Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STATE OF HAWAI’IDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCESOFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
Honolulu, Hawai’i
October 13, 2017Board of Land andNatural ResourcesState of Hawai’iHonolulu, Hawai’i
REGARDING: Conservation District Enforcement File OA-1 8-06Alleged Unauthorized Land Uses in the Conservation District
BY: James O’Shea and Denise O’SheaTrustees of the James and Denise O’Shea Trust
LOCATION: 59-17 1 D Kë Nui Road, Pupukea, Ko’olauloa, Island of O’ahu
TAX MAP KEY: (1) 5-9-002:025 (Seaward)
SUBZONE: Resource
DESCRIPTION OF AREA:
The subject area is located on the north shore of the island of O’ahu, west of Sunset Beach andseaward of Tax Map Key (1) 5-9-002:025 (Exhibit 1 and 2). The private property is located in theState Land Use Urban District up to the highest wash of the waves. Lands seaward of where theshoreline would likely be determined, based on Hawai’i Revised Statues (HRS) §205A-l and Hawai’iAdministrative Rules (HAR) § 13-222 Shoreline CertfIcations, are located in the Conservation DistrictResource Subzone. The beach area is set aside to the City and County of Honolulu, Department ofParks and Recreation as the Pupukea to Paumala (Sunset) Beach Park, under Governor’s ExecutiveOrder # 2598 (see Exhibit 1).
A single-family residence is located on the subject property. The neighboring properties to the southare fronted by wood bulkhead seawall structures. The neighboring property to the north is fronted by aconcrete seawall which has partially failed, about 15 to 20 percent of the seawall has collapsed. Thesefew houses are the only properties with shoreline armoring along this stretch of Sunset Beach.
The beach is exposed to swells from the north Pacific in the winter months and easterly tradewindwaves year-round. The beach is composed of carbonate coarse sand and characterized by occasionaloutcrops of limestone that are intermittently buried or exposed by shifting sand. Long-term shorelinechange rates in the vicinity of the subject property have trended towards chronic recession(approximately 0.5 to 0.6 feet per year) (Exhibit 3), although the long-term rate calculations arecomplicated by shorter-term, seasonal variations in shoreline position. Northeast tradewind waves,predominant in summer, tend to drive sand from this area (erosion) and west to northwest swell,predominant in winter, tends to move sand into this area (accretion) (Exhibit 4 and 5).
ITEM K-2
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENF: OA-18-06
Short-term (episodic) erosion is a significant hazard to beach-front homes in the area with rapid sandloss and wave run-up from large waves. Such hazards would be expected in an environment of thistype because the homes are built on top of the frontal sand dune. The sand dune may be moreaccurately characterized as a high wave berm because the underlying sediments appear to bepredominantly coarse-grained, suggesting deposition by waves, not wind.
CHRONOLOGY:
August24 and 28, 2017 — Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) staff conducted a siteinspection of the area. Seawall was intact in front of subject property and no boulders were present(Exhibit 6 and 7).
September 3, 2017 — Subject seawall collapsed, according to the neighbors.
September 5, 2017 — DLNR staff conducted a site inspection of the area and observed the failedseawall. Construction crew was observed digging a trench in front of the failed structure (Exhibit 8).Department of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) and City and County ofHonolulu, Code Compliance Branch were notified.
September 6, 2017 — DLNR notified by adjacent neighbor to the north that the subject seawall hasfailed completely and 15 to 20 percent of adjacent seawall to the north has failed.
September 8, 2017 — DLNR staff and a DOCARE Officer conducted a site inspection and observed anoperator on a backhoe machine working with a pile of boulders on the seaward side of the subjectproperty (Exhibit 9). It appeared that the boulders had been recently placed on the beach seaward ofthe failed seawall. DLNR staff notified the construction crew that the landowner did not have permitsfor land uses in the Conservation District and suggested they stop work. An Alleged Violation andOrder was left in the landowner’s mailbox at 3:45pm (Exhibit 10). Mr. O’Shea called DLNR staff andwas informed of the alleged violation and the potential consequences. He agreed to stop work.
September 13, 2017 — DOCARE Officer conducted site inspection of the subject property andobserved the boulders still present on the beach.
September 14, 2017 — DLNR staff conducted site inspection of the subject property and observed theboulders still present on the beach (Exhibit 11).
September 15, 2017 — DLNR received complaint that additional boulders were placed on the beachand work has been taking place throughout the week.
September 16, 2017 — DOCARE Officer conducted a site inspection of the subject property andobserved machinery on the beach. The construction crew had stacked additional boulders and placedsoil (sand and fill material) on the beach on top of the existing boulders. It appeared the constructionteam was stacking the boulders in a wall-like structure (Exhibit 12).
September 18, 2017 — DLNR staff conducted a site inspection and observed ongoing work withmachinery on the beach. The pile of sand and fill material was still present on the beach (Exhibit 13).
2
>
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENF: OA-18-06
September 20, 2017 — DLNR staff conducted a site inspection and observed ongoing work withmachinery on the beach. The boulders and the pile of sand and fill material were still present. (Exhibit14).
September 22, 2017 — A Temporary Restraining Order (Exhibit 15) was granted to stop allconstruction activities on the seawall through October 2, 2017.
ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED LAND USE IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT:
The DLNR has jurisdiction over land lying seaward of the shoreline as evidenced by the upper reachesof the wash of the waves other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the yearin which the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, orthe upper limits of debris left by the wash of the waves, pursuant to HRS §205A- 1.
Staff believes the unauthorized land uses occurred within the Conservation District based upon thelocation of the work seaward of the O’Shea’s property. The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands(OCCL) believes there is sufficient cause to bring this matter to the Board of Land and NaturalResources (BLNR) since it is evident that the unauthorized land uses are within the ConservationDistrict pursuant to the HAR § 15-15-20 Standards for determining “C” conservation cistrictboundaries:
It shall include lands having an elevation below the shoreline as stated by HRS §‘205A-1marine waters, fishponds, and tidepools ofthe State, and aecretedportions oflands pursuant toHRS 5c501-33 unless otherwise designated on the district maps. All offshore and outlyingislands of the State are classified conservation unless otherwise designated on the land usedistrict maps.
HAR §13-5 and HRS §183C regulate land uses in the Conservation District by identifying a list of usesthat may be allowed by a Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP). The chapters also provide forpenalties, collection of administrative costs and damages to State land for uses that are not allowed orfor which no permit has been obtained. HAR § 13-5-2 defines “land use” as follows:
The placement or erection of any solid material on land if that material remains on the landmore than thirty days, or which causes a permanent change in the land area on which itoccurs.
The grading, removing, harvesting, dredging, mining, or extraction of any material or naturalresource on land.
The work that was conducted consisted of excavation (grading) and placement of materials, includinglarge boulders, concrete and rebar debris and soil, within the Conservation District, Resource Subzone.Since the work would normally qualify as a land use under the Conservation District definition (HAR§ 13-5-2), some type of permit or approval should have been obtained by the alleged.
Pursuant to HRS §183C-7, the maximum fine for a Conservation District violation is $15,000.00 perviolation in addition to administrative costs. If the alleged fails to immediately cease such activity after
3
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES EM’: OA-18-06
written or verbal notification from the department, willful violation may incur an additional fine of upto $15,000.00 per day per violation for each day in which the violation persists.Under the Penalty Guideline Framework that was approved by the BLNR (Exhibit 16) this action isconsidered “Major” since the identified land use would require a permit approved by the BLNR underthe permit prefix “D”. This violation follows a penalty range of $10,000 to $15,000. The comparableidentified use in HAR § 13-5 would be “Shoreline Erosion Control” for which a permit approved by theBLNR is normally required.
Therefore, under the Penalty Guideline Framework this unauthorized land use is considered:
1. Major harm to resource or potential harm to resource; and2. Major comparable harm to resource.3. Continuing violations.
Under the penalty guidelines, examples of “major harm(s) to the resource” may include actions thatcause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources within the surrounding area, community,ecosystem or region, or damage to the existing physical and environmental aspects of the land, such asnatural beauty and open space characteristics. Such actions may include, but are not limited to,unauthorized single-family residences or unauthorized structures, grading or alteration oftopographic features, aquaculture, major marine construction or dredging, unauthorized shorelinestructures, major projects of any kind, mining and extraction, etc.”
In addition, under the “Containing Violations” guideline, “Each day during which a party continues towork or otherwise continues to violate conservation district laws, and after the Department hasinformed the violator of the offense by verbal or written notification, the party may be penalized up to$15,000 per day (penalties for every day illegal actions continue) by the Department for each separateoffense.”
DISCUSSION:
Coastal erosion occurs as a result of the following phenomena: 1) Seasonal changes in waves andcurrents that move sand alongshore or across the shore, adjusting the beach profile; 2) Long-term(chronic) deficiencies in natural sand supply and/or fluctuations in meteorological or oceanographicprocesses such as storms and sea level rise; and 3) Human impacts to sand availability through sandimpoundment and supply disruption from development and coastal engineering.
Development on beaches and dunes has contributed to narrowing and loss of beaches in Hawai’i,degrading recreational areas, habitat and natural storm protection that “healthy” beaches and dunes canprovide. Beach narrowing and loss fronting shoreline armoring (the construction of vertical seawalls orsloping stone revetments along a shoreline to protect coastal lands from marine erosion) also severelyrestricts public access to State Conservation land and the natural resources. Seawalls impound naturalsand supplies that would otherwise be available to nourish an eroding beach, increasing rates of beachnarrowing and loss (Exhibit 17).
Unfortunately, many of Hawai’i’s beaches have been degraded or lost from a combination of naturalerosion and inappropriate coastal development including inappropriate shoreline armoring, shallow lotshoreline subdivisions and development built too close to the shoreline. According to a 2012 study by
4
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENF: OA-18-06
University of Hawai’i and U.S. Geological Survey researchers, 70 percent of all beaches measured inthe Hawaiian Islands indicated an erosion trend. More than 21 km or 9 percent of the total length of thebeaches studied were lost to erosion. In nearly all cases of beach loss, the beaches were replaced withseawalls or other coastal armoring structures.
The beaches of the North Shore of O’ahu, also referred to as the “Seven Mile Miracle”, are some ofHawai’i’s most unique and valued natural resources. The North Shore is famous for world-class bigwave surfmg and hosts a series of top-level surfing contest each winter, attracting thousands ofinternational contestants and spectators. Beaches are an essential natural resource and economic enginefor the North Shore community. Most of the beaches along this stretch of shoreline are still healthybecause of the abundance of sand, but some sandy areas are at risk due to chronic and seasonal erosion,shallow lot shoreline subdivisions and development built too close to erosion and inundation-proneshorelines. Increasing sea level rise will increase risks to beaches and shore-front development in thecoming decades. The State and City should resist the temptation to allow further shoreline armoring inthis area; as such actions will ultimately degrade the sandy beach.
The erosion that occurred in the vicinity of the subject property this summer was an extreme case ofthe normal cycle of seasonal change for North Shore beaches, which may have been worsened byhigher than normal water levels, extreme high tides and/or longer-term deficiencies in sand supply.
The unauthorized land uses, including the use of heavy machinery, placement of the boulders, soil, andconcrete and rebar debris, that were conducted by the O’Sheas pose a significant threat to the beachand the public. The land uses were conducted without proper authorizations and an environmentalreview process. The materials extend seaward of the shoreline within the Conservation District,inhibiting lateral shoreline access and affecting recreational activities. During construction work, clay,soil and construction debris was released into the ocean creating hazardous conditions for ocean usersand plumes extending offshore (Exhibit 18).
It is currently unclear whether the seawall is located on State land or private property. A survey of theshoreline is necessary. However, debris and construction activity related to the seawall clearlyoccurred on State Conservation District land.
The beaches of Hawai’i are held in trust by the State for the benefit of present and future generations.The landowners of the subject property acted without authorization from the DLNR or the City andCounty of Honolulu. The State should be involved when individuals seek to construct any shorelinestructure seaward of the shoreline; and there should be consequences when an individual unilaterallyacts in such a way that endangers and potentially damages a public trust resource.
On August 27, 1999, the BLNR adopted the Hawai’i Coastal Erosion Management Plan (COEMAP) asan internal policy for managing shoreline issues including erosion and coastal development in Hawai’I(Exhibit 19). COEMAP still serves as the primary shoreline policy for the DLNR and recommends anumber of strategies to improve our State’s management of coastal erosion and beach resources.
However, COEMAP’s scope is of a general nature, more focused on broader government policy thanerosion management practices. The COEMAP effort is guided by the doctrine of sustainabilitypromoting the conservation, sustainability, and restoration of Hawai’i’s beaches for future generations.When assessing eases involving unauthorized shoreline structures the Department has implemented a“no tolerance” policy concerning unauthorized shoreline structures constructed after the adoption of
5
BOARD OF LAN]) AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENF: OA-18-06
COEMAP. Based on this policy, the OCCL recommends that the materials be removed and the beachrestored to its pristine condition. The decision to remove unauthorized uses has been established byprevious BLNR decisions on matters similar to this one.
The OCCL strives to provide guidance and assistance to landowners that are subject to coastal hazards.Once this violation case is resolved, the OCCL would gladly assist the landowners in considering nextsteps.
Staff believes that the landowner should be fined the maximum penalty in five instances ($15,000 x 5= $75,000) for the unauthorized land uses. DLNR documented the (5) days of continuing work despiteverbal and written orders to cease work. In addition, Staff will recommend administrative penalties.Staff recommends the landowner be required to remove the unauthorized materials in their entirety andclean and restore the site to a condition acceptable to the Department.
This submittal and notice of the BLNR’s meeting shall be sent to the property’s landowners bycertified mail to the address on record.
AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS:
That pursuant to HRS Sec. 183C-7 and HAR Sec. 13-5-6, the BLNR finds the property owner(s) ofTMK: (1) 5-9-002:025 in Pupukea, Ko’olauloa, O’ahu, in violation of HRS Sec. 183C-6 and HAR Sec13-5-30, subject to the following:
1. The Landowner is fmed $75,000 for the unauthorized land uses;
2. The Landowner is fined an additional $2,500.00 for administrative costs associated with thesubject violation;
3. The Landowner shall pay all fines (total $77,500) within thirty (30) days of the date of theBLNR’s action;
4. The Landowner shall be required to remove debris and clean the site to the satisfaction of theDLNR;
5. That in the event of failure of the landowners to comply with any order herein, the landownershall be fined an additional $15,000.00 per day until the order is complied with; and
6. That in the event of failure of the landowners to comply with any order herein, the matter shallbe turned over to the Attorney General for disposition, including all administrative costs.
7. The Department reserves the right to assert additional claims after a shoreline survey iscompleted and more information is received regarding the property lines.
6
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENF: OA-18-06
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie Farinholt, o stal Lands Program SpecialistOffice of Conservation and Coastal Lands
Approved for submittal:
Suzai’e Case, ChairpersonBoard of Land and Natural Resources
7
IIIHIIIXEI
IEXH
IBIT
2r’ L
.’r!
S
:
•.s
hale-remrclraccc riracedcaraclerlckcc ecryarkorerr hhhalhs
4ccaarhcnjcahgrdleacl hazard ach.fr 41109 a. 549c4 yB detach cheap hoer large waves. brcwhctvl heath-treaticrcsuoccadralwycd &clag amaewhdorlkficawc9.
PoacusswhyhwalcSlladsaehrrrkraeg(l989)IourrdlelerelchargcorclcczwtalcwurkroltheohrrhhureolbuwalBeach 1944— ISBR.acceplatsalall Reach Park ardalthcwcclcrdeolHarmcla Soachr,hrre the orgeblon Itncrndrd The IwuelatutCcc hascieaerecouwadzl Ilaralall Beach (1909—2326).
Fcemceaknbrerakoware: NIpAwewhrzcchhBhcCadchcptoeca9tcahrul
cazauc.lrlleroaawonsaawtodaacaoawaoh acanlz9a,tc.41a1.ahaebenclneaounveter
SHORELINE CHANGE RATES
___
Becrarlaro Hera
— ErcelenRata
neereaewcdccwyc!EHISTORICAL SHOREUNES
— 1948- raw n-shoal 1032
114r 1949
Sap leer9pr 1941
JBrr 1811
— dpI 1979
BeJun ISle
PeE 1998
—aol 1089
a Jul 2926
C. Erptlaeratarrrra,urcmcrglenakcrre
Ishclr.remrdelransrnbl
.&- V— -r;—tt -
-.-a
EXHIBIT 3
G)
I-I
(1)
EwE.E
r •,.-
EXHIBIT 4
cIIHIHXE[
eli
August 28, 2017
EXHIBIT 7
September 5, 2017
EXHIBIT 8
.4
September 8, 2017
EXHIBIT 9
-
—
_i-;-;•L’--
-
SUZANNID.CASEOFI CASONDAVID V. IGEGOVERNOR HAWArI
RODER?K. M%MJDA
JEI1REY T. PEARSON, P.R.DPtflTDiRPC1OR.WAThR
EOATE*3A)W.ORA1TONIUcVEYA)L
RVA1WANOCOASYALLAJE*
STATE OF HAWAI’IDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES VA11O
QIEEIRYANDWILDLfl
OOLAWDRcO.R3IONtmDOFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
POST OFFICE BOX 621HONOLULU, HAWA1 96809
REF:OCCL:SL EN?: OA 18-06
CERTIFIED MAIIJRETURN RECEIPT7014 2120 0003 1908 2369
James and Denise O’Sliea TrustSEP — 8201759-lllDKeNuiRoad
Hale’iwa,HI 96712
SUBJECT: Alleged Unauthorized Land Use within the Conservation District Located Makai of59-171 D Ke Nui Road, Hale’iwa, O’ahuTax Map Key: (1)5-9-002:025
Dear Landowner:
It has come to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Office of Conservation andCoastal Lands’ (OCCL) attention that alleged unauthorized land uses consisting of the placement oflarge rocks and concrete rubble as a shoreline erosion control measure may have occurred in theshoreline area fronting the subject property.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN you may be in violation of Hawaii. Administrative Rules (HAR)Title 13, Chapter 5, entitled Conservation District providing for land uses within the ConservationDistrict, enacted pursuant to the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapter 1 83C.
The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has determined that:
1. The location of the alleged unauthorized land use is located makai of TMK (1) 5-9-002:025and is located within the State Land Use Conservation District, Resource Subzone;
2. A site inspection conducted by Staff on September 8, 2017 revealed a mini excavatorplacing rocks and concrete rubble within the shoreline area fronting the subject property inwhat appears to be a make-shift seawall for shoreline erosion control purposes [EXHIBIT1];
3. Pursuant to § 13-5-2, HAR, “Land use” means:
(I) The placement or erection of any solid material on land if that material remains onthe land more than thirty days, or which causes a permanent change in the land areaon which it occurs;
EXHIBIT 10
James and Denise O’Shea Trust ENF: OA 18-06
(2) The grading, removing, harvesting, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materialor natural resource on land; and
4. This land use was not authorized by the Department of Land and Natural Resources underChapter 13-5, HAR.
Pursuant to 183C-7, HRS, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (Board) may subject you tofines of up to $15,000.00 per violation in addition to administrative costs. Should you fail toimmediately cease such activity after written or verbal notification from the department, willfulviolation may incur an additional fine of up to $15,000.00 per day per violation for each day inwhich the violation persists.
Please respond to this Notice wjthin 15-days. Please note any information provided may be used incivil proceedings. Should you have any questions, contact Sam Lemmo, Administrator of theOffice ofConservation and Coastal Lands at (808) 587-0377.
Sincerely,
Board of Land and Natural Resources
Attachment
C: ODLODOCARE-O’ahuC&C, DPP
2EXHIBIT 10
01ifflIHX1T!I8IHX]
September 14, 2017
EXHIBIT 11
September 16, 2017
EXHIBIT 12
r
•
September 18, 2017
EXHIBIT 13
4
September 20, 2017
EXHIBIT 14
I
DOUGLAS S. CHIN 6465Attorney General ofHawaii
WILLIAM J. WYNHOFFAMANDA J. WESTONDeputy Attorneys GeneralDepartment of the Attorney General,State ofHawai’i465 S. King Street, 3 FloorHonolulu, Hawaii 96813Telephone: (808) 587-2985Attorneys for Plaintiff
STATE OF HAWAI’I,
vs.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Plaintiff,
STATE OF HAWAI’I
JAMES O’SHEA AND DENISE O’SHEA asTrustees of the James and Denise O’SheaTrust and DENISE O’SHEA AND JAMESO’SHEA, individually, and JOHN AND3ANES DOES 1 -10,
Defendant.
C1VILNO.O±00l3—01 KSS
amcuircoaSWtOFNI
TILED WI cirn couir)zc •‘dih_4ç1 ?Z2O7kSa ‘çL
ORDER GRANTING PLAiNTIFF’SMOTION FOR TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER FILEDSEPTEMBER 22,2017
DATE: September 22,2017TIME: 10:00a.m.JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey P. Crabtree
chik
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FORTEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED SEPTEMBER 22. 2017
The Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed September 22,2017, having
come on for hearing on September 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jeffrey P.
Crabtree, Amanda 3. Weston, Deputy Attorney General, appearing for Plaintiff State ofHawai’i,
and Defendants James O’Shea and Denise O’Shea appeared in person, and
704595_i
25587496
/-:- j,
EXHIBIT 15
The court having considered the motion, and the memoranda, declarations and exhibits
filed in support and opposition to the motion, as well as the oral argument of counsel, iinds and
concludes that
1. There is a sufficient likelihood that Plaintiffmay prevail on the merits;
2. The Plaintiffwould be irreparably hanned as if the motion is not granted;
3. The public interest supports granting the temporary restraining order Plaintiff
seeks.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining order filed on September 22, 2017 is GRANTED
as follows:
Defendants will stop all construction activities on the seawall through October 2, 2017.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, 2 2 2017
BOVE-ENTITLED COURT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JAMES O’SHEA
DENISE O’SHEA
704595_i 2
EXHIBIT 15
TA
BL
EO
FC
ON
TE
NT
S1
SJ.
flJM
t#.
2C
ON
SER
VA
TIO
ND
IST
hIC
TV
IOL
AT
ION
PEN
AL
TIE
SC
ON
SER
VA
TIO
ND
IST
RIC
TV
IOL
AT
ION
PEN
AL
TIE
SSC
HE
DU
LE
SCH
ED
UL
EG
UID
EL
WE
S.....................,...............1
GU
IDE
LIN
ES
AN
DA
SSE
SSM
EN
TO
FD
AM
AG
ES
TO
PUB
LIC
LA
ND
OR
21P
EN
AL
TY
CA
LC
UL
AT
ION
........
..
NA
TU
RA
LR
ESO
UR
CE
S2.
1.1
iden
tifie
dL
aud
Use
Pejia
lties
.3
Sept
embe
rO
921
.2N
on- I
dent
ifie
dL
and
Use
Pen
alde
s....
...-
Rel
atin
gto
pena
lUes
for
wol
atio
nsw
ithin
the
Con
serv
atio
nD
istr
ict
2.1.
3T
ree
Rem
oval.._.
Act
217
2.1.
4V
eget
atIo
nR
ezno
vailV
eget
afto
naeie
g._
._.......
2.1.
5A
ddlt
leaalC
onsl
dera
Uonsa
ndP
actu
n.......................4
2.1.
6C
ontI
nuin
gV
lol*
tioa
sen
dP
erm
itN
enm
plla
ace.
.2.
1.7
In-K
Ind
Pen
alti
es......_.
....
.....
72.
1.8
Pena
ltyA
djud
icat
ion
.........
7
3A
SSE
SSM
EN
TO
FD
AM
AG
ES
TO
PUB
LIC
LA
ND
OR
...-..—
....—
..—
31PR
IMA
RY
RE
STO
RA
TIO
ND
AM
AG
ES....U
3.2
CO
MPE
NSA
TO
RY
DA
MA
GE
CA
LC
UL
AT
ION
..
3.3
AD
JUD
ICA
TIO
NO
FD
AM
AG
ES
.............................
13
APP
EN
DIX
A: G
UID
EL
INE
FRA
ME
WO
RK
TA
BL
ES
APP
EN
DIX
B:D
EFI
NIT
ION
SA
PPE
ND
IXC
:R
EF
ER
EN
CE
S
APP
EN
DIX
D:D
AM
AG
ES
EX
AM
PLE
SA
PPE
ND
IXE
:PE
NA
LT
YC
AL
CU
LA
TIO
NW
OR
KSH
EE
T
IIN
ThO
DU
CT
ION
Haw
aii
Rev
ised
Stat
utes
(HR
S)§1
83C
-7w
asam
ende
don
July
1,20
08to
incr
ease
the
max
imum
pena
Iyfo
ra
Con
serv
atio
nD
istr
ictv
iola
tion
toup
to$1
5,00
0pe
rvi
olat
ion,
inad
ditio
nto
adm
inis
trat
ive
cost
s,co
sts
asso
ciat
edw
ithla
ndor
habi
tat
rest
orat
ion,
and
dam
ages
topu
blic
land
orna
tura
l res
ourc
es,o
ran
yco
mbi
natio
nth
ereo
f.
Thi
sdo
cum
ent,
Con
serv
atio
nD
isth
ciV
iola
tion
Pena
lties
Sche
dule
Gui
delin
esan
dA
sses
smen
t of D
wna
ges
toPu
blic
Lan
dan
dN
atur
alR
esou
rces
isin
tend
edto
prov
ide
the
Ofl
ice
ofC
onse
rvat
ion
and
Coa
stal
Lan
ds(O
CC
L)w
itha
fram
ewor
kto
syst
emat
ical
lyca
rry
out
itsen
forc
emen
tpo
wer
s,in
the
dete
nnin
atio
nan
dad
judi
catio
nof
civi
lan
dad
min
istr
ativ
epe
nalti
es.
The
segu
idel
ines
are
tobe
used
fori
nter
nal
staf
f gui
danc
e,an
dsh
ould
bepe
riod
ical
lyre
view
edto
dete
rmin
eth
eir
effe
ctiv
enes
s,an
dw
heth
erre
fine
men
tsar
ene
eded
.T
hese
guid
elin
esar
eco
nsis
tent
with
HA
R§1
3-I,
Subc
hapt
er7,
Civ
ilR
esou
rce
Vio
latio
nSy
stem
(CR
VS)
.
2C
ON
SE
RV
AT
ION
DIS
TR
ICT
VIO
LA
TIO
NP
EN
AL
TIE
SS
CH
ED
UL
EG
UID
EL
INE
S
The
char
ging
and
colle
ctin
gof
pena
lties
isan
enfo
rcem
ent
tool
that
may
beus
edto
ensu
refb
ture
com
plia
nce
byth
ere
spon
sibl
epa
rty
and
othe
rssi
mila
rlysi
tuat
ed.
The
pena
ltyam
ount
(s)
shal
lbe
enou
ghto
ensu
reim
med
iate
com
plia
nce
with
HA
R§1
3-5
and
HR
S§1
83C
,and
cess
atio
nof
illeg
alac
tiviti
es.
Pena
lties
will
beas
sess
edfo
reac
hac
tion
com
mitt
edby
anin
divi
dual
(s)
that
cond
ucts
anun
auth
oriz
edla
ndus
ean
dth
atim
pair
sor
dest
roys
natu
ralr
esou
rces
prot
ecte
dun
derC
hapt
er§1
83C
,HR
S.
The
Staf
fwill
trea
t eac
hca
sein
divi
dual
lyw
hen
assi
gnin
gco
nser
vatio
ndi
stric
t pen
altie
sus
ing
the
follo
win
gfr
amew
ork,
and
addi
tiona
lco
nsid
erat
ions
and
thct
ots
the
upw
ard
ordo
wnw
ard
adju
stm
ents
.T
hest
affo
fth
eO
CC
L(S
taff
)w
illus
cth
ese
pena
ltysc
hedu
legu
idel
ines
tois
sue
viol
atio
nno
tices
and
tom
ake
reco
mm
enda
tions
toth
eB
oard
ofLa
nd
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es(B
oard
),C
hair
pers
onof
the
Boa
rdof
Land
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es(C
hairp
erso
n),
orPr
esid
ing
Off
icer
,w
hom
may
ultim
atel
yad
judi
cate
the
Con
serv
atio
nD
istr
ict
pena
lties
.T
hese
guid
elin
espr
esum
eth
atal
lca
ses
inw
hich
avi
olat
ion
has
occu
rred
,th
eC
hair
pers
on,
Boa
rd,
orPr
esid
ing
Off
icer
may
also
asse
ssad
min
istr
ativ
eco
sts,
dam
ages
topu
blic
land
orna
tura
lre
sour
ces,
and
cost
sas
soci
ated
with
land
orha
bita
tres
tora
tion.
2.1
PEN
AL
TY
CA
LC
UL
AT
ION
The
pena
ltyra
nge
fort
hese
actio
nsw
illbe
subs
tant
ially
dete
rmin
edba
sed
onth
ety
peof
perm
itth
atw
ould
have
been
requ
ired
ifth
ein
divi
dual
(s) h
adap
plie
dto
the
Dep
artm
ent
ofLa
ndan
dN
atur
alR
esou
rces
(Dep
arim
ent)
orB
oard
for
pre-
auth
oriz
atio
nto
cond
uct
the
iden
tifie
dus
e,un
der
Haw
aii
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Rul
es(B
AR
)§1
3-5-
22,
23,
24,
25.
Ass
essi
ngth
epe
nalti
esac
cord
ing
toth
eC
onse
rvat
ion
Dis
tric
tpe
rmit
type
acco
unts
for
the
leve
lof
revi
ewor
scru
tiny
the
unau
thor
ized
use
wou
ldha
vere
ceiv
edby
the
Dep
artm
ent
orB
oard
inor
dert
oav
oid
dam
age
toth
ena
tura
l res
ourc
e.Th
isgr
adua
ted
perm
itre
view
fram
ewor
kco
rres
pond
sto
the
leve
lof
actu
alor
pote
ntia
l“h
ann
toth
ere
sour
cd”
caus
edby
the
viol
atio
n.
Onc
eth
eba
selin
efo
rth
epe
nalty
rang
eha
sbe
enes
tabl
ishe
dac
cord
ing
the
requ
ired
perm
it,th
epe
nalty
may
bead
just
edap
prop
riat
ely
upw
ard
ordo
wnw
ard
acco
rdin
gto
the
“har
mto
reso
urce
”ca
used
orpo
tent
ially
caus
edby
the
viol
ator
’sac
tion
and
addi
tiona
lco
nsid
erat
ions
and
Ihet
ors
(See
2.l.4
),2
with
inth
eas
sign
edpe
nalty
rang
e.W
here
Staf
fw
asun
able
toas
soci
ate
the
unau
thor
ized
use
with
aty
pica
l lan
dus
eid
entif
ied
inH
AR
§13-
5,St
affm
aytr
yto
asso
ciat
eth
eac
tion
with
the
mos
tsi
mila
rid
entif
ied
land
use
inB
AR
§13-
5,or
acco
rdin
gto
the
“har
mto
the
reso
urce
”ca
used
byth
evi
olat
ion.
Tabl
eI
‘1km
torc
ww
ce”
ape
aida
tha
pon.
hu
*o
crw
dir,
a,an
aia
,gca
m,j
apan
a,on
atir
il,
culio
rato
rso
d,Ir
ceuw
cuw
btdc
cpoc
adO
oocc
aria
.ra,
cdco
(unm
dhcr
bcian
i,dto
o,I
tcra
ija,,
orI
aid
cuh
anci
an
c1p
a,.
ity
trau
ma
ra03
’bo4
u$cu
lca
por
*ra,
,,br
ada,
udd5
ia,u
tcoc
ada,
tbra
,m
dca,
Ihc
mar
tm
cmlo
tthc
diru
cOdm
l4ra
.fic
utice
armom
icciad
iantr
apm
a,um
baci
nact
itre
cord
otth
cvto
ldm
,rap
mei
vaca
,ofv
iola
aec,
Se
(Src
2.IA
Adt
htco
mot
ca,,jd
aaia
c,ac
dFa
num
).
2
was
crea
ted
tode
mon
stra
teth
epe
nalty
rang
esfo
rth
cty
peof
requ
ired
perm
itan
d“h
arm
tore
sour
ce”
(See
2.1.
1or
App
endi
xA
).
The
firs
t tw
oof
the
follo
win
gse
ctio
nsex
plai
nth
eid
entif
ied
and
non-
iden
tifie
dla
ndus
efr
amew
ork.
The
next
four
sect
ions
:T
ree
Rem
oval
,A
dditi
onal
Con
side
ratio
nsan
dFa
ctor
s,C
ontin
uing
Vio
latio
nsan
dPe
rmit
Non
-Com
plia
nce,
and
In-K
ind
Pena
lties
,pr
ovid
egu
idan
cefo
r the
upw
ard
ordo
wnw
ard
adju
stm
ento
f pen
altie
sba
sed
onth
ein
itial
fram
ewor
kdi
scus
sed
inSe
ctio
n2.
1.1,
Iden
tifie
dla
ndus
epe
nalti
es.
2.1.
1id
entI
fied
Lan
dU
sePe
nalti
es
The
viol
atio
npe
nalty
rang
eas
soci
ated
with
each
requ
ired
pann
itw
illbe
asse
ssed
inac
cord
ance
with
the
follo
win
gha
rmto
reso
urce
indi
ces
inth
isgr
adua
ted
fram
ewor
k
I.i
toIoure
orote
itla
ld
IlfI
ed
had
ene
nera
dten
tity
Ran
tsor
bam
iIs
reao
arce
nlm
ow
ithth
ein
tlar
tajo
r)
(Bon
d)l0
,000
.5I5
,000
(oda
ste
(Dep
atim
esla
l)2,
0004
10,0
00,li
nor
(Site
Plan
)1,
0004
2,00
0kiy
Min
orB
)(S
itePl
an)
Ipto
Sl,0
00
Maj
orH
prm
toth
eR
eson
rce/
Boa
rdP
erm
itCD
)V
iola
tions
iden
tifie
dw
ithth
ere
quir
edpe
rmit
pref
ix(1
))m
ayin
cur a
pena
ltyin
the
rang
eof
$10,
000
-$1
5,00
0as
aB
oard
perm
itw
ould
have
been
requ
ired
tom
inim
ize
the
poss
ibili
tyof
caus
ing
“maj
orha
rmto
the
reso
urce
.”E
xam
ples
of“m
ajor
harm
(s)
toth
ere
sour
ce”
may
incl
ude
actio
nsth
atca
use
subs
tant
ial
adve
rse
impa
ctto
exis
ting
natu
ral
reso
urce
sw
ithi
nth
esu
rrou
ndin
gar
ea, c
osnm
umty
.eco
syst
emor
regi
on, o
rda
mag
eto
the
exis
ting
phys
ical
and
envi
ronm
enta
las
pect
sof
the
land
, suc
has
natu
ralb
eaut
yan
dop
ensp
ace
char
acte
rist
ics.
Such
actio
nsm
ayin
clud
e,bu
tar
eno
tlim
ited
to,
unau
thor
ized
sing
le.th
mily
resi
denc
esor
unau
thor
ized
stru
ctur
es,
grad
ing
oral
tera
tion
ofto
pogr
aphi
cfe
atur
es,
aqua
cultu
re,
maj
orm
arin
eco
nstr
uctio
nor
dred
ging
,un
auth
oriz
edsh
orel
ine
stru
ctur
es, m
ajor
proj
ects
ofan
yki
nd,
min
ing
and
extr
actio
n,et
c.
Mod
erat
eH
arm
toth
eR
eson
r&D
eoar
hnea
tal P
erm
it(C
)V
iola
tions
iden
tifie
dw
ithth
ere
quir
edpe
rmit
pref
ix(C
) may
incu
r ape
nally
Inth
era
nge
of$2
,000
-S10
,000
,as
aD
epar
tmen
tal
perm
itw
ould
have
been
requ
ired
,du
eto
the
poss
ibili
tyof
caus
ing
“mod
erat
eha
rmto
the
reso
urce
.”E
xam
ples
of”t
node
rate
harm
(s)
toth
ere
sour
ce”
may
bead
vers
eim
pact
sth
atde
grad
ew
ater
reso
urce
s,de
grad
ena
tive
ecos
yste
ms
and
habi
tats
,an
d/or
alte
rth
est
ruct
ure
orfir
ectio
nof
ate
rres
tria
l,lit
tora
l or
mar
ine
ecos
yste
m.
Such
actio
nsm
ayin
clud
e,bu
tar
eno
tlim
ited
to,
unau
thor
ized
land
scap
ing
caus
ing
grou
nddi
stur
banc
e,un
auth
orIz
edal
tera
tion,
reno
vatio
nor
dem
oliti
onof
exis
ting
stru
ctur
esor
faci
litie
s,su
chas
build
ings
and
shor
elin
est
ruct
ures
,m
aint
enan
cedr
edgi
ng, a
gric
ultu
re,
and
anim
alhu
sban
dry,
etc.
Min
orH
arm
toth
eR
esou
rce/
Site
Plan
Ano
roya
l(B
)P
erm
itV
iola
tions
iden
jille
dw
ithth
ere
quir
edpe
rmit
pref
ix(B
) may
incu
r pen
altie
sas
asi
tepl
anap
prov
alw
ould
have
been
requ
ired
toas
sure
that
“min
orha
rm(s
)to
the
reso
urce
”ar
em
inim
ized
.“M
inor
harm
(s)
toth
ere
sour
ce”
may
incu
ra
pena
ltyof
SI,0
00-$
2,00
0an
dco
uld
beac
tions
caus
ing
limite
dto
shor
t-te
rmdi
rect
impa
cts
incl
udin
g,bu
t not
limite
dto
,sm
all-s
cale
dco
nstr
uctio
n,co
nstr
uctio
nof
acce
ssor
yst
ruct
ures
, ins
talla
tion
ofte
mpo
rary
orm
inor
shor
elin
eac
tiviti
esor
sim
ilar u
ses.
Ver
yM
inor
Har
mto
the
Res
ourc
e/rn
)P
erm
itEn
inst
ance
sin
whi
cha
perm
itw
ithth
eB
pref
ixsh
ould
have
been
soug
htbu
tar
eco
nsid
ered
toha
veon
lyca
used
“ver
ym
inor
harm
(s)
tore
sour
ce”
ape
nalty
ofup
to$1
,000
may
bein
curr
ed.
The
se“v
ery
min
orha
rm(s
)to
the
reso
urce
”co
uld
beac
tions
inw
hich
the
impa
cton
the
wat
erre
sour
ceor
terr
estr
ial,
litto
ral
orm
arin
eec
osys
tem
was
tem
pora
ryor
insi
gnifi
cant
,an
dw
asno
tof
asu
bsta
ntia
lna
ture
eith
erin
divi
dual
lyor
cum
ulat
ivel
y.
2,1.
2N
on- I
dent
ifie
dL
and
Use
Pena
lties
Vio
latio
nsin
whi
chan
unau
thor
ized
use
isno
tid
entif
ied
inlI
AR
§13-
5-22
.,23
,24,
25.
Staf
fmay
try
toas
soci
ate
the
actio
nw
ithth
em
ost
sim
ilar
iden
tifie
dla
ndus
ein
lIA
R
Tab
le1.
Pen
alty
Gui
deli
neF
ram
ewor
k
34
§13-
5or
acco
rdin
gto
the
lsan
nto
the
reso
urce
”ca
used
byth
evi
olat
ion.
Ref
erto
the
abov
ese
ctio
n,Id
entif
ied
Lan
dU
sePe
nalti
es,
for t
hem
osts
imila
r req
uire
dpe
rmit
pref
ix.
To
cate
gori
zeth
evi
olat
ion
asa
“har
mto
reso
urce
”w
hen
nosi
mila
r use
isid
entif
ied
inH
AR
§13-
5,St
affw
illre
fer
toT
able
Ian
dth
ede
fini
tions
ofth
efo
urvi
olat
ion
type
sof
“har
mto
reso
urce
”(S
eeA
ppen
dix
B:D
efin
ition
s).
2.13
Tre
eR
emov
al
Vio
latio
npe
nalti
esfo
rth
ere
mov
alof
any
fede
ral o
rst
ate
liste
dth
reat
ened
, end
ange
red,
orco
mm
erci
afly
valu
able
tree
may
incu
ra
fine
ofup
to$1
5,00
0pe
rtre
e.R
emov
alof
any
nativ
etr
eem
ayin
cur
afi
neof
upto
$1,0
00pe
rtre
CT
here
mov
alof
any
inva
sive
tree
shal
l be
cons
ider
edas
rem
oval
/cle
arin
gof
vege
tatio
n.
The
Boa
rd,
Dep
artm
ent,
orPr
esid
ing
Off
icer
also
has
the
optio
nof
cons
ider
ing
the
rem
oval
ofm
ore
than
one
tree
asa
sing
levi
olat
ion,
sim
ilar
toth
erm
nova
l/cle
ariu
gof
vege
tatio
n?If
viol
atio
nis
cons
ider
edas
one
viol
atio
n,a
fine
amou
ntof
upto
$15,
000
may
bein
curr
ed, u
tiliz
ing
the
guid
elin
esfo
rM
ajor
,M
oder
ate,
Min
or,
and
Ver
yM
inor
outli
ned
inib
issc
hedu
le.
How
ever
,the
rem
oval
ofan
yfe
dera
llyor
stat
elis
ted
thre
aten
edor
enda
nger
edtr
eesh
all b
eco
nsid
ered
ona
one
viol
atio
npe
rtr
eeba
sis,
with
am
axim
umpe
nalty
ofup
to$1
5,00
0pe
rtre
e.
2.1.
4V
eget
atio
nR
emov
slN
eget
atla
nC
lear
ing
Past
Staf
fre
conu
neud
atio
nsan
dB
oard
deci
sion
sha
vetr
eate
dso
me
case
sof
tree
or
rem
oval
ason
eci
tatio
nof
vege
tatio
ncl
eari
ng/v
eget
atio
nre
mov
al,
this
prac
tice
may
beco
ntin
ued
invi
olat
ions
resu
lting
inm
inor
orve
rym
inor
harm
toth
ere
sour
ce.
Inac
cord
ance
with
the
iden
tifie
dla
nduse
sw
ithin
BA
R§1
3-5
the
asse
ssm
ento
fveg
etat
ion
rem
oval
has
been
base
don
asi
ngle
cita
tion
ofre
moval
/cle
arin
gde
term
ined
byth
esq
uare
foot
age
ofve
geta
tion
rem
oved
(See
Tab
le3
Veg
etat
ion
Rem
oval
).H
owev
er,
the
Dep
artm
ent
may
see
fitto
asse
ssth
ere
.nov
aVcl
earin
gof
thre
aten
ed,
enda
nger
ed,
orco
mm
erci
ally
valu
able
plan
tssi
mila
rto
the
mod
ifie
dtr
eere
mov
alfr
amew
ork
and
may
bepe
naliz
edon
anin
divi
dual
plan
tba
sis
of u
pto
$15,
000
per
plan
i
,H
oee
toR
onas
eei,
Rio
it
wal
ofm
ore
than
10,0
00sq
ft(S
jor
10,0
0041
5,00
0
cmov
a1of
Vege
tatio
nor o
f 2,0
00.
,ooo.s
ioaoo
10,0
00sq
.fto
f veg
etat
ion
ec,o
,a1
ofle
eth
an2,
000
aqft
.g
oids
tion
Seas
ing
of 1
nvsi
veor
noxi
ous
in)M
hlO
F1p
mSI
,OOO
egcl
atio
n
2.1.
5A
ddIt
iona
l Con
side
ratio
nsan
dFa
ctor
s
Alt
erSt
affa
pplie
sth
eC
onse
rvat
ion
Dis
tric
tvi
olat
ion
grad
uate
dpe
nalty
fram
ewor
kto
iden
tify
the
viol
atio
npe
nalty
rang
e(1
,2, a
nd3
foun
dab
ove)
the
Sta
ffm
ayin
corp
orat
ese
vera
lco
nsid
erat
ions
into
the
final
asse
ssed
cons
erva
tion
dist
rict
pena
ltyin
clud
ing
but
not
limite
dto
,th
ose
fact
ors
iden
tifie
din
BA
R§1
3-1-
70A
dmin
istr
ativ
eSa
nctio
ns
Scbe
dule
Fact
ors
tobe
Con
side
red.
2.1.
6C
ontI
nuin
gV
iola
tions
and
Per
mit
Non
-Com
plia
nce
Eac
hda
ydu
ring
whi
cha
part
yco
ntin
ues
tow
ork
orot
herw
ise
cont
inue
sto
viol
ate
cons
erva
tion
dist
rict
law
s,an
daf
ter
the
Dep
artm
ent
has
infb
rmed
the
viol
ator
ofth
eof
lbns
eby
verb
alor
wri
tten
notif
icat
ion,
the
part
ym
ayb
epe
naliz
edup
to$1
5,00
0pe
rda
y(p
enal
ties
fore
very
day
illeg
alac
tions
cont
inue
)by
the
Dep
artm
ent f
orea
chse
para
teof
fens
e.
‘wm
cS
uff
iad
San
ddo
itsac
oa,
MA
4I4n
,0A
45-4
Oato
t)S
A-0
645
base
scen
tIb
ara
nnoi
tof
acn.
aei’
ahw
aat%
or,o
,ua,
,ssc
asnoar
cita
tion
of’c
lesr
i4’w
hhda
tacy
ranc
diii
wpl
ass.
I’Sa
idvd
lbah
ana
tot,
aree
irca
nid
sthi
tcda
anag
ewor
cwia
tmaL
Tab
le3.
Veg
etat
ion
Rem
oval
rT H
Nots
rlas
ckas
big
orl
tooai
coed
.c,a
1niu
edo,
.fly
wb
pto
on
wlf
lba
addra
dco
ncase.b
5..c
basi
s,bd
drpc
o&ig
ooac
lanc
coft
brsp
ccic
sm
yie
erap
nal
tyo
fup
to$1
5,00
0perp
taA
vcos
dtag
taTa
ble
2,li
i.at
ofv
tmm
aym
mu
rap
ccat
iyo
fop
toSI
?cq
k,
asab
asin
g10
,000
sq.e
.Sta
ffco
uld
asso
asap
coal
tyor
$tO
,000
.
56
Vio
latio
nof
exis
ting
appr
oved
Con
serv
atio
nD
istr
ict
Use
Perm
it(C
DU
P)co
nditi
ons
will
beas
sess
edon
aca
se-b
y-ca
seba
sis.
Exi
stin
gpe
rmit
viol
atio
ns,
inw
hich
dead
lines
are
not
met
,m
aybe
indi
vidu
ally
asse
ssed
byth
eSt
aff
asto
prio
rvi
olat
orco
nduc
t,kn
owle
dge,
and
com
plia
nce.
Vio
latio
nof
pem
litco
nditi
ons
invo
lvin
gin
itiat
ion
and/
orco
mpl
etio
nof
proj
ect
cons
truc
tion,
notif
icat
ion
ofst
art
and
com
plet
ion
date
s,fa
ilure
tofil
ele
gal
docu
men
ts,
etc.
, may
beco
nsid
ered
very
min
orw
ithin
the
exis
ting
fram
ewor
k,al
thou
ghit
shou
ldbe
note
dth
atsu
chac
tions
may
resu
ltin
perm
itre
voca
tion.
Failu
reto
perf
orm
prop
ercu
ltura
l,ar
cheo
logi
cal,
oren
viro
nmen
tal
impa
ctst
udie
sor
failu
reto
impl
emen
tpr
oper
best
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
asid
entif
ied
inth
est
anda
rdpe
rmit
cond
ition
sm
aybe
asse
ssed
mor
ese
vere
lyby
Sta
ftas
am
oder
ate
orm
ajor
harm
toth
ere
sour
ce,
due
toth
epo
tent
ial
ofgr
eate
rad
vers
eim
pact
sto
natu
ral
reso
urce
sflo
orth
evi
olat
or’s
failu
reto
com
ply
with
the
perm
itco
nditi
ons,
may
have
occu
rred
.
2.1.
7In
-KIn
dPe
nalti
es
Onc
eth
epe
nalty
amou
ntha
sbe
enes
tabL
ishe
dth
roug
hth
efr
amew
ork
abov
s,th
eD
epar
tmen
tm
ayde
term
ine
that
the
full
paym
ento
rse
ine
port
ion
ofth
epe
nalty
may
bepa
idas
anin
-kin
dpe
nalty
proj
ect.
5T
his
wou
ldno
t ser
veas
away
toav
oid
paym
entb
utas
aw
ayto
redu
ceth
eca
sham
ount
owed
whi
leal
low
ing
the
Dep
artm
entt
oco
nsis
tent
lyen
forc
eits
rule
s.T
hein
-kin
dpe
nalty
proj
ect
isno
tde
sign
edto
cred
itth
evi
olat
orfo
rre
stora
tion
or
rem
edia
tion
eff
ort
sth
atm
aybe
alre
ady
requ
ired
,bu
t tooet
apo
rtion
ofth
eca
shpe
nalty
asse
ssed
.T
hein
-kin
dpe
nalty
shou
ldbe
enou
ghto
ensu
refu
ture
com
plia
nce
with
HA
R§1
3-5
and
HR
S§1
83C
,by
the
viol
ator
and
tode
ter
othe
rpot
entia
lvi
olat
ors
from
non-
com
plia
nce.
In-k
ind
pena
lties
will
only
beco
nsid
ered
if(I
)th
ere
spon
sibl
epa
rty
isa
gove
rnm
ent
entit
y,su
chas
afe
dera
lag
ency
,st
ate
agen
cy, c
ount
yag
ency
,city
agen
cy,u
nive
rsity
,or
scho
olbo
ard,
orif
(2)
the
resp
onsi
ble
part
yis
apr
ivat
epa
rty
prop
osin
gan
envi
ronm
enta
l
rest
orat
ion,
enha
ncem
ent,
info
rmat
ion,
ored
ucat
ion
proj
ect
In-k
ind
pena
lties
are
limite
dto
the
follo
win
gsp
ecif
icop
tions
:
a.M
ater
ial
and/
orla
bor
supp
ort
for
envi
ronm
enta
len
hanc
emen
tor
rest
orat
ion
proj
ects
.T
heD
epar
tmen
tw
illgi
vepr
efer
ence
toin
-kin
dpr
ojec
tsbe
nefi
ting
prop
osed
gove
rnm
ent-
spon
sore
den
viro
nmen
tal
proj
ects
.Fo
rsh
orel
ine
viol
atio
ns,
this
may
incl
ude
stat
ehe
*ch
nour
ishm
entp
roje
cts
and
dune
rest
orat
ion
proj
ects
.b.
Env
iron
men
talI
nfor
mat
ion
and
Env
iron
men
talE
duca
tion
proj
ects
.A
nyin
fonn
atio
nor
educ
atio
npr
ojec
tpr
opos
edm
ust
dem
onst
rate
bow
the
info
rmat
ion
ored
ucat
ion
proj
ectw
illdi
rect
lyen
hanc
eth
eD
epar
tmen
t’s,
and
pref
erab
lyth
eO
CC
L’s,
mis
sion
topr
otec
tan
dco
nser
veH
awar
i’sC
onse
rvat
ion
Dis
tric
tLan
ds.
c.C
apit
alor
Fac
ilit
yIm
prov
emen
ts.
Any
capi
tal
orfa
cilit
yim
prov
emen
tpr
ojec
tpr
opos
edm
ust
dem
onst
rate
how
the
impr
ovem
ent
will
dire
ctly
enha
nce
the
Dep
artm
ent’
san
d/or
publ
ic’s
use,
acce
ss,
orec
olog
ical
valu
eof
the
cons
erva
tion
prop
erty
.d.
Pro
pert
y.A
resp
onsi
ble
part
ym
aypr
opos
eto
dona
tela
ndto
the
depa
rtm
ent
asan
in-k
ind
pena
lty.
Don
atio
nsW
illbe
hand
led
byth
eD
epar
irne
nt’s
Leg
acy
Lan
dspr
ogra
mor
sim
ilarp
rogr
am.
tn-IC
i,,d
Pew
II*m
ewiI
kh
Mbin
adsp
iidfl
eaPI
o,id
i Dqm
.uea
ilø
tbv
t,ai
amti
)P
isri
ia.
2007
. Pro
gna
Dbi
nwcP
Z3,
Sd0eri
ird
adstv
epratu
T1
7S
21
8Pe
nalty
Adj
udic
atio
n3
ASS
ESS
ME
NT
OF
DA
MA
GE
ST
OPU
BL
ICLA
I4D
OR
NA
TU
RA
LR
ESO
UR
CE
S
ViI
atio
npe
nalti
esm
aybe
adju
dica
ted
sim
ilarl
yto
the
harm
tore
sour
cein
dice
sin
the
pena
ltygu
idel
ine
fram
ewor
k.
iom
nart
hleH
mto
Ras
ouro
rden
tifl
lmda
nerm
i‘e
naltv
Adj
udin
atoc
1m
dPe
nalty
Ran
ge’i
dajo
r10
,000
-$l5
,000
bard
6ode
rate
2,00
0-$1
0,00
Obo
ard
Min
or11
,000
42,0
00D
hairp
erso
nor
Pres
idin
g)f
iicer
kay
Min
orip
to$1
,000
orPr
esid
ing
)ffi
cer
Maj
oran
dM
oder
ate
Har
mto
the
Res
ourc
e
The
Boa
rdm
ayad
judi
cate
pena
lties
tovi
olat
ions
cate
gori
zed
asca
usin
gor
pote
ntia
llyca
usin
gm
ajor
orm
oder
ate
harm
(s)
toth
ere
sour
ce.T
heB
oard
may
also
adju
dica
teca
ses
inw
hich
repe
atvi
olat
Ions
,re
peat
viol
ator
s,or
egre
giou
sbe
havi
orw
ere
invo
lved
,or
mod
erat
eto
sign
ific
ant
actu
alha
rmto
the
reso
urce
occu
rred
.T
heB
oard
may
also
adju
dica
teth
epa
ymen
tof p
arto
ral
l,of
the
pena
ltyas
part
ofan
In-k
ind
pena
lty.
MIn
oran
dV
ery
Min
orH
arm
toth
eR
esou
rce
The
Boa
rdm
ayde
lega
teto
the
Cha
irpe
rson
ora
Pres
idin
gO
ffic
erth
epo
wer
tore
nder
a
final
deci
sion
inm
inor
and
very
min
orco
nser
vatio
ndi
stri
ctvi
olat
ions
inor
dert
opr
ovid
e
expe
ditio
uspr
oces
sing
and
cost
effe
ctiv
ere
solu
tion.
The
Cha
irpe
rson
orap
poin
ted
Pres
idin
gO
ffic
erm
ayad
judi
cate
pena
lties
tom
inor
and
very
min
orvi
olat
ions
char
acte
rize
dby
inad
vert
ent
orun
inte
ntio
nal
viol
atio
nsan
dth
ose
viol
atio
nsw
hich
caus
edm
inor
orve
rym
inor
harm
toth
ere
sour
ce.
Pena
lties
tore
coup
dam
ages
topu
blic
land
sor
natu
ral
reso
urce
sfo
rth
epu
rpos
esof
enfo
rcem
ent
and
rcm
edia
tion
may
beas
sess
edin
addi
tion
toC
onse
rvat
ion
Dis
tric
tvi
olat
ion
pena
lties
asse
ssed
byth
eaf
orem
entio
ned
guid
elin
es.
The
asse
ssed
tota
lval
ueof
the
initi
alan
din
teri
mna
tura
lre
sour
ce(s
)da
mag
edor
lost
(com
pens
ator
yda
mag
es)
and
the
cost
ofre
stor
atio
nor
repl
acem
ent
ofth
eda
mag
edna
tura
lre
sour
ce(s
)(p
rim
ary
rest
orat
ion
cost
)al
ong
with
any
othe
rap
prop
riat
efa
ctor
s,in
clud
ing
thos
ena
med
inH
AR
§13-
1-70
, may
bead
judi
cate
dby
the
Boa
rd. T
heto
tal
valu
em
aybe
estim
ated
ona
per
annu
mba
sis,
and
then
may
beus
edto
calc
ulat
eth
ene
tpre
sent
valu
eof
the
initi
alan
din
terim
loss
ofna
tura
lres
ourc
ebe
nefit
s,un
tilth
eec
osys
tem
stru
ctur
e,fia
nctio
n,an
d/or
serv
ices
are
rest
ored
.
The
cost
ofa
flail-
scal
eda
mag
eas
sess
men
tby
the
Dep
artm
ent
wou
ldbe
anad
min
istr
ativ
eco
st,
whi
chco
uld
bere
coup
edby
the
Boa
rdfr
omth
ela
ndow
ner
orol
ibad
erpu
rsua
nt§H
RS
lS3C
-7.
Inso
me
case
s,th
eda
mag
eto
publ
icla
nds
orna
tura
lre
sour
ces
may
occu
ron
mor
eth
anon
eec
osys
tem
orha
bita
tte
,(e
g.,
sand
ybe
ache
s,se
agra
ssbe
ds,a
ndco
ralr
eeth
).In
such
inst
ance
s,da
mag
esfo
r all
impa
cted
syst
ems
will
beha
ndle
dcu
mul
ativ
ely.
Sinc
eal
lth
eec
osys
tem
serv
ices
prov
ided
byth
eec
osys
tem
inqu
estio
nca
nnot
bequ
antif
ied
(e.g
.,th
eae
sthe
ticva
lue)
,the
valu
esob
tain
edar
elo
wer
boun
des
timat
es,a
ndm
aybe
appl
ied
tosy
stem
ssi
mila
rto
the
refe
renc
edec
osys
tem
usin
gth
ebe
nefi
ttra
nsfe
rm
etho
d.T
hese
valu
atio
ns,t
oac
coun
tfo
rth
elo
ssof
ecos
yste
mse
rvic
esan
dth
eco
stto
rest
ore
them
,may
beap
plie
dto
Haw
aiia
nec
osys
tem
son
publ
icla
nds:
such
asK
oaan
dO
hia
fore
sts,
cora
lree
fs,s
eagr
ass
beds
,wet
land
s,du
nean
dbe
ach
ecos
yste
ms,
and
othe
rim
port
antH
awai
ian
ecos
yste
ms.
Whi
leea
chca
seis
uniq
uean
din
divi
dual
inna
ture
,th
eD
epar
tmen
tm
ayno
tbe
able
toco
nduc
tde
taile
dda
mag
eas
sess
men
tsin
each
case
,an
dm
ayre
fer
topa
stpr
eced
ent,
910
econ
omic
ecos
yste
mva
luat
ions
,an
dot
her
publ
ishe
den
viro
nmen
tal
valu
atio
nsto
estim
ate
and
asse
ssda
mag
eson
smal
ler
scal
es(f
orva
luat
ions
and
publ
icat
ion
exam
ples
see
App
endi
xC
:R
efer
ence
san
dA
ppen
dix
D;
Dam
ages
Exa
mpl
es).
Usi
ngth
ebe
nefi
ttr
ansf
erm
etho
dto
appl
ypa
stpr
eced
ents
and
publ
ishe
dva
luat
ions
inso
me
situ
atio
nsw
ould
allo
wth
eD
epar
tmen
tto
focu
sits
adm
inis
trat
ive
dutie
san
dtim
eon
rem
edia
tion
and
rest
orat
ion
effo
rts.
How
ever
,as
ecol
ogic
alva
luat
ion
and
rese
arch
cont
inue
,m
ore
com
preh
ensi
vees
timat
esm
aybe
prod
uced
and
utili
zed.
The
Boa
rdm
ayal
low
rest
orat
ion
activ
ities
and
dam
age
pena
lties
tobe
cond
ucte
dan
d/or
appl
ied
to8
Site
difi
bren
t fro
mth
elo
catio
nof
the
dam
aged
area
whe
resi
mila
r phy
sica
l,bi
olog
ical
and
for
cultu
ral
func
tions
exis
t.T
hese
asse
ssed
dam
ages
are
inde
pend
ent
ofot
her,
city
,co
unty
,st
ate
and
fede
ral
regu
lato
ryde
cisi
ons
and
adju
dica
tions
.Th
us,
the
mon
etar
yre
med
ies
prov
ided
inH
RS
*183
C-7
arc
cum
ulat
ive
and
inad
ditio
nto
any
othe
rre
med
ies
allo
wed
byla
w.
3.1
PRIM
AR
YR
EST
OR
AT
ION
DA
MA
GE
S
tTI
The
cost
ofla
ndor
habi
tat r
esto
ratio
nor
repl
acem
ent,
the
cost
ofsi
tem
onito
ring,
and
site
man
agem
ent m
aybe
asse
ssed
and
char
ged
aspn
msi
yre
stor
atio
nda
mag
es.
Res
tora
tion
effo
rts
will
aim
tore
turn
the
dam
aged
ecos
yste
mto
asi
mila
rec
olog
ical
stru
ctur
ean
dfu
nctio
nth
atex
iste
dpr
iort
oth
evi
olat
ion.
Inca
ses
inw
hich
the
dam
aged
ecos
yste
mw
asii
pred
omin
atel
yco
mpo
sed
ofno
n-na
tive
spec
ies,
rest
orat
ion
eflb
rtsm
ust
re-v
eget
ate
Con
serv
atio
nD
istr
ict l
and
and
publ
icla
nds
with
non-
inva
sive
spec
ies,
pref
erab
lyna
tive
and
ende
mic
spec
ies
whc
npo
ssib
le.
The
use
ofna
tive
and
ende
mic
spec
ies
may
thus
resu
ltin
the
rest
orat
ion
ofec
olog
ical
stru
ctur
ean
dfu
nctio
ncr
itica
lfb
rth
esu
rviv
alof
ende
mic
Haw
aiia
nsp
ecie
s.
Re.
turn
ing
the
dam
aged
and
orse
vere
lyde
grad
edsi
teto
aco
nditi
onsi
mila
rto
orbe
tter
than
itspr
evio
usec
olog
ical
stru
ctur
ean
dfu
nctio
n(e
.g.,
ate
rres
tria
l sys
tem
such
ass
ICca
(Aca
cia
Iroa
)fo
rest
)w
ould
incl
ude:
(1)
calc
ulat
ing
the
leve
lof e
cosy
stem
serv
ices
lobe
rest
ored
from
carb
onse
ques
trat
ion,
clim
ate
regu
latio
n,nu
trie
ntcy
clin
g,ai
ran
dw
ater
puri
fica
tion,
eros
ion
cont
rol,
plan
tand
/or
wild
lifo
habi
tat,
and
any
othe
rse
rvic
esw
hich
may
beva
lued
;(2
)pu
rcha
se,
prod
uctio
nan
dou
t-pl
antin
gof
Koa
seed
lings
;an
d(3
)m
onito
ring.
mai
nten
ance
,an
dm
anag
emen
t for
the
time
peri
odof
mat
ure
grow
thof
—40
-60
year
s,to
achi
eve
mat
ure
cano
pyst
ruct
ure,
nativ
eun
der-
stor
y,an
dan
acce
ptab
lele
vel
oflo
stec
osys
tem
stru
ctur
e,fu
nctio
nan
d/or
serv
ices
rest
ored
.
3.2
CO
MPE
NSA
TO
RY
DA
MA
GE
CA
LC
UL
AT
ION
Com
pens
ator
yda
mag
esto
publ
icla
nds
orna
tura
l res
ourc
esm
aybe
asse
ssed
and.
char
ged
toth
evi
olat
orto
com
pens
ate
for
ecos
yste
mda
mag
ean
dlo
stin
itial
and
inte
rimec
osys
tem
serv
ices
toth
epu
blic
.A
ltD
ivis
ions
ofth
eD
epar
tmen
t may
coor
dina
teth
eir
reso
urce
san
def
lbrts
alon
gw
ithex
istin
gec
osys
tem
valu
atio
nsan
dpu
blic
atio
ns(S
eeA
ppen
dix
Can
dD
for
exam
ples
)to
deri
veth
ees
timat
edto
tal
valu
eo
fth
ena
tura
lre
sour
ceda
mag
edun
tilth
eec
osys
tem
stru
ctur
e,fu
nctio
n,an
dse
rvic
esar
ees
timat
edto
bere
cove
re
The
tota
l val
ueof
the
natu
ral r
esou
rce
that
islo
stor
dam
aged
may
incl
ude
the
initi
alan
din
terim
valu
esof
the
ecos
yste
mse
rvic
espr
ovid
edby
the
natu
ral r
esou
rce
orha
bita
t,an
dth
eso
cial
-eco
nom
icva
lue
ofth
ede
grad
edsi
te,
until
the
ecos
yste
mst
ruct
ure,
func
tion,
and/
crse
rvic
esar
ere
stor
ed.
Ass
essi
ngth
eda
mag
esto
the
reso
urce
coul
din
clud
e:es
timat
ing
the
loss
ofec
osys
tem
serv
ices
ofca
rbon
sequ
estr
atio
n,cl
imat
ere
gula
tion,
nutr
ient
cycl
ing,
plan
tan
d/or
wild
lifo
habi
tat,
biod
iver
sity
,ai
ran
dw
ater
puri
fica
tion,
eros
ion
cont
rol,
coas
tal
prot
ectio
n,th
elo
ssof
bene
fits
toto
uris
m,
fish
erie
s,so
ciet
y,cu
ltura
lin
spira
tion
and
prac
tices
, and
any
othe
r ser
vice
sw
hich
may
beva
lued
.
The
sena
tura
l res
ourc
eda
mag
esm
aybe
asse
ssed
usin
gec
onom
icva
luat
ion
tech
niqu
esto
estim
ate
the
tota
lva
lue(
s)of
the
natu
ral
reso
urce
(s)
dam
aged
ona
per
area
basi
s,in
clud
ing:
tota
lec
osys
tem
serv
ice
valu
e,to
tal
annu
albe
nefi
ts,
the
mar
ket
valu
eof
the
natu
ral
reso
urce
,or
any
othe
rfa
ctor
deem
edap
prop
riat
e.T
heto
tal
valu
eof
the
pres
ent
and
inte
rimna
tura
lre
sour
ceda
mag
em
aybe
estim
ated
byca
lcul
atin
gth
ene
tpr
esen
tva
lue
ofth
ese
lost
bene
fits,
valu
esan
dse
rvic
es. T
hene
tpre
sent
valu
em
aybe
calc
ulat
edus
ing
adi
scou
ntra
teto
scal
eth
epr
esen
tan
dfu
ture
cost
sto
the
publ
ic,
ofth
ein
teri
mlo
sses
ofec
osys
tem
serv
ices
over
the
rest
orat
ion
time.
The
rest
orat
ion
time
may
be
1112
estim
ated
asth
enu
mbe
r of y
ears
fort
heda
mag
edna
tura
l res
ourc
eor
ecos
yste
mto
reac
hm
atur
ityan
d/or
the
ecos
yste
mst
ruct
ure
and
func
tion
tobe
rest
ored
sim
ilar
toth
ep
revi
olat
ion
stat
e.T
hedi
scou
ntof
futu
relo
sses
and
accr
ued
bene
fits
may
beus
edin
the
valu
atio
nof
miti
gatio
nef
lbrt
spe
rfor
med
byth
evi
olat
or.
For
exam
ple
the
rest
orat
ion
cond
ucte
dim
med
iate
lyaf
ter d
amag
eoc
curr
edm
aybe
calc
ulat
edto
have
ahi
gher
pres
ent
bene
fit w
orth
than
the
bene
fito
f res
tora
tion
activ
ities
unde
rtak
ena
year
ortw
ola
ter.
Inot
her
inst
ance
s,a
habi
tat
equi
vale
ncy
anal
ysis
(flE
A)
ora
reso
urce
equi
vale
ncy
anal
ysis
(REA
)m
aybe
used
tosc
ale
equi
vale
ntha
bita
t or
wild
life
loss
esfo
res
timat
ing
both
ecos
yste
mda
mag
epe
nalti
esan
dre
stor
atio
nef
forts
.
33
AD
JUD
ICA
TIO
NO
FD
AM
AG
ES
The
adju
dica
tion
ofpr
imar
yre
stor
atio
nda
mag
esan
dco
mpe
nsat
ory
dam
ages
will
bead
judi
cate
dby
the
Boa
rddu
eto
the
com
plex
ityof
the
asse
ssm
ent p
roce
ssan
dto
assu
repr
oper
chec
ksan
dba
lanc
es,
incl
udin
gad
equa
tepu
blic
notic
ean
da
publ
iche
arin
g.
Inad
ditio
nto
the
dam
ages
and
pena
ltyvi
olat
ions
asse
ssed
, the
Dep
artm
ent
isal
low
edto
reco
upal
lad
min
istr
ativ
eco
sts
asso
ciat
edw
ithth
eal
lege
dvi
olat
ion
purs
uant
toN
RS
§l83
C-7
(b).
All
pena
lties
asse
ssed
will
bein
com
plia
nce
with
fiR
S§1
83C
.7(c
)an
dw
illno
tpr
ohib
itan
ype
rson
from
exer
cisi
ngna
tive
Haw
aiia
nga
ther
ing
righ
tsor
trad
ition
alcu
ltura
lpra
ctic
es.
lirt
eto
isreor
aert
Tst
eulle
l fcr
hart
ettb
eiet
tar
II$siil
1Ra1a
Ena
tain
t)(
Boa
nl)
t000
0-51
500
0
todo
ste
tinor
I(Si
tePl
an)
$l.0
00-$
2.00
0‘o
tyM
inor
B)
(Sit
.P1a)
to$I
.000
Tab
le2.
Veg
etat
Ion
Rem
oval
stis
aaeubIa
Haa
tekree
‘.5
v
enov
alof
mor
etit
an(a
jor
10.0
0041
5.00
0l0
,000
sq. f
t.Le
mov
alof
Veg
etat
ion
orof
tode
tate
,000
4l0,
000
.000
-10,
000
sq.f
t ofv
eget
atio
nLt
ciov
alof
Ianti
s2.
000
sq.L
tinor
1.00
042.
000
—on
teas
ing
ofT
nvsi
vcor
noxi
ous
tety
Min
ce)p
to$1
,000
’eg
otat
ion
Not
eA
ecoi
ding
toTa
ble
2.th
ecI
tgo
fveg
esat
ion
may
b,qr
ape
cany
crop
tow
sq.u
.,as
cann
og50
.0(5
3aq
.ft.S
tceo
ild
stom
aa
pmah
yof
$100
00.h
ascbig
ofth
ecat
and.ecd
orra
usu
scid
y,.te
ploe
te,w
lUbe
addr
eoo.
doo
acm
a-by-c
oio
b, b
utdq
scnd
kig
onth
ebe
poen
oce
offr
apee
ius
may
toas
t act
mlt
rofo
pto$
t5.0
O0p
erpi
na
II
AP
PE
ND
IXA
:G
UID
EL
INE
FRA
ME
WO
RK
TA
BL
ES
Tab
leI.
Pena
ltyG
uide
line
Fra
mew
ork
13
APP
EN
DIX
B:
DE
flN
TT
ION
S
Def
initi
ons:
(1)
“Bas
elin
e”m
eans
the
orig
inal
leve
l of s
ervi
ces
prov
ided
byth
eda
mag
edre
sour
ce.
(2)
“Ben
efit
Tra
nsfe
rM
etho
d”es
timat
esec
onom
icva
lues
bytr
ansf
erri
ngex
istin
gbe
nefi
t est
imat
esfr
omst
udie
sal
read
yco
mpl
eted
for
anot
her l
ocat
ion
oris
sue
7(3
)“B
oard
”m
eans
the
Boa
rdof
I,and
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es.
(4)
“Boa
rdPe
rmit”
mea
nsa
perm
itap
prov
edby
the
Boa
rdof
Land
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es.
(5)
“Cha
irpe
rson
”m
eans
the
chai
rper
son
ofth
ebo
ard
ofla
ndan
dna
tura
l res
ourc
es(6
)“C
ivil
Res
ourc
eV
iola
tions
Syst
em”
or“C
RV
S”m
eans
asy
stem
ofad
min
istr
ativ
ela
wpr
ocee
ding
sas
auth
oriz
edun
der
chap
ter
l99D
,II
RS,
and
furth
erpr
escr
ibed
inSu
bcha
pter
7,13
-1, H
AR
, for
the
purp
ose
ofpr
oces
sing
civi
l res
ourc
evi
olat
ions
.(7
)“C
ompe
nsat
ory
Dam
ages
”m
eans
dam
ages
for c
ompe
nsat
ion
for
the
inte
rimlo
ssof
ecos
yste
mse
rvic
esto
the
publ
icpr
ior t
ofu
llre
cove
ry.
(8)
“Con
test
edC
ase”
mea
nsa
proc
eedi
ngin
whi
chth
ele
gal
righ
ts,
dutie
s,or
priv
ilege
sof
spec
ific
part
ies
are
requ
ired
byla
wto
bede
term
ined
afte
r an
oppo
rtun
ityfo
ran
agen
cyhe
arin
g.
(9)
“Dep
artm
ent”
mea
nsth
eD
epar
tmen
t of L
and
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es.
(10)
“Dep
artm
enta
l Per
mit”
mea
nsa
perm
itap
prov
edby
the
Cha
irpe
rson
.(1
1)“D
isco
untin
g’m
eans
anec
onom
icpr
oced
ure
that
wei
ghts
past
and
futu
rebe
nefi
tsor
cost
ssu
chth
atth
eyar
eco
mpa
rabl
ew
ithpr
esen
tbe
nefi
tsan
dco
sts.
(12)
“Eco
syst
emSe
rvic
es”
mea
nsna
tura
lre
sour
ces
and
ecos
yste
mpr
oces
ses,
whi
chm
aybe
valu
edac
cord
ing
toth
eirb
enef
itsto
hum
anki
nd.
For
exam
ple:
carb
onse
ques
trat
ion,
clim
ate
regu
latio
n,nu
trie
ntcy
clin
g,pl
ant
and/
orw
ild4f
eha
bita
t.bi
odiv
ersi
ty,
air
and
wat
erpu
rifi
catio
n,er
osio
nco
ntro
l,co
asta
lpr
otec
tion,
the
loss
ofbe
nefit
sto
tour
ism
.
recr
eatio
n,sc
ient
(fw
disc
over
y,jls
heri
es. s
ocie
ty, c
ultu
ral i
nspi
ratio
nan
dpr
actic
es,
and
any
othe
r ser
vice
sw
hich
may
beva
lued
.
(13)
“Gro
ssly
negl
iger
ui’
viol
atio
nm
eans
cons
ciou
san
dvo
lunt
azy
acts
orom
issi
ons
char
acte
rize
dby
the
fuilu
reto
perf
orm
am
anif
est
duty
inre
ckle
ssdi
sreg
ard
ofth
eco
nseq
uenc
es.
(14)
“Har
mto
reso
urce
”m
eans
anac
tual
orpo
tent
ial
impa
ct,
whe
ther
dire
ctor
indi
rect
,sh
ort
orlo
ngte
rm,
actin
gon
ana
tura
l,cu
ltura
lor
soci
alre
sour
ce,
whi
chis
expe
cted
tooc
cur a
sa
resu
ltof
unau
thor
ized
acts
ofco
nstr
uctio
n,sh
orel
ine
alte
ratio
n,or
land
scap
eal
tera
tion
asis
defin
edas
follo
ws:
(a)
“Maj
orH
arm
tore
sour
ce”
mea
nsa
sign
ific
ant
adve
rse
impa
ct(s
),w
hich
can
caus
esu
bsta
ntia
lad
vers
eim
pact
toex
istin
gna
tura
l res
ourc
esw
ithin
the
surr
ound
ing
area
,co
mm
unity
orre
gion
,or
dam
age
the
exis
ting
phys
ical
and
envi
ronm
enta
las
pect
sof
the
land
,su
chas
natu
ral
beau
tyan
dop
ensp
ace
char
acte
rist
ics
(b)
“Mod
erat
eH
arm
toR
esou
rce”
mea
nsan
adve
rse
impa
ct(s
),w
hich
can
degr
ade
wat
erre
sour
ces,
degr
ade
nativ
eec
osys
tem
san
dha
bita
ts,
andl
orre
duce
the
stru
ctur
eor
func
tion
ofa
terr
estr
ial,
litto
ral o
r mar
ine
syst
em(b
utno
t to
the
exte
ntof
thos
epr
evio
usly
defi
ned
asth
ose
in(a
)).
(c)
“Min
orH
arm
toR
esou
rce”
mea
nslim
ited
tosh
ort-
term
dire
ctim
pact
sfr
omsm
all s
cale
dco
nstr
uctio
nor
shor
elin
eor
vege
tatio
nal
tera
tion
activ
ities
.(d
)“V
ery
Min
orH
arm
toR
esou
rce”
mea
nsan
actio
nin
wbi
chth
eim
pact
onth
ew
ater
reso
urce
orte
rres
tria
l,lit
tora
lorm
arin
eec
osys
tem
was
insi
gnif
ican
t,an
dw
asno
t of a
subs
tant
ial n
atur
eei
ther
indi
vidu
ally
orcu
mul
ativ
ely.
For
exam
ple,
“maj
orha
rmto
the
reso
urce
(s)”
wou
ldbe
asso
ciat
edw
itha
maj
orla
ndus
evi
olat
ion
that
wou
ldha
velik
ely
requ
ired
aBoa
rdP
erm
4su
chas
build
ing
aho
use,
whi
lea
“min
orha
rmto
the
reso
urce
(s)”
may
be
Lbi
ky.0
1.62
fl-5
4.
asso
ciat
edw
ithm
inor
land
uses
requ
irin
gan
adm
mni
3sra
tive
Site
Plan
App
rova
l.for
build
ing
asm
alla
cces
sory
stru
ctur
e.
(IS)
“Kno
win
g”vi
olat
ion
mea
nsan
act o
r om
issi
ondo
new
ithaw
aren
ess
ofth
ena
ture
ofth
eco
nduc
t.
(16)
“Net
Pres
ent
Val
ue”
mea
nsth
eto
tal
pres
ent
valu
e(P
V)
ofa
time
seri
esof
cash
flow
s.
(17)
“OC
CL
Adm
inis
trat
or”
mea
nsth
eA
dmin
istr
ator
ofth
eO
ffic
eof
Con
serv
atio
nan
dC
oast
alL
ands
.
(18)
“Par
tfm
eans
each
pers
onor
agen
cyna
med
orad
mitt
edas
apa
rty.
(19)
‘Per
son”
mea
nsan
appr
opri
ate
indi
vidu
als,
part
ners
hip,
corp
orat
ion,
asso
ciat
ion,
orpu
blic
orpr
ivat
eor
gani
zatio
nof
any
char
acte
roth
erth
anag
enci
es.
(20)
‘Pre
sidi
ngO
ffic
er”
mea
nsth
epe
rson
cond
uctin
gth
ehe
arin
g,w
hich
shal
lbe
the
chai
rper
son,
orth
ech
airp
erso
n’s
desi
gnat
edre
pres
enta
tive.
(21)
‘Pri
mar
yR
esto
ratio
nD
amag
es”
mea
nsth
eco
ats
tore
stor
eth
eda
mag
edsi
teto
itspr
ior
base
line
stat
e.
(22)
“Site
Plan
”m
eans
apl
andr
awn
tosc
ale,
show
ing
the
actu
aldi
men
sion
san
dsh
ape
ofth
epr
oper
ly, t
hesi
zean
dlo
catio
nson
the
prop
erty
ofex
istin
gan
dpr
opos
edst
ruct
ures
and
open
area
sin
clud
ing
vege
tatio
nan
dla
ndsc
apin
g.
(23)
“WilI
fiulv
iola
tion”
mea
nsan
act
orom
issi
onw
hich
isvo
lunt
ary,
inte
ntio
nala
ndw
ithth
esp
ecif
icin
tent
todo
som
ethi
ngth
ela
wfo
rbid
s,or
fail
todo
som
ethi
ngth
ela
wre
quir
esto
bedo
ne.
AP
PE
ND
IXC
:R
EF
ER
EN
CE
S
Ces
ar, a
,van
Beu
kenn
g,P.
,Pin
tzS.
,Die
rkin
gi.
2002
.Eco
nom
icva
luat
ion
ofth
eco
ral
reef
sof
Haw
aii.
NO
AA
Fina
lRep
ort N
A16
0A14
49.
Con
serv
atio
nIn
tern
atio
nal.
2008
.E
cono
mic
Val
ues
ofC
oral
Ree
fs.
Man
arov
es.
and
Sasg
xass
esA
elob
alC
ompi
latio
n.C
ente
rfo
rA
pplie
dB
iodi
vers
itySc
ienc
e,C
onse
rvat
ion
inte
rnat
iona
l,A
rling
ton
VA
, USA
.
Cos
tanz
a,S.
and
Fanc
y3.
2007
. Eco
loal
cal
econ
omic
sof
crue
tal d
isas
ters
: Int
rodu
ctio
nto
the
spec
ial i
ssue
.Ec
olog
ical
Eco
nom
ics
63p.
249-
253.
Cos
tanz
a,S
.,d’
Arg
e,S
.,de
Gro
at, R
.,Fa
rber
, S.,
Gra
sso,
M..
Har
mon
, B.,
L.im
burg
, K.,
Nae
em,
S.,
O’N
eill,
ltV
.,Pa
ruel
o,3.
,R
aski
n,R
.G.,
Sutto
n,P.
,va
nde
nB
elt,
M.
1997
.T
heV
alue
ofth
eW
orld
’sE
cosy
stem
Serv
ices
and
Nat
ural
Cap
ital.
Nat
ure
387
p.25
3-26
0.
Flor
ida
Dep
artm
ent
ofE
nvir
onm
enta
lPr
otec
tion.
Dum
ane
Cos
tsin
Seag
ram
Hab
itats
.h
up
:fw
.dat
atc.
flu
s/co
asta
l/h
abit
atss
caW
awaa
mes
sId
amag
eco
stsh
tin
Flor
ida
Dep
artm
ent o
fEnv
iron
men
talP
rote
ctio
n.20
00A
dmin
istr
ativ
eFi
nes
and
Dam
age
Liab
ility
. Cli.
62B
-54.
http
f/w
ww
.dep
.sta
te.fl
.us4
cgal
/Rul
ea/b
cacb
/62b
-54.
doc
Flor
ida
Dep
artm
ent
ofE
nvir
onm
enta
lPr
otec
tion.
2007
.Pr
ogra
mD
irec
tive
923.
Settl
emen
teul
delin
esfo
rciv
ilau
idad
nuin
istra
tive
nem
altie
s.w
ww
de.s
tate
.fl.u
s/ad
miW
depd
hv/p
d’92
3.pd
f
Flor
ida
Dep
artm
ent o
fEnv
iron
men
talP
rote
ctio
n.20
00. R
ules
and
acoc
edur
esfo
ran
olic
atio
nfo
rco
asta
l con
stru
ctio
npe
rmits
.Ch.
62B
-41.
NO
AA
Coa
stal
Serv
ices
Cen
ter.
Hab
itatE
quiv
ales
icv
Ana
lysi
s.w
ww
.csc
.noa
agov
lcoa
stal
leco
nom
icsl
babi
tate
qu.b
tmA
PPE
ND
IX1)
: DA
MA
GE
SE
XA
MPL
ES
Mai
neL
and-
Use
Reg
ulat
ion
Com
mis
sion
2007
.20
08W
orks
hop
Thaf
lC
ompr
ehen
sive
Exa
mpl
esof
Dam
age
Ass
essm
ents
and
Poss
ible
Rem
edla
tion
Eff
orts
Lan
dU
sePl
an:
for a
reas
with
inth
eju
risd
ictio
n.rn
,...,m
aine
.gov
Idoc
/lur
cJre
fere
nceI
clup
rev/
CL
UP
jWD
raft
..pg5
.sht
ml
The
follo
win
gar
eon
lybr
ief p
aste
stim
ates
used
inH
awai
ian
dot
her
stat
es;
they
arc
byno
mea
nsco
mpr
ehen
sive
orlim
iting
.T
hese
are
inte
nded
tobe
exam
ples
for
poss
ible
asse
ssm
ents
and
rem
edia
tion
effo
rtsno
t as
tem
plat
es.
As
prev
ious
lyst
ated
each
case
will
beha
ndle
din
divi
dual
lyto
acco
unt f
orun
ique
ecol
ogic
al,e
cono
mic
and
cultu
rali
mpa
cts
The
follo
win
gar
eor
gani
zed
byha
bita
t typ
e.
Cor
al
Flor
ida
Dep
artm
ento
fEnv
iron
men
tal
Prot
ectio
n(C
ivil
Dam
annd
:T
heD
EPca
nim
pose
fine
sof
upto
Sl,0
00hn
2of
reef
dam
aged
and
isde
pend
ent
onth
eab
senc
eof
exte
nuat
ing
circ
umst
ance
ssu
chas
wea
ther
codd
ition
s,di
sreg
ard
ofsa
fbbo
atin
gpr
actic
es,n
avig
atio
nale
rror
,whe
ther
the
vess
elop
erat
orw
asun
dert
hein
flue
nce
ofdr
ugs
oral
coho
l etc
.
IC
esar
cial
2002
(Eco
syst
emSe
rvic
eV
alua
tion)
Ces
arci
al. u
sed
aSi
mpl
eC
ra1
Ree
fEco
logi
calE
cono
mic
Mod
el(S
CR
EEM
)to
asse
ssH
awai
ian
cora
lree
fsba
sed
ccth
ean
nual
bene
fits
ofth
eco
ralr
eefs
tore
crea
tion/
tour
ism
,H
prop
erty
amen
ities
,bio
dive
rsity
,fi
sher
ies
and
educ
atio
n.T
hean
nual
bene
fits
and
tota
l
___
econ
omic
valu
eco
uld
then
beex
pres
sed
one
‘per
area
’ba
sis.
Thi
sst
udy
Ibun
dth
eto
tal
annu
albe
nefi
tsof
the
cora
lree
fsof
Han
aum
aB
ayto
be$3
7.57
mill
ion
($2,5
68/i
n5),
ofth
eco
ral
reef
sin
Kib
elto
be$2
8.09
mill
ion
($65
/rn
2)an
dth
eco
ral
reef
son
the
ICon
aco
astt
obe
$17.
68m
illio
n($
19/r
u2).
Puss
enfix
cern
ent(
KA
-02-
l0l
(Pri
mar
yR
esto
ratio
nC
ost
Dam
age
toC
oral
reef
ecos
yste
ms
was
asse
ssed
for
rest
ora
tion
activ
ities
acco
rdin
gto
Flor
ida
guid
elin
es,
as$5
,830
,000
for
5,38
0m2
of
cora
lre
efda
mag
e.T
his
calc
ulat
ion
was
sim
ilar
toth
ees
timat
edco
stof
reni
edia
tion
etlb
rts
$390
,000
tocl
ean
5,00
0y
d3
ofbe
ach
sand
.How
ever
betw
een
30,0
00-5
0,00
0yd
3w
ases
timat
edto
beim
pact
ed,t
otal
ing
S2,3
00,0
00-$
3,90
0,00
0.W
hile
clea
ning
the
sedi
men
tfro
mth
ere
efw
ases
timat
edto
cost
appr
oxim
atel
y$8
45,0
00(f
orth
e13
acre
s,or
$65,
000
for
10
m2).
Thi
sto
tale
dbe
twee
n$3
,100
,000
and
$4,7
00,0
00,
and
did
not
incl
ude
cora
lco
lony
re-e
stab
lishm
ent.
An
addi
tiona
l $63
0,00
0w
ases
timat
edfo
rth
e10
-yea
rm
onito
ring
perio
d,(h
owev
erst
udie
sby
Ces
aret
al. 2
003
estim
ated
a25
year
peri
odfo
rrec
ovel
yof
ecol
ogic
alim
pact
s).
Thu
sda
mag
eto
cora
lsm
aybe
calc
ulat
edus
foll
ows:
#N
umbe
rof s
quar
em
eter
sof
cora
ldam
aged
XM
ultip
lied
by$1
,000
(or e
stim
ated
valu
eof
cora
lon
per/
area
basi
s)(#
m2
x$1
000>
Plus
the
estim
ated
net p
rese
ntva
lue
ofec
osys
tem
serv
ices
lost
until
reco
vmy.
(Thi
sm
aybe
mor
eif
dam
age
toan
area
such
asH
anau
ma
Bay
with
incr
ease
dre
crea
tiona
leco
nom
icre
venu
e.) +P
lus
cost
ofR
emed
iatio
n
+Plu
sC
osto
f cle
anin
gse
dim
entf
rom
reef
+PIu
sC
osto
f cle
anin
gse
dim
ent/m
udfr
ombe
ach
sand
+Plu
sC
osto
f cor
alre
esta
blis
hmen
t
+PIu
sC
osto
fMon
itori
ng
4-Pl
usC
osto
fMan
agem
ent
Sand
Bea
ches
(ci
OfP
rim
ary
Min
imum
pena
ltyco
stof
rest
orat
ion
and
pote
ntia
lne
gativ
eec
olog
ical
,so
cial
and
envi
ronm
enta
lim
pact
ssh
ould
bein
clud
edin
the
asse
ssm
ent
ofda
mag
ed,
degr
aded
orlo
stsa
ndy
beac
hes.
As
one
ofH
awai
i’s
grea
test
natu
ral r
esou
rces
the
follo
win
gsh
ould
bein
clud
edin
the
min
imum
pena
ltyas
sess
men
t,ho
wev
er,
asec
olog
ical
valu
atio
nan
dre
sear
chco
ntin
ue,
mor
eco
mpr
ehen
sive
estim
ates
may
bepr
oduc
ed.
InK
A-0
2-l0
Pila
a,$3
90,0
00fi
new
ases
timat
edto
clea
n5,
000
yd
1of
beac
h.
+Cos
t of l
ostr
even
uedu
eto
alte
red
Bea
chre
sour
ces
(com
pcns
atol
y)4-
prim
ary
rest
orat
ion
cost
s
+Plu
sco
stof
clea
ning
ofse
dim
ent!
mud
from
beac
har
ea(i
fnec
essa
sy)
4-Pl
usco
stof
beac
hno
uris
hmen
t(s
and
repl
acem
ent)
4-Pl
usco
stof
nativ
edu
neve
geta
tion
(In
som
eci
rcum
stan
ces
the
loss
ofbe
ach
reso
urce
sm
aybe
asse
ssed
inco
njun
ctio
nw
ithot
her
ecol
ogic
alim
pact
slis
ted
abov
e,su
chas
cora
lree
fsan
dse
agr
ass
beds
.)
Sca
sras
sbe
ds(C
om
Den
s*to
rvD
aman
e
The
Flor
ida
DE
Pfi
nes
offe
nder
s$1
00/y
d2of
dam
age
tose
agra
ssbe
dsfo
rth
efir
styd2
dam
aged
and
$75,
’yd
2pe
rea
chad
ditio
nal y
d2
dam
aged
.
$100
fort
hefir
stya
rdda
mag
ed
+$75
per
each
addi
tiona
lyar
d
orne
t pre
sent
tota
lval
ueof
ecos
yste
mse
rvic
eslo
stun
tilre
cove
ry
+veg
etat
ion
plan
ting
+m
onito
ring
AP
PE
ND
IXII
:P
EN
AL
TY
CA
LC
UL
A11
ON
WO
RK
SH
EE
T
Vio
lato
r’s
Nam
e(s)
:
TM
nfl,,,
o_t__L
_.__.
Dat
e:
Par
t1-
Pen
alti
es
riolat
ion
cool
SH
arm
torc
eor
coal
ty4j
uatm
enta
rtul
ti-da
y(#
oat
‘pc
‘refix
esou
rce
lcgc
tatio
nsa
ge.4
ark
Adj
.la
ys)
(D,C
,B)
actu
ai&
itatu
Sito
ice#
l-8)
eten
tial)
-
Pena
ltyT
otal
:P
enal
tyA
djus
tmen
tsan
dD
escr
ipti
ons
(ple
ase
atta
chad
diti
onal
adju
stm
ents
and
desc
ript
ions
,Inc
ludi
ngbu
tnot
lim
ited
toth
ose
liste
din
§134
-70)
1.A
ctua
len
viro
nmen
tal d
amag
eex
tent
(ons
ite)
Des
crip
tion:
2.A
ctua
l env
iron
men
tal
dam
age
exte
nt(o
ffai
te)
Des
crip
tion:
3.D
oes
the
viol
ator
’sha
vea
hist
ory
ofvi
olat
ions
?
4.W
asth
evi
olat
ion
rep
etit
iou
sor
ofa
long
dura
tion?
5.W
asth
evi
olat
orR
espo
nsiv
ean
dex
hibi
ta
leve
lof
coop
erat
ion
ofw
ithth
eD
epar
tmen
t and
/or
Staf
f?
6.D
oes
the
Vio
lato
rha
veal
’ina
ncia
lHar
dshi
p?
7.D
idth
evi
olat
orre
ceiv
eE
cono
mic
orco
mm
erci
alga
mth
roug
hnon-c
om
pli
ance
?
8.O
ther
.
1’,
,,.)
AA
h,.,h
.,.,,t
,,,.
JAn
,,,,
Mul
ti-da
ype
nalti
es
Num
ber
ofda
ysto
mul
tiply
pena
lty
Bea
ches
onch
roni
call
yer
odin
gsh
ores
can
mai
ntai
nth
eir
natu
ral
wid
thas
they
slow
lyre
trea
tla
ndw
ard.
Bea
chlo
ssev
entu
ally
occu
rsin
fron
tof
ase
awal
lwhe
reth
ere
isch
roni
cer
osio
n.
Bea
chL
oss
Fro
ntin
gC
oast
alA
rmor
ing
Initi
alsh
ore
prof
ileIn
itial
shor
epr
ofile 3
0
EXHIBIT 18
I
4
a
I
I: t’
J.£
i
STATE O HAWAIIDEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
.and Division, Planning BranchHonolulu, Hawaii
August 27, 1999
Board of Land andNatural Resources
State of Hawaii :‘
Honolulu, Hawaii
REGARDING: Adoption of Revisions to the Coastal ErosionManagement Plan (COEMAP), Approval of April 8,1999 Minutes, Approval of 1999-2000 Work Planand Approval of Procedures for ManagingShoreline Encroachments
APPLICANT: Department of Land and Natural ResourcesLand Division1151 Punchbowl Street, # 220Honolulu, Hawaii 96815
BACKGROUND: (COEMA.P was adopted by the Board on November20, 1997. A Board Briefing or the revisionswas held on April 8, 1999)
The loss of Hawaii’s sandy beaches is a major social, economic, andenvironmental problem. Studies show that nearly 25 percent, or 17miles of sandy beaches on the island of Oahu have been lost orseverely narrowed wer the past 70 years due to shoreline armoring.Similar losses have occurred on the island of Maui, and to a lesser4egree, on Kauai and Hawaii.
In January of 1996, DLNR, Land Division initiated development of astrategic plan to address coastal erosion within a framework ofbeach protection, something that had never been attempted before inthis State. These efforts resulted in the development of theHawaii Coastal Erosion Management Plan (COEMAP).
On November 20, 1997 COEMAP was approved, as su.uriitted, by theBoard of Land and Natural Resources (Board) (Exiibit 1). In
\pOv7r m’THF ROAD.r
‘. V1LDO I ici I —
at-y419
approving COEMAP the Board also established the Coastal LandsProgram (CIP) and affirmed an annual work plan.
Subsequent to the land Board’s approval, Land Division staff, inconsultation with the University of Hawaii, School of Ocean, EarthScience and Technology (SOEST) decided that certain aspects ofCOEMAP coi.iid be improved and better organized. As such, anotherround of pian revisions was initiated by SOEST. Draft reports wererevised by Land Division staff and then distributed to members ofthe Coastal Erosion Subcommittee (CES) of the Marine and CoastalZone Management Group (MACZMAG). Comments were incorporated intothe plan. A major goal of the plan revision process was to ensurethat the revisions were consistent with the original intent andcontent of COEMAP.
Since the inception of this effort, the Department has adhered tothree simple goals/objectives: 1) generate agency consensus on theproblems and implications associated with the narrowing and loss ofsandy beaches; 2) develop working agreements with agencies and/orgroups to solve coastal erosion problems by reducing duplicationand government red tape; and 3) build agency-wide/public supportfor the legislative changes needed to implement different aspectsof the plan.
All three (3) of these goals/objectives have been achieved to aconsiderable degree. For example, a major goal wa to pass newlegislation, which the Department accomplished ir 1999 with theadoption of Act 84. In addition, the Department is developing anagreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, th Department ofHealth, and the Coastal Zone Management Program, to establish aState Program General Permit (SPGP) for qualifying types of beachnourishment projects. The Department also completed a plan todevelop pilot beach nourishment projects on Oahu and Maui, and iscurrently planning on funding a design phase for one of the sites.These accomplishments represent milestones rather than end points.
In addition, a work plan was proposed for 1997-1998 which includedthe following initiatives: 1) public education and outreach andagency consultation; 2) the development of procedures to addressenforcement of illegal shoreline structures; 3) development ofpilot projects and compilation of new data; 4) establishment of anoffshore sand reclamation program; 5) development of economicanalysis, or benefit/cost analysis of different coastal protectiontechnologies; 6) continuation of the Coastal Erosion Subcommittee(CES); 7) the development of Memorandums of Undertanding (MOU);and 8) finding funds.
Many of the 1997-’98 work plan elements are currently beingaddressed. For instance, with the adoption of Act 84, LandDivision staff has proposed new protocol to address existing
2
EXHIBIT 19
shoreline encroachments, since Act 84 allows the DLNR to placefines collected for unauthorized shoreline structures, and proceedscollected from the issuance of easements for existing shorelinestructures, in the Beach Restoration Fund.
The Land Division has not yet established an offshore sandreclamation program but is now considering the possibility ofissuing an RFP to develop an offshore site as a pilot project.This is now a possibility with the adoption of Act 84. Staff willalso investigate the potential development of upland sand sources.
Other aspects of the work plan are still underway such as permitstreamlining efforts (via the establishment of a State ProgramGeneral Permit (SPGP) for small scale beach nourishment projects),the continuation of pilot beach restoration projects at Honokawai,Maui and Windward Qahu, and consideration of additional data needsand requirements.
PLAN REVIS:EONS:
The Board adopted COEMAP in November 1997. COEMAP was amultifaceted strategic plan intended to address coastal erosionwithin a framework of beach protection. While the plan revisionshave not changed in this essential quality, they have resulted in aplanning document that is better organized and easier to read. ThePlan also provides more technical information to support therecommendations embodied in the Plan. The new Plan is 59 pageslong, not including appendix (Exhibit 2). The original Plan was 21pages.
SPECIFIC PLAN REVISIONS:
Organizationally, the revised Plan is comprised of four sectionsincluding an “Executive Summary”, three chapters arid an appendix.The “Executive Summary” includes a brief discussion of the problemand consequences of beach loss and includes a list of “Goals andDirections as well as a summary of “Recommendations” embodied inCOEMAP. The first chapter titled “Our Restless Shores” quantifiesbeach loss and then describes why beach loss occurs in Hawaii andwhat consequences society possibly faces due to this environmentalproblem. The Executive Summary and Chapter I, Our Restless Shores,essentially replaces, improves and augments Sections I, II & III,of the original COEMAP document. Some of the specific revisionsare as follows:
Executive Summary:
More thorough discussion of social, economic, cultural andenvironmental consequences of beach loss and coastal erosion.
3
EXHIBIT 19
- Clarification on purpose of COEMAP (i.e., COEMAP as aframework, source of information or guidance on coastalerosion manaçement, rather than COEMAP as a new paradigm orrule of law).
- Seven new goals and directions are listed.
- The plan recommendations and initial implementing actions arealso summarized.
Chapter I, Our Restless Shores:
Chapter one generally provides a more comprehensive overview ofcoastal erosion and beach loss in terms of its multifaceted effectson Hawaii’s different individuals, groups and entities, and how wecan improve cooperation at all levels and sectors of society toaddress erosion problems more effectively through “‘Ho’olaulima”(many hands working together). There is a more comprehensive overview of the underlying causes (both natural or human induced> ofcoastal erosion and beach loss, which is augmented with an expandedTechnical Supplement. Our Restless Shores also recommends that welook at coastal erosion within the much more integrated frameworkof coastal hazards mitigation. Some of the more specific revisionsare as follows:
- More in depth discussion of why coastal erosion and beach lossoccur in the first place.
- Integration of coastal erosion management with managementefforts in similar sectors such as Hurricanes, tsunamis andflooding, to show that regulatory authorities may pursue thecompatibl goals of beach conservation and hazard reductionusing an integrated framework.
- Ho’olaulima (many hand working together) promoting aneducational, consensual and community based process to improveour coastal environment.
Chapter II, Managing Coastal Erosion:
This Chapter provides an overview of Federal, State and CountyAuthorities with regulatory oversight in the area of coastalerosion management. A critique of the existingregulatory/management regime is provided. This is a new sectionthat was not included in the original Plan. It includes newinformation, but generally expands on issues and ideas contained inthe original Plan. Some of the revisions and additions are asfollows:
4
EXHIBIT 19
Discussion of current coastal erosion regulatory regimes atthe State, County and Federal levels.
Critique of the existing regulatory regimes (e.g., lack ofattention to problem, under valuation of resoutces, failure ofcoastal zone management system to address coastal erosion andbeach loss, etc.)
Discussion of new tools for erosion management including newregulatory tools, such as:
Environmental Sequencing to reduce exposure to coastalerosion hazards utilizing such concepts as Avoidance,Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation.
Construction Setbacks, to reduce exposure to coastalhazards. This section significantly expands over thediscussion in the original plan, by using examples fromother states, where variable based setbacks have beenimplemented.
The plan discusses non-regulatory tools, including theutilization of Federal Floodplain Polices to reduce exposureto coastal erosion hazards. Some other ideas re as follows:
Community Performance Standards to help address futurepatterns of development in already developed coastalcommunities.
Coastal Lands Acquisition, including the use of EminentDomain, Negotiated Purchase, Conservation Easements, andothers, also citing existing programs from other coastalStates.
Public Education and Outreach
Chapter II also provides a discussion of five (5) Alternativesfor Erosion Management including Abandonment (do nothing),Beach Restoration (fill the beach with sand), Erosion Control(slow down the erosion rate), Adaptation (live with it), andHardening build walls). Chapter II discusses various DesignConsiderations when planning/engineering any erosion controlproject, and ends with a discussion of the need to do physicalmonitoring when projects are implemented co assess performanceand environmental effects.
5
EXHIBIT 19
Chapter III, Recommendations:
This is essentially a consolidation of Sections V—X of the originalPlan. The Strategic Recommendations are reorganized and improvedand included in one section, unlike the original Plan that includedTechnical vs. Policy Recommendations, Long Term Policy andTechnical vs. Short term Plans.
Chapter III also includes a new section on Initial implementingActions, which are generally similar to Strategic Recommendationsrecommended in the original Plan.
Technical Supplement:
The Revised Plan also includes a Technical Supplement with Parts A0. Part A lists and summarizes most of the studies done in thearea of Coastal Erosion or Beach Management for Hawaii. Part Bincludes a copy of a Brochure on Facts about Beach Erosion and thenew Coastal Lands Program at DLNR. Part C provides a more detaileddiscussion surrounding the causes of coastal erosion and beach lossin Hawaii, and Part D includes Guidelines for Preparation of anEnvironmental Assessment in Conjunction with an Application for aShoreline Alteration and Hardening Permit.
Throughout, the plan is also extensively footnoted and referencedto draw in a much wider framework of research and planning.
AGENCY/PUBLIC INPUT:
April 8, 1999 Board Briefing:
on April 8, 1999, the Land Board was presented with a briefing ofthe revised Coastal Erosion Management plan. The purpose of thebriefing was to familiarize the Board with revisions to COEMA.P.
DLNR staff presented the revised version of COEMAP and discussedthe various plan elements including a discussion of regulatory andnon-regulatory tools, coastal erosion mantgement alternatives,design considerations, and specific recommendations, etc. Staffhighlighted the cIanges in COEM.P and noted that tae revisions toCOEMAP provide for a more detailed, comprehensive, and integratedplan.
The Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources askedstaff to highlight the revisions in COEMAP from the originaldocument, so that the Board would know whether the changes are inkeeping with the original intent and objectives of COEMAP. Therewas discussion over the breadth of public involvement developingCOEMAP and whether enough had been done on this and earlier drafts.
6
EXHIBIT 19
Staff referred to past outreach efforts on the island of Qahu,which were fairly comprehensive, and also discussed the intenseagency consultation even on the most recent draft. It was notedthat the Maui County Council endorsed the original Plan as well asthe City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning andPermitting.
Comments were also solicited from the Counties of Hawaii and Kauaion the revised Plan. Hawaii County Planning had numerous commentsand concerns which staff incorporated into the Plan.
Another Board member raised concerns that the effect of the plan,if adopted, would be to raise expectations on the affected agencystakeholders, but without the force of law and/or more specificguidance on how to achieve the plan’s objectives. This could leadto some confusion and uncertainly with respect to how to actuallymanage and regulate these areas.
Staff responded by stating that the original intent of the plan wasnever to recommend specific changes to any County regulations, butwas provided to the public and regulatory communities as a documentthat could be used to raise awareness of the causes andconsequences of coastal erosion and beach loss and also providetechnically and politically feasible recommendations for thosedesiring to implement them. Staff further noted that it was adeliberate decision to approach the problem of coastal erosion fromthe perspective of education.
Another concern was whether the revised plan would need to be takenback to the public for review. Staff followed by rioting that thiswas not necessarily required since the original intent and purposeof the plan had not changed.
Written Comments Submitted at the Briefing:
Mr. Dudley Foster of Lanikai and Mr. George Peabody of Molokaisubmitted comments. Mr. Peabody submitted strong objections to ourinclusion of Part 0 of the Technical Supplement noting thatthirteen (13) guidelines for environmental assessment prepared inconjunction with an application for shoreline alternation orhardening would be prohibitive and a punitive burden on taxpayers.
The Hawaii County Planning Department was also concerned over theinclusion of these guidelines in COEMAP. They were concerned overthe seawall policy, which we removed.
Actually, the revision included two elements: 1) shorelinehardening policies; arid 2) the 13 guidelines. Staff elected to
7
EXHIBIT 19
remove the shoreline hardening policies but retain the guidelinesfor the preparation of environmental assessments.
In coiumerats to the County, we noted that there are significantimpacts associated with shoreline hardening that have not alwaysbeen disclosed and analyzed in environmental reviews. As such,Staff feels that there must be more discussion of the variousimpacts associated with shoreline hardening. To accomplish this,environmental documents must be completed with more reconnaissanceinformation and site analysis.
In response to Mr. Peabody’s concerns, staff notes that these areguidelines, not rules. They represent a worst—case scenario forany shore protection or alterfation project being proposed, whereit is believed that shoreline processes or marine resources couldbe altered or damaged. The purpose of the assessment is to assessthe effects of shore alteration projects on coastal resources toensure that there is a reasonable balance between shore alterationwork and environmental protection. All assessments may not requireall 13 guidelines to be covered. The guidelines should not be usedto encourage more red tape.
The proposed revisions to COEM7P were brought to the attention ofthe Lanikai Association and community members. Mr. Foster, forone, notes that tI’e revisions have alleviated many of his concernsexcept for the following areas.
He is concerned over the term “mauka toe of the primary dune” whichis used in COEMAP. The term actually used in COEMAP is “iuauka toeof the frontal dune”. This term is used to quantify sand volumesin the beach system and is also included in different contextswhere other states’ setback standards are noted as examples ofstates with variable setback standards. The term is used to onlydemonstrate how other states with dynamic shorelines like Hawaiiregulate and manage their shorelines.
Staff recognizes the difficulty of imposing new shoreline setbacksbased on dune system dynamics within existing developed communitiesin Hawaii, and as such, proposes alternative schemes for dealingwith coastal erosion within these areas, citing concepts likeminimizing environmental impacts to beaches on developed shorelinesby slowing erosion rates, utilizing beach nourishment, dunerestoration, temporary use of seabags and implementation ofcommunity performance standards. The concept of “CompensatoryMitigation” is also proposed where damage can’t be minimized, andcompensation must he made to the State for those damages.
8
EXHIBIT 19
In addition, Mr. Foster is concerned that a number of studies citedin COEMAP contain inaccurate information and he specifically refersto studies of the Lanikai shoreline.
Staff notes that studies are not always accurate and decision-makers must exercise caution when using studies to formulatepolicies and plans or making decisions on specific cases.
Hawaii County Planning Department:
Hawaii County provided written comments on the revised plan.Although they support the overall concept ,of COEMlP, they hadconcerns regarding some of the recommendations, particularly as itdeals with possible infringement upon the counties’ land use andzoning jurisdictions.
Of significant concern to Hawaii County was our reference to zoningin COEMAP. For instance, Goal no. 1 in the Executive Summaryoriginally stated that the Counties should consider replacing R-5zoning classification with Beach Management Districts. In responseto this concern, the language was changed and all reference tozoning was deleted. Goal No. 1 was replaced with the followinglanguage:
Consider Erosional trends and processes, and other coastalhazard at the zoning and subdivision stages of landdevelopment so that structures can be safely and properlylocated away from coastal hazards.
Also, in response to additional concerns that COEY.AP, in places,crosses jurisdictional boundaries by commenting on county issues,we deleted or otherwise altered the tone of COEMP& where noted byHawaii County, and added the following recommendation on page 42,Rec. 3, to maintain the intent of assisting and enhancing thecounty role in erosion management.
Develop a Technical Manual that provides direction for thedevelopment, restoration, and redevelopment of the coastline.The manual would be used on a voluntary basis, but throughcommon usage could become a standard for safe, economical, andsustainable utilization of the coastline.
The County had other comments and concerns on the tone andsubstance of COEMAP. For instance, Recommendatior. No. 7 underStrategic Recommendations made references to zcning, 30-yearerosion hazard setbacks, building codes, etc. Tr.is section wasreworded. Coastal Lands Acquisition (recommendation # 9) is nowdescribed as non—jurisdictional, that is, the concept is promotedwithout specific reference to a county or stace pr@gram. Rezoning
9
EXHIBIT 19
language was deleted and other points were ciarified. Reference to“codes” was also been deleted. In addition, it was noted that anynew shoreline setback guidelines considered by the counties shouldbe defined by an analysis of historical shoreline fluctuations inan integrated framework with ocean flood hazards. It is staff’sunderstanding that the Hawaii County Planning Department wassatisfied with the amendments.
1999—2000 WORK PLAN:
In consideration of the progress in public awareness building,agency coordination, plan development and new legislation, staffproposes the following work elements for 1999—2000:
1. Development of educational materials, including pamphlets,posters and video for pubic access television ($10,000)..Develop local ownership/capacity building of coastal issuesaround the .Ahupuaa framework, using local community leaders atthe erosion hotspots.
2. Hire firm/contractor to investigate upland sand source onpublic lands on Kauai. Do borings and sand grain analysis,develop plans for extraction and costs of delivery to Oahu andMaui through Port Allen ($45,000).
3. Seek competitive bids to design a sand recycling system inWaikiki to allow for nourishment of Waikiki Beach andprotection of marine resources ($40,000).
4. Expand COEMAP to include a regional analysis of erosion proneareas using GIS technology. This information would beprovided to Counties for consideration of guidelines in COEMAP($50, 000)
5. Conduct scoping analysis for the development of a BeachRestoration Plan to identify coastal lands suitable forpotential revenue generation, to fund beach restorationefforts ($20,000). For example, Hilton Hawaiian Lagoon,Kaneohe Bay Piers, reclaimed coastal lands, etc.
6. Major sponsor for the National Beach Conference on BeachPreservation to be held on the island of Maui in August 2000($15, 000). As a sponsor, DLNR will have input on the contentand expected outcomes of the conference so that it closelyreflects the needs of the agency.
7. Miscellaneous: Conferences/Travel, etc. $5,000
Total = $185,000
10
EXHIBIT 19
OTHER:
1. Complete and implement State Program General Permit (SPGP) forsmall scale beach nourishment projects. This requires a Boardaction that authorizes the work statewide.
2. Pursue beach restoration efforts in Waikiki. Meet with hotelassociation, stakeholders, seek conceptual plans (e.g., sandrecycling system).
3. Consider additional laws for 2000 legislature (e.g., revise ofrepeal accret:ion statute)
UNAUTHORIZED SHORELINE STRUCTURES/ENFORCEMENT:
Unauthorized shoreline structures, usually seawalls, revetments orgroins, have become a persistent dilemma for regulatory agencies inthe main Hawaiian Islands. If a shore owner was accused ofbuilding an unauthorized coastal erosion structure they couldtypically deny having built the structurc, even though theyreceived substantial benefit from it. The Department: is unable tohold the abutting owner responsible without evidence that the owneractually built the structure. In the past, when .?aced with thissituation, the State usually: 1) sold the land in fee; 2) soldshareowner an easement/permit; or 3) asked them to remove theencroachment. This money was deposited into the State General Fund.
The issue of routinely selling easements or fee title to submergedland became a controversial issue when the environmental effects ofshoreline hardening on the State’s beaches, became recognized as amajor social, environmental and economic problem. The problem wasno longer perceived a singular issue for land managers to resolve,but a multifaceted dilemma faced by resource managers regarding theappropriate management of the State’s shoreline resources. Thisshifting perspective caused the Land Division to all but stop thispractice.
Upon careful consideration of the issues surrounding shorelinehardening and its effects of beaches, Land Division, under theguidance of the Coastal Lands Program staff, would like to resumethe practice of issuing easements for existing encroachments. Thereasons for this are as follows. There are many cases in which itwould be counterproductive and unreasonable to require the summaryremoval of structures that have been in place for 10, 20, 30 or 40years, although they may be considered illeyal under current laws.
1. There are cases in which such structures have not lead to anydirect beach degradation or infringement of public access, or insome cases, the damage was done. Removal of the structure wouldnot result in any public benefits.
11
EXHIBIT 19
2. In many cases the coastal land owner who benefits from theshoreline structure didn’t actually build it. It was built byprevious owners.
3.All fines and revenues generated front these soirces would beplaced in the Land Division Special Beach Restoration Fundpursuant to Act 84, of the 1999 Session Laws. This money couldthen be used to enhance shoreline resources through beachrestoration.
With respect to revenues, staff notes that there was quite a bit ofdiscussion between legislators, environmentalists and DLNR over theappropriateness of generating revenues from unauthorized shorelinestructures. However, based on the consideration, as stipulated inthe previous section, that the removal of an unauthorized structuremay not be the reasonable or desirable course of action, in everycase, it was generally agreed that revenues could be generated from“existing” unauthorized shoreline structures. This policy would besubject to guidelines and procedures discussed in this section.
Land Division staff has identified hundreds of potentialencroachments in the main Hawaiian Islands that have yet to beresolved. These encroachments were identified itrough severalsources of information, including the shoreline certificationprocess, citizen complaints, and County enforcement personnel.Some of these may have since been resolved.
As a natural resource management agency, CLIP program objectiveswill consider the following criteria when dealing with shorelineencroachments:
1. Protect/preserve/enhance public shoreline access;2. Protect/preserve/enhance public beach areas;3. Protect adjacent properties; and4. Protect property and important facilities/structureserosion
damages.5. Implement a “no tolerance” policy for recent or new
unauthorized shoreline structures.
Removal of a structure due to resource concerns would generally beconsidered in light of the structure’s engineering purpose (i.e.,what is it protecting and what are the attendant economic values ofthe things protected). Also, mitigating factors would beconsidered —i.e., to what extent adjacent shoreline structures haveinfluenced shoreline processes in the virinity. But if thestructure provides value to the adjacent landowner (e.g.,protection/enhancement) and none of the first thrte criteria arejeopardized by its presence, the State may issue an easement forthe encroachment.
12
EXHIBIT 19
There are certainly cases in which an encroachment protectsimportant facilities/structures, but also has equal significantimpacts on the quality of the public beach or access to the beach.A policy of suirimaiy removal could result in signiffcant damages toprivate and/or public facilities/structures. Prosecution of thesecases could also lead to costly litigation and significantly drainstaff resources. In such cases, CLP staff will proceed carefullyand weigh all of the consequences, impacts and benefits of aparticular action.
These decisions would riot occur in a vacuum. The Land Division hasmade significant progress over the past three years in the area ofcoastal erosion management. Ther& is a heightened awareness of thecauses and consequences of beach loss on a sector-by—sector basis,with more resources and data available to improve cLeclslon—maklngThere is the reality that shoreline structures are a permanent partof Hawaii’s shoreline environment and that decisions must be madewith this consideration in mind. In the long term., some shorelinestructures may be phased-out, but this will require time, money andwillpower.
In applying an enforcement procedure, one cannot ever loose sightof its use as a regulatory tool to reduce noncompliance with Statelaws and as a tool to eliminate public nuisances. A no tolerancepolicy should be implemented to deal with blatant offenders.
Because there are likely hundreds of encroachments in the State,lack of staff resources only allow for case-by—case disposition.Nevertheless, staff may consider and weigh each situation on itsown merits provided that the guidelines described in this submittalare established and adhered to.
The Board of Land and Natural Resources must affirm the guidelinesto add legitimacy and direction to the Coastal ands Program’sefforts.
The following procedures are proposed to address unauthorizedshoreline structures:
1. Staff decides t.o prosecute a case based on a complaint orthrough prioritization of existing cases based on availablestaff resources.
2. Staff notifies the abutting property owner of the problem inwriting and requests a site inspection.
3. Staff meets with the responsible County regulatory authorityto discuss and resolve regulatory/jurisdictLoral issues.
13
EXHIBIT 19
4. Staff conducts on-site inspection.
5. Staff compiles information about the site includingidentification of coastal cell, identification of publicaccess and use of the area, nature of fronting beach, if any,as well as other introduced manmade structure,. that nay haveinfluenced shoreline processes in the vicinity.
6. Staff gathers information on extent of encroachment, when itoriginally occurred, and the responsible party. Staff alsogathers information whether encroachment affects neighboringproperties.
7. Staff evaluates whether removal of the encroachment willfurther degrade the environment (sedimentation), or the levelof mitigation to be gained by removal. This will require someknowledge of the erosion history a.t the site.
8. Staff considers information in light of the followingguidelines:
a. Protect/preserve/enhance public shoreline access;b. Protect/preserve/enhance public beach areas;c. Protect adjacent properties; andd. Protect property and important facilities/structures from
erosion damages.e. Apply “no tolerance” policy for recent or iLew unauthorized
shoreline structures.
After this information is collated/analyzed, staff will recommendthe issuance of either a short term revocable permit, a long-termeasement, a lease fee based on avoided cost, or order it to beremoved. The matter will first require resolution through theHOAPS system.
In cases where the abutting property owner refuses to remove thewall and/or pay the fine, the State may remove the wall and billthe owner.
DISCUSSION:
The revised plan represents an improvement over the plan approvedby the Board in November 1997. The plan is better organized andcontains additioral information that supports the fundamentalconcepts and recommendations of DLNR erosion management. Staff hastried to ensure that the revisions are consistent with the originalintent and content of COEMAP.
14
EXHIBIT 19
As stated in the November 1997, staff report, adoption of the plan doesnot trigger any of the State’s Environmental Requirements, nor any State,County or Federal permits. It is a new resource guide for homeowners,policy formers and regulators to use in their daily functions.
The Maui County Council, the City Council of Honolulu, the State Marineand Coastal Zone Management Group (MCZMAG) and numerous other bodieshave already adopted the Plan in some form.
Adoption of revisions to COEMAP by the Board will establish a strategicframework to guide the State’s efforts towards coastal and beach erosionproblem management, with the understanding that specific actions will bedeveloped and implemented in cooperation with and by the respectiveState, County and Federal agencies with coastal zone responsibility.
Staff, therefore, recommends as follows:
RECONNENDAT ION:
That the Board of Land and Natural Resources (Board):
1. Adopt the revised policies and recommendations of the Hawaii CoastalErosion Management Plan as the strategic framework to guide theState’s efforts towards coastal and beach erosion problemmanagement;
2. Approve minutes of the April 8, 1999 briefing;
3. Approve the proposed work plan for 1999-2000 with the provision thatthe Land Division can adjust the plan based on newly evolving needs;and
4. Authorize procedures to manage encroachments and the remittance offines and revenues from existing unauthorized shoreline structuresto be placed in the Special Beach Restoration Fund, pursuant toprocedures as set forth in this report.
Staff Planner
Attachment (s)
Approved for Submi al
TIMOT . JO S, HAIR ERSONBoard of Land and Natural Resources
15
EXHIBIT 19
