State says golf course assessment incomplete

LIHU’E — The state Office of Environmental Quality Control has “strongly

urged” the county to withdraw its draft environmental assessment for an erosion

control project at Wailua Golf Course.

In a letter to County Engineer Cesar

Portugal, OEQC Director Genevieve Salmonson said the county needs to consult

with citizen groups and individuals before re-submitting the document, which

was published in the Jan. 23 edition of Environmental Notice.

“They haven’t

made the requirements of our administrative rules,” said OEQC official Leslie

Segundo in a telephone interview from O’ahu.

Without a complete report,

other government agencies will have difficulty making an informed decision on

whether to approve or reject the proposal, Segundo said.

The county is

proposing to construct a 3,500-foot revetment to stop severe erosion at a beach

fronting the golf course.

Segundo said OEQC accepted the first report from

Oceanit on the assumption that the report was complete.

“It was supposed

to include information about the lawsuits and other things (related to the

construction to seawalls at the beach),” Segundo said. “But it

didn’t.”

O’ahu-based Oceanit Laboratories, which drafted the report, sees

the proposal as the best way to halt erosion of the beach in front of the first

and second holes and other shoreline areas.

According to an Oceanit report,

erosion has occurred at the rate of a foot a year over the last 40 years, and

the recreational value of the course will be jeopardized if the erosion goes

unchecked

The course was once nationally ranked as one of the best

municipal courses in the nation and is a popular attraction for residents and

visitors.

Portugal and Administrative Assistant Wallace Rezentes, Sr.,

failed to respond to phone calls concerning the environmental

assessment.

The OEQC has asked the county to address the following issues

before further consideration will be given to the erosion project:

* The

county needs to consult with citizen groups and residents, including Kaua’i

Sierra Club representative Judy Dalton and Kaua’i attorney Kurt Bosshard, who

have vigorously opposed seawalls and revetments at the site.

* The report

should contain current shoreline certification and a coastal engineering

report.

* The report should include a map showing the revetment in

relation to the current shoreline, shoreline setback, state lands, lands

offered through executive orders and state conservation lands.

* The

report must analyze other alternatives.

The report must address issues

raised by Bosshard, which include:

* The removal of boulders for a seawall

that was intended to be constructed at the Wailua beach in the mid-1990s.

Although ordered by the Land Board to remove the boulders, the county has not

done so.

* A shoreline survey or certification should be done only after

the boulders are removed.

* Data is needed to show whether Hurricane Iniki

caused severe erosion at the beach.

* Data is needed to show the extent of

erosion over the last 20 years.

* The use of four-wheel vehicles has

contributed to the erosion.

* Parts of a seawall were built illegally on

state lands.

* The state Department of Land and Natural Resources needs to

give its opinion on the proposed revetment.

* The effect of stormwater

runoff from the golf course to the beach.

The first seawall, constructed

in 1987 on state lands without the state approval, was not completed to

specifications because the county ran out of money.

In 1992, Iniki broke up

the wall, strewing giant boulders on the beach.

After the hurricane, the

county received authorization from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to

use $940,000 to replace the wall.

In 1996, Louis Rego Trucking Co. began

building the wall. At the same time, Bosshard and other residents complained

the work went beyond what was allowed by the Army Corp. of Engineers.

The

Army Corps. subsequently ordered the work stopped, and an inspection verified

the complaints made by residents.

The Army Corps. later ordered the county

to remove stockpiled sand, boulders and rubble from the beach. In September

1996, the county ordered Rego to stop the work.

The DLNR issued its

stop-work order, saying the wall or parts of the wall sat on state lands and

that the county needed a Conservation District Use permit for the work.

The

state and county argued over where the boundary lines of the wall were located,

but the state prevailed, and the Land Board fined the county $2,500.

At the

same time, FEMA deobligated the $940,000.

The current proposal carries an

estimated construction cost of $5 million. The revetment would be built over 10

years, Oceanit said.

Unlike a vertical seawall, the revetment would be a

sloped permeable structure. It would allow overtopping seawater and rain runoff

to drain back into the ocean through recesses in the rocks that make up the

wall, Oceanit said.

Before any project can be implemented, the county

apparently must obtain a Special Management Area use permit and a state

Conservation District Use permit.

If the draft environmental assessment is

resubmitted by the county and meets the requirements of OEQC, a decision on

whether the proposed revetment will have any significant impact will be made,

Segundo said.