream or intermittent stream Department of Land and Natural Hawai‘i Stream Assessment classified as important and 10 is Resources (DLNR). Report, Department of Land the shortest distance to the and Natural Resources nearest such stream. (DLNR). 32 33 Noise from Measure the potential for Sum the scores for each of Transform the range into deciles Suggest measurement based on Landfill adverse impacts of noise these potential adverse where 1 is the highest adverse evaluation of terrain and distance Operations from construction and impacts to get an overall impact score and 10 is the lowest from sensitive noise receptors. operations of a solid waste noise impact score. adverse impact score. landfill at each LS, as noise affects nearby residential or visitor accommodations, health care facilities, and educational institutions.

33 34 Archaeological Measure the distance from Number of miles measured Transform the range into deciles Archaeological and cultural and Culturally the nearest boundary of along a point‐to‐point where 1 is the shortest distance resources include all sites listed or Significant each LS to the nearest aerial path. from the nearest archaeological eligible for listing on the State Resources boundary of an identified or culturally significant resource Register of Historic Places or are archaeological or culturally and 10 is the greatest distance to identified as a culturally significant significant resource. the nearest such resource. site by the DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). 34 32 Soils Suitable for Measure the suitability of LS TBD Transform the range into deciles The soils classification system in Use as Daily soils for landfill use as daily where 1 is the lowest suitability Hawai‘i has been updated and is Cover cover, including soil score and 10 is the highest managed by the Department of association. suitability score. Agriculture. Compare to Criterion 35.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 10 of 11 LANDFILL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA April 28, 2011

New Old Tentative Measurement Comments Criterion Measure Score # # Method (Criterion # refers to “Old #”) 35 35 Quality of Measure the suitability of LS Agricultural Lands of TBD The value of agricultural lands will be Agricultural Lands soils for agricultural uses. Importance to the identified using the ALISH classification State of Hawai‘i system. (ALISH) rating system to develop an overall score.

SMS Research/PWCG/RMTC Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Page 11 of 11 #5 Siting Criteria Evaluation Examples PWCG 2011

Point Value Measure (for the purposes of this example we have made the following assumptions X = 0.25 miles and Y = 0.5 miles)

1 The nearest residential unit or visitor attraction is located less than 0.25 miles from the landfill property line

2 The nearest residential unit or visitor attraction is located between 0.25 and 0.5 miles from the landfill property line

3 The nearest residential or unit visitor attraction is located more than 0.5 miles from the landfill property line

Previously Distributed at Mtg. No. 4, March 2011

Point Value Measure

1 The site is in the group that is the greatest distance from H– POWER

2 The site is in the group that is greater than 12 miles away from H– POWER but closer than the group of most distant sites

3 The site is in the group that is 12 miles or less from H–POWER.

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 2

Appendix C Supporting Information for Criteria #3 Proximity to residential units and visitor attractions

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 3

Appendix F Supporting Information for Criteria #9 Proximity to H‐POWER

Approximate Distance (miles) Traveled from H-POWER

HPP to First to Third to Site Second to Fourth to To Site Total No. Interstate Second Fourth Name Third Route Fifth Route Entrance Miles Highway Route Route

1 H 0.6 12 14.4 5 0.5 32.5

2 I 0.6 8 5 3 1 3.2 20.8

3 J 0.6 3.5 4 8 4 1 21.1

4 K 0.6 17 3.5 3 1.5 25.6

5 L 0.6 12 2 1 1 2.3 18.9

6 M 0.6 6 13 12 4.8 36.4

7 N 0.6 13 1 1 2 17.6

Point Assignment; Proximity of H-POWER to Site

Total No. Site Name Point Value Miles 7 N 11.9 3 5 L 18.9 2 2 I 20.8 2 3 J 21.1 2 4 K 25.6 2 1 H 32.5 1 6 M 36.4 1

MACLSS Mtg. No. 4 March 31, 2011 Page 4

RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At 92-1700 KUNIA RD, , HI

Owner Information: Bldg Card: 000 of 199 Owner Name: Mailing Address: 92-1700 KUNIA RD, HI Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-005-002-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-005 / 19-2-005 Legal Lot: Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: $1,597,500,000 / Recording/Sale Date: 12/10/2008 / 12/10/2008 1st Mtg Amount/Type: CONV Sale Price: $32,200,000 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: 185857 $1,597,500,000 / Document #: 185856 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: CONV Deed Type: LIMITED WARRANTY DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 930575 Price Per SqFt: $105.33 New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: MULTI Title Company: TITLE GUARANTY & ESCROW SVCS Lender: US BK NATIONAL ASSN Seller Name: JAMES CAMPBELL CO LLC Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: $45,033,088 Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: 198463 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: DEED (REG) Property Characteristics: Year Built / Eff: 1948 / Total Rooms/Offices: 624 Garage Area: Gross Area: 305,701 Total Restrooms: 133.00 Garage Capacity: Building Area: 305,701 Roof Type: HIP Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: 191,858 Roof Material: SHINGLE Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: 1.00 Foundation: PIER Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: WOOD Quality: Basement Area: Condition: GOOD Site Information: INDUSTRIAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 2,515.05 County Use: (400) INDUSTRIAL Flood Zone: Lot Area: 109,555,465 State Use: (400) Flood Panel: Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: Commercial Units: Sewer Type: INDUSTRIAL Land Use: Building Class: 112 Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $70,799,800 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: Land Value: $60,275,300 Improved %: 15% Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: $10,524,500 Tax Year: Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value:

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At KUNIA, , HI

Owner Information: Owner Name: MONSANTO COMPANY/OAHU SUGAR CO LTD Mailing Address: 800 N LINDBERGH BLVD, SAINT LOUIS MO 63141-7843 C014 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / CO Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-004-009-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-004 / 19-2-004 Legal Lot: 12007 Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 07/18/2007 / 07/18/2007 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $31,258,200 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 3630147 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: / Deed Type: LIMITED WARRANTY DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 868100 Price Per SqFt: New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: MULTI Title Company: TITLE GUARANTY & ESCROW SVCS Lender: Seller Name: JAMES CAMPBELL CO LLC Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: $45,033,088 Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: 198463 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: DEED (REG) Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 437.15 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: D Lot Area: 19,042,254 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: 1500010220E Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: 11/20/2000 Commercial Units: Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $137,000 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: $780.90 Land Value: $137,000 Improved %: Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: Tax Year: 2010 Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value: $137,000

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At KUNIA, , HI

Owner Information: Owner Name: SYNGENTA HAWAII LLC Mailing Address: 11055 WAYZATA BLVD, HOPKINS MN 55305-1526 C071 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-004-006-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-004 / 19-2-004 Legal Lot: Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $45,033,088 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 198463 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: / Deed Type: DEED (REG) 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 830900 Price Per SqFt: New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: MULTI Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: OWNER RECORD Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 724.89 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: D Lot Area: 31,576,339 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: 1500010220E Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: 11/20/2000 Commercial Units: Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $1,359,000 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: $7,746.30 Land Value: $1,356,300 Improved %: Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: $2,700 Tax Year: 2010 Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value: $1,359,000

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At FARRINGTON, KAPOLEI, HI 96707

Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: FARRINGTON, KAPOLEI HI 96707 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-004-005-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-004 / 19-2-004 Legal Lot: Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $45,033,088 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 198463 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: / Deed Type: DEED (REG) 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 830900 Price Per SqFt: New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: MULTI Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: OWNER RECORD Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 11/20/1992 / 03/12/1992 Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: 1972493 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: DEED (REG) Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 947.54 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: Lot Area: 41,274,799 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: Commercial Units: Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $10,021,800 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: Land Value: $10,021,800 Improved %: Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: Tax Year: Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value:

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At FARRINGTON, KAPOLEI, HI 96707

Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: FARRINGTON, KAPOLEI HI 96707 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-004-001-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-004 / 19-2-004 Legal Lot: Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 01/23/2008 / 01/23/2008 1st Mtg Amount/Type: $3,594,000 / CONV Sale Price: $9,200,000 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: 3704221 Document #: 3704219 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: $899,000 / CONV Deed Type: LIMITED WARRANTY DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / ADJ Transfer Document #: 892761 Price Per SqFt: New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: Title Company: TITLE GUARANTY & ESCROW SVCS Lender: BRIDGEVIEW CAP SOLUTIONS LLC Seller Name: JAMES CAMPBELL CO LLC Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: $45,033,088 Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: 198463 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: DEED (REG) Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 437.09 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: Lot Area: 19,039,728 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: Commercial Units: Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $470,300 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: Land Value: $470,300 Improved %: Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: Tax Year: Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value:

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At 94-400 KUNIA RD, , HI

Owner Information: Bldg Card: 000 of 009 Owner Name: MONSANTO COMPANY/SYNGENTA HAWAII LLC Mailing Address: 11055 WAYZATA BLVD, HOPKINS MN 55305-1526 C071 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-001-001-0000 Census Tract / Block: / Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-001 / 19-2-001 Legal Lot: Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: ASSUMPTION OF Recording/Sale Date: 07/11/2008 / 06/05/2008 Deed Type: LEASE Sale Price: $1,000 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 3768838 Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 10/31/2006 / 10/27/2006 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $45,033,088 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 198463 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: / Deed Type: DEED (REG) 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 830900 Price Per SqFt: $2,692.72 New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: MULTIPLE Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: OWNER RECORD Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 04/10/2002 / 03/06/2002 Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: 2794497 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: CONVEYANCE DEED Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: 1998 / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: 16,724 Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: 16,724 Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: 16,724 Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: AVERAGE Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 1,829.12 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: Lot Area: 79,676,337 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: Commercial Units: 1 Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: 342 Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $1,562,700 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: $8,907.39 Land Value: $493,800 Improved %: 68% Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: $1,068,900 Tax Year: 2010 Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value: $1,562,700

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011 RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1

Property Detail Report For Property Located At KUNIA, , HI

Owner Information: Owner Name: SYNGENTA HAWAII LLC Mailing Address: 11055 WAYZATA BLVD, HOPKINS MN 55305-1526 C071 Phone Number: Vesting Codes: / / Location Information: Legal Description: County: HONOLULU, HI APN: 1-9-2-004-008-0000 Census Tract / Block: 86.03 / 2 Alternate APN: Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 19-2-004 / 19-2-004 Legal Lot: 12006 Tract #: Legal Block: School District: 1500030 Market Area: MAKAKILO Munic/Township: OAHU Neighbor Code: AA3 Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type: Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 07/14/2006 / 07/05/2006 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $4,000,000 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Sale Type: 1st Mtg Document #: Document #: 3452985 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: / Deed Type: LIMITED WARRANTY DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: / Transfer Document #: 813556 Price Per SqFt: New Construction: Multi/Split Sale: Title Company: TITLE GUARANTY & ESCROW SVCS Lender: Seller Name: CAMPBELL JAMES Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Lender: Prior Sale Price: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: Total Year Built / Eff: / Garage Area: Rooms/Offices: Garage Gross Area: Total Restrooms: Capacity: Building Area: Roof Type: Parking Spaces: Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type: Above Grade: Construction: Air Cond: # of Stories: Foundation: Pool: Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: Basement Area: Condition: Site Information: AGRICULTURAL Zoning: A/51/50 Acres: 1,275.96 County Use: (500) AGRICULTURAL Flood Zone: D Lot Area: 55,580,643 State Use: (500) Flood Panel: 1500010220E Lot Width/Depth: x Site Influence: Flood Panel Date: 11/20/2000 Commercial Units: Sewer Type: AGRICULTURAL Land Use: Building Class: Water Type: (NEC) Tax Information: Total Value: $778,300 Assessed Year: 2010 Property Tax: $4,436.31 Land Value: $778,300 Improved %: Tax Area: 1 Improvement Value: Tax Year: 2010 Tax Exemption: Total Taxable Value: $778,300

http://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordn... 5/12/2011

Meeting No. 6 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection July 19, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAW AII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM MEETING NO. 6 TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To report on progress made in completing the criteria data sheets; the Committee’s assignment of weighting to their criteria; and discussing the Committee’s next meeting.

Outcomes: Obtaining the Committee’s weighting for the criteria; and preparation for August workshop.

2. Review of Meeting No. 5

3. Public Comments

4. Data Sheets

5. Committee’s Weighting of the Criteria

6. Committee’s Next Meeting (August Workshop), Thank You and Adjournment Meeting No. 6 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

July 19, 2011

Attendance: Committee Members Present: David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Tesha Malama, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West, Janice Masters Committee Members Absent: Joe Lapilio Consultants: Brian Takeda, Mark White, Jim Dannemiller Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts

Agenda: Welcome and Introduction Review of Mtg. No. 5 Public Comment Data Sheets Committee’s Weighting of Criteria Committee’s next Meeting (August Workshop) Thank You and Adjournment

The meeting was held in the Mayor’s Conference Room, Honolulu Hale, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the agenda.

The Facilitator then reviewed the meeting minutes of the previous meeting clarifying the additions made to the criteria at that meeting.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

Next the consultants conducted a brief walk through of the final landfill criteria.

Three changes were made to the criteria based on this review:

1. Distance was added as a factor to #7 Wind Direction

2. In #12 Precipitation; a 25 year event with a 24 hour duration was changed to a 100 year event with a 24 hour duration

3. A review of HRS, Chapter 205 was to be added to #20 for Agricultural Lands

The consultants next gave a review of the response received from the Board of Water Supply. A handout was supplied to the Committee explaining the response.

Meeting No. 6 Group Memory Page 1 of 2 Consultants Homework:

The Committee asked the consultants to include those sites that are above or which crosses the no-pass line and UIC line in their analysis of sites. These sites would then be ranked with the others and a notation would be added that they are not consistent with the City’s policy of not siting landfills above the no pass or UIC line to protect the drinking water sources for the island.

In addition, the Committee asked the consultants to review the Board of Water Supply capture zone maps and identify if there were any 100 acre or larger parcels that could be included on the list of potential landfill sites, even if the sites were above the UIC and No Pass Line.

Lastly the Committee asked the consultants to determine if it is the UIC or No Pass Line that was referenced in the City Council’s resolution.

Finally, the Facilitator asked each of the Committee members to share their thoughts on which criteria would be most important to themselves and their communities. Below is a summary of each Committee members most important criteria to themselves and their community:

The following were identified as important by one or more committee members:

--Location relative to identified disamenities --Location relative to H-POWER --Effect of precipitation on landfill operations --Landfill development operation and closure costs --Displacement costs --Precipitation --Ground water contamination --Design issues --Access issues --Proximity to other land uses (residences, institutions etc.) --Traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods --Infrastructure availability --“Those criteria impacting people that live here 365 days a year” --Feasibility and cost issues --Infrastructure, engineering and sustainability issues --Wind direction issues related to closeness to other activities --Impact on agricultural lands The weighting of the criteria was postponed to the following meeting because of the additional homework that the Committee assigned to the consultants. In addition, the Committee agreed that there might be need for an additional meeting based on the answers/results that the consultants discover from their homework assignments. A tentative additional meeting was set for August 16 from 9 to 12.

The meeting came to a close with a reminder of the date, time and place for the next meeting which is tentatively set for August 16th at 9 AM in the Mayor’s Conference Room.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30PM.

Meeting No. 6 Group Memory Page 2 of 2 Materials for Committee Members

Mayor’s Community Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu

July 19, 2011

1. Draft Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheets

2. BWS Response to Dept. of Environmental Services

3. Project Meeting with Board of Water Supply

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #1, Landfill Capacity Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: The landfill capacity is the volume in cubic yards of MSW that can be placed in the site. The total volume available at the site is reduced for the soil and other materials needed for the liner, leachate and gas controls, and for daily, intermediate and final cover. The area needed for landfill support facilities and for solid‐waste related activities, if any, is also subtracted from the area available to estimate the total volume.

b. Other Definitions: The available volume is converted to tons of MSW and H– POWER ash using the compacting factors that are being achieved at the WGSL.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The minimum capacity in years (15 years) was determined by the MACLSS with input from ENV. Fifteen years was felt to be the minimum life needed to justify the cost of acquiring, permitting, and constructing the new landfill. A site with a longer time it can be used was preferred.

D. Measurement Method: The measurement is the estimated number of years the landfill can be used at the expected fill rate.

The site with the greatest number of years of capacity has the highest Point Value. Capacity in years is listed in order from 15 and transformed to deciles with 1 indicating the least number of years of use and 10 the greatest number of years of use.

E. Data Sources: The City’s TMK information and the City’s GIS system.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations:

Site Name Page 1

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #2, Location Relative to Educational Institutions, Health Care Facilities, or Parks and Recreation Facilities

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Educational institutions include any school for children up to age 18, public or private, academic or vocational, public and private colleges and universities. They exclude commercial training institutions for adults, included in criterion 5. Health care facilities include medical and dental health centers or offices, hospitals (general, specialized, rehab), skilled nursing facilities, and clinics (except school clinics), and day care, elderly day care, or outpatient surgery centers. Public recreational facilities include national, state, and county parks, sports facilities, playgrounds (except school playgrounds), zoos, and community meeting centers.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The closer a potential site is to the facilities subject to this criterion the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion penalizes potential sites located close to such facilities

D. Measurement Method: Distance from the nearest landfill site boundary to the nearest boundary of an educational institution, health care facility, or park or recreational facility.

The site with the greatest distance from educational institutions, health care facilities, or parks and recreation facilities has the highest Point Value.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 2

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #3, Location Relative to Residential Concentrations

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: A residential concentration is defined as one or more residential housing units.

b. Other Definitions: This criterion does not include visitor accommodations covered in criterion 5, which considers local or visitor commercial facilities.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The closer a potential site is to concentrations of residential development the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion penalizes potential landfill sites located close to residential concentrations.

D. Measurement Method: Distance from the nearest landfill site boundary to the nearest boundary of a residential concentration. The distance is measured directly as the shortest route from the landfill to the residential concentrationand not indirectly from surface roads

The site with the greatest distance from residential concentrations has the highest Point Value.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 3

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #4, Location Relative to Visitor Accommodations

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Visitor accommodations include hotels, motels, vacation condominium units, time‐share units, and hostels.

b. Other Definitions: Bed and breakfast and temporary visitor rentals are covered in criterion 4, which addresses residential units.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The closer a potential site is to visitor accommodations the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion penalizes potential sites located close to visitor accommodations.

D. Measurement Method: Distance from the nearest landfill site boundary to the nearest boundary of a visitor accommodations. The distance is measured directly as the shortest routefrom the landfill to the visitor accommodations and not indirectly from surface roads. The site with the greatest distance from visitor accommodations concentrations has the highest Point Value.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 4

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #5, Location Relative to Local or Visitor Commercial Facilities

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Commercial facilities include stores, shopping centers, and office buildings. Local and visitor facilities include visitor centers, major attractions (public and private), and museums.

b. Other Definitions: Medical office buildings are included in criterion 2.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The closer a potential site is to visitor and commercial facilities the less desirable that site is because of the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion penalizes potential sites located close to visitor commercial facilities.

D. Measurement Method: Distance from the nearest landfill site boundary to the nearest boundary of a visitor or commercial facility. The distance is measured directly as the shortest route from the landfill to the visitor or commercial facility, and not indirectly along from surface roads.

The site with the greatest distance from visitor or commercial facility has the highest Point Value.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 5

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #6, Effect on Established Public View Planes

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: A view plane is the unobstructed view from an offsite location to the operating area of a landfill site. View planes have been established by the City and County for many areas, and those determinations will be used for this criterion.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand. (maybe we don’t or should’nt state it this way).

C. Rationale for this Criterion: Visual impact is one of the common impacts of a landfill if the operating area cannot be hidden by a ridge or vegetation. This criterion will provide a measure of the visual impact.

D. Measurement Method: From the criterion list, add details as needed. a. Evaluate City‐defined scenic viewplanes and applicability to the site. b. Evaluate “visibility” or level of exposure of the site to public access roads. This would be a qualitative assessment of the site by the observer, e.g., suggest the visibility be measured by quarters, for example “50 percent of the site can be observed from along X road.”

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 6

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #7, Wind Direction Relative to Landfill Site

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: The prevailing wind direction and velocity measured by data available for a location near each landfill relative to the location of residential concentrations, visitor accommodation facilities, and commercial land uses.

b. Other Definitions:

C. Rationale for this Criterion: This criterion measures the effects of wind on the transmittal of dust, litter, and odor from a landfill to a receptor.

D. Measurement Method: The wind speed and direction are combined into a single measure that is compared to the measures for the other landfill sites. The range of measurements are transformed into deciles where 1 is the least appropriate prevailing wind pattern and 10 is the most appropriate wind pattern for all sites.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 7

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #8, Effect on Local Roads and Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: A landfill will generate additional local traffic, the majority of which will be heavy trucks. This criterion measures the impact of adding the trucks to the roads that provides direct access to the landfill site.

b. Other Definitions: The measure will reflect both the increased traffic and the length of a roadway passing through a residential neighborhood.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The added landfill traffic to a residential area can be a difficult impact to mitigate. This criterion measures the impact of additional traffic in a residential area. The cost of upgrading the roadway as a mitigation is measured by criterion 9.

D. Measurement Method: Measure the estimated distance that must be traveled through residential neighborhoods from the point at which refuse trucks leave state numbered roadways. That distance will be weighted by the number residential parcels along those roads.

The calculation of distance and number of residences is adjusted by the change in traffic congestion caused by landfill‐related traffic.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 8

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #9, Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways Caused by Landfill Related traffic

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion measures the estimated cost of upgrading affected roadways serving each site to a standard suitable for usage by landfill‐ associated traffic.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The primary mitigation for the additional landfill traffic is to upgrade the roadway to handle the traffic. This criterion is a measure of the additional cost to upgrade roadways and will penalize a site located on a residential roadway as contrasted with one located on a roadway constructed to accommodate heavy trucks.

D. Measurement Method: Calculate the cost of upgrading in current dollars. Include construction and maintenance costs for 15 years. Values are expressed as the average cost per mile. Estimates of the required level of change will be based on current roadway type (e.g., some roadways are designed for heavy truck traffic and others for residential traffic).

The range of costs for all sites is transform deciles where 1 is the highest cost and 10 is the lowest cost.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations:

Site Name Page 9

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #10, Location Relative to Identified Community Disamenities

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Community disamenities include wastewater treatment plants, slaughterhouses, other landfill sites, public housing, correctional facilities, operating quarry sites, and power plants.

b. Other Definitions: The ahupua‘a maps available from Bishop Museum (circa 1850) are used to describe the areas within which the number of disamenities will be counted.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The MACLSS wanted to avoid locating a landfill in an area that already has community disamenities. This criterion is to measure the number of community disamenities already existing in an area

D. Measurement Method: Count the number of community disamenities within ahupua‘a containing a landfill site. Transform the range into deciles where 1 is the highest number of disamenities existing in a landfill area and 10 is the lowest number of disamenities (including zero) within a landfill area. E. F. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

G. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

H. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 10

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #11, Location Relative to H‐POWER

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion is the measure of the distance along suitable truck accessible roadways from the H‐POWER facility to the landfill site.

b. Other Definitions:

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The H‐POWER contract has cost adjustments for distances greater than 12 miles. This criterion measures the additional cost of a site if it is more distant from H–POWER.

D. Measurement Method: Measure the distance in miles along suitable truck accessible roadways from the H‐POWER facility to each landfill site. Transform the range into deciles where 1 is the greatest distance and 10 is the shortest distance.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 11

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #12, Effect of Precipitation on Landfill Operations

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Precipitation is the predicted amount of rainfall at the landfill site.

b. Other Definitions: The 24‐hour duration and the 25‐year average recurrence interval are used to select the rainfall data to be used. These duration and recurrence intervals are the State landfill design and operating requirements.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: Precipitation impacts landfill operations because it affects earthmoving machinery, generates leachate, and contributes to difficulty managing discharge from the site. Peak events will exacerbate the potential impacts to landfill operations.

D. Measurement Method: Transform the range of predicted rainfall into deciles where 1 is the greatest rainfall and 10 is the least rainfall.

E. Data Sources: Data for the nearest rainfall measuring station for which data is reported to the National Weather Service. The data used is the average recurrence interval and duration.

F. Complications getting the data: Some sites have no weather station nearby, so the data may not reflect the conditions at all sites equally well.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 12

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #13, Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost

Site Name

A. Point Value: B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion is an estimate the cost of landfill operations in 2021 (the first year of operation). The net present value of the cost of acquisition, development, and closure over the number of years the landfill will be in operation is added to get a total estimated annual cost

b. Other Definitions: In addition to cost to purchase the land, costs will include storm water control and treatment, drainage facilities to handle peak rain events, soil suitability for daily cover; and cost to purchase the land.

This criterion does not include costs for off‐site road improvements and upgrading local roads (criterion 9), transportation from H‐POWER for distances greater than 12 miles (criterion 11), or business displacement cost (criterion 14).

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The cost of a new landfill is an important consideration. Site‐specific factors can make the cost of one site significantly different than another. This criterion measures that difference. D. Measurement Method: The net present value of annualized cost of acquisition, development, operation, and closure over the number of years the site` will be active is calculated. The costs for all the sites are transformed into deciles where 1 is the highest estimated annual cost and 10 is the lowest estimated annual cost. E. Data Sources: Cost of acquisition — The property value as listed on the City & County Department of Planning & Permitting property database. Unit costs for landfill construction — Local costs for similar construction. Landfill equipment — Assumed to be purchased new. F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any. G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any. Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 13

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #14, Displacement Cost

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion is an estimate of the loss of jobs, employment income, and taxes due to lost direct, indirect, and induced economic activity .

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: if a site has an existing business operating on it, the benefits from that activity will be lost if a new landfill is established there. This criterion is to measures the economic value of the lost activity.

D. Measurement Method: Calculate the net present value of estimated lost income and taxes in 2011 dollars. Transform the range into deciles where 1 is the highest estimated displacement cost and 10 is the lowest estimated displacement cost.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 14

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #15, Potential for Solid Waste‐Related Land Uses

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion measures acres of land within the site to accommodate businesses that would benefit from operating close to the landfill (e.g., metal and other material recyclers).

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: If a site has adequate space for solid waste related activities it can be more cost effective for such activities to co‐locate with the landfill. This criterion identifies whether a site has space that could be used for other activities and is not needed for landfill‐related activities.

D. Measurement Method: Estimated the acres of developable land not suited for landfill. Transform the range of acres into deciles where 1 is the least acreage available for solid waste related uses and 10 is the greatest acreage available

E. Data Sources: The topographic map of the site and the preliminary landfill layout.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 15

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #16, Location Relative to Wetlands and Natural Area Reserve System Land

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion measures the distance from the nearest landfill boundary to the nearest boundary of a parcel classified as containing a wetland(s) or is designated as part of the Natural Area Reserve System (NARS) by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: A better landfill site will not be located close to a wetlands or a NARS.

D. Measurement Method: This criterion measures the number of miles along a point‐to‐ point aerial path from the wetlands or NARS site to the potential landfill site. The range of measurements is transformed into deciles where 1 is the shortest distance from the nearest wetlands/NARS and 10 is the greatest distance to the nearest wetlands/NARS.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 16

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #17, Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: : This criterion measures the distance from the nearest landfill boundary to the nearest boundary of a parcel classified as a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: A better landfill site will not be located close to a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals.

D. Measurement Method: This criterion measures the number of miles along a point‐to‐ point aerial path from a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals to the site. The range of measurements is transformed into deciles where 1 is the shortest distance from the nearest a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals and 10 is the greatest distance.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 17

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #18, Surface Water Resources

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion measures the potential to discharge untreated storm water from the landfill to identified perennial or intermittent streams classified as important streams or into class AA marine waters.

b. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: Avoiding a discharge to streams and to the ocean is important. This criterion measures if a landfill site has the potential for such a discharge.

D. Measurement Method: This criterion is a binary measure; 1 or 10. A 1 is assigned to a site with any potential to discharge untreated storm water runoff into perennial or intermittent streams or to class AA marine waters; a 10 is assigned if there is no potential discharge into streams or AA waters.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 18

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #19, Archaeological and Culturally Significant Resources

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: Archaeological and cultural resources include all sites listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places or are identified as a culturally significant site by the DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD).

a. Other Definitions: Definitions of terms used in the criterion definition that may be difficult for some reads to understand.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: A better landfill site will not be located close to archaeological and cultural resources.

D. Measurement Method: This criterion measures the number of miles along a point‐to‐ point aerial path from the archaeological and cultural resources to the site. The range of measurements is transformed into deciles where 1 is the shortest distance from the nearest the archaeological and cultural resources; and 10 is the greatest distance. E. F. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

G. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

H. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 19

Landfill Criterion Evaluation Work Sheet

Criterion #20, Quality of Agricultural Lands

Site Name

A. Point Value:

B. Definitions: a. Criterion Definition: This criterion measures the suitability of the soils at the site for agricultural uses. Points are assigned if at least 80 percent of the site is classified as ALISH prime, unique, and other agricultural land.

b. Other Definitions: The value of agricultural lands will be identified using the ALISH classification system.

C. Rationale for this Criterion: The MACLSS wanted to avoid using prime agricultural lands or ALISH prime lands as the landfill site. This criterion evaluates the quality of agricultural lands, if any, at the landfill site.

D. Measurement Method: Points are assigned to each land type. One point is assigned for prime agricultural land; five for unique agricultural land, and 10 for all other land.

E. Data Sources: Sources used, measurements taken, etc.

F. Complications getting the data: Describe, if any.

G. Complications in calculating the Point Value: Describe, if any.

Calculations: Note:

Site Name Page 20

BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY PETER B. CARLISLE,MAYOR

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU RANDALLY. S. CHUNG, Chairman 630 SOUTH BERETANIASTREET DENISE M. C. DE COSTA ANTHONYR. GUERRERO, JR. HONOL’ ‘L’I HI 9684 THERESIA C. McMURDO ADAMC. WONG May 20, 2011 WESTLEY K.C. CHUN, Ex-Officio GLENN M. OKIMOTO,Ex-Officio

WAYNEM. HASHIRO,P.E. Manager and Chief Engineer

DEANA. NAKANO Deputy Manager

TO: TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES

FROM: DEAN A. NAKANO,ACTING MANAGER

SUBJECT: YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 29, 2011, REGARDING THE MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILLSITE SELECTION

Thank you for your request for information and policy on groundwater protection from landfills. We provide the following response:

1. Whether the Board considers the Groundwater Protection Zone to have been superseded by the No Pass Zones.

No. The No Pass Zones were established through the authority of the Board of Water Supply (BWS) Rules and Regulations, Chapter Ill, Water Resource Protection, Development and Conservation. BWS Rules and Regulations have the force and effect of law and the applicable section follows:

Sec. 3-301 Waste Disposal Facilities

1. Allplans proposing the following waste disposal facilities must have the written approval of the Manager:

a. Sewage disposal systems.

(1) Cesspools.

(2) Septic tank systems.

(3) Individual household aerobic treatment units.

b. Disposal wells.

C. Sanitary landfills.

fler for Life ... Ka Wai Ola Mr. Timothy E. Steinberger May 20, 2011 Page 2

d. Refuse disposal dumps.

e. Sewage treatment plants.

f. Stabilization ponds.

g. Any other wastewater disposal facilities.

2. The Department may establish “NoPass Zones” which shall be delineated on “NoPass Zone” maps. These maps shall be used as guidelines in implementing this Section.

3. The Manager may at his discretion, withhold his approval, if there is any basis to expect that the operation of the proposed waste disposal facility and any wastewater therefrom may to any degree affect the quality and/or quantity of water resources used or expected to be used for domestic water.

4. If the Manager disapproves a proposal, he shall inform the applicant in writing of the facts and reasons upon which his disapproval is based and afford the applicant an opportunity for an informal appeal hearing. Any applicant who is aggrieved by the Manager’s decision and desires reconsideration of such decision shall petition the Manager in writing within 30 days from the date of receiving such decision. The applicant should base his request for reconsideration on pertinent technical data, including boring logs, which indicate that the proposed waste disposal facility in the “No Pass Zone” would not contaminate groundwater resources used or expected to be used for domestic water supplies. If after the hearing, the request for reconsideration is disapproved by the Manager, the applicant may appeal the decision to the Board, which shall have the power to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Manager so appealed from. Such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the final decision of the Manager.

[Eff 5/10/76; am, renum and comp BWS Res. No. 427, 1976; am and renum BWS Res. No. 502, 1982] Mr. Timothy E. Steinberger May 20, 2011 Page 3

We understand the State Department of Health (DOH) established the Underground Injection Control Line for the regulation of injection wells to protect groundwater aquifers, Chapter 11-23, Hawaii Administrative Rules. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) and No-Pass Zone lines are similar in location and intent, with some differences in coverage and applicability. The No Pass Zone applies to all waste disposal facilities while the UIC line applies to injection wells. The BWS has no formal term called a Groundwater Protection Zone.

In 1988, BWS and DOH agreed that DOH would regulate sewage disposal systems into the ground (referencing Section 3-301.1.a, BWS Rules and Regulations), thereby reducing the regulatory duplication. All individual wastewater systems are now reviewed and approved by DOH. When applicable, DOH requests review and comments from BWS, especially when existing or proposed BWS sources could be impacted.

2. Can Geographical Information System (GIS) NAD 83 datum file information be provided to better designate the location of the No Pass Zone.

We are providing a GIS data file of the No Pass Zone; however, please note that the GIS file was digitized from a hand-drafted map created by our Hydrology- Geology Section in the 1970s. The No Pass Zone was derived from the review of soil maps and borings that define the areas of thick caprock around the island. The caprock aquifer is generally brackish nonpotable water and its geologic formation consists of coral and sediments formed when sea levels were much higher than today. The caprock formation sits above the underlying basalt with poorly permeable interfacial boundaries that prevent contaminants from percolating through to the basalt. The No Pass Zone lines are guidelines for the protection of groundwater resources; and therefore, when waste disposal systems are proposed near the boundary line, soil borings are recommended to verify the thickness of the cap rock formation.

3. Request for GIS data files regarding the Oahu Inactive Landfills, Relative Risk Evaluation, December 2006.

Our consultant, URS Corporation, may have the GIS data files for the Oahu Inactive Landfills that you reference. However, please note that the locations of the closed landfills and dumps are approximate and were based on handwritten maps in a DOH folder file. Many of the older closed landfills sites were Mr. Timothy E. Steinberger May20, 2011 Page 4

subsequently redeveloped or have been covered over with little or no trace. See the report’s statement of limitations for the specific explanation.

4. Request for policy guidance to the Mayor’s Committee on Landfill Site Selection with regards to the importance of protecting Oahu’s groundwater resources.

In 2004, the DOH completed their Hawaii Source Water Assessment Program Report (SWAP), which evaluated public water systems in the State. The SWAP report established capture zone delineations through groundwater modeling, around each drinking water source where contaminants may travel to the drinking water supply. The report also inventoried land use activities that may lead to the release of microbiological or chemical contaminants within the delineated areas and evaluated their susceptibility to become contaminated from potential contaminating activities.

We enclose excerpts from the SWAP report including a description of the capture zones, report limitations and a map of Oahu showing the 2-year and 10-year travel time zones that contribute groundwater to each source well. Please note that the map was generated in 2004 and does not include our new sources such as the Ewa Shaft and Kunia Wells Ill in the Kunia area. DOH and the University of Hawaii are currently modeling the new sources with their respective capture zone delineations. Although our new sources are not yet included on the map, it shows areas in the No Pass Zone that are outside of the source water capture zone delineations and may provide guidance to the committee on the location of proposed landfills that may have the potential for contaminating our sources should contaminants leach into the underlying groundwater. Due to security reasons however, this report and maps should not be publicly distributed.

Ifyou have any questions, please contact Barry Usagawa at 748-5900.

Enclosures Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Project Meeting with Board of Water Supply City and County of Honolulu

July 12, 2011

Attendance: Barry Usagawa (Water Resources Division Program Administrator), Glenn Oyama (Hydrogeologist), Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS); Steve Serikaku, Department of Environmental Services; Brian Takeda, R. M. Towill Corporation Purpose of Meeting: Discuss Selected Alternative Landfill Sites with BWS to Assess Potential for Water Resources Issues Summary: 1. A meeting was held with the Honolulu BWS to discuss selected alternative landfill sites for possible water resource issues that would make the selection of the sites difficult/unlikely. This evaluation is similar to a prior discussion held with the BWS in the 2002/2003 timeframe pursuant to the filing of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill Expansion. 2. Six landfill sites were discussed with the BWS and included: (a) Ohikilolo; (b) Wai‘anae Expansion; (c) Nānākuli A; (d) Nānākuli B; (e) Ka‘a‘awa; and (f) He‘eia Uka. A summary of the comments included the following: (a) Ohikilolo – There is an existing well (Mākaha 6) that is located far enough away and upgradient from the site that no adverse effects regarding impacts to water supply are expected. (b) Wai‘anae Expansion – There are two wells located downgradient of the site that can be affected (Kamaile Wells). The location of the wells relative to the proposed landfill site is within the 2 year well capture zone making this site unsuited for a landfill. (c) Nānākuli A and B – There are no BWS wells presently in use in this area. Because the surrounding aquifer possesses a thin freshwater lens the potential for the development of a new potable source is unlikely, although, non-potable wells could be developed (not planned by BWS). It was noted that there are well resources in the area including the Lualualei Shaft (closed) and other locations mauka of the site. (d) Ka‘a‘awa – The Ka‘a‘awa Shaft is located north of this site. The drawdown from this resource is relatively low at approximately 30,000 gallons per day (gpd). This resource could be negatively affected by a proposed landfill. (e) He‘eia Uka – The Ioleka‘a Well is located within the general area of this potential site. However, the site is known to be actively utilized as an ahupua‘a resource incorporating a taro lo‘i and fishponds downgradient of the He‘eia Uka site. 3. The review of the information furnished by BWS was found to be similar and consistent with prior information collected in the 2002/2003 timeframe for a landfill Environmental Impact Statement. List of Sites Discussed with BWS Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu July 17, 2011

Sites Site Name BWS Evaluation Notes From 2002/2003 Failing Review Very little to no groundwater resources. Within a rock complex. BWS does not consider Auloa feasible for use. Ameron Quarry Dike type rocks associated with caldera complex. Very little groundwater resources. No potable resources. Non-potable irrigation developed. BWS does not consider feasible Bellows for use. Hālawa A Site within BWS groundwater resource. X Hālawa B Site within BWS groundwater resource. X He‘eia Uka Site outside BWS designed groundwater resource zone. Site just outside BWS designated groundwater resources zone, but within area Honouliuli X considered subject to groundwater impact. Ka‘a‘awa Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Kahe BWS plans to use site for future desalination facility. X Kalāheo (LF reuse) Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Kaloi Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Kapa‘a No. 1 Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Kaukonahua Site within BWS groundwater resource. X Koko Crater Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Kunia A Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Kunia B Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Mā‘ili Quarry Brackish groundwater present but BWS does not consider feasible for use. Makaiwa Gulch No potable resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Makakilo Quarry Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Makua Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Mililani Site within BWS groundwater resource. X Nānākuli A Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Nānākuli B Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Only half of site available for development where there is very little to no groundwater Ohikilolo resources in the lower half of property. BWS does not consider feasible for use. Poamoho Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Punalu‘u Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Waiahole Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Wai‘anae Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Expansion Waihe‘e Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Waikane Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Waimānalo Gulch Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for potable use. Expansion Waimānalo North Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for potable use. Waimānalo South Groundwater resources present or nearby. X Waipi‘o Very little to no groundwater resources. BWS does not consider feasible for potable use. *Sites in bold text indicate priority sites for discussion with BWS.

Meeting No. 7 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection November 8, 2011

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM MEETING NO. 7 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To report on progress made in evaluating the potential for siting a landfill within the State’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) and No Pass Zone; and discussing the Committee’s next steps.

Outcomes: Obtaining the Committee’s concurrence for the next steps in completing its charge to the Mayor.

2. Review of Meeting No. 6

3. Public Comments

4. Updates:

(A) Meetings with Board of Water Supply (BWS), Department of Health (DOH), and State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)

(B) GIS assessment of lands within the UIC/No Pass Zone for the siting of a municipal sanitary landfill.

5. Discussion on next steps and timing

6. Discussion and finalization of the outline for the final report

7. Summary of discussion, Committee’s Next Meeting, Thank You and Adjournment

Meeting No. 7 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

November 8, 2011

Attendance:

Committee Members Present: David Arakawa, Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Tesha Malama, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss, George West, Janice Masters Committee Members Absent: None ENV: Steven Serikaku, Markus Owens, Suzanne Jones, Consultants: Brian Takeda, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts Public Attendees: Wayne Yoshioka, Gary Kubota, Shannon Wood, Nick Wong, Bruce Lamon, Lisa Munger, Reed Matsuura, Jill Kuramoto, Cynthia Rezentes, Wray Kondo

Agenda:

Welcome and Introduction Review of Mtg. No. 6 Public Comments Updates Discussion on next steps and timing Discussion and finalization of the outline for the final report Summary of Discussion, Committee’s Next Meeting Thank You and Adjournment

The meeting was held in the Mayor’s Conference Room, Honolulu Hale, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the agenda.

The Facilitator then reviewed the meeting minutes of Meeting No. 6. The Facilitator noted that since the last meeting the consultant has received unsolicited materials regarding information on water quality for closed windward landfill sites and an analysis of the Ko Olina Resort on the economy. Both reports were forwarded to ENV for its consideration.

The Committee next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance. There were no comments.

The consultants next provided a brief presentation on the results of the GIS research requested by the Committee to ascertain if there were potential landfill sites within the UIC and No Pass line

Meeting No. 7 Group Memory Page 1 of 3

based on the application of some of the criteria the Committee had previously developed. The criteria or factors considered included:

• State Land Use Districts (Conservation, Agricultural, and Urban; there are no Rural Districts on O‘ahu); • Groundwater Resources (Board of Water Supply and Others); • Land Ownership (Federal, State, City, and Private); • U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitats; • State Natural Area Reserve System (NARS); • Impaired Water Bodies (per Department of Health and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency); • Agricultural Land Ratings (Land Study Bureau (LSB) and Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawai‘i (ALISH)); and, • Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) Well Data.

The exclusionary criteria protecting airports and airfields with a 10,000 linear foot buffer were also applied. The PowerPoint® presentation provided to the Committee is posted on the City’s ENV website.

After the application of the criteria or factors, two sites emerged. The first site is owned by the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and is the Kahe Point Power Generating Station. The second site is shown as owned by the James Campbell Trust Estate and part of a much larger parcel that has already obtained its development entitlements for the Makaiwa Hills subdivision. In addition, the site was found to border the USFWS designated critical habitat of the Isodendrion pyrifolium (critically imperiled Hawaiian shrub). The consultant noted that both sites should be considered as “non-sites” due to either existing or pending land uses.

Consultant Homework:

After discussion of the results the Committee asked the consultants to undertake another review of the sites for the following land areas:

• Parcels that are 90 acres or more but less than 100 acres in size1; • Land that is owned by the State of Hawai‘i, including agricultural district land, conservation district land, and land that is within a critical habitat; and, • Land that is outside of well capture zones and well buffer zones, but within the UIC and No Pass line2.

1 Based on discussion the Committee agreed that a slightly smaller size of site should be investigated, from 90 to 100 acres in size. 2 A question from the Committee was whether injection wells were considered in the analysis. The consultant has inquired with the CWRM and has found that injection wells were not included in the lists furnished by the CWRM.

Meeting No. 7 Group Memory Page 2 of 3

An important reason cited for this additional review was that the Committee wished to gain additional perspective on the availability of sites only slightly smaller than 100 acres. Some Committee members expressed that doing so would provide for a more defensible list.

The Committee also noted that the request for smaller sites was to see if the list of sites available for the City to examine could be broadened beyond the previous site list that included the addition of closed landfills.

The Committee understands that Council Resolution 03-09, that would otherwise prohibit the siting of landfills within the UIC and groundwater protection zone is still in effect and that the current research being requested looks at sites smaller than the 100 acre minimum previously set.

The Facilitator then passed out a draft outline of the final report’s major sections and asked the Committee if the consultants could begin working on certain sections that they have information on such as Background, Criteria, etc. The Committee asked that an additional section be added to the outline covering the extra steps this Committee is taking to identify new landfill sites. In addition they asked that there be a clear difference between community based criteria and the exclusionary criteria or filters. The Facilitator included the Committee’s comments and will be sending out a revised outline via email. Drafts will be provided to the Committee for its review and editing. A tentative Final Report date was discussed as being targeted for January 15, 2012.

The meeting closed with a reminder that the date, time and place for the next meeting, tentatively set for November 29th, would be pending the amount of research which could be completed to investigate sites sized 90 to 100 acres. It was noted that the committee would be given an update as to the progress of this research within the next couple of weeks.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM.

Meeting No. 7 Group Memory Page 3 of 3

Meeting No. 8 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection February 1, 2012

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 212, KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

WILMA NAMUMNART, P.E. ACTING CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO: RE 11-001

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM MEETING NO. 8 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To share the results of the additional direction from the Committee to the consultants; and, to review a preliminary draft of the sections of the Committee’s Report to the Mayor without site information, criteria, weighting, or minority reports.

Outcome: Obtaining the Committee’s concurrence concerning information provided and agreement for continuing to weight the criteria and to rank the sites.

2. Review of Meeting No. 7

3. Public Comments

4. Updates:

(A) Methodology for new site analyses (B) Discussion and action for preliminary draft of report

5. Discussion on next steps and timing

6. Summary of discussion, Committee’s Next Meeting, Thank You and Adjournment Meeting No. 8 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

February 1, 2012

Attendance: Committee Members Present: Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Janice Marsters, Richard Poirier, Chuck Prentiss Committee Members Absent: David Arakawa, Tesha Malama, George West ENV: Steven Serikaku, Markus Owens Consultants: Brian Takeda, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts Public Present: Hersh Singer, Emi Moriguchi, Chris Goodin, Philmund Lee, Cynthia K.L. Rezentes, Evelyn Souza

Agenda: Welcome and Introduction Review of Mtg. No. 7 Public Comment Updates: A – Methodology for new site analysis B – Discussion and action for preliminary draft report Discussion on next steps and timing Summary of discussion, Committee’s next meeting Thank You and Adjournment

Meeting Notes:

The meeting was held in the Mayor’s Conference Room, Honolulu Hale, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the following as posted on the City’s website:

 Agenda  Group Memory from the Meeting No. 7

The Facilitator next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance.

A public comment was received from Councilmember Tom Berg’s Office (Philmund Lee), who thanked the Committee for all their work and asked them to go outside their charge from the Mayor and look at the bigger picture including the use of alternative technologies and other methods of disposing Honolulu’s trash. Mr. Lee spoke both as a representative of Councilmember Berg and as an individual and noted that there were no members on the

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 1 of 6 Committee from the Leeward Coast and that the Committee should look at initiatives such as shipping waste off island as he noted that former Councilmember Todd Apo’s initiative to do so had been successful.

In response to the comment two members of the Committee from the Leeward Coast took exception to the comment that there were no members on the Committee from the Leeward Coast.

There were no other public comments.

The Consultants next presented the results of research requested by the Committee. The research resulted in the identification of 464 potential landfill sites within the UIC line and No Pass Zone that were either 100 acres or more, or 90 to 100 acres in size. A summary of these sites by category or group is shown in Figure 1, Potential Landfill Sites Subject to Evaluation:

Figure 1

Inside UIC/ Outside UIC/ No Pass Zone No Pass Zone

Greater than 100 acres 337 97

90-100 acres 17 13

o 100+ acres inside the UIC/No Pass Zone (337 parcels) o 100+ acres outside the UIC/No Pass Zone (97 parcels) o 90 to 100 acres inside the UIC Line and No Pass Zone (17 parcels) o 90 to 100 acres outside the UIC Line and No Pass Zone (13 parcels)

Tables were next presented to the Committee showing how Screening Factors were applied to the sites to filter out those features that were present on a site that might make it unsuitable for use (see attachment). The parcels were also identified by a number designation in order to mask the actual tax map key identifiers. The Screening Factors applied to the sites were the same as previously used by the Consultants for the Committee and included the following:

1. Protection of runway airspace 2. Federal lands 3. Conservation district, i.e., any site with a conservation subzone other than the least restrictive (general) was removed 4. Board of Water Supply well capture zones 5. Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) well sites 6. Critical habitats / NARS 7. Impaired water bodies 8. Valued agricultural lands a. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawai‘i (ALISH): Prime, Unique or Other b. Land Study Bureau (LSB): A, B or C (The Committee requested that sites with just “C” lands be added back in for the next pass)

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 2 of 6 9. Parcel contains at least one structure as noted on aerial maps (The Committee requested that this be removed in the next pass)

The Consultants next distributed a list of parcels passing all nine Screening Factors (Parcels “Passing” All Factors). This list consisted of (see attachment):

 2 sites of 100 acres or more outside the UIC/No Pass areas  3 sites of 100 acres or more inside the UIC/No Pass areas  0 sites of 90 to 100 acres or more outside the UIC/No Pass areas  1 site of 90 to 100 acres or more inside the UIC/No Pass areas

The Committee disqualified several of the sites because of their current use. One site was an existing golf course and was disqualified. Two sites were adjacent to residential neighborhoods and had either prime agricultural lands or well buffer zones which would result in not enough developable area remaining for a landfill so these were disqualified. One site had valuable agricultural lands and two well buffer zones which would mean that the remaining usable area would also most likely not provide sufficient developable area for a landfill. The Committee’s review resulted in a list of only two sites for further consideration.

The Committee decided to further review the list of sites that had not previously passed through the Screening Factors to look at which of the nine factors prevented it from further consideration. This was because of the small number of sites remaining and because the Committee wished to further evaluate whether there might not be sites that could still be considered. The result of this exercise was that the Committee identified the sites below in addition to the two that passed the Screening Factors.

Questions that arose during this process included:

Q: What does adjacent to residential mean? A: It means it shares a common boundary

Q: Why were structures on the land included as a filter? Would like to see this removed as a filter. A: Will remove as a filter. (The Committee removed this as a filter when they relooked at sites as noted above)

Q: Why are we excluding sites based only on class “C” agricultural lands? A: The Committee asked the Consultant to add back sites with just class “C” lands as the disqualifier (The Committee also removed this in their reevaluation of the sites)

The site numbers that remained in or were out based on the Committee’s review and evaluation are summarized in the following table:

Site Number In or Out Reason for Inclusion or Non-Inclusion

44 Out Located in an existing park 144 In Some acres in conservation but may have enough remaining acreage to be viable 147 Out Most of site in high conservation district classification and well capture zone area

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 3 of 6 158 In Possesses critical habitat and well capture zone areas and may have enough land to work around – Reevaluate 168 Out Most of parcel in conservation and prime agricultural land 177 In Some conservation and class C Agricultural lands but might work – Reevaluate 178 In Some conservation and A,B and C Agricultural lands but parcel might be big enough to provide for a landfill after these uses are taken out – Reevaluate 179 In Class C agricultural lands – Reevaluate 180 In Class C agricultural lands – Reevaluate 181 In Other agricultural lands – Reevaluate 225 In Conservation, well sites and b and c agricultural lands but site might be big enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 231 In Conservation and other agricultural lands but site might be big enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 236 Out Prime agricultural land and well capture area 253 In Prime and unique agricultural lands but parcel may be big enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 271 In Conservation, critical habitat but site might accommodate both uses – Reevaluate 272 In Conservation, critical habitat but site might accommodate both uses – Reevaluate 327 Out Conservation, well zones , prime agricultural land 329 In Critical habitat, well capture zones but might accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 332 In Conservation, well zones but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 338 In Conservation, wells, prime agricultural but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 346 In Conservation, wells capture zones but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 358 In Conservation, critical habitat, well zones and prime agricultural but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 360 In Conservation, critical habitat, prime agricultural, well zones but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 399 In Conservation, well capture and agricultural lands but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 409 In Conservation, critical habitat, well capture zones but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 422 Out Conservation, well capture, prime agricultural but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 427 In Conservation, well capture area, prime agricultural but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 430 In Conservation, well capture zones but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 442 Out Conservation zone but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 449 Out Conservation, well capture, prime agricultural but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate 464 Out Conservation, well capture, critical habitat but might be large enough to accommodate all uses – Reevaluate

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 4 of 6 As noted above, the Committee asked that Sites 179, 180 and 181 be reevaluated by the Consultants because they were removed because they only contained Class C Agricultural Land. The Consultants were also asked to take a second look at the inventory to make sure that other sites were not disqualified solely because they were identified as Class C Agricultural Land or might include structures.

Questions that arose during this process included:

Q: What does the X mean? A: X means that 25% or less of the land area falls under that Screening Factor.

Q: How much of the land falls under each of the factors? A: Would need to run another analysis to determine.

Consultant’s Homework:

The Committee asked the Consultants to do one more pass with the following factors as they might affect sites for use as a landfill:

 Determine how much land area falls under the disqualifying factor and if the remaining contiguous land area is 100 acres or greater; please include it the final list of potential sites.

 Reevaluate all sites that were removed from study solely because of the Class C Agricultural designation

 Reevaluate all sites that were disqualified because they had a structure

The Facilitator then passed out a draft outline of the final report’s major sections. Below is the draft outline:

1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction and Purpose of Mayor’s Advisory Committee 3. Process for Evaluation of Landfill Sites 4. Committee Siting Criteria 5. Committee Evaluation and Analysis 6. Committee Recommendations 7. Other Committee Considerations

The Facilitator asked that Committee members think about the following items for the final report:

 Any recommendations that the Committee would like to make to the City in their report

 Any minority reports any members of the Committee might want to include

 Whether the Committee wanted to include a section on Host Community Benefits. The Consultants will forward the previous section on Host Community Benefits for the Committee to review.

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 5 of 6 The meeting closed with a discussion on the potential date, time and place for the next meeting which is tentatively set for March 7, the first Wednesday in March at 9:00 AM at Kapiolani Community College. This meeting will be an all day workshop, lunch will be provided.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM

Attachments: (1) Tables: MACLSS Site Analysis Tables (2) Table: Parcels “Passing” All Factors (3) Revised Draft Outline: Report of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection, City and County of Honolulu, February 1, 2012

Meeting No. 8 Group Memory Page 6 of 6 Materials for Committee Members

Mayor’s Community Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection Department of Environmental Services City & County of Honolulu

February 1, 2012

1. Tables: MACLSS Site Analysis Tables

2. Table: Parcels “Passing” All Factors

3. Revised Draft Outline: Report of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection, City and County of Honolulu, February 1, 2012

MACLSS Site Analysis Tables: ≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels)

≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Habitat/ Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells NARS water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Contains calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones bodies Lands Other (A is best) Structure on General) Aerial Map 1 301 XX X X 2 618 XX X X X 3 149 XX X X X 4 253 X X 5 2,502 X X X X X 6 423 X X X X 7 165 XX X X X 8 114 X X X 9 138 X X X X 10 104 X X X X 11 138 X XX 12 301 X X X 13 147 X X X X 14 140 X X X 15 146 X X X 16 231 X 17 707 X X X X X 18 492 X X X 19 129 X 20 106 X X X X Other X 21 100 X X X 22 1,491 X X X X X Prime X 23 170 X X X X 24 122 X X Other C X 25 209 X X Other C 26 435 X X X X X Prime, Other C X 27 564 X X X X Prime,Other C X 28 319 X X Prime, Other 29 382 X X X XX Other X 30 135 X X X X Other X 31 694 X X X X X Other C 32 2,092 X X X X X X 33 863 XX X 34 258 X X X 35 158 X 36 167 X X Prime, Other 37 127 X X X X X Prime, Other C X 38 216 X X X X C X 39 109 X X X X X C X 40 199 X XX X X Prime, Other C X 41 385 X X X X Prime, Other 42 204 X Other C X 43 133 X X Other B,C

>100 Acres and Outside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 1 of 3 ≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Habitat/ Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells NARS water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Contains calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones bodies Lands Other (A is best) Structure on General) Aerial Map 44 146 X X Other C X 45 304 X X X X Other X 46 113 X X X Prime, Other B,C 47 147 X X X 48 176 X X X Other X 49 110 X X X Other 50 146 X X X Prime, Other C X 51 282 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 52 333 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 53 118 X X X X Prime A X 54 207 X X X Other X 55 113 X X X Prime,Other C 56 1,937 X X X X X Other X 57 127 X X X Other X 58 636 X X X X X Other B X 59 160 X X X X Other B 60 125 X X X X X Prime, Other B,C 61 385 X X X X Prime, Other B,C X 62 379 X X Prime, Other B 63 270 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 64 346 X X X X 65 137 X X X X 66 753 X X X X 67 171 XX X X X 68 146 XX X 69 167 XX X 70 138 XX X 71 144 X X X X 72 126 XX X 73 248 X X X X 74 382 X X X 75 335 X X X X Prime, Other B,C 76 208 X X XX X Prime, Other X 77 118 X X X X Prime, Other X 78 157 X XX X Prime A,B X 79 199 X XX X Prime A,B 80 142 X X X Prime A,B 81 655 X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 82 157 X X X Prime A,B 83 183 X X X Prime B,C 84 211 X X X X Prime B X 85 292 X Prime B 86 110 X X X X

>100 Acres and Outside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 2 of 3 ≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Habitat/ Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells NARS water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Contains calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones bodies Lands Other (A is best) Structure on General) Aerial Map 87 117 X X X X 88 102 X X X X Prime, Other B X 89 189 X X X X Prime, Other 90 255 X X Other 91 1,472 X X X X Prime, Other B,C X 92 151 X X X Prime B X 93 149 X X X X X Unique 94 894 XX X X X X 95 1,413 X X X X X X 96 491 X X X X 97 171 XX X X X X

>100 Acres and Outside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 3 of 3

MACLSS Site Analysis Tables: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 98 441 XX X X X X X Other X 99 763 X X X X X X X Other C 100 482 X XXXX X 101 119 X X X X X 102 357 X X X X Prime C X 103 787 X X X X X Prime C X 104 2,920 X X X X X X 105 177 X XXX X 106 115 X X X X 107 153 X X X X X 108 540 X X X X X X 109 130 X X X X X 110 383 X X X X X X 111 282 X X X X X X 112 155 X X X X X 113 430 X X X X X X X 114 194 X X X X X 115 175 X X X X X X 116 192 X X X X X 117 841 X X X X X X X C 118 1,171 X X X X X X C 119 209 X X X 120 222 X X X X X C 121 360 X X X X X CX 122 155 X X X X X CX 123 104 X X X X 124 829 X X X X X X X C 125 178 X X X X X 126 121 X X X X X C 127 103 X X X X X Other X 128 103 X X X X X 129 722 X X X X X X B 130 368 X X X X X 131 529 X X X X X X 132 238 X X X X X 133 1,116 X X X X X 134 996 X X X X X 135 264 X X X X X 136 101 X X X 137 316 X X X X 138 330 X X X X X X Other 139 435 X X X X X Other 140 280 X X 141 115 X X X

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 1 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 142 359 X X X X X 143 203 X X X X X 144 359 X X X 145 1,339 X X X X X X 146 584 X X X X 147 140 X X XX X X Prime, Other B,C 148 371 X X X X Other C 149 173 X X X X X Prime, Other B,C X 150 1,281 X X X X X X 151 298 X X X X X Prime, Other C X 152 1,923 X X X X X X Other C 153 413 X X X X Prime, Other C 154 418 X X X X X X X Other 155 246 X X X X X Prime, Other C X 156 428 X X X X X X Other C 157 155 X X X X X X Prime, Other C 158 208 X X X X Other 159 232 X X X X X X X C 160 255 X X X X X X X C 161 157 X X X X X X X X CX 162 233 X X X X X X 163 102 X X X X Prime,Other C X 164 110 X X Prime, Other X 165 498 X X X X Other C 166 1,139 X X X X X X X C 167 320 X X X X Other 168 237 X X X X X X Other X 169 329 X X X X X X Prime, Other C 170 381 X X X X Prime, Other C 171 1,007 X X X X X X X Other C 172 148 X X X C 173 231 X X X X X X C 174 343 X X X X X X C 175 1,142 X X X X X X C 176 199 X X X X Other C 177 100 X X Other C 178 238 X X X X Prime,Other C 179 119 X Other C X 180 153 X Other C X 181 723 X Other 182 546 X X X 183 154 X X X X Prime,Other B,C X 184 1,303 X X X X X X Prime, Other 185 4,006 X X X X X X X Prime, Other C

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 2 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 186 1,146 X X X X X X Prime, Other C X 187 556 X X XX X Prime, Other B,C X 188 144 X XX X Prime, Other B,C 189 2,903 X X X X 190 1,372 X X X X X X X Prime, Other C 191 139 X X X X Other X 192 151 X X X X X C 193 149 X X X X 194 2,086 X X X X X 195 294 X X X X 196 279 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 197 207 X X X X Prime, Other B,C X 198 2,231 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C 199 2,529 X X X X X 200 249 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 201 106 X X X X Prime, Other A,B 202 508 X X X X Prime, Other B,C 203 226 X X X Prime A,B X 204 108 X X X Prime, Other B,C 205 220 X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 206 435 X X X Prime, Other B,C X 207 452 X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 208 228 X X X Prime, Other B,C 209 100 X X X Prime, Other B,C X 210 126 X X X Prime, Other C 211 257 X X X X 212 106 X X X X Other C 213 2,239 X X 214 1,621 X X X X Other B,C 215 234 X X X Prime, Other B,C 216 105 X X X Other X 217 470 X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 218 1,529 X X X X X Other B,C X 219 187 X X Other B,C 220 684 X X X X 221 450 X X X X Other C X 222 476 X X X X 223 115 X X X Prime, Other C X 224 1,065 X X X X X X Other C 225 218 X X X X Prime, Other B,C 226 524 X X X Prime, Other B,C X 227 226 X X X X Prime, Other C X 228 134 XXOther C 229 134 XXOther C X

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 3 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 230 106 XXOther C 231 720 X X X Other 232 107 X X X Prime, Other C X 233 477 X X X X Prime, Other B,C 234 1,783 X X X X X Prime A,B,C 235 1,493 X X X Prime A,B,C X 236 140 X X X X Prime, Other A,B 237 2,177 X X Prime B,C 238 1,672 X Prime B,C 239 193 X X X Prime, Other A X 240 1,427 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 241 1,895 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 242 1,886 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 243 11,281 X X X X Prime 244 3,747 X 245 1,153 X X X X C 246 2,400 X X X Prime C 247 150 X X X C 248 1,325 X X X X X Prime,Other A,B,C X 249 875 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 250 3,429 XX Prime B,C X 251 109 X X Prime C 252 1,752 X X X X X X Prime C,B X 253 2,246 X X X X Prime, Unique B,C 254 283 X X 255 225 XX XPrime, Unique B,C X 256 237 XX X Prime B,C 257 424 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B Prime, Unique, 258 1,519 X X X X X X Other A,B,C 259 107 X X X X Prime A,B 260 106 X X X X X Unique B,C 261 317 X X X X X Unique B 262 318 X X X X Unique B 263 1,159 X X X X X X Prime, Unique A,B,C 264 149 X X X X X X Prime A,B,C 265 194 X X X Unique B X 266 114 X X X Unique B 267 122 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 268 513 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 269 109 X X X Other C X 270 118 X X X Other X 271 219 X X X X X 272 111 X X X X X X Other

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 4 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 273 249 X X X X X X Other C 274 108 X X X X X X Other 275 136 X X X X X Other 276 1,307 X X X X X 277 1,046 X X X X X 278 1,577 X X X X X X Other 279 1,493 X X 280 656 X X 281 539 X XX 282 184 X XX XPrime, Other A,B 283 1,031 X XXXX XPrime 284 185 X XXX X 285 346 X XXXXXXPrime A X 286 439 X XXXXX XOther 287 934 X XXXX XPrime, Other A,B,C X 288 186 X XX XPrime, Other A,B,C X 289 140 X XXXX XPrime, Other A,B X 290 1,189 X XXXX XPrime, Other C 291 912 X XXXX XPrime, Other A,B,C X 292 270 X XX XXXX XPrime, Other A X 293 560 X XX XX XOther 294 372 X XX XX 295 1,715 X XX XXXOther X 296 300 X XXUnique B 297 141 XX X Unique B 298 239 X XXXXXXUnique B 299 320 X XX XXXUnique B,C 300 186 X XX XXXUnique B 301 299 X XXXXXXPrime, Unique B,C X 302 691 X X X X X X X Prime B X 303 218 X XX XXXPrime, Unique B 304 190 X X X X X Prime B 305 254 X X X X X X X C 306 448 X X X X X X X Prime C 307 4,368 X X X X X X C 308 191 X XXXX XUnique B 309 4,967 X XX XXXXXX B,C X 310 10,052 X XX XXXXXXPrime, Other B,C X 311 1,112 X X X X X 312 536 X X 313 324 X X X Other 314 621 X X 315 956 X X X X X C 316 231 X X X X

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 5 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 317 1,290 X X X C 318 109 X X X X Other 319 852 X X 320 634 X X X X X Other 321 467 X X X X 322 1,328 X X X X X 323 152 X X X X 324 2,744 X X X X X X X Other 325 167 X X X X Prime, Other 326 110 X X X X Prime, Other X 327 125 X X XX X Prime 328 2,037 X X X X X X 329 246 X X XX X 330 292 X X X X X 331 105 X X X X 332 882 X X XX X X 333 1,731 X X X X X Prime, Other B X 334 227 X X X X Prime, Other 335 109 X X X X 336 218 X X X X 337 237 X X X X X Prime,Other B X 338 179 X X X X Prime, Other X 339 113 X X X Other X 340 7,104 X X X X X X Prime, Other X 341 787 X X X X 342 451 X X X X Other 343 108 X X X X 344 784 X X X X 345 370 X X 346 1,127 X X X X X 347 425 X X X Prime, Other C 348 423 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 349 1,831 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 350 407 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 351 100 X X X Prime, Other A,B 352 933 X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 353 456 X X X 354 315 X X X Other B X 355 174 X XX X Other B X 356 872 X Other X 357 435 X X X X Unique, Other A,B,C Prime, Unique, 358 937 X X XX X X X Other A,B,C

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 6 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) Prime, Unique, 359 721 X X X X Other A,B,C X 360 1,271 X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C 361 437 X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C 362 1,400 X X X X X X X X Unique, Other B,C 363 4,433 X X X X X 364 394 X X Pr 365 2,404 X XXX XXUnique, Other B,C X 366 118 X XX XUnique, Other B,C X 367 124 X X X Prime, Other 368 163 X X X X Prime, Other X 369 160 X X X X Prime, Other A 370 131 X X X X Prime, Other 371 161 X X X X Prime, Other 372 150 X X X Prime, Other A 373 876 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 374 231 X X X Prime, Other A,B 375 176 X X X X X X Prime A,B 376 310 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B 377 560 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C 378 205 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 379 109 X X X X Prime A,B X 380 534 X XXX XXPrime, Other A,B,C 381 420 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 382 123 X X X X X X Prime 383 152 X X X X X X Prime C 384 105 X X X X X X Prime, Other A,B 385 377 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 386 264 X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 387 342 X X X X Prime B,C X 388 128 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B 389 301 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B,C X 390 486 X XXX XXUnique B,C 391 172 X XXX XPrime X 392 163 X XXX XUnique B,C 393 182 X XX XXPrime B 394 149 X XX XPrime Prime, Unique, 395 1,030 X X X X X Other A,B,C 396 489 X X X X X Prime, Unique A,B,C 397 100 X X X X X Prime A,B 398 129 X X X X X X Prime B Prime, Unique, 399 435 X X XX X X Other A,B,C

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 7 of 8 ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS CWRM Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Capture Wells Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Buffers Zones NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 400 979 X X X X X X X Prime C 401 4,600 X X X X X X X 402 113 X X X X X Other 403 1,527 X X X X X Prime, Other A,B X 404 766 X X X X X Other C 405 1,860 X X X X X Prime, Unique A,B,C X 406 158 X X X X Prime A,B,C X 407 4,472 X X X X X 408 245 X X X X Prime C X 409 239 X X X X X X C 410 214 X X X X 411 119 X X X X 412 101 X X X X 413 1,140 X X X X X 414 1,170 X X X X X 415 646 X X X X X 416 498 X X X X X 417 1,713 X X X X X 418 112 X X X X X 419 1,402 X X X X X X C 420 1,579 X X X X X X Prime C 421 117 X X X X 422 145 X X XX X X Prime 423 308 X X X X X X Prime, Other C 424 184 X X X X X 425 441 X X X X X X Prime, Other C 426 158 X X X X Prime, Other C 427 368 X X XX X Prime, Other C 428 119 X X X X X X 429 222 X X X X X X 430 340 X X XX X X 431 497 X X X X X X 432 1,160 X X X X X X 433 2,074 X X X X X X 434 385 X X X X X

>100 Acres and Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 8 of 8

MACLSS Site Analysis Tables: 90≥ and <100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (13 Parcels)

90 ≥ AND < 100 and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (13 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS Capture CWRM Wells Critical Habitat/ Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Buffers Zones NARS water bodies Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 435 92 X X X X 436 94 X X X Other 437 98 X X 438 94 X X 439 99 X X X X Prime, Other 440 97 X X Other C 441 97 X X X Prime, Other A,B X 442 97 X 443 97 X X 444 97 X X X 445 94 X X X Other 446 98 X X X Prime, Other B,C X 447 99 X X Other B,C

90> And <100 Acres Outside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 1 of 1

MACLSS Site Analysis Tables: 90≥ and <100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (17 Parcels)

90 ≥ AND < 100 and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (17 Parcels) Parcel Area in Acres Protection of Federal Conservation Well Capture BWS Capture CWRM Wells Critical Impaired Valued ALISH: LSB: Parcel Contains Identifier (GIS‐ Runway Land District (any Zones and Buffers Zones Habitat/ water Agricultural Prime, Unique, A, B or C Structure on calculated) Airspace subzone but NARS bodies Lands Other (A is best) Aerial Map General) 448 98 X X X X X X 449 93 X X X X Prime B 450 94 X X X X Unique B X 451 97 X X X X Prime, Other C X 452 91 X X X X Unique B 453 94 X X X X X Prime, Other C X 454 95 X X X X X 455 96 X X X X 456 95 X X X X X X Other C 457 90 X X X X Prime, Other B 458 99 X X X X X Prime A X 459 96 X X X X X Prime, Other C 460 97 X X X X A X 461 90 X X Other 462 96 X X X X X Prime C 463 90 X X X Prime, Other B 464 93 X X X XX X Other

90> And <100 Acres Inside UIC/No Pass Zone DRAFT Page 1 of 1 Parcels "Passing" All Factors

Parcel Area in Acres (per Notes Identification GIS calculation)

1: 100 or More Acres and Outside of UIC Line/No Pass Zone a 131 Less than 25% of area intersects Valued Agricultural Land Remainder in General Subzone and Urban District b 132 Portion of Turtle Bay Golf Course Contains Valued Agricultural Land Less than 25% of area intersects 2 CWRM 1,000‐foot buffers 2: 100 or More Acres and Inside of UIC Line/No Pass Zone c 133 Adjacent to residential subdivisions Less than 25% intersects one CWRM 1,000‐foot buffer d 266 Adjacent to residential subdivisions e 103 Less than 25% of area intersects Valued Agricultural Land and 2 CWRM 1,000‐foot buffers 3: 90 to < 100 acres and Outside of UIC Line/No Pass Zone 4: 90 to <100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line/No Pass Zone f 93 Adjacent to residential subdivisions Less than 25% of area intersects Valued Agricultural Land Revised Draft Outline

Report of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

February 1, 2012

1. Executive Summary – to include such issues as the need for a new landfill, Committee history and background, Committee Process, Committee Recommendations and other issues as identified by the Committee

2. Introduction and Purpose of Mayor’s Advisory Committee – to include background and purpose of the Committee and the Workplan

3. Process for Evaluation of Landfill Sites – to include detailed discussion of process based on Committee guidance and results.

4. Committee Siting Criteria – to include criteria as developed by the Committee including the process for the development of criteria (methodology), measurement of the criteria, development of weighting factors, and application of the site scores

5. Committee Evaluation and Analysis – to include discussion of new site attributes including investigating: (1) sites 90 to 100 acres and 100 and more acres; and, (2) sites inside and outside of the UIC/No Pass Zone. Positive and negative features of alternative sites and the final list of sites would also be discussed.

6. Committee Recommendations – to include the final list of site rankings and other recommendations

7. Other Committee Considerations –Minority Report and other issues that should be cited in the report including Appendices:

Host Community Benefits

Meeting No. 9 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection March 16, 2012

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITYANDCOUNTYOFHONOLULU REFUSE DIVISION 1000 ULUOHIA STREET, SUITE 201, KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 TELEPHONE: (808) 768-3401  FAX: (808) 768-3434  WEBSITE: http://envhonolulu.org

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

SILVESTRE L. ULEP, P.E. INTERIM ASSISTANT CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO:

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION WARD WAREHOUSE (1050 ALA MOANA BLVD.) WARD WAREHOUSE CONFERENCE ROOM - 2ND FLOOR MEETING NO. 9 FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012 9:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To report to the Committee on the final findings regarding potential sites per the Committee’s instructions from the last meeting; and to weight the Community Criteria and apply these weights to the sites.

Outcome: To have a list of ranked sites for presentation to the City in the final report.

2. Review of Meeting No. 8

3. Public Comments

4. Consultant’s Report on Final Site Evaluation

5. Committee’s Weighting of Community Criteria

6. Application of Weights to Sites to Achieve Ranking

7. Discussion on the Draft Executive Summary and Final Report

8. Thank You and Adjournment Meeting No. 9 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

March 16, 2012

Attendance: Committee Members Present: Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Janice Marsters, Chuck Prentiss, David Arakawa, Tesha Malama, George West Committee Members Absent: Richard Poirier ENV: Steven Serikaku, Markus Owens, Suzanne Jones Consultants: Brian Takeda, Mark White, James Dannemiller, Emi Moriuchi Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts Public Present: Cynthia K.L. Rezentes, Councilmember Tom Berg, Gina Mangieri, Leila Fujimori, Philmund Lee, Chris Goodin. Other members of the public were also in attendance.

Agenda: Welcome and Introduction Review of Mtg. No. 8 Public Comment Consultant’s Report on Final Site Evaluation Committee’s Weighting of Community Criteria Application of Weights to Sites to Achieve Ranking Discussion on the Draft Preliminary Executive Summary and Final Report Thank You and Adjournment

Meeting Notes:

The meeting was held at the Ward Warehouse Kaka‘ako Conference Room, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the Agenda and Group Memory from Meeting No. 8. The Facilitator next invited comments from any member of the public in attendance.

The following comments were received:

 Ms. Rezentes: The Committee was acknowledged for taking on a difficult task with the following points noted: o Consider the impact on the communities that the various trucks would travel through when siting the next landfill. The speaker cited Kikiola as an example

Meeting No. 9 Group Memory Page 1 of 5 where if the site were to be selected that the landfill truck traffic would pass through the entire Wai‘anae Coast. o Because the City’s instruction to the Committee was to look at sites that would accept all waste, including construction debris, then the likelihood of even more traffic than currently going to the Waimānalo Gulch Landfill is possible. There is presently no quantification of the amount of waste that would be created by rail construction and the City needs to do this analysis. o If a 15-year extension is granted to the current site (Waimānalo Gulch Landfill) then the next site should not be on the leeward side.  Councilmember Berg: Regarding Federal lands, they should be taken in to consideration for potential landfill sites. Just because the military says no, it is not a reason to stop evaluating federal sites for a potential landfill. The sites may still be able to be obtained by an Act of Congress or a Presidential Order.

The Consultant next presented the report on the final site evaluation.

First the Consultant reminded the Committee of the constraints on the level of evaluation that can be performed within the permitted timeframe, i.e., that the work was done within the limits of existing City, State, Federal and Real Estate Geographic Information System (GIS) data bases, and information from consulting with various governmental agencies. This is not a substitute for a more formal evaluation such as would be conducted for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Therefore the 464 GIS identified sites were reviewed at a desktop level of analysis. At the direction of the Committee this resulted in the identification of 6 potential sites.

When the consultant reran the sites with the Committee’s instruction to relook at parcels that were eliminated only because they had one or more structures as noted on an aerial map, one more potential site was identified. The list of potential sites after this review went from six to seven.

Questions and answers and comments were then discussed:

Q: Why did you remove sites upgradient from existing residential areas due to drainage concerns? These are engineering issues and can be addressed and should not be removed from consideration. A: If the potential landfill site was above an existing residential area and the drainage would have to go through the area then it was removed.

Q: How many sites were eliminated because they were in capture zones for monitoring wells? A: When we spoke with the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) they only noted if it was a well and could not further define what its specific use was. As a result they requested that we apply the 1,000 foot buffer to all CWRM well sites.

Q: Did I hear correctly that if a site is in the process, or the City is aware of development potentially moving forward on the site, that the site would not be considered – an example is Makaiwa Hills? A: We are at present aware of the plans for the Makaiwa Hills subdivision making this site unviable.

Meeting No. 9 Group Memory Page 2 of 5

Q: Why shouldn’t runoff be addressed in the EIS process and those sites that might be impacted identified and passed through that process? A: It was a judgment decision based on the residential site sharing a border or a highway with the landfill. It was a matter of ensuring that downgradient developed areas would be sufficiently considered in this process.

Q: Why remove these sites now? A: We know that if it shares a border with a residential area that there might be a runoff issue.

The Committee discussed this matter and requested that the Consultant add back in the sites that were removed because they shared a border with residential developed areas. Some of the reasons for this were to recognize (1) that the exclusion did not necessarily follow the Committee’s process; and (2) that a landfill can be properly engineered above such sites. The Consultant agreed to reevaluate and include the sites for consideration and weighting.

C: Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill was an engineering problem that could have been addressed as was proposed in the design. This means that as an engineering issue a potential landfill site should not be removed for reasons having to do with the presence of downgradient developments.

Q: The problem at Waimānalo Gulch appears to be because it was engineered incorrectly; could proper engineering on a site mitigate runoff problems? A: Waimānalo Gulch was properly engineered to address runoff, but the combination of delays combined with an extraordinary rainfall event during the construction of the drainage control system created the problem.

C: The cost of development which is one of our criteria would address this issue and therefore potential sites should not be removed from consideration.

C: Should we look at sites that were eliminated just because of [Land Study Bureau] B agricultural lands?

Q: Can you tell us now how many sites were eliminated just because of the runoff question and how many just because they are [LSB] Class B agricultural lands? A: Give us a minute and we will do the best we can now – the consultant worked with their data base on laptop and came up with 6 sites that were eliminated due to runoff concerns by sharing a common border or street with the proposed sites. The group decided that these should be reconsidered as the community criteria on closeness to residential development would address this in the ranking process. There were no sites identified that were eliminated just because of the [LSB] Class B agricultural lands.

Q: Why are we giving up on federal lands just because we get a letter from the branch of the service that it is not available? A: If they are not willing to declare it excess then it is difficult and time consuming to pursue with a small chance of success. The current processes available to obtain Federal lands would be a Congressional Act or a Presidential Executive Order. We have been informed that both processes are very difficult to obtain and process, and could add years to the siting process.

Meeting No. 9 Group Memory Page 3 of 5

C: We should contact someone who knows the process. As it is not impossible, these sites should not be automatically removed.

Q: What do you mean by federal sites? A: Non active military or other federal sites owned by the U. S. Government.

Q: Parcel 62 is an example of federal lands it is 379 acres and is classed as B agricultural lands – shouldn’t we look at these – can you tell us how many there are? A: There may be 66 or more parcels and it is not possible with our current level of detail to say how many are active military and how many are not as they were eliminated early.

C: You need to look at this and especially check if any of the parcels have been declared excess or surplus federal land.

The group had extensive discussion about adding back in federal lands. Some Committee members felt that they were unlikely to be available and that the complex and long process that would need to be pursued was not viable and that they should not be added back in. One Committee member noted that they had accomplished consulting work for the military and based on their experience it would not be time efficient to pursue these lands due to the length of the process and low likelihood of success.

Others felt that in the interest of doing as thorough a job as possible, and to have a highly defensible product, that the Committee should ask that the Consultant add back in any federal sites that passed all the existing screening factors for further analysis. This action was agreed to by the Committee in part because of the difficulty of finding appropriate land on O‘ahu for landfilling and not wanting to miss any alternatives. The request is that only federal lands outside the UIC line be looked at.

The Committee next reviewed the Community Criteria prior to performing the weighting exercise. Jim Dannemiller of SMS reviewed the criteria noting only a few changes:

Criterion 7 – Wind Direction: Changed to address average wind direction Criterion 20 – Quality of Agricultural Lands: Removed at the request of the Committee based on the consideration of agricultural land in the Screening Factors.

The Consultants and the City excused themselves from the meeting while the Committee weighted the criteria. The Committee weighted the criteria individually and then as a group. The Committee discussed the results of the group weighting exercise and after much discussion on the pros and cons associated with the weights requested the Consultant’s advice on how the weighting would work when there are some remaining equally weighted criteria. Jim Dannemiller advised the Committee that even with tied votes, it is possible to further refine the weighting exercise so that there would be no tied weights between the criteria. The Committee used the guidance offered and reweighted the remaining criteria to establish a separate weight for each of the remaining 19 criteria.

Meeting No. 9 Group Memory Page 4 of 5 The results of the weighting were not shared with the City or the Consultant at this time as the Consultant still needs to assess and run the criteria in relation to the sites that were added back onto the list due to the day’s discussions.

The Committee next discussed the draft report and identified any general recommendations they wanted to add to the report. The following discussions were proposed to be added:

 There needs to be a discussion as to why the Committee felt it was necessary to look for sites inside the UIC line/No Pass Zone.  The City needs to adopt a philosophy that everything that goes into a landfill may become a resource that can be recovered in the future – they need to take this philosophy into account when they advertise for an operator – to ensure that the operator selected will prepare the use of the landfill for the future recovery of disposed materials via mapping or other techniques.  Host Community Benefits should be embraced as a concept and details should be negotiated with the affected community.

The meeting ended at about 2:30 PM. The next meeting was set for early April starting at 9:00 AM with a place to be determined.

Meeting No. 9 Group Memory Page 5 of 5

Meeting No. 10 Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection April 20, 2012

Agenda; Group Memory; and Handouts and Related Materials

PETER B. CARLISLE TIMOTHY E. STEINBERGER, P.E. MAYOR DIRECTOR

SILVESTRE L. ULEP, P.E. INTERIM ASSISTANT CHIEF

IN REPLY REFER TO:

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU MAYOR’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON LANDFILL SITE SELECTION MISSION MEMORIAL CONFERENCE ROOM – 1ST FLOOR MEETING NO. 10 FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2012 9:00 A.M. –12:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introduction

Purpose: To report to the Committee the findings regarding additional sites and new federal sites for further consideration per the Committee’s instructions. The alternative sites will be evaluated using the Committee’s Community Criteria, weighted, and presented to the Committee.

Outcome: To have a list of ranked sites for presentation to the Administration in the final report.

2. Review of Meeting No. 9

3. Public Comments

4. Consultant’s Report on Committee’s Request for the Reevaluation of Sites

6. Application of Weights to Achieve Ranking

7. Discussion on the Draft Executive Summary and Final Report

8. Thank You and Adjournment Meeting No. 10 Group Memory

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection City and County of Honolulu

April 20, 2012 *

Attendance: Committee Members Present: Tom Arizumi, John Goody, Joe Lapilio, Janice Marsters (by teleconference), Chuck Prentiss, David Arakawa (last 10 minutes), Tesha Malama, George West, Richard Poirier ENV: Steven Serikaku, Markus Owens Consultants: Brian Takeda, Mark White Facilitator: Dee Dee Letts Public Present: Cynthia K.L. Rezentes, Councilmember Tom Berg, Gina Mangieri, Wayne Yoshioka, Gary Kubota, Chris Goodin. Other members of the public were also in attendance. Agenda: Welcome and Introduction Review of Meeting No. 9 Public Comments Review of Criteria Weighting Consultant’s Report on Committee’s Request for the Reevaluation of Sites Application of Weights to Achieve Ranking Discussion on the Draft Executive Summary and Final Report Thank You and Adjournment Meeting Notes: The meeting was held on April 20th at the Mission Memorial Conference Room, starting at 9:00 AM, with a review of the Agenda and Group Memory from Meeting No. 9. The following public comments were received following the review of the Group Memory:  The commenter stated the notes from Meeting No. 9 are incorrect and referred to the site Kikiola which should be called Ohikilolo. Regarding Appendix B from the prior report, the commenter also noted: o The site referenced as Nānākuli Uka is actually in Wai‘anae and is not in Nānākuli based on the TMK provided. The site is located above an agricultural park and is contiguous to property being developed as an organic farm. o The site referred to as Kea‘au is the Ohikilolo Valley, a portion of which is up for sale. The site contains numerous cultural and historical sites. The commenter agrees with the criteria that the impact on residential areas is a primary concern. However, the commenter does not feel that enough emphasis was given to the impact of having travel routes through multiple neighborhoods especially when Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 1 of 8 there is only one major arterial roadway through the area. The access road to the leeward sites is a highway that traverses many neighborhoods. When it is closed for any reason trucks must be diverted through neighborhood streets causing a great impact on residences. Also, the number of additional vehicles traversing many neighborhoods has the potential to create an unacceptable increase of traffic on an already congested road.  Another commenter indicated concern about his family and the Iron Workers Union which the commenter is a member of. In 1992, the prior Committee investigated the Nānākuli B site for a potential landfill. The commenter forwarded a report of potential economic impacts to businesses in the area to Doug Chin, the City’s Managing Director. The commenter offered copies of the report to the Committee and indicated, there are many businesses and residences along the leeward coast that are impacted by the Waimānalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill and the PVT (construction and demolition debris) Landfill and they do not want the new site to be in the leeward area. Following the public comments the Consultant next reviewed the Committee’s request for the reevaluation of sites previously removed from consideration. The discussion started with the Consultant’s reminder on the limits of the level of evaluation that can be reasonably performed within the Committee’s timeframe, i.e., that the work was undertaken based on the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) resources from publicly available sources. This information was supplemented by consulting directly with agencies including the Department of Health (DOH), Board of Water Supply (BWS), and the Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM) to obtain more detailed and current information. This effort, however, is a desktop level of study and is not a substitute for a more formal evaluation such as would be performed in studies and reports that would support an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Consultant next reported on the Committee’s request involving the reevaluation of sites that were previously eliminated. Approximately six of these sites were upslope and adjacent to residential development. Land owned by the federal government that had previously been removed was also reevaluated. The reevaluation resulted in four new sites identified for application of the Committee’s community-based criteria: two of the sites were from the six originally eliminated sites, and two of the sites were owned by the federal government and did not appear to be in active military use. The four sites were added to the previous seven sites for a total of 11 sites identified for evaluation using the Committee’s community-based criteria. The discussion next moved to a review of the changes made to the community-based criteria as directed by the Committee. These changes included the following: (1) Criterion No. 20, regarding agricultural land, was removed on the basis that it was already considered as a screening factor; (2) Criterion No. 7, regarding wind direction, was modified to reflect the percentage of time the direction of the wind is toward the receptor area; (3) Criterion No. 12, regarding precipitation, was modified to include both annual average and peak storm events.

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 2 of 8 The Committee’s assignment of weights to the criteria was next shared with the Consultants and the City. The weights assigned from highest to lowest were as follows: List of Committee’s Criteria and Assignment of Weights No. Criterion Weight Criterion #3 Location Relative to Residential Concentrations 10.00 Location Relative to Educational Institutions, Health Care Facilities, Criterion #2 9.85 or Parks and Recreation Facilities Criterion #8 Effect on Local Roads and Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods 9.55 Criterion #10 Location Relative to Identified Community Disamenities 9.25 Criterion #12 Effect of Precipitation on Landfill Operations 9.25 Criterion #18 Surface Water Resources 8.95 Criterion #11 Location Relative to H-POWER 8.65 Criterion #13 Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost 7.00 Criterion #4 Location Relative to Visitor Accommodations 4.00 Criterion #5 Location Relative to Local or Visitor Commercial Facilities 4.00 Criterion #7 Wind Direction Relative to Landfill Site 4.00 Criterion #16 Location Relative to Wetlands and Natural Area Reserve System Land 4.00 Criterion #1 Landfill Capacity 2.50 Criterion #6 Effect on Established Public View Planes 2.50 Criterion #14 Displacement Cost 2.50 Criterion #17 Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 2.50 Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways Caused by Landfill Criterion #9 1.00 Related Traffic Criterion #15 Potential for Solid Waste-Related Land Uses 1.00 Criterion #19 Archaeological and Culturally Significant Resources 1.00

According to the Committee’s assignment of weights to the criteria:  The most important criterion receiving a weight of 10.00 was Criterion No. 3, Location Relative to Residential Concentrations. The remaining criteria receiving lower weights were listed in descending order, with three groups of criteria having equal weights.  The following criteria received equal weights: o Criteria Receiving a Weight of 4.00: Criterion No. 4, Location Relative to Visitor Accommodations Criterion No. 5, Location Relative to Local or Visitor Commercial Facilities Criterion No. 7, Wind Direction Relative to Landfill Site Criterion No. 16, Location Relative to Wetlands and Natural Area Reserve System Land o Criteria Receiving a Weight of 2.50: Criterion No. 1, Landfill Capacity Criterion No. 6, Effect on Established Public View Planes Criterion No. 14, Displacement Cost

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 3 of 8 Criterion No. 17, Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species o Criteria Receiving a Weight of 1.00: Criterion No. 9, Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways Caused by Landfill Related Traffic Criterion No. 15, Potential for Solid Waste-Related Land Uses Criterion No. 19, Archaeological and Culturally Significant Resources The Consultant next applied the Committee’s weights to the criteria to obtain the final scores for each of the 11 sites under evaluation. * Note: During the process of applying the criteria weights, a real time data error occurred while performing the exercise and on Wednesday, April 25, the Committee members were notified and a press conference was held to present to the news media and public the event that led to the error and the subsequent actions taken to correct the results. The data as presented in this record of Committee Meeting No. 10, represents the corrected results of the evaluation. A copy of the record pertaining to the data error is attached for reference. The final site scores and ranking are in the following table: O‘ahu Landfill Community Criteria Evaluation Site Scores and Ranking Final Weighted Site Scores Site Score Rank Upland Kahuku 2 716 1 Upland Kahuku 1 697 2 Upland Pupukea 2 681 3 Upland Pupukea 1 616 4 Ameron Quarry 580 5 Upland Nānākuli 1 568 6 Upland Lā‘ie 565 7 Ke'eau 533 8 Kāne‘ohe by H3 512 9 Upland Hawai‘i Kai 440 10 Kapa‘a Quarry Road 437 11

The Committee previously requested that following the ranking of the sites that they discuss the individual advantages and disadvantages (pros and cons) of each of the sites. The Committee further noted that the issues or items raised during this discussion would not need to be approved by a consensus of the Committee in order to be documented. The Committee initiated this discussion but after consideration determined that such an exercise would be counterproductive, i.e., instead of focusing on the effort to identify and rank landfill sites for the benefit of all the communities on O‘ahu, the discussion might distract the Committee by causing an extended discussion of “not in my backyard” issues. Accordingly, the Committee decided to let stand the results of the community-based criteria ranking process.

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 4 of 8 The Committee then reviewed the additions to the Executive Summary as requested at the last meeting. Minor adjustments were made to the additions. The Committee also requested that the list of criteria and the weighted criteria scores be added to the Executive Summary. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 AM with the next meeting time and place to be determined.

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 5 of 8 Attachment

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 6 of 8

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 7 of 8

Meeting No. 10 Group Memory Page 8 of 8

Attachment C

Alternative Landfill Site Group 1 through 4

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection (MACLSS)

Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu

Attachment C Alternative Landfill Site Groups 1 through 4

Group 1: ≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 1 11001001 301 38 45035001 216 2 11002002 618 39 45035010 109 3 11002004 149 40 45041009 199 4 11002015 253 41 46016001 385 5 11003001 2,502 42 46016032 204 6 11010004 423 43 49003043 133 7 11010011 165 44 49004001 146 8 15041003 114 45 56002009 304 9 15041006 138 46 56002041 113 10 23037012 104 47 56002046 147 11 27036002 138 48 56003026 176 12 31042006 301 49 56003041 110 13 31042014 147 50 61005014 146 14 31043001 140 51 67001026 282 15 35023001 146 52 68006010 333 16 39011002 231 53 85001033 118 17 39012001 707 54 87010003 207 18 39012002 492 55 87010020 113 19 41013010 129 56 91001001 1,937 20 41014004 106 57 91001030 127 21 41014008 100 58 91010001 636 22 41015001 1,491 59 91010011 160 23 42002002 170 60 91010014 125 24 42003004 122 61 91010015 385 25 42005001 209 62 91010016 379 26 42006002 435 63 91010121 270 27 42008005 564 64 91013018 346 28 42014002 319 65 91013028 137 29 42015001 382 66 91013032 753 30 42015009 135 67 91013035 171 31 42016015 694 68 91013039 146 32 44008001 2,092 69 91013043 167 33 44009003 863 70 91013045 138 34 44011003 258 71 91013061 144 35 44012001 158 72 91013073 126 36 45033001 167 73 91014010 248 37 45033002 127 74 91014024 382

Attachment C Page 1 of 7 Group 1: ≥100 Acres and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (97 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 75 91014042 335 87 91031003 117 76 91016110 208 88 91069011 102 77 91016161 118 89 91134015 189 78 91016179 157 90 91134029 255 79 91016180 199 91 93002001 1,472 80 91016181 142 92 93002034 151 81 91017004 655 93 96001001 149 82 91017004 157 94 99001008 894 83 91017072 183 95 99001013 1,413 84 91017100 211 96 99001015 491 85 91017110 292 97 99002004 171 86 91031001 110

Group 2: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 1 11008005 441 23 25019005 222 2 11008013 763 24 25019008 360 3 11011001 482 25 25019009 155 4 11012004 119 26 28023003 104 5 11012005 357 27 29055001 829 6 11012015 787 28 29055004 178 7 11013001 2,920 29 29055006 121 8 11063017 177 30 33056002 103 9 14014010 115 31 34010009 103 10 14015011 153 32 34022001 722 11 14018001 540 33 34022006 368 12 14018003 130 34 35024001 529 13 14018004 383 35 35024001 238 14 14018006 282 36 35024003 1,116 15 14018009 155 37 36004004 996 16 16022001 430 38 36004014 264 17 16022004 194 39 36004018 101 18 19006001 175 40 37003003 316 19 19006002 192 41 37003073 330 20 19007001 841 42 37004001 435 21 22054001 1,171 43 37004002 280 22 22054002 209 44 38011001 115

Attachment C Page 2 of 7 Group 2: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 45 38012001 359 83 49005001 153 46 38013001 203 84 49006001 723 47 39008013 359 85 51004001 546 48 39009001 1,339 86 51001001 154 49 39010001 584 87 51007001 1,303 50 41008005 140 88 52001001 4,006 51 41008013 371 89 52002001 1,146 52 41008080 173 90 53003001 556 53 41011001 1,281 91 53007023 144 54 42009001 298 92 53011001 2,903 55 42010001 1,923 93 53011009 1,372 56 42011001 413 94 54004004 139 57 45041004 418 95 54005001 151 58 45042001 246 96 54005002 149 59 45042006 428 97 54006001 2,086 60 45042012 155 98 54006002 294 61 46014005 208 99 55006001 279 62 46015001 232 100 55006005 207 63 46015003 255 101 55007001 2,231 64 46015009 157 102 55007002 2,529 65 46015011 233 103 56002001 249 66 47007010 102 104 56003001 106 67 47007015 110 105 56005007 508 68 47008001 498 106 56005009 226 69 47008002 1,139 107 56005012 108 70 47051001 320 108 56005013 220 71 47071001 237 109 56006006 435 72 48006001 329 110 56006018 452 73 48006008 381 111 56006028 228 74 48013001 1,007 112 56006058 100 75 48013013 148 113 56007001 126 76 48013014 231 114 56007003 257 77 48014003 343 115 56007004 106 78 48014005 1,142 116 56008001 2,239 79 48014006 199 117 56008002 1,621 80 49001001 100 118 56008006 234 81 49002001 238 119 57001016 105 82 49004002 119 120 57001021 470

Attachment C Page 3 of 7 Group 2: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 121 57002001 1,529 159 64004008 237 122 57002003 187 160 65001001 424 123 57004001 684 161 65001002 1,519 124 58002002 450 162 65001039 107 125 58002003 476 163 65002003 106 126 58002004 115 164 65002005 317 127 58002006 1,065 165 65002010 318 128 59005004 218 166 65002011 1,159 129 59005038 524 167 65002019 149 130 59006005 226 168 65002025 194 131 59006011 134 169 65002026 114 132 59006012 134 170 66027010 122 133 59006018 106 171 67002004 1,513 134 59006026 720 172 67002006 109 135 59006033 107 173 67002027 118 136 59006038 477 174 67003002 219 137 61002002 1,783 175 67003003 111 138 61005001 1,493 176 67003005 249 139 61005016 140 177 67003006 108 140 61006001 2,177 178 67003007 136 141 61007001 1,672 179 67003018 1,307 142 62002001 193 181 67004001 1,577 143 62009001 1,427 182 68001001 1,493 144 62010001 1,895 183 68001002 656 145 62011001 1,886 184 68001004 539 146 63001001 11,281 185 68002005 184 147 63001002 3,747 186 68002006 1,031 148 63001003 1,153 187 68002007 185 149 63001004 2,400 188 68002018 346 150 63001005 150 189 68003005 439 151 64001001 1,325 190 68003006 934 152 64001006 875 191 68003009 186 153 64002001 3,429 192 68003040 140 154 64002002 109 193 68007001 1,189 155 64003001 1,752 194 68007002 912 156 64004001 2,246 195 68014001 270 157 64004003 283 196 69001004 560 158 64004007 225 197 69003001 372

Attachment C Page 4 of 7 Group 2: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 198 69003002 1,715 236 86002001 1,731 199 71001002 300 237 86003042 227 200 71001003 141 238 86003075 109 201 71001005 239 239 87009001 218 202 71001008 320 240 87009002 237 203 71001026 186 241 87009007 179 204 71002004 299 242 87009025 113 205 71002007 691 243 88001001 7,104 206 71002010 218 244 88001010 787 207 71002030 190 245 89007002 451 208 72001001 254 246 89007011 108 209 72001003 448 247 89008001 784 210 72001006 4,368 248 89008006 370 211 73007001 191 249 89008009 1,127 212 76001001 4,967 250 91015004 425 213 77001001 10,052 251 91018001 423 214 81001007 1,112 252 92001001 1,831 215 81001012 536 253 92001011 407 216 81001014 324 254 92002006 100 217 81001019 621 256 92003027 456 219 82001024 231 257 92003074 315 218 82001020 956 258 92003082 174 220 82002001 1,290 259 92003088 872 221 83001009 109 260 92004001 435 222 83001012 852 261 92004005 937 223 83001013 634 262 92004006 721 224 83001018 467 263 92004008 1,271 225 84002001 1,328 264 92004009 437 226 84002005 152 265 92005020 1,400 227 84002014 2,744 266 92005021 4,433 228 84002053 167 267 92005021 394 229 84002058 110 268 92005022 2,404 230 85002022 125 269 92005023 118 231 85006001 2,037 270 94002001 124 232 85006004 246 271 94002046 163 233 85006005 292 272 94002052 160 234 85006010 105 273 94002064 131 235 85006011 882 274 94002071 161

Attachment C Page 5 of 7 Group 2: ≥100 Acres and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (337 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 275 94002080 150 306 96004024 1,527 276 94003001 876 307 96005001 766 277 94003002 231 308 96005003 1,860 278 94003005 176 309 96005011 158 279 94003006 310 310 96006001 4,472 280 94004004 560 311 97025001 245 281 94004009 205 312 97025002 239 282 94004010 109 313 97025008 214 283 94004012 534 314 97025015 119 284 94004020 420 315 97025020 101 285 94005006 123 316 97026001 1,140 286 94005008 152 317 97026002 1,170 287 94005009 105 318 98001001 646 288 94005048 377 319 98001002 498 289 94005074 264 320 98001003 1,713 290 94006001 342 321 98001005 112 291 94006011 128 322 98001007 1,402 292 94006029 301 323 98001008 1,579 293 94012002 486 324 98011001 117 294 95001035 172 326 98011015 308 295 95002003 163 327 98011034 184 296 95002011 182 328 98073001 441 297 95002056 149 329 98073003 158 298 95003001 1,030 330 98073004 368 299 95003004 489 331 99010006 119 300 95003008 100 332 99010007 222 301 95003010 129 333 99010010 340 302 95003011 435 334 99010026 497 303 95004001 979 335 99011001 1,160 304 95004002 4,600 336 99011002 2,074 305 96004001 113 337 99011003 385

Attachment C Page 6 of 7 Group 3: 90 ≥ AND < 100 and Outside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (13 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 435 15041111 92 442 39010047 97 436 91017006 94 443 91013038 97 437 46005001 98 444 87006002 97 438 39008035 94 445 62001001 94 439 86001001 99 446 91017060 98 440 42005007 97 447 91015024 99 441 67001063 97

Group 4: 90 ≥ AND < 100 and Inside of UIC Line / No Pass Zone (18 Parcels)

Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Parcel Tax Map Area in Acres Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) Identifier Key (TMK) (GIS-Calculated) 448 85005036 98 457 94006002 90 449 95002039 93 458 94002012 99 450 95001087 94 459 45041001 96 451 91015017 97 460 97024006 97 452 95003007 91 461 83001011 90 453 42013005 94 462 53007021 96 454 85006002 95 463 56003044 90 455 25019003 96 464 67003004 93 456 45023003 95 465 92019089 92

Attachment C Page 7 of 7

Attachment D

Committee’s Community-Based Criteria Site Data Sheets

Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Landfill Site Selection (MACLSS)

Department of Environmental Services City and County of Honolulu Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 1: Landfill Capacity Criterion Definition Landfill capacity is the volume of solid waste required to fill the landfill site at the future projected fill rates.

Rationale A landfill site with a longer capacity is preferred over a site with less capacity. The MACLSS established a minimum capacity of 15 years to justify the cost of acquiring, permitting, and constructing a new landfill. The time requirement was translated to cubic yard volume estimates using current fill rates for Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill.

Measurement Measurement was carried out in five steps: (1) a temporary site footprint was established at each site; (2) the usable landfill area was calculated as the total area of the footprint minus the area needed for landfill support facilities and other solid-waste related activities; (3) the total volume in cubic yards was estimated from the area of the top and bottom surfaces of the landfill and the distance between the surfaces; (4) the available volume of MSW that can be placed in the site was estimated as total volume minus the volume of soil and other materials needed for the liner, leachate, and gas controls, and for daily, intermediate, and final cover; and (5) the available volume was converted to tons of MSW and H–POWER ash using the compacting factors that are being achieved at the WGSL. Capacity in cubic yards for each site (raw data) was then transformed to a ten-point scale with endpoints defined as shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 The site with the least cubic yards of capacity.

10 The site with the greatest cubic yards of capacity.

Data Source Plant habitats were identified in DLNR documents and animal habitats were identified in the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (U Data and Measurement Issues Estimates may be refined at a later date.

Calculation Detail Landfill Capacity Site Site name TMK Num. Detail (Census Block) Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 none 16,518,292 2 2 Upland Laie 55007001 none 14,474,548 2 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 none 14,094,080 2 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 none 12,506,560 2 5 Keaau 83001013 none 12,595,616 2 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 none 93,793,394 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 none 6,033,507 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 none 7,871,800 1 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 none 7,893,540 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 none 14,623,695 2 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 none 41,605,467 5 Raw score data is measured in Cubic yards Range 87,759,887 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 93,793,394 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 1 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 2: Location Relative to Educational Institutions, Health Care Facilities, or Parks and Recreation Facilities Criterion Definition

Distance measured between subject facilities and landfill. Entities include schools: any school for children up to age 18, public or private, academic or vocational, and public and private colleges and universities but excluding commercial training institutions for adults covered in Criterion 5; health care facilities: any medical or dental health center or office, hospitals (general, specialized, rehab), skilled nursing facilities, clinics (except school clinics), day care or elderly day care, and outpatient surgery centers; public recreational facilities: national, state, and county parks, sports facilities, playgrounds (except school playgrounds), zoos, and community meeting centers. Rationale

The closer a potential site is to the subject facilities the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion assigned lower site values to sites located near these facilities.

Measurement

Measurement was conducted in three steps. First, we identified all facilities defined above near the site. Second, we measured the distance from the boundary of each facility to the boundary of the landfill footprint. Third, we identified the nearest facility and input the distance from that facility to the nearest boundary of the site footprint as the raw score for the site. Raw distances were transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned Shortest distance from the nearest school, health care facility park or 1 recreational facility. Greatest distance from the nearest school, health care facility park or 10 recreational facility.

Data Source

Data taken from Google Earth and C&C HoLIS. Any change to the currently assigned footprints may result in minor changes to the findings shown here.

Data and Measurement Issues None.

Calculation Detail Location Relative to Educational Institutions, Health Care Facilities, Site Site name TMK or Parks and Recreation Facilities Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Hawaii Pacific University 0.20 1 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Brigham Young University 0.38 2 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Waimea Beach Park 1.50 7 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Uncle Bryan's Sunset Suratt Surf 1.53 7 5 Keaau 83001013 AcademyMakaha Elementary 0.53 3 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Kapuni Neighborhood Park 1.45 7 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Makapuu Beach Park 0.29 2 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Aikahi Elementary 0.22 1 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 Kalaheo High School 0.17 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Kahuku Elementary School 1.84 8 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Kahuku Elementary School 2.18 10 Raw score data is measured in Miles Range 2.01 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 2.18 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 2 of 22 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 3: Location Relative to Residential Concentrations

Criterion Definition Distance measured between residential concentration to landfill site. A residential concentration is defined as one or more residential housing units. This criterion does not include visitor accommodations covered in Criterion 5.

Rationale The closer a potential site is to concentrations of residential development the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion assigned lower values to landfill sites located near residential concentrations.

Measurement All existing residential concentrations near the landfill site were identified. The distance from the landfill footprint to the nearest residential unit in each concentration was calculated from the property line nearest the landfill to the footprint boundary of the site. The shortest distance calculated was entered as the raw score. Raw scores were then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Shortest distance from the nearest residential concentration.

10 Greatest distance to the nearest residential concentration.

Data Source Residences were identified using Tax Map Key (TMK) maps as well as the HoLIS system and TerraMetrics Google satellite maps.

Data and Measurement Issues Where the nearest building was a single unit it was sometimes difficult to determine whether that unit was a residence or commercial structure.

Calculation Detail Site Location Relative to Residential Concentrations Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Lipalu Street 0.34 2 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Poohaili Street 0.28 2 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Punalau Place 0.67 4 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Farm/Residence 0.74 4 5 Keaau 83001013 Piliuka Place 0.30 2 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Piliuka Place 0.30 2 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Papalalo Place 0.54 3 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Ilikaa Place 0.20 1 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 Hako Street 0.14 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Huehu Place 1.47 9 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Kahana Street 1.70 10 Raw score data is measured in Miles Range 1.56 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 1.70 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 3 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 4: Location Relative to Visitor Accommodations

Criterion Definition Distance measured between visitor accommodations and landfill site. Visitor accommodations include hotels, motels, vacation condominium units, time-share units, and hostels. Bed and breakfast and temporary visitor rentals are covered in Criterion 3.

Rationale The closer a potential site is to visitor accommodations the greater the potential impact of a landfill at that location. This criterion assigns lower scores to sites located nearer to visitor facility.

Measurement All visitor accommodations near the landfill site were identified. The distance between the footprint boundary of the landfill site and the boundary of the visitor accommodations property were measured. The shortest distance from a visitor accommodation and the landfill footprint was entered as the raw score. Distances were transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Shortest distance from the nearest visitor accommodations facility.

10 Farthest distance from the nearest visitor accommodations facility

Data Source The City and County of Honolulu's HoLIS system was used. Where HoLIS did not locate a visitor accommodation near the site, Google Earth was used to confirm the finding.

Data and Measurement Issues Using just the City and County of Honolulu's HoLIS system is insufficient to determine if there is an existing visitor accommodation. Google Earth is required to determine the presence of visitor accommodations. The "hotels/motels" box was checked in order to detect existing visitor accommodations.

Calculation Detail Site Location Relative to Visitor Accommodations Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 none 0.00 1 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Tiki Moon Villas 0.89 4 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 none 0.00 1 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Hawaii Beach Homes 1.78 6 5 Keaau 83001013 none 0.00 1 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 none 0.00 1 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 none 0.00 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 none 0.00 1 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 none 0.00 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 none 0.00 1 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Sunset Hale Rentals 3.19 10 Raw score data is measured in Years Range 3.19 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 3.19 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 4 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 5: Location Relative to Local or Visitor Commercial Facilities

Criterion Definition

The distance measured between commercial facilities and the landfill site. Commercial facilities include stores, shopping centers, and office buildings. Local and visitor commercial facilities include visitor centers, major attractions (public and private), museums, post offices, and fire stations. Medical office buildings are included in Criterion 2.

Rationale

The closer a potential site is to visitor and commercial facilities the less desirable that site is as a landfill location. This criterion assigns lower value to sites located close to visitor commercial facilities.

Measurement

All local or visitor commercial facilities near the landfill site were identified. The distance between the footprint boundary of the landfill site and the boundary of the commercial facilities were measured along roadways identified. The shortest distance from a visitor facility and the landfill footprint was entered at the raw score. Distances were transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Shortest distance from the nearest local or visitor commercial facility.

10 Greatest distance from the nearest local or visitor commercial facility.

Data Source

State of Hawaii GIS maps (HoLIS), TerraMetrics satellite maps, and City and County of Honolulu map information.

Data and Measurement Issues

None.

Calculation Detail Site Location Relative to Local or Visitor Commercial Facilities Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden 0.14 2 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Bank of Hawaii 0.07 1 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Farming/Houses 0.12 1 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Alluvion 1.43 7 5 Keaau 83001013 Farming/Houses 0.02 1 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Makaha Valley Country Club 1.24 7 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Hawaii Kai Champion Course Office 0.11 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Aikahi Fire Station 0.19 2 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 Dolphin Excursions Hawaii 0.12 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Kahuku Fire Station 1.99 10 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Fumi's Kahuku Shrimp 1.65 8 Raw score data is measured in Years Range 1.97 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 1.99 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 5 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 6: Effect on Established Public View Planes Criterion Definition

A view plane is the unobstructed view from an offsite location to the operating area of a landfill site. View planes have been established by the City and County for many areas, and those determinations were used for this criterion.

Rationale

Visual impact is one of the common impacts of a landfill if the operating area cannot be hidden by a ridge or vegetation. This criterion will provide a measure of the visual impact.

Measurement

Evaluate City-defined scenic view planes and applicability to site. Evaluate “visibility” or level of exposure of site to public access roads. The nearest public road from the landfill site footprint was used as the basis for measurement. Along the roadway samples of views were taken at 5 points: (1) Nearest to the landfill site on the nearest public road; (2) 1/4 miles of road in one direction from the 1st point; (3) 1/4 miles of road in the other direction from the 1st point; (4) 1/2 miles of road in one direction from the 1st point; & (5) 1/2 miles of road in the other direction from the 1st point. However, in some cases it was not appropriate to take sample viewpoints going in certain directions due to obvious obstructions. Some samples were taken in the direction that had the most potential for an unobstructed view plane.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Any obstruction of established view planes. 10 No obstruction of established public planes.

Data Source

Google Earth, C&C Honolulu HoLIS shape file "Public_Street_Centerline.shp", and Hawaii State GIS shape file "cntrs_100n83.shp"

Data and Measurement Issues

Street view images from Google Earth may be outdated or missing. A view plane was assigned if any portion of the footprint might be visible. Therefore sites with the same number of view plans may have different levels of exposure.

Calculation Detail Effect on Established Public View Planes Site Num. Site name TMK Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 No view planes for the 5 sampled street views 0.00 10 2 Upland Laie 55007001 1 view plane out of 5 sampled street views 1.00 8 No view planes for the 5 sampled street views. Further Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 0.00 10 3 study needed on the "public road" definition. There were no view planes for the 5 street views. Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 0.00 10 4 Further study needed on the "public road" definition. 5 Keaau 83001013 One view plane out of 5 sampled street views 1.00 8 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 5 view planes out of 5 sampled street views 5.00 1 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 3 view planes out of 5 sampled street views 3.00 5 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 4 view planes out of 5 sampled street views 4.00 3 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 2 view planes out of 5 sampled street views 2.00 6 No view planes from the nearest public road "Cane Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 0.00 10 10 Haul Road". 3 view planes out of 5, an access road bisects the landfill footprint, however the road seems extremely Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 3.00 5 isolated and although in the public GIS, may not be 11 considered a public roadway. Raw score data is measured in View planes Range 5.00 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum 5.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 6 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 7: Wind Direction Relative to Landfill Site

Criterion Definition The highest level of impact from wind direction and velocity is measured using data available for locations near each landfill site. Wind impact is estimated relative to the nearest populated area.

Rationale Wind can affect areas near landfill by transmitting dust, litter, and odor from a landfill to a receptor. In general, a site with weaker winds in a direction other than toward populated areas is preferred over one with strong winds blowing toward a populated area for a large percentage of the year.

Measurement An index of wind impact was developed by multiplying the maximum annual wind speed by the percentage of time wind blows in the direction of the nearest residential concentration. Wind speed and direction were measured at the nearest meteorological station. The receptors (usually populated areas) are indicated in the calculation details table. The index of wind impact was entered as the raw score for each landfill site. The raw scores were then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 The site with the least appropriate wind pattern (wind impact index) 10 The site with the most appropriate wind pattern (wind impact index)

Data Source Data from the meteorological station nearest the landfill site was used for that site. Source of data was from the Department of Health's (DOH) weather stations, a study of wind resources by HECO, and a study of wind resources for the MCAS Kaneohe Bay.

Data and Measurement Issues A higher wind speed will reduce the odor impact on nearby receptors and increase the impact of litter on receptors further away. Meteorological stations are located in areas that may not represent the conditions at the landfill sites.

Calculation Detail Wind Direction Relative to Landfill Site Site Site name TMK Num. Location of Wind Receptor Raw Score Scaled Score

1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 NE to ESE 13.42 8 2 Upland Laie 55007001 NE to SE 13.42 8 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 NE to SE 13.42 8 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 NE to SE 12.3 10 5 Keaau 83001013 NE to SE 17.9 2 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 NE to SE 17.9 2 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 NE to SE 19.01 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 NE to ESE 13.42 8 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 NE to ESE 13.42 8 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 NE to SE 15.65 6 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 NE to SE 17.90 2 Raw score data is measured in Index Score Range 6.71 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum 19.01 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 7 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 8: Effect on Local Roads and Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods

Criterion Definition This criterion describes the effect of landfill-induced traffic on residential neighborhoods through which MSW trucks must travel. The definition of traffic impact is the distance between the residential units and the landfill site. This distance was measured along the roadway used by MSW trucks between the State highway and the landfill site access road.

Rationale A potential landfill site that causes less traffic through residential neighborhoods is preferred over sites that generate larger amounts of traffic (longer trips) passing residential homes (house passed). This criterion measures the impact of additional traffic in a residential area. The cost of upgrading the roadway is measured by Criterion 9. Road access to the potential landfill site is based on whether there is an access road available regardless of its condition (i.e. improvements needed). Estimated distances through residential concentrations were measured from the point at which trucks exit a state numbered highway and entry to the site access road.

Measurement The subject roadway was selected as the shortest route between the point at which MSW trucks leave the highway and the likely entry to the landfill footprint. Maps were used to identify residential housing units along the identified path. The distance between the roadways through residential concentrations was entered as the raw score. Those distance counts were then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned Greatest distance along local roadways through residential 1 neighborhoods. Smallest distance along local roadways through residential 10 neighborhoods. Data Source State of Hawaii GIS maps, City and County of Honolulu HoLIS System, Google Earth database. Data and Measurement Issues The route selected for MSW trucks may change. Distance measured may change if additional residential units are constructed between now and the date of the landfill opening. The distance between any new housing units in each multi-family residential building can be obtained to improve the measurements. The observation method may also have included some commercial estabs. which may overestimate the nearest units passed.

Calculation Detail

Site Effect on Local Roads and Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods Site name TMK Num. Subject Roadway Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 None 0.00 10 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Aakahi Gulch Rd. 0.23 9 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Ashley Rd. 0.00 10 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Kawailoa Rd. 0.00 10 5 Keaau 83001013 None 0.00 10 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Kawiwi Way 2.34 1 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Kalanianaole Hwy. 0.00 10 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Kaneohe Bay Dr. 0.14 9 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 None 0.00 10 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Holroyde Rd. 1.55 4 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Charlie Rd. 1.26 5 Raw score data is measured in Miles Range 2.34 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum 2.34 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 8 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 9: Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways Caused by Landfill Related Traffic

Criterion Definition

This criterion considers the extent to which developing siting a landfill at a specific site results in deterioration of existing roadways. The deterioration is measured as the cost of upgrading the subject roadways(s) to a level consistent with MSW track traffic.

Rationale

A potential site that produces less roadway deterioration, and thus less cost for roadway upgrading, is preferred over a site that will cause greater deterioration and require greater roadway upgrade expenditures.

Measurement

Roadways between the State highway and the landfill site were identified and roadway type was established. Distance along the path from the highway to the site were measured and determination was made as to the extent of upgrade required to carry heavy truck traffic. The cost of the required upgrades calculated in current dollars. Calculations included construction and maintenance costs for 15 years. Average construction costs per mile were multiplied by the miles of roadway improvement required, and those dollars were entered as raw scores. The raw scores were then transformed to a ten-point scale with orientation as shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Highest upgrade cost for construction and maintenance over 15 years.

10 Lowest upgrade cost for construction and maintenance over 15 years.

Data Source

Maps, construction costs sources, roadway types sources.

Data and Measurement Issues

1. Existing roads are assumed to be A.C. pavement and 24 inch wide unless otherwise specified. 2. Cost estimate does not include any earthwork required to access and develop the site.

Calculation Detail

Site Wear and Tear on Highways and Roadways Caused by Landfill Related Traffic Site name TMK Num. Subject Roadway Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Proposed driveway to Kapaa Quarry Pl. $ 23,075.00 10 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Aakahi Gulch Road, undeveloped road $ 841,700.00 9 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Ashley Road $ 2,127,353.40 8 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Kawailoa Road & Kawailoa Drive $ 7,796,550.00 1 5 Keaau 83001013 Proposed driveway to Farrington Highway $ 23,075.00 10 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Waianae Valley Road $ 328,250.00 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Proposed driveway to exit, Kalanianaole Hwy. $ 23,075.00 10 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 New access road $ 512,870.00 9 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 New access road $ 466,035.00 9 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Cane Haul Road (2 sections) $ 2,370,636.82 7 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Charlie Road; new access road $ 2,486,210.00 7 Raw score data is measured in Dollars Range$ 7,773,475.00 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum$ 7,796,550.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 9 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 10: Location Relative to Identified Community Disamenities Criterion Definition This criterion considers the relative number of "disamenities" currently exist in the larger community in which the potential landfill exists. Community disamenities include wastewater treatment plants, slaughterhouses, other landfill sites, public housing, correctional facilities, operating quarry sites, and power plants. The community was defined as the ahupua`a in which the landfill site is located.

Rationale The MACLSS wanted to avoid locating a landfill in an area that already has many community disamenities. Locating a landfill in an area with few existing disamenities was considered to be more appropriate than just locating it in a community that already has several disamenities.

Measurement Maps were used to identify the ahupua`a in which each landfill site was located. Then the number of disamenities within the Ahupua'a for that site were counted. That number of disamenities was entered as the raw score. The raw scores were then transformed to a ten- point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Highest number of disamenities existing in an LS area. 10 Lowest number of disamenities existing within any LS area.

Data Source The Ahupua‘a maps available from Bishop Museum (circa 1850) were used to describe the communities in which the landfill sites were located. Disamenities were identified using real property data, Google earth map, C&C HoLIS and lists of public projects, including Hawaiian Electric Company website, Oahu correctional facility list, and the C&C mayor's advisory committee on landfill site selection notes (2011).

Data and Measurement Issues As the ahupua'a map is only available in print, it is sometimes difficult to identify a ahupua'a in which footprint is located. The ahupua'a noted in the table below is the best estimate of the location of the footprint.

Calculation Detail Location Relative to Identified Community Disamenities Site Num. Site name TMK Ahupua'a Detail Raw Score Scaled Score Kapaa Quarry (in landfill 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Kailua 1.00 4 site) 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Kawailoa none 0.00 10 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Kawailoa none 0.00 10 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Mokulia none 0.00 10 5 Keaau 83001013 Wainae none 0.00 10 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Wainae none 0.00 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Maunalua none 0.00 10 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Kailua Kapaa Quarry 1.57 1 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 Kailua none 0.00 10 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Koolauloa none 0.00 10 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Koolauloa none 0.00 10 Raw score data is measured in Number Range 1.57 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum 1.57 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 10 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 11: Location Relative to H-POWER

Criterion Definition

Distance measured between the H-POWER facility and the landfill site. The measurement includes the distance along suitable truck- accessible roadways from the H-POWER facility to the landfill site. This criterion measures the additional cost of a site that is more than 12 miles from H-POWER.

Rationale

A landfill site with lower transportation costs was preferred. The H-POWER contract provides cost adjustments for distances greater than 12 miles.

Measurement

The distance was measured in miles along suitable truck-accessible roadways from the H-POWER facility to each landfill site. The excess distance was calculated by subtracting 12 miles from the total distance. The excess distances were transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned Greatest distance along suitable truck-accessible roadways from H- 1 POWER facility to each LS.

Shortest distance along suitable truck-accessible roadways from H- 10 POWER facility to each LS.

Data Source

The distance was measured using Google Earth from H-POWER to the point at which the landfill access road intersected the public road.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion

None.

Calculation Detail Location Relative to H-POWER Site Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 none 31.7 6 2 Upland Laie 55007001 none 47.5 1 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 none 32.2 5 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 none 34.0 5 5 Keaau 83001013 none 19.8 9 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 none 16.3 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 none 37.6 4 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 none 30.3 6 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 none 30.9 6 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 none 44.7 2 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 none 42.4 2 Raw score data is measured in Miles Range 31.2 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum 47.50 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 11 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 12: Effect of Precipitation on Landfill Operations Criterion Definition

Precipitation is the amt. of rainfall at a site. It considers peak events and annual ave. cumulative rainfall. Peak events were measured for a 24-hr. and a 100-year average recurrence interval thus exceeding State landfill regs. (24-hour & 25-year ave. recurrence interval). The annual ave. cum. rainfall is the annual rainfall average over the 30-year period 1978 to 2007. Rationale

Precipitation affects landfill operations by reducing the efficiency of earthmoving, generating leachate, and making it difficult to manage discharge from the site. The Committee is concerned with very severe storms and with heavy precipitation over a period longer than 24 hrs. Peak event rainfall describes the worst case scenario for both of those. Sites with lower peak event rains are preferred over sites with higher peak event rains.

Measurement

The watershed area above each site was identified on maps. Several pts. along the ridgeline within the watershed, in & outside site boundaries, were identified for inspection. The point coords. were identified on maps, and the 100-yr. peak rainfall and 24-hr. duration were identified for each point in National Weather Service (NWS) records. The duration and peak precipitation. figures were scaled separately and then multiplied, and that combined precipitation. scores were entered as raw scores for the landfill sites. The raw precipitation. scores were then transformed to a 10-point. scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Highest precipitation score (peak event and 24-hour duration). 10 Lowest precipitation score (peak event and 24-hour duration).

Data Source

Google Earth maps identified watershed & latitude/longitude of precipitation measurement stations. NWS records identified precipitation intensity and duration. Annual average cumulative rainfall came from the 2011 Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii used as ArcGIS shape files to identify isohyets (lines of constant rainfall) near sites.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion

Peak event precipitation depends on past rainfall measurements. Greater rainfall may occur in the future, but the extent of uncertainty is equal for all sites. Annual average cum. rainfall was based on isohyets for the entire island and site. In most cases sites were bordered by 2 isohyets. In some cases 2 or 3 isohyets were encountered and the score was based on the isohyet that best represented the site area.

Calculation Detail Site Effect of Precipitation on Landfill Operations Site name TMK Location of 100 yr. Cum Num. 100 yr. Raw Score Scaled Score Rain Avg. 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 21.3888, -157.7814 0.511 65 3.80 8 2 Upland Laie 55007001 21.6270, -157.9529 0.627 80 1.70 10 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 21.6062, -158.0242 0.500 65 3.90 8 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 21.6069, -158.0568 0.525 65 3.68 8 5 Keaau 83001013 21.5142, -158.2080 0.461 35 7.56 4 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 21.4856, -158.1673 0.523 35 6.61 5 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 21.3090, -157.6630 0.347 30 10.00 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 21.4101, -157.7614 0.543 45 5.38 6 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 21.4103, -157.7620 0.537 45 5.45 6 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 21.6343, -157.9601 0.761 65 1.65 10 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 21.6608, -157.9891 0.628 65 2.79 9 Raw score data is measured as Index of precipitation Range 8.35 Scale direction: 1=normal scaled score; 0=inverted scale score 0 Maximum 10.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 12 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 13: Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost Criterion Definition This criterion is an estimated cost of landfill operations in 2012 (the first year of operation). Costs are expressed as the value of the cost of acquisition, development, and closure, and operations costs including the costs of storm water control and treatment, drainage facilities to handle peak rain events, and soil suitability for daily cover. To adjust for different site capacities, final costs are expressed as cost per cubic yard of capacity.

Rationale The cost of a new landfill is an important consideration and lower costs are preferred. Site-specific factors can make the cost of one site significantly different from other sites. This criterion measures that difference.

Measurement The costs described above are summed. The result is divided by the estimated cubic yards of capacity at the site. This figure is entered as the raw score for the site. Raw scores are then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 The highest estimated annual per cubic yard cost of landfill operations in 2012.

10 The lowest estimated annual per cubic yard cost of landfill operations in 2012. Data Source Comparative cost for Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (WGSL), property tax records, and current road costs.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion None.

Calculation Detail Landfill Development, Operation and Closure Cost Site Site name TMK Capacity (Cubic Num. Total Cost Raw Score Scaled Score Yards) 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 16,518,292 $ 37,166,157 $ 2.25 8 2 Upland Laie 55007001 14,473,548 $ 33,144,425 $ 2.29 7 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 14,094,080 $ 36,362,726 $ 2.58 7 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 12,506,560 $ 32,266,925 $ 2.58 7 5 Keaau 83001013 12,595,616 $ 38,920,453 $ 3.09 6 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 93,793,394 $ 44,082,895 $ 0.47 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 6,033,507 $ 42,294,884 $ 7.01 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 7,871,800 $ 32,982,842 $ 4.19 5 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 7,893,540 $ 32,600,320 $ 4.13 5 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 14,623,695 $ 40,507,635 $ 2.77 7 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 41,605,467 $ 73,641,677 $ 1.77 8 Raw score data is measured in Dollars Range 6.54 Scale direction: 1 = normal scaled score; 0 = inverted scale 0 Maximum 7.01 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data andscore the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the lowest raw score is set at to 10 and the highest score is set at 1.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 13 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 14: Displacement Cost

Criterion Definition This criterion considers the cost of displacing an existing commercial operation at a potential landfill site. The cost is considered to be the reduction in economic value to the county due to loss of business at the site. Loss of revenue and cost of relocation accruing to the owner of the commercial operation are covered in Criterion 13. Rationale The MACLSS wanted to avoid use of landfill sites that would displace important elements of industry in the City and County of Honolulu. Use of a site that would displace commercial operations in the visitor or agricultural industry, for example, would be contrary to the General Plan. This criterion attempts to measure the economic value of displaced commercial activity.

Measurement Commercial operations for each site were identified. The economic value of production (gross revenues), total payments to local employees (gross payroll), and number of jobs (FTE employees) were estimated annually for each of the last five years. The direct value of the business was the sum of revenues and payroll. Indirect and induced costs were estimated using IO Model multipliers and the total induced sales and payroll values were entered as the raw score for displacement cost. The raw scores were transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 The site with the highest estimated displacement cost. 10 The site with the lowest estimated displacement cost. Data Source HoLIS maps were used to identify existing commercial operations within the TMK boundaries of each landfill site. The value of operations were from public financial records. Payroll records for quarry workers were taken from Hawaiian Cement VP's verbatim reported in a 2004 Honolulu Advertiser newspaper article (Ameron workers strike, Hawaiian Cement next, www.honoluluadvertiser.com, March 13, 2012). Tax base data and multipliers for indirect and induced economic value were taken from the DBEDT READ I-O Model.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion

Estimating displacement cost is a complex process and one subject to many subjective decisions. For the present problem, it is made simply by the fact that only one potential site, the Ameron Quarry site, has an existing commercial operation within its borders. Thus, regardless of the method of estimation, the rescaled scores will be 1 for the Ameron Quarry site and 10 for all others.

Calculation Detail Site Displacement Cost Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Kapaa Quarry $509,664,000.00 1 2 Upland Laie 55007001 none $0.00 10 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 none $0.00 10 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 none $0.00 10 5 Keaau 83001013 none $0.00 10 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 none $0.00 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 none $0.00 10 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Kapaa Quarry $0.00 10 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 none $0.00 10 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 none $0.00 10 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 none $0.00 10 Raw score data is measured in Dollars Range $ 509,664,000.00 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 0 Maximum $ 509,664,000.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 14 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 15: Potential for Solid Waste-related Land Uses

Criterion Definition

This criterion measures acres of land within the site that could accommodate businesses that would benefit from operating close to the landfill (e.g., metal and other material recyclers).

Rationale

A site with adequate space for solid waste related activities will provide more cost effective opportunities for such activities to colocate in the landfill site. This criterion identifies whether a site has space that could be used for other activities and is not needed for landfill- related activities.

Measurement

Estimate the acres of developable land not suited for landfill. Transform the range of acres into 10-point scale where 1 is the least acreage available for solid waste-related uses and 10 is the greatest acreage available

Point Value Measure Assigned 1 Least acreage available for solid waste-related uses. 10 Greatest acreage available for solid waste-related uses.

Data Source

The topographic map of the site and the preliminary landfill layout.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion

None.

Calculation Detail Site Potential for Solid Waste-related Land Uses Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 none 27 5 2 Upland Laie 55007001 none 23 4 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 none 0 1 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 none 0 1 5 Keaau 83001013 none 33 6 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 none 60 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 none 0 1 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 none 42 7 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 none 0 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 none 48 8 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 none 30 6 Raw score data is measured in Acres Range 60 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 60 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 15 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 16: Location Relative to Wetlands and Natural Area Reserve Systems (NARS)

Criterion Definition This criterion measures the distance between the landfill boundary and the boundary of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) classified wetland(s) or the boundary of a Natural Area Reserve System (NARS) classified by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Rationale A landfill site (LS) at greater distance from wetlands is preferred over a site that occupy or is near wetland areas.

Measurement All wetlands and NARS sites near each landfill site were identified. Distances were measured in miles along a point-to-point aerial path from the nearest boundary of the wetlands or NARS site to the nearest point on the footprint of the potential landfill site. The shortest distance for each site was entered as the raw data for each site. The raw data were then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned The site with the shortest distance between the LS boundary and a parcel 1 classified as containing wetlands or a NARS area .

The site with the greatest distance between the LS boundary and a parcel 10 classified as containing wetlands or a NARS area.

Data Source

Hawaii State GIS shape files "NaturalAreaReserve.shp", " wetlnds_ln_n83.shp", "wetlnds_py_n83".

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion All distances will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile. Raw score will be a distance value.

Calculation Detail

Site Location Relative to Wetlands and Natural Area Reserve Systems (NARS) Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 Nearest wetland 0.30 8 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Wetland within landfill footprint 0.00 1 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Wetland within landfill footprint 0.00 1 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Wetland within landfill footprint 0.00 1 5 Keaau 83001013 Nearest wetland 0.04 2 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Nearest wetland 0.40 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Nearest wetland 0.20 6 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 0.3 miles from nearest wetland 0.30 8 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 0.26 miles from nearest wetland 0.26 7 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Wetland adjacent to the landfill footprint 0.00 1 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Wetland within landfill footprint 0.00 1 Raw score data is measured in Miles Range 0.40 Scale direction: 1 = normal scaled score; 0 = inverted scale score 1 Maximum 0.40 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the lowest raw score is set at 10 and the highest score is set at 1.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 16 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criterion 17: Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Criterion Definition

This criterion considers the distance from the landfill footprint to parcels classified as a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals.

Rationale

A landfill site (LS) at a greater distance from a habitat for listed threatened or endangered plants or animals is preferred over a site at a lesser distance from these habitats.

Measurement

All habitats for threatened or endangered species of plants and animals near each landfill site were identified. Distances were measured in miles along a point-to-point aerial path from the nearest boundary of the habitat to the nearest point on the footprint of the potential landfill site. The shortest distance for each site was entered as the raw data for each site. The raw data were then transformed to a ten- point scale with the orientation noted below.

Point Value Measure Assigned The site with the shortest distance between the LS boundary and a parcel classified 1 as containing a habitat for endangered species. The site with the greatest distance between the LS boundary and a parcel classified 10 as containing habitat for endangered species.

Data Source

Plant habitats were identified in DLNR documents and animal habitats were identified in the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) listings. Hawaii State GIS shape files used included "OA_crhb_Plant.shp", "OA_crhb_Elepaio.shp", and "OA_crhb_picturewing". Elepaio stream buffers were created by R.M. Towill.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion

None.

Calculation Detail Location Relative to Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Site Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 1.5 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 1.50 5 2 Upland Laie 55007001 0.5 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 0.50 2 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 1 mi les from nearest Critical Habitat 1.00 3 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 1.4 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 1.40 4 5 Keaau 83001013 0.2 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 0.20 1 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 0.03 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 0.03 1 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 1.2 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 1.20 4 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 3.75 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 3.75 10 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 3.4 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 3.40 9 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 1.9 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 1.90 6 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 1.2 miles from nearest Critical Habitat 1.20 4 Raw score data is measured in miles Range 3.72 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 3.75 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the highest raw score is set at 1 and the lowest raw score is set at 10.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 17 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criteria 18: Surface Water Resources Criterion Definition This criterion measures the potential at each landfill site to discharge untreated storm water from the landfill to waters identified as Class 1 inland waters or Class AA marine waters by the Department of Health's (DOH) Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Ch. 11-54 Water Quality Standards. Rationale In general, a site with no chance or only a small chance of discharging untreated storm water into streams or the ocean is preferred over one with a greater potential for untreated water discharge. The MACLSS combined stream and ocean criteria to indicate equal concern for discharge into any surface water.

Measurement All Class 1 perennial or intermittent streams and Class AA marine waters (critical surface waters) within or near each potential landfill site were identified. Critical surface waters determined to be up gradient of a landfill footprint were eliminated from further consideration. Sites that contained critical surface waters within the landfill footprint were assigned a raw score of zero. Sites with no down gradient critical surface waters were assigned a value equal to the maximum plus 1. Then the distance between other critical surface waters and the nearest point on the landfill footprint was measured along a point-to-point aerial path. The shortest distance from each site was entered as the raw data for this criterion. The raw data were then transformed to a ten-point scale with the orientation shown below.

Point Value Measure Assigned The site with the shortest distance to the nearest Class 1 perennial or intermittent 1 stream of Class AA marine waters. The site with the greatest distance to the nearest Class 1 perennial or intermittent 10 stream of Class AA marine waters. Data Source State of Hawaii, DOH, Water Quality Standards Maps; Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-54, Water Quality Standards Map (digitized polygons) and Hawaii State GIS shape file "Class Water".

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion All distances will be measured to the nearest hundredth of a mile.

Calculation Detail Surface Water Resources Site Site name TMK Num. Critical Surface Water Type Raw Score Scaled Score No down-gradient surface waters near the site. 1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 6.00 10 2 Upland Laie 55007001 Down-gradient (Class 1 inland Waters) 5.00 8 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 Down-gradient (Class AA marine waters) 1.40 3 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 Down-gradient (Class AA marine waters) 2.80 5 5 Keaau 83001013 Down-gradient (Class AA marine waters) 2.30 4 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 Down-gradient (Class 1 inland waters) 0.05 1 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 Down-gradient (Class AA coastal waters) 3.00 5 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 Down-gradient (Class 1 inland waters) 0.60 2 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 Down-gradient (Class AA coastal waters) 0.26 1 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 Down-gradient (Class AA coastal waters) 5.60 9 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 Down-gradient (Class AA coastal waters) 4.30 7 Raw score data is measured in miles Range 5.95 Scale direction: 1 = normal; 0 = inverted 1 Maximum 6.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the lowest raw score is set at to and the highest score is set at 1.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 18 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Criteria 19: Archaeological and Culturally Significant Resources

Criterion Definition Archaeological and cultural resources include all sites listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places or are identified as a culturally significant sites by the DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD).

Rationale A better landfill site will not be located close to archaeological and cultural resources. Measurement This criterion measures the number of miles along a point-to-point aerial path from the archaeological and cultural resources to the site. The range of measurements is transformed into deciles as shown in the table below.

Point Value Measure Assigned

Known area(s) of significant archaeological and/or historical importance have 1 been listed in areas within 0.25 miles of the site.

Known area(s) of significant archaeological and/or historical importance have 5 been listed in areas between 0.25 and 0.5 miles of the site.

Known area(s) of significant archaeological and/or historical importance have 10 been listed in areas greater than 0.5 miles of the site.

Data Source

A lengthy list of archaeological studies was used to develop data for this Criterion; see Appendix.

Data Issues and Measurement Discussion Two problems are suggested. First, the scoring system may not be the most effective one; it does not distinguish between sites with resources in the footprint and those with resources within 0.25 miles of the footprint, and it makes an unused distinction between distances from 0.25 and 0.5 miles away, and those 0.5 or more miles from the footprint. Second, it may not be appropriate to assign a point value of zero to a site that has not been studied.

Calculation Detail Archaeological and Culturally Significant Resources Site Site name TMK Num. Detail Raw Score Scaled Score

1 Ameron Quarry 42015001 four sites within 0.25 miles 1.00 10 2 Upland Laie 55007001 trail adjacent to footprint 5.00 1 3 Upland Pupukea 1 61006001 3 sites within 0.25 miles 1.00 10 4 Upland Pupukea 2 61007001 1 site within 0.25 miles 1.00 10 5 Keaau 83001013 8 previously designated sites on site 1.00 10 6 Upland Nanakuli 1 85006011 3 sites within the footprint 1.00 10 7 Upland Hawaii Kai 39010047 There are identified 1.00 10 8 Kapaa Quarry Road 44011003 several sites within .5 miles 1.00 10 9 Kaneohe by H3 44012001 some site within .5 miles 1.00 10 10 Upland Kahuku 1 56008002 two sites within .25 miles 5.00 1 11 Upland Kahuku 2 57002001 2 sites within the footprint 5.00 1 Raw score data is measured in miles Range 4.00 Scale direction: 1 = normal scaled score; 0 = inverted scale score 0 Maximum 5.00 Note: Normal scaled score is used when the raw data and the scaled score have the same direction, low to high. The higher score is preferred and thus the highest score is set at 10 and lowest score is set at 1. In cases where the lower score is preferred, the scale is inverted, i.e., the lowest raw score is set at to and the highest score is set at one.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 19 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

Appendix A Wetland Code Description From USFWS Description for code PEM1C :

Description for code PEM1C : P System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. Wetlands lacking such vegetation are also included if they exhibit all of the following characteristics: 1. are less than 8 hectares ( 20 acres ); 2. do not have an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature; 3. have at low water a depth less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in the deepest part of the basin; 4. have a salinity due to ocean-derived salts of less than 0.5 ppt. Subsystem : EM Class EMERGENT: Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. 1 Subclass Persistent: Dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season. This subclass is found only in the Estuarine and Palustrine systems.

Modifier(s): C WATER REGIME Seasonally Flooded: Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface.

Description for code PSS3C : P System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergents, mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. Wetlands lacking such vegetation are also included if they exhibit all of the following characteristics: 1. are less than 8 hectares ( 20 acres ); 2. do not have an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature; 3. have at low water a depth less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in the deepest part of the basin; 4. have a salinity due to ocean-derived salts of less than 0.5 ppt. Subsystem : SS Class SCRUB-SHRUB: Includes areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 m (20 feet) tall. The species include true shrubs, young trees (saplings), and trees or shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions. 3 Subclass Broad-Leaved Evergreen: Woody angiosperms (trees or shrubs) with relatively wide, flat leaves that generally remain green and are usually persistent for a year or more; e.g. red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle).

Description for code R4SBC : R System RIVERINE: The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing water. Upland islands or Palustrine wetlands may occur in the channel, but they are not part of the Riverine System. 4 Subsystem INTERMITTENT: This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year, but may contain isolated pools when the flow stops. SB Class STREAMBED: Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide. Subclass :

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 20 of 21 Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets

GLOSSARY

Ahupua`a Ancient Hawaiian geographic division system DBEDT The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism DLNR The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources DOH The Hawaii Department of Health ENV Department of Environmental Services HoLIS Honolulu Land Information System H-Power Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery IO Model The Input-Output Model maintained by DBEDT LS Landfill Site MACLSS The Mayor's Advisory Council on Landfill Site Selection MSW Municipal Solid Waste NARS Natural Area Resource System NWS National Weather Service READ Research and Economic Analysis Division, DBEDT USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service WGSL Waimanalo Gulch Solid Waste Landfill

Notes

This document has been prepared to inform the MACLSS about minor changes to the landfill site selection criteria prior to the weighting exercise. The changes have occurred in the process of implementing and refining the definitions and measurement criteria based on the realities of available data on the sites.

The version shown here does not contain the actual data being collected. Any data shown is facsimile or place-holder data. Raw data and scores will be inserted after weighs have been decided. The document is a work in progress.

Following your lead we have attempted to eliminate correlated criteria where ever we could.

Oahu County Landfill Site Evaluation Data Sheets Page 21 of 21