[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN
WITH
BEACH MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS














HAWAII COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR















                                    BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN
                                                          WITH
                               BEACH MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS


       A


                                                        Prepared by:

                                                      Dennis J. Hwang
                                                            1
                                                 801  Alakea St., Suite 212
                                                 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813




                                                Dr. Charles H. Fletcher III
                                                    University of Hawaii
                                            Dept.  of Geology and Geophysics
                                                  Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

                                                        Prepared for:

                                       Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program
                                                  Office of State Planning
                                                   Office of the Governor


                                                          June 1992


                 The preparation of this report was financed in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
                 as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
                 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, through the
                 Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii.
        A*








                                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                  A qualitative analysis of 1990 aerial photographs for the island of -Oahu was
    :J
                conducted to ascertain the extent of beach degradation. By comparing the 1990
                aerial photos with previous aerial photographs and coastal studies, it is estimated
                that since 1928, gpproximately 8 to 9 miles, or close to 15% of the sand shorelines
                studied on Oahu have either disWeared or have been negatively impacted by
                shoreline stabilization.

                  Beach loss on Oahu gppears to have accelerated. Of the 8 to 9 miles of beach
                that have been impacted, approximately half, or 4 to 5 miles, have been degraded
                to the point that the beach is barely existent.       Of these severely impacted
                shorelines, approximately half, or 2 to 2.5 miles of beaches were lost in the last 10
                to 15 years. The loss of sandy shoreline over this time was greater than any other
                period studied.

                  Beach loss in the State due to hardening of the shoreline is not limited to the
                island of Oahu. At a visit to selected sites, beach loss or recreational impacts
                were found equalling I to 1.5 miles on Hawaii, 1 to 2 miles on Kauai, and 2.8 to
                as much as 6 miles of actual or imminent impacts on Maui. A thorough analysis
                of all the sandy shoreline on these islands would yield higher numbers.

                  Beach loss in the State has been concurrent with sea-level rise. An examination
                of tide gauge records around the islands indicate relative sea-level on Oahu and
                Kauai has risen .6-.7 in/decade. Because Hawaii and Maui are sinking due to
                volcanic growth, relative sea-level rise for these islands has been almost double, or
                approximately 1-1.5 in/decade.- The current trend of sea-level rise is projected to
                accelerate. By the year 2050, the seas around Oahu and Kauai 'May be rising 2.4-
                2.5 in/decade. Around Maui and Hawaii sea-level may rise at a rate of 2.8-3.4
                in/decade.   Planners should use the current rate of sea-level rise to estimate
                minimum beach recession rates. The 2050 projection should be used to determine
                maximum recession rates. Most likely, future sea-level rise will be between these
                rates.


                  The link between sea-level rise and beach loss has serious implications. Due to
                the gentle profile of many beaches, a small sea-level rise can lead to a large
     J
                landward movement of the waterline. At current rates of sea-level rise, a typical
                beach on Oahu and Kauai may recede 5 ft/decade, on Maui, 7 ft/decade and on









            Hawaii, 12 ft/decade. Accelerated sea-level risel as projected, could lead to
            recession on Oahu and Kauai of 18 ft/decade, on Maui of 21 ft/decade and on
            Hawaii of 35 ft/decadd.


              Without changes in shoreline management, loss of beaches along the coast is
            expected to accelerate for two reasons. First, each year, a greater percentage of the
            State's sandy shoreline is stabilized with seawalls and revetments. Second, as sea-
            level rises, these hardened barriers will have an increasing influence on beach
            erosion because of increased interaction with the nearshore current and wave
            regime. At the current rate of sea-level rise, evga narrow, gently sloping beach
            in the State with an armored shoreline could be lost within the next 50 years. At
            accelerated rates of sea-level rise, this problem will become critical.

              Beaches provide a buffer zone from wave activity. As seas move inland and
            beaches disappear, the susceptibility of coastal property and structures to wave
            damage is expected to increase.

            * This report discuss es options for the State that are commensurate with the
            problems associated with beach loss and sea-level rise. Effort has been made to
            consider solutions that are technically, legally and flnancially feasible. Solutions
            are designed to balance the benefits and burdens of each impacted p4m, and to
            respect private and public propeIV rights. The solutions should be viewed as
            options that the State m4y or mgy not pursue. Implementation of some of the
            solutions will require determination, commitrnent andleadership by the State.

              Through Beach Management Districts -(BMDs), erosion mitigation measures other
            than seawalls and revetments can be Dromoted. Where technical, financial and
            legal obstacles prevent the formation of a BMD, buried structures such as gently
            sloping revetinents or gravel berms should be the preferred erosion mitigation
            option.

            * There are many reasons why a coastal landowner may want to participate in the
            formation of a beach management district. The major benefits include increased
            long-term property protection from sea-level rise, and increased property values
            from the presence of a healthy beach adjacent to the land.

              BMI)s have been formed in numerous coastal states to deal with erosion. The
            three most common variations include an improvement district, an overlay district







                and a taxing district. Improvement and overlgy districts can be valuable tools to
                help recover or preserve beaches. Because of the extent of shoreline degradation
                around the islands, taxing districts do not appear suitable for Hawaii.

                  Other coastal states have used various fimding schemes to pay for the costs of
                a BMD. This report recommends a shared cost scheme with contributions from the
                State, cggnV and shoreline pEo= owners. Exact percentages can be worked out
                between the State and counties at a later date. Given the proper coordination
                between the State and the counties, suggested cost allocation ranges are State 60% -
                45%; counties - 10%; shoreline property owner 45% - 30%. Contributions from
                all three parties could be reduced if Federal assistance were obtained.

                * A dedicated State Beach Fund could be established for the puEposes o
                administeriniz and contributing to the capital improvements in a BMD. Resources
                from the State Beach Fund may also be used for the acquisition of selected coastal
                property.    Money for the Beach Fund could be derived from legislative
                appropriations, Federal programs where applicable, a shoreline property transfer
                fee, landowner contributions or other sources.

                  A properly structured package of tax incentives, credits and fees could be used
                to wport beach preservation. The package could include State income tax
                deductions for landowner contributions over a threshold amount that go towards
                financing a BMD. In addition, a small one time transfer -tax on the sale of
                beachfront property would ensure a steady stream of income into the State Beach
                Fund. Revenues from the transfer tax would rise as shorefront proper-ties increase
                in value. The tax would be paid not by current homeowners, but by future buyers
                of property. To make the transfer tax politically palatable, it could be linked with
                a small reduction in property assessments, for homeowners that.are in compliance
                with shoreline regulation, in order to reduce the property tax at the county level.
                Thus, long-term shoreline property owners would benefit from the shoreline tax
                package.

                  Beach Manaizement Districts Ma
                                                    y not be suitable for eveTY section of the coast.
                For this reason, other management strategies were developed, including regulatory
                proposals.

                  For nonurban land, or land that has not been subdivided, a setback is proposed
                which is the greater of 60 feet, or 30 years times the averalZe annual erosion rate.,.


                                                          iv









            or the historical range in the position of the vegetation line as measured over a 30
            year period. Thus, the setback would be based on local conditions for undeveloped
            coastal areas. To avoid the takings issue, variances --should be allowed to preserve
            buildable area. If a shoreline setback is greater than 60 feet, the State and counties
            can reduce or eliminate the economic burden on the landowner by develgRing a
            Rackage Of cOmRensating variances. Included in the land use package may be
            provisions for reduced front and side setbacks, increased density of buildings,
            increased height and transferable development rights. In addition, the shoreline
            setback may be reduced for preapproved and prefinanced sand replenishment
            projects. The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. South Carolina
            Coastal Council should not affect the zoning strategies developed in this report.

              A counly Beach Enforcement Fund could be established to support shoreline
            monitoring and enforcement activities. Money for the Beach Enforcement Fund
            would be derived from legislative appropriations and fines for illegal activities.
            Money from the Fund could be used for enforcement activities and to provide
            subsidies to landowners to convert vertical seawalls to buried erosion control
            structures.


            * A State agency is needed to implement and administer mAny of the pLoposed
            beach management programs. The agency could be established as a division, a
            branch, or an office. Alternatively, the agency could be formed as a unit within
            the Coastal Zone Management Program or the Department of Land and Natural
            Resources. Assuming that a division is formed, the Division of State Beaches
            would pursue Federal funding for erosion control projects; coordinate Federal,
            State, county and landowner activities concerning coastal erosion; promote,
            establish and administer Beach Management Districts; develop a voluntary
            relocation program in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management
            Agency; administer the State Beach Fund; provide technical assistance to coastal
            landowners, the State, and the county governments; and oversee scientific research
            related to long-term beach monitoring, sand resources, natural process, storm
            activity and sea-level rise.









                                                      v









                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


                1. INTRODUCTION       ......................................                       I


                11.. PROTECTING HAWAII'S SHORELINE                 ....................            5
                      A. Beach Degradation on Oahu        ..........................               5
                             1. Iroquois Point   .................................                 6
                             2. Kahala   .....................................                     6
                             3. Northwest Lanikai   .............................                 10
                             4. Southeast Lanikai   .............................                 10
                             5. Punaluu   ....................................                    13
                             6. Mahie Point to Makaua Beach Park       .................          13
                      B. Beach Degradation On The Outer Islands        .................          16
                             1. Hawaii   .....................................                    18
                             2. Maui  ......................................                      21
                             3. Kauai    .....................................                    26
                      C. Global and Local Sea-Level Rise     .......................              29
                             1. Global Sea Level    ..............................                29
                             2. Hawaiian Sea-Levels     ...........................               34
                      D. Prediction - Accelerated Beach Loss       ....................           39
                      E. Mitigating the Problem - Modification of Coastal Land Use        .....   41
                      F. Cooperation, Coordination and Sacrifice      ..................          44


                III. PRIVATE & PUBLIC PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE SHORELINE                            45
                      A. Public Property Interest   .............................                 45
                      B. Private Property Interest  ..............................                48

                IV. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & STRATEGY                      ...............         52
                      A. Objectives   ................                                       ...  52
                      B. Strategies   .......................................                     53
                             1. Develop the Beach Management District       ..............        53
                             2. Implement Economic Mechanisms in Beach Management            . .  53
                             3. Achieve Regulatory Efficiency    .....................            54
                             4. Enforce Existing Regulations    ......................            56
                             5. Offset Burdens with Benefits    ......................            56
    aj
                V. BEACH MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS                   ......................            57
                      A. The District Structure   ...............................                 57



                                                         vi









                           1. The Overlay District  . ..........
                                                                       .................           57
                           2. The Improvement District      ........................               59
                           3. Taxing -Districts . ..........         .............
                                                                                           .....   60
                    B. District Formation     ...................................                  61
                    C. Landowner Cooperation        .............................                  62
                    D. Liability   ........................................                        65
                    E. Procedures                                                                  65
                    F. Temporary Protection      ...............................                   66
                    G. Applicability   ......................................                      66

             VI. NONSTRUCTURAL AND STRUCTURAL OPTIONS                            ...........       68
                    A. Artificial Beach Nourishment        .........................               68
                           1. Concept    ....................................                      68
                           2. Planning   ....................................                      72
                           3. Sand    ......................................                       73
                           4. Monitoring   ..................................                      80
                           5. Maintenance     .................................                    80
                           6. Effect of Sea Level Rise     .........................               83
                    B. Structures Commonly Associated With Nourishment             ..........      88
                           1. Detached Breakwater      ...........................                 88
                           2. Filled Terminal Groin    ...........................                 89
                           3. Perched Beach      ...............................                   89
                           4. Buried, Low-Angle Revetments         ....................            89
                    C. Vertical Structures . ................................                      go
                    D. Restrictions on Shoreline    Structures . .....................             97


             VII. FUNDING                                                                   ....   99
                    A. Sources of Funding      .........................
                                                                                      ........     99
                           1. Federal . ....................................                       99
                           2. State   .......................................                     101
                           3. County  . ....................................                      jol
                           4. Assessments  ......                                                 102
                           5. Tax Incentives, Credits and Fees      ...................           103
                                 a. Tax Deductions     ...........................                104
                                 b. The Shoreline Property Transfer Tax        ............       104
                           6. Impact Fees, Easements, and Other Funding Sources          ......   III
                    B. Funding a BMD - Cost Allocation         ......................             III
                           1. Federal



                                                        vii








                              2. County   .....................................                     112
                              3. Coastal Landowner      ............................                113
                              4. State  .......................................                     114
                      C. State Beach Fund      ..................................                   114


                VIII. REGULATORY OPTIONS               .............................                117
                      A. National Flood Insurance - Upton-Jones Amendment             .........     117
                      B. Zoning     .........................................                       119
                      C. Enforcement      .....................................                     125


                IX. DIVISION OF STATE BEACHES                .........................              128


                X. CASE STUDIES         ......................................                      133
                      A. Ewa Beach        .....................................                     133
                              1. Location   ....................................                    133
                              2. Zoning   .....................................                     133
                              3. Socioeconomic Setting     ..........................               133
                              4. Physical Setting   ...............................                 140
                              5. Historical Shoreline Changes     ......................            141
                              6. Beach Management Problems         .....................            141
                              7. Alternatives    .................................                  143
                                    a. Sand Replenishment       .......................             143
                                    b. Buried Structures     .........................              144
                                    c. Relocation or Removal      ......................            147
                      B. Kahala Beach       ....................................                    148
                              1. Location   .....................................                   148
                              2. Zoning   ......................................                    148
                              3. Social Setting   ................................                  148
                              4. Beach Recovery      ..............................                 154
                              5. District Formation    .............................                161
                              6. Landowner Cooperation       .........................              165
                              7. Cost Allocation    ...............................                 166
                                    a. Federal    ................................                  166
                                    b. Landowner     ..............................                 166
                                    c. County     ................................                  167
                                    d. State   ..................................                   167


                XI. RECOMMENDATIONS                 ...............................                 169



                                                          viii









                   A. Beach Management Districts      ..........................              169
                   B. Beach Management       ................................                 171
                   C. Ewa Beach     .......................................                   172
                   D. Kahala Beach     ....................................                   173


            XII. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES                .......                             174
                   A. Public Education - Changing Public Perception       ..............      174
                   B. State Agency Responsible for Beach Management          ...........      175
                   C. State Agency Implements a Beachfront Management Program             ... 177
                   D. Interim Measures        ................................                179
                          1. State  ......................................                    179
                          2. County   .....................................                   179
                                a. Overlay Districts   ..........................             179
                                b. Improvement Districts     ......................           179
                                c. Overlay versus Improvement Districts      ...........      180

            XIII. CONCLUSIONS           ....................................                  181


            XIV. REFERENCES         ......................................                    187








                                               LIST OF FIGURES

               Figure   1. Map of Oahui Showing Figure Locations        ...................            7
               Figure   2. Iroquois Point, Oahu      ..............................                    8
               Figure   3. Kahala Beach, Oahu      ...............................                     9
               Figure   4. Northwest Lanikai, Oahu        ...........................                11
               Figure   5. Southeast Lanikai, Oahu      ............................                 12
               Figure   6. Punaluu Beach, Oahu       ..............................                  14
               Figure   7. Mahie Point to Makaua Beach Park, Oahu          ................          15
               Figure   8. Beach Degradation on Oahu      ............     : * '* *" ' * ** **  ...  17
               Figure   9. The Stone Revetment at Hilo Harbor, Hawaii         ..............         19
               Figure  10. Kona Coast of Hawaii       .............................                  19
               Figure 11. West Maalaea Bay, Maui          ...........................                22
               Figure  12. Vegetated Revetment near Kihei, Maui         ..................           22
               Figure 13. Kalama Beach Park, Maui          ..........................                24
               Figure 14. Waimahaihai Beach, Maui          ..............      ; ............        24
               Figure  15. Honokowai Beach Park, north of Lahaina, Maui            ...........       25
               Figure  16. Punahoa Beach south of Lahaina, Maui          .................           25
               Figure 17. Kikiaola Harbor, Kauai        ............................                 27
               Figure  18. The Residential Beach at Waipoli, Kauai         ................          27
               Figure  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,        1990    ..........      30
               Figure 20. Projected Sea-Level Rise        ............................               31
               Figure 21. Local Sea-Level Trends        ............................                 35
               Figure 22. Lanikai and Kailua Beach, Oahu          ......................             43
               Figure 23.  Erosion of a Nourished Beach       ........................               70
               Figure 24. Beachrock       .....................................                      76
               Figure 25. Offshore Sand Deposits        ............................                 79
               Figure 26. Hurricane Tracks     .................................                     82
               Figure 27. Coastal Inundation     ................................                    82
               Figure 28. The Bruun Rule       .................................                     85
               Figure 29.  Plan-view of a Detached Breakwater         ...................            85
               Figure 30. Buried Revetment       ................................                    91
               Figure 3 1. Seawalls     ......................................                       91
               Figure 32.  Seawall Impacts     .................................                     93
               Figure 33. Beach Profile Impacts        .............................                 93
               Figure 34.  Seawalls     ......................................                       95
               Figure 35. Ewa Beach Location         ..............................                  134
               Figure 36.  Ewa Beach - Boundaries of Area of Interest         ..............         135


                                                           x









            Figure 37. Hawaii Land Use District Map for Ewa       .................        136
            Figure 38. Oahu Development Plan Map for Ewa         ..................        137
            Figure 39. Oahu Zoning Map for Ewa       ...........................           138
            Figure 40. Ewa Beach Flood Insurance Zoning       ....................         139
            Figure 41. Ewa Beach - West End      ............................              142
            Figure 42. Ewa Beach - West End      ............................              142
            Figure 43. Seawalls at Ewa Beach     .............................             145
            Figure 44. Houses at Ewa Beach       .............................             145
            Figure 45. Kahala Beach Location     ............................              149
            Figure 46. Hawaii Land Use District Map for Kahala       ...............       150
            Figure 47. Oahu Development Plan Map for Kahala         ................       151
            Figure 48. Oahu Zoning Map for Kahala       ........................           152
            Figure 49. Kahala Beach Flood Insurance Zoning       ..................        153
            Figure 50. Kahala Beach     ...................................                155
            Figure 51. Circulation Pattern  ................................               157
            Figure 52. Kahala. Beach Nourishment Project     .........   I ...........     158
            Figure 53. Seawalls at Kahala     ...............................              164
























                                                    xi









                                            LIST OF TABLES


              Table    I - Published Components of Present Global Sea-level Rise    ......    33
              Table    2 - Estimated Present Sea-Level Trend From Tide Gauge Records.         33
              Table    3 - Hawaiian Sea Levels   ..............................               37
              Table    4 - Summary of Oahu Sand Resources (Moberly et al., 1975).             77
              Table    5 - Renourishment Frequency Factors    .....................           83
              Table    6 - Beach Recession Predicted Using The Bruun Rule       .........     86
              Table    7 - Island Average Annual Beach Nourishment Requirements        ....   88
              Table    8 - Legal Status of Erosion Control Structures  ...............       163
              Table    9 - Breakdown of Costs for Kahala Beach Sand Replenishment        ... 168
              Table  10 - Benefits and Burdens to the Owners of Developed Land      ......   183
              Table  11 - Benefits and Burdens to the Owners of Undeveloped Land       ....  184
              Table  12 - Benefits and Burdens to the County    ....................         185
              Table  13 - Benefits and Burdens to the State   .....................          186
              Table  14 - Benefits and Burden to the Public . ......     ..............      186































                                                      xii









                                              L INTRODUCTION


                       The beaches of Hawaii are precious natural features that provide recreational
                opportunities, a healthy environment and uncompromising scenic beauty. Beaches
                are also an economic asset since they form the heart of the number one industry
                in the State,, tourism. Furthermore, offshore sand bars, beaches and dunes provide
                important protection as a storm barrier to dissipate wave energy which may
                otherwise damage inland property.

                       Migration and natural instability of the beach is due to the influence of
                waves, currents, tides, storms, sea-level movements, and sand availability. These
                natural forces have always altered and will continue to modify the beaches of the
                State. It is vital that development and habitation of the coast is properly planned
                with due consideration to the dynamic nature of the beach environment in order to
                preserve this asset for future generations.

                       Human influences can lead to changes in a natural beach, In Hawaii, there
                are many sections of the coast where shoreline development has not allowed the
                beach to migrate. In an attempt to stabilize the shoreline, man's activities have lead
                to the loss or degradation of miles of sandy beaches. In this report, an estimate has
                been made of the total length of beaches on Oahu which have been degraded,
                primarily due to hardening of the shoreline. A similar summary of previous studies
                was performed for selected sites on the islands of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii.
                Several examples are documented in figures to illustrate some of the more recent
                coastal impacts. The estimates, preliminary assessments, and examples which are
                contained in this study reflect significant deterioration of Hawaii's shoreline. Due
                to sea-level rise and extensive shoreline hardening, beach loss is likely to
                accelerate, unless there is a fundamental change in how the beach resource is
                managed.

                       There are two major objectives of this report.           First, to develop a
                comprehensive and coordinated management plan for the          State which will help
                preserve pristine beaches while allowing for intelligent and safe development along
                the shore. The most efficient and cost effective management strategy is to plan for
                shoreline instability at the earliest stages of zoning when land-use policy is most
                effective. Through proper planning, it is possible to produce the maximum long
                term societal benefit from the beach resource.









                  The second objective is to address the erosion problem for sections of the
            coast which are currently developed. For developed coastlines, the dual objective
            of protecting private property rights while preserving the beach becomes
            considerably more complex and costly. If a shoreline is developed but has not
            been hardened, nontraditional alternatives such as sand replenishment, buried
            revetments, and detached breakwaters may be appropriate in some localities. The
            feasibility of these alternatives is dependent, in part, on the extent coastal
            landowners, the counties and the State can cooperate through the establishment of
            a Beach Management District (BMD).

                  For developed coastlines where the shoreline is hardened and the beach is
            lost or severely degraded, efforts can be made to restore the beach. Given the
            proper physical, social and economic conditions, it may be possible to recover lost
            beaches by the relocation or removal of buildings or erosion control structures. In
            this report, a strategy which offers economic incentives to the landowner forms the
            basis of a voluntary progjam to move houses or erosion control structures inland.

                . To the extent that it is scientifically, legally and economically possible,
            alternatives in this report are formulated to address the concerns of the small
            private landowner abutting the shoreline. Some of the recommendations in this
            report may restrict the erosion control options of the homeowner. On the other
            hand, new solutions are proposed which could be viewed as beneficial to the small
            landowner. These include certain erosion control options which, from a practical
            standpoint, were never available to the homeowner, but may be feasible through the
            establishment of a BMD, where project costs are shared with the county, State and
            possibly the Federal government. In sum, while certain options such as seawalls
            and steep revetments will be restricted, the landowner will be given other
            alternatives to protect private property.

                  All land use options developed in this report are designed to be within
            constitutional limits.   Legal safeguards are built into all land use proposals,
            including provisions for hardship and the preservation of buildable area for all
            zoning recommendations (i.e. retention of "economically viable use"). Many of the
            strategies in this report were modeled after existing regulation in other coastal
            states. Some of the more strict coastal regulations have had specific provisions
            challenged by landowners and have survived legal scrutiny. The options in this
            report were modified to be more sympathetic to the concerns of the small coastal
            landowner.



                                                       2








                       Beach management options developed in this report can be grouped into
                three broad categories:

                       1. Artificial -Beach Nourishment - The section on sand replenishment
                discusses the concept, planning, sand resources, monitoring, maintenance, effect of
                sea-level rise, structures associated with nourislimentl and recommendations.

                       2. Structural Options - This category includes seawalls, buried revetments,
                detached breakwaters and recommendations.

                       3. RegglatoKy Measures - Regulatory measures include zoning, voluntary
                relocation programs, Federal flood insurance programs, and the development of
                Beach Management Districts (BMDs).

                       While some technical aspects of sand replenishment, breakwaters, and other
                alternatives have been reviewed in numerous coastal reports (see e.g., Edward K.
                Noda & Assoc., 1989), there are practical obstacles associated with some of the
                options which prevent their use by the coastal landowner. Many of the obstacles,
                such as cost and permitting, can be overcome by the establishment of a BMD.
                Thus, the BMD is a land use option which would facilitate the implementation of
                other structural and nonstructural measures.


                       This report has been organized into twelve main chapters. In Chapter         II,
                efforts are made to understand the magnitude and causes of past beach loss,         to
                predict the extent and causes of future loss in the State, and to describe the
                potential problems from future sea-level movements. Before management plans can
                be formulated, it is necessary to define the problem. It should be known for
                instance, if beach degradation is confined to a few small sites or is widespread
                throughout the islands. In addition, the effects of a continued or accelerated rise
                in sea-level on the beach, the inland property, or on various types of erosion
                control measures should be reviewed. In Chapter III, private and public property
                rights in the shoreline are addressed. Since many of the proposals in this report
                may affect public and private groups, it is important to review the rights and duties
                of each party. In Chapter IV, strategies are discussed which were utilized in the
                formulation of structural, non-structural and regulatory options. These strategies
                include the formation of beach dl stricts, the use of economic mechanisms in beach
                management, the enforcement of existing regulations, the streamlining of the
                regulatory process and offsetting burdens with benefits. In Chapter V, the concept


                                                          3









           of the Beach Management District (BMD) and the different permutations of this
           regulatory tool are discussed. Obstacles to the implementation of BMI)s are
           addressed and solutions are proposed. In Chapter VI, various nonstructural and
           structural options are reviewed. The review of these options centers on how they
           would be implemented within the BMD concept. Chapter VII deals with the issue
           of financing the various beach management options. A scheme with shared cost
           by the landowner, county, State and Federal government is proposed. A shoreline
           property transfer tax similar to the tax in place in parts of Massachusetts is also
           discussed. In Chapter VIII, other regulatory options which can be implemented
           separately from BMDs are reviewed. These include a discussion on a voluntary
           relocation program based on economic incentives, and the use of zoning to address
           beach instability for large parcels of undeveloped land. In Chapter IX, it is
           recommended that a new Division of State Beaches is established to administer and
           implement BMI)s and other programs suggested in this report. In Chapter X,
           efforts are made to apply the concepts developed in this report to Ewa Beach and
           Kahala Beach. In Chapters XI and XII, there are recommendations for improved
           beach management and guidelines for the implementation of these
           recommendations.








                               11. PROTECTING HAWAH'S SHORELINE

                      During the 1991 legislative session, House Bill 893 proposed the
                establishment of Shoreline Stabilization Districts,- and an extension of the shoreline
                setback to 150 feet in non-urban districts for new lots.              Many of the
                recommendations in the house bill were taken from the 1991 report,
                Recommendations For Improving The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program,
                in realization that the Hawaii shoreline may need additional protection from current
                activities. This bill was supported by the Office of State Planning, the Coastal
                Zone Management Program, and the planning departments of Maui and Hawaii
                counties.


                   Many comments were received on the house bill, both favorable and
                unfavorable. Objections to the bill centered on the questionable need for additional
                and extensive coastal regulation. Some commentators felt that the present system
                of regulation appeared to work well within the counties. Others felt that there was
                no compelling reason for additional controls, and that the shoreline of the State was
                adequately protected.

                      This document reports that the beaches of the State do need additional
                protection. In this study, changes will be discussed for how the Hawaii shoreline
                is managed. Questions may be raised on the need for more regulation, additional
                procedures or a new government agency. However, it is believed that the current
                weight of scientific evidence warrants a change in shoreline management.

                      Two comments should be made regarding additional regulation of the
                shoreline. First, significant degradation of the State's beaches has been identified.
                This problem will not go away, and in fact, is expected to accelerate. Before
                judgment is rendered on the proposals in this report, the reader should be aware of
                the extent of the erosion problem, the impact on the State's shoreline and
                projections for future change, assuming no action is taken. Second, it may be
                possible to coordinate the regulatory process so that even with the addition of new
                regulatory controls, there will be fewer regulatory hurdles. In this report, there is
                a discussion on coordination of the regulatory process.

                A. Beach Degradation on Oahu

                      Analyses of the earliest air photos for Oahu indicate that between 1928 and


                                                          5









           1980, beach resources have been steadily lost from hardening of the shoreline
           (Hwang, 1981). Along the windward coast highway near Kualoa for example, the
           beach disappeared during the 1928 to 1978 period due to the combined effects of
           a series of groins and vertical seawalls. Between 1949 and 1975, wave reflection
           off a vertical wall contributed to the loss of beach at Swanzy Beach Park. Over
           the same 26-year period, Laniloa Beach was degraded by the steady erosion of the
           shoreline and the stabilization of the backshore with boulder piles and revetrnent.
           Between 1949 and 1980, the beach at Bellows, located at the north end of the
           Waimahalo littoral cell, has narrowed or disappeared in front of a sloping stone
           revetment. In Hwang (1981), it was noted that seawalls, revetments and boulder
           piles had caused the total length of recreational beaches on the island to steadily
           decline over the 1949 to 1980 period. The latest date of aerial photographic
           coverage for the 1981 study varied with each beach, but was generally from 1975
           to 1980.


                  In the last twelve to seventeen years, the pace of beachloss and degradation
           has not only continued, it appears to have accelerated. Since the 1975 to 1980
           period, over two miles of combined beach have been lost at Iroquois Point, and
           Kahala on the south shore; and at Lanikai, Punaluu, and Mahie Point on the
           windward coast (Fig. 1). These recent changes are described in the following
           paragraphs.

                  1. Iroguois Point - (Fig. 2). Between 1928 and 1967 the vegetation line at
           Iroquois Point receded by as much as 140 feet. Over a similar period the water
           line receded -by about 150 feet. Although there has been chronic erosion and -
           significant inland migration of the shoreline,, the 1967 aerial photograph documents
           a wide beach. The 1967 photo of Iroquois Point illustrates the general rule that a
           beach migrating inland in its natural state doesn't wash away but simply shifts
           position. The beach width remains relatively constant if there is no vertical inland
           barrier.


                  During the 1967 to 1990 period, continued migration of the shoreline
           threatened to undermine several houses. The 1990 aerial photo shows that after the
           shoreline was stabilized with bulkheads and stone revetments, the beach was lost
           along an 800 foot stretch.

                  2. Kahala - (Fig. 3). Over the 1949 to 1988 period, the vegetation line and
           water line at the southwest end of Kahala was relatively stable, in part due to the


                                                     6










                                                                  L


                                                                                                                     N.)
                                                                      _0                                        z    _0
             Oil



                                                                                                            Cf)


             0
                  ILn                                                                      0--o        Z.0
                  00
             C)
                                                                                                       > >
                                                                                           (Al
                                                                                                 C)    C m
             00
                                                                                                .3          Cl)
             "TI
             Do




             0



             0
                          -n-D       CD
                          cc) 0
                                     ow,
                              Cl)
                  CA      CD

                    0         0
                  Cl




                                                                                  1w




                                                       CD


                                                       CD

                                                                                      =r
                                                 .-Q)                          -in    CD
                  CA                                                               ca
                  co
                                                                                (D    0
                    0
                                                                                -40
                                                                                   =r
                                                        Z                          '.0-mo.
                                                                                      0
                        CD

                        0


                        -n
                                                CD
                                            Ca-ai.  -
                                                cn

                        CD

                                                =3
                                              , -5F









                                       Iroquois Point
                                        June 13, 1967
                                                              Keahi
                                                               Point




                                          ides





                                                       @7





                                                                        17
                                                                A
                                                ki




                                                       .0      200     400 ft




                                      Iroquois    Point
                                      November 11, 1990


                                                       Keahi
                                                       Point


                                                                   Ile,





                                                                    Wat
                                                                       er-jj-


                                                      A ib
                                                            0
                                                                4 pm64@@
                                                                   e.


                                                        0      200     400 ft



              Figure 2. Iroquois Point, Oahu. During the 39 year period prior to 1967, the vegetation line and
              water line at Keahi Point migrated inland approximately 140 feet. Despite the chronic erosion,
              the unstabilized beach in 1967 had recreational value. The 1990 photo shows the impact on the
              beach from continued inland migration and stabilization of the shoreline with bulkheads, seawalls
              and revetments.



                                                       8








                               ... ............. . . .....



             r










                           A,


                                                                                 A p         k
                                                                                                                      -Ahl





                                                                                                                V









                                                                              200         400ft
                                                                                      @.Ttk MOM
                                                             ;q 7%L;
                            rA                                                               X&M VIA=





                                             -77 1@@


                        b efrnbe@   11`;@
                           V




                                           x





                                                                                                  AM --- a--.;


                                                              f




                         k A.                                 WT
                                                                                                           A
                                                                                MA




                                                        V
                                                                                  k.4 M-1Z
                                                                       L
                                                                      0         200        400 ft



                  IF
                   igure   33 Kahala Beach-     Oahu    file west  e-nd of Kaliala  Beach has been      characterized by relative
                  stability   Nevertheless, nimor      flUCALianons in tile position of the shoreline ,@aUsed homeowners
                  to hardell tile cmm       11%, 1 Q00, 111tich of, tile wit row hoach at Kflmh xv:i@       lost in @:(,,,ixvalls and









             dissipation of wave energy by a shallow fringing reef approximately 500 to 1,000
             feet offshore (Sea Engineering Inc., 1988). In addition, Black Point may block
             some wave energy from the west-southwest. Although the shoreline at Kahala is
             relatively stable, the homeowners have hardened the shoreline with seawalls and
             revetmdnts. A comparison of the 1975 and 1990 aerial photos reveals that a
             narrow beach was lost along 2,200 feet of the Kahala shoreline.

                   It is important to differentiate between the examples at Kahala and Iroquois
             Point. While Iroquois Point has experienced chronic erosion, Kahala Beach has
             been relatively stable. Nevertheless, beaches were lost at both sites. The Kahala
             example demonstrates that even beaches that have been relatively stable for a long
             period can disappear once seawalls or revetments exert sufficient influence on
             nearshore sediment transportation. In fact, most of the beaches on Oahu that have
             been lost or impacted by hardening of the shoreline do not have a long-term history
             of chronic erosion.


                   3. Northwest Lanikai - (Fig. 4). From 1950 to 1975, the vegetation line at
             northwest Lanikai experienced minor fluctuations in position of about 15 feet. The
             1975 photo indicates that these fluctuations were insufficient to spur homeowners
             to construct seawalls or revetments. Beginning in the late 1970's and early 1980's,
             however, erosion along a 1,500 stretch threatened several houses and resulted in the
             construction of seawalls and revetments. The 1990 aerial photograph shows the
             impact on the beach from these hardened structures. Although there is a narrow
             beach fronting the seawalls on the 1990 photograph, field visits indicate there are
             numerous times of the year where the beach is entirely lost. Studies indicate that
             wave reflection off the seawalls or revetments may inhibit sand deposition on this
             coast. (Sea Engineering, Inc., 1988, Edward K. Noda & Assoc., 1989).

                   4. Southeast Lanikai - (Fig. 5). Between 1961 and 1971 the vegetation line
             at the southeast end of Lanikai advanced seaward by as much as 139 feet. Some
             of the accretion -w.as lost during the 1971 to 1975 period. On the 1975 aerial
             photograph, there is a wide beach at the south end of Lanikai. Between 1975 and
             1988, the vegetation line receded by as much as 84 feet (Sea Engineering, Inc.,
             1988). The 1990 aerial photograph, shows that what was once a wide recreational
             beach in 1975 has been-16st along a' '1,800 to 2,000 foot span of seawalls and
             revetments. Numerous field checks to southeast Lanikai indicate that the beach
             loss along this sector is more persistent than at the northwest end of Lanikal.



                                                      10




















                                              . .... ........ .. . . ....
                               Northwest Lq.nikqi:J
                                    A p i 1 1. 3,,.:1:9 7 5:








                              Alala
                                                                        %je                     (D
                              Point                                  V




                                                                        0      200      400 ft





                                          Northwest Lanikai
                                           November 11, 1990






                                      Alala                  We
                                      Point
                                                                    o




                                                                      0       200      400 It






                Figure 4. Northwest Lanikai, Oahu. Prior to 1975 the beach at Lanikai had a history of minor,
                alternating erosion and accretion. During the late 1970's and early 1980's, pronounced erosion
                spurred homeowners to stabilize the shoreline. The 1990 aerial photograph shows seawalls and
                revetments along the shore, a narrowed beach, and the exposure of beach rock towards Alala
                Point.















                                 aximum:
                             Acdre'tion Point-.-, -

                                                                      ....... ... ....
                                                                 ..........







                                                   Aloft






                                                                             Ali-

                                   L
                                                    Mok
                                                        Ulua
                      4,                       0;


                                              (Tj .
                     CL


                                                                1-     200     400 ft





                                                                       Lab jk6f.-!
                                 Former
                             Accretion Point


                                   LI

                                                             Pq




                                         j.
                                                        +
                                   :47,
                  Rai;-


                            lob,
                                               U04
                                                                               4* A

                                                  I 'W     4.
                                  " Rty
                                   @ @ 2     k'           ,  . -0      200    400 ft

            Figure 5. Southeast Lanikai, Oahu. Prior to 1971 most of the southeast end of Lanjkai
            experienced accretion- The accretion trend was reversed in the I 970's. Hardening of the
            shoreline in response to severe erosion has led to the disappearance of the recreational beach
            The 1990 photo. was taken late in the day, and shadows from trees are in the water-

                                                  12








                      5. Punaluq - (Fig. 6). The residential section to the northwest of Makalii
               Point has been either stable or accreting during the period from 1949 to 1975. In
               some sectors the vegetation line advanced seaward 63 feet (Hwang, 1981).
               Between 1975 and 1988 the accretionary trend reversed and much of Punaluu
               receded by as much as 58 feet (Sea Engineering, Inc., 1988). The 1990 aerial
               photograph shows that approximately 1,200 feet of sandy shoreline has been lost
               to the northwest of Makalii Point along a uniformly constructed revetinent. The
               losses at Punaluu. demonstrate that even if adjacent property owners cooperate to
               stabilize the shoreline with well constructed, uniform structures that have consistent
               aligninent, the beach may still be lost. To the far south of Makalii Point the beach
               has narrowed or has been lost along a 1,600 foot stretch. Some of the. negative
               impacts along this stretch occurred before 1975.
                      6. Mahie Point to Makaua Beach Park'- (Fig. 7). It is along the windward
               coast where the most extensive shoreline degradation has occurred. The reach from
               Mahie Point to Makaua Beach Park is a typical example of the impacts. The beach
               as shown on the 1975 aerial photograph has narrowed, and in many places
               disappeared by 1990 along a 2,500 foot stretch of armored shoreline.

               SUMMM

                      A preliminary estimate, or reconnaissance, was made on the island of Oahu
               to determine the length of beaches that have been lost or degraded. In this report,
               beach loss and beach degradation are grouped into one category.              In- many
               instances, it is not possible to differentiate between the two since there is a
               continuum between the conditions. True beach loss would be the presence of no
               beach seaward of an erosion control structure during mean lower low water for all
               seasons of the year. While many shoreline sectors are believed to fit within these
               parameters (e.g., portions of southeast Lanikai), it was beyond the scope of this
               report to confirm these conditions. Beach degradation is defined as the condition
               where the beach- has narrowed sufficiently so that some time during the year,
               recreational use is denied or access along the shore is blocked (e.g., sections of
               Mokuleia Beach on the north shore during the winter, or sections of Laniloa Beach
               on the windward coast).

                      For Oahu, the length of coast where the beach was lost or recreational use
               was degraded was estimated from the following sources of information:



                                                          13


























                                  C7,
                                                                                                                                                                                       oil
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -A4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Awl,












                             CL






                       r,                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Al



                       C',                                                                                                      OIL,&
                       cr


                                  ct



                                   cr,














                                                                                                                                                                                             rl)































          CD




          CL





        (D                           141




        ID


          V)
        CD CD


        tr0

          Enw



          CA


          co


          CD

          cr

          PO


          CL C7
          0 CD



            CD






          5

                                                fo




                c>L
                8
          CL cl-



                                   IV


                                  m                                  per









                   1) Beach Changes on Oahu as Revealed by Aerial Photographs
                         (Hwang, 198 1).

                   2) Oahu Shoreline Study: Part I Data on Beach Changes (1988)
                         (Sea Engineering Inc., 1999).

                   3) A set of aerial photographs taken of the Oahu coastline on November
                         11, 1990, by the R.M. Towill Company.

                   4) Field checks at specific locations that have been impacted.

                   A map of the island of Oahu (Fig. 8), shows the location of shorelines that
            have experienced degradation. It is estimated that 8 to 9 miles of beach on Oahu
            have either disappeared, or have narrowed to the point where recreational use is
            temporarily denied. The total length of beaches studied in the 1981 Oahu report
            was approximately 60 miles. Therefore, the length of coast that has experienced
            beach loss or degradation is almost 15% of the total length of beaches studied in
            the 1981 Oahu report.

                   The above figures, do not include the loss of beaches due to stabilization at
            Portlock, Waikiki or the west end of Diamond Head Road. In addition, the above
            figures should be viewed as a first estimate subject to later revision since it was
            beyond the scope of this report to field survey impacted shorelines.

                   Beach loss on the island of Oahu appears to have accelerated. Of the 8 to
            9 miles of impacted beaches, approximately 4 to 4.5 miles of beach were severely
            impacted or almost lost. Half of the severely impacted shorelines disappeared
            between 1928 and 1975. The other half was lost between 1975 and 1990 (e.g.,
            Punaluu, Mahie Point, Lanikai, Kahala, Iroquois Point).

            B. Beach Degrad.ation.On The Outer Islands

                   The loss of beach resources is not confined to       Oahu, but has occurred
            throughout the other islands. The reader is referred to the 1991 aerial photographic
            study for the islands of Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii (Makai Ocean
            Engineering, Inc. and Sea Engineering, Inc., 1991; hereafter MOESE, 1991). This
            valuable study clearly documents beach erosion and accretion trends by tracking
            historical movements of the vegetation line. More such documentation is needed,


                                                      16











                        21*
                        45'
                        N
                                                                                                                                                BEACH DEGRADATION
                                                                                                -A.
                                                                                Sunset              awela                                                    ON     OAHU
                                                                                                                  Kahuku
                                                                                           ..........
                                                                                Beach

                                                                                                                                                             U.M
                                                                                                                                                             Elmo   Beaches studied
                                                                                      Waimea                    Laie                                                Beaches lost or use
                                                                                                                                                                    temporarily denied


                                                                                                                                                                               10 km
                                                     . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .                                                            0
                               Kaena               A:@
                                                                              Haleiwa                                               Mahie                     . . . .      L-t-Lj
                                Point                              Mokuleia                                                         Point                    1  .
                                                                                                                                                             0             5mi
                                                                 WA                                                    S    Kaaawa
                                                   1000                                                                                                      Contour interval 1000 feet.


                                                                 t?o
                        21' -                                                                                                              ualoa
                        30'                                                           0                                                    Point
                                                                                       C:@

                                                           Waianae
                                                                                       >
                                                              Makaha                                                                   aneohe
                                                                               01
                                                                                      co
                                                                                                                                                    Kailu
                                                                                                                                                                     Lanikai

                                                                                                                                    A DOD

                                                                                                                      Honolulu

                                                                                                                                                            0


                                                                                                         Iroquois
                                                                   Barbers                       a         Point                        Waikiki
                                                                     Point                     ach                                                     . . . . .......
                        210-                                                                                                                         Kahala     Portlock
                        15'


                                         1580 15, w                                             1580 00'                                              158' 45'

                            Figure 8. Beach Degradation on Oahu.









             both to fill in the coastal segments not covered in MOESE (1991), and to establish
             continuous erosion and accretion trends rather than at selected transect locations.


                    A reconnaissance    of selected beaches on the outer islands revealed that
             diminished recreational use, beach loss, beach narrowing, and preconditioning for
             future beach degradation are significant problems on Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai.
             These impacts are clearly associated with a wide-spread trend towards shoreline
             hardening. Due to the proliferation of stabilization structures in the backbeach
             area, and the continuing rise of sea level, beach loss and degradation is expected
             to accelerate in the future. Beach degradation will accelerate more rapidly if the
             present rate of sea-level rise remains constant. In the event of accelerated sea-level
             rise, as projected for the next several decades by numerous researchers, beach
             degradation in the State will accelerate to a critical level, threatening beach
             resources on a State-wide scale.


                    1. Hawaii - The island of Hawaii lacks the extensive system of beaches that
             characterize other islands in the State. This is because Hawaii is geologically
             younger, a condition typified by shear cliffs, poor reef development, and rapid
             subsidence of the island. Without the low-lying gentle coastal plains and the
             shallow offshore platform which are found on more mature islands, it has not been
             possible for extensive reef tracts to develop on parts of the island's coast. Since
             reefs and reef-dwelling organisms are the principal source of carbonate beach sand,
             there are fewer beaches on the Big Island. This condition makes beach degradation
             all the more critical.


                    With the exception of small pocket beaches located at river mouths, and
             where lava flows have been particulated to form black sand beaches, the North
             Kohala, Harnakua, and Puna Districts are characterized by a general lack of natural
             beaches. The few beach systems in these regions have never been analyzed for
             long-term erosion/accretion trends and no data exist to allow an assessment of the
             extent of degradation.

                    In the town of Hilo, the shoreline of Hilo Harbor is. stabilized (Fig. 9). Due
             to the construction of a stone revetment to stop the erosion of water-front lands and
             as a deterrent to the tsunami hazard, as much as I mile of beach has been lost. A
             rapid relative sea-level rise on the Hilo coast of over 1.5 in/decade, has caused the
             volcanic sand beach to migrate quickly landward. When the rising water reached
             the revetment, beach migration ceased, and beach erosion accelerated to the point


                                                       18











                                                      A












                                                                              4










                Figure 9- TI'le stone revetment  at Hilo Harbor, Hawaii. Here the relative  sea-level rise exceeds
                1,5 inches/decade, Hardening, of this shoreline has forced the loss of the beach to protect the
                adjacent lands.















                                  M, .,'z


                         *W7                                      1714
                                   7,





                Figure 10. Kona Coast of Hawaii. This artificially steepened beach on the Kona    coast of.1-lawall
                enhances the tendency for sand to move offshore, acceleratin- erosion. The oversteepening ofthis
                beach increases wave energ on      the beachface, accompanied by high velocity surgin- '11 tile.
                                            P                                                            -, I
                swash zone. Note the freshwater pond and the landscaped ve-getation on the back of the beach



                                                                I Q








             where today the water laps against the stone face of the wall.

                    On the leeward side of Hawaii, analysis of historical movements of the
             vegetation line on 29 beach transects in the South Kohala and North Kona Districts
             (MOESE, 1991) revealed that since about 1950, 17 sites (59%) are eroding. The
             average rate for the eroding sites is -0.6 ft/yr, and the average rate for the accreting
             or stable sites is 0.35 ft/yr. Rates of vegetation line movement were extrapolated
             to the year 2018 for these locations, and the probability for successful prediction,
             relative to a random occurrence, was calculated in each case. In several cases the
             standard deviation of the extrapolated vegetation line was high, indicating that the
             extrapolation has a low predictive capability. These are often situations where
             beach behavior is cyclic, or where sudden beach changes have occurred and may
             not represent long-term trends. As a group, the eroding sites average 18 ft of
             recession by the year 2018 and the accreting sites average about I I ft (relative to
             1988). The average trend of all sites studied is to erode at a rate of -0.2 ft/yr, and
             to recede an average 6 ft by the year 2018.

                    While these figures indicate a state of regional beach erosion for the South
             Kohala and North Kona District coasts, they do not reflect factors and processes
             at individual beaches. For instance, beaches associated with resorts along this coast
             are frequently artificially nourished, and the beachface is often artificially steepened
             (Fig. 10), a procedure known as "beach scraping". Beach scraping should be
             discouraged since a steeper beach tends to reflect, rather than dissipate, wave
             energy. Wave reflection enhances erosion by promoting the movement of sand
             away from the beach. The steeper beachface also increases the velocity of the
             backwash, and the general movement of sand towards the foot of the steep slope.
             In. addition to beach scraping, the area behind the active beach is often landscaped
             and maintained so that the vegetation line no longer reflects natural processes of
             beach change. In the future, our understanding of the beach will have to rely on
             profile monitoring and field surveys in these areas. In areas that are landscaped,
             the vegetation line is no longer a valid indicator of erosion or accretion trends. In
             fact these errors -are probably already incorporated to some extent in the MOESE
             (1991) report.

                    Finally, it was made clear in field visits to Hawaiian beaches that many are
             preconditioned for degradation and eventual beach loss because of the presence of
             protective structures immediately landward of the sandy beach. Although this
             factor is not as prevalent on Hawaii as on Maui or Oahu, preconditioning was


                                                        20







               obs erved at several resort beaches. Considering the high relative rate of sea-level
               rise on Hawaii, if these beaches are not nourished or otherwise maintained on a
               regular schedule, or if existing stabilization structures are not removed, they will
               eventually be lost as the waterline migrates toward the armored upland.

                      2. Maui - On Maui, beach degradation in many locations has reached a
               critical stage because of the rapid relative sea-level rise there (nearly I in/decade)
               and the proliferation of shoreline stabilization structures (Fig. 11). In the MOESE
               1991 report, 63 of 102 transects analyzed (62%) were found to be eroding, 25
               (24.5%) were accreting, and the remainder had been stabilized by some form of
               armoring. In nearly all cases seawall or revetment construction followed a period
               of significant beach erosion, and resulted in beach loss. Together, erosion and
               hardening characterized over 75% of the studied shoreline. The eroding sites
               averaged -1.25 ft/yr, and the accreting sites averaged 1.08 ft/yr. Projections to the
               year 2018 suggest that the eroding sites will recede an average 36.4 ft, and the
               accreting sites will average nearly 24 ft (relative to 1988). The average trend of
               all nonstabilized sites is to erode at a rate of -0.6 ft/yr, and to recede an average
               of 18.8 ft-. by 2018.

                      Maui is notable for the extensive beach loss, beach narrowing, and
               widespread use of stabilization structures, especially along the west Maalaea Bay
               coast and the reach from North Kihei to South Kamaole (Fig. 12). Other problem
               areas include portions of the Kahului coast and much of the shoreline between
               Lahaina and Kapalua. The tendency to stabilize receding shorelines on Maui has
               led not only to existing degradation, but also to the preconditioning of much of the
               coast to accelerated beach loss in the future. A number of fine wide beaches abut
               revetments. and seawalls that are often fully vegetated. These structures were
               originally placed out of the reach of fairweather wave runup. With continued
               sea-level rise they will soon begin to reflect the            wave energy leading to
               offshore directed sand transport, beach erosion,     and eventual beach loss. Field
               visits identified a  number of protective structures whose vegetative cover has
               recently been damaged by wave action. At these sites, the process of beach
               degradation has already begun. These locations show evidence of beach narrowing,
               deep beach cusp development and channeling, and accelerated erosion.

                      Ironically, there are a number of sites on Maui where beach loss has
               occurred on stabilized shorelines that are not protecting any upland development.
               For instance Kalama "Beach" Park is protected by over 3000 ft. of stone revetment


                                                          21






























                  Figure 11. West Maalaea Bay, t%,IaU]r       The west Maalaea      Bay  shoreline, Maul, formerly a
                  calcareous sand beach. Erosion followed the construction of the       Maalaea Bay Harbor Jetty in
                  1952 (beyond   the photo), and now 2400 ft of coast is hardened      with  revetments and seawalls.

                       I M"t




                                                                       jar,

                                                   -act-9-77-7


                                                    :!77- -,







                  Figure 12. A  vegetated revetment   on  the highway near KIhel, Maul.    Notice the deep    indentation
                  in the coast from a lack of sand    due to the groln  Just to the north. This small beach is one of
                  many that are preconditioned for loss A    ve-etated  revetinent protects the highway. AlthOL11111 the
                  beach exhibits si2ns of accelerated eiosion, the revetment has stabilized the vegetation line and
                  future aerial photographic analysis will not record the degradation. This beach will be lost when
                  waves begin to interact with the revetment on a reolular basis. This may occur followino the next
                  larae storm- ot ac continued sea-lovei r1se drives the waterline inland







               that has led to the total loss of the beach (Fig. 13). Yet in places, the nearest
               upland development is almost 1,000 ft away from the revetment. The erosion at
               Kalama has produced accelerated beach loss downdrift (north) of the revetment on
               neighboring Waimahaihai Beach (Fig. 14), where a number of seawalls are erected
               on private properties. On unstabilized properties, 3 ft high erosional scarps mark
               the recession of the shore resulting from the loss of the area's sand supply. These
               will undoubtedly be the next sites for stabilization as the erosion proceeds landward
               and houses become threatened. As seawalls and revetments, of various types spring
               up along this residential beach, the zone of enhanced erosion will be pushed along
               to the north.    In fact, this is a "domino effect" resulting from the Kalama
               revetment, and exacerbated by the high rate of relative sea-level rise, which has the
               potential to cause a migrating beach loss problem reaching north along the entire
               Kihei coast.


                     Taken to the limit, a long stretch of stabilized and beachless coast can result
               in the complete termination of the sand supply. For instance, on the northwest
               coast of Maui at Honokowai (north of Lahaina), there is over a mile of stabilized
               shoreline that has no beach (Fig. 15). Immediately to the north of this section is
               Honokowai Beach Park, which is not stabilized, but is experiencing enhanced
               erosion. It is apparent that the extensive hardening of the coast to the south has
               prevented sand deposition at the beach park because the former sand source has
               been replaced by a line of seawalls. Without the longshore delivery of sand, the
               beach at Honokowai has no natural replenishment mechanism and over time it has
               eroded away. Today, the shoreline at Honokowai Beach Park is the location' of
               coral rubble, cinder blocks, dirt, and a 2 ft erosional scarp marking the recession
               of the coast.


                     It is interesting to note that in the case of Kalama Park, the action of Maui
               county led to downdrift impacts on private property. In the case of Honokowal,
               the action of private landowners led to impacts on Maui county park land.

                     Perhaps most telling is the case of shoreline stabilization along the
               Honoapiilani Highway in the area of Punahoa beach, south of Lahaina. There,
               beach recession threatens to undermine the highway. To protect the highway, a
               crude set of concrete barriers (the type used as highway lane dividers), and an
               expensive revetment have been installed to stop the recession (Fig. 16). A formerly
               wide and healthy beach has been lost in the process. There is no development
               along this shoreline, only the two lane highway is threatened by the erosion.


                                                        23






























               Figure 13. Kalarna Beach Park, Maul.    Kalama Beach Park has had a long history of erosion.
               Here a 3000 ft sloping stone revetment designed to encourage sand    accretion was built in the
               early 1970's. Today the former beach   is gone, and the par k is protected from further erosion.





                             A7
                                                                                                    it








                                                                                                       A







               Figure 14. Walmahathal Beach, Maul.   Walmahathal Beach is immediately north of Kalama Park.
               Erosion caused  by th eKalama revetment has led to the construction of 2400 ft of seawalls and
               revetments protecting private residences. Severe erosion characterizes the coast north of these
               structures, More than I mile of continuous sandy beach has been lost here in the last 15 years

                                                             2 4

















                                                                              7.





                                                                            p
                                              vza











                   Figure 15. Honokowal Beach Park, north of Lahaina, Maul.           Vertical seawalls extend along, most
                   of the 6,000 ft of coast downdrift (south) of this park. An erosion problem in the 1970's lead to
                   the construction of the seawalls to prevent the damage or loss of beach front condominiums and
                   resort hotels. Development of the shoreline occurred during a phase of temporary accretion, most
                   buildings were placed 40 ft from the vegetation line at the time of construction. With the onset
                   of sustained erosion, the setback proved inadequate. Now over 2 miles of former sandy beach is
                   lost because of shoreline hardening, on this     coast and immediatelv to the north.









                                                                                    ip-








                   F 1 g u r e16. PUnahoa Beach South    of Lallaina, Maui.  Severe   erosion  threatens the hI,-,hwav. now
                   protected with combined ternporary      and peirrianent structures.  Continued    sea-le@!el rise will lead
                   to more permanent structures and         eventual [)each   IOSS 11OTe   Instead  the hlghway could be
                   ielocated









            Mauka of the road is a flat coastal terrace perhaps a mile wide. Rather than move
            the highway to the foot of the hills at the back of the terrace and make a beach
            park where the shoreline is receding, the beach is being sacrificed in the interest
            of protecting the highway. The crude barriers presently protecting the road will
            soon be inadequate and need to be replaced by a larger and longer stone revetment,
            at a cost of millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars.       Sand delivery to
            neighboring beaches will diminish and erosion will accelerate to the north of the
            site. Neighboring beaches will be impacted, and the structure will have to be
            extended to protect the road there. Very soon the size and cost of the protection
            will vastly exceed the cost to protect the road. Early planning could instead have
            created a beach park that would have relieved the crowding at parks near Lahaina
            and along Maalaea Bay, provided visitors and inhabitants with an additional
            recreational resource, preserved the State conservation land that is the beach, and
            saved enormous public funds.

                   3. Kauai - On Kauai, the MOESE (1991) report identified extensive
            stabilization and erosion along certain sites on the south and east coasts of the
            island. In the area from Hanamaulu to Kealia (makai of Lihue, on Kauai's east
            coast), 25 of the 42 sites studied (60%) are either stabilized or eroding. The
            average rate of erosion is -0.61 ft/yr, and at these sites the coast is projected to
            retreat an average of 19 ft by 2018. Other sections of the Kauai coast not covered
            in the MOESE report are also eroding, but many are not.              The generally
            undeveloped nature of the north and west coasts show net accretion trends over the
            period studied, and erosion is usually confined to dynamic river mouth movement
            or natural fluctuations in the coastal sand budget. In every case where erosion is
            occurring without the influence of upland development or beach stabilization, the
            beach has maintained its width and sand supply even while retreating landward.

                   There are a number of erosion management problems on Kauai. At Kikiaola
            Harbor (Fig. 17) on the south coast, a massive jetty has interrupted the natural
            littoral drift causing an erosional offset in the coast a mile long and 100 ft wide.
            The jetty is being flanked by this erosion, and temporary extensions have been
            emplaced to keep the jetty attached to the shore. A cemetery is threatened by the
            erosion. The dune protecting it is on the verge of being breached by erosion which
            is occurring at over 2 ft/yr. Despite the massive erosion here, the beach is still
            wide and sand-rich, offering excellent recreational opportunities because the
            shoreline is not stabilized. If this segment is hardened, more than I mile of beach
            will be lost.



                                                     26












                                                                             _44






                                                                                           7-











                F ig ure 17. Kikiaola Harbor, Kauai. The erosional offset at Kikiaola Harbor, Kauai. Here, Jetties
                used in the construction of the harbor, have interrupted the lon-shore pattern of sand movement
                and this downdrift offset in the coast has developed. The erosion rate exceeds 2 ft/yr; note the
                stumped and fallen trees and the eroded dune face, yet because the shoreline is not stabilized the
                beach is still wide and has recreational value despite the high erosion rate.



                    H                                                            el
                                     @j









                                                                                                       4k


                                                                kdo
                                                        A




                                                  W
                                                   7; 0,
                                                   I


                Figure M   The Residential Beach at Walpoll, Kauai Jetties both north and south of this segment
                block tile longshore sand supply in the winter and sunirner, respectively As a result the shoreline
                erodes ai I @, 'ft/vr. Previous erosion rates were hi-lier (4 3 ft/N!r) but-the beach Is mostly -one
                now and a earthen scarp is erodin-      tile resIdential frontaue road. This stretch is likely to he
                haidentf,d snon. pie%'enting any possibilli\ Of beach recoverv
                                                                                             ilk

























































                                                              )7








                   At Waipoli Beach (Fig. 18), north of Lihue, severe erosion has led residents
             to construct rubble mounds and to dump boulders as temporary barriers in order to
             protect the small frontage road which is the only access they have to their homes.
             A 5 ft erosional scarp threatens to undercut the road. Roots are exposed and trees
             are ready to fall as the scarp continues to develop. The beach is gone, and beach
             rock tends to channelize water at the base of the scarp exacerbating the erosion.
             Immediately to the north and south are stone jetties extending 100 to 300 ft
             offshore. These interrupt the seasonal littoral sand drift which would otherwise
             nourish this former beach. Large waves in the winter months generally come from
             the north, hitting the coast at an angle and driving a longshore current that
             transports sand to beaches in the south. The jetties at the mouth of the Waikaea
             Canal prevent this sand from reaching the residential beach at Waipoli. In the
             summer months, large waves come from the south, and drive a littoral drift of sand
             that is interrupted by jetties stabilizing a small drainage canal to the south of
             Waipoli Beach. Although the seasonal littoral sand supply to Waipoli residential
             beach is blocked by these jetties, the wave energy is not. As a result, winter waves
             from the north take sand away from the site and transport it to the south, and
             summer waves from the south transport the little remaining sand to the north.
             Broad pockets of accumulated sand immediately inside the neighboring jetties
             testify to this process. The residential coast is serving as an unreplenished source
             of sand to the areas north and south. Eventual stabilization of this coast will
             prevent the potential return of the beach should one of the jetties be removed..

                   Other problems can be found as well. At Kapaa Beach Park, reef dredging
             has created a deep hole offshore that traps all sand otherwise destined fo       r the
             beach. Along the park shoreline the beach has been lost, and large ironwood trees
             are being undercut by an erosional scarp. At the Wailua Golf Course, a 3500 ft
             stone revetment has been built to protect the fairway and several greens. The
             beach in front of the structure has narrowed considerably in the 5 years since
             protection was established and what was formerly a 3/4 mile-long, wide and
             dynamic beach is now degraded, and will soon disappear. The impacted littoral
             dnift is likely to f6ad to chronic erosion problems both north and south of the golf
             course where no erosion problem presently exists.

                   These are typical examples of beach degradation that are found on Kauai, as
             well as on the other Hawaiian Islands. Many of these cases of beach degradation
             and loss could have been avoided by informed planning based on a knowledge of
             littoral processes, rates of relative sea-level rise, and the long-term implications of


                                                       28








                 shoreline stabilization under rising sea level.

                 C. Global and Local Sea-Level Rise

                       1. Global Sea Level. Perhaps few scientific issues in recent decades have
                 been so intensely examined on an international level as the predictions of global
                 climatic warming and sea-level rise in the 21" century. These predictions are based
                 on our understanding of atmospheric processes involving heat-trapping compounds
                 ("greenhouse gases") that prevent the infrared radiation heat of the earth from
                 escaping to space (called the "greenhouse effect"). Because of the build-up of
                 these gases in our atmosphere, computer-based global circulation models have
                 predicted climatic warming in the 21" century. The wonisome aspect of this
                 prediction is its factual basis in the observed increase of carbon dioxide (C02, an
                 important greenhouse gas) and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere (Fig.
                 19). However, scientists still have difficulty predicting- 1) what exact effect the
                 increase of greenhouse gases may have on the global climate; 2) what effect global
                 warming may have on localized temperature and humidity patterns; and 3) the
                 exact magnitude of sea-level movements to be expected under a warming climate.

                       To date, the most reliable scientific consensus on potential global climate
                 change in the next century is the assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on
                 Climate Change (IPCC, 1990). The IPCC report is the product of over 200
                 international climate researchers working under the auspices of the United Nations
                 and the World Meteorological Organization. Among their findings is a prediction
                 for accelerated sea-level rise through next century (Fig. 20). Their results agree
                 with estimates of other researchers (NRC, 1987; NRC, 1990a, 1990b) and have
                 generally -been accepted by members of the research and policy-making community.

                       In the IPCC report (1990), global mean sea level is projected to rise at an
                 average rate of about 2.36 in/decade (6 cm/decade) over the next century, with an
                 uncertainty range of 1. 18 to 3.94 in/decade (3 to 10 cm/decade). The projected rise
                 is about 7.9 in (20 cm) by the year 2030, and 25.6 in (65 em) by the end of the
                 next century.

                       Several factors affect sea level on the global scale, but four major effects are
                 attributed to global warming. These are, thermal expansion of ocean water,
                 changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and melting of mountain
                 glaciers. The best estimate of future sea-level trends in the IPCC model is


                                                           29










                                               360


                                             E
                                             CL
                                               340
                                             z
                                             0


                                               320

                                             z                                                       0
                                             W                                                    C9 CP
                                             U
                                               300
                                                                               0 q,,,p lbod@_
                                             0                           0 0
                                             U 280          010 0- -0   112-       1         1
                                                  1700                 1800                 1900                2000




                                               350


                                             z
                                             0
                                             FZ 340


                                             z
                                             LJ 330
                                             U
                                             z
                                             0
                                             U
                                             N 320
                                             0


                                               310

                                                       1960               1970               1980               1990

                                               0.4
                                          W
                                          CD
                                          z    0.2

                                          L)   0.0
                                                                             0    MP
                                                  @N               g@vwo
                                                              Ppgr@
                                               0.2


                                               OA -
                                          W
                                          2    0.6'                                                               _j
                                          W          1870      1890       1910      1930      1950       1970      1990
                                                                              YEAR


                 Figure 19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990. The basis for predicting global
                 warming in the 21" century. Top: Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen since the start of the
                 industrial revolution and the-large-scale burning of fossil fuels. Global annual emissions of C02
                 by fossil fuel burning and other industrial activities have increased annually by about 4% since
                 1860. These data are C02 content (parts per million by volume) of air bubbles trapped in ice that
                 was cored from the Antarctic ice sheet. Middle: Monthly average C02 concentration in parts per
                 'million of dry air observed continuously at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The annual variations shown
                 are produced by the seasonal production (winter) and withdrawal (spring and summer) of carbon
                 dioxide by living organisms on land. Bottom: Global-mean combined land-air and sea-surface
                 temperatures, 1861-1989, relative to the average for the period 1951-80.                                This record is
                 controversial, but it shows a warming trend over the entire period, highlighted by pronounced
                 warming since the late 1970's. The record is the best estimate of global temperature change over
                 the last century or more. Is the warming real? Is it a natural climate fluctuation? Is it the
                 product of C02 build-up in the atmosphere and an enhanced greenhouse effect?


                                                                             30









                                   E
                                      80
                                   W                                           BUSINESS
                                                                               AS-USUAL
                                      60

                                   uJ

                                   W                                                     B
                                   -J 40                                            _."00 C.-M
                                   4
                                   W

                                      20.-                                      SCENARIO D -
                                   uJ



                                   W     0
                                   cc    1980   20010    2020     2040     2060     2080      2100
     A


                                      40

                                   E                                                               C
                                                                                                   E
                                   Lu 30
                                   0                                                               E
                                                                                                   0

                                   _J
                                   w  20

                                   W
                                   _J
                                                                     FORCING STABILISED
                                   W  10
                                                                     IN 2030



                                         0
                                         1980    2000    2020     2040     2060     2080      2100
                                                                 YEAR




                   Figure 20. Projected Sea-Level Rise. Top: Sea-level rise projected by the IPCC (1990) between
                   1990 and 2100. The "business as usual" scenario is a model of sea level assuming uncurtailed
                   industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, a scenario currently being fulfilled by the U.S. Bottom:
                   According to calculations, even if production of greenhouse pollutants (greenhouse forcing)
                   increased no farther, there would still be a commitment to continuing sea-level rise for many
                   decades due to a delayed response of natural climate factors. If the increases in greenhouse gases
                   were to stop in 2030, sea-level would go on rising to 2100, by as much again as from 1990 to
                   2030.



                                                                   31









           composed mainly of positive contributions from thermal expansion of oceanic
           surface waters, and melting of mountain glaciers. Future changes in the Greenland
           and Antarctic ice sheets are poorly understood and heavily debated by researchers.

                  In the IPCC report (1990), global mean sea level is projected to rise at an
           average rate of about 2.36 in/decade (6 cm/decade) over the next century, with an
           uncertainty range of 1. 18 to 3.94 in/decade (3 to 10 cm/decade). The projected rise
           is about 7.9 in (20 cm) by the year 2030, and 25.6 in (65 cm) by the end of the
           next century.

                  Attempts have been made to quantify the various components of global
           sea-level change. The most widely accepted, published estimates include thermal
           expansion estimated as a positive effect on global sea-level movement (0.08 to 0.24
           in/decade; Wigley and Raper, 1989), and melting of mountain glaciers and small
           ice caps estimated as a positive effect on global sea-level movement (0.08 to 0.28
           in/decade; Meier, 1990). The nature of change in the Greenland ice sheet is
           debated. One interpretation of satellite data suggests the ice sheet is thickening and
           might be removing water from the oceans (Zwally, 1989). The Greenland ice sheet
           is, nonetheless, estimated as contributing to sea-level rise at 0.03 to 0. 15 in/decade
           (IPCC, 1990). Changes in the Antarctic ice sheet, which is considered to be
           thickening, not melting, are thought to decrease the rate of global sea-level rise.
           The Antarctic contribution is estimated as -0.08 to -0.24 in/decade (IPCC, 1990).
           Two other factors that are not directly related to warming may affect global
           sea-level movement. The first, reservoir impoundment of surface water for human
           use, is estimated as a negative effect (427 in/decade; Chao, 1991). The second,
           withdrawal of groundwater for human use and'eventual discharge into the oceans,
           is estimated as a positive effect (0.03 in/decade; IPCC, 1990). The total net budget
           for sea-level change based on these components is 0.03+/-0.32 in/decade (-0.29 to
           0.35 in/decade, Table 1).

                  It is instructive to compare a compilation of the supposed components of
           present global sea-level movement (429 to 0.35 in/decade, Table 1) to global
           sea-level rise as actually recorded by tide gauges around the world (Table 2). As
           Table 2 shows, a number of researchers have statistically analyzed long records
           (>45 yr) of sea-level trends. Each estimate in Table 2 accounts for localized
           effects such as crustal subsidence, and compaction of sediments under the gauging
           station. These values (averaging 0.56+/-0.12 in/decade, Table 2) are measurements
           of actual present sea-level movement recorded by tide gauges around the world.


                                                      32







                 The range of values in Table 2 (0.4+/-0.04 to 0.95+/-0.36 in/decade) reflect
                 differences in the technique of statistical analysis, and differences in the actual
    c.j          group of tide gauges used in each case.

                        Table I - Published Components of Present Global Sea-level Rise.
                 ISOURCE                                    CONTRIBUTION
                  Thermal Expansion                         0.08 to 0.24 in/decade
                  Mountain Glacier Wastage                  0.08 to 0.28 in/decade

                  Greenland Ice Sheet                       0.03 to 0.15 in/decade

                  Antarctic Ice Sheet                       -0.24 to -0.08 in/decade

                  Reservoir Impoundment                     -0.27 in/decade
                 [Groundwater Withdrawal                    0.03 in/decade
                                                      -T-0.29 to 0.35 (0.03+/-0.32) in/decade
                 FTot; 71Net


                    Table 2 - Estimated Present Sea-Level Trends From Tide Gauge Records.
                  REFERENCE                           -TESTIMATE
                  Gornitz & Lebedeff, 1987                  0.47+/-0.12 in/decade

                                                            0.4+/-0.04 in/decade

                  Barnett, 1988                             0.45 in/decade
                  Peltier & Tushingham, 1989                0.95+/-0.36 in/decade
                  Trup n     Wahr, 1990                     0.69+/-0.05 in/decade
                  Douglas, 1991                             0.44+/-0.04 in/decade
                 =Average                                 Fo .56+/- 0.12 in/decade

                       Considering the lack of agreement between the observational data (tide
                 gauges, Table 2) and the theoretical data (components, Table 1) it is fair to state
                 that little quantitative understanding exists with regard to the global rate of
                 present-day sea4evel movement. It is generally accepted, however, that sea level

                                                          33









            is presently rising on a global basis, and the best estimate of that rate is between
            0.3 to 0.8 in/decade. If asked to pick a single rate, many experts would pick
            between 0.4 and 0.6 in/decade. With this in mind,-me will adopt the average of
            Table 2, 0.56+/-0.12 in/decade, as our estimate of global sea-level rise. Again, one
            should keep in mind the lack of agreement between the measurements of
            present-day sea-level change and the calculations of present-day sea-level change.

                   2. Hawaiian Sea-Levels. Although understanding of present-day global
            sea-level movement is poor, we can have greater confidence in our understanding
            of present-day local sea-level movement in the State of Hawaii. Because Hawaii
            has a well maintained array of N.O.A.A. tide gauges that have been operational for
            several decades, local sea-level trends on the main Hawaiian islands are well
            documented (Fig. 21).

                   The Big Island    is larger, and therefore heavier than the      other islands.
            Because of it's great mass, it causes the underlying earth's crust to flex downward
            leading to island-wide sinking. This is called subsidence, and the Big Island is
            subsiding so much that neighboring islands (Maui, Lanai, and Molokai) are thought
            to be subsiding along with it. Sea-level movement on these islands then, is the
            sum of global rise and island sinking. This is called submergence. Thus, the
            relative rate of sea-level rise (or submergence) is higher at the southern islands than
            for Oahu and Kauai, which are less affected by Big Island subsidence. Because of
            this phenomenon, sea-level is rising fastest at Hawaii, a little slower at Maui, and
            slower still at Oahu and Kauai. The tide gauge records (Fig. 21) support this
            theory. The general pattern of sea-level movement in the State is controlled by
            individual rates of island subsidence, superimposed on the *background global rate
            (which can be assumed constant throughout the State).

                   As stated, we will assume that the present-day rate of global sea-level rise
            is about 0.56 in/decade. We will use this number to calculate individual rates of
            island subsidence. Following that, we will add island subsidence rates to the IPCC
            (1990) projections for future global sea-level rise, in order to estimate future
            submergence rates (relative sea-level rise) at Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. By
            way of caution however, one has only to refer to Table II to see that there are as
            many present-day global rates as there are attempts to define it, and so we proceed
            with a warning to the reader that continuing research in the near future will
            undoubtedly provide new numbers for global rates (though probably not greatly
            different from our assumed average). As understanding of both present-day and


                                                      34







                                         Nawiliwili Monthly Tide Level                                        Honolulu Monthly Tide Level

                              E                                                                                                                                                   E
                                            0.69ï¿½0.12 In/decade
                                  72--                                                                       -FO.62ï¿½0.03 In/decade
                                                                                                                                                                                  >


                                  70                                                                                                                                      -70

                                                                                                                                                                                  >
                                  68                                                        . .......                           ......--
                                                                                                                                                                            68


                              Cr.
                                              1960             1970              1980              1990   1900         1920         1940          1960         1980
                                                                    Year                                                               Year


                                          Mokuoloe Monthly Tide Level                                          Kahului Monthly Tide Level


                                                                                                                                                                                  E
                                            0. 6 4  0. 13 1 7n/ d7e-c-a
                                  72                                    7de I                                FO.97ï¿½0.09 in/decad7e.                  . .. ....... ....      72    73
                                                                                                                                                                                  >


                              M                  L
                              4)  70 -                                                                                                                                      70


                              Z
                                  68                                                                                                                                        68

                                                                                                                                             T
                                              1960             1970              1980              1990         1950          1960         1970         1980           1990
                                                                    Year                                                               Year


                                               Hilo Monthly Tide Level                                      Subsidence relative to Honolulu


                              E                                ---------
                                                                                                                                                                                    Ca
                                  72      11.55ï¿½0.09 ini/decade@.....@                                                                                MOKUOLOE
                              -6                                                                                                          .... .. ........                   0.0
                              >
                                                                                                                                                                             0.2
                                                                                                                                                           HAWILFWIU
                              0                                                                                          KANULLq
                              0   70 -                                                                                                                                       0.4

                                                                                            ------------ -- - - -
                                                                                                                                                                             0.6
                              Z                                                                                HILO
                                  68 -                                                         . ... ..... .-
                                                                                                                                                                             0.8
                                                                                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                                                                             1.0    .0

                                             1950         1960          1970         1980          1990     0         100         200        300        400        Soo
                                                                    Year                                              Distance from Kilauea (km)




                              Figure 21. Local Sea-Level Trends. Local relative sea-level trends (submergence rates) in the
                              State of Hawaii from tide gauges (from Paul Wessel, University of Hawaii, Department of
                              Geology and Geophysics),                                                                                   MULU         MOKUOLOE
                                                                                                                              ULL
                                                                                                                                  q                        HAWILJWIU


















                                                                                                        35









            future sea-level rates improves, our estimates should be revised. We refer the
            reader to Emery and Aubrey (1991) for a comprehensive review of geologic and
            oceanographic factors affecting tide gauge records, we also note their conclusion
            that present global sea-level rise can only be bracketed between 0 and I in/decade.

                   A least-squares fit of tide gauge records (Fig. 21) shows that the rate of
            sea-level rise in Hilo Harbor is 1.55+/-0.09 in/decade, and at Kahului on Maui it
            is 0.97+/-0.09 in/decade (Paul Wessel, pers. comm.).             Both of these are
            considerably higher than the estimated rate of global sea-level rise. Honolulu, on
            the island of Oahu, is thought to be generally free of the Big Island effects of
            enhanced subsidence (beyond the flexure), which accounts for the much slower rate
            of sea-level rise there, about 0.62+/-0.03 in/decade. On Coconut Island (Mokuoloe)
            in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, a tide gauge records a rate of (0.64+/-0.13 in/decade). In
            Nawiliwili Harbor on Kauai, the tide gauge records a similar rate of about
            0.69+/-0.12 in/decade (Paul Wessel, pers. comm.).

                   By subtracting our assumed present-day global rate (0.56+/-0.12 in/decade)
            from island-specific submergence rates, we calculate the island-specific subsidence
            rates. Hilo is subsiding at 0.99+/-0.21 in/decade, which is 64% of the total
            submergence rate (Table 3). Likewise Maui, which is submerging at 0.97+/-0.09
            in/decade, is subsiding at 0.41+/-0.21 in/decade (42%). Oahu is subsiding at
            0.06+/-0.15 in/decade, and Kauai is subsiding at 0.13+/-0.24 in/decade. Let us
            assume that the IPCC projection for accelerated sea-level rise in the next several
            decades is correct.     The Hawaiian islands will then submerge at 2.36+/-1.4
            in/decade (future global sea-level rate) plus the island-specific subsidence trends we
            have calculated. Accordingly, under the IPCC best estimate scenario, we can
            expect sea-level on Hawaii and Maui to rise at an average rate of 3.35+/-1.61
            in/decade and 2.77+/-1.61 in/decade respectively; and on Oahu and Kauai we can
            expect rates of about 2.42+/-1.55 in/decade and 2.49+/-1.64 in/decade, respectively.

                   Tide gauges record alterations in sea-level position due to variations in
            atmospheric pressure, winds, ocean currents, long-period tides, upland runoff,
            vertical land movements, sediment compaction, groundwater withdrawal, and long
            period meteorologic events such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (Wyrtki, 1990;
            Emery and Aubrey, 1991). While the net submergence values for each station are
            averaged over more than 30 years of data, and thus tend to smooth these various
            perturbations, as more data are collected the trends of these records are likely to
            change somewhat.


                                                      36









                                                  Table 3 - Hawaiian Sea Levels.

                     STATION NET                                SUBSIDENCE RATE              PROJECTED
                                     SUBMERGENCE                                             SUBMERGENCE

                                     (fide gauge trend)         (NET SUBMERGENCE             (SUBSIDENCE RATE
                                                                minus assumed present        plus assumed projected
                                                                sea-level rise of 0.56+/-    sea-level rise of 2.36+/-
                                                                0.12 in/dec.)                1.4 in/dec.*)

                     Hilo            1.55+/-0.09 in/dec.        0.99+/-0.21 in/dec.          3.35+/-1.61 in/dec.

                     Kahului         0.97+/-0.09 in/dec.        0.41+/-0.21    in/dec.       2.77+/-1.61 in/dec.

                     Honolu u        0.62+/-0.03 in/dec.        0.06+/-0.15 in/dec.          2.42+/-1.55 in/dec.

                     Nawiliwill      0.69+/-0.12 in/dec.        0.13+/-0.24 in/dec.          2.49+/-1.64 in/dec.
                    *IPCC, 1990 best estimate scenario     of future sea-level rise.   See Wigley & Raper, 1992 for
                    revised IPCC estimates for sea-level   rise, which fall within the range used in this report.

                           The range of error we attach to the projected (future) submergence rates, is
                    the sum of the standard deviation of the calculated tide gauge trend, the error of
                    the assumed rate of present sea-level rise, and the uncertainty of the projected rate
                    of future global sea-level rise (IPCC, 1990). Our first source of error is in the
                    assumed rate of global sea-level rise, 0.56+/-0.12 in/decade, which is probably
                    somewhere between 0.40 in/decade (Wyrtki, 1990) and 0.9 in/decade (Peltier and
                    Tushingham, 1989). Extrapolating from Table 2, we estimate a minimum
                    subsidence rate error for each island of +/-0.12 in/decade, plus the standard
                    deviation of the net submergence trend at each station. The projected submergence
                    rates assume a future rise of 2.36+/-1.4 in/decade, as given by the IPCC (1990).
                    We have added the subsidence rate error at each station to the projected
                    submergence rate error of +/-1.4 in/decade, to derive the minimum projected
                    submergence. rate error at each station.

                    From the above discussion, the following conclusions can be made.

                    1.) Discrepancies between estimates of the components of global sea-level rise, and
                    observed trends in the global array of tide gauge stations, are reminders that our
                    understanding of sea-level movements is primitive, and that projections of future
                    sea-level movements are likely equally primitive.



                                                                    37









           2.) Assuming that global sea level is rising at 0.56+/-0.12 in/decade, and that the
           IPCC projection of future sea-level rise is correct (2.36+/-1.4 in/decade), if island
           subsidence rates remain constant, we estimate that over the next century sea level
           will rise an average of 3.35+/-1.61     'in/decade at the Big Island, 2.77+/-1.61
           in/decade at Maui,, 2.42+/-1.55 in/decade at Oahu, and 2.49+/-1.*64 in/decade at
           Kauai.


           3.) In the event of accelerated sea-level rise, the observed genera   I tendency for
           beaches around the State to erode will be enhanced. Beaches that are presently
           accreting are likely to begin eroding, those that are presently eroding will begin to
           erode at accelerated rates.


           4.) Accelerated erosion will be accompanied by accelerated shoreline recession.
           This tendency for beaches to move inland will result in increased shoreline
           stabilization, and increased interaction between stabilization structures and coastal
           processes. This will lead to continued, and accelerated beach loss.

           5.) In addition to beach loss, sand loss will become a problem of growing
           magnitude. Sand loss will result from higher wave energy at the coast where
           shorelines are stabilized and the tendency for sand to be carried offshore by rip
           currents, reflected wave energy, and seaward-directed currents along the bottom.

           6.) In the event of accelerated beach degradation, informed beach management will
           require more detailed shoreline data. Historical photographic. shoreline analysis is
           a valuable management tool, and its development and use in the State should
           continue to be supported. But beach degradation can be difficult to fully quantify
           because aerial photographic coverage can be spotty at sites, and it relies on
           vegetation line movements rather than actual beach width. In developed areas,
           vegetation growth is sometimes stabilized by landscaping and/or vegetated
           stabilization structures. " In such areas the technique is no longer viable because
           beach width changes will not be followed by vegetation changes. A more accurate
           and detailed technique, which also supplies useful data for artificial beach
           nourishment, is beach profile surveying. There is no substitute for periodic site
           surveys to exactly document beach state.           A joint State-wide system of
           semi-decadal historical photographic shoreline analysis and quarterly beach and
           nearshore profiling would provide critical monitoring data on erosion/accretion
           trends. Beaches are one of the States most valuable environmental and economic
           assets. With this data the State would optimize the effective management of its


                                                     38









                 beaches.


                 D. Prediction - Accelerated Beach Loss

                        All the major islands of Hawaii are experiencing erosion. In the MOESE
                 report, known erosion rates are used to predict the amount of shoreline. recession
                 by the year 2018. On Kauai, forty-one eroding beach sites are predicted to retreat
                 an average of nineteen feet by 2018; on Molokai, fifteen sites will retreat about
                 twenty-one feet; on Maui, sixty-three sites will retreat an average of thirty-six feet;
                 and on Hawaii, seventeen sites will retreat about eighteen feet. The number of
                 eroding beaches listed here reflects a survey of a fraction of the beaches on each
                 island.   In addition, these calculations do not account for the possibility of
                 accelerated sea-level rise, which can be expected to worsen the problem.

                        In many cases the erosion is at a critical point where buildings, roadways,
                 and houses would be threatened without the protection of shoreline stabilization.
                 When the decision is made to stop the sea and protect the land with a seawall or
                 revetment,, beach loss may occur slowly, over decades. Land ownership may
                 change and people soon forget that there used to be a beach where now there is a
                 wall, By default, beach loss becomes an acceptable consequence of living on the
                 coast.


                        Beach loss or degradation has occurred for over 8 to 9 miles of beaches on
                 Oahu, 2.8 to 6 miles on Maui, I to 2 miles on Kauai, and I to 1.5 miles on Hawaii.
                 Although beach erosion is a common phenomenon for all the islands, the recurring
                 factor in beach loss is hardening of the shoreline, not persistent or chronic erosion.

                        Stabilization of the shoreline with seawalls and revetmehts can be the death
                 of beaches for several reasons. Solid structures on the beach reflect, rather than
                 absorb wave energy so that water returning seaward carries sand away from the
                 beach. This accelerates beach erosion. Also important is that the seawall or
                 revetment cuts off sand exchange between the dry sand beach and inland coastal
                 s
                  and sources, which are quite important on Hawaiian coasts. The backshore area
                 can be an important reservoir of sand to repair the beach after a storm or brief
                 erosion event. With increased wave reflection and a constricted, faster longshore
                 current, seawalls and revetrnents lead to a higher general energy level          In the
                 nearshore environment. This prevents the deposition of sand and ultimately forces
                 sand to move offshore to deeper water. In addition, a lost or narrowed beach


                                                            39









           represents. a loss of nourishing sand for all beaches in the longshore system.
           Erosion can be initiated on neighboring sections of the coast, leading to the
           construction of additional seawalls and revetments.
                                    I

                  In spite of these processes, not all seawalls and revetments have led to the
           loss of the beach. Very infrequently, some of the structures are not located in the
           tidal zone where they can influence the nearshore sediment transport. Some
           landowners may have constructed these structures during a rare or unusual period
           of erosion. When more normal conditions return, these structures are significantly
           inland of the foreshore. Therefore, another factor that influences the impact of a
           seawall or revetment is the frequency that these structures are in or directly near
           the tidal zone where they can influence nearshore processes.

                  As sea-level rises, the waves reach further inland, encountering more solid
           structures. Those structures already within the reach of waves experience increased
           wave energy, further eroding any remaining sand. With continued sea-level rise in
           Hawaii all coastal structures will eventually increase the frequency that they are in
           the tidal zone. This will increase the frequency of erosional events, increase the
           severity and magnitude of erosion, and increase the rate and magnitude of beach
           loss.


                  Around Oahu and Kauai sea level is rising a little over one-half inch per
           decade. Because of the volcanic growth of the Big Island, both it and Maui are
           sinking. This effectively more than doubles the rate of sea-level rise on those
           islands (total rate of about sea-level rise is about I in/decade. for Maui, 1.5
           in/decade for Hawaii). These are historical rates based on tide gauge data over the
           later part of this century. If we accept widespread predictions for accelerated rates
           of sea-level rise in the next century, then we can expect rates of sea-level rise on
           Kauai and Oahu to increase to nearly two and a half in/decade, and on Maui and
           Hawaii to average three in/decade. Depending on if and when the accelerated rise
           begins, thirty to forty years from now the sea may be five to ten inches higher.
           While this may not seem like tragic news now, in fact it points to serious problems
           for shorelines and development in the future.

                  Most of our buildings around the islands stand on relatively flat and gentle
           coastal plains and terraces. Because of the low slope of the land surface, we can
           expect a landward movement of the waterline of between thirty to fifty feet or
           more. This- rise will have two pronounced effects. First, as waves reach farther


                                                    40







                inland, more coastal property will be threatened and more of the shoreline may be
                armored. Property owners will seek to protect their land from erosion. Low-lying
                developed areas will be the first sites where increased stabilization will occur.
                Second, for existing seawalls and revetments which are presently inland from the
                tidal zone, the landward migration of the waterline will increase the frequency these
                structures affect the foreshore. A hypothetical increase in the frequency that
                structures interact with waves in the tidal zone, say for example from 20% to 50%
                of one tidal period, may be sufficient to initiate beach loss. Add to these two
                factors the storms and high waves that hit the beaches on a regular basis, and it can
                be concluded that future beach loss in the State may accelerate to a critical level
                without a fundamental change in shoreline management.

                      Since beaches are very sensitive to wave dynamics and the position of the
                water line, their loss along stabilized shorelines may be one early barometer of
                elevated sea level around the islands. Recent studies for the U. S. Army Corps of
                Engineers (Tait and Griggs, 1991) show that shorelines stabilized with vertical
                structures experience beach loss under long term sea-level rise. As discussed in
                this Chapter, accelerated beach loss is occurring in the Hawaiian Islands in
                association with long term sea-level rise. It is exactly these kinds of changes that
                are to be anticipated if sea-level rise continues or accelerates. In fact, the -MOESE
                projections for the 2018 shoreline on Maui reflect twice the rate of recession of
                those on Oahu and Kauai. Since current sea-level rise on Maui exceeds twice the
                rate of rise on Oahu and Kauai, the higher shoreline recession rate may be a
                consequence of this difference in the rate of sea-level rise.

                      A collision is taking place. As development continues along the shoreline,
                the sea is rising, moving closer to development. In the process the beaches are
                being sacrificed. This trend is expected to increase in the coming decades because
                of accelerated sea-level rise aiid the continued use and need for shoreline
                stabilization structures.


                E. Mitigating the Problem - Modification of Coastal Land Use

                      Intelligent stewardship of coastal resources requires balancing human
                expectations with coastal realities. This partnership must consider the natural
                processes, in light of human needs. Beach loss by stabilization is an example of
                where human expectations have not been balanced with reality. In trying to protect
                valuable -coastal land from erosion to meet the expectation of living on the coast,


                                                         41









            the reality that building seawalls and revetments results in beach loss has been
            ignored. The need to protect coastal property with seawalls and revetments can be
            avoided by the recognition and consideration of coastal processes in land use
            planning.

                  Land use strategy in this study is driven by the principle that the most
            beneficial approach in the long run is to plan for the impacts of coastal flooding
            and erosion before development in order to minimize damage to natural resources
            and property and reduce the necessity of public expenditures to protect the
            development. From the examples, summaries and discussion in this chapter, the
            following should be considered in the planning process:

            1) The loss of beach resources may occur for chronically eroding shorelines
            (Iroquois Point), unstable shorelines (Lanikai), shorelines that were previously
            thought to be accreting (Punaluu), and shorelines that are relatively stable (west end
            of Kahala). The common denominator for the above sites is not persistent erosion
            but hardening of the backshore to prevent any movement of the shoreline.

            Many of the problems documented in this study could have been avoided with an
            adequate shoreline setback before development. Many of the lots at Kahala and
            Lanikai are large enough to accommodate a setback that would have been more
            conducive to beach preservation. Kailua Beach on the windward coast of Oahu is
            a good example of the benefits to the public and the coastal homeowner when the
            beach is given room to migrate (Fig. 22).

            2) In general, the beach in its natural condition will be preserved even if it is
            chronically -eroding adjacent fastlands. There are numerous examples that support
            this premise including Iroquois Point (see Fig. 2, 1967 photo); and the beach sector
            at Kahului, Maui, to the east of the Kahului Wastewater Reclamation Facility
            (MOESE, 1991). Wherever and whenever possible, development should be planned
            so that shorelines can migrate naturally. This approach could lead to the loss of
            fastlands. Erosion mitigation strategies such as sand replenishment could preserve
            the beach and eliminate the loss of these fastlands.


            3) Degradation of the beach resource is a slow process. The environmental effects
            of poorly placed development may not be noticeable for many years. Because of
            the latent impacts on the shoreline, there is often a lack of accountability as to land
            use decisions along the coast. Planning of shoreline development needs to be


                                                      42
















                                                                                ta'@L
                                                                           51@1











                                             1     7














                                                                                          7











                                F@




                                               IiA   i



                                                                             iw                        :z










                 Figure 22. Lanikal and Kallua Beach, Oahu. The north ends of Lanikal Beach and Kailua Beach
                 are both unstable.  TOP: At Lanikal Beach, development of houses close to the beach resulted
                 In hardening of the shoreline to protect property during a period of erosion. The beach has been
                 lost. BOTTOM: At Kallua Beach, the houses are generally set far from the vegetation line.
                 Natural fluctuations of the beach can occur without threatening private property. At Kailua,
                 human  s are living in harmony with the environment.


                                                                 43*








             conducted on a long term horizon. Since proposed programs under the Federal
             Flood Insurance program utilize a 30 year time horizon, it is recommended that
             coastal development in Hawaii should be planned over a similar period to take
             advantage of potential benefits under this and other Federal programs.

                    In Chapter VIII of this report, land-use strategies are formulated which
             consider the above factors, as well as legal considerations and specific landowner's

             concerns.


             F. Cooperation, Coordination and Sacrifice

                    As presented in this chapter, the problems associated with sea-level rise and
             loss of beaches are critical. Meaningful changes in the management of the
             shoreline may be required. If it is possible, reversing the historical trend will
             require cooperation and coordination among individual landowners, the public, the
             counties and the State.       The strategies developed in this report emphasize
             cooperation among diverse groups and working relationships over adversarial ones.

                    To achieve the desired result, it will also require some sacrifice from all
             parties involved. In this study, various programs that address the shoreline problem
             are structured so that the burdens are shared fairly. In the long term, all parties,
             including the coastal landowner, may benefit.

                    There is still time for a well-planned response, provided the State acts with
             commitment and purpose. Innovative shoreline management policies are presented
             in this report. Early construction set-back guidelines are proposed, and there are
             alternatives to stabilization that are discussed in Chapters V, VI and VIII.
             Nevertheless, more may be needed if the beaches are to be preserved. The
             following should be considered: detailed feasibility studies of beach nourishment
             with offshore or onshore sand resources; a State-wide beach monitoring program
             to assemble a scientific data base supporting informed coastal zone management;
             development of a voluntary economic incentives plan to convert private coastal
             holdings to public conservation land; review of existing stabilization structures and
             the return of beaches to a natural state where practical.






                                                       44








                  111. PRIVATE & PUBLIC PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE SHORELINE

                       The definition of private landowner and public rights in the shoreline is
                essential in the development of any coastal land use policy, beach management
                plan, beach management district, or funding scheme in which burdens are shared
                among diverse parties. This topic alone could be the subject of lengthy treatise.

                       While considerable attention is often placed on private property rights along
                the coast, little consideration or understanding is placed on any public rights that
                may exist. All parties involved, including the State, the counties, the public and
                the landowners should realize that there are two sets of property rights along the
                coast, both private and public. Each of these rights needs to be respected and
                protected. That means the coastal landowner must respect the legitimate right of
                the State and the public in taking action to prevent the fin-ther loss of beaches. In
                return, the State and public need to honor the concerns and legitimate property
                rights of the coastal landowner.

                       Striking the proper balance between private and public interest is difficult
                because the coastal zone is a unique environment. What makes management of the
                shoreline so complex is that the boundary separating the two rights is not fixed but
                always moving, on a daily, seasonal and long-term basis. Furthermore, because of
                the sand exchange between offshore sand bars, the dry sand beach and backshore
                area, what one party does on a portion of the beach ecosystem may affect the
                property rights in other segments of the system.

                A. Public Property Interest

                       Under the public trust doctrine, the State holds certain lands in trust for the
                benefit of the public. The public trust doctrine is applicable in Hawaii. In King
                v. Oahu Railwgy & Land Co., I I Haw. 717, 1899, the Hawaii Supreme Court held
                that lands under the navigable waters in and around the territory of the Hawaiian
                -Government are impressed with a trust for the public useIs of commerce, navigation
                -and fishing. The Supreme Court in Oahu Ry. did not define the upper boundary
                of the domain of the public trust. Part of the reluctance is due to the confusion
                in the definition of navigable waters. This definition originally applied to those
                waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. However, many inland lakes aud
                streams, which are subject to the public trust doctrine, are navigable but not subject
                to the influence of the tides. Conversely, many coastal ecosystems are subject to


                                                          45









            tidal influence but not navigable.

                   The United States Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississip i,
            108 S.Ct. 791, 1988, clarified this issue when they reaffirmed prior precedents and
            held that all lands subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, whether navigable in fact
            or not, are subject to the State's public trust interest. Thus in Hawaii, the upper
            boundary of the public trust interest extends at least to the mean. high water line.
            The mean high water line would be the intersection of the horizontal mean high
            water level with the coastline.


                   There are two lines of reasoning that indicate the public trust doctrine
            extends farther inland to include the dry sand beach. First, the law of general
            application in Hawaii is that the boundary separating public and private interests
            along the shore is the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, excluding storm and
            tidal waves, as evidenced by the vegetation and debris line, (see e.g., Application
            of Ashford, 50 Haw. 314, 440 P.2d 761 1968; County of Hawaii v. Sotomura, 55
            Haw. 176, 517 P.2d 57, 1973; Application of Sanborn, 57 Haw. 585, 562 P.2d 771,
            1977. Given the above cases, beaches in Hawaii are generally held to belong to
            the public. A 1978 addition to the Hawaii Constitution (Article X1 - Section 1)
            states that "All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit
            of the people." Second, in the Sanborn case, the Hawaii Supreme Court approved
            their previous analysis in Sotomura, when it recognized that land below the high
            water mark is held in public trust by the State. The Sanborn court held that the
            high water mark is the upper reaches of the wash of the waves as represented by
            the vegetation and debris lines.

                   In sum, the upper boundary of the public trust doctrine extends at least to the
            mean high water line (the intersection of mean high water with the coast) and
            probably to the upper reaches of the wash of waves (usually evidenced by the
            vegetation line or debris line). Wherever the inland boundary is located, the
            disappearance of beaches as shown in Figs. 1-5 of this report may be a violation
            of the public trust since these changes represent serious harm to both the dry sand
            beach and tidelands (land between the mean high water line and lower low water).

                   That the State holds beach resources (tidelands or the dry sand beach) in trust
            for the public has important implications that are discussed below:

            1) Because the beneficiaries of the trust are the public, the courts may allow


                                                       46








                individual citizens to assert the rights of the public in a lawsuit. In Akau v.
                Olohana Co1p., 652 P.2d 1130, 1982, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a
                member of the public has standing to sue if he can show he suffered an injury in
                fact (the previous more difficult standard was that the citizen suffered an injury
                different in kind from the general public). The Akau Court recognized the trend
                of allowing citizen suits for harm to public trust property. The Court noted that the
                State, in its brief for the case, said it welcomed private suits because the State
                lacked the resources to pursue vigorously all such claims.

                2) It is important to distinguish between the State's police power to regulate land
                use for the health, safety and welfare of the public and the more demanding and
                rigorous duty that the State has as trustee of natural resources. Under the police
                power, the State may decide that a rarely used beach can be sacrificed to protect
                private property with seawalls along an eroding shoreline. Under the public trust
                doctrine, the State is a trustee of a public resource and should defend, preserve,
                protect, maintain and perpetuate that resource. The basic tenet of the public trust
                doctrine was espoused by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the Oahu Railway case.
                The Hawaii Court adopted the reasoning in Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146
                U.S. 3 87, 13 S. Ct. I 10, where the United States Supreme Court held that title to
                land below the high water mark was: ". . a title held in trust for the people of
                the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over
                them, and have liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interference
                of private parties. . . "      Without going into an exhaustive legal analysis, a
                generalization which can be made of the public trust doctrine is that neither the
                United States Supreme Court nor any state courts have disavowed the prohibition
                against "substantial impairment of public rights of navigation, commerce and
                fishing as announced in Illinois Central or Shively v. Bowlby" (Wilkinson, 1989).

                      The Hawaii Supreme Court has yet to fully elaborate on the range of
                activities covered by the public trust doctrine. In State by Kobgyashi v. Zimring,
                58 Haw. 106, 566 P.2d 725, 1977, the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that
                recreational activities, as well as navigation, commerce and fishing may be covered
                by the public trust doctrine. In Tern v. Kerr, 16 Haw. 363, 1905, the Hawaii
                Supreme Court employed public trust principles to enjoin the construction of a
                seawall on *the tidelands of Waikiki. The Court stated that walls and buildings
                extending seaward beyond the high water mark "interfere with the rights of
                fisheries and of navigation by fishermen . . . . and of the right of passing
                between high and low water mark common to the public. And that the structures


                                                         47









            do and will interfere with navigation of canoes within the limits and below high
            water mark and              if allowed to remain or if allowed to be completed as
            planned, will work irreparable damage to the rights and interests of the Territory
            of Hawaii." Lower courts in Hawaii have also made the connection between the
            loss of beach access and the duties of the State under the public trust (Lam, 1991).
            In Barba v. Okuna, Civil No. 4590, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
            Order (October 14, 1980), Hawaii's Third Circuit Court stated "Any alienation or
            abandonment of an established public right-of-way by the Defendant State of
            Hawaii which leaves the public without reasonable access to Kawa Bay and the
            adjacent shoreline would constitute a breach of public trust. . . The Barba case
            involved the blockage of vertical access to the shoreline (e.g. trails, roads and paths
            to the coastline). With regard to the loss of beaches as documented in this report,
            it is horizontal access along the coastline which is blocked. The Kerr and Barba
            cases indicate that the State should protect both vertical and horizontal access to
            the shoreline as part of their public trust duties.

            3) Since it is the State that owns the beaches and is the trustee of the coastal
            resource, it is the State that should take the lead in managing these resources.
            While the counties through enabling legislation can regulate and manage shoreline
            development, history indicates that the greater weight has been given to county
            concerns as opposed to those of the State's. As a result, State property was lost
            (the beaches were balanced away).

                  In this report, the principles and concepts discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3
            serve to guide the formulation of strategies and define a direction of coastal
            management for the State. In developing strategies, it is the State that should take
            the lead and assume its role as trustee of coastal resources. The philosophy of the
            State should be that preservation and restoration of the coastal environment should
            be a primary principle upon which alteration of shoreline resources should be
            judged. This philosophy is reflected in the strategies and options developed within
            this study.

            B. Private Property Interest

                  All landowners, whether along the coast or not, have a bundle of property
            rights. There are certain restrictions the government can and cannot place on these
            property rights through regulation. While the government can regulate land use to
            a certain extent, if the regulation goes "too far" it will be recognized as a taking of


                                                      48








                 property without just compensation (Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393,
                 43 S. Ct. 1581) 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922). For example, if the government were to
                 physically occupy the land or pass a regulation that allowed others to occupy the
                 land, the Courts would invariably find a taking, which would require the payment
                 of just compensation to the landowner (See Loretto v. Telorompter Manhattan
                 CATV Corp. 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982).

                       The United States Supreme Court has stated that there is no set formula for
                 what constitutes a regulatory taking. A variety of factors are considered by the
                 Court on a case-by-case basis. Some key factors concerning coastal regulation and
                 shoreline setbacks are: 1) Economic Impact - e.g., does the regulation deny "all
                 economically viable use" of the land;        2) Government Objective - is the
                 government preventing a serious harm and nuisance or is the government securing
                 a benefit for the public; 3) Relationship between the Regulation and the State
                 Interest - does the regulation "substantially advances a legitimate state interest";
                 and 4) Propegy Expectations - what are the "investment backed expectations" of
                 the landowner.


                       Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a pivotal case that
                 affects government regulation of property (see, e.g., Callies, 1992). In Lucas v.
                 South Carolina Coastal Council, 304 S. C. 376, 404 S. E.2d 895 (1991); cert.
                 granted (U.S.S.C., Nov. 18, 1991) (No. 91-453), the landowner Lucas purchased
                 two lots in 1986 for a price of $975,000. Lucas planned to build two single fwnily
                 dwellings, one for his fwnily and the other to place on the market. In 1988, South
                 Carolina passed the Beachfront Management Act, which imposed strict shoreline
                 setbacks to prevent erosion problems. As applied to the Lucas property, the
                 setback prohibited construction of habitable units seaward of setback that was based
                 on a 40-year erosion rate plus 20 feet as an additional buffdr. There were no
                 exceptionsl S. C. Code S 48-39-290(A) (Supp. 1988).' Even though Lucas
                 conceded the validity and purpose of the South Carolina Act, he claimed that the


                         The Beachfront Management Act was later amended to allow special
                 permits or variances to build closer to the beach under certain conditions, S. C.
                 Code s 48-39-290 (1990). However, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the
                 viability of the Beachfront Management Act in its preamended version (1992 WL
                 142517). The Court held that Lucas alleged irijury-m-fact with respect to the
                 preamended Act, and it would not accord with sound practice that he pursue a late
                 created procedure before his case could be heard.

                                                         49









            setback was a taking since "all economically viable use" of the land was lost. The
            South Carolina Coastal Council maintained that regardless of the economic impact
            to the landowner, the State can regulate land to prevent a serious public hann. or
            a nuisance.


                  The trial court held that Lucas's properties had been "taken" by the Act and
            ordered the respondent, South Carolina Coastal Council, to pay "just compensation"
            in the amount of $1,232,397.50. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the
            trial court and held that the Beachfront Management Act did not amount to a taking
            since it prevented a serious public harm, 304 S. C. 376, 383; 404 S. E.2d 895, 899
            (1991). The South Carolina Supreme Court's holding in Lucas is in line with other
            cases dealing with shoreline setbacks and the takings issue (see, e.g., McNulty v.
            Town of Indialantic, 727 F. Supp. 604, M.D. Fla. 1989; see generally, Hwang
            1991).

                  The United States Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina decision (1992
            Westlaw 142517). The U. S. Court held that regulations that deny a property
            owner of all "economically viable use" of the land constitute one of the discrete
            categories of regulatory deprivations that require compensation, regardless of the
            public interest advanced in support of the restraint. Furthermore, the Court stated
            that the distinction between regulations that prevent harm versus those that confer
            a public benefit is difficult, if not possible to discern on an objective basis.
            Therefore regulations that prevent a harin cannot form the basis for departing from
            the Court's categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated for.

                  Nevertheless, the Court left open the door to State' regulation to prevent
            serious public harm, even if all use is deprived. The Court stated that no
            compensation is owed if the State regulation simply makes explicit what already
            inheres in the property itself, "in the restrictions that background principles of the
            State's law of property and nuisance already place on land ownership." Thus, the
            U. S. Court remanded the case to South Carolina to address this state-law question.
            In order for the South Carolina Coastal Council to win their case, they must
            identify background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses
            that Lucas intends on his property.

                  The majority gives examples of the types of regulations that may be
            constitutionally valid. For example, the owner of a nuclear generating plant may
            be ordered to remove all improvements from the land upon discovery that the plant


                                                      50








                sits astride an earthquake fault. The example given by the Court that is more
                applicable to coastal regulation is that of flood regulation. The Court states that
                the owner of a lake bed, "would not be entitled to compensation when he is denied
                the requisite permit to engage in a landfilling operation that would have the effect
                of flooding others' land. . . Such regulatory action may well have the effect of
                eliminating the land's only economically productive use, but it does not proscribe
                a productive use that was previously permissible under relevant property and
                nuisance principles. The use. of these properties for what are now expressly
                prohibited purposes was always unlawful." 1992 Westlaw 142517, p. 25.

                      The majority does not discuss the similarity between regulating an erosion
                zone as opposed to a flood area. It is relatively simple to document examples
                where attempts to control erosion on one land transfer the erosion problem to
                anothers' land. In fact, Chapter 2 of this report contains numerous examples where
                landowner activity has the effect of exacerbating erosion on adjacent private and
                public land.

                      If a State was to pass strict setback regulations, an attempt should be made
                to define background principles of nuisance and property law. The public trust
                doctrine, discussed in part A, is one common law theory that may restrict certain
                activities near public trust land. For example, if the development on a lot adjacent
                to an erosion zone would lead to the loss of public trust land, then the Lucas Court
                indicates a regulation that makes explicit a pre-existing restriction may be valid.
                To pass a strict restriction, documentation similar to that in Chapter 2 would be
                needed to define the impact on public trust land. Documentation on the individual
                lots or the locality in question would also be required.

                       It should be reemphasized that the Lucas case deals with the issue of
                regulating small lots to the extent that all use of the property is gone. For small
                lots that have been subdivided but not yet developed, land use options are limited
                since a shoreline setback that protects the beach and preserves buildable area may
                be mutually exclusive. The zoning strategies in this report should not be affected
                since thpy are designed to affect large tracts of land that have not been subdivided
                or zoned for urban use. Through innovative strategies, it is possible to develop a
                setback that preserves the beach and maintains or enhances economically viable use
                of the land (Chapter VIII).




                                                         51










                       IV. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & STRATEGY


            A. Objectives

                   In Chapter II, the loss of Hawaii's beaches was documented as resulting from
            the combination of long-term sea-level rise and extensive shoreline hardening.
            This report has three objectives that address this problem. The objectives pertain
            to the following levels of use along the coast:

            1) Undeveloped Land - One purpose of this study is to develop a strategy for
            undeveloped land to ensure that beach resources are not threatened. Generally, it
            is easier and more cost efficient to preserve a beach through regulatory controls
            than to recover a beach through engineering solutions.            For land that is
            undeveloped, regulatory controls will be the major management tool. Factors that
            will be considered in formulating land controls include beach preservation,
            landowners property rights, and other legal and economic factors.

            2) Developed Land - (No Seawalls or Revetments) For developed beaches that
            have not been hardened, the goal is to devise options that preserve the beach yet
            provide protection to the landowner. This means finding alternatives to seawalls
            and revetments. New options for landowners will have to overcome the difficulties
            of cost and regulatory compliance for activities makai of the vegetation line. It is
            through the Beach Management District that these problems can best be addressed.
            In those instances where technical, legal or financial difficulties leave no other
            alternative, buried erosion control structures on the landowner's property may be
            the preferred method of protection (see e.g., DHM, inc., September, 1990).
            Nevertheless, because of the continued rise in sea-level, this option may be
            temporary.

            3) Developed Land - (Seawalls and Revetments - Beach Lost) For shorelines that
            are developed and the beach is lost, an attempt should be made to restore lost
            resources. Restoration can be provided either by sand replenishment through the
            BMD option or through a voluntary program of retreat from the shoreline based on
            the provision of economic incentives.

                  The ultimate goal of this study is to formulate a menu of options that are
            technically, economically and legally feasible for the State and landowner. All the
            options developed in this report will be preferable, from a perspective of preserving


                                                     52







                the beack over a seawall or revetment. It is hoped that at least one or more of the
                alternatives will be applicable for every stretch of beach along the State.

                B. Strategies

                      Five basic strategies are employed in this report to develop options that
                preserve the shoreline. They are as follows:

                      1. Develo the Beach Management District. Regarding an erosion control
                response, there are alternatives to seawalls and revetments that may be less harmful
                to the beach yet considerably more difficult to implement because of cost or
                permitting. Through BMDs, it is possible to raise the viability of other technically
                feasible options so that they become realistic alternatives to landowners. Structural
                and nonstructural options such as offshore breakwaters or sand replenishment will
                be investigated within the BMD concept.

                      It is realized that the formation of BMI)s may not be technically,
                economically or legally feasible for every stretch of beach in the State. Therefore
                other strategies are required to address the pervasive problem of sea-level rise,
                shoreline hardening and beach loss.

                      2. Implement Economic Mechanisms in Beach Management. In the field of
                Federal environmental regulation, Congress and the Environmental Protection
                Agency are increasingly exploring the utilization of economic incentives for
                activities which preserve the environment and economic disincentives for activities
                that degrade the environment. Economic disincentives can come in the form of
                taxes, fees, or assessments. Economic incentives may include tax credits, tax
                deductions, subsidies, and tradable privileges to conduct certain activities near the
                shoreline. The advantage of a program of economic mechanisms to achieve
                environmental goals include the following:'

                (a) Reduced Government Expenditures - Economic mechanisms may reduce
                government expenditures for environmental programs.           This is an important
                consideration during a time of tight budget constraints.

                (b) Revenue - Economic disincentives are a source of revenue for other
                environmental programs.



                                                         53









            (c) FlexibiliV - Fees or taxes on unavoidable activities that degrade the
            environment can contribute revenues to other programs that preserve or restore the
            environment in another area.

            (d) Business Planning - Economic disincentives allow businessmen to plan their
            activities with the environment. Since a price is put on activities that degrade the
            environment, businesses can formulate other alternatives to achieve a lower cost
            while preserving the environment.

                  For this study a limited program of economic measures will be used to
            develop beach management strategies. Economic incentives and disincentives could
            be used to deal with the significant problem of illegal seawalls and revetments. In
            addition, economic incentives could provide for a voluntary program to relocate
            buildings and erosion control structures inland.

                  3. Achieve Regulatory Efficiency. When landowners build seawalls or
            revetments on their land, they may need only one variance from the appropriate
            county agency. However, if they wish to protect their property with erosion-control
            measures that are less harmful to the beach, such as beach replenishment, a
            breakwater, or a terminal groin, up to six permits may be required. Depending on
            the type of activity to be conducted, the following may be required:

                  Counjy Permit - If the landowner's activities extend mauka of the shoreline,
            for example, a groin which goes from the backshore into the water, a county
            variance would be required pursuant to appropriate setback regulation.

                  Dgpartment of Land and Natural Resources - Land makai of the shoreline is
            conservation land.    Any use within the conservation areas Would require a
            Conservation District Use Permit. In addition, an environmental assessment would
            be required according to Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes. If adverse impacts
            are found, an Environmental Impact Statement may be required.

                  Dgpartinent of Transportation - Under Chapter 266-1 of the Hawaii Revised
            Statutes, all ocean waters and navigable streams are under the care and control of
            the DOT. For ocean dredging, filling, construction and dumping of materials below
            the mean water line a Shorewaters Permit is required.         The DOT permit is
            processed and issued concurrently with the Conservation District Use permit from
            the DLNR. However, DOT has the prerogative to disagree with the Conservation


                                                    54







                 Permit and may request that the applicants obtain a Shorewaters permit.'

                       AMy C=s of Engineers - If the activities of-the landownerextend seaward
                 of the high water line, then a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers may be
                 required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Corps permits are required for
                 dredging, mooring buoys, the discharge of fill material, and the construction of
                 erosion-control structures such as groins or breakwaters. That a Corps permit is
                 required triggers the requirement for the following two permits, as mandated by
                 Federal law, and administered by State agencies.

                       Coastal Zone Manaizement ProgLam - Under the Federal consistency
                 provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, all Federally licensed or
                 permitted activities affecting the coastal zone must be conducted in a manner
                 consistent with the State's approved management program.           For Hawaii, the
                 activities must be in accordance with the objectives and policies of Chapter 205A-2
                 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.


                       Dgpartment of Health - According to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,
                 any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result
                 in a discharge into the navigable waters shall provide the licensing or permitting
                 agency a certification that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions
                 relating to water quality standards. Monitoring of water quality is required before,
                 during and after the proposed activity.

                       The regulatory process itself can deter a landowner from selecting an erosion
                 control option that is less harmful to- the environment. Although efforts have been
                 made to streamline the process, further measures may be necessary. Achieving
                 regulatory efficiency is especially important since programs to preserve or restore
                 beaches may take additional regulatory controls. Such regulations will be greeted
                 with skepticism unless the regulatory process can be made less burdensome, even
                 with the new controls. In this study, recommendations for additional efficiency
                 measures and coordination are made so that even with new shoreline programs, the
                 total number of required approvals is reduced.


                         On July 1, 1992 the boating program functions and all boating facilities
                 will be transferred from the Harbors Division of DOT to DLNR. Jurisdiction of
                 this program will be with the DLNR, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation.


                                                          55









                   4. Enforce Existing Regulations. Additional protection of the shoreline may
            be obtained by enforcing existing coastal regulations.            In the 1991 report,
            Recommendations for Improving the Coastal Zone Management Program, it was
            recognized that violations of the SMA permitting process and shoreline setback
            provisions are a major problem. One reason for the violations is the lack of
            sufficient enforcement capacity by the counties. In this report, suggestions are
            made for improved enforcement of existing regulations.

                   5.'Offset Burdens with Benefits. There are three major approaches to deal
            with coastal erosion, beach loss and sea-level rise. The State may decide that the
            present, system of beach management is working and no further action is required.
            As discussed in Chapter II, this approach would lead to continued or accelerated
            degradation of the coastal environment and increased risks to landowners.

                   A second strategy is to adopt a strict policy of retreat from the coastline
            similar to that enacted by South Carolina.           In South Carolina's Beachfront
            Management Act, there are strict prohibitions on erosion control structures and new
            development seaward of a forty year erosion setback. The advantage of the South
            Carolina Act is that it protects coastal resources and is relatively easy to administer.
            The disadvantage is that the Act may intrude on private property rights. The. South
            Carolina law does test the limit on the extent government can regulate private
            coastal property for the good of the public (see e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina
            Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, (S.C., 1991); cert. granted 112 S.Ct. 436, 116
            L.Ed.2d 455, 60 U.S.L.W. 3374 (U.S.S.C., Nov. 18,1991) (No. 91-453); and Beard
            v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 403 S_.E.2d 620 (S.C.1991); cert. denied, 112
            S.Ct. 185, 116 L.Ed.2d 146, 60 U.S.L.W. 3262 (U.S.S.C., Oct. 7, 1991)(No., 91-
            137). In Hawaii, a strict policy of retreat from the coastline may encounter strong
            opposition that could disable any proposals to protect the shoreline.

                   A third approach, and the one that is suggested in this report, is to formulate
            an erosion management program in which burdens placed on affected parties are
            compensated with other benefits. The drawback of this altemative is that the
            shoreline management program becomes more complex since it requires the
            development of a benefit for every burden imposed. This alternative also requires
            strong cooperation between the State and county governments. The advantage of
            offsetting burdens with benefits is that it can reduce political opposition from
            landowners and developers. Therefore, meaningful programs can be implemented
            to preserve-the State's shoreline.


                                                       56








                                 V. BEACH MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS

                       The Beach Management District would be used to pay for the design,
                analyses and capitalization of erosion-control measures. The advantage of forming
                a district is that it provides economies of scale. For many erosion control projects,
                the cost to a single homeowner for a comprehensive coastal study may be more
                than the cost to build a seawall (Edward K. Noda & Assoc., 1989). However, if
                many landowners were to split the cost of the study, they would benefit since
                alternatives other than seawalls may be developed in the coastal analysis. Through
                the cooperation of landowners, the counties and the State, it may be possible to
                develop and finance alternatives such as offshore structures, sand replenishment,
                or a field of leaky groins.

                       Many coastal states have established Beach Management Districts (BMDs)
                to deal with coastal erosion. The success of these programs has varied on the type
                of district established and the level of cooperation from the State and local
                governments.


                A. The District Structure


                       There are numerous variations of the district concept that have been used for
                capital improvement projects. They include the improvement district, the overlay
                district, and the special taxing district. Coastal States that have established BMI)s
                have used one or a combination of the three forms. The various forms of the
                district are discussed in order of increasing complexity.

                       1. The Overlqy District.' The idea behind an overlay district is that certain
                areas may be so unique in terms of land use, historical significance, scenic beauty
                or economic value that another layer of regulation or additional restrictions may
                be needed for the building and design of structures. In the Hawaii State Land Use
                Enabling Act, (HRS S 46-4) the counties are given the power to determine land
                areas in which particular uses may be subjected to special restrictions. Examples
                of districts on Oahu with another layer of regulation include Diamond Head and
                Punchbowl craters, the Hawaii State Capital, Chinatown, Thomas Square/Honolulu
                Academy of Arts, Waikiki and Haleiwa (Dept. of Land Utilization, Land Use
                Ordinance S 7.20-7.90).      In addition there are overlay regulations governing


                        Also known as a special district in the Oahu Land Use Ordinance.

                                                          57









            specific Federally established Flood Hazard Districts (LUO S 7.10).

                   According to the Kauai County Zoning Ordinance, special overlay Shore
            District Zones may be -established (Ord. No. 164, August 17, 1972). For the Shore
            District, the Planning Commission of Kauai was supposed to develop a Shoreline
            Special Treatment Zone Plan which delineated the boundaries of the Shore District.
            New developments within the zone are to address certain environmental issues    , such
            as water quality or public use of the ocean. In addition, the Shore District has
            some restrictions on seawalls, bulkheads and other erosion control structures.
            These overlay Shore Districts have yet to be implemented by Kauai (DHM, inc.,
            1990).

                 . Previous studies in Hawaii have proposed the establishment of overlay
            districts (see, e.g., Edward K. Noda & Assoc., 1989; DHM, inc., 1990; Sea
            Engineering, 1991). At the county level, overlay districts may be useful for
            shoreline sectors with unusual problems or unique characteristics. For example, the
            beach at Waikiki is unique fi7om other sandy shorelines in terms of visitor usage,
            types of activities and economic importance. For Waikiki, a special layer of
            regulation and unique standards to protect the beach may be warranted.

                   Overlay districts may be useful if State legislation is ineffective to prevent
            erosion problems at a particular locality. In this case the counties can establish an
            overlay district with more stringent zoning controls for the area. Overlay districts
            may -also be needed if the counties were to develop a special program to grant
            height and density variances for those landowners who were subject to an increased
            shoreline setback (see proposal - Chapter VIII).

                   While the overlay district may be useful for certain areas, its application to
            most of Hawaii's beaches may be cumbersome. In considering the utility of an
            overlay district as a method of regulatory control, one consideration would be how
            unique the problems are at a particular locality. If the problems associated with
            coastal erosion and beach loss are limited to a few sites, then the formation of
            overlay districts to counter the problem may be appropriate. However, if the
            coastal problems are extensive, then it may be more efficient to apply meaningful
            regulatory guidelines and criteria at the State or county level.

                   Previous studies indicate that the problems associated with erosion and beach
            loss are extensive. According to the MOESE report, sixty-three sites on Maul will


                                                      58








                retreat an average of thirty-six feet by the year 2018. The examples at Kahala,
                Punaluu and Lanikai on Oahu (Figs. 3-6) indicate that beach loss is not confined
                to chronically eroding shorelines but also to stable beaches and areas that were
                formerly accreting. In addition, the, difficulties associated with accelerated sea-level
                rise are expected to increase the number of trouble areas along the, coast. Another
                important consideration is that the State is trustee of the beach resource. As a
                trustee, effort should be made to protect all beaches, not just those with unusual
                characteristics. Therefore, the number of beaches to protect by special overlay
                regulation could be considerable.

                       The establishment of numerous overlay districts along the Hawaii coastline
                may be burdensome. More efficient in a statewide beach management program
                may be effective controls at the State or county level. This is not to discount the
                important value of the overlay district. If the State were unable to develop
                meaningful guidelines for beach management, it may be up to the counties to take
                the initiative and develop individual overlay districts for various areas.

                        The overlay district and the improvement district are not mutually exclusive.
                Each is suitable under different conditions. In many cases, both may need to be
                utilized. Since much of the legal structure is already in place to develop the
                overlay district, more time was spent in this report to develop the improvement
                district. In Chapter X, an attempt is made to apply both the improvement and
                overlay district concept to two different beach areas.

                       2. The Improvement District.         For an improvement district, a special
                assessment is charged upon lands deriving some benefit from a nearby capital
                project to defray some of the cost of the improvement.- The charge of assessments
                must be limited to situations where there is some benefit to the property assessed.
                The charge cannot be for more than the benefit received nor for more than the cost
                of the improvement (Hagman & Juergensmeyer, 1986).

                       Traditionally, assessments were used to pay for improvements to streets,
                sidewalks, lights and sewers. In the Hawaii State Land Use Enabling Act, (HRS
                46-1.5), the counties are given the power to provide by ordinance for the funding
                of improvements or maintenance within a district by the use of assessments. In
                Oahu's special assessment ordinance, assessments may cover activities to establish
                highways, extend or widen streets, improve sanitary and drainage systems, and
                acquire property for playgrounds and public beach parks (City and County of


                                                           59









            Honolulu, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Chapter 24).

                   Improvement districts may also be used as a tool to finance offshore
            breakwaters) sand replenishment, or other non-traditional erosion control projects
            (Edward K. Noda & Assoc., 1989). Numerous coastal states have used the
            improvement district concept to finance erosion mitigation projects.                    In
            Connecticut, special assessments for erosion mitigation are allowed for the
            construction of groins, jetties, seawalls, revetments and other structures and
            facilities useful in preventing damage from floods or erosion (Conn. Gen. Stat.
            Ann., Title 25-Water Resources, S 25-71). In Rhode Island, assessments are made
            on property which benefit from protective works along the shore (R.I. Gen. Laws
            S 46-3-12). For North Carolina, improvement districts at the county level may be
            made for water systems, street widening and for beach erosion control projects
            (N.C. Stat S 153A-185). In Maryland, the State assesses shoreline properties that
            benefit from the design and installation of bulkheads, groins, and other devices.
            Benefited properties include land immediately abutting the waters of Maryland that
            receive protection from an erosion control project (Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-
            1001).

                   The improvement district is a valuable tool that can be of use for selected
            portions of the coast. It is recommended that improvement districts be formed for
            erosion mitigation projects that benefit the State and private landowner so that the
            costs can be shared equitably. The improvement districts can be modeled after the
            regulations from other coastal states and Oahu's Improvement District Ordinance.

                   3. Taxing Districts. Taxing districts perform many'of the functions of an
            improvement district; however, the revenues that are collected are not limited to
            a single purpose or improvement. Taxing districts are organized into small
            governmental entities, with a structural forni, the right to obtain and dispose of
            property, and the power to issue bonds. These districts are usually run by elected
            officials and are subject to a high degree of accountability. They have been used
            to create roads, bridges, police and fire protection services and recreational facilities
            (Hagman & Juergensmeyer 1986).

                   In Hawaii, legislation has been proposed to give the counties the authority
            to establish taxing districts. In 1990, Senate Bill #3293 proposed the establishment
            of Community Facilities Districts in which taxes on property did not have to be
            apportioned on the basis of benefit to the landowner. This bill never passed out


                                                       60








                of conference committee.

                       In Florida, beach erosion and mitigation projects may be initiated at the State
                or county level. At the county level, Beach and Shore Preservation Districts are
                established with many of the characteristics of an overlay and taxing district.
                Beach and Shore Preservation Districts at the county level are run by a board of
                county commissioners who are elected officials (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.25). The
                board has the authority to install erosion control structures, make contracts,
                establish regulations, acquire land, exercise the power of eminent domain and levy
                taxes within the district.


                       In New Jersey, beach erosion control districts are formed at the municipal
                level (N. J. Stat. Ann. S 40:68-27). The district is run by 3 elected commissioners
    @J          who comprise the Beach Erosion Control Commission. The district may prepare
                plans and specifications for the construction of jetties, bulkheads or other facilities
                designed to prevent erosion. In addition, the district may. issue bonds and raise
                taxes within the district to pay for the bonds (N. J. Stat. Ann. S 40:68-42).

                       The establishment of a taxing district such as in Florida or New Jersey is a
   W-1          complex procedure. For Hawaii, a Beach Management District using. a taxing
                format is not recommended because the magnitude of the shoreline problem would
                require the establishment of numerous entities or local governments around the
                islands. This may result in duplication of efforts and inefficiency.

                B. District Formation


                       In Oahu's Improvement District Ordinance, 60% of the landowners and
                lessees to be assessed may petition the City Council for a certain improvement
                within a proposed district (Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Chapter 24, Sec. 24-
                3.2). The petition must be accompanied by maps, surveys, plans and other
                preliminary data which the City Council use to evaluate the petition. Alternatively,
                the city council may, by resolution, propose the formation of a district. In either
                case, a notice and public hearing are required that allow all affected property
                owners an opportunity to express objections or suggest modifications to the
                proposed district.

                       In Maryland, the owner of any property abutting any body of water of the
                State may file a written application with the Department of Natural Resources


                                                          61









            requesting assistance in the design, construction, and financing of a shore erosion
            control project for the property (Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S8-1 00 1). The applicant
            must state on the application that they are responsible for the maintenance of the
            project after its construction.

                  It is suggested that provisions are created which allow the establishment of
            Beach Management Districts, where they are feasible, upon the initiative of the
            State, the county, or a group of coastal landowners. It would be the proposed
            Division of State Beaches that would evaluate the petition, and decide on the
            viability of a potential project for erosion mitigation.

            C. Landowner Cooperation

                   In the establishment of an improvement district, a critical issue is how to get
            a group of landowners to consent or cooperate to a major improvement project.
            For Oahu, an improvement district requires the consent of at least 60% of the
            landowners and lessees to be assessed (Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Chapter
            24, Sec. 24-3.2). While only 60% of the affected parties must consent, 100% of
            the affected parties pay an assessment according to the specific benefit received.

                  Between 1915 and 1987, over 360 street and sewer improvement projects
            have been completed on Oahu. The first improvement district was the Manoa
            Improvement District No. 1, initiated in 1915. More recent improvement districts
            were in Ewa Beach, Waimalu, and Halawa (Dept. of Public Works, 1987). The
            Department of Public Works often encounters the situation where most landowners
            consent to an improvement district except for a few holdovers who refuse to pay.
            One generality that can be made is that there appears to be more willingness for
            landowners to participate in the payment of a sewe    .r improvement as compared to
            road improvements (Alex Ho, pers. comm., Department of Public Works). This
            may be because the Department does not allow the non-consenting landowner to
            hook up onto the new sewer until payment is made. There may also be the
            perception, whether true or not, that the landowner benefits to a greater degree
            from a sewer project versus a road improvement. For road improvement projects,
            additional effort may be required to get non-consenting landowners to cooperate.
            In some cases.a tax lien may be placed on the property.

                  In the Hawaii Revised Statutes S 206E-6, authority was given to the Hawaii
            Community Development Authority (HCDA) to develop a district-wide


                                                     62







                  improvement program. An improvement project in the HCDA is initiated by a 2/3
                  approval of the authority (the board), and the governor's consent (Clayton Goo,
                  pers. comm., HCDA). Although landowner consent may be considered to initiate
                  the improvement district it is not a requirement in the formal establishment of the
                  district.

                        The experiences on Oahu with improvement districts indicate that although
                  landowner cooperation may be an obstacle to district formation, this need not be
                  an insurmountable problem. If landowners can recognize a specific benefit from
                  an improvement project, they may be more willing to cooperate in the financing
                  of the project. With regard to beach improvement projects, the benefits to the
                  property owner include the protection of valuable oceanfront property, increased
                  recreational opportunities and improved esthetics.

                        Many coastal states that have provisions for Beach Management Districts
                  have failed to imple ment these ideas. One common obstacle is getting landowners
                  .to agree on an erosion control strategy and pay schedule. Landowners tend to be
                  very               when a solution to a problem deals with their own property and
                  pocketbook.

                        A lack of landowner cooperation has been a key hurdle in establishing BMI)s
                  on a comprehensive basis in Massachusetts (Steve Blivens, pers. comm., Mass.
                  Coastal Zone Management Program). For example when, an inlet broke through
                  the barrier island at Chatham near the Cape Cod national seashore, the local
                  officials wanted a plan to control erosion that covered the whole stretch of
                  shoreline. The landowners preferred to control erosion on a parcel by parcel basis.
                  One reason landowner cooperation in Massachusetts is a problem is that there is
                  little participation by the State in coordinating a beach district or contributing to its
                  cost. While the State prefers coordinated action by the landowners, they prefer to
                  remain uninvolved by leaving the problem to the local government and private
                  landowners. Although there are legislative provisions for the formation of beach
                  management districts at the local level, there has been little success in forming such
                  districts. An important lesson can be learned from the experience in Massachusetts.
                  Without an active coordinating agena or an economi.c incentive to cooperate,
                  landowners prefer to take action on their own.

                        One State that has experienced success in the establishment of BMI)s is
                  Florida. Beach and Shore Preservation Districts in Florida are covered under the



                                                             63










            Beach and Shore Preservation Act. Several districts have been established and
            several more are proposed to replenish beaches with offshore sand. Funding for
            projects is derived from the Beach Management Trust Fund, where money is
            derived from State appropriations  *and permitting fees (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.0535,
            S 161.091). Payment for beach renourishment in Florida is shared, with 75% of
            the cost to be paid from the Beach Management Trust Fund and the remainder
            from the local government (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 16 1. 10 1). One reason for the success
            of the district concept in Florida is that the State and local governments provide
            considerable financial support for various replenishment projects. All funding
            comes from State appropriations or local governments.

                  Maryland has also been successful in the formation of beach erosion control
            districts. In Maryland, a shoreline sector may be divided into physiographic units,
            which are portions of the coast with similar nearshore processes. For a
            physiographic unit project to be established, all property owners within the
            physiographic unit must consent. A physiographic unit project may not begin
            unless every landowner participates in the planning, construction and financing of
            the project (Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1003). In Maryland, erosion control
            districts have been formed along the Atlantic Ocean and in Chesapeake Bay (Mike
            Helta, pers. comm.,      Maryland Department of Natural Resources).             Along
            Chesapeake Bay, several projects to construct bulkheads and offshore breakwaters
            have been administered by the Department of Natural Resources. The Department
            is very active in helping the landowner. The Department provides, through a Shore
            Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund, interest free loans for the design and
            construction of erosion, control structures. In addition it selects consultants for
            district projects, walks the applicant through the permitting process and handles the
            administration of the project. That the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
            administers beach districts has been a relief to city and county governments. Many
            of the local government agencies do not have the expertise or personnel to. run a
            project to control beach erosion.

                  The success of the district program in Florida and Maryland could be
            attributed to the financial support offered by the State in paying for the project or
            in providing interest free loans. In addition, both states play an active role in
            coordinating the beach project. For Hawaii, it is suggested that a Division of
            Beaches be established to help coordinate the activities of landowners and to
            administer a dedicated State Beach Fund that would provide economic incentive for
            landowners to participate in the Beach Management District.


                                                     64








                 D. Liability
    6@1                 There may be some concern about the liability to the county or the State if
                 they participate in a BMD by building, designing, initiating, administering or
                 permitting an erosion control structure that eventually fails. Many coastal states
                 have solved this problem by requiring the homeowners, or other parties to sign an
                 indemnity or hold "harmless clause" that serves to relieve the State or local
                 government from liability (See, e.g., Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1001; N. J. Stat.
                 Ann. App. A:9-51.8). In general, the clauses require that the property owners agree
                 in writing, before a beach management district is established, to indemnify and hold
                 harmless the city or the State from any injuries or damages arising directly or
                 indirectly from a proposed improvement. Similar provisions would be required for
                 any district that was established in Hawaii.

                        The homeowner should be aware that the ocean and coastal environment is
                 a dynamic environment. Absolute safety from natural forces is impossible" for
                 development along the shore. Structural failure is always possible, whether the
                 structure is a seawall, a revetment, a series of groins or a breakwater.

                        The establishment of a BMD is a benefit to the landowner since it provides
                 protection and adds value to the shoreline property. In addition, part of the cost
                 is absorbed by the city and State. Therefore, it would be a small request to ask the
                 landowner to indemnify the city or the State before such a project is undertaken.

                        In addition to liability from coastal landowners, the State should be
                 concerned about an injury to a member of the public that is directly or indirectly
                 related to the formation of a BMD, It is for this reason that a proposed Division
                 of Beaches would need to monitor beach improvement districts to make sure no
                 dangerous unnatural conditions exist such as a failed erosion control structure. If
                 dangerous unnatural conditions are present, the State would need to warn the public
                 until necessary repairs are made to correct the condition (See, e.g., Littleton v. State
                 of Hawak, 66 Hawaii 55; 656 P.2d 1336, 1982; in some instances the State is
                 required to warn the public of dangerous unnatural conditions such as large
                 telephone poles in the water).

                 E. Procedures


                        For many shorelines, there may be no structural or non-structural options


                                                            65









            within the district setting that are technically, financially or legally feasible.
            Therefore, guidelines and criteria would have to be adopted for the review of
            petitions to form Beach Management Districts.

                   For those shorelines where a district can be formed, specific regulations need
            to be established regarding the procedures for establishing such a district. This
            may cover notice requirements for landowners, hearing requirements for the public,
            assessment formulae, payment plans, maintenance schedules, indemnity agreements,
            appeals processes, provisions for lessees and all other matters related to organizing
            and administering a BMD. It would be the proposed Division of State Beaches that
            could make these rules. Many of these rules could be modeled after the regulations
            and statutes for improvement districts in other coastal states, Oahu's improvement
            district ordinance, or the Hawaii Community Development Authority's rules for a
            district-wide improvement program.

            F. Temporary Protection

                   The formation of a Beach Management District may take several months or
            over a year, depending on the financing and type of project to be undertaken.
            During the time that it takes to implement a, shoreline protection project, the
                                                                          ore, temporary erosion
            landowner's property may be threatened by erosion. Theref
            protection devices need to be allowed such as low sandbag bulkheads or low weir
            groins. It would be the proposed Division of State Beaches that would investigate,
            or cause to be investigated, the types of suitable temporary structures.          The
            Division would also make the guidelines and regulations for temporary shore
            protection.

            G. Applicability

                   A Beach Management District may be organized in the form of an overlay
            district, an improvement district, or as a hybrid forin, using a combination of both
            concepts. Overlay districts can be created that control or guide the types of erosion
            control structures along the shoreline. A proposed Division of Beaches could help
            the counties to develop guidelines for the initial design of suitable erosion control
            structures for the particular beach sector.     An overlay district could then be
            established that forbids new or illegal erosion control structures, except for those
            structures that are in compliance with the initial guidelines. Coastal homeowners
            would then have the option of complying with the overlay regulation individually,


                                                      66







                 or in cooperation with other landowners, so that the cost of additional engineering
                 studies or the construction of the actual structures could be shared among many
                 parties.

                       It is anticipated that for a sand replenishment project, an overlay and
                 improvement district would be required. An overlay district may be necessary to
                 prepare the shoreline for subsequent sand replenishment.               Before sand
                 replenishment takes place, as many seawalls as possible should be removed to
                 prevent wave reflection off of vertical walls. Waves reflected off these walls may
                 carry replenished sand offshore during storm events. Structures such as a buried
                 revetinents may be substituted for the removed seawalls. For a sand replenishment
                 project, the creation of an improvement district would also be needed so that the
                 costs can be shared by all beneficiaries of the project.

                       The fortnation of an improvement district along the shoreline is not feasible
                 for all beach sectors. Some beaches, such as on the north shore of Oahu have such
                 high wave energy or large seasonal changes that the use of sand replenishment or
                 offshore structures to protect coastal property would be too costly or impracticable.
                 In other sections of the coastline, the landowners may be so close to the surf zone
                 that the use of measures other than a seawall or revetment may not provide
                 adequate shoreline protection.

                        Since an improvement district is not suitable for all sandy shorelines, other
                 beach protection strategies or management options are presented in this report. In
                 later chapters there is a review of nonstructural and structural erosion mitigation
                 measures. While many of these options would be available to the homeowner only
                 through the establishment of a Beach Management District, some of the options,
                 such as gently sloping buried revetments could be implemented independent of
                 district formation.    In Chapter VIII, regulatory strategies are considered as
                 additional means to manage the shoreline.











                                                          67










                    VI. NONSTRUCTURAL AND STRUCTURAL OPTIONS


            A. Artificial Beach Nourishment


                   1. Concept. Artificial beach nourishment has not been extensively used in
            Hawaii. Because of this a number of technological aspects of the procedures will
            require further understanding before nourishment will see widespread use in the
            State. It is the goal of this report to briefly review some of the aspects and
            describe where filrther research is needed.       Despite these weaknesses, beach
            nourishment provides an effective local option for reversing the trend of beach
            degradation.

                  Beaches can effectively dissipate wave energy, thus protecting the adjacent
            land from erosion. Because of this, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE,
            1984) classifies them as a type of shore protection for adjacent uplands when they
            are maintained "at proper dimensions." Artificial beach nourishment accomplishes
            this with sand harvested from another source (borrow sediment, or fill) placed on
            the beach in such a way to widen the subaerial beach. This procedure, called
            beach restoration, is preferable to the construction of a seawall or revetment as a
            means of shoreline stabilization, provided funds are available, environmental
            impacts are minimized and there is sufficient interest in maintaining a recreational
            sandy beach environment (Noda, 1989; NOAA, 1990). Beach restoration enhances
            the recreational, and thus the economic, value of the shoreline. Restoration also
            increases public access and utilization of the coastal zone and its resources, and in
            many ways restores the former environment while protecting the adjacent upland
            from erosion. Extensive use of seawalls and'revetments, as will be discussed in
            detail later, leads to beach degradation under conditions of long-term sea-level rise.

                   Beach restoration can be expensive. Large projects, such as the restoration
            of over 10 miles of Miami Beach, run into the many tens of millions of dollars
            (Miami: $64 million; Ocean City: $45 million). Smaller projects cost considerably
            less depending on many factors. On the U.S. east coast, it is common to nourish
            coastal segments'less than I mile long for under $1 million. Many of Hawaii's
            beaches tend to be tied to restricted littoral cells with limited alongshore length, in
            many cases less than I mile long, so that costs could be lower on a per beach basis
            than for lengthy sandy coastlines. However this may be offset by cost increases
            associated with the lack of technological infrastructure to support restoration
            projects in Hawaii. For instance, there are no hydraulic dredging systems available


                                                      68







               in the State, and the cost for importation from the mainland will be considerable.

                      Preliminary estimates for nourishing Waikiki Beach from nearshore marine
               sand  sources range from $12.50 per cubic yard to $24.50 per cubic yard (Noda,
               1992). A total of 146,000 cubic yards of well-sorted, coarse white sand is needed
               to restore three target sites at Waikiki at a cost of $1.825 million to $3.577 million
               (Noda, 1992). Considering the economic value of Waikiki Beach, this is a very
               reasonable cost. As we shall discuss later in the case study at Kahala Beach, beach
               restoration can be performed in Hawaii with reasonable economy, and, once
               restored, beaches can be economically maintained under rising Hawaiian sea-levels.

                      The placement of sand on a beach does not in itself stop a long-term erosion
               trend (COE, 1984), and there are no guarantees that the newly restored beach will
               exist long enough to justify the cost. Newly placed sand can erode gradually, or
               be carried away in hours by a storm (NOAA, 1990).

                      Because the restored beach is likely to experience erosion, it will require
               periodic replenishment at a rate equal to or even exceeding the original erosion
               rate. In many cases the restored beach can erode more rapidly than the natural
               beach due to the loss of the fine-size component of the borrow sediment, and losses
               at the ends of the fill segment (Fig. 23). Erosion will be enhanced if the fill has
               a greater component of fine grains than the native sand. The fact that a nourished
               beach will erode leads to the need for establishing a schedule of periodic
               renourishment of the beach.         Artificial beach nourishment may consist of
               stockpiling sand on the updrift end of a littoral cell that feeds the downdrift beach
               through the natural process of longshorel transport. In most cases beaches are
               nourished along their entire length. Still other beaches may require several feeder
               sites with associated stabilizing structures.

                      A schedule of renourishment essentially sets the eroded beach "back in time"
               by establishing the configuration of the beach planform at some point earlier in the
               erosion history when the subaerial beach was wider. Existing theory supposes that
               if the nourished beach is designed with compatible sediment, and the geometry of
               the fill approximates that of the natural system, then storms, sea-level rise, and
               periods of high-wave energy will continue to erode the restored beach at rates
               equivalent to natural rates. If extensive losses occur at the ends of the nourished
               segment, or if the fill is not compatible, then higher erosion rates can occur.



                                                         69














                                 z
                                 UJ
                                 2 E
                                 W                                            Storm Erosion
                                      100
                                    W
                                 _J z
                                 0,                                                                                                               . .

                                    U.1
                                    W                                  Trend Line
                                 C) 0         Nourishment Event
                                        50
                                    LL
                                 00
                                 z

                                 _J


                                         0
                                           0                         50                        100
                                                               YEARS FROM PRESENT




                                                                                Contours



                                         Losses from
                                         End of Nourished    ...
                                         Region



                                         Nourished Region              -1---L- Losses of
                                                                                   Fine Material




















                                                Pre-Nourished
                                               Profile






               Figure 23. Erosion of a Nourished Beach. TOP: Line I is a depiction of the shoreline
               displacement history of a nonnourished beach. The trend line is the average, long-term erosion
               rate resulting mostly from sea-level rise. The irregular heavy line depicts erosional events (peaks)
               resulting from storms and high wave episodes, and beach accretion events (valleys) wherein the
               beach profile recovers following erosion. Line 2 depicts a nourished beach that theoretically
               should follow the same long-term and short-term history, only it is offset in a fashion consistent
               with the nourished beach width. The nourished beach is wider and therefore represents an earlier
               (less eroded) state. MIDDLE: A simplistic rendering of a nourished beach. Sediment is lost by
               offshore transport, and longshore eros        ion of the ends of the fill. BOTTOM: The nourished beach
                                                       shed
                                                                t






                                                      g"  n



























               pro file should be similar to the natural profile after a period of adjustment (Dean, 1983).


                                                                        70







                       A controversial review of mainland replenishment projects concludes that the
                 amount of fill, the frequency of renourishment, and therefore the lifetime cost of
                 many projects is consistently underestimated (Pilkey, 1988). This report calls for
                 reevaluation of the predictive capability of current renourishment theory, and wams
                 communities contemplating nourishment projects that costs are tied to the frequency
                 of renourishment which should be predicted on an actuarial basis rather than on
                 existing theoretical grounds.     The criticism levelled at present nourishment
                 practices, cites frequent examples of over-optimistic predictions of beach-fill
                 performance, and under-evaluation of the influence of storms on renourishment
                 schedules and costs. As this discussion (Houston, 1991; Pilkey and Leonard, 1991)
                 centers on mainland coastal systems, its direct applicability to island beaches is
                 unknown. But these debates throw into question the level at which current
                 understanding of beach processes and nourishment technology can accurately
                 predict fill performance. They are cause for caution. Planning a nourishment
                 project is not a rote exercise, and every consideration must be given to the factors
                 governing success.

                       Sea-level rise causes beaches to move landward, potentially threatening
                 fastlands that are developed. Beach nourishment is the only well-developed
                 engineering technique that can counteract this recession and still maintain the
                 recreational value of the beach. Nourishment is apparently a viable and successful
                 response to the losses experienced by Hawaiian beaches, but there are numerous
                 local factors that throw into question the validity of existing nourishment theory
                 with regard to performance prediction and design criteria.

                       Some of these factors include seasonal changes in the wave climate that can
                 alter the sand movement pattern, storms and particularly energetic wave conditions
                 that can accelerate erosion rates. One intense storm can accelerate the erosion by
                 decades. Another factor is that Hawaiian sand has unique characteristics, and these
                 can control the slope of the beach, and the stability of the fill. In addition,
                 nearshore circulation cells and permanent sand losses to offshore areas are related
                 to reef morphology and the island wave climate. All these factors, and others, will
                 determine the success or failure of any Hawaiian beach nourishment project. There
                 are no guarantees that a properly nourished beach will survive to the designed life,
                 but there are steps that can enhance the survivability of the beach and increase its
                 recreational value. These steps come into play in several phases of the project:
                 planning, sand selection, monitoring, and maintenance.



                                                          71









                   2. PI          Establishing realistic design parameters for the fill is critical to
            the success of the economic and performance aspects of a nourishment project. All
            parameters of the fill project must be tuned to the direction and rate of longshore
            and cross-shore sediment transport, to the equilibrium beach profile (the natural
            geometry and slope) of the site, and to matching the granular characteristics of the
            fill to the native beach sand. This requires planning.

                   Sediment transport parameters can be supplied by a comparison of surveyed
            beach profiles from the site, and by a comprehensive littoral observation program
            recording characteristics of the wave and nearshore current regime. Surveys should
            be conducted at monthly intervals for at least one year, and preferably two or more
            years prior to the restoration project. The surveying should extend offshore as far
            as the active profile adjustment, which may be to the back-reef hardgrounds or an
            approximate depth of 30 to 40 ft (or approximately 0.6 mile offshore) if there is
            no reef Thus the surveying will consist of a marine component requiring use of
            a boat, a high-resolution fathometer and a precision navigation system. While a
            comparison of historical aerial photographs of the site will provide estimates of the
            direction of transport, and the general rate of beach accretion or erosion, these will
            be averages of data spaced years, even decades apart.                   Only long-term,
            high-resolution beach profile survey data can supply the beach slope, the
            equilibrium beach profile to be anticipated when the fill equilibrates, and the
            specific annual rate of erosion that was acting on the natural beach and thus may
            be expected to act on the fill.

                   The equilibrium beach profile concept (Dean, 1983) idealizes natural
            variations in beach slope and sand characteristics under a steady wave field to
            describe an average beach profile. The concept is widely used because it is useful
            in predicting the final configuration of a fill segment after it has shifted its
            geometry to establish equilibrium with the ambient wave energy. In order to
            minimize offshore sediment transport, the geometry of the placed fill should
            approximate the equilibrium profile of the beach. An empirical description of the
            average profile of 502 mainland beaches on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts forms the
            basis for the theory (Dean, 1977). The theory, then, is derived primarily for quartz
            sand beaches under continental shelf-type wave fields. The technique employs a
            scale parameter that depends primarily on quartz grain size. The applicability, of
            existing equilibrium profile theory in Hawaii should not be taken on assumption.
            The entire theory hinges on the behavior of sand grains in the water column and
            Hawaiian beach sand is substantially different from the quwz beaches forming the


                                                        72







                 underpinning of the theory. It is likely that minor modifications to the      theory
                 would make it applicable to Hawaiian beaches, but the absence of a beach profile
                 database for the State make this a nontrivial matter. The theory is empirically
                 based) meaning that it relies on extensive field data. Also, although modifications
                 to. the theory may be minor, the impact of those changes may be significant in
                 terms of the predictive ability of the technique.

                       Planning should incorporate a recognition that the restored beach will
                 undergo an initial period of adjustment toward the natural equilibrium profile.
                 Although the subaerial portion of the beach can decrease and the beach width
                 narrow, sand relocated during this period of adjustment is thought to stay within
                 the active beach zone (NRC, 1987). However, Hawaiian beaches tend to suffer
                 permanent sand loss to large offshore feeder channels and sand fields, some of
                 which cut through the reef and carry beach sand into deeper water. These sand
                 channels and fields must be identified with a combination of field scuba
                 investigations and aerial photography. The profile monitoring scheme should
                 establish as one of its primary goals the extent to which local sand channels and
                 reef morphology influence the beach erosion and accretion characteristics. The
                 planform, and slope of the fill should be designed with a recognition of the
                 morphology and location of offshore loss sites in order to minimize their influence.

                       An additional element of planning concerns adequate characterization of the
                 seasonal wave climate and the occurrence of littoral sediment transport cells. These
                 develop when waves construct complex nearshore current fields that control sand
                 movement. Littoral cells can change on a seasonal basis as the wave approach
                 direction shifts (Moberly and Chamberlain, 1964) and previously accreting sites can
                 erode. A nourishment project should take seasonal sand transport trends into
                 account in the planview design and slope of the fill. This is also a necessity in
                 developing an accurate prediction of the fill performance, and renourishment
                 schedule.


                       3. Sand.    Sediment used to nourish a beach must match the physical
                 characteristics of the native beach sand. It is common practice to assume that an
                 average native grain size can be defined using samples of sediments from the active
                 beach profile. Borrow sediments are deemed acceptable when the average fill grain
                 size matches that of the beach to be nourished. However, a body of sediment
                 typically consists of a more complex distribution of grain characteristics than can
                 be effectively captured by an average particle size. Sediment grain characteristics


                                                          73









           that influence the performance of the nourished beach include: grain geometry, fill
           sorting (grading), fill size skewness, grain mineralogy, and organic content.

                  Grain geometry,   size, and I 'ithology are determinants of grain fall velocity,
           which is the behavior of a sand grain suspended in the water column. Grains with
           high fall velocity tend to settle quickly to the bottom. Under a given wave and
           current energy, grains with high fall velocity are more resistant to erosion, thus
           enhancing the stability of the beach. In fact, the average fall velocity controls the
           geometry and slope of the beach (the equilibrium beach profile). If the fill fall
           velocity characteristics do not match the native sediment, then the equilibrium
           profile established by the restored beach can differ from the design, and from the
           native beach. A nourished beach with a low average fall velocity can erode faster
           than the native beach, shortening the life of the project.

                  One influence of fall velocity on the nourished beach is loss of fine
           sediments (low fall velocity) due to their instability under a given wave field. If
           a substantial portion of the fill sand has a low fall velocity, then this sediment will
           be placed into suspension and carried seaward to where the lower wave energy
           allows deposition to take place. The performance of such a nourishment project
           would be relatively poor, suffering from the loss of a significant percentage of the
           placed sand. It is possible to calculate an "overfill factor" (COE, 1984) which will
           predict the amount of fill that will be lost under this process, and plan for the loss
           by overfilling the nourished beach with a compensating volume. This, however,
           may not be, an environmentally benign technique given the potentially huge
           turbidity cloud that could emanate from the beach and the light-dependent nature
           of coral reef communities. In Hawaii, given the fine micrite (calcareous mud) that
           is found in many offshore sand Aeposits, a nourished beach with a substantial
           overfill factor could potentially leach a turbidity plume for months to over a year
           and could be liable as anonpoint-source pollutant.

                  Dean (1983) reports that if the fall time of suspended fine sediment is greater
           than the wave period, T, then that sediment will be carried seaward beyond the surf
           zone. Unstable beach grains with a fall velocity, w, will be suspended to some
           fraction, B,1 of the depth, h. For the criterion [w < B (h/T)] these grains will
           erode from the beach and probably be carried in suspension seaward through the
           surf zone. At a suspension height Bh of 10 cm and a wave period of 10 sec, a
           grain with a fall velocity of less than I cm/sec would be eroded from the beach.
           For quartz sand this corresponds to a diameter of 0. 1 mm, but for calcareous beach


                                                      74







               sand the size is unknown and the criterion is unquantified. Clearly, this would be
               a simple procedure and should be a required exercise in the planning phase of
               Hawaiian restoration projects for characterizing potential fill sediments. Olsen and
               Bodge (1991) have determined that aragonitic sand has a settling behavior
               equivalent to a quartz gram which is 1.36 times coarser. Because calcite has a
               specific gravity of 2.71, less than that'of aragonite (2.95), the calcitic foraminifera
               that make up 80% of the carbonate beach sands in the State will behave like an
               equivalent quartz sphere somewhat less than 1.36 times coarser. Other components
               of carbonate sands here are aragonitic, and some are calcitic. The distribution of
               grain equivalent settling velocities in a fill candidate should be determined in order
               to assess fill performance under seasonal wave conditions.

                       Hawaiian beaches are composed of a variety of sand types, none of which
               is quartz, the dominant continental sand (Moberly et al., 1965). Little is known
               about the influence of carbonate (calcite and aragonite), heavy mineral, or basalt
               fragment sand grain fall velocities on beach equilibrium profile characteristics, or
               on the performance of restored beaches. Standard engineering procedures regarding
               this design parameter should be used cautiously on Hawaiian coasts as they are
               developed with the assumption that the sand is quartz (James, 1975).

                      The majority of restoration projects in Hawaii will involve carbonate sand,
               which, in the presence of acidic freshwater efflux, has a tendency to develop a
               cement matrix and form carbonate sandstone (or beachrock) (Fig. 24). Although
               not well understood, cementation seems to result from the percolation of acidic
               freshwater through the beach sand (from either rain or groundwater) causing
               solution and then deposition of a secondary, carbonate matrix. Cementation may
               be accompanied by consolidation with the presence of a.high silt fraction. The silt
               promotes tighter packing of the sediment giving the beach a hard unpleasant
               surface. Why some beaches form beachrock and others do not is not known. The
               restored beach at Fort DeRussy in Waikiki is known for its tight packing and hard
               surface. Ko Olina Resort near Barbers Point has artificial beaches that are both
               tightly packed and partially cemented. Little is known about the tendency for fill
               sediment to lithify, but the process is at least partially controlled by grain
               parameters (mineralogy, sorting, skewness) and pore water geochemistry.

                      Numerous documents (summarized in Dollar, 1979; Noda, 1991) report on
               Hawaiian sand resources, concluding that terrestrial reserves on Oahu are in the
               final stages of depletion, and that marine resources offer viable solutions to the


                                                          75























                                                                                                  4



                                                      7-W





























                                                           IM



                                                          f









                                    Mild






               Figure 24. Beachrock.    TOP:   Cemented   carbonate sands   at Kahuku   Beach,  Oahu.  This deposit
               formed at present mean sea level. The geometry, lithology, sorting, and bedding        of the sands
               indicate that this is a former beach. Bo'rrow Three individuals         stand on tabular   beachrock
               at Mahle Pt. on the windward coast of Oahu. Tile recreational beach here has been         lost due. to
               stabilizat ion. Sections of the former beach are preserved as beachrock in the intertidal zone,
               presurnably they are sites of  former freshwater efflux.


                                                                76








                                              Table 4: Summary of Oahu Sand Resources (Moberly et al., 1975)

                                              SOURCE                                 VOLUME                                 QUAL I TY                            IMPACT*
                                                                         (Millions of cubic yards**)


                                                                            Total          Likely to            For component        For beach
                                                                            source         be useful            of concrete         restoration


                                  COASTAL'ZONE, OAHU

                                      Onshore

                                          Alluvium, colluvim,
                                          and glacial drift                       0.8           0               poor to fair        very poor              slight to severe

                                          Raised reefs (to be
                                          crushed)                           400                4  (7)          very poor           very poor              slight to medium

                                          Llthlfled dunes (to
                                          be crushed)                             14            4               very good           good                   slight to severe

                                          inactive dunes and
                                          old beach ridges                        15            2.7             fair to good        fair   to              very slight to
                                                                                                                                    very   good            severe

                                          Beaches above MLLW                      10.3          0               fal.r to            good   to              very severe
                                                                                                                excellent           excellent
                                      Off:hor:.s
                                          eac     and other
                                          7;ar
                                              ,;hore to 9 -
                                                 depth                            24            0               fair to             good to                slight to severe
                                                                                                                excellent           excellent              but generally
                                          9 m to 18 m (30'    to                                                                                           unknown
                                          609 depth                               8 (7)         4 (7)           unknown             unknown                slight

                                          18 m to 91 m (60, to
                                          3009 depth                         S20              S2 (?)            unknown             unknown                very slight

                                          Dredged reef (to be
                                          crushed)                          4,100             20 (7)            poor                poor                   very severe

                                  INLAND OF T14E COASTAL ZONE, OAHU

                                          Alluvium. colluvium,
                                          and glacial drift                  200                0.1             poor                very poor              very slight to
                                                                                                                                                           severe

                                          Basalt (to be crushed)         800,000             320+               good                poor                   slight to severe

                                  IMPORTATION TO OAHU

                                      From Neighbor Islands
                                      (principal sources)
                                                         kal                      3.2           0               excellent           very good              slight. If
                                          Papohaku, Molo                                                                                                   careful

                                          Kans. Kauai                             14.5        10                fair to good        fair to                slight
                                          Central Maui (to be                                                                       very good
                                          crushed)                           640             200+               very good           good                   medium to severe
                                          Penguin Bank                       350+             35   M            unknown             unknown                very slight

                                      From Outside the State
                                          America                           large            none               excellent           poor to   fair         none to Hawaii
                                          Australia                         very             some               excellent           poor to   fair         pone to Hawaii
                                                                            large
                                          pew Zealand, South-               very             some               excellent           poor to   fair         none to Hawaii
                                          east Asia, etc.                   large


                                   *Probability of unfavorable impact       on the natural   environment due to exploitation of the sand
                                  **I cubic yard " 0.76 m3 or about 1.3 tons
                                                                                                      77









            need for commercial sand (Fig. 25) (Moberly et al., 1975; Table 4). Research on
            offshore sands,, conducted jointly by academic units at the University of Hawaii and
            private enterprise concerns with State and Federal Rinding (Dollar, 1979; Noda,
            1991), has established that mining marine sands is economically and
            technologically feasible (COE, 1984). When conducted at carefully selected sites
            under rigid monitoring, marine sand mining can be environmentally benign
            (Maragos et al., 1977), although this is still an area of concern (Noda, 1991).
            Approximately 4 billion yd' of sand have been identified in waters less than 300
            ft deep around the State. However, early successes in the Hawaiian sand mining
            industry never reached full commercial potential because of special interest groups
            (Dollar, 1979) and a complex array of regulatory obstacles. It is by special act of
            the Legislature that the mining related activities for Waikiki restoration are allowed.

                  Recent investigations at Waikiki (Noda, 1991) conclude that proximal marine
            sand reserves, dredged from offshore and hydraulically pumped through a pipeline
            onto the adjacent beach as a slurry, provide the least expensive and most
            logistically sound option for restoration. Ten sources of sand were compared,
            including commercial sand from Australia, Maui, crushed coral from Barbers Point,
            submarine deposits offshore of the Honolulu Airport Reef Runway, offshore of
            Waikiki, and deposits on the Penguin Bank offshore of Molokai. Although there
            are concerns regarding sand color, gradation and quantity, the prime candidates
            were deemed to be the shallow nearshore deposits at the Reef Runway and at
            Waikiki for a cost of $12.50 to S24.50/yd   3. Deep offshore sand deposits, or sand
            from outside the State are estimated to be considerably more expensive.

                  Cementation may affect the availability of offshore sand bodies for fill.
            Because some offshore sands are former beaches now drowned by sea-level
            movements, many of them have been exposed to acidic freshwaters. While there
            has been extensive geophysical research on the location, size and geometry of
            offshore sand bodies of Oahu and selected other Hawaiian sites (Moberly et al.,
            1975), few of these potential resources have been thoroughly sampled.             It is
            uncertain which are unconsolidated sand and which are lithified beachrock. The
            sand source investigations for the Waikiki Beach restoration project (Noda, 1991)
            discovered that additional improvements are needed in both geophysical surveying
            and sampling techniques before offshore sand deposits can be adequately mapped
            for confident resource assessment. Attempts to physically sample offshore sands
            for Waikiki fill discovered that cementation and consolidation was extensive,
            predictions of grain size characteristics were frequently wrong, and the predicted


                                                      78


















                                                                                           to 15 KM

                                                                                                  M1







                                                         0 A H U


















                                                                                           N



                                                                                0    5     10  15 KM
                                                        WAIMEA    LAIE          0       5      10 M1

                                  -mow

                                          MOKULEIA

                                                                       KAHANA



                                                     0 A H U






                                                                                   KAILUA




                                                                           SAND
                                                                            ISLAND




                                                                                           KOKO HEAD


                  Figure 25. Offshore Sand Deposits. TOP: Marine sand bodies located between the present
                  waterline and 60 ft water depth. BOTTOM: Deeper marine sand bodies between 60 ft and 300
                  ft water depth. The section between Kailua and Koko Head was not surveyed, and between
                  Waimea and Laie surveys lack detail.


                                                                79









            thickness of unconsolidated deposits was nearly always overestimated.

                  4. Monitoring. A crucial aspect of any beach restoration project is the need
            to monitor the performance of the fill, and the influence of the project on adjacent
            beaches and the adjacent reef The practice of beach restoration is still an evolving
            science and many factors governing the success or failure of the project are as yet
            still undefined. We do not know, for instance, the influence of carbonate sand on
            beach geometry. We lack understanding of where beach sands end and offshore
            sands begin. Little to nothing is known regarding the influence of fill on reef
            communities in the proximity. What are the conditions of fill sorting and size
            skewness that lead to optimal performance, and how do we apply the parameter of
            grain fall velocity in best selecting high quality fill? What are the proper gTain size
            and density criteria for a successful fill? How does a nourished beach affect
            adjacent beaches, and to what extent is offshore reef morphology a critical factor
            in fill perforinance? What are the influences of shoreline exposure and seasonal
            wave climates9


                  These and many other critical data on nourishment are best obtained through
            long-term profile monitoring and frequent bottom observations and sampling, at a
            high-resolution spatial and temporal scale. Early nourishment projects in the State
            will serve as models for latter ones. They will also provide data for defining many
            of the necessary parameters. The Corps of Engineers (COE, 1984) and numerous
            independent researchers (Dean, 1983) call for stricter monitoring programs to
            address these questions. Despite this, many nourishment projects go unmonitored,
            and the opportunity to obtain valuable data is lost. Hawaii has a chance to break
            new ground, and strengthen the chances for successful restoration by requiring
            clearly defined monitoring protocols with every nourishment project.

                   5. Maintenance. The need for periodic renounishment of the beach fill should
            be recognized by those responsible for funding the project.            A longer-term
            commitment to the maintenance of the restored beach is an integral part of any
            restoration project.   Procedures for calculating a renourishment schedule are
            provided in COE (1984), and discussed in Pilkey (1988) and Houston (1991).
            Regardless of the debate centered on the veracity of these projections, they are
            mainland projects and have little meaning in an island environment. Hawaii is on
            untested ground when it comes to predicting the life and perforinance of artificial
            beach nourishment.




                                                      80







                       The factors that will influence fill stability will change depending on the
                orientation of the coast, the season, the width of the reef platform that dissipates
                wave energy, and, of course, the granular characteristics of the fill. Beyond the
                influence of sea-level rise and seasonal/annual wave climate effects, the most
                important determinant of fill stability is storm frequency and intensity. Hurricanes
                affecting Hawaii (Fig. 26) produce a number of detrimental effects on beaches.
                High winds drive waves and pile water against the coast raising mean water levels
                as much as 5 ft. The low atmospheric pressure associated with hurricanes can
                cause the water surface to rise. If this is superimposed on a high tide and the surge
                generated by large waves, a beach can be completely drowned for several hours.
                The waves are not only higher, but the deeper water at the coast causes them to
                break closer to shore, carrying offshore sand resources beyond the recovery point
                of fairweather waves that restore the beach. The entire profile tends to shift down
                and sand is lost from the beach to compensate for the loss offshore. The result is
                a pennanent reduction of beach volume, and severe beach erosion.

                       Storm erosion can be worsened if the back-beach         region is structurally
                hardened. Seawalls and revetments will reflect the ston-n-wave energy during the
                period in which a beach is covered by high waters, enhancing the erosive power
                of the waves. For this reason, existing seawalls and high-angle exposed revetments
                should be removed prior to nourishing a beach. If not, the entire fill could suffer
                severe erosion in a drowning event such as a tsunami, a hurricane, or a tropical
                stonn. Each of these meteorological or geophysical events can lead to reflected
                wave energy off existing structures. It is worth considering replacing protective
                structures with bunied, low-angle (1:3) revetments as a means of protecting- adjacent
                upland property over the short-term.

                       How often these events will hit Hawaiian coasts is a matter of speculation
                (see Bretschneider and Noda, 1985), but their occurrence governs fill life. A
                schedule of renourishment will have the rate of sea-level rise (discussed later) and
                landward recession rates as the primary pacemaker for the frequency of
                renourishment. The occurrence of hurricanes and tropical storms will interrupt this
                schedule at irregular, unpredictable intervals and require renourishment at higher
                frequencies than otherwise. Depending on the shoreline exposure, the interannual
                occurrence of particularly large north Pacific swell, southern swell, Kona storm
                waves, and northeast trade waves will also influence the renoun'shment schedule
                (Table 5).



                                                          81










                                 :4 Fico                               Tropical disturbance ............
                                  Jul 78
                                                                       Tropical depression ............
                           00
                          3                                                 Tropical storm ------
                                             PACIFIC OCEAN                       Hurricane

                                                                         lwa
                                                                        Nov 82

                                                            Dot
                               Delia                       Aug 59
                               Sep 57
                                                                         Hawaiian
                                                                          Island
                          20* -

                                ..........
                                Doreen
                                Jul-Aug 73 ik Nina
                                          Nov-Dec 57                       ----------


                                                                   Celeste
                                                                    Aug 72
                           100





                            1800             170OW              160*              150'             140*


              Figure 26. Hurricane Tracks. Hurricane storm tracks between 1957 and 1982 (after Noda, 1989).










                                                 Future Sea Level .7     @_Shorellne Moverne
                            Steep Slopes,I       Present Sea Level
                                                                               ent   lopes










             Figure 27. Coastal Inundation. The contour technique of determining coastal inundation due to
              sea-level rise (NRC, 1987), wherein shoreline movement and configuration depend on land slope.
              This method is only recommended for coasts with immobile substrates, such as basalt, coasts.


                                                                82








                                    Table 5 - Renourishment Frequency Factors.

                   EVENT                    EROSIVE POTENTIAL* EFFECT ON
                                                                           MAINTENANCE
                                                                           FREQUENCY

                   Sea-level rise           High (not recoverable)         5 Years to Decadal
                   Hurricanes               High (mostly not               5 Years to Decadal
                                            recoverable)
                   Tropical Storms          High (partially                5 Years to Interannual
                                            recoverable)
                   North Pacific Swell      Moderate (usually              Interannual to Annual
                                            recoverable)
                   Southern Swell           Moderate (usually              Interannual to Annual
                                            recoverable)
                   Kona Waves               Moderate (usually              Interannual to Annual
                                            recoverable)
                   Trade Waves              moderate/Low (mostly           Interannual to Annual
                                           Irecoverable)                 I
                 *recoverability: likelihood of subsequent fainveather waves to reconstruct a beach with offshore sand
                 eroded by each event


                        6. Effect of Sea Level Rise. Sea-level rise leads to shoreline recession due
                 to a combination of inundation and erosion. Part, of the maintenance procedure is
                 to project future shoreline configuration due to sea-level rise.        A number of
                 techniques exist for this, many of which are reviewed in Komar (1983), NRC
                 (1987, 1990), and Pilkey and Davis (1987).

                        The contour technique (Kana et al., 1984) assumes that no planform
                 alteration of the shoreline will accompany sea-level rise, thus a new shoreline is
                 directly a product of passive flooding. Slope is the controlling variable (Fig. 27)
                 and steep shorelines experience little flooding while gentle slopes undergo greater
                 flooding as the inland excursion of the waterline is enhanced. This implies that the
                 shoreline substrate is immobile, and that natural coastal processes are no longer
                 active. It was under these assumptions that the report on the effects of sea-level
                 rise in Honolulu was prepared (CZM, 1985). In Hawaii, these conditions will only


                                                           83









            apply on basalt coasts and should not be assumed for any sedimentary shoreline.

                  Another technique is the widely applied "Bruun Rule" (Bruun, 1962; NRC5
            1987). The Bruun Rule is based on the equilibrium profile concept mentioned
            earlier, where a statistical average beachface geometry is assumed to represent a
            sandy profile at a particular water level. Dean (1977) investigated the quantitative
            expression for the profile proposed by Bruun (h=Ax'; where h is water depth,
            x, is the horizontal distance from shore, and A is a constant for each profile) and
            found the expression was correct as an average for 502 quartz sand beach profiles
            on the mainland Atlantic and Gulf coasts. He also deterinined that the profile
            shape parameter A, was a function of grain stability under a given wave field
            (grain fall velocity). The Bruun Rule assumes that profile displacement in the
            landward direction is a direct function of sediment loss from the beach berm and
            beach face, and equivalent deposition on the offshore portion of the profile. Thus,
            shoreline recession due to sea-level rise takes place by the transfer of sediment
            from the beach to the adjacent offshore region. The shoreline adjusts landward by
            a given lost sand volume, and the offshore adjusts upward by the same volume
            (Fig. 28).
                  The Bruun Rule assumes that sea-level rise causes shoreline recession in all        is
            cases, and that the sediment volume lost from the beachface equals the sediment
            volume deposited offshore. Thus, the Bruun Rule suffers from several short-
            comings. The possibility of beach accretion is eliminated, permanent sediment
            losses due to suspension of finer sands are not considered, longshore influences are
            neglected, and the considerable effects of storms and high wave events are not
            treated. In addition, the requirement of offshore deposition does not allow for
            water deepening due to sea-level rise, which would otherwise tend to increase the
            incident wave energy and enhance beach erosion. Because of these inadequacies,
            an application of the Bruun Rule to determine the effect of sea-level rise on
            beaches provides only a partial description of the true probable impacts. Despite
            this, it is widely accepted and frequently used as a planning tool. The Bruun Rule
            relates shoreline recession, R, and sea-level rise, S, in the expression:

                        R = S [W/ (h + B)]

            where W is the width of the active portion of the profile adjusting to sea-level
            change, h is the limiting depth of the active profile, and B is the beach berm


                                                     84









                                            R1               W
                                           Beach
                                                    Sea level        Initial sea level
                                                    after rise
                              Bottom profile      /I Itial bottom profile
                              after sea                                                 h
                              level rise
                                                                            b'          S



                                 s = s"                              Umiting depth
                                 b=W                                 between predominant
                                                                     nearshore and
                                                                     offshore material


                Figure 28. The Bruun Rule. The Bruun Rule relates shoreline displacement to sea-level rise by
                assuming that a volume of sediment eroded from the beach will be deposited immediately
                offshore without the loss of suspended material or the influence of longshore currents.


                                                     PREDOMINANT
                                                   WAVE DIRECTION
                 AVERAGE LONGSHORE COMPONENT        AND MAGNITUDE     AVERAGE LONGSHORE COMPONENT
                 OF WAVE ENERGY (PLUS DIRECTION)                      OF WAVE ENERGY 0AINUS DIRECTION3






                                                                             BREAKWATER HEIGHT
                  WAVE DIFFRACTION        LENGTH       SPACING                 AND POROSITY
                      PATTERNS



                                                                            ACCRETED
                                                                   Li       SHORELINE
                  UPDRIFT AND                                      ox
                                                                   ZO                LITTORAL
                  DOWNDRIFT
                                                                                        oRT RATE
                                                                                   TRANSP
                   SHORELINE
                    IMPACTS               SEDIMENT
                                       CHARACTERISTICS                       IGINAC:"'.
                                                                     0   OR
                                                                         SHORELINEN


                 Figure 29. Plan-view of a Detached Breakwater. Design considerations for a segmented, detached
                 breakwater (Pope, 1986).
                                                                             @HORELI N"


                                                                                   TRA










                                                         85









                height.

                         Applying the Bruun Rule for a typical Hawaiian shoreline, we can use the
                example of Waimanalo Beach on Oahu which has a berm height B of
                approximately 2 in (6.6 ft) and active sand movement h to a depth of 6 in (19.7 ft)
                (the reef depth). W can be estimated using A=O. I in" (NRC, 1987) for the beach
                profile expression. Thus, the active portion of the profile adjusting to sea-level
                change is W= (8/0.1)" = 716 in (2349 ft). The recession rate multiplier in (1),
                W/(h+B), is 716/8=89.5. Using a rate of sea-level rise (S) of 0.62 in/dec. for
                Oahu (Chapter II-Table 3) yields an estimated beach recession rate of 4.6 ft/dec.
                under the present rate of sea-level rise. Under the projected submergence rates for
                next. century (2.42 in/dec.: Chapter 11) this increases to 18.0 ft/dec. (Table 6).

                         In Table 6, the known present-day rate of sea-level rise (column 2) is used
                with the Bruun Rule to predict the present-day rate of island-wide average beach
                recession (column 3). Comparing this to the average of measured eroding sites

                              Table 6 - Beach Recession Predicted Using The Bruun Rule

                                   Present             Predicted          Measured         Projected           Projected
                                   Sea-Level           Recession          MOESE' 91        Sea-Level           Recession
                   Island          Rise


                                   Tide Gauge          Bruun Rule         Aerial           (IPCC, 1990)        Bruun Rule
                                   Trend                                  Photos


                   Hawaii          1.55 in/dec.        11.6 ft/dec.       5.9 ft/dec.      3.3 5 in/dec.       25.0 ft/dec.



                   Maui            0.97 in/dec.         7.2 ft/dec.       12.5 ft/dec.     2.77 in/dec.        20.7 ft/dec.



                   Oahu            0.62 in/dec.          4.6 ft/dec.       not avail.      2.42 in/dec.        18.0 ft/dec.



                   Kauai           0.69 in/dec.          5.2 ft/dec.       5.9 ft/dec.     2.49 in/dec.        18.6 ft/dec.



                (MOESE, 1991; column 4) shows that predicted and measured recession rates are
                closely matched for Kauai.             For Maui, the Bruun Rule underpredicts the measured
                recession rate, and for Hawaii it overpredicts the recession rate. The agreement for


                                                                       86







                  Kauai may be fortuitous, and the disagreements are likely the result of local factors
                  (i.e., extensive stabilization on Maui) and the lack of island-wide coverage for
                  Hawaii in MOESE (1991).

                         Beach nourishment offers a means of effectively counteracting the recession
                  caused by sea-level rise. To maintain a stable shoreline, the annual volumetric rate
                  of nourishment, V, is equivalent to the annual rate of recession R, multiplied by
                  the total vertical height of profile adjustment (h+B), so that

                                 V = R (h+B)                                              (2)

                  The volume     of sand per unit shoreline length necessary to counteract beach
                  recession due to sea-level n*se, can be calculated for present-day rates of sea-level
                  rise. This is performed using the Bruun Rule-predicted recession rates given in
                  Table 6. The procedure is also useful for determining nourishment needs under
                  ftiture accelerated sea-level rise.        This is done by employing the Bruun
                  Rule-projected recession rates. These nourishment needs are readily converted into
                  cost estimates assuming the price of sand used for the Waikiki Beach restoration
                  project.

                         The Bruun Rule is the basis for the estimates in both Tables 6 and 7. Despite
                  its deficiencies, it provides a means of making reasonable estimates of future beach
                  recession trends and nourishment costs. For instance, to maintain a given beach
                  width on a segment of shoreline 2,500 ft long will cost approximately $14,000 per
                  year in renourishment expenses.          If there were 25 properties on that coastal
                  segment, the cost becomes an annual fee of approximately $560 per property.
                  Considering Hawaiian beachfront land values, this is a minor fraction of the total
                              lue. Expressed as an annual percentage of the property value, shoreline
                  property va
                  stabilization by beach nourishment becomes a reasonable cost of living on the
                  coast.


                         Table 7 suggests that maintaining the roughly 65 miles of beach on Oahu in
                  their pr esent condition by nourishment under present rates of sea-level rise will cost
                  approximately $1.9 million per year. For a five-year renourishment schedule the
                  cost is $9.5 million every five years. Under accelerated rates next century, the
                  annual cost w*ll be $7.5 m*ll'on and the assoc'ated five year renounishment cost
                  $37.5 million.




                                                              87









                    Table 7 - Island Average Annual Beach Nourishment Requirements*
                                                per foot of beachfront

               Island       For present-day For projected            Nourishment          Nourishment
                            sea-level rise      sea-level rise       Costs/foot of        Costs/foot of
                            (in cubic           (in cubic            beachfront           beachfront
                            yards/foot)         yards/foot)          Present Rise         Projected Rise

               Hawaii             1.12                 2.43                $14.00              $30.37

               Maul               0.70                 2.01                 $8.75              $25,13

               Oahu               0.45                 1.76                 $5.63              $22.00

               Kauai              0.51                 1.79                 $6.39              $22.37
               Assuming $12.50 per cubic yard

             B. Structures Commonly Associated With Nourishment.

                     Because of the complexities inherent in the physical processes governing
             sand movement on the coast, it may be advantageous to alter the wave field and
             the nearshore current pattern with a strategically placed structure such as a detached
             breakwater, or a filled terminal groin. These should only be used in situations
             where the characteristics of the wave field are understood in detail, and where the
             structure of choice will clearly enhance the lifetime of the restoration project
             without compromising the integrity and vitality of adjacent coastal environments
             or posing a threat to the safety of those using the coastal zone.

                     1. Detached Breakwater. A detached breakwater can be an effective means
             of attenuating wave energy on the beach, creating a wave energy shadow zone (Fig.
             29). Because longshore sand transport continues outside the lee of the breakwater,
             drifting sand brought into the shadow zone can be deposited, and localized beach
             accretion can occur. If the localized accretion extends beyond the trend of the
             adjacent coast, it is called a beach salient. If the accretion continues to the point
             that the salient attaches to the offshore breakwater, it is called a tombolo. The
             concept of a detached breakwater imitates the natural wave attenuating effect of an
             offshore reef, sandbar, or small nearshore island. Since the sheltered beach traps
             sand it has the potential to enhance erosion rates on downdrift beaches. For this
             reason the offshore breakwater should only be used in conjunction with a beach
             restoration project.      In some situations a series of detached breakwaters can
             enhance fill performance.            Optimal spacing and offshore distance of the


                                                            88








                 breakwaters is a lunction of seasonal wave energy and direction and can be
                 calculated for a given coastal setting (Pope, 1986; COE, 1984).

                        2. Filled Terminal Groin. On a long reach of coast lacking discrete littoral
                 cells, the lifetime of a restoration project can be enhanced by placing a low, short
                 gToin at the downdrift end of the nourished portion of beach. If properly designed,
                 a filled terminal groin can stabilize the nourished volume yet still allow the normal
                 longshore transport to occur. The groin should be buried in the initial placement
                 phase of restoration, and it should be designed to allow sand to move both over its
                 top (a weir groin) and past its offshore end in order to minimize downdrift
                 erosional effects. Groins should only be used in conjunction with a restoration
                 project where it can be demonstrated that future renourishment needs will be
                 decreased by the structure, and where there will be no attendant downdrift erosion
                 (Dean, 1983). Renourishment of the updrift beach should occur when the groin
                 becomes exposed by erosion, and the beach downdrift of the groin is threatened
                 with enhanced erosion by longshore sand blockage. Groins will not be appropriate
                 in the majority of nourishment projects. Even the "leaky" groins we have described
                 here have the potential to cause severe downdrift erosion. Filled terminal groins
                 should only be considered in a nourishment project when the potential for negative
                 downdrift effects is minimal, when cost considerations are attractive, when the need
                 for future renourishment    In decreased by the presence of the groin, and when
                 continual monitoring and future renourishment are guaranteed.

                        3. Perched Beach.      An additional option receiving     interest lately is the
                 perched beach. The perched beach raises the local profile with fill and an offshore
                 submerged sill that inhibits seaward sand losses. The sill acts as a barrier to
                 offshore movement of the sand transported as bedload in the hope that the profile
                 slope -is lessened, increasing the beach stability. It offers little' discouragement to
                 the suspended fraction, however and requires a downdrift filled ten-ninal groin to
                 limit longshore losses. Of concern     Is the obvious limiting effect the sill has on
                 shoreward sand transport. Storm erosion would be permanent because the profile
                 would not be allowed to recover unless by longshore inputs. Little is known about
                 criteria such as appropriate depth and distance for the structure. Oversteepening
                 of the fill beachface due to continual losses and little recovery may instead result
                 from use of a perched beach. This may be a safety concern. Additional testing is
                 required before this concept   is attempted.

                        4. Buried, Low-Angle Revetments. The presence of seawalls or steep


                                                           89









           revetments in the backshore area of a nourished beach can pose a threat to the
           stability of the fill by decreasing its performance characteristics during high energy,
           high water-level conditions. In the event that a nourished beach becomes inundated
           during a storm or hurricane (or tsunami), the enhanced energy reflection off the
           seawall will exacerbate the erosion resulting from the storm. Even a buried seawall
           is likely to become exposed in the course of the storin and act against the fill
           stability.   Sand grains will stay suspended in the high velocity, turbulent
           floodwaters and will be transported offshore. It is preferable to destroy any upland
           stabilization structures prior to nourishment.

                  However, some landowners may express concern over a lack of fastland
           structural stabilization. In these cases a bun'ed revetment (Fig. 30) at an angle no
           greater than 1:3 may be an acceptable alternative to a seawall or other high-angle
           structure. The revetment will armor the upland and, if adequately buried, will not
           pose as great a threat to fill stability. Features enhancing the benign influence of
           a buried revetment on the adjoining fill could be a rough and semi-permeable
           surface as a factor to enhance wave energy dissipation, and reduce reflection and
           backwash if the revetment is exposed in a storm. Burial should first be under
           packed and consolidated'soll, followed possibly by sand from the nourishment
           project and heavy vegetation. Contingencies should be made for the repair, and
           reburial of the revetment if any action (including wave erosion) results in the
           exposure and deterioration of the structure. The structure should also be carefully
           monitored to deten-nine its effect on fill stability under a range of conditions.

           C. Vertical Structures.


                   There is active discussion among coastal scientists regarding the influence
           of seawalls and revetments on the adjacent beach. However, there is a distinct lack
           of long-term field studies to provide an uncontroversial indication of whether
           shoreline hardening is a detrimental or benign agent under the influence of wave
           forces alone. A number of short-tenn studies (reviewed in Tait and Griggs, 1991)
           have investigated whether increased beach erosion and subaenial beach width
           reduction occurs along hardened shorelines (Fig. 3 1). The majority of these
           were inadequate in both spatial and temporal scope, and the data they provide is
           highly site specific and tied to particular events.        No studies of seawall or
           revetment effects on Hawaiian shorelines exist.


                  Kraus (1988) reviewed the available body of literature on the potential


                                                      90









                                                                                                    BURIED REVETMENT                                                S%099

                                                                                                                                                                               %r

                                                                                                natural     vegetation      line
                                                                                                                                                           We aso-


                                                                                 beach berm


                                             msi


                                                                                                              quarrystone        armor (1:3)
                                                   Z
                                                                                                                                                       gravel blanket 0.3 m thick
                                                                                                                                                       over regraded bank (1:3)




                             Figure 30. Buried Revetment. A low-angle buried revetment may be a short-term, benign method
                             of upland protection for coasts where relocation is not possible. This                                                 should only be used in
                             conjunction with beach nourishment, and where immediate repair and reburial is guaranteed if
                             the structure is exposed. Unless future beach nourishment maintenance is guaranteed, long-term
                             sea-level rise and shoreline recession will eventually require that this structure be removed or the
                             adjacent beach will be lost.






                                                                                                                     Seawall is placed well seaward on beach
                                                                                                                     profile-, a narrow summer berm exists. The
                                                                                                                     beach in front of the wall is very sensitive to
                                                                                                                     changes in sediment supply or sea level.





                                                                                                                     If there is net shoreline retreat, the area
                                                                                                                     behind the wall may become a peninsula.
                                                                                                                     obstructing longshore transport. Under sea-
                                                                                                                     sonal changes, the wall may similarly lose
                                                                                                                     the beach in front of it. project into the surf
                                                                                                                     zone, impound HELaral drift, promote down-
                                                                                                                     cc= erosion, and obstruct alongshore beach
                                                                                                                            (Griggs and Tait).




                               Figure 3 1. Seawalls. Long-term effect of seawall building on the beach profile (Tait and Griggs,
                               1991).



                                                                                                            91









            impacts of seawalls and revetments (Fig. 32). In the majority of cases, these
            studies examined the immediate, short-term effects of hardening related to storms
            and examined effects on a limited spatial scale. Kraus (1988) concluded that
            where adequate sediment supply exists, the beach is not detrimentally affected by
            hardening. But a beach with adequate sediment supply is either accreting or at
            least stable, and a seawall would not be built on such a beach near the waterline
            where it would interact with the nm-up or active wave energy zone. Clearly, a
            stable or accreting beach will not provide evidence of the negative effects of
            seawalls and revetments because the seawall will not be built in the swash zone.
            Kraus also concludes that "on an eroding coast the beach in front of a seawall may
            narrow and eventually disappear if there is an inadequate sediment supply." An
            inadequate sediment supply is self-evident on an eroding beach. Thus, seawalls
            eventually lead to beach loss on eroding coasts.

                  In a regime of long-term sea-level rise, such as in Hawaii, all coasts will
            ultimately retreat landward. A seawall or revetment on a retreating beach will
            eventually begin to interact with, and reflect wave energy. As we have shown in
            Chapter 11, a natural beach that is receding landward will maintain a consistent
            subaerial width and sand volume as it migrates landward. Such a beach will
            remain a viable recreational and environmental resource, provided the migration is
            not halted by hardening. In the presence of a landward structure, the landward
            border of a beach will cease moving at the base of the structure, but the seaward
            border will continue to migrate landward. With time, this leads to beach narrowing
            and sand loss exacerbated by a number of processes and morphological features
            observed by researchers. In a recent report by the- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
            (Tait and Griggs, 1991), all of the following effects have been observed in the field
            and attributed to the presence of seawalls and revetments (Fig. 33):

            a. Wave Reflection: incident wave energy is dissipated on a natural beach, on
            armored coasts this energy is reflected, not dissipated. Numerous studies describe
            reflected waves moving sand seaward where it is removed by longshore currents.

            b. Scour Trough: a linear trough or erosional depression fronting a seawall or
            revetment indicates sand loss from the toe of a structure, this often leads to
            structural failure by undermining.

            c. Deflated Profile: the lowering or erosion of the beachface due to general sand
            loss along the entire profile fronting a structure occurs when waves interact with


                                                     92















                                                                                                                                                                   WA VE


                                           LONGSHORE              BAR
                                            CURRENT                                                                                  IN
                                                                                                                           EPTH
                                                                                                                                                                     -HISTORICAL
                                                                                                                                                              'e@     PROFILE
                                                                                    INCIDENT
                                                                                      WA VES

                        IMPOUNDOWENI`@                                                                                        POST-STVRM
                                                                                                                                PROFILE
                                                                                                                                              PRE-STORM
                                                                                                                                               PROFILE

                                                                     BAR                                                                                           :V0,0td. deflated ?I
                                                 cc                                                                                                                  rld.wo'v
                               SEAWALL                                             (bal d1solaced ?I






                      DOWNDRIFT
                       FLANKING
                                                                  1 '.0?)          REFLECrED
                                                                                      WA VES
                                             tat'd'al



                                                                 BAR

                       ERODED
                    UNPROTECTED
                      SHORELINE



                                        "HISTORICA
                                        SHORELINE
                           Figure 32. Seawall Impacts. Plan-view and profile view of seawall impacts (Kraus, 1988).



                                                                                                       UPCOAST ACCRETION

                                                                                                                                                    ENDSCOUR










                                                                                                                                            RIP CURRENT TROUGH



                                                                      BEIA`7
                                                                       OF             N
                                                                         IL       ATIO






                             Figure 33. Beach Profile Impacts. Profile deflation, sand blockage, end scour, sediment loss (Tait
                             and Griggs, 1991).
                                                                                                                         SCOUR
                                                                                                                         D


















































                                                                                                    93










             the armor unit.


             d. Beach Cusps: crescentic or semi-circular erosional embayments on the beachface
             are associated with profile deflation and sand loss.

             e. Rip Current Troughs: a trough or channel crossing through the surf zone has
             been observed to form in front of hardened coasts, this feature acts as a conduit for
             offshore sand loss.


             f. End Scour: erosion of the unprotected beach adjacent to the end of a seawall
             (flanking) is associated with profile deflation, and often leads to structural failure.

             g. Updrift Sand Impoundment: a seawall interrupting littoral drift can trap sand on
             the updrift end and lead to concomitant downdrift erosion and enhanced shoreline
             recession and beach loss.


             h. Storm-Induced Scour: sand loss due to increased turbulence    and wave reflection
             effects has been observed during high-water level and high-run-up periods
             associated with storms and seasonal wave climates.


             i.Post-Erosional Recovery: shoreline hardening     can impact the ability of a beach
             to recover lost sand following storm or seasonal erosion events, or longer-term
             cyclical erosion, leading to pen-nanent sand depletion, and beach loss.

             J.Higher Littoral Energy: increased longshore current velocities, and turbulence
             related to wave reflection, leading to higher sediment mobilization and sand loss
             offshore from a structure has been observed during storms and high wave periods.

             k. Blocked Upland Sand Delivery: shoreline hardening prevents sand from moving
             to the beach forin upland sources, such as the vegetated coastal dunes that are
             common on Hawaiian shores.


                   Tait and Griggs (1991) state that the overriding factor in the impact of a
             seawall on a beach is the long-terin shoreline trend. If a shoreline exhibits an
             erosional trend, and some segment of that shoreline is fixed in position by a
             seawall, then the beach will eventually disappear in front of the wall (Fig. 34). On
             a stable shore, the wall will only affect the beach when storms, or seasonal
             fluctuations in the position of the shoreline, expose it to wave attack. Everts


                                                      94

















                                                                     L
                                                                            -TEP
                                                                      ONG m EFFEM OF SEAWALL ON RETREA71NG SHORE



                                                            CASE L    ERODIBLE BLUFFS OR DUNES, SEDUAENT DEFICIENCY AND SEA
                                                            LEVEL RISE. WALL AT BACK BEACIL


                                                            INMAL SHORE PROFILE







                                                                                            LO













                                                             SHORE PROFILE AFTER SHORELINE RETREAT



                                                                                                            Shoreline has migrated landward but beach
                                                                                                            width is maintained as the bluffs or dunes
                                                                               Ll ---- are croded (LI                       LO).











                                                             SHORE PROFILE AFTER SHORELINE RETREAT WrM SEAWALL


                                                                                                            Shoreline has migrated landward and beach
                                                                                                            width has narrowed (LI < LO) because
                                                                                                            seawall limits beach retreat. The area pro-
                                                                                                            tected behind the wall ran eventually
                                                                                                            becorne a peninsula, obstructing longshore
                                                                                                            drift.
                                                                                          LI









                              Figure 34. Seawalls. Long-term effects of a seawall (Tait and Griggs, 1991)



                                                                                                      95









            (1985) describes how armoring on a retreating coast, or one where fluctuations in
            beach width expose the armoning to waves, leads to sand scour and beach loss, and
            an increase in water depth and wave height at the shoreline.

                   Because it combines a thorough literature review with a relatively long field
            experiment, the study of Tait and Griggs (1991), funded by the US Army Corps
            of Engineers, is clearly the most comprehensive report on the problem of beach -
            seawall interaction. They find that the factors controlling the type and magnitude
            of beach response to hardening are numerous and interdependent. The variability
            of beach response and the apparent dependence on a number of interconnected
            factors requires that any evaluation of beach-seawall effects should be made on a
            site-specific basis. They also conclude that if net retreat is occurring, a condition
            that -characterizes the Hawaiian coast, then "eventually the beach in front of a
            hardened shoreline will disappear. Such retreat is a function of a deficit in the
            littoral sediment budget and/or relative sea-level nise."

                   It is notable that what Pilkey in 1988 called the "Great Seawall Debate", has
            by 1990 become accepted as the Great Seawall Calamity. By this time, the
            detrimental effects of seawalls on beaches are widely accepted and form a basic
            as sumption of nearly all local, State, and Federal offices and programs concerned
            with coastal zone management (with the exception of the Army Corps of
            Engineers). For instance, the N.O.A.A. Coastal Programs Division (1990) has
            taken a firm position against shoreline hardening:

                   "A seawall on a beach not only accelerates beach erosion, but also inhibits
            the beaches ability to absorb storm energy, thus exposing structures (buildings) to
            the full force of wind and waves.

                   "Erosion control structures have the ironic effect of accelerating erosion,
            either in front of the development the structure is designed to protect, or
            do w n dr ift. "

                   'Although seawalls and bulkheads may stabilize an eroding shoreline for a
            time, normal and storm-wave action eventually strip away the beach infront of the
            structure and scour out its base, causing the wall or bulkhead to fail. "

                   "Sound beach management requires that state and local governments limit
            or prohibit erosion control structures, particularly vertical structures such as


                                                     96








                 seawalls and bulkheads.


                       There is little support, then, for the use of seawalls or exposed revetments
                 as shoreline stabilization measures because they result in the loss of the adjoining
                 beach and enhanced erosion on the adjacent coast.

                 D. Restrictions on Shoreline Structures.


                       Certain states, including Georgia, Maine, North Carolina and South Carolina,
                 restrict by regulation the types of erosion control structures along the shoreline.
                 In Georgia's Shore Assistance Act, the only type of shoreline stabilization allowed
                 is with low sloping porous granite structures or other techniques which maximize
                 the absorption of wave energy (Ga. Code. Ann. S12-5-238). In South Carolina, no
                 new erosion control structures are allowed seaward of a 40-year setback except to
                 protect a public highway (S.C. Code Ann. S 48-39-290). Existing erosion control
                 structures may not be repaired or replaced if 80% of the structure is destroyed
                 before June 30, 1995, 66% is destroyed between July 1, 1995 and June 30 2005;
                 or more than 50% is destroyed after June 30, 2005.

                        As shown in Chapter 11, and discussed in this Chapter, a major cause of
                 beach loss around the islands is attributed to stabilization of the shoreline. Several
                 previous studies have called for some restrictions on the use of vertical seawalls in
                 certain areas (Sea Engineering, 1991). This report is in agreement with other
                 studies which call for an investigation into the limitation on certain types of erosion
                 control structures.


                        One option that should be considered is a restriction on future seawalls or
                 revetments for large tracts of undeveloped land which have not been subdivided or
                 zoned for urban use. Without the use of seawalls or revetments to harden the
                 shoreline, landowners would need to plan natural beach instability into the design
                 of a coastal project.

                        For existing coastal development where the shoreline is natural, effort should
                 be made to utilize some soft approach, such as beach replenishment in conjunction
                 with some other structural options suggested in this chapter. These options would
     J!          require the fori-nation of an improvement district.
     A

                        Where it is not technically, legally, or financially possible to form an


                                                           97









            improvement district, shoreline stabilization devices such as gently sloping buried
            revetments placed landward of the certified shoreline should be the preferred
            erosion mitigation measure. These structures would reduce but not eliminate the
            potential impacts on the sand beach. Numerous coastal studies have suggested the
            use of buried erosion control structures to protect coastal property and minimize
            impacts on the beach (DHM inc., 1990; Edward K. Noda & Assoc. 1989). The
            Department of Land Utilization, City and County of Honolulu has required the
            construction of gently sloping revetments inland of the certified shoreline for four
            landowners at the southeast end of Lanikai Beach. The combination of the gentle
            slope of the new revetments, along with the removal of previous erosion barriers
            which protruded into the tidal zone resulted in the recovery of a lost beach. The
            gently sloping revetments at southeast Lanikai are alternately buried by sand and
            uncovered by erosion during the seasonal changes along this shoreline sector.

                    Regulatory restrictions on certain erosion control structures such as seawalls
            or bulkheads, could be placed at the State or county level. Alternatively, the
            restrictions can be imposed by the establishment of an overlay district with overlay
            regulation. There are many advantages to restricting seawalls and bulkheads by
            overlay regulation. These include the following: a) specific areas can be targeted
            that require special attention; b) opposition from overlay restrictions may be less
            than if similar controls were placed at the State or county level, since a smaller
            group of landowners would be affected; and c) the counties may take the initiative
            to establish regulatory restrictions, should the State fall to act. The disadvantages
            of relying on overlay regulations to restrict seawalls or bulkheads is that: a) it fails
            to provide a comprehensive solution to the pervasive problem associated with beach
            loss and sea-level rise and b) it abdicates protection of the State beach resource to
            the counties.


















                                                       98









                                                 VH. FUNDING


                        One of the critical issues for any beach management district is who should
                 pay for the costs. The public may want the landowner to pay since it can
                 legitimately be claimed that the coastal homeowners create the need for less
                 harmful erosion control protection (see Figs. 2 through 6). The landowner may
                 want the State or county to pick up the tab since a beach management project
                 benefits all the public. The county would want the State to pay since the beach is
                 state land. The state may want the county to pay since the county can prevent
                 many beach erosion problems through their land use policies.

                        Many coastal states have grappled with the issue of funding in the
                 administration of beach management districts. The common theme for the majority
                 of districts is that there is a shared cost system with contributions from the
                 government and the homeowner. For example, in California, if Federal funds can
                 be obtained to pay for half of a project for beach erosion control, then it is the
                 policy of the State to split the remaining cost with the local government. In
                 Connecticut, beach erosion control projects that benefit the private littoral owners
                 are paid for in equal shares by the State, the local government and the coastal
                 landowner (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann., Title 25-Water Resources, S 25-71). In Florida,
                 State initiated programs of beach replenishment are paid with 75% of the cost from
                 the State and the remainder from the local government (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 16 1. 10 1).
                 Money for the preliminary design and other costs of the project is derived from the
                 Florida Beach Management Trust Fund. In Maryland, the State payment for a
                 nonstructural erosion control project may not exceed 50% of nonfederal cost (Md.
                 Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1007). In North Carolina, private landholders may
                 petition the State for grants that cover 75% of the cost of shore protection in the
                 nstance where public access is allowed and provided for (N. C. Stat. S 143-
                 215.71).

                        For Hawaii,   a shared cost system is proposed. This chapter discusses
                 different sources of funding.    After the discussion of funding sources, some
                 suggestions are offered about the allocation of costs within a Beach Management
                 District.


                 A. Sources of Funding

                        I Federal. One source of Federal assistance that should be investigated by


                                                          9-9









            the State is appropriations under the River and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C.A. S 401 et
            seq.).  Specifically, section 426e of the Act provides for Federal aid in the
            protection of shorelines. The Federal contribution for an erosion control project is
            not to exceed one-half of the total cost of the project.        Thus, there is the
            requirement that the State or local government share in the funding of the project.

                   There are also provisions in the Act that allow shores other than public to
            be eligible for Federal assistance, if there is a public benefit such as that anising
            from public use. The Federal contribution is to be adjusted according to the degree
            of public benefit. One state that has taken advantage of this Federal program is
            Florida. Numerous beach restoration projects have been flinded with Federal aid.
            Many of the projects include long stretches of shoreline that are backed by private
            hotels. As long as the project has some public benefit, such as access to the beach
            and use by the public, then the project may be eligible for Federal assistance (John
            Housley, pers. comm., Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Washington,
            D.C.).

                   Under section 426g of the Act, the Secretary may authorize small shore and
            beach restoration and protection projects, provided that not more than two million
            dollars is allotted for any single project. Federal assistance under the River and
            Harbors Act could play a major role in the formation and financing of Beach
            Management Districts.

                   In the future, the State may have to establish, or be committed to, a
            beachfront management program to be eligible for Federal assistance. Congress is
            to consider the requirements that the State have guidelines for shoreline setbacks
            based on a 30 year annual erosion rate, restrictions on erosion control structures,
            and provisions for relocation before federal assistance is received (33 U.S.C.A.
            426e) .  These topics are covered in other chapters of this report.

                   Another source of Federal funding that should be investigated by the State
            includes the use of erosion benefit payments under the Upton-Jones amendment to
            the National Flood Insurance program. Certain coastal homeowners who are
            covered under the national flood insurance program and threatened by erosion may
            receive up to 110% of the value of their structure if they relocate inland or
            demolish their structure. To receive the benefits, homeowners must be in a zone
            of imminent collapse. There are other qualifications that are required to benefit
            from this program that are discussed in Chapter VIII. Although benefit payments


                                                    100







                 under Upton-Jones would not be used in the formation of a Beach Management
                 District, this program could provide important financial relief to coastal landowners
                 who are endangered by erosion.

                        2. State. Many of the proposals outlined in this report are structured to
                 reduce  the financial burden on the State. For example, there are suggestions to
                 seek Federal funding and to recover costs from landowners in proportion to benefits
                 imparted on their property through the establishment of improvement districts.
                 Nevertheless, a long-term commitment to beach preservation by the State will
                 require increased effort in the form of new programs and financial support. As the
                 trustee and caretaker of the coastal resource, the State should play the major role,
                 both financially and administratively.

                        A State that has made great effort to save its beach resource is Florida.
                 Florida is heavily reliant on its tourism industry and has made a real commitment
                 to beach preservation. Between 1965 and 1984, approximately 115 million dollars
                 were spent in the State on beach recovery techniques, primarily                    sand
                 renourishment (National Research Council, 1987). Given the high cost of real
                 estate and the high tourist revenues, it was easy to justify the projects on a cost-
                 benefit ratio.


                        In Hawaii, it is improbable to expect levels of ftinding similar to those in
                 Florida. Nevertheless, it is not unrealistic to expect a continuous source of revenue
                 from the State to pay for beach preservation programs. To allow continued loss
                 of beaches in a State where tourism is the number one industry will wind up
                 costing the State more in the long-term.

                        3. Counly. It is anticipated that counties will pay a small portion of the cost
                 for any beach improvement district. The counties should be made to pay at least
                 a token amount for two reasons.          First, in the apportionment of cost for
                 improvement districts, allocation schemes are based on the amount of benefit
                 conferred. For an improvement district within a particular county, say for example
                 in Maul, it would be the residents of Maul who would benefit more than residents
                 outside the county. A second reason why the counties should pay a small amount
                 is that the counties may, through their land-use policies, prevent erosion problems
                 in undeveloped areas by planning for coastal erosion. If the counties were made
                 to pay for beach improvement districts, it would provide economic incentive for the
                 counties to plan for coastal erosion.


                                                          101









                   4. Assessments. Benefits from any public improvement can be classified as
            general or specific. General benefits are those that accrue to the public at large.
            Specific benefits accrue to a particular group of individuals.           Using beach
            renourishment as an example, one benefit from a wider beach would be improved
            lateral beach access and increased recreational utility. These benefits are general
            since they accrue to all beach users, regardless of whether they lived next to the
            beach or many miles away. Another benefit from sand replenishment is that a
            wider beach absorbs wave energy, thereby reducing the threat on adjacent land
            from wave inundation and erosion. Furthermore, a beachfront home is likely to
            increase in value if there is a wide, healthy beach in front that provides recreational
            opportunities and some protection from the forces of nature. Shoreline protection
            and increased value of the property are specific benefits since they accrue only to
            homeowners who live along the shoreline.

                   Landowners who abut the beach would be major beneficiaries of a sand
            replenishment project. In such a case, the landowner would receive general and
            specific benefits. The theory behind an improvement district is that the landowner
            is assessed a fee in proportion to the specific benefit conferred on the property.
            Therefore, for any improvement project within a beach management district, a
            special assessment for those landowners who live along the shoreline should be
            made.


                   There are many assessment formulas that can be used, such as the linear
            footage along the beach, the. area of land benefited by the project, the value of the
            land next to the beach, the distance of structures from the shoreline, or a
            combination of the above factors. A common method to apportion an assessment
            is based on the front footage of -the land (Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1007).
            Since the amount of protection from an erosion control structure or beach
            replenishment project is proportional to the length of shoreline protected, linear
            footage along the shoreline is a logical factor to consider in an assessment. In
            addition, the cost of an erosion control structure or sand replenishment project is
            proportional to its length along the shoreline.

                   Another alternative would be to base the landowner assessment on more
            than one factor, say for example, length along the beach and value of the property.
            By using value of the property, some consideration could be given to the individual
            landowner's ability to pay. A proposed Division of State Beaches could work up
            the specific cnitenia and formulas for the equitable assessment of the landowner.


                                                      102








                        A few points should be made about landowner assessments within the
                 context of the beach management district:

                           a) In any- improvement district regulation, provisions need to be made
                    for maintenance assessments.      This is especially important for a sand
                    replenishment project where periodic renourishment is required.

                           b) In an improvement district, assessment charges are either payable
                    when due or in annual installments over a period of 10 to 25 years (See e.g.,
                    Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1006; N. C. Gen. Stat. S 153A-200; Revised
                    Ordinances of Honolulu, Chapter 24, Sec. 24-3.2). To encourage landowner
                    participation in a BMD, a program similar to that in Maryland should be
                    considered whereby low interest or no interest loans are offered in the
                    installment payment plan.

                           c) There is the legal requirement that money from assessments in an
                    improvement district must be used to pay for improvements in that district.
                    Therefore, it is suggested that assessments collected be held in a Special
                    Assessment Trust Fund until they are ready to be used.

                           d) There is a strong incentive for the coastal landowner to participate
                    financially in a beach management district.       For many beach sections,
                    seawalls are being undermined by constant wave action.          As sea level
                    continues to rise and protective beaches disappear, the cost to maintain these
                    structures will increase. Homeowners need other alternatives to protect their
                    properties. It is through an improvement district, where landowners share
                    the cost with the State and county, that other options to provide long-term
                    protection may be developed.

                        5. Tax Incentives, Credits and Fees. The primary purpose of taxation is to
                 raise revenues. However, tax programs and tax policy can also shape investment
                 decisions, which in turn, may affect development and land-use policy.        From a
                 political viewpoint, the use of the word "tax" has a strong negative connotation.
                 However, innovative tax programs can be implernented which actually favor the
                 State, the public and the landowner. In fact, one of the tax programs was initially
                 suggested by a beachftont homeowner.

                        In this study, two tax programs are discussed that could lead to improved


                                                         103









           beach management and significant revenues to the State. These programs are
           offered not as recommendations, but as options the State mgy or mqy not pursue.
           These programs, as well as others that provide economic incentives and
           disincentives, should be investigated by the State as a means to raise revenue for
           beach preservation projects. Each of these programs would require more study than
           can be devoted to the topic in this report.

                  a. Tax Deductions.      Two broad generalizations can be made about
           beachfront homeowners. First, given the cost of beachfront property, many of the
           homeowners are likely to be affluent. While no study was made to verify their
           personal background, it is probable that many are professionals, who are familiar
           with the use of tax shelters and deductions. An exception to this generalization
           may be the case where there has been long-term family ownership of property, and
           ownership has been transferred by inheritance.

                  Another generalization is that beachfront homeowners will go through great
           efforts to protect private property from coastal erosion. As discussed in previous
           chapters, the demand to protect coastal property is expected to increase because of
           rising sea-level.

                  Based these generalizations, the State can tailor tax policy to increase the
           level of funding by the coastal landowner for the capital improvements within a
           BMD.      For example, a State tax deduction could be offered to beachfront
           homeowners who contribute more than their assessed amount to pay for the capital
           improvements in a BMD. The assessed amount is determined by an allocation
           formula (see next section).

                  The State and county would benefit from the tax deduction since the
           increased contribution by the landowner may offset some of their cost for the
           district improvements. The landowner would benefit since they are allowed a tax
           deduction for improvement projects that protect their property.  The public would
           benefit because a public beach may be preserved or restored at minimum cost to
           the State.


                  b. The Shoreline Property Transfer Tax. There is one major problem in
           funding beach preservation programs. Coastal properties have risen astronomically
           in price. At the same time, State and county budgets are squeezed just to pay for
           basic public services.     As coastal properties escalate in price, it becomes


                                                   104








                 prohibitively expensive for the government to finance programs for the acquisition
                 of rights-of-way or to develop a voluntary relocation program that features the
                 purchase of the underlying land. One way to alleviate this problem is to link the
                 cost of coastal property with the revenues for funding beach preservation programs.
                 This could be done with a small tax for the transfer of beachfront property.

                        The property transfer tax has been successful in buying open space in
                 Massachusetts (Steve Blivens, pers. comm., Massachusetts Coastal Zone
                 Management Program). For the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, a 2%
                 transfer tax is placed on all property transfers. All houses on these islands are in
                 the coastal zone. Revenues from the taxes are placed in a special fund that is used
                 to buy open space along the coast. A significant amount of open space has been
                 purchased through this program.

                        There have been attempts in Massachusetts to extend the transfer tax beyond
                 Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Opposition to the tax comes from the real estate
                 lobby, which has argued that the transfer tax drives home prices down. For
                 Martha's Vineyard*and Nantucket this price effect is not apparent as most houses
                 have risen gradually in price since the tax went into effect. This is an indication
                 that market factors are the controlling factor in the price of property rather than the
                 small 2% transfer tax.


                        If a shoreline transfer tax was implemented in Hawaii, one concern may be
                 the potential impact on home prices. Some interest groups may argue that the tax
                 will have a rippling effect that causes rising home prices throughout the State.
                 Conversely, the real estate industry-and landowners would argue that such a tax
                 drives property prices down. Additional study would be needed to predict the exact
                 impact on home prices, or to formulate strategies to mitigate the problem.
                 Nevertheless, the experience from Massachusetts indicates that general market
                 trends related to the economic business cycle will ultimately control the price of
                 real estate.


                        Other jurisdictions across the country have modeled their land acquisition
                 programs after Nantucket's. Two new programs may soon be set up in Hilton
                 Head, South Carolina and the State of Washington.

                        The State of Florida also has a property transfer tax that is based on the use
                 of documentary stamps. When the deed to a property is transferred, a stamp of the


                                                          105









           document is required to record the deed. The cost of the documentary stamp is
           based on a percentage of the sales price of the property. Assessments from the
           transfer tax are used to acquire land, or build low income housing projects (Kirby
           Green, pers. comm. --Florida Division of Beaches and Shores).

                   For Hawaii, a property transfer tax should be investigated to help finance
           the following:

                   1) capital improvements within a Beach Management District

                   2) a program of open space coastal land acquisition

                   3) a voluntary relocation program where State funds are coupled with the
           FEMA Flood Insurance relocation money to provide economic incentive to move
           threatened structures inland.


                   The shoreline property transfer tax is an option that the State should
           investigate as a means to raise money for beach preservation programs. Such a tax
           is believed to be a fair and non-burdensome request of the beachfront owner for the
           following reasons:

                   1) The long-term homeowner could view the transfer tax as favorable. In
           return for a minor transaction fee when the property is sold, the beachfront owner
           may be able to benefit from two programs. First, a voluntary relocation program
           could be developed whereby funds from the transfer tax along with Federal funds
           from the Federal Flood Insurance program are'combined to provide, under certain
           conditions, a form of insurance during erosion or storm events. Another program
           that may benefit the landowner is that at appropriate localities, the homeowner may
           be able to benefit from the capital improvements within a Beach Management
           District. These capital improvements could be' financed, in part, with the transfer
           tax. Thus, the transfer tax should not be viewed as a penalty on the beachfront
           landowner. The tax will be used to pay for programs that benefit the State, county,
           public and the private landowner.

                   2) In its natural state a receding beach does not wash away but simply shifts
           inland (see, e.g., Fig. 2; see generally, Gilbert, 1986). Only after the shoreline is
           hardened or stabilized is the beach likely to disappear. Hardening of the shoreline
           is not required until a man-made structure is threatened by erosion. In a sense, the


                                                    106







                 coastal landowner creates the need for expensive erosion mitigation alternatives
                 that do not harm the beach. A shoreline tax would help pay for these alternatives.

                         3) The transfer tax for properties abutting the shoreline is not a burden for
                 long-term homeowners who plan to stay in their residences. The transfer tax may
                 affect the practice of short-term ownership and speculative purchases of shoreline
                 property-

                         4) It is only when the property is sold that a small fraction of the benefits
                 of living along the coast are recovered for the public. It may be questioned why
                 any benefit should be recovered for the public. A strong argument is that for
                 beaches that have disappeared or have been impacted by stabilization, private use
                 of the shoreline has resulted in a lost public benefit. Revenues from the transfer
                 fee can be used to recover some of the lost public benefit at the locality where the
                 property was sold, or at another suitable site.

                         5) It is because shorefront properties are so expensive that a voluntary
                 program by the State to acquire coastal land, relocate structures, and remove
                 seawalls would be difficult to finance without significant contributions from outside
                 sources. Thus, the transfer tax is suggested in this report. The transfer tax is
                 powerful since revenues from the tax rise as shoreline properties rise in value. In
                 addition, revenues from the fee are derived whenever a beachfront property is sold,
                 thereby insuring a steady and significant source of revenue is available for
                 programs that preserve the beach and protect the shoreline property owner. Finally,
                 a permanent small fee can raise a large sum of money (See example below).

                         In order to meet Constitutional requirements, land should be taxed uniformly
                 and at fair market value (Hagman & Juergensmeyer, 1986). If a beach property
                 transfer fee is established, it should be structured similarly to the one ill
                 Massachusetts, where the tax rate is a uniforin 2% for all applicable properties,
                 based on fair market value.


                         Another alternative to the flat tax rate of 2% would be a graduated tax rate
                 that allows a lower rate for those who are less able to afford the tax. For example,
                 a rate structure may be based on the sale price of a home, according to the
                 following schedule:




                                                           107









                          $0-     $350,000      - 0% (no taxation)
                   $350,000 - $500,000          - .5%
                   $500)000 - $1,000,000        - 1.0%
                 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000        - 1.5%
                 $1,500,000 - $2,000,000        -2.0%
                 $2,000,000 - $2,500,000        - 2.5%
                 $2,500,000 - $3,000,000        - 3.0%
                 $3,000,000 - $3,500,000        - 3.5%
                           over $3,500,000      -4.0%

                   It should be noted that for houses under $350,000 (the approximate median
           price for a house in Honolulu) there would is no tax imposed. Whether there is a
           graduated tax as shown above, or a uniform 2% transfer fee as in Massachusetts,
           it is suggested that the $350,000 exemption be considered for the sake of fairness.

                   In order to make the transfer tax politically acceptable, the tax could be
           linked with a program where landowners are eligible for reduced property
           evaluations if they conduct activities which preserve or protect the beach. For
           example, if a landowner has not armored the beach, or if the beach has been
           stabilized but all permits are obtained, then the landowner may be eligible for 1%
           to 2% reduction   in their real property assessment. With the reduction in property
           assessment, the   current landowner would benefit from reduced county property
           taxes each year.  Thus, long-term beachfront homeowners would support the overall
           tax package (i.e. 2% transfer fee on the sale of the property coupled with the 1%
           to 2% reduction in real property assessment which is used to determine county
           taxes). This arrangement would have to be worked out between the State and the
           county.

                   To explain how the overall tax package would operate, a two million dollar
           beachfront home will be used as an example. If the home were to be sold for a
           price of two million dollars, the 2% transfer fee would generate a revenue of
           $40,000 that could go into a proposed State Beach Fund. The money could be
           used for erosion mitigation programs that benefit other beachfront homeowners and
           the public. Nevertheless, a significant number of beachfront homeowners may still
           object to the 2% transfer fee.

                   If the 2% transfer tax was coupled with a 1% to 2% reduction in property
           assessments at the county level, for lots that were in compliance with all shoreline


                                                    108







                regulations, then the beachfront homeowners would view the tax program more
                favorably. Using the two million dollar house as an example, the overall reduction
                in county property taxes can be calculated. Property tax rates for Oahu on March
                3, 1992 were $3.25 per assessed value for the land, and $4.09 per assessed value
                for the improvements (Honolulu Advertiser, March 3, 1992). For the sake of
                discussion, it will be assumed that for the two million dollar house, one million
                dollars is the assessed land value and one million dollars is theassessed value of
                the improvements. A 1% reduction in the property assessment for the land would
                reduce the taxes owed to the county from $3,250.00 to $3,217.50. A 1% reduction
                in the property assessment for the land improvements would reduce county taxes
                from $4,090.00 to $4,049.10. The total county property taxes for the 2 million
                dollar beachfront home would be reduced from $7,340.00 to $7,266.60, or a total
                of $73.40 ever year. A 2% reduction in the property assessment would reduce the
                total property taxes by $146.80 per year.       The exact percentage of property
                assessment reduction given by the county could be worked out later.

                       The effect on county treasuries from the property tax reduction can also be
                approximated. First, however, some estimates on the number of beachfront lots and
                illegal structures on the island must be obtained. According to one study, along 59
                miles. of surveyed beach, approximately 58%, or 34 miles were developed with
                residential uses (Sea Engineering & Moon, 1991).             Along a stretch of
                approximately I I miles of different beaches on Oahu, there are roughly 60 lots per
                mile of shoreline. About 27% of these lots are spanned by seawalls or revetments.
                Of the residential seawalls and revetments on Oahu, approximately 41% are illegal
                (Sea Engineering & Moon, 1991).

                       When the total number -of miles of beaches with residential development is
                multiplied by the average number of lots per mile, an estimate of 2,040 total lots
                are obtained that span the beaches of the island [(34 miles) times (60 lots/mile)].
                From the estimates in the paragraph above, there are approximately 226 illegal
                seawalls or revetments on the island [(2040 lots) times (27% lots with seawalls)
                times (41% illegal seawalls)]. This estimated number of illegal structures is in
                agreement with the approximations of the Department of Land Utilization. For this
                exercise, the total number of lots eligible for the reduced property assessment is
                about 1,814 properties (2020 properties - 226 with illegal structures).

                       The property assessment reduction, may cost the county $133,148 to
                $266,295 per year in property taxes ($73.40 to $146.80 per lot per year times 1,814


                                                        109









            eligible lots). This is out of a total revenue from property assessments of $423
            million per year (Honolulu Advertiser, March 3, 1992). To-compensate the
            counties for reduced propeM tax revenues, the State could pgy a higher fraction
            of the cost of improvements within a Beach Management District. The counties
            would be a major beneficiary of such improvements since healthy beaches provide
            recreational opportunities for county residents. In addition, any loss in county
            property taxes from the 1% to 2% reduction in property tax assessment maybe
            offset by an increase in revenue if a Beach Management District increases the value
            of beachfront homes.


                   A 1% to 2% reduction in property assessments might save the beachfront
            homeowner, who is in compliance with shoreline regulations, $73.40 to $146.80 per
            year.   This property tax reduction, along with other beachfront management
            programs that offer financial and property protection, provide significant incentive
            for long-term homeowners to support the overall tax package.

                   The overall contributions to State revenues from the tax program could be
            significant. Assuming that of the 2,040 beachfront properties on Oahu, a property
            is sold on the average of once every 60 years. Using this assumption, there would
            be almost 34 sales of beachfront property each year. With an assumed average
            price of 2 million dollars, and a transfer fee of 2%, these sales would generate an
            annual revenue of 1.36 million dollars into the State Beach Fund.


                   Thus, more money will be raised by the State from the transfer tax ($1.36
            million dollars/year) than the County will lose by the reduction in property taxes
            ($133,148 to $266,295 per year). It is important for the State to administer this
            money, since it will be a State agency that promotes beach district formation and
            evaluates the viability of various projects. In addition, it is the State that would
            pursue Federal assistance for various erosion control projects to reduce the costs
            for each party.

                   It should be reemphasized that the discussion of tax measures to further
            beach management programs is offered here not as a recommendation but as an
            option that the State should investigate. Many questions remain. For example,
            should the shoreline tax be imposed not only on beachfront property transfers, but
            also upon the issuance of a building permit? What are the constitutional issues
            related to taxing a group of homeowners along the coastline? What are the unique
            political and socioeconomic conditions in Hawaii that would impede the imposition


                                                     110








                 of a transfer tax program similar to those in place in Massachusetts or Florida?

                        Any attempts to implement economic incentives and disincentives by
                 taxation would require additional study (see Implementation Guidelines - Chapter
                 XII). The discussion in this report is offered to show the reader that innovative tax
                 strategies, if structured properly, can have a relatively minor impact on all parties,
                 and can provide significant revenue for programs that benefitprivate landowners,
                 the public, the counties and the State.

                        6. Impact Fees, Easements, and Other Funding Sources. There are many
                 other sources of revenue for beach management programs that have not been
                 discussed in this report. These include the sale of easements for private structures
                 that encroach on State land, beach user fees, impact fees and tax deductible
                 contributions from the public. All of these ideas could be further investigated by
                 a proposed Division of State Beaches.        Preliminary studies on these sources
                 indicate that the potential income is relatively minor compared to those sources
                 previously discussed in this chapter.

                 B. Funding a BMD - Cost Allocation

                        For Hawaii a shared cost system is proposed with contributions from the
                 State, county and landowner. One starting point in the allocation of costs may be
                 a scheme similar to that in Connecticut, where erosion control projects for private
                 properties are split equally between the State, the local government and landowners.
                 An allocation of costs where each party pays an equal share is easily understood
                 and apparently fair. However, it may be possible to structure the allocation so that
                 it is more politically feasible.

                        It is not the purpose of this study to recommend specific percentages. The
                 exact percentages need to be worked out later between the State and the counties.
                 The following should be considered in the allocation of cost for a BMD:

                        1. Federal - One duty of a proposed Division of State Beaches would be to
                 actively pursue Federal funding for erosion control projects under the River and
                 Harbor Act of 1962, Title I of Public Law 87-874, 76 Stat. 1173 (33 U.S.C.A. SS
                 426e-426g). If Federal funding is obtained, there is usually the requirement that
                 local funds cover half the cost of the project with the Federal government to paying
                 the remainder. For the following discussion, the term TOTAL COST means the









           cost to design, engineer, implement and construct an erosion-control project minus
                contributions from the Federal government.


                   2. Counly - The individual counties should be required to pay a small
           amount for the improvements in a Beach Management District. A small payment
           by the county should be made since the counties benefit from a beach improvement
           project. In addition, the assessment provides economic incentive for the county to
           adopt land-use policies that preserve State beaches.

                   County cooperation in many of the programs discussed in this report is
           important.    Therefore, the financial burden placed on the county should be
           minimized. It is suggested that individual counties be made to pay no more than
           20% of the TOTAL COST of a Beach Management Program. A smaller fractional
                                                                                        4
           cost may be required to encourage county cooperation in certain programs.

                  For example, the property transfer tax may be controversial. Yet this tax
           could provide the State with a continuous and significant source of revenue (See
           example - previous section). To make the transfer tax palatable, the tax could be
           linked with a county program to give a yearly 1% to 2% reduction in beachfront
           property assessments for properties that are in compliance with all coastal
           regulations. The overall tax package could be very attractive to the long-term
           beachfront owner.



                 There may be mechanisms for the State to require the counties to participate
           in the payment of capital improvements in a Beach Management District. In
           Maryland, once there is an approved financing plan, if the county or local
           government fail to pay the State its percentage of the cost, - then the State
           Comptroller may withhold from State-collected, locally shared taxes; or from
           certain State grant programs; or from the State aid for police protection, a sum
           sufficient to reimburse the State for any amount that remains unpaid by the
           .counties (Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. S 8-1103). In Hawaii, a mechanism that
           requires the participation of the counties would need further investigation. While
           required participation may be valid for improvements within a BMD, required
           participation in other programs may be another matter. For example, the 1-2%
           reduction in property assessments discussed in this report is within the discretion
           of the counties. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii originally reserved to the
           State the duties of real property taxation, however, this has been amended so that
           the power is exercised exclusively by the counties (HRS-S 246A-1).

                                                   112







                        The counties may object if beachfront homeowners received a reduced
                 property assessment for compliance with shoreline regulations since this would
                 reduce tax revenues. As compensation to the counties, the State could agree to pay
                 a higher portion of the costs for the capital improvements within a Beach
                 Management District. For example, an allocation scheme may require that the
                 counties pay only 10% of the cost of the improvements versus 20%. In return, the
                 county would agree to provide a 1% to 2% reduction in property tax assessments
                 to beachfront property owners, if they are in compliance with all regulations.

                        County funding may be provided by a capital projects fund, the general
                 fund, or the issuance of general obligation bonds or improvement district bonds.
                 Many States that have established BMI)s have provisions that allow bonds to be
                 issued to raise funds for the State or local share of the district.


                        3. Coastal Landowner - Coastal landowners receive specific benefits from
                 a beach improvement project. One benefit would be an increase in property values,
                 derived from the presence of a healthy beach that provides recreational
                 opportunities and improved aesthetics, as compared to a shoreline with no beach
                 that has been stabilized by a seawall. The major specific benefit would be the
                 increased protection against wave energy that is given to their property by the
                 improvement. This benefit should not be discounted. If sea-level continues to rise
                 at the present rate, or the rise accelerates as most researchers predict, then the need
                 for additional coastal protection to protect private property from greater levels of
                 erosion would grow.

                        Since beachfront landowners receive specific benefits from the improvement
                 district, they should be assessed a fair amount. Nevertheless, they should not be
                 assessed so much that there is no economic incentive to join the BMD. If the
                 majority of the landowners cannot cooperate, then a District may not be formed,
                 and no one would benefit.


                        it is suggested that the landowner assessment be structured so that the
                 fractional cost of paying for a project of surgebreakers' or sand replenishment be


                        Surgebreakers have been used to halt erosion at Kualoa Beach Park. One
                 advantage of surgebreakers is the low cost compared to a detached breakwater.
                 Such structures may transfer the erosion problem by interfering with longshore sand
                 transport.   Surgebreakers for residential use would require additional study.

                                                           113









            less than paying the full costs of a revetment. Thus, economic incentive is created
            for the landowner to select options that preserve the beach and protect private
            property.

                   The exact percentage of the landowner's assessment could be worked out by
            a proposed Division of Beaches. An initial suggestion is that the landowner
            assessment range between 30%-45% of the TOTAL COST of the project. The
            exact amount would depend on several factors, including the type of improvement
            project, the total costs, and the degree of public benefit. If the pubic benefit from
            the project is great, then the landowner may be required to pay a smaller
            assessment (e.g., 30% in the discussed allocation scheme). If the public benefit is
            small, then the landowners would pay a larger fraction of the TOTAL COST and
            the State's contribution would be reduced.


                   4. State - Whatever costs of a BMD are not paid by the Federal government,
            the landowner, or the counties would need to be paid by the State. Assuming that
            the counties were to pay 10% of the TOTAL COST of the project, then the
            contribution from the State may range between 45%-60%. The contributions would
            be paid from a State Beach Fund. Revenues into the Fund would be derived from
            legislative appropriations, the issuance of bonds, federal contributions -where
            applicable, and a tax on beachfront property transfers.

            C. State Beach Fund


                   Many coastal states have established dedicated State funds to support beach
            preservation activities.    For example, Delaware has established a Beach
            Preservation Fund that is to have a minimum balance of one million dollars at the
            start of each fiscal year (Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, S 6808). The Fund is to be used
            to finance activities that enhance and preserve public and private beaches and
            mitigate beach erosion.

                   Two- separate beach funds are established in Florida.            The Beach
            Management Trust Fund receives monies from State appropriations and from
            permitting fees (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.0535, S 161.091). Disbursements from the
            Fund may be made by the Division of Beaches and Shores to carry out the State's
            responsibilities according to a comprehensive, long-range, management plan. The




                                                    114







                 plan deals with erosion control, beach preservation, beach restoration, beach
                 renourishment, dune construction and coastal studies. In additioril Florida has
                 established an Erosion Control Trust Fund with revenues to the Fund derived from
                 fines and awards of damages for regulatory violations (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.054).

                        In Maine, the State owns less than 3% of the coastline, which is the lowest
                 percentage of publicly owned shoreline in any coastal State in the United States.
                 To deal with the problem of limited public access, the State has established a
                 Shoreline Public Access Protection Fund to support the acquisition and
                 development of shoreland areas for public use.

                        In Louisiana, there is the Coastal Resources Trust Fund where capital is
                 derived from State appropriation and surplus funds from other accounts. The
                 money is used for the State's coastal resource programs (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. S
                 49:213.22, 49:214.40).

                        For Maryland, an Ocean Beach Replenishment Fund is established with
                 monies from State appropriations, bonds, and local contributions ((Md. Nat. Res.
                 Code Ann. S 8-1003). The Fund is maintained -for bulkhead construction, dune
                 restoration, beach replenishment, and land acquisition. Monies from the Fund may
                 not revert to the General Fund of the State. For land acquisition, the State pays
                 100% of the cost from the Fund. For all other activities the State contribution is
                 limited to 50% of the total cost.


                          Federal programs that provide financial assistance for beach erosion control
                 projects require that the costs be shared with either the State, municipality, or other
                 political subdivision in which the project is located (33 U.S.C.A. 426e). North
                 Carolina has established the Beach Erosion Control Project Revolving Fund that
                 consists of monies from State appropriations and other sources. The Fund is used
                 to finance the local portion of the nonfederal share of the cost of beach erosion
                 control projects (N. C. St. S 143-215.62).

                        Similarly, Virginia has established a State fund to help local governments
                 pay for half of the nonfederal costs of erosion abatement projects. Unexpended
                 monies go into the Special Emergency Assistance Fund, which is used, in part, to
                 restore beaches destroyed by storms or hurricanes.

                        From the above examples, dedicated State beach funds have been used to


                                                          115









            buy coastal land, develop access routes, support coastal research, education and
            management programs, finance erosion control capital improvements, and provide
            .emergency assistance. For Hawaii, it is suggested that a dedicated fimd be
            established to further . beach preservation activities. A Hawaii State Beach Fund
            should be established to capitalize BMD projects, acquire selected coastal
            properties, pay for renourishment projects, and fund coastal and engineering studies
            benefitting the State and landowners. Money for the Fund would be derived       ' from
            State appropriations, Federal contributions where applicable, local contributions,
                                                     6
            and the shoreline property transfer tax.

                    The need for a dedicated beach fund is clear. Certain erosion control
            measures may fail without proper maintenance. For example, the long-term
            effectiveness of a sand replenishment project may deteriorate without periodic sand
            renourishment. Without a dedicated source of funding, any financial contributions
            the State would make with regard to scheduled maintenance could be postponed
            because of other priorities. This could leave coastal landowners without adequate
            protection of their properties.

                   Another reason for a dedicated ftmd is that many beaches will need to be
            monitored on a periodic basis. Monitoring is required for two purposes. First,
            the stability of a beach fill should be checked to improve our poor understanding
            and prediction capability of erosion processes, and help track erosion on a statewide
            level.   Second, monitoring is needed to search for dangerous unnatural conditions
            that may expose the State to liability for failed erosion control structures.
            Monitoring activities must be continuous and cannot be subject to the whims of the
            political process.

                   Finally, a dedicated State Beach Fund allows financial reserves to be built
            up for the inevitable storm or hurricane that   will hit the islands. After a storm
            event, opportunities may exist to provide financial assistance to the landowners and
            recover the eroded beach.        A dedicated Beach Fund would facilitate the
            accumulation of the necessary financial reserves.


                6 For landowner assessments within an improvement district, a separate fund
            may be needed so that monies are not commingled. There is the legal requirement
            that assessments for improvements must stay within the district.



                                                     116









                                        VIII. REGULATORY OPTIONS


    A
                        Since the formation of an beach improvement district may not be feasible
                for every shoreline in the State, other beachfront management options are discussed
                that may lead to increased beach preservation. The three options include the
                development of a voluntary relocation program, modifications of the State shoreline
                setback and strategies for improved enforcement of existing shoreline regulations.
                As with all options developed in this report, considerable attention is given to the
                concerns of the private property owner.

                A. National Flood Insurance - Upton-Jones Amendment

                        Before 1988, the National Flood Insurance Program paid insurance benefits
                only to those insured buildings that had sustained physical damage as a result of
                flooding or flood-related erosion. Beginning in 1988, the Upton-Jones Amendment
                to the National Flood Insurance Program authorized advance payments of insurance
                benefits if a landowner's home is threatened by erosion and the landowner
                demolishes or relocates the structure (Section 544, Housing and Community
                Development Act of 1987). Under Upton-Jones, payments for demolition before
                collapse are I 10 percent of the value of the structure. Of this payment, 10 percent
                is to cover the cost of demolition. If a structure is relocated instead of demolished,
                payment would be the actual cost of relocation, up to 40 percent of the value of the
                structure.


                        Value of the structure, as determined by the amendment, is the lower of 1)
                the value of a comp   arable structure that is not subject to imminent collapse; 2) the
                         id f                          improvemen
                price pal    or the structure and any i             ts to the structure; or 3) the value
                of the structure under the insurance contract.


                        To qualify for erosion benefits, the homeowner must be covered by Federal
                Flood Insurance on or before June 1,1988. In addition, the homeowner must have
                the insurance at least two years before certification that the structure is in a zone
                of imminent collapse. The statutory period may be reduced if home ownership is
                less than two years.

                        In determining the zone of imminent collapse, the Federal Emergency
                Management Agency has adopted interim criteria. Presently, the zone is defined
                as the area seaward of a line that is 10 feet plus five times the local average annual


                                                           117









             erosion recession rate as measured by the vegetation line, a dune line or the high
             tide line. For structures that fall outside this zone, FEMA will consider any
             technical or scientific data that demonstrates a unique or highly unstable condition
             at the site (National Research Council, 1990). Erosion benefits may be available
             even for those properties that have been stabilized by seawalls (Michael Buckley,
             pers. comm., Federal Emergency Management Agency). For stabilized shorelines,
             such factors as the design of the structure, the amount of maintenance, local
             geomorphic features, and historical and spatial changes in the beach system may
             be considered to determine a zone of imminent collapse.

                    Under Upton-Jones, individual States and local governments may certify that
             a structure is in a zone of imminent collapse if they adopt a statewide coastal zone
             setback program that is based, in part, on a multiple of the local shoreline recession
             rate. Several States, such as North Carolina, Michigan, South Carolina, and
             Pennsylvania, have already qualified to make certifications (National Research
             Council, 1990). Other coastal States are developing their program. For example,
             in Texas, it is the General Land Office that acts as the lead agency for the
             coordination of coastal erosion avoidance and planning (Tex. Nat. Res. Code S
             33.601). The Commissioner of the General Land Office is authorized to perform
             all acts necessary to develop and implement a program of certification of structures
             subject to imminent collapse due to erosion.

                    If a beachfront home is constantly threatened by erosion, or in a zone of
             imminent collapse, the landowner may welcome the option of receiving advanced
             insurance payments to relocate or demolish the structure. The economic incentive
             to landowners could be made even greater if Upton-Jones'insurance payments to
             demolish the building were combined with a - State program to purchase the
             underlying land. For minimum economic loss, landowners would benefit if they
             avoid a situation where waves are regularly threatening private property. The
             public would also benefit. In many instances, it may be possible to recover lost
             beaches simply by moving erosion control structures inland.

                    A proposed Division of Beaches could work to develop and implement a
             State certification program where landowners benefit from erosion payments under
             the Upton-Jones Amendment. In addition, the Division could develop a program
             where payments from the State Beach Fund are used to provide additional
             economic incentive to move off selected beach areas.




                                                      118








                 B. Zoning

                         Once development occurs near an unstable shoreline, protection of the
                 structures and preservation of the beach become considerably more costly and
                                                 ed by the numerous suggestions in this report to
                 complex. This is exemplifi
                 establish and fund a Beach Management District System for the State. In addition,
                 halting a receding shoreline with protective structures may benefit only a few and
                 seriously degrade the natural beach and the value it holds for the majority.
                 Therefore, it is recommended that land use policies along the coastline be
                 reevaluated to address the continued loss of beaches and the future problems
                 associated with sea-level rise.


                         It is vital that shoreline instability be anticipated at the earliest stages of
                 zoning. In many areas, proper planning may be the only way to achieve the dual
                 objective of beac  h preservation and protection of property rights. This study
                 proposes a new setback line for large tracts of undeveloped land. The shoreline
                 setback would apply to new developments that require the subdivision of land or
                 are located in a non-urban district. These new setbacks need not apply to rocky
                 shorelines since these coastal sectors are considerably more stable than the beach
                 areas. Nevertheless, it maybe decided to apply the new setback to all shorelines
                 to protect scenic or open space resources, or to simplify administration of the
                 setback law.


                 It is proposed that the shoreline setback for sand beaches be the greater of

                         1) 60 feet fTom the natural vegetation line; or

                         2) 30 times the annual average erosion rate of the natural vegetation line;
                               or

                        3) the historic range in the position of the unstabilized vegetation line over
                               a minimum of 30 years.

                        Reduction of the setback should be granted if it is necessary to maintain
                 buildable area. If a new setback reduces the buildable area by 50% or more, an
                 exception could be made to allow a smaller setback. This exception is analogous
                 to the setback provisions for small lots at the county level. On Oahu, Kauai and
                 Hawaii, if a 40 foot setback reduces the buildable area by 50%, a 20 foot setback


                                                           119









            is allowed. The 50% provision could also apply to new subdivisions and newly
            reclassified urban land.


                   There are many ways to structure the setback reduction. Either, the setback
            could be halved, as for small lots on Oahu, Kauai, and Hawaii. Alternatively, the
            setback could be reduced until a 50% buildable area is achieved. The later
            alternative would provide more protection to the beach resources of the State. The
            exact reduction strategy would need further investigation.

                   For each parcel of land, the setback reduction may apply only one time.
            This prevents the practice of numerous subdivisions to obtain multiple reductions
            with smaller and smaller setbacks.


                   The setback as proposed has the following features:

                   1) In the future, the eligibility of the State to obtain Federal assistance for
            erosion control projects may be dependent on the State adopting a setback with a
            30-year annual average erosion rate. Presently, the State is eligible for Federal
            funding and assistance from the Secretary of the Army for small shore and beach
            restoration and protection projects (33 USCA S 426g). Federal funds of up to
            $2,000,000 can be allotted for shore erosion mitigation projects that benefit both
            the public and the private landowners, provided the State or local government share
            in the cost of the project. This funding could help offset the State and county cost
            of improvements within a Beach Management District. Congress is to consider the
            elimination of Federal assistance unless the State adopts a beach front management
            program that includes restrictions on new development seaward of a setback based
            on a 30-year annual average erosion rate (33 USCA S 426e).

                   2) The use of an annual average erosion rate    allows the State to certify for
            approval those homes that may benefit under the Upton-Jones amendment to the
            National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (44 CFR Part 63). Money from the Upton-
            Jones program for relocation or demolition, can be coupled with funding from the
            State to develop a voluntary program to move structures inland. This program
            should be viewed favorably by coastal landowners since it provides additional
            financial protection against coastal erosion, sea-level rise, and storm events. In
            addition, the removal or relocation of certain erosion control structures inland may
            allow the recovery of a lost beach.



                                                     120







                        3) The 30-year erosion setback proposed in this study is consistent with
                 provisions in the Upton-Jones amendment. Specifically, the amendment states that
                 future flood insurance coverage and certain types of ederal disaster assistance will
                 be available only for buildings that are constructed or relocated inland of a 30-year
                 construction setback (Public Law 100-242-Feb.5, 1988). While the Upton-Jones
                 amendment applies to relocation benefits for pre-existing structures, the setback rule
                 discussed in this report would apply to new structures. It is inconsistent to have
                 a 30-year erosion setback for the relocation of existing structures and the 20-40
                 foot Setback now in effect in Hawaii for new structures (HRS-205A-41).

                        4) The setback reduction to preserve buildable area prevents the situation
                 where high erosion rates or extremely unstable shorelines result in the elimination
                 of the use of the land. By preserving buildable area and maintaining "economically
                 viable use of the land," the success of a takings challenge, even after the Lucas
                 case (Chapter 111), is greatly diminished. While the takings issue may still be
                 raised by landowners, the merit of their claim is significantly reduced. It is one
                 strategy of this report to address the concerns of the public and the private
                 landowner.     Therefore zoning strategies are formulated to stay clear of the
                 regulatory takings problem. This is especially critical given the recent decision
                 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lucas.

                        5) Besides the preservation of buildable area, additional constitutional
                 protection is provided by the proposed setback. As discussed in Chapter 111, a
                 regulation may be held invalid if it "does not substantially advance legitimate state
                 interest" or "denies an owner economically viable use" of the land (Agins v.
                 Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1980). In determining
                 if the regulation "substantially advances legitimate state interest," the courts will
                 consider, among other factors, (a) if there is a legitimate state interest and (b) if the
                 regulation is overly broad or more restrictive than necessary to achieve the state
                 interest.


                        The legitimate state interest of the setback proposed in this study is the
                 protection of public access and the prevention of serious harm to public trust lands
                 (see, Figs. 2 through 5). In addition, the proposed setback is no more restrictive
                 than needed to advance the    se legitimate government interests. For example, if the
                 shoreline is stable or accreting, the setback would be, at the most, 60 feet. Contrast
                 the 60-foot setback with the proposal in House Bill 893 (1991 legislative session)
                 which required a 150-foot setback for all non-urban land according to the State


                                                            121










           land use classification scheme. Landowners could claim the 150 foot setback as
           being overly broad, if their shoreline was relatively stable or subject to accretion.
           However, the State could counter that the 150 foot setback has objectives other
           than beach preservation, such as the protection of scenic and open space resources.

               . 6) For relatively stable or accreting shorelines, the setback of 60 feet is not
           unduly burdensome. Landowners would appreciate the 60-foot setback over the
           150-foot setback proposed for non-urban land in House Bill 893 (1991 legislative
           session). The City and County of Honolulu has recently adopted a 60-foot setback
           for all new subdivisions. The need to extend the setback a minimum of 60 feet
           from the old distance of 40 feet is exemplified by the numerous beaches that have
           been lost even though they are relatively stable (e.g., Kahala - Fig. 3). The
           increased setback of 60 foot setback would further advance the CZM objectives of
           scenic and open space resource preservation and coastal ecosystem protection.

                  7) The proposed setback will help protect the beach resource. For the few
           beach sectors that are chronically eroding (similar to Iroquois Point - Fig. 2) or
           highly unstable (similar to the southeast end of Lanikai Beach - Fig. 5) the
           proposed setback would offer more protection than the 60-foot or, if needed, the
           150-foot. setback. By allowing the beach to migrate naturally, the need for
           hardening of the shoreline can be reduced or eliminated, and the pubic trust
           resource can be preserved for future generations (Fig. 22).

                  In those instances where the shoreline setback is greater than 60 feet, a
           program should be instigated where the landowner can be given variances for
           increased height, greater density, or a reduced fTont and side setback for land
           adjacent to the beach. By the use of compensating variances, it may be possible
           to maintain a significant amount of buildable area even with a greater shoreline
           setback. Under ideal conditions, the landowner could have the best of both worlds
           (i.e., the same amount of buildable area as before the expanded shoreline setback
           and a healthy beach/dune buffer system that protects the property from wave
           attack). If packages of variances were offered to those landowners who would
           have setbacks greater than 60 feet, the use of an overlay district to define areas
           subject to different land use controls may be ideal (Robin Foster, pers. comm.,
           Lacayo Planning Inc.). Alternatively, a new zoning designation at the State or
           County level could define appropriate construction and land use guidelines so that
           buildable area is maintained while the beach is preserved.



                                                    122








                        Economic burden on the landowner can also be alleviated by developing
                 a program of Transferable Development Rights (TDR!s). The theory behind TDR's
                 is that they allow the owner of the right to build more of something on a
                 designated parcel of land than the normal development regulations would allow.
                 TDR's can be used by the beachfront landowner on other inland property they may
                 own. If no other property is owned, the impacted landowner may sell the right to
                 another inland landowner. Thus, TDR!s can be used as a form of compensation for
                 those landowners that are impacted by an increased shoreline setback. Setting up
                 a system that transfers development rights from the restricted area (sending area)
                 to land on which the TDR can be used (receiving area) can be extremely complex
                 (Hagman & Juergensmeyer, 1986). The use of a system of TDR's would require
                 additional study.

                        To further reduce the economic burden on the landowner, the shoreline
                 setback may be reduced if a beach replenishment project designed to preserve the
                 beach has been funded and permitted before development begins on the site. Other
                 States have provisions in their setback laws that allow for reduced setbacks for
                 established replenishment projects (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.053 (6)(d); S. C. Code
                 Ann. S 48-39-280). The landowner would be able to work with the proposed
                 Division of State Beaches to receive technical assistance on the types of sand
                 replenishment projects that may be useful in reducing the proposed setback. In
                 addition, the proposed Division of State Beaches could investigate the possibility
                 of providing a fraction of the cost of the erosion control project, if the landowners
                 project would benefit the public.

                        In sum, the State and county should make the greatest effort to coordinate
                 land use policy so that beaches can be preserved while the landowner is
                 compensated. Most promising appears to be a program of compensating variances,
                 Transferable Development Rights and reduced setbacks for preapproved and
                 prefinanced sand replenishment projects.

                        Increasing the shoreline setback raises the issue of what effect this increase
                 will have on existing legal residences. The concern of a coastal homeowner could
                 be that if a home becomes nonconforming and restrictions are placed on the
                 reconstruction of a house should it be destroyed, then the homeowner may not be
                 able to finance, refinance or insure the house. To protect the homeowner, it is
                 suggested that there be provisions in the proposed setback ordinance that allow
                 reconstruction of a home, in the case of damage, as long as the new residence is


                                                          123









            not enlarged or placed  ftirther seaward. If a building is destroyed by an act of
            God, it may be held that a nonconforming structure can be rebuilt. (Hagman &
            Juergensmeyer, 1986).

                  The wisdom of allowing a home destroyed by storm waves or erosion to be
            rebuilt may be questioned.     Nevertheless, this report attempts to address the
            concerns of the private property owner. Rather than moving existing landowners
            inland by prohibiting the repair of nonconforming homes, a strategy of coastal
            retreat could be provided through a voluntary program that offers economic
            incentives for coastal landowners (section A of this Chapter). Another economic
            incentive, as it pertains to damaged nonconforming houses, is to grant an allowance
            or credit to reconstruct a larger house, if the most seaward portion of the new
            house is moved inland. A formula that relates the allowed size increase of the
            house with the distance moved inland could be worked up by the appropriate
            county authonities.

                  Regarding the implementation of the proposed shoreline setback ordinance,
            it would be the applicant or landowner who would fund a coastal study to
            determine the appropriate setback. Previous aerial photographic and historical
            studies would be allowed as a substitute for thecoastal study, where suitable data
            and analysis exist for the beach segment in question. Placing the burden on the
            coastal landowner to conduct the erosion study would relieve the State of the
            financial burden of analyzing all the State's shorelines.     To ensure technical
            accuracy, the State could have in house staff with technical backgrounds to review
            the scope, methods and accuracy of the erosion studies. It should be noted that
            many environmental regulations require the applicant of the activity, not the
            government agency, to conduct appropriate scientific studies (e.g., EIS under the
            National Environmental Policy Act, or monitoring for a storm water permit under
            the Clean Water Act).

                  In the Kauai County Zoning Ordinance (SEC. 8-13.1), there is a designation
            of Shore Districts. One requirement is that the applicant for a permit to build
            within the Shore District must provide an information report. The report describes
            the rate of Shore District Change over time under both natural and proposed
            artificial conditions. The Shore District designation in'Kaual is a type of overlay
            district (see Chapter V). The requirement of an information report in Kauai's
            Zoning Ordinance is analogous to the proposal in this report that all new beachfront
            subdivisions or developments on nonurban land conduct a coastal erosion study that


                                                    124







                 determines the shoreline setback according to the proposed setback rule.

                        It could be a proposed Division of Beaches that would adopt the rules,
                 procedures and technical requirements on how the average annual erosion rate and
                 the historical range in the position of the vegetation line are determined for each
                 beach sector. The Division can monitor data on sea-level rise, and if appropriate,
                 factor the local data into the calculations. Where the shoreline has been altered
                 artificially, the Division could develop guidelines for the establishment of a setback
                 using other criteria, such as the historical changes on adjacent property, or on the
                 mean high water line. All rules that the Division adopts should insure proper legal
                 procedures, fairness and objectivity.

                 C. Enforcement


                        Many of the problems along the coast are due to lack'. of enforcement of
                 existing laws. Significant improvement in the management of beaches could be
                 made if existing laws were enforced. During Coastal Zone Management public
                 workshops in 1990, it was noted that there were significant instances of non-
                 compliance and illegal, non-permitted uses and developments. In one CZM study,
                 it was noted that along a stretch of Lanikai Beach consisting of 36 lots, there were
                 22 illegal seawalls and 9 non-conforming walls. Only two of the seawalls had the
                 appropriate permits (Edward K. Noda and Associates Inc., 1989). In another study
                 of selected beach sites on Oahu, approximately 41% of the structures along the
                 shoreline were illegal (Sea Engineering & Moon, 1991).

                        As with the enforcement of other environmental regulations in the State,
                 there is a constant shortage of staff and funding to monitor and enforce coastal
                 regulations. As a result, many illegal activities go unnoticed., For those illegal
                 activities that are discovered, there is the problem of no effort to follow through
                 with enforcement a   .ction. Other coastal states have addressed this problem by
     _41         establishing dedicated funds specifically for enforcement. For example, in Florida,
                 the Erosion Control Trust Fund is established with monies from fines or awards of
                 damage for regulatory violations (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.054).

                        It is suggested that Hawaii establish a dedicated Beach Enforcement Fund.
                 An initial legislative appropriation could be made into the Fund. Money in the
                 Fund would be used specifically for beach enforcement activities, including the
                 hiring of personnel, monitoring of the shoreline, citation of violators, and court


                                                          125









             action if necessary. Any fines collected for violations of the setback law or the
             SMA, or any damage awards would go into the Beach Enforcement Fund for future
             enforcement activities. Thus, the ftmd may, but need not be, self perpetuating.

                   Nevertheless, there is more to the problem of enforcement than just a lack
             of money to hire enforcement personnel and county corporation counsel. With
             regard to illegal seawalls and revetments, enforcement action is hampered by
             opposing factors. For example, enforcement action should be uniform. While
             agencies are given discretion in the enforcement of rules, they cannot patently
             abuse that discretion. The need for consistent enforcement is difficult when some
             homeowners may be in dire need of the protection offered by illegal seawalls and
             revetments to protect their property. Stiff penalties to remove illegal structures
             could be viewed by government agencies as harsh or draconian. Variances for
             hardship could be granted, but to date few counties have any policy that defines
             true hardship. Therefore, there is a tendency to grant a hardship variance whenever
             property is threatened by erosion.       Another alternative is to use the Beach
             Enforcement Fund to develop a program of fines and subsidies.

                   The Beach Enforcement Fund could provide a new way in which
             enforcement action is viewed and undertaken. For illegal seawalls and revetments,
             a carrot and stick approach could be developed. The stick would be in the form
             of fines, to encourage landowners to obtain the proper permits or remove the illegal
             structures. For the case where houses are so close to the shoreline that removal of
             a seawall would expose the residence to wave action, then low-level fines, rather
             than hardship variances should be considered. The amount of the low-level fine
             would be at the discretion of the administering agency, but some degree of
             uniformity in setting the fines should be achieved. For example, if the house is
             less than 10 feet from the seawall, a fine of $ 1,000 to $2,000 dollars per year could
             be imposed, rather than granting a hardship variance.      Revenues from low-level
             fines can be placed in the Beach Enforcement Fund. Money from the Fund can
             then be used to provide subsidies to help landowners convert illegal and legal
             vertical seawalls to bun'ed erosion control structures.        For many areas, the
             movement of vertical walls and other steep structures awqy from the tidal zone
             could lead to the temporaly recove!y of a lost beach.

                   Thus, the Beach Enforcement Fund provides a needed degree of flexibility.
             For unavoidable actions that affect the beach, low-level fines can provide financial
             support for programs that restore or preserve beaches at other locations.          For


                                                      126







                 flagrant violations of the shoreline setback or SMA law, the fines can be increased
                 to provide ample deterrence, financial support for enforcement activities and
                 subsidies for the seawall conversion program. In setting fines, factors that may be
                 considered include, but are not limited to: i) the distance of the residence from the
                 shoreline; ii) the need for the structure after considering historical erosion patterns
                 and oceanographic wave characteristics; iii) the potential impact of the illegal
                 activity on the adjacent shoreline; and iv) past dealings with the administrative
                 agency.

                     . The Beach Enforcement Fund should be viewed favorably by a majority o
                 beachfront homeowners on the island. Approximately 90% of the beachfront
                 homeowners are in compliance with the law (See Chapter 7 on taxes; an estimated
                 27% of the beachfront lots on Oahu have seawalls or revetments; about 41% are
                 illegal). As long as a homeowner is in compliance with the law, there would be
                 no threat of fines. In addition, the homeowner may be eligible for subsidies to
                 build buried erosion control structures, should their property be threatened by

                 erosion.


                        Beach enforcement funds could be established at the State or county level,
                 depending on the government agency that takes the lead in beach enforcement
                 activities. The advantage of enforcement at the county level is that the counties are
                 currently conducting enforcement activities for illegal structures. Therefore, State
                 enforcement proceedings may detract or duplicate county activities.                 The
                 disadvantage of county enforcement is that individual county concerns may be
                 given precedence over preservation of the State's beaches. One workable solution
                 would be to have the counties continue their enforcement work with some
                 monitoring by a State agency. The Office of State Planning, as lead agency for the
                 Coastal Zone Management Program, has the duty to monitor the activities of State
                 and county agencies to ensure that they adhere to the CZM objective and policies.
                 It is suggested that a new objective and policy be added to HRS-205A-2 that
                 specifically addresses the problem of beach loss and the preservation of sandy
                 shorelines.











                                                           127










                               IX. DIVISION OF STATE BEACHES


                  Numerous coastal states have established offices of beaches whose function
            is to administer beach management programs. For instance, in Delaware, the
            authority to enhance, preserve and protect public and private beaches is vested
            solely in the State Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
            The Department can construct and maintain groins, jetties, bulkheads, dunes,
            breakwaters and other facilities along any public beach or shoreline area in the
            State (7 Del. C. S 6803). In Florida, there is the Division of Beaches and Shores
            within the Department of Natural Resources that develops, maintains and
            administers the comprehensive long-term Beach Management Plan for the State
            (Fla. Stat. Ann. S 161.161).        In Rhode Island, it is the Department of
            Environmental Management that has the authority to devise and implement
            economical and effective methods for preventing beach erosion (R. I. Gen. Laws
            S 46-3-4).


                  Coastal studies in Hawaii have recommended the formation of an "Office of
            Beaches" (see, e.g., Oceanit, 1990). In 1991, House Bill 219 was to establish an
            Office of Beaches within the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Its
            purpose was to advocate protection, improvement, and creation of beaches, manage
            beach resources, and initiate public beach widening and regional beach stabilization
            projects. The Office would have facilitated the formation of beach districts and the
            use of sand replenishment. The Bill passed through the Water, Land Use and
            Hawaiian Affairs Committee, and through two readings in the House. However,
            the Bill died in the House Finance Committee.


                  As discussed in Chapter V, the formation of a Beach Management District
            requires active coordination and participation by a government agency. Efforts by
            other coastal States to form a Beach Management District without an active
            government role have been futile.

                  It is recommended that an agency be established within the State to
            administer a Beachfront Management Program, and actively promote, coordinate,
            and administer the formation of BMDs. The new agency could be set up as an
            Office, a Branch of a Division, or a Division of a Department. Alternatively, the
            Coastal Zone  Management Program, or a unit within the Department of Land and
            Natural Resources could be expanded and given new duties. It is not the purpose
            of this report to recommend the exact structure of the entity. Further study would


                                                    128








                be required (see Implementation Guidelines - Chapter XII). For the sole purpose
                of discussion, it is assumed that a Division of Beaches is formed. The reader
                should be aware that although the entily is referred to as a Division of Beaches,
                this is not a recommendation on its structure, organization or association.

                      Assuming a Division of State Beaches is adopted, the new Division would
                be required to develop and administer many of the programs proposed in this
                report. The Division of Beaches would have numerous duties, including the
                following:

                1) Pursue Federal Funding. There are two federal programs from which the
                Division should actively seek assistance. Under the Upton-Jones amendment of the
                National Flood Insurance Act, benefit payments from flood insurance coverage may
                be provided for certain homeowners threatened by erosion. If Hawaii were to
                qualify for such a program, the Division of Beaches could play an active role in
                helping landowners take advantage of this program. The Division could also
                pursue federal assistance under the River and Harbors Act to pay for small erosion
                control projects that benefit the public and private sectors (33 USCA S 426e-426g).
                Payments under this program could be used to help finance the capital
                improvements in a Beach Management District.

                2) Voluntary Relocation Program.       The Division could develop a voluntary
                relocation program whereby payments under the Upton-Jones amendment of the
                National Flood Insurance Act are combined with money from the State Beach Fund
                to provide homeowners an economic incentive to demolish or move their homes
                off erosion-prone beaches.

                3) Government Coordination. The Division would coordinate activities with
                federal, State and county agencies to mitigate erosion and manage the shoreline.
                Cooperation would be critical in the areas of funding and establishing Beach
                Management Districts.

                4) Shoreline Setback Regulation. If a shoreline setback rule was adopted as
                proposed in Chapter VIII, the new Division would need to develop rules regarding
                the technical requirements for determining the average annual erosion rate and the
                historical range in the position of the vegetation line. The rules should cover
                minimum technical standards as well as procedural matters that ensure proper due
                process to the applicant. The shoreline setback would apply to new development


                                                        129










            on land that has not been subdivided or zoned for urban use. The Division could
            work with landowners to determine the appropriate setback, either through previous
            studies or with the help of the landowner's consultants.

            5) Beach Fund Administration. The Division would establish guidelines for the
            collection, expenditure and accounting of monies in the State Beach Fund. The
            Division would also investigate the possibility of providing no-interest loans from
            the- Fund to homeowners for shoreline preservation projects.

            6) Legislative Funding. Specific requests for legislative appropriation may be
            necessary to maintain the State Beach Funds and to finance certain preservation
            projects. The Division would prepare such requests.

            7) Permitting Assistance.      The Division would work with the counties and
            landowners in permitting erosion-control options along the shore. For projects that
            require buried erosion control structures, the Division would ensure compliance
            with the National Historic Preservation Act and the State's historic preservation law
            (HRS - 6E). For projects that require activities on the beach or offshore, the
            Division would become the lead-agency in permitting. Where technical data is
            required that is not site specific, the Division could provide such inforination.

                   Where it is possible to consolidate and coordinate effort among permits,
            hearings, and applications for variances, the Division would strive to do so by
            interagency agreements. These agreements would be similar to those now in effect
            between the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of
            Transportation. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has established a
            process to get all government agencies involved during @'Ile issuance of their
            conservation district permits (Roger Evans, pers. comm., DLINR). Nevertheless, up
            to six permits may still be required by Federal and State law. The Division of
            State Beaches could help the applicant by developing, for each specific erosion
            control measure, a master application form which contains sufficient information
            for all affected agencies.. Copies of the completed application could then be sent
            to all affected agencies for fiirther evaluation. Such a strategy could significantly
            reduce the permitting time and costs for landowners. Through these streamlining
            measures, a new government agency and more regulation may not necessarily mean
            more bureaucracy for the landowner. Nevertheless, the goal of one window
            permitting is probably unlikely, since some of the governinent agencies have their
            own specific requirements. For example, the Department of Health Water Quality


                                                     130







                 Certification Permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act may require
                 monitoring of the water before, during or after a proposed activity.            This
                 requirement is unique to the DOH, and requires the applicant to coordinate the
                 monitoring with the Department.

                 8) Technical Assistance. Technical assistance on beach replenishment and other
                 erosion mitigation options needs to be provided to property owners and the
                 counties. The Division would provide such assistance either by in-house staff, or
                 with the use of a consultants.


                 9) Erosion Control Mitigation Design. The Division would actively explore all
                 practical and economic methods to control shore erosion. The Division would
                 design, or cause to be designed through outside help, specifications on erosion
                 control structures for homeowners, which are suitable under a defined range of
                 coastal parameters.

                 10) Disaster Plan. A disaster plan could be developed which would allow State
                 acquisition of coastal properties from those who wish to sell after a major storm,
                 tsunami, or hurricane.    The plan would also -develop post-storm emergency
                 measures to assist the counties and coastal landowners. This plan would have to
                 be coordinated with the emergency plans of the State Civil Defense Agency.

                 11) Rulemaking. The Division would establish rules and criteria to place priorities
                 on:


                       a) those shorelines which can-be effectively replenished with sand;

                       b) those shoreline sectors which would benefit fi7om the formation of
                              Beach Management Districts;

                       c) those shoreline sectors which should be acquired;

                 12) Scientific and Technological Research. The Division would help to coordinate
                 and initiate research related to the following:

                       a) a statewide inventory of onshore and offshore sand resources, including
                              economic and engineering feasibility studies of resource use.



                                                         131









                  b) a study of natural and human processes that have an impact on Hawaiian
                        beaches, such as storm frequency and coastal development trends.

                  c) a long-term   monitoring program of the State's shorelines in high-
                        resolution, repetitive field surveys and historical shoreline analyses.

                  d) the tracking of research concerning global sea-level rise, and the
                        continued   analysis and monitoring of local sea-level rise.

            13) Public Education. The Division would develop a program to educate the public
            on various aspects of shoreline erosion, coastal hazards and sea-level rise.

            14) Sand Replenishment. The Division should investigate the feasibility of a State
            beach renourishment program that operates all year on all the islands. Such a
            program would reduce the cost per cubic yard to renourish beaches. This program
            has been suggested by other coastal studies (Oceanit, 1990). .

            15) Administration. The Division would develop, implement and administer a
            comprehensive long-range beach management plan for the State of Hawaii.






















                                                   132








                                                X. CASE STUDIES

                       One goal of this study was to develop a menu of beach management options
                of which one or more of        the alternatives could apply for every mile of the
                shoreline. In order to test the ideas in this report, Kahala Beach and Ewa Beach
                have been chosen for case studies.         These sites represent a wide range of
                socioeconomic conditions. At Kahala, an attempt will be made to apply the
                improvement district concept to test the feasibility of a sand replenishment project.
                At Ewa Beach, the overlay district concept will be applied to test new programs
                that the county may wish to implement.          In order to show how the programs
                discussed in this report would work, it is assumed that a Division of Beaches has
                been formed.


                A. Ewa Beach


                       1. Location. Ewa Beach is located to the west of the entrance to Pearl
                Harbor (Fig. 35). The area of interest is bounded by Ewa Beach Park on the east
                and the rocky coastline near Muumuu Place to the west. This rocky coastline
                marks the western end of the littoral cell (Fig. 36). The area of interest spans a
                length of approximately 1.5 miles, The beachfront lots discussed in this section
                are covered by tax map keys 9-1-28, 9-1-25; 9-1-7; 9-1-6; 9-1-24; 9-1-23 and 9-1-
                5.
                       2. Zonin . The area of interest is designated as Urban on the State Land Use
                Commission Maps (Fig. 37). On the Oahu Development Plan, the area has been
                zoned for residential use (Fig. 38). Specifically, the residential areas are zoned R-5
                (Fig. 39). According to the Oahu Land-Use Ordinance, R-5 zoning has a minimum
                lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The area is also
                designated on the National Flood Insurance maps as AE and VE zones (Fig. 40).
                The west end of Ewa Beach is in the AE zone, which indicates the area is subject
                to coastal flooding. The east end of Ewa Beach is in the VE, zone which indicates
                that the area is subject to flooding and wave action.

                       3. Socioeconomic Setting. According to       census figures, over the last 20
                years, the Ewa region has experienced population growth at almost twice the rate
                of the rest of Oahu. In 1970, Ewa's population was 24,087 persons. During the
                1980's, the population increased to 38,324 persons, which is an increase of 59 per
                cent. By 1990 the population had increased to 42,983 persons, or another 12 per
                cent. New development projects in the area are expected to significantly add to the


                                                          133
















                                                                         lo

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       A
                                                                                         N     0      U .,.c-
                                                                            H.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            P!


                                                                                                                                                                                             F."
                                                                                                                                                                  A



                                                                                                                                                                   A  T 1    0   N                                                                     C K
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               T_
                                                                                                                      _OD                                                                                                                     Z
                                                                      Oahu                                                                                                                           Ell.ho                                / e       a M
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Point
                                                                                                                                                              %                                                                         @__F_ 0 R C
                                                   Pacific
                                                                                                                                            P     U      U     L     0                                                                                            tit,
                                                   Ocean                                                                                                                                                    p                                                    LIE
                                                                                                                      ?

                                                                                                                                                                                  A

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Point




                                                                                                                                                       0UULOA'-
                                                                                                                            C.  @`Itl'                                                    Keshl Point
                                                                                                          A,
                                                                                                                                                     -LE ... G1
                                                                                                                                             y
                                                                                      AA.


                                                                                                                p


                                                                                                                                       A
                                                                                                                    WA BEACH,
                                                                                                                Storm
                                                                                                                drain
                                                                                             Muumuu Fil.                                                                                                                                            A




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    All





                                                                 A
                                                                                                                                                        I AA-111.

                                                                                                                   C041OUR '"I -@,AL 1. 1`111
                                                                                                             0."'.  ONES ."RES'   ' TOOT C..'O"S
                                                                                                                               t
                                                                                                             NAI,ONAL GEODIVIC VE-T_-CAL OAT:Jk 1 1929                                                                          L       A
                                                               0--                               DEPIM CURVES ANO SOU.O.NGS IN IEEI -O.IUM S MEAN LOWER LOW                                                     M       A
                                                                                                                    ............ ..                                                                     A




                                     Figure 35. Ewa Beach Location,













                                                                              Z",






















                                                     lop,











                                                  laminae_?_


























               Figure 36. Ewa Beach - Boundaries of Area of Interest. TOP: Looking east from the west end
               of Ewa Beach. The west end of the Ewa littoral cell is bounded by an emergent limestone reef.
               BOTTOM: Looking west from the east end of Ewa Beach. This photo was taken near Ewa
               Beach Park. in general, the beach is wide and the houses are well set back.


                                                          135









                                    N          U                                                                   Is7
                          H                            ,'//I..     L   :-I
                                                                                      N @@ WAJ@-@,L
                                                                                      7


                                                                         A -W
                                                                             R  E!' @C't       A.- T_1 0 N

                                                                  N.    il




                                                                                   INI
                                                                             P    U ,U      L    0
                                                                                 FAA E-               'k




                          20-                                              ItIlS..VATIO.


                                                                                                         WO
                                                           jr

                                                                                      PLUEULOA
                                                                                    ;,.F
                                                                                                                  Koah.
                                                                                        RAkG*E@D@


                                                                        @9        E..



                                                          EWA BEACH,--*
                        Alo



                              6


                        "J                                                          0
















                  Figure 37. Hawaii Land Use District Map for Ewa.


                                                                     136














                                                                                                    .......................
                                                           P,
                                                                           A


                                                            ft E5



                                                                                                                                                                                                        G




                                                                           coh@
                                                              E"G Beo,                 Cat- C,00%
                                                                    3e
                                                                                                                                                                               10



                                                                                                  r
                                                                                                  'a"
                                                                                                    kr,%Gt.                                M I L I T A R Y
                                                                                 L  D,                              La
                                                                                           \em           PAaRlt, Ct'
                                        ec,
                                                                                                     Eo         ur,
                                                                                                                U
                                                                                                         COW
                                                                                          P F",
                                                                                                                             A@T.



                                                                                                                                                       7:.7'
                                                                                      5TW ,1      7               FIRP011"!
























                                   Figure 38. Oahu Development Plan Map for Ewa.


                                                                                                                       137



















             CD                          T                 CA







































                                                                       cc





                                                                       cl














                                                                                                        ZONE D

                                                                                                                      NAI@AL

                                                                                        GOVERNMENT
                                                                                        RESERVATION
                                                                                         ZONE D








                                                                           PACIFICTSUNAMI
                                                                         WARNING CENTER

                                                                             ZONE Q
                                                                                                                 '-Z )NE AE
                                                                                                                      1ELr)



                                          ZONE D



                                                                                              E.a Beach


                                                                                             ZONE VE
                                                                                               IEL 81



                                                                            W, 144

                              ZONE
                               A                                           SHORELINE





                                                       ZONE AE
                                                         IEL 8)
                                                                                                              NOTE:
                                                                                                     COASTAL BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS
                                                                                                      APPLY ONLY LANDWARD OF THE
                                           ZONE AE                                                    SHORELINE SHOWN ON THIS MAP.
                                             IEL 6)



                            t145




















                      Figure 40. Ewa Beach Flood Insurance Zoning.


                                                                          139









            population in Ewa. The Ewa Development Plan has targeted new growth in the
            region. By the year 2010, the population is expected to be between 119,940 to
            132,934. This is an increase of 77,000 to 90,000 people. With the increase in
            population will come an increased demand to use Ewa Beach.

                   At Ewa, approximately 50% of the jobs are related to the military. About
            39% of the jobs are actual military jobs. Another 19% of the jobs are service
            related. As the Ewa area grows in population, the number of jobs related to the
            military is expected to decrease.

                   In 1990, the median price for a owner-occupied home in the Ewa region was
            lower than in the rest of Oahu. It is unknown what will be the effect on Ewa
            house prices from new development projects, and the construction of some
            affordable units.


                   There is a wide range in the quality, maintenance, vintage and value of the
            beachfront homes in Ewa. Some of the homes are simple one-story units that are
            relatively old and poorly maintained. A few houses, most noticeably at the east
            end of the beach, are newer, with a more elaborate design and well-manicured
            yards.

                   4. Physical Setting. The study area is bounded by an emergent reef rock
            bench to the west and Ewa Beach Park to the east. Offshore, there is a shallow
            reef platform with water depths ranging from 3-6 feet. The width of the platforin
            is irregular, and ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. The shallow water over the reef
            limits the wave height acting on the beach.

                   The area is directly exposed to summer South Pacific swells, local Kona
            storm waves and infrequent hurricane generated waves. In addition, northeast
            tradewind waves may refract around Diamond Head, and winter North Pacific swell
            may refract around Barbers Point to hit the Ewa Beach area. Annual longshore
            direction suggests Southern Swell has the dominant influence on nearshore wave
            energy, but other wave types have the potential to erode Ewa Beach effectively.
            For more details on the characteristics of the different Hawaii wave types, the
            reader is referred to previous studies (see, e.g., Moberly & Chamberlain, 1964).

                   The sand at Ewa is generally medium to coarse grained, poorly sorted and
            predominantly calcareous (Moberly & Chamberlain, 1964). The beach at Ewa is


                                                    140







                narrow, and portions tend to have a steep profile, especially to the east near Ewa
                Beach Park.

                      Longshore sediment transport at the west end of Ewa appears to be towards
                the west. This is indicated by the erosion and accretion patterns adjacent to a
                drainage channel that extended perpendicular to the shoreline into the tidal zone.
                Historic aerial photographs show that this channel acted like a groin, causing
                accretion on the updrift side (towards the east), and erosion on the downdrift side
                (towards the west). Because of the influence of the drainage channel, the structure
                was removed from the tidal zone in 1985.


                      5. Historical Shoreline Chany-res. Although the beach at Ewa appears stable
                (Sea Engineering, 1988), many seawalls have been constructed, thus there is some
                question regarding the natural erosion or accretion trend on the beach. Homes
                along this reach were built close to the vegetation line and need the protection of
                seawalls during periods of high wave or storm activity. Instability along much of
                this reach may have been greater than normal during the 1958 to 1967 period.
                During this time, many of the nonconforming seawalls were constructed (Hwang,
                1981).

                      6. Beach Management Problems. By the year 2010, the population in the
                Ewa region may more than double. This will lead to an increased public demand
                to use Ewa Beach. While the demand to use the beach may increase, the actual
                size of the recreational beach may decrease.

                      Over the years, an ever greater percentage of the shoreline has been spanned
                by seawalls and revetments. Along the area of interest, there are 118 lots. Of
                these lots, there are 20 illegal structures, 56 nonconforming structures, 17 legal
                structures, and 25 lots with no seawalls or revetments. Nonconforming structures
                are those structures without a permit that were built before 1970. Illegal structures
                are those structures that were built after 1970 without a permit.

                      During high tide or high wave activity, the beach is sufficiently narrow that
                access may be blocked and recreational activity impacted by waves breaking
                against the seawalls. Along the west end of the area of interest, the beach in front
                of a span of seawalls is narrow (Fig. 41). Further to the west, one resident reported
                that the beach in front of his property had disappeared over the last 10 years (Fig.



                                                         141

















                                                                                                   .44

                                                                               @: - 01@
                                                                                                  4@
                                    i@@                                                        ei, Lan



                               IC,




              Figure 41. Ewa Beach - West End. Looking east from the west end of Ewa Beach.      The beach
              in front of this span of seawalls has narrowed and is preconditioned for loss. Care must be taken
              so that beach degradation or loss does not propagate to the east.
















                                                  NOW-







                                           MAW




              Figure 42. Ewa Beach - West End. Looking west from     the west end of Ewa Beach. Residents
              report that in the early 1970's, sections of this shoreline were covered with sand.


                                                          142








                 42). These problems may become more severe if sea-level rise were to continue or
                 accelerate.

    :A
                        The Department of Land Utilization of the City and County of Honolulu
                 evaluates -requests for variances from the shoreline setback law. Variances may be
                 requested for new seawalls or for after-the-fact permits for illegal seawalls. The
                 Department must decide whether to allow the continued proliferation of seawalls
                 and the fin-ther degradation of the beach. Alternatively, the Department could deny
                 such variances. Without the proper shore protection, many of the coastal properties
                 would be subject' to periodic wave inundation and periodic erosion.                The
                 Department turns to the Division of State Beaches for assistance.

                        7. Alternatives.


                        a. Sand Replenishment. A Division of Beaches would determine if sand
                 replenishment for the entire stretch of Ewa Beach is feasible. The Ewa Beach
                 littoral cell stretches over two miles in length. The east end of the littoral cell is
                 at Iroquois Point, and the west end at the emergent reef bench opposite Muumuu
                 Place. Such a long stretch may be prohibitively expensive to replenish with State
                 fimds. Most importantly, although the offshore reef at Ewa serves to block some
                 incoming wave energy, preliminary indications are that some offshore structures
                 would be needed to contain the replenished sand. This would considerably add to
                 the cost of a project to replenish the entire beach.

                        It may be possible to divide the littoral cell at Ewa. The City and County
                 storm drainage channel is one likely terminal point. A sand replenishment project
                 that spans the shoreline from the drainage channel to the west end of Ewa Beach
                 may be feasible. Since littoral drift near the storm drain, appears to be to the west,
                 an extension of the channel to act as a terminal groin should not affect the updrift
                 or east portion of the beach. In fact, before the City and County removed the
                 portion of the channel that 'extended into the tidal zone, there was a slight build up,
                 or accretion of sand, to the east of the channel.

                        Between the storm drain'and the area east of Muumuu Place, a sand fill
                 covering approximately 2,000 feet of the shoreline could be placed. Offshore
                 structures may still be needed to contain the artificial beach fill. The types, amount
                 and cost of offshore structures cannot be determined at this time, since it was
                 beyond the scope of this report to conduct coastal engineering studies at the


                                                          143









            particular site. Offshore structures, such as a series of detached breakwaters could
            be very expensive. Offshore breakwaters could cost thousands of dollars per linear
            foot. With further study, cheaper alternatives to reduce offshore wave energy may
            be found, thus allowing sand replenishment to proceed along this stretch.

                   Due to the potential need for offshore structures, a coastal engineering study
            would be required to develop the sand replenishment option at the west end of Ewa
            Beach. A proposed Division of State Beaches would have the option to hire a
            coastal engineer, or conduct the study in house. The study could be paid for by a
            contribution from a State Beach Fund. Because of the potential need for offshore
            structures at Ewa Beach, this report developed the replenishment option at Kahala
            Beach, where preliminary investigations indicate that no offshore structures would
            be needed.


                    b. Buried Structures. Sand replenishment at the west end of Ewa Beach
            does not address the issue of beach degradation versus shoreline protection for the
            remainder of the area. Clearly, other alternatives are needed for Ewa.

                   One alternative for the City and County would be to move illegal erosion
            control structures inland. By moving the structures inland, some protection is given
            the homeowner while the beach can assume a natural profile (Fig. 43). Just as
            seawalls in the tidal zone can make the beach narrow, the removal of these walls
            may allow the beach to reappear.

                   The City and County of Honolulu, Department of Land Utilization has had
            some success in requiring landowners to relocate erosion control structures. Along
            one section of south Lanikai Beach, homeowners had originally constructed
            seawalls and boulder piles that extended into the tidal zone. These structures
            resulted in the loss of beach and the blockage of public access. The City and
            County required the homeowners to remove the barriers and build gently sloping
            revetments solely on the landowner's properties. By removing the. barriers, the
            beach returned to a natural profile. Recreational use and public        access were
            restored.


                   This report recommends the use of buried structures such as revetments. The
            burial of the revetment removes the barrier away from the active swash zone. It
            should be cautioned, however, that the environmentally beneficial effects of the
            buried revetment may be temporary. During periods of erosion, the revetment may


                                                     144













                                                                                                                                                                                                        P     cr     -.,I
                                                                                                                                                                                                        -1    CD     - -
                                                     CD                                                                                                                                    CD    0                   (FQ
                                                     CD
                                                            CD
                                                                                                                                                                                           CO    CD     CD           CD
                                                                                                                                                                                           0                  En



                                                     cr     0                                                                                                                                                 0      CD
                                                            J=                                                                                                                                   CO)                 p
                                                            CD                                                                                                                             (n    :3     CD

                                                            In                                                                                                                                                CL                                                v.;';
                                                     C)                                                                                                                                    CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                 0            w
                                                     0

                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              In
                                                                                                                                                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                                                                           cz
                                                     (7-    (D
                                                                                                                                                                                                 u.                  tz
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         4.1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                        P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ?. ". ';@F-
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                     Cr     C)                                                                                                                                                                                    317
                                                                                                                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              0
                                                                                                                                                                                                 CD     "0
                                                     FD

                                                                                                                                                                                                 CD                  (D
                                                            Ln                                                                                                                                                CD
                                                     CD     (P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD


                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                        C)
                                                            tTj                                                                                                                                                   r  0
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD



                                                            CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cr
                                                                                                                                                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                 CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                 C)                  cr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                            CD                                                                                                                                   0                   CD
                                                            0                                                                                                                                           CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                 C)
                                                            0                                                                                                                                           CD    @3'    C@.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              CD     CD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     C'D



                                                            CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              co
                                                            w                                                                                                                                    CD                  (n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .jI.K I
                                                                                                                                                                                                        CD           CD
                                                            CD                                                                                                                                                P      4)                  ... .                         , *

                                                                                                                                                                                                              o
                                                            CD

                                                               v                                                                                                                                        IN    CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                        CD    CD








              become uncovered and affect nearshore sediment transport. Nevertheless,, the
              gently sloping buried revetment can be used in conjunction with sand replenishment
              to provide long-term protection to the landowner while helping to preserve the
              recreational beach. If a sand replenishment project were to materialize for the west
              end of Ewa, the existence of the buried revetment would not interfere with the
              artificial beach fill.


                     One disadvantage of the buried revetment is the amount of space it takes up
              along the shoreline due to the gentle slope and multiple layers.               For many
              properties at Ewa Beach, the buried revetment would not be feasible because of the
              lack of space between the houses and stabilized shoreline (Fig. 44). Some of the
              properties are less than ten feet from the seawall. On the other hand, there are
              some homes where the setback is up to 60 feet.

                     Another problem with buried revetinents is the cost. A buried revetment may
              cost up to $400-$500 per linear foot depending on the specific design (DHM inc.,
              1990). For an average lot at Ewa Beach with a width of 60 feet, the cost of the
              buried revetment would range from $24,000 to $30,000. Some of this cost could
              be substantially reduced if individual landowners were to cooperate by building the
              buried revetment together.

                     In order to deal with the illegal vertical seawalls at Ewa, a program can be
              developed whereby vertical seawalls are converted to buried erosion control
              structures.    For instance, the county could create an overlay district that
              encompasses all of Ewa Beach. Within the overlay district, the only structures that
                                                                7
              would be allowed would be buried structures. Specifications can be designed on
              the types of buried structures that would be suitable, given the typical beach profile
              and wave regime in the district. The county could then coordinate the activities of
              adjacent homeowners so that structures are built according to the district design.


               . 7   The Department of Land Utilization has      received shoreline -setback variance
              applications for the use of buried gravel berms. By increasing the berm height, the
              potential for flooding or wave inundation of the property is reduced. In addition,
              there would be no wave reflection off the buried berm, leading to the narrowing
              or loss of the beach. Care must be taken, however, that if the gravel berm is
              exposed, the individual stones are not moved by wave action and spread along the
              beach.



                                                         146








                        The county could set fines for homeowners who have illegal vertical
                 seawalls. The fine may be based on many factors, including the degree of the
                 violation, the potential impact on the adjacent beach, the value of the properties,
                 the distance of the house from the seawall, or the need for shoreline protection (see
                 Chapter VIII on enforcement). Although, the county agency has some discretion
                 in setting the fines, some degree of uniformity should be strived for. Therefore,
                 the county may wish to develop a formula that relates these factors with the
                 amount of the fine.


                        For residences that are so close to the shoreline that removal of an illegal
                 seawall could threaten the house, low-level fines of $1,00042,000 per year should
                 be considered instead of hardship variances. Money from the fines could go into
                 the Beach Enforcement Fund administered by the county. The Enforcement Fund
                 could then be used to provide subsidies to those landowners who convert illegal
                 vertical seawalls to buried erosion control structures. The subsidy could have
                 maximum limits, such as $7,500, or 20% of the cost of the. revetment, whichever
                 is less. For those landowners who have legal or nonconforming seawalls, no fines
                 would be imposed. However, some of these homeowners may be eligible for the
                 subsidy if they remove their vertical seawall, or convert the wall to a buried erosion
                 control structure. The county could investigate the possibility of varying the
                 amount of the subsidy depending if the vertical seawall removed is illegal,
                 nonconforming, or legal.

                        The county would work with the Division of State Beaches in at least two
                 ways. First, the Division could help the county develop specifications for buried
                 erosion control structures, such as a revetment or gravel berm. The guidelines
                 would consider the local wave conditions, the type and depth of the substrate, the
                 minimum lot size, and the procedure for the placement of the structures. Second,
                 if the county Enforcement Fund was depleted, the Division could provide, through
                 the.Stiie Beach Fund, subsidies to convert vertical seawalls to buried erosion
                 control structures. The coordination between the State and county in providing
                 subsidies for conversion would need to be worked out by the proposed Division.

                        c. Relocat'on or Removal. A few houses at Ewa Beach are less than ten feet
                 from the edge of a seawall. For these homes, there is simply no room to build a
                 buried erosion-control structures. Many of these homes have a very narrow beach


                                                          147









            in front of their properties. In the event of continued sea-level rise, the risk from
            coastal flooding and wave damage may eventually become intolerable.

                  If any of these homes are damaged by a storm and or by flooding, the State
            could offer to purchase the homeowners land with monies from the State Beach
            Fund. Monies from the Fund could be used to remove damaged buildings, tear
            down existing seawalls, build flank erosion protection for adjacent properties, and
            cover the lots with coastal vegetation such as naupaka or hinahina.

                  Some homeowners at Ewa Beach may be covered by National Flood
            Insurance. If homeowners were to qualify under the Upton-Jones amendment, they
            may become eligible for advance insurance payments before there is actual
            damage to the property. The payments could be used to demolish the structure, or
            relocate it, if there is sufficient space on the lots. When the insurance payment is
            combined with a State contribution to purchase the land, significant economic
            incentive is created for landowners to escape potential problems with erosion. In
            addition, the public may benefit if the beach were to be recovered.


            B. Kahala Beach.


                  1. Location. The beach at Kahala is located along the southern shore of
            Oahu, between Kupikipikio Point (Black Point) on the southwest and Waialae
            Beach Park to the northeast (Fig. 45). This distance is approximately 6,500 feet.
            However, the area of interest for this report is the southwest portion of Kahala
            where a recreational beach has been lost (Fig. 3).          This is a distance of
            approximately 2,250 to 2,500 feet. This area is covered by tax map keys 3-5-2;
            3-5-3; and 3-5-4.

                  2. Zoning. The Kahala area is designated as Urban on the State Land Use
            District Map (Fig. 46).     The area is zoned for residential use on the Oahu
            Development Map (Fig. 47). The homes in Kahala are zoned R-5 and R-7.5 (Fig.
            .48). The R-5 zoning requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet and a
            minimum lot width of 50 feet for a single family detached dwelling. The R-7.5
            zone requires minimum lot areas of 7,500 square feet and minimum lot widths of
            65 feet. On the National Flood Insurance maps, Kahala beachfront homes are in
            the A zone, which indicates there is a threat from coastal flooding (Fig.49).

                  3. Social Seqin&. The backshore of Kahala is developed with high priced


                                                     148



















                                                                  j
                                                                                                                                                       w
                                                                                                                                       wr
                                              j                Ll

                                                                J

                                                                                                 A,
                                                                                                                                                          W_
                                                                                                 Q
                                                    4,
                                                                                                             a     11-1.
                                                                                                                                                        C-um Ck&
                                                                                                                         A Alle
                                                                                                                      F
                                                                   4                                                                                      (F4 .1.
                                                                                                                                       COU4f'-





                                                                                                                               IV
                                                                                                                  Pi
                                                                                                                                       t?
                                                                                       4t.f
                                                              4_1
                                                                                           A.


                                                                                         A.
                                               bi&fiond He                                               9
                                                              -ad I



                                                                  C'l'-
                                                              llei


                                                                                                     Kuoiklpik@ Pt
                                               "oh-




                                                                                                                                                    Oahu


                                                                                                                                Pacifi
                                                                                                                                Ocean







                                                                                             0      1@ @V                  _Xl                        'Er,
                                                           0

                                                              I                                        CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 kELT
                                                                                                 DOTTED LINES PEPPESr I  ' F11,11 CONTOUPS
                                                                                                         DATUM ;S MEAZ SEA LEILL
                                                      APPROXIMAT MEAN                DIE--- C PVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET_      IS
                                                       DECLINATION IWI










                                      Figure 45. Kahala Beach Location.



                                                                                                             149










                                                                                   14_1


                                                                                                        ina
                                                                                             Wa
                                                                                                  Ri        p a tet                                0
                                 Wearl


                                                                                                                                                     ef.
                             S,


                                                            .4,
                                                                                                                           WiLvn



                                                                                                                                                   tK, or
                                                                                                                                                           ore          1 All

                                                  h



                                                                                               S@h
                                                                                                                                                -Cf-





                                                  r4"p
                                                                                                                                    K.,ft                           COUPSE

                                                                                                                tval-op Ar.
                                                                                                              a Im kol
                                                                 ort
                                                               Rugvr

                                                                                                                                                                 AL- PARK
                                                                                                                                      4a     a@
                                                                                                       7






                                                                                                                           @C
                                                                     ne.


                                                                                                                                                                         37
                          i@cfm_ o n Cl H e a'd'                                                    _j

                                                                                               80
                                                                                                                           12
                                                                    KaalaWai             XJ LIT A Kv
                                               e
                                                                                                                b
                                                                                       3


                               4'j
                                                                                                        KLrpikipskio Pt                                               8












                      Figure 46. Hawaii Land Use District Map for Kahala.


                                                                                               150
















                                                                                                                         G.C.



                                                                                                    School
                                                                                                     P F
                                                              0                                           PARK
                                                                                                       Kohola
                                                                                                            ield
                                                                                                                                                       Beach
                                                                                                                                                       Park





                                                                           PF




                                                                                                              P
                                                                                                             unakai
                                                                                                                  r
                                                 Kai muki       Kilau
                                                    Inter. PF
                                 F                     School




                                                        PF









                                                                               PF



                                          0                                   F


                                        200                                                 .......













                         Figure 47. Oahu Development Plan Map for Kahala.

                                                                                            151












                                                                                                                       P, 2
                                                    YX -,



                                   Nk










                       P-2







                             17
                                      R-10

























                 Figure 48. Oahu Zoning Map for Kahala.


                                                                             152























                                                                                        f



                                                           ZONE X
                                                                                             ELEPATO
                                                                                             STREET
                                                                                        R M 1 19)V"





                                                                                                               SHORELINE

                                                       RM 118,;x

                                                                                  -C,
                                                                                                                ZONE A




                                                        MAN^ AS
                                                        KACE
                                                                           m  100,


                                                               KULAMANU
                                                                 PLACC
                                                     ZONE AE                                                 NOTE:
                                                        (EL 6)                              COASTAL BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS
                                                                                              APPLY ONLY LANDWARD OF THE
                                                                                              SHORELINE SHOWN ON THIS MAP.







                                     PA C             ITI C 0 CEA N









                      Figure 49. Kahala Beach Flood Insurance Zoning.


                                                                                153









            single-family dwellings. A recent article in the Honolulu Advertiser, March 16,
            1992, reports that at Kahala, a six bedroom, seven bath shorefront house with two
            adjoining vacant lots was listed at $23.5 million. A six bedroom, seven bath house
            away from the beach - though not listed - was reported to have a price of $8.9
            million.


                   Although Kahala Beach has the stigma of being exclusive, the beach is not
            significantly different in terms of public access, or parking to any other beach lined
            with private homes. At or adjacent to the area of interest, there are three public
            access-ways. Thus, the requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 115,
            regarding public access to the shoreline, are met. For many residents of Honolulu,
            Kahala Beach provides an alternative to the use of Ala Moana Beach Park and
            Waikiki. It is the only beach easily available to Honolulu residents between Ala
            Moana and Sandy Beach Park (Sea Engineering, 1991). The beach at Kahala is
            used for diving, pole fishing, snorkeling, board surfing, swimming and sun bathing.

                   4. Beach RecoveKy. There are a number of littoral physiographic features at
            Kahala that would promote a successful beach restoration project. These include
            distinct littoral cell termination points, predictable. wave climate and sediment
            transport patterns, a proximal sand source, and a natural containment basin. A sand
            replenishment project at west Kahala could provide the public with renewed
            recreational and environmental benefits at a low cost and with relatively few
            associated sand containment structures.


                   The wave climate at west Kahala Beach is seasonal with low, long-peniod
            southern ocean swell dominating between April and October.              These waves
            typically range between I to 4 ft and 14 to 22 seconds, although higher waves
            approaching 6 ft are not uncommon. When northeast tradewinds weaken and Kona
            storms develop, high waves and strong winds from the southwestern quadrant may
            occur at the Kahala coast. Kona storm waves may approach during the winter
            months with heights of 10 to 15 ft and periods of 8 to 10 seconds. The majority
            of wave energy is dissipated on the seaward reef crest at Kahala. The reef is
            consistently shallow in the longshore direction, making it an effective energy
            bamier for the adjacent beach.       Field observations during a period of strong
            southern swell ranging from 6 to 8 ft. and averaging 15 to 18 seconds at the reef
            crest, revealed that wave conditions behind the reef vary over a tidal cycle (Fig.
            50). At low tide, portions of the back-reef flat are exposed, and wave energy on
            the beach is negligible. At high tide, wave transformation in the back-reef basin


                                                     154
















                                                     J




















                                    A

























                 Figure 50. Kahala Beach.    TOP:   At lo@@, tide portions of the reef flat are exposed, the waterline
                 is well seaward of the base of existing stabilization structures, and the wave energy is negligible
                 t ide the  reef crest.  BOTTOW At high tide on the same dav the waterline has ri
                                                           1,  _-,I
                 ns)                                                                               I         isen to a
                 position well above the base of the seawall and wave enerov has increased significantly. Strong
                 southern swell on this day generated breakim, %@-ave he[ghts in excess of 6 ft. on the reef crest.


                                                                 15S









              leads to short period 3 to 6 second waves with heights of I to 2 feet. In many
              cases, these secondary waves break directly on the seawalls at Kahala and produce
              splash heights off the seawalls in excess of 10 ft. These waves appear to have
              significant erosion potential.

                     Both southern swell and Kona storm waves approach from the south to
              southwestern quadrant and generate a northeasterly longshore current at Kahala.
              This current strengthens to the northeast as it approaches a distinct channel in the
              reef slightly northeast of Hunakal St (Fig. 51). The reef channel is the primary
              feature allowing return flow to the offshore region. Currents in this channel were
              observed to exceed speeds of 3 ft/sec. at peak ebbing tide during high wave
              conditions. The littoral circulation pattern at west Kahala is driven by wave energy
              flux across the reef crest and return flow through the reef channel.

                     Marine sand resource investigations (Coulbourn et al., 1988) identify
              substantial sand deposits offshore of the base of the west Kahala reef. Sampling of
              deposits at a depth of 25 ft at the mouth of the reef channel show these to be
              well-sorted, coarse to very coarse carbonate sands of good color. In the original
              investigations of Moberly and Chamberlain (1964), sand samples from the berm at
              Kahala beach measured in the medium to coarse sand range, samples from the
              beachface at sea level measured in the upper coarse sand range, and samples from
              immediately offshore of the beach ranged from fine sand to very coarse sand.
              While further investigations are needed such as described in Chapter VI, at a
              preliminary level it appears that a potential sand resource for nourishing west
              Kahala beach may be found immediately offshore of the adjacent reef. These sand
              fields are not tied to the littoral sands of the Kahala shoreline so that their removal
              by mining will not effect onshore sand bodies. The marine sand can be most
              effectively mined by a submersible pump dredge and pumped directly onshore by
              pipeline. The fill should be desilted by a dewatening cyclone (Noda, 1991) at the
              discharge end of the pipeline, and the cyclone slurry pumped offshore following
              careful study of optimal dispersion pathways and currents.

                     The geometry of the fill should approximate the original 1:7 slope of the
              beach at west Kahala prior to its loss (Moberly and Chamberlain, 1964). A project
              length of approximately 2,400 ft is suggested, or from the east side of Kupikipikio
              Pt. where it-meets Kahala beach to the shoreline nodal point adjacent to Ulili St
              (Fig. 52). The design subaenial beach (honizontal) is 100 ft wide to the berm crest,
              with a 1:7 offshore slope beyond this point. The fill berm height is 6 ft above msl


                                                        156










                                                                                                                   <S





                                                                                                      xR
               8 m




                                                                                       31





                                               e


            J<upikipik'                         t








                  Figure 51. Circulation Pattern. The littoral circulation pattern inside the reef at west Kahala is
                  driven by wave energy flux across the reef crest and strong, channeled return flow through the
                  break in the reef adjacent to Hunakai St.       Circulation strengthens to the northeast and
                  approaching high fide.


                                                               157


















                6 M




                                                                                                    30


                                                OS

                           ro

                                   25                                                                               k.
            'Kupikipiki@o Rt









           Figure 52. Kahala Beach Nourishment Project. Aspects of the nourishment project including fill
           geometry, and terminal groin placement.


                                                       158








                 at. 100 ft from the present stabilized shoreline.. Subaerial fill thickness is a total of
                 9 ft which includes a basal thickness-of 3 ft Of fill to present msll,'and an additional
                 6 ft to reconstruct the subaerial beach to the former berm height. The total
                 subaerial fill volume is 80,000 cu yd (9 ft x 100 ft x 2400 ft). Offshore of the
                 berm, the fill is calculated as a triangle with a slope of 1:7, giving a volume of
                 25,200 cu yd. This approximates the original beachface planform and geometry in
                 terms of berm height, run-up distance, and waterline position.

                        These calculations provide an approximate maximum total fill volume of
                 105,200 cu. yd. Moberly and Chamberlain (1964) measured the sand.volumie at
                 Kahala. The total offshore and onshore volume was calculated at about 45,000 cu
                 yd. This is a useful minimum total fill volume. Noda (1991) estimates a cost of
                 $12.50/cu yd for marine sands close to the Waikiki project site. As mentioned
                 previously, there is good potential for quality nearshore sands makai of the reef
                 crest at Kahala Beach. Using technology similar to what would be employed at
                 Waikiki, a $12.50/cu. yd. cost appears to be a reasonable estimate for nearshore
                 sand. Based on these figures, the sand fill at west Kahala would cost between
                 $562,500 (min.) and $1,315,000 (max.). Variables influencing this cost include the
                 lack of technological infrastructure in the State for conducting a nourishment
                 project, questions regarding the actual fill volume needed, the overfill factor, and
                 the. quality and availability of the sand resource at Kahala. Presumably, costs will
                 decrease if the Waikiki restoration project develops the technological infrastructure
                 that can be used on Kahala Beach. For example, one option at Waikiki that is
                 receiving favor is to use a hydrocyclone to dewater and desilt nearshore sand and
                 pump it on the beach by a pipeline. If the State were to develop this technology
                 and purchase this equipment for the Waikiki project, then any suitable nearshore
                 sand that is identified at Kahala could be placed on the beach with a signifi        cant
                 reduction in cost.


                        Some structural activities are needed in association with sand replenislunent.
                 Prior to fill placement, as many as possible of the existing vertical seawalls and
                 steep revetments at Kahala should be removed. If they stay in place, they may
                 eventually begin to interact with the wave environment and cause excessive erosion
                 if there is a storm or hurricane. Once existing structures are removed, the upland
                 should be graded at a 1:3 slope (or less) to the level of the fill. The graded slope
                 should be landscaped with rapid and thick-growing vegetation, and landowners
                 prevented from any construction other than inland of the certified shoreline.
                 Although it is preferable to avoid the use of any shoreline stabilization structures,


                                                            159









           property owners may be permitted to construct buried 13 revetments such that the
           seaward toe of the structure is located on their'property, and t1fe revetment extends
           landward across private land. The revetment should. be buried at all times, and
           should be reburied if -there is erosion that uncovers the structure.


                  The possibility of installing a low, terminal weir groin at the northeast end
           of the fill should be investigated. Such a structure may extend the life of the
           project, and decrease the frequency of renourishment by stabilizing the end of the
           fill and decreasing the sand loss to longshore drift. Since there is presently no sand
           on the. west Kahala coast, a terminal groin could not interfere with normal sand
           flux to the northeast. Care must be taken, however, not to extend the groin too far
           beyond the waterline as some leakage of sand into the littoral system should be
           encouraged to help maintain the beach to the northeast.          Studies should also
           determine the optimal orientation of the groin, and the benefits derived from
           curving the tip to the southwest to provide additional stability. The groin should
           be low enough that the onshore portion is buried by the fill, and that the offshore
           portion does not present a safety hazard.

                  As calculated in Chapter VI, the Bruun Rule estimates for Oahu suggest that,
           under current rates of sea-level rise, the nourishment project will experience
           recession of 4.6 ft/dec; for projected rates of sea-level rise next century, recession
           may occur at 18 ft/dec.         Under present sea-level rise the renourishment
           requirements for the southwest end of Kahala will be about 1073 cu yd/yr, which
           equals an expense of $13,415 averaged annually. This recession rate and the
           attendant expenses are based on sand losses due to sea-level rise only. Storms and
           high wave events will inevitably accelerate the recession rate and increase the costs.
           The average annual costs for renounishment due to sea-level rise will fall
           somewhere between $13,415 (present sea-level rise rate) and $52,703 (projected
           future sea-level rise rate). Thus, escalating costs for maintaining the beach should
           be expected in connection with the potential for accelerating sea-level rise in
           coming decades. In addition, these costs should be increased by an unknown factor
           to compensate for storm and high wave erosion.

                  A number of considerations should be addressed prior to implementation of
           the west Kahala beach nourishment project. These are:

           a. Careful sampling of the offshore sand source at Kahala to determine fill volume,
           grain settling velocity characteristics, sorting and silt content, and cementation.


                                                    160








                  b. Modeling of the equilibrium beach profile under the seasonal wave climate using
                  native grain characteristics, and also with the characteristics of the potential fill
                  sand from offshore.


                  c. Determination of historical storm frequency and magnitude at west Kahala, and
                  estimates of the impact of storrn events on renourishment needs and scheduling.

                  d. Monthly profile surveys of the existing beach at east Kahala to determine annual
                  beach volume changes and their causes and littoral transport patterns.

                  e. Consideration should   be  given  to the potential for water  column siltation'and'
                  associated impacts to the adjacent reef community.

                        Finally, it is of critical importance to the success of both this and all other
                  nourishment projects in the State that the fill be regularly, frequently, and precisely
                  monitored over the long-term in order to fully assess the factors governing stability,
                  economic viability, and response to sea-level rise and wave parameters. The State
                  needs to build an empirical database to make accurate predictions on fill life and
                  performance. In addition, the science of predicting beach response to sea-level rise
                  presently lacks a high-precision, long-term database for developing more sound
                  numerical models based on oceanographic conditions. Monitoring must consist of
                  a detailed onshore and offshore component, an accurate description of wave
                  climate, and regular calculations of beach volume and surface area changes with
                  corresponding data on the hydrodynamic and meteorologic field.

                        5. District Formation. In order to recover the beach at Kahala through sand
                  replenishment, a Beach Management District would need to be formed using
                  overlay and improvement district concepts. The exact boundaries of the district
                  could be determined. at a later date, when additional coastal studies define the
                  terminal boundaries of the artificial beach fill. The approximate district boundaries
                  would be at the intersection of Kahala Beach with Kupikipikio Point and the nodal
                  point at Kahala Beach opposite Ulili St. The northeast part of the Kahala Beach
                  Management District would be a zone that marks the transition from the artificial
                  beach to the southwest with the natural beach to the northeast.

                        The district is expected to cover a distance between 2,200-2,400 feet. There
                  are approximately 25-27 lots along this stretch. The exact number of lots can be
                  determined after the terminal points of the beach fill are calculated. Data from the


                                                            161










           Department of Land Utilization (DLU) indicates that of the lots along this stretch,
           approximately 281/o-. have legal seawalls and revetments, 32% of the'structures are
           nonconforming, and 40% are illegal. Depending on the legal status of the erosion
           control structure, there may be different opportunities and constraints regarding
           district formation, fines, and the removal of the structures (Table 8).

                  If a sand replenishment project were to materialize at Kahala, one of the first
           steps of the DLU would be to initiate the formation of an overlay district. In the
           district, landowners would be required to remove illegal vertical walls and steep'
           revetments..- A.-fine could be placed on illegal structures, -with the monies going
           into a county enforcement ftind. The fine should be based on numerous             factors
           such as the degree of the violation or the impact on the beach. An additional factor
           that should be considered in setting the fine is that the area is being prepared for
           a sand replenishment project. The presence of the illegal vertical seawalls could
           result in the seaward transport of artificial sand.

                  Substitute erosion control structures such as buried revetments may be
           allowed for homeowners that remove their seawalls. By converting the vertical
           walls to buried structures, the shoreline is prepared for sand replenishment at a later
           date. As in the example for Ewa, subsidies from the County Enforcement Fund,
           or the State Beach Fund could be provided to help in the conversion.

                  For legal or nonconforming seawalls, there is no mechanism to require
           homeowners to remove the vertical walls. However, for nonconforming structures,
           it may be possible to phase out the use of the nonconformity with a retirement or
           amortization schedule. This process could take many years, and may delay the
           formation of a district.


                  Incentive to remove legal and nonconforming vertical seawalls and convert
           to buried structures is provided in several ways. First, subsidies could help
           landowners make the conversion.          The administering agency could consider
           granting a larger subsidy for legal and nonconforming structures as compared to the
           subsidy for illegal structures. Besides economic incentive, there is another reason
           for landowners to convert. Many of the vertical walls along the beach could be
           undermined (Fig. 53). As sea-level continues to rise, collapse of the walls may
           become more common. The effect of a water level rise on the gently sloping beach
           at Kahala has been shown previously (Fig. 50). From the perspective of long-term
           property protection, the landowner may have more protection with a gently sloping


                                                      162








                                          Table 8 - Legal Status of Erosion Control Structures.

                          Legal Status           Fines                        Removal                           Forced Compliance
                                                                                                                (BMD)

                          Illegal                Fines can be imposed.        Any illegal structures in         Must comply with
                                                 HRS 205A-32                  the shoreline setback area        overlay regulations
                                                 provides for a one-          without a variance can be         regardless of legal
                                                 time fine of up to           removed (HRS 205A-                status.
                                                 $10,000, and/or a            43.6).
                                                 $1,000 per day fine
                                                 for SMA or Shoreline
                                                 -Setback violations.

                          Nonconforming          No Fines                     No immediate removal.             If the majonity of
                                                                              Structures can be phased          landowners consent to
                                                                              out according to an               the formation of an
                                                                              amortization schedule for         improvement district,
                                                                              commercial, industrial,           then the holdouts can
                                                                              resort, and apartment             be forced to comply.
                                                                              zoned areas. No                   This is usually enforced
                                                                              amortization for existing         by placing a lien on the
                                                                              single family buildings or        holdout's property.
                                                                              premises (HRS .464). It
                                                                              is unclear if a seawall is        No regulation was
                                                                              part of a building or             encountered that forced
                                                                              premise. Other coastal            compliance as a penalty
                                                                              states have amortization          for illegal activity. It
                                                                              schedules for the removal         appears that
                                                                              of seawalls.                      compliance may be
                                                                                                                obtained indirectly.
                                                                                                                (See next section on
                                                                                                                landowner cooperation).


                          Legal                  No Fines                     No immediate removal.             No forced compliance
                                                                              However, new rules can            to sign an indemnity
                                                                              be passed that make legal         agreement regardless of
                                                                              structures nonconforming.         legal status. An
                                                                                                                indemnity agreement is
                                                                                                                a contract that requires
                                                                                                                volitional consent of the
                                                                                                                parties for proper
                                                                                                                formation.


                       buried revetment that has a well maintained artificial beach in front. Finally, a
                       restored beach at Kahala would enhance recreational opportunities and improve


                                                                                 163



















                                           Aim&

                                                             -Ape



















































                                                                            160-








             Figure 53. Seawalls at Kahala. TOP: During low tide, the effects of wave attack can be seen
             at the base of seawalls. BOTTOM: At the northeast end of the area of interest, this seawall
             collapsed due to the undermining of the base by wave action.


                                                         164








                 scenic views, thus adding to    the value of the coastal property. These benefits
                 would need to be conveyed to the landowners.

                        The possibility exists that a number of vertical seawalls along the stretch of
                 Kahala Beach cannot be removed. One solution would be to form the district only
                 for those sections of the shoreline where the seawalls are removed. Alternatively,
                 the project could proceed with some offshore barrier that reduces wave energy
                 before it reaches the vertical seawalls. This would add cost to the overall project,
                 and require fin-ther coastal study. In addition, while the nonconsenting landowners
                                                                                           to pay for
                 may   legally refuse @ to remove their seawalls, they may not refusd'
                 improvements that benefit their property. Therefore, the landowners actions -would
                 increase their cost in the project as well.

                        6. Landowner Cooperation. In order to finance a sand replenishment project,
                 an improvement district would need to be formed. The improvement district would
                 require the consent of a certain percentage of the shoreline property owners.

                        The presence of illegal shoreline structures may provide some opportunity
                 for the State to procure landowner consent to join an improvement district. In a
                 survey of coastal statutes for different states, no provision was found that forced
                 cooperation in an improvement district as a penalty for illegal activities along the
                 coast. Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain landowner consent indirectly. For
                 example, the counties may force the removal of illegal vertical seawalls (HRS
                 205A-43.6). The types of erosion control measures along the shoreline to those
                 that require the implementation of a district. Thus, incentive can be created for the
                 landowner to join the district in order to mitigate erosion of their property.      In
                 addition, the State has the power to fine illegal activities (HRS 205A-32). Fines
                 for the illegal activity can be used to pay f6r the improvements in a Beach
                 Management District.

                        It would be the Division of State Beaches that develops rules and criteria for
                 the formation of a Beach Improvement District. One set of rules would deal with
                 the level of landowner cooperation to form an-improvement district. This report
                 suggested setting the initial level at 80% to reduce the problem with nonconsenting
                 landowners  '(the Oahu improvement district ordinance requires a 60% level of
                 cooperation). Where liability may be high, 100% landowner cooperation may be
                 required. The Kahala sand replenishment project would not be considered high risk
                 since the properties are likely to have some structural barrier, such as a buried


                                                          165










            revetment, behind the artificial beach fill. If the beach were to disappear, the
            barriers could provide emergency protection.

                   If 80% of the landowners do not approve of the improvement project, then
            the Kahala replenishment project would be rejected by the Division of State
            Beaches. Assuming 80% of the landowners approve of the project, this analysis
            will proceed.

                   7. Cost Allocation. As discussed in section 4 on beach recovery, thecost to
            replenish the west end of Kahala Beach will range from $562,500 to $1,515,000
            depending on the actual size of the beach fill. This cost would be shared, in
            different amounts, by the State, the county, the landowners and possibly the Federal
            government.

                   a. Federal. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, Federal assistance is available
            for small erosion control projects that benefit the public and the private sector. The
            amount of the Federal assistance is to be adjusted depending on the degree of
            public benefit. The contribution is not to exceed one-half of the total cost of the
            project. Thus, there is the requirement that the State or local government provide
            matching funds.

                   Assuming Hawaii was eligible for such benefits by establishing a funding
            mechanism similar to that discussed in this report, then the Division of Beaches
            would actively seek such assistance for all replenishment projects. For discussion,
            it is assumed that the Division of State Beaches has petitioned the Secretary of the
            Arrny for Federal assistance and was able to procure a contribution of $250,000.

                   b. Landowner. For the improvement district, landowners are also assessed a
            portion of the cost. The landowner assessment ranges, as suggested in this study,
            between 30% to 45% of the cost, depending on the amount of public benefit. For
            this section of Kahala, the landowners are assessed 45% of the total cost. The
            landowner assessment could have been lower if there was better public parking.
            The assessment could have been as-low as 30% if the project site was adjacent to
            a pubic beach park.

                   The landowners cost is adjusted for any Federal contribution.           In this
            example, the landowners at Kahala must pay 45% of $312,500 to $1,065,000.00.
            Therefore, the landowner's fractional cost would be between $140,625 and


                                                     166








                  $479,250. Divided between approximately 26 homes in -the District, the average
                  amount each landowner would pM would range from $5,40 to $18,433. However,
                  the exact amount each landowner would pay is based on an assessment formula
                  that includes, as one factor, the lin"ear footage along the shoreline. The narrowest
                  lot along this stretch spans 10 feet of the shoreline while the widest covers almost
                  100 feet. For the narrow lot, the assessment would be between $611 to $2,084.
                  For the widest lot, the assessment would be between $6,114 to. $20,837.

                         Individual, landowners could be given the option of contributing more than
                  their assess metit into-the State-.Beach Fund to,receive a State tax deduction.   -..Such
                  a program may lead to pleasant surpnises in the amount of contributions received
                  by the assessed landowners.

                         c. County. County cost would be between 10%-20% of the total cost of the
                  project less any Federal contribution. If the counties were to cooperate with the
                  State and grant a I% to 2% reduction in property assessments for beachfront homes
                  that are in compliance with all regulations, then the State could pick up a greater
                  share of the cost. In this instance the county contribution would be 10% of the
                  total cost, or $31,250 to $106,500.

                         d. State. The State would       pay 60%-45% of the cost, less any federal
                  contributions. The amouzit of the State payment will be dependent on the public
                  benefit of the project. For the Kahala example, the cost to the State would be 45%
                  of $312,500 to $1,065,000. This would amount to $140,625 to $479.250, taken
                  from the State Beach Fund.


                         In Table 9, there is a breakdown of costs for the State, the county, and the
                  landowners using several scenarios. The high cost estimate a:ssumes a beach fill
                  of 105,200 cubic yards of sand, a price of $12.50 per cubic yard and no Federal
                  contribution. The low cost estimate assumes a beach fill of 45,000 cubic yards of
                  sand, a price of $12.50 per cubic yard and a Federal contribution of $250,000.
                  Using the high cost estimate in column 1, the average landowner's contribution
                  would be $22,760. It should be noted that this cost is less than the $39,600 cost
                  to build a buried revetment (Assuming an average lot width of 88 feet and the cost
                  of the revetment at $450/linear foot).





                                                            167









                     Table 9 - Breakdown of Costs for Kahala Beach Sand Replenishment.

                 Party               Hi Costs             Hi Costs            Low Costs            Low Costs
                                     No Fed.              Fed. Contrib.       No Fed.              Fed. Contrib.
                                     Contrib.                                 Contrib.


                 Each
                 Landowner             $22,760              $18,433              $9,736               $5,409

                 County              $131,500             $106,500            .$56,250              $31,250
              ..LState                                    $479,Z5 1.          $253,125.                   25.
                                    1.$591,750                                                     $140,6


                       For the City and County of Honolulu, there would be a cost of $131,500 to
               pay for their share in the Beach Management                      District.     This   is not much,
               considering the close proximity of Kahala Beach to the residents of Honolulu.

                       Finally, the State share for the replenishment project would                  'be $591,750.
               Interestingly enough, the revenue from the sale of a 15 million dollar home in
               Kahala can generate income of $300,000 from the 2% shoreline property- transfer
               tax. This money goes into a State Beach Fund, which can be used to pay for the
               State contribution to replenish Kahala Beach. The money from the transfer tax
               would pay for half of the State contribution. Thus, when a shoreline property is
               sold, revenue that is generated can be used to benefit the existing beachfront
               homeowners, the State, the county and the public.

                       With the projected acceleration in sea-level rise, the annual cost to maintain
               the beach would be $52,703 per year. Before a district is formed, an agreement
               would be needed between the State, counties and landowners on a maintenance
               schedule, and the allocation of costs. Some coastal states require that landowners
               are entirely responsible for maintenance cost. Assuming landowners are made
               responsible for maintenance, when the annual cost is divided by 26 properties, there
               is an average cost of $2,027 to maintain the beach.                        These costs are very
               reasonable considering the value of the property protected.

                       It is believed that many of the costs could be significantly reduced if a State
               office was established to develop the technological infrastructure to conduct
               continuous sand mining operations.




                                                                 168









                                          XI. RECOMMENDATIONS


                        In this report recommendations are made that fall into three categories. First,
                 there  are recommendations related to the implementation of Beach Management
                 Districts at the State and county level. Second, there are recommendations related
                 to the two case study sites at Kahala and Ewa Beaches. Finally, there are
                 recommendations related to beach management in general.

                 A. Beach Management Districts

                        This report recommends the use of improvement and overlgy districts to heIR
                 in the management of the State's beaches.

                        The Hawaii Land Use Enabling Act gives the counties the authority to
                 establish, both overlay and improvement districts. In Kauai County's Zoning
                 Ordinance, there is a provision for overlay Shore Districts. In these districts, there
                 -are restrictions on seawalls and bulkheads. The district ordinance requires the use
                 of sloping permeable revetments when barriers are permitted. Although the Shore
                 District ordinance was passed in 1972, Kauai has yet to implement the concept.

                        The overlay shore district would give the counties discretion in protecting
                 sensitive or unique areas of the coast. The overlay district may be useful for
                 undeveloped coastlines, since additional restrictions may be placed on highly
                 unstable areas. For developed coastlines, the utility of the overlay district may not
                 be as great since the landowner may still be limited to the use of seawalls and
                 revetments. Nevertheless, the overlay district may give the counties the discretion
                 to regulate the types of erosion control structures along the shoreline. Given the
                 extent of the erosion problem, some type of erosion control regulation should be
                 considered at the State or county level.

                        It is through the improvement district that alternatives other than seawalls
                 and revetments can be developed for the landowner. The individual counties may
                 establish improvement districts by adopting an improvement ordinance similar to
                 Oahu's, or by modeling the ordinance after other coastal States. Nevertheless, some
                 of the counties may not be organized technically or financially to establish the
                 types of improvements that may be included in the district.

                        It is recommended that an ageng within the State be established to promote


                                                           169










            and administer Beach Management Districts.. Although, the exact procedures would.
            need to be worked out by the State agency, the following are recommended as
            preliminM guidelines to pay for improvements in a Beach Management District.

                   Formation. Provisions should be considered that allow the formation of a
            district upon the petition of a State or county agency, or a group of landowners, or
            the public. Regardless of the party that submits the petition for district formation,
            a minimum level of landowner consent would still be required.

                   Cooperation. There are many reasons for lan*downe'rs'toj*oin an improvement
            district, including increased property value and shoreline protection.      For this
            reason, the initial level of landowner cooperation 'should be made high.            A
            preliminary suggestion is that 80% of the landowners in the district agree to the
            project. If the project is one of higher risk or liability, then 100% cooperation is
            suggested. For a high risk project, the State should not form a district unless 100%
            of the affected landowners sign an indemnity agreement. A high risk project may
            be one in which the property owners rely solely on sand replenishment for property
            protection.

                   Assessments. The assessment formula should include as a primary factor the
            linear footage along the beach. Other factors such as value of the protected
            property may also be considered, if there is a wide disparity in the quality, vintage
            or value of the beachfront homes. If there is a wide range in the distance of the
            structures from the shoreline, this factor may be considered in the assessment.

                   Cost Allocation. A shared cost system is recommended, with the State,
            counties and coastal landowners paying for the nonfederal portion of the total cost
            of the project. A preliminary allocation of costs is State 60% - 45%, county - 10%,
            and beachfront landowner 45% - 30%. The exact costs for the State and beachfront
            landowners would be dependent on the degree of public benefit derived from the
            project.

                   Liability. All homeowners who agree to the formation of a BMD should be
            required to sign an indemnity or hold harmless clause which relieves the State and
            county from any liability for the failure of an erosion control structure. To reduce
            liability from the public, the State would need to periodically monitor
            improvements within the district for dangerous unnatural conditions.



                                                     170








                       Monitoring. Periodic monitoring would be required to check on the status and
                 condition of improvements within the district, and to check on the performance of
                 artificial beach fill.


                       Maintenance. Any improvement district which involves sand replenishment
                 should not be approved without a long-tenn commitment to periodic renourishment.
                 The schedule and allocation of costs would have    to be worked out by the State,
                 counties and landowner.

                .-B. Beach Man-agement

                       State Role.   This study reports formidable  problems along   the beaches of
                 Hawaii. Scientific evidence indicates these problems will intensify in the absence
                 of an active role by the State. The State is the trustee of the beach resource. The
                 State should take the lead in defending against coastal erosion and sea-level rise.
                 it is recommended that the State establish an agency that is responsible for the
                 management and administration of beaches. The agency would develop and
                 implement many of the programs outlined in this study, as well as any other
                 programs that provide for the maximum long-term societal benefit from the beach
                 resource.


                       Public Education. It is essential that the problems with beach loss, erosion
                 and sea-level rise be conveyed to the public.      It is peculiar that despite the
                 widespread degradation of the shoreline, there are many who feel further protection
                 of the coast is unnecessary. A public education program should objectively convey
                 the facts about the coastline to landowners, buyers, sellers, developers, planners,
                 engineers, government officials, elected officials and the general public. Without
                 an informed public, it will be difficult to implement the changes in shoreline
                 management which are required.

                       Zoning. Although attempts have been      'made in the past, the State should
                 make another effort to modify the shoreline setback. Using the guidelines and
                 programs discussed in Chapter VIII, the economic burden to landowners can be
                 minimized or eliminated, thereby reducing political opposition. Furthermore,
                 amendment of the setback as proposed facilitates future participation in Federal
                 programs under the River and Harbors Act and the National Flood Insurance Act.
                 The former Act may help in the financing of a Beach Management District@ while
                 the later can offer a degree of financial protection to the landowner. A properly


                                                         171









            structured setback, that is no more burdensome than necessary, is the most efficient
            way to ensure the preservation of the beach resource and the protection of private
            property.

                   Research. Further research should concentrate in two areas. First, a program
            of continuous monitoring should be developed using beach profiles and aerial
            photography to help planners and administrators make informed beach management
            decisions. Second, offshore sand sources that are adjacent to eroding beaches may
            be the best opportunity to provide a cheap source of replenishment sand. However,
            there are many technical, ec6nomic,. environmental. and legalls-sues that need. to be
            resolved. For example, research may be. needed on the impact of sand mining on
            coral reef communities. Methods to mitigate any potential impact, such as the
            development of special equipment, should also be investigated.

            C. Ewa Beach


                   The City and County of Honolulu should establish an         Enforcement Fund.
            Income into the Fund would be derived from fines for shoreline setback violations
            and from legislative appropriations. Money from the Fund could be used for
            enforcement activity and to pay for subsidies to convert   'vertical seawalls to -buried
            erosion control structures landward of the certified shoreline. An overlay district
            could be formed that allows only a certain erosion control design in the district.
            A strategy of fines and subsidies can be used at Ewa Beach. For those residences
            that are so close to the shoreline that removal of the illegal seawalls would threaten
            the property, the use of low-level fines, on the order of $1,00042,000 per year
            should be considered. Where the residence is further from the shoreline, the fine
            could be increased so that revenue raising and deterrence are achieved. The
            administering agency would have some discretion in setting, the fines, but some
            degree of uniformity should also be strived for. Money from the fines can be used
            to provide subsidies to convert vertical seawalls to buried structures mauka of the
            certified shoreline.


                   The State should develop procedures so that all beachfront homeowners who
            are in distress, and who qualify, can take full advantage of advance insurance
            payments under the Upton-Jones amendment. For many residents at Ewa Beach,
            such a program may provide additional financial protection against erosion, sea-
            level rise, and storm wave damage. In order to take advantage of relocation
            benefits, an amendment to the setback may be required.


                                                      172











                D. Kahala Beach


                       Where needed, gently sloping      buried revetments should be the erosion
                control structure of choice for Kahala.  By moving erosion barriers away from the
                water line, some of the beach may be recovered. The transformation from vertical
                walls to an unstabilized coastline, or one with gently sloping buried revetments
                would prepare the shoreline at Kahala Beach for a potential sand replenishment
                project. Conversion can take place through the use of fines and subsidies. If a
                sand replenishment. project were to materialize at Kahala, an overlay district may
                be needed to help prepare the shoreline for replenishment.






























                                                         173









                              XU. IWLEMENTATION GUEDELINES

                   The implementation guidelines in this report can be divided into two parts.
            First, there are procedures to implement a statewide comprehensive beachfront
            management program with beach management districts. The implementation
            strategy for this program relies on establishing a State agency responsible for beach
            management that develops many of the programs in this report. To install a fully
            operational beach management program may take 3-4 years, assuming all legislative
            and financial support is obtained. The second set of implementation guidelines
            relate to action the State and .'counties can take in the interim.


            A. Public Education - Changing Public Perception

                   Realistically, no action is likely on many of the programs in this report given
            the current level of awareness and understanding about coastal erosion and beach
            preservation. For example, during hearings in 1991 on House Bill 893 to establish
            Shoreline Stabilization Districts and extend the shoreline setback, there was        oral
            and written testimony from various parties that the present system of beach
            management was effective, and no ftu-ther change was necessary to protect the
            shoreline. During the same legislative session, there was a proposal to establish a
            State Office of Beaches within the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
            Although this bill requested the relatively small amount of $100,000 to investigate
            staffing and budget requirements, the bill died in the House Finance Committee.
            From the failure of the legislature to implement these measures, it appears that
            beach management is not an important public issue. This is unfortunate, because
            in the future, the problems associated with erosion, beach loss, and sea-level rise
            are likely to have ramifications equal to any other environmental issue.

                   It is clear that apy significant changes regarding beach management will
            reguire an eggglly- significant change in @erception of the problem.               Since
            implementation of the programs in this report is dependent on changing public
            perception, some discussion should follow on this matter.

                   One of the first steps in changing public perception is to emphasize the
            gravity of the problem. There may be a tendency to sensationalize the material in
            this report, and all effort to do so should be suppressed. Nevertheless, it is difficult
            to argue with the aerial photographs that show actual beach loss (Figs. 2 through
            6); the tide gauge data (Fig. 21); or the application of the Bruun Rule (Table 6),


                                                      174





   Ila           which is a widely accepted engineering technique that relates sea-level rise and
                 beach recession.


                        That beach loss over the last 50 years is concurrent with, and related to, sea-
                 level rise has serious implications. It indicates that the disappearance of beaches
                 is due not only to random erosion events, but is part of an overall long-term trend.
                 Although local conditions may change, and a few beaches may experience short-
                 term cycles of erosion and accretion, over the long ran, the majority of beaches in
                 the State will recede.

                        Not only is sea-level rise   expected to continue,  but projections 'call for   an
                 acceleration in the rise. This has even greater ramifications, since beaches are very
                 sensitive to small changes in water level. The estimates in Table 3 call for a
                 significant acceleration in the present rate of sea-level rise by the year 2050. These
                 estimates should be used as maximum projections. It is probable that future sea-
                 level rise will fall between the current rate of sea-level rise and the 2050 projection.
                 Even at the current rate of sea-level rise, all gently sloping, narrow beaches in the
                 State that have been armored, could be lost in the next 50 years. The loss of
                 beaches, as documented in Chapter 2, are exactly the changes to be expected. A
                 continuation of the present trend would affect the integrity of coastal property,
                 diminish recreational opportunities for the public, and impede the tourism based
                 economy. If sea-level rise were to accelerate, as projected, the impacts would be
                 unimaginable.

                        The problems with sea-level rise are, sufficiently serious to warrant the
                 development of a public education program. The program should target the general
                 public as well as government officials and politicians. Not until the public is
                 educated can political support be gained to implement effective beachfront
                 management programs. In the process of informing the public, it is equally
                 important to address the concerns of landowners. It needs to be emphasized that
                 given the problems with sea-level rise, many of the programs would benefit the
                 landowner.


                 B. State Agency Responsible for Beach Management

                        The single most important step that the State can take to implement the
                 ideas  and prop-rams in this Egort is to establish a State agenEy responsible for
                 beach management. Before there is any State Beach Fund, shoreline transfer tax,


                                                           175









            sand replenishment, capital. improvements within a Beach Management District,
            voluntary relocation program, or variable erosion shoreline setback, there would
            need to be an administering agency at the State level. The agency could be formed
            as an office, a division, or a branch. Alternatively, an existing State agency can
            be given considerably expanded duties.

                  There must be extensive planning prior to the designation of the appropriate
            agency. A bill should be submitted in the 1993 legislative session to fund this
            planning. Within one year after    -the appropriation of funds- a report should be
            submitted to the legislature.on recommendations for the structure, organization *and
            association of the responsible State agengy,- along with proposed legislation to
            establish that agency.

                  The report would need to cover many issues, including the following:

            New State Agency vs. Existing State Agency - Recommendations would be needed
            on whether a new State Agency, such as a Division of Beaches, should be formed
            as opposed to expanding the duties in existing agencies. The advantage of using
            existing agencies is that another bureaucracy may not be required, if the capability
            currently exists.    This could reduce manpower, cost and overhead.               The
            disadvantage of using existing agencies is that beach management can be
            compromised. Preexisting duties that an agency has may take precedence over
            beach preservation. This could lead to "business as usual."

                  The advantage of forming a new State agency is that it can devote its entire
            effort to beach management. In the future, the problems associated with sea-level
            rise will be a major challenge for the State. The administration of programs that
            deal with these problems may require the formation of a new Division (see Chapter              1w,
            IX for likely scope of duties). In the long run, overall cost for a new Division may
            be less, if it is more effective in preventing coastal hazards, developing low cost
            erosion mitigation technology, or obtaining Federal ftmding.

            Government Coordination - The report should investigate the coordination between
            the counties, DLNR, DOT, CZM and the Corps of Engineers for all the programs
            discussed in Chapter IX, as well as others that may be established. It is anticipated
            that the duties for different programs will be shared between the counties and the
            State. For example:



                                                     176








                         For cgpital improvements within a Beach Management District it is
                         anticipated that the State would pursue Federal ftinding, evaluate the
                         technical, economic, and environmental viability of the project,
                         provide permitting assistance, offer technical assistance, and pay for
                         a major part of the cost through a State Beach Fund. However, many
                         questions remain. For example, should the State or county determine
                         the boundaries of the District, collect the landowner share.of the cost,
                         or obtain landowner consent?

                         In the administration of a variable rate erosion setback, it i's anticipated
                         that a State agency would set the appropriate shoreline setback based
                         on the average annual erosion rate or the historical range in the
                         position of the vegetation line. However, the counties would need to
                         offer compensating land use variances if the setback was greater than
                         60 feet. How would the duties of the State and counties be shared
                         with regard to administration of the shorline setback?

                         These coordination issues, and others, would need to be covered in the
                  report. How the duties are split between the counties and the State may determine
                  the final structure of the responsible State agency.

                  Staffing and Budget - The legislative report should provide some flexibility to
                  adjust staffing and administrative costs at a later date, depending on what programs
                  are actually implemented. Therefore, the report should include temporary and
                  permanent budget levels for staff and administrative cost.

                  C. State Agency Implements a Beachfront Management Program

                         Once there is a responsible State agengy, it can devote thelime and energy
                  to work out the s@ecific details that are reguired to implement beachfront
                  management programs. This report briefly studied many of the programs that the
                  agency should investigate and develop. This report is not meant to take the place
                  of detailed investigation that the agency can conduct.             Nevertheless, some
                  preliminary implementation guidelines follow.


                                                                                                    -agency
                  Capital Improvements Within a Beach Management District - The. State
                  would need to draft improvement district regulations for Beach Management
                  Districts. The agency can be guided by recommendations in Chapter XI, as well


                                                             177









           as improvement district regulations for Oahu, the Hawaii Community Development
           Authority, and other coastal states such as Maryland, Rhode Island or North
           Carolina. If the improvement district is established at the State level, legislative
           approval would be required.      The counties are currently set up to establish
           improvement districts.

           State Beach Fund - Legislative approval is required to establish a State Beach
           Fund. Legislative language can be modeled after the 150-200 dedicated funds that
           are established in the State. These funds cover topics from Agriculture, Airports,
           the Aloha Tower, Anirnals,- Aquacu   .Iture, Art,- Attorneys, and Bikeways .
           to Underground Storage Tanks, Water Pollution, Water Supply and Workers
           Compensation. Dedicated Funds have been established either in the state treasury
           (e.g., Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Compliance Resolution Fund - HRS-26-9)
           or within the administering Department itself (e.g. Leaking Underground Storage
           Tank Fund - HRS-342L-51). Statutes on beach funds from other coastal states can
           be used to provide additional guidance (see Chapter VII).

           Beach. Enforcement Fund - If the State were to conduct enforcement activities,
           then a Beach Enforcement Fund should be established at the State level.
           Alternatively, the State Beach Fund could be used to support enforcement activities.
           It would be the responsible State agency that could determine whether one or two
           funds would be required after consideration of legal and administrative matters.

           Shoreline Setback - A new shoreline setback would require legislative approval.
           One to two years after the formation of a lead State agency, a bill for a new
           shoreline setback could be submitted to the legislature. Before the submittal, the
           State agency and counties would need to develop land use strategies that allow
           buildable area to be preserved while increasing     the shoreline setback. These
           strategies would include a package of compensating zoning variances, a program
           of Transferable Development Rights (TDR's), a new Shoreline Zone that can be
           added to the State Land Use Classification scheme, or the use of an overlay district
           to define areas exempt from specific zoning controls.

           ,Shoreline Transfer Tax - The Shoreline Transfer Tax would require fin-ther study
           to address additional legal, administrative and economic issues. At the same time
           that the shoreline transfer tax is studied, all other economic incentive and
           disincentive strategies discussed in this report should be evaluated. Some shoreline
           tax package could be passed one to two years after the formation of a State agency


                                                   178








                 responsible for Beach Management.

                 VoluntM Relocation - Within one to two years after the formation of a lead State
                 agency a report and bill could be sent to the legislature on establishing a voluntary
                 relocation program between the State and FEMA.             This program would be
                 dependent on the amount of revenues in the State Beach Fund,          which in turn,
                 depends on the implementation of a Shoreline Tax Package.

                 D. Interim Measures


                       The following measures can be implemented independent          of'a beachfront
                 management program administered by a State agency.

                       1. State. The Office of State Planning, as lead agency for the Coastal Zone
                 Management Program, has the duty to monitor the activities of State and county
                 agencies to ensure that they adhere to the CZM objective and policies. It is
                 suggested that a new objective and policy be added to HRS-205A-2 that
                 specifically addresses the problem of beach loss and sea-level rise. This would
                 require a legislative amendment.

                       2. Counly. The following interim measures could be implemented at the
                 county level:

                       a. Overlay Districts. Overlay districts can be established that control the
                 types of erosion control structures along the shoreline (HRS-464). The county
                 could develop a specific erosion control design that is suitable to the conditions in
                 that district. By the use of an overlay district, a beach enforcement fund, and a
                 system of fines and subsidies, it is possible to convert from the use of seawalls, to
                 erosion control structures that fit the district design.    Such a conversion can
                 temporarily recover a lost beach and, where appropriate, prepare the shoreline for
                 sand replenishment. For an overlay district to be formed on Oahu, it would
                 require an amendment to the Land Use Ordinance. This would also require review
                 by the City Planning Commission, the Department of Land Utilization, and the City
                 Council.

                       b. Improvement Districts. Improvement districts could be implemented at the
                 county level without the help of a State agency. The counties have the power,
                         -the State Enabling Act (HRS 46-1.5), to establish improvement districts.
                 through


                                                          179









           On Oahu, the formation of an improvement district for beach improvements would
           reguire an amendment to Oahu's Special Assessment Ordinance (City and County
           of Honolulu, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Chqpter 24). In addition, the level
           of landowner consent should be adjusted from the present level of 60%, to a highe
           level, most likely 80-100%.

                  For an improvement district without State assistance, each of the counties
           would have to provide their own technical and administrative staff to support
           BMDs. It would be up to -the county to pursue Federal funding. Most likely, only
           limited erosion control measures can be. implemented.. This may still be preferable
           over the current options available to the individual landowner.

                  The county should investigate the possibility of using improvement districts
           to help landowners convert legal and nonconforming vertical seawalls to buried
           revetinents on private property. This would be a new twist on the improvement
           district concept, since most districts are created to finance improvements on public
           land that benefit the private party. Nevertheless, the language in Oahu's Special
           Assessment Ordinance leaves open the possibility of forming improvement districts
           for a valid public purpose.

                  Without State assistance, the cost allocation for improvements within a
           district would need to be changed (the suggested allocation with a lead State
           agency is - State 60-45%; Counties - 10%; and property owners 45-30%).
           Furthermore, the landowner may have to pay a higher amount for an improvement
           on their own property. After all the cost adjustments, a county improvement
           district that converts seawalls to buried erosion control structures may not be
           significantly different than the establishment of an overlay district with a system
           of fines and subsidies.


                  c. Overlay versu s Improvement Districts. For implementation purposes, the
           use of an overlay district, beach enforcement ftmd, and system of fines and
           subsidies to convert seawalls to buried erosion control structures may be ideal
           when: a) the landowners cannot cooperate; b) there are long, alternating stretches
           of shoreline where seawall conversion may not be possible (e.g. there is'no room
           to build a buried structure). The use of a county improvement district to convert
           seawalls to buried structures may be preferable when coastal factors and strong
           landowner cooperation allow a long stretch of shoreline to be converted from
           seawalls to buried structures.



                                                    180










                                               XIII. CONCLUSIONS


                        The formation and administration of Beach Management Districts involve
                 many complex issues such as cost allocation, sources of funding, viable erosion
                 mitigation measures, and landowner cooperation. Because of the complexities,
                 district formation will not occur by the initiative of landowners alone. The
                 experience in Hawaii, and other coastal states, is that landowners wouldrather act
                 on their own. Furthermore, the counties may not have the technical personnel to
                 organize a district, nor the.finances to create sufficient economic incentive. In the
                 study -of -beach districts for other coastal. states, it became. apparent that a
                 government agency is. needed to actively promote, coordinate and administer the
                 districts. Thus, the formation of a responsible State agency is recommended in
                 Hawaii. Once the agency is formed, it can not only establish BMDs, but could also
                 administer a statewide beachfront management program.

                        The problems associated with sea-level rise are serious. The response by the
                 State should be just as serious. Given an agency devoted to beach management,"
                 new ideas, technologies, and fimding schemes could be developed to restore or
                 preserve beaches within the district setting. For example, if the environmental
                 problems can be resolved, Kahala Beach could be restored at a relatively low cost
                 to the State, county and landowner. Such a project could -benefit all parties.
                 Similar projects may be possible, with some modification, at Ewa, Lanikai, Laniloa
                 and Portlock on Oahu; Waipoli Beach on Kauai; and Waimahaihai Beach on Maui.

                        Past efforts to address the coastal erosion problem have been blocked by
                 coastal landowners who have felt the government is intruding on private property
                 rights.  In this study great efforts are made to address the concerns of the
                 landowner. Many of the programs in this report would be beneficial to both the
                 private property owner and the public. In Tables 10 to 14, the burdens and
                 offsetting benefits to each affected party are summarized. These summaries assume
                 all the proposals in this report are implemented.

                        The reaction to these programs by the public and the landowners remains to
                 be seen. Our initial discussion with landowners is that they would be receptive to
                 new programs to help them deal with coastal erosion and wave attack. Further
                 discussion is needed with various groups to modify, amend, refine or discard the
                 proposals in this report.



                                                          181









                  To the extent that the State, counties, landowners and public can cooperate,
            great strides can be made to solve some of the predicted problems with sea-level
            rise. Without cooperation, everybody will lose. If the State can find a way to
            effectively balance the concerns of the public, the private sector, and the counties,
            they should seize the opportunity. It may take increased administrative effort and
            some financial commitment, but the investment would be well worthwhile.







































                                                     182









                           Table 10 - Benefits and Burdens to the Owners of Developed Land

                     Benefits                                         Burdens


                     A 1% to 2% reduction in real property            A 2% property transfer tax is proposed on
                     assessments is proposed for beachfront           the sale of a beachfront property. This tax
                     landowners who are in compliance with            only applies to the buyer of the property,
                     coastal regulations. Such a reduction would      not the present homeowner. The tax is to
                     benefit the long-term homeowner since they       go into the State Beach Fund. The tax may
                     may receive a reduction in county property       burden short-term landowners and
                     taxes every year.                                speculative purchasers..
                     Where it is feasible, the State and county       A limitation would be placed on the.
                     would participate with homeowners in the         construction of seawalls. Where hardening
                     construction of a Beach Management               of the shoreline is required, buried
                     District, to provide long-term protection to     structures such as revetments will be the
                     the coastal landowner, while preserving the      shore protection of choice.
                     beach. The landowners fractional cost of
                     participation in a BMD may be less then
                     the full cost to construct a seawall or
                     revetment. Projects-within the BMD may
                     increase the value of coastal property.
                     The State or county may provide subsidies        Fines would be placed on illegal seawalls.
                     to convert vertical seawalls to gently
                     sloping buried structures.

                     Money from the State Beach Recovery
                     Fund and FEMA may be available to give
                     landowners the option of moving off the
                     beach if they are threatened by erosion or
                     s rms. Landowners should view this
                     program as a form of financial protection.















                                                                   183










                    Table I I - Benefits and Burdens to the Owners of Undeveloped Land

               Benefits                                          Burdens

               The proposed Division-of State Beaches            There is one additional office that the large
               would provide technical assistance to the         landowner or developer may have to deal
               developer in dealing with erosion. The            with.
               Division would help the landowner in
               obtaining the proper coastal permits for a
               erosion control project. Through the use
               of binding interagency agreements, master
               application forms and perhaps one window
               permitting; additional protection of the
               shoreline is possible with less "red tape".

               The Division of State Beaches would work          In certain circumstances, the landowner
               with the landowner to establish a suitable        may have to conduct a coastal erosion
               setback. Where previous studies are               study to determine a suitable setback for
               applicable, the coastal landowner may not         their project.
               need an additional study.

               Buildable area is preserved for all shoreline,    Shoreline setbacks are increased from 40
               setbacks proposed. Where setbacks greater         feet to 60 feet for new subdivisions and for
               than 60 feet are needed to protect the            land that is nonurban according to the State
               beach, the counties could develop a               Land Use classification scheme. On
               package of compensating variances that            eroding or unstable beaches, the shoreline
               allow increased height, a smaller front or        setback may be larger. In no case will be
               side setback, or increased density. The net       the setback be larger then necessary for the
               effect is to preserve buildable area even         State to protect the beach resource.
               after the increased shoreline setback is
               imposed. Another way to reduce the
               economic burden includes a program of
               transferable development rights on other
               properties. The setback may be reduced for
               pre-appro ed and pre-financed erosion
               mitigation projects that preserve the
               recreational beach.













                                                              184








                                       Table 12 - Benefits and Burdens to the County

                    Benefit                                          Burden

                    The residents of the county would benefit        The county would pay 10% of the cost of a
                    from improved recreational use of the            Beach Management District. The county
                    beach. Preservation of the beach helps to        would provide a 1% to 2% reduction in
                    preserve the tourism industry for the            real property assessments for beachfront
                    individual counties.                             homes that are in compliance with all
                                                                     coastal regulations.
                    Improvements within a Beach Management
                    District may increase the value of
                    beachfront homes, thereby offsetting any
                    reduction in property tax revenues caused
                    by a 1-2% reduction in real property
                    assessments.

                    When narrow strips of private land are
                    makai of county infrastructure, the county
                    benefits by a Joint State-county-landowner
                    erosion control project that protects the
                    landowner from erosion.

                    The county would receive technical, and
                    financial assistance by the State in dealing
                    with coastal erosion. This assistance may
                    become critical if the current rate of sea
                    level rise were to accelerate.

























                                                                   185










                                     Table 13 - Benefits. and Burdens to the State

                Benefit                                           Burden

                Preservation of beaches by the State              Legislative appropriations will be needed to
                protects a key attraction of visitors to the      establish the Division of State Beaches and
                islands. Thus the number one industry in          to fund the State Beach Fund. The State
                the State, tourism, benefits.                     would pay 60% to 45% of a Beach
                                                                  Management District.

                Protection of beaches fulfills the State duty     Greater administrative effort is required of
                as trustee of coastal resources.                  the State.

                Revenue for improvement projects can be
                derived from landowner, county and
                Federal contributions. Significant revenues
                are also possible from a shoreline transfer.
                tax.

                T e  comprehensive plan presented in this
                report would help to mitigate the serious
                problems associated with rising sea-level.



                                    Table 14 - Benefits and Burden to the Public
                Benefit                                         I Burden

                Some beaches that were lost may be                Some taxpayer money would be needed to
                returned to the public. Beaches that are          restore and preserve beaches.
                presently threatened can be preserved.

                By preserving or restoring beaches, the
                scenic beauty and recreational value of the
                coastline is protected for future generations
                in the State.

                Preservation of beaches is required to
                protect the tourism industry, from which all
                members of the public benefit.









                                                              186










                                             XIV. REFERENCES


                 Barnett, T.P., "Global Sea-Level Change". In: Climate variations over the past
                 century and the greenhouse effect: A report based on the First Climate Trends
                 Workshop, Washington D.C. National Climate Program Office/NOAA, Rockville,
                 Maryland, 7-9 September 1988.

                 Bretschneider, C.L., and Edward K. Noda and Associatesl "Hurricane Vulnerability
                 Study for Honolulu, Hawaii and Vicinity", prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
                 Engineers, 1985.

                 Bruun, P.,  Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Beach Erosion"      Proceedings  of the
                 American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Waterways     and Harbors, Vol.
                 88/No. 117, 1962.

                 Callies, D., "Regulatory Takings", Newsletter - Real Property and Financial
                 Services Section, January 1992.

                 Chao, B.F., "Man, Water, and Global Sea level", EOS Forum, Vol. 72/No. 45, p.
                 492, 1991.

                 Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of State Planning, Office of the
                 Governor, "Effects on Hawaii of a Worldwide Rise in Sea Level Induced by the
                 Greenhouse Effect", 1985.

                 Corps of Engineers, "Shore Protection Manual", Washington, D.C., 1984.

                 Coulbourn, W.T., Campbell, J.F., Anderson, P.N., Daugherty,' P.M., Greenberg,
                 V.A., Izuka, S.K., Lauritzen, B.O., Tsutsui, and Yan, C., "Sand Deposits Offshore
                 Oahu, Hawaii", Pacific Science, Vol. 42/Nos. 3-4, 1988.

                 Dean, R.G., "Equilibrium Beach Profiles: U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts". Tech.
                 Rep. No. 12, University of Delaware, Newark, 1977.

                 Dean, R.G., Maurmeyer, E.M., "Models for Beach Profile Response", In: Handbook
                 of Coastal Processes and Erosion Control, CRC Press, p. 151-165, 1983.

                 DHM inc., Edward K. Noda and Associates, Inc., and Moon, O'Connor, Tam &


                                                       187









          Yuen, "Kauai Shoreline Erosion Management Study", prepared for the Hawaii
          Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of State Planning, Office of the
          Governor, June 1989.

          Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Department of Natural Resources and
          Community Development, "A Handbook for Development in North Carolina's
          Coastal Area", 1985.

          Dollar,S.J., "Sand Mining in Hawaii: Research, Restrictions, and. Choices for the
          Future", UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TP-79-01,, University of Hawaii, Horiolulu,'1979.

          Douglas, B.C., "Global Sea-Level Rise", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
          96/No. C4, p. 6981-6992, 1991.

          Edward K. Noda and Associates Inc., and DHM inc., "Hawaii Shoreline Erosion
          Management Study, Overview and Case Study Sites (Makaha, Oahu; Kailua-
          Lanikai, Oahu; Kukuiula-Poipu, Kauai)", prepared for the Hawaii Coastal Zone
          Management Program, Office of State Planning, Office of the Governor, June 1989.

          Emery, K.O., and Aubrey, D.G., "Sea Levels, Land Levels, and Tide Gauges",
          Springer-Verlag, New York, 237 p., 1991.

          Everts, C.H., "Effects of Small Protective Devices on Beaches", California's
          Battered Coast: Proceedings From a Conference on Coastal Erosion, California
          Coastal Commission, p. 127-137, 1985.

          Gilbert, "America Washing Away", Science Digest, 1986.

          Gomitz, V. and Lebedeff, S., "Global Sea Level Changes During the Past Century",
          In: Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution, eds. D. Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey,
          and J. Howard, SEPM Special Publication No. 41, Tulsa, OK, 1987.

          Hagman, D.G. and J.C. Juergensmeyer, "Urban Planning and Land Development
          Control Law", West Publishing Co., 1986.

          Honolulu, Department of Public Works, "The Improvement District Process",
          Office of Information and Complaint, 1987.



                                                 188









                Houston, J.R., "Rejoinder   to Discussion of Pil key and Leonard (1990)", Journal of
                Coastal Researck Vol.    7, p. 565-577, 1991.

                Hwang, D., "Beach Changes On Oahu As Revealed By Aerial Photographs",
                prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic
                Development, by the Urban and Regional Planning Program and the Hawaii
                Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii; Hawaii Coastal. Zone Management
                Program Technical Supplement Number 22; University of Hawaii, Technical Report
                HIG-81-3, and Cooperative Report UNIHI-SEAGRANT-CR-81-01, July               1981..

                Hwang, D., "Shoreline Setback Regulations and the Takings Analysis", University
                of Hawaii Law Review, Vol. 13/No. 1, Summer 1991.

                Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change", Houghton,.
                J.T., Jenkins, G.J., and Ephraums, J.J., eds., New York, Cambridge University
                Press, 305 p, 1990.

                James, W.R., "Techniques in Evaluating Suitability of Borrow Material for Beach
                Nourishment", TM-60, Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Engineer
                Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Dec. 1975.

                Jones, C.B., "Beaches and Coastal Erosion", Center for Development Studies,
                Social Science Research Institute,' University of Hawaii.

                Kana, T.W., Michel, J.1, Hayes, M.O., Jensen, J.R., "The Physical Impact of
                Sea-Level Rise in the Area of Charleston, South Carolina", in: Greenhouse Effect
                and Sea-@Level Rise, Barth, M.C., and Titus, J.G., eds., New York, Van Nostrand
                Reinhold, p. 105-150, 1984.

                Komar, P.D., ed., "Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion", CRC Press, Boca
                Raton, FL, 305p., 1983.

                Kraus, N.C., "The Effects of Seawalls on the Beach: Extended Literature Review",
                Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 4, p. 1-28, Autumn 1988.

                Lam, V., "Beach Access: A Public Right", Hawaii Bar Journal, Vol. XXIII, No.
                1'(1991).



                                                         189









            Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc. and Sea'Engineering, Inc., 1.991 "Aerial Photograph
            Analysis of Coastal Erosion on the Islands of Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and
            Hawaii", prepared for the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of
            State Planning, June 1991.

            Maragos, J.E., "Environmental Surveys Before, During, and After Offshore Marine
            Sand Mining Operations at Keauhou Bay, Hawaii", Working Paper No. 28,
            University of Hawaii SEAGRANT College Program, Honolulu, 1977.

            Meier, M.F., "Role of Land Ice in Present and Future Sea-Level Change", in:
            Revelle, R.R., ed., Sea-Level Change. National Research Council, Washington
            D.C., National Academy Press, p. 171-184, 1990.

            Moberly, R. and T. Chamberlain, "Hawaiian Beach Systems", prepared for the
            State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Harbors Division, published by the
            University of Hawaii, Technical Report HIG-64-2, May 1964.

            Moberly R. Jr., Bauer, L.D. Jr.,and Morrison A., "Source        and Variation of
            Hawaiian Littoral Sand", Journal Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 35, p. 589-598, 1965.

            Moberly R., Jr., Campbell, J.F., and Coulbourn W.T., "Offshore and Other Sand
            Resources for Oahu, Hawaii", UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TR-75-03, University of Hawaii
            SEAGRANT College Program, Honolulu, 1975.

            National Research Council, "Managing Coastal Erosion", prepared by the
            Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone Management, Water Science and Technology
            Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, published by the
            National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1987.

            National Research Council, "Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering
            Implications", National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 148 p, 1987.

            National Research Council, "Sea-Level Change", National Academy Press,
            Washington D.C., 234 p, 1990.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Coastal Management Solutions
            to Natural Hazards", prepared by the Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource
            Management, Coastal Programs Division, Technical Assistance Bulletin #103, 50


                                                   190









                 P., 1990.

                 Noda, E.K. and Associates, and DHM, Inc., "Hawaii Shoreline Erosion
                 Management Study, Overview, and Case Study Sites (Makaha, Oahu;
                 Kailua-Lanikai, Oahu; Kukuiula-Poipu, Kauai)", Hawaii Coastal Zone Management
                 Program, Office of State Planning, Office of the Governor, June, 1989.

                 Noda, E.K. and Associates, and Cruickshank, M.J., "Analysis of Options and
                 Recommendations for the Recovery, Beneficiation and Transportation of Sand from
                 Selected Offshore Deposits for Replenishment of Waikiki -'Bdach", E.K.'Noda and
                 Associates, Honolulu, HI, 24 p., 1991.

                 Oceanit Laboratories Inc., "Erosion Management Program Recommendations for
                 Hawaii", prepared for the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, Office of
                 State Planning, Office of the Governor, by Oceanit Laboratories, Inc., and Jan Naoe
                 Sullivan, Esq., July 1990.

                 Olsen, E.J., and Bodge, K.R., "The Use of Aragonite as an Alternate Source of
                 Beach Fill in Southeast Florida", Coastal Sediments '91, p. 2130-2144, 1991.

                 Peltier, W.R.s and Tushingham, A.M., "Global Sea-Level Rise and the Greenhouse
                 Effect: Might They be Connected?", Science, Vol. 244, p. 806-810, 1989.

                 Pilkey, O.H., and Davis, T.W., "An Analysis of Coastal Recession Models: North
                 Carolina Coast", In: Sea-Level Fluctuation and Coastal Evolution, eds. D.
                 Nummedal, O.H. Pilkey, and J. Howard, SEPM Special Publication No. 41, Tulsa,
                 OK, 1987.

                 Pilkey, O.H., and Leonard, L.A., "Reply To: Houston (1991) [Journal of Coastal
                 Research, 7(l) 565-577], Re: Discussion of Pilkey and Leonard (1990) [Journal of
                 coastal research, 6(4), 1023 et seq.] and Houston [Journal of Coastal research, 6(4),
                 1047 et seq.]", Journal of Coastal Research, p. 879-894, Summer, 1991.

                 Pilkey, O.H., "A Thumbnail Method for Beach Communities: Estimation of
                 Long-Term Beach Replenishment Requirements", Shore and Beach, Vol.56, p.
                 23-32,1988.

                 Pope, J., "Segmented Offshore Breakwaters: An Alternative for Beach Erosion


                                                         191









          Control", Shore and Beach, Vol. 54/No. 4, p. 3-7, 1986.

          Sea Engineering, Inc., "Oahu Shoreline Study, Part I Data on Beach Changes
          (1988)" and "Oahu Shoreline Study, Part 2 Management Strategies", prepared for
          the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Land Utilization, Nov. 1988.

          Sea Engineering, Inc., B. Moon, Consultant, "1991 Oahu Shoreline Management
          Plan", prepared for the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Land
          Utilization, 1991.

          Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, "Strategy for Beach Preservation Proposed",
          Adapted from a position paper that is the result of the Second Skidaway Institute
          of Oceanography Conference on America's Eroding Shoreline, Dec. 1985.

          Tait, J.F., and Griggs, G.B., "Beach Response to the Presence of a Seawall:
          Comparison of Field Observations", U.S. Army Corps of.Engineers, Coastal
          Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, Miss., Contract Report CERC-91-1, 60
          P., 1991.

          Trupin, A., and Wahr, J., "Spectroscopic Analysis Global Tide Gauge Sea-Level
          Data", Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 100, p. 441-453, 1990.

          Wigley, T.M.L., and Raper, S.C.B., "The Contribution of Thermal Expansion to
          Sea Level Rise", EOS, Vol. 70/No. 43, p. 1002, 1989.

          Wigley, T.M.L., and Raper, S.C.B., "Implications for Climate & Sea Level of
          Revised IPCC Emissions Scenarios", Nature, Vol. 351, pg. 293-300, 1992.

          Wilkinson, "The Headwaters of the Public Trust: Some of the Traditional
          Doctrine", 19 Envtl. L. 425, 1989.

          Wyrtki, K., "Sea-Level Rise: The Facts and the Future", Pacific Science, Vol.
          44/No. 1, p. 1-16, 1990.

          Zwally, H.J., "Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet: Interpretation", Science, Vol.  246,
          p. 1589-1591, 1989.




                                                 192









                                                                                         NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                         3 6668 14110701 3