Coastal Subsidence Study 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

or where there is no vegetation in the immediate vegetative growth, vicinity, the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves. This definition has been modified on June 3, 2006 to match that found in the State Coastal Zone Management Act. Thus there is no longer a preference to use the vegetation line in the State rules, and the debris line, and vegetation line are to be given equal weight as evidence for the “upper reach of the wash of the waves.” The definition in the Hawaii County Special Management Area Rules § 9.4 uses the same exact definition as found in the Coastal Zone Management Act. The concern for the former State regulatory definition had been that it placed a preference on the vegetation line over the debris line, whereas the definition in the Coastal Zone Management Act places equal emphasis on both. With the recent modification of the State rules to match the statute, no preference is given to the vegetation line or the debris line. In recent conversations with the State DLNR, they indicate that no marker (vegetation line or debris lines) will be used exclusively and all are potential 11 indicators for the position of the shoreline. This is also in conformity with the recent Supreme Court decision, Diamond and Bronstein v. State of Hawai’i, Board of Land and Natural Resources and Carl Stephens. In this October 24, 2006 opinion, the Court held that there is no per se rule giving primacy of the vegetation line over the debris line in determining the “upper reach of the wash of the waves.” From observations made during the field trips there are several issues with the shoreline certification process, especially for the Kapoho area and in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. These problem areas are discussed below. The major problem with relying on the “upper reach of the wash of the waves,” is that it can lead to highly variable, and difficult to document results within a short distance. This can lead to determinations that do not make sense in the administration of a coastal area. This is especially true for Kapoho. Some of these abnormal results have been taken care of by statute or rule, but not all. Below are a few examples of the abnormalities that can result from the current definition of the shoreline, and the existing or proposed regulatory exclusions to address these anomalies. 1)In recognizing that the upper reach of the wash of the waves may result in wave inundation significantly inland from an existing house, the exclusion was added to not consider storm or seismic waves (tsunamis). This would prevent the result of a shoreline being placed thousands of feet inland from existing houses. 11 Interview with OCCL – DLNR and UH Sea Grant extension agent Chris Conger on November 21, 2006. 29