County will withdraw golf course proposal

LIHU’E — The county has agreed to comply with the state’s request to withdraw

a draft environmental assessment for an erosion control project at the Wailua

Golf Course.

Either the county or Oceanit Laboratories, an O’ahu

consultant, will consult with citizen groups and individuals and government

agencies before re-submitting the document, said Administrative Assistant

Wallace Rezentes Sr.

“The report is only incomplete as it relates to the

comments people and agencies might have,” Rezentes said.

Last week, Office

of Environmental Quality Control Director Genevieve Salmonson strongly urged

the county to withdraw the report, which was published in the Jan. 23 edition

of Environmental Notice.

Salmonson said the county failed to met the

requirements of its administrative rules before submitting the document. It

was initially accepted, she said, because the agency believed the draft was

complete.

It was later determined that the environmental assessment,

drafted by Oceanit, lacks information about two previous seawalls at the

site.

The county is proposing to construct a 3,500-foot revetment to stop

severe erosion at a beach fronting the golf course.

At an estimated cost

of $5 million, the structure would be built over 10 years.

The Oceanit

report said the revetment is the best way to halt severe erosion on the beach

by the first and second holes.

According to an Oceanit report, the ocean

has taken away 40 feet of beach over the last 40 years, and the recreational

value of the course could be jeopardized if the erosion continues.

Kurt

Bosshard, a Kaua’i attorney who has challenged the Oceanit assessment, said no

erosion has occurred at beach. “The beach is as it always has been,” he

said.

Bosshard, who has jogged the beach on a regular basis since 1981,

said:

* Only fill that was used to create a dirt road by the beach has

washed into the ocean.

* Erosion has been caused by rain runoff from the

course onto the beach and by four-wheel vehicles.

* Contrary to claims by

the county that two seawalls were erected, no seawalls were ever put up. Only

tons of boulders were laid down on the beach by the course.

* Contrary to

the Oceanit report, Hurricane Iniki didn’t inflict any damage to the

beach.

* Planting of naupaka plant will prevent further erosion.

“It

seems ironic that the county wants to take down a seawall in Aliomanu and wants

to put up a revetment here,” Bosshard said.

Rezentes declined to respond to

Bosshard’s complaints, saying only that a seawall was erected at one

time.

“We aren’t going to debate the issues in the report,” Rezentes said.

“We assumed the person who did the report is an expert. Otherwise, we wouldn’t

have hired him.”

The OEQC has asked the county to address a number of

issues before further consideration will be given to the erosion project. They

include:

* The county must solicit comments from citizen groups and

residents, including Bosshard and Kaua’i Sierra Club representative Judy

Dalton, who opposes the hardening of the shoreline.

* The report should

contain current shoreline certification and a coastal engineering report.

The report should include a map of the revetment in relation to the current

shoreline, shoreline setback, state lands, lands offered through executive

orders and state conservation lands.

* The report should analyze other

alternatives.

The report must address issues raised by Bosshard,

including:

* The removal of boulders for a seawall that was intended to be

constructed at the beach in the mid-1990s. Although ordered by the Land Board

to remove the boulders, the county has not done so.

* Data is needed to

show the extent of erosion over the last 20 years.

* Parts of a seawall

were built illegally on state lands.

According to the Oceanit study, the

first seawall was constructed in 1987 on state lands without state approval.

But it was not built out as planned because the county ran out of

money.

After Iniki broke up the wall, 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.

After verification, the Army

Corps. ordered the work stopped and 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 also ordered the work to stop, 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 the boundary lines of the wall, but the state prevailed, and the Land

Board fined the county $2,500.

At the same time, FEMA deobligated the

$940,000.

The revetment would be a sloped permeable structure and would

allow overtopping seawater and rain runoff to drain back into the ocean through

recesses in it , Oceanit said.

Oceanit recommend these erosion-control

options:

* No work.

* Replenishment of the sand.

* Offshore

breakwaters.

The county will make a recommendation on which option to

pursue when it resubmits the draft EA to the OEQC.

If the report meets the

requirements of OEQC, a decision on whether the proposed revetment will have

any significant impact will be made, the agency said.