Campbell, Frisbee

Cox, Doak C.

Gerritsen, Frans

Moberly, Ralph

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa

University 0 Hawaii atEnvironmental CenterCrawford 317. 2550 Campus RoadHonolulu. Hawaii 96822Telephone (808) 948-7361Office of the Directora aRL:0342SB 682 & SB 1037RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF SANDStatement forSenate Committees onEcology, Environment and RecreationEconomic DevelopmentPublic Hearing, 28 February 1979ByDoak C. Cox, Environmental CenterRalph Moberly, Geology & GeophysicsFrisbee Campbell, Institute of GeophysicsFrans Gerritsen, Ocean EngineeringSB 682 and SB 1037 would amend HRS Section 205-33 which prohibits the removalof sand, coral, etc. from nearshore deposits on land and under water, with certain exceptions.The amendments proposed in both bills would delete the present exceptions, and makecertain other changes. This statement on the bill does not reflect an institutional positionof the University.Effects in commonBoth of the present exceptions to the ban on commercial removal of sand, coral,etc. relate to sand mining. The first relates to operations begun in 1970 or earlier andthe other a specific pilot sand mining project. The exception in the first case terminatedin 1975, and the pilot project ended long ago. Hence both exceptions are now moot,and their deletion, as proposed in both SB 682 and SB 1037 is appropriate.Neither the present version of HRS 205-33 nor the amendments proposed in eitherSB 682 nor SB 1037 would prohibit the removal of sand, coral, rocks, soil, or other beachcompositions for "reasonable domestic non-commericial use."The effects of the other change proposed in the two bills would be similar i generalbut different in detail. They are best discussed, first as they relate to commercial miningof sand, second as they relate to mining of the other materials covered, third as theyrelate to non-commercial removal of all of the materials covered, and fourth as theyrelate to agency permit requirements.AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERSB 682 & SB 1037Commercial sand miningHR 205-33 now prohibits onshore commercial sand mining in the shoreline setbackarea and prohibits offshore commercial sand mining except at a distance of 1000 feetor more or at a depth of 30 feet or more with the two exceptions noted above.2The reasons for the use of the depth and distance criterion should be recognizedat least with respect to offshore mining of sand, the major concern is whether the sandis capable of being moved shoreward by nature so as to contribute to the nourishmentof sand beaches. Within what is called a littoral cell, sand may be moved by waves andcurrents both along the shore and in the offshore-onshore direction. If sand is removedfrom offshore deposits within a littoral cell, it is not available for movement shorewardso as to contribute to the maintenance of beaches. Sand is continuously lost seawardfrom most littoral cells, and if it moves sufficiently far from shore, and particularlyif it moves into water of sufficient depth, it can no longer be returned by nature to thebeaches. Mining of sand from deposits beyond the seaward boundary of the littoral cellcannot ordinarily affect the beaches. The only exception would be if the mining resultedin a bottom slope steepening that extended shoreward into the littoral cell.There are probably few places where significant shoreward movement of sand ispossible under natural conditions at depths of 30 feet or more, regardless of the distancefrom shore. Significant shoreward movement of sand is probably more common a distanceof 1000 feet from shore if the water is less than 30 feet deep at this distance. Thereare, however, some sand deposits that are both less than 1000 feet from shore and inwater of less than 30 feet depth from which significant movement of sand to the beachesis very unlikely. The 3D-foot depth criterion and 1000-foot distance criterion representonly approximately the criterion of major significance--the sand mining will not resultin detrimental effects on the beaches.SB 682 would retain the prohibition against commercial mining in the shorelinesetback area onshore. It would also retain the present 1000 foot distance criterion andthe present 30 foot depth criterion for determining where commercial mining is permissibleoffshore, but its application of these criteria is different from that in the present law.In the present law both criteria must be satisfied if the mining is permissible-in theproposed amendment only one need be satisfied.In itself Section 205-33, if amended as proposed in SB 682, would allow commercialsand mining from some offshore deposits that may be significant in natural beach maintenance(but only if permitted by agencies with appropriate authority), and would prohibit sandmining from a few offshore sand deposits that are insignificant in natural beach maintenance.SB 1037 would retain, not only the 3D-foot depth criterion and the 1000-foot distancecriterion with respect to offshore sand mining, but also the way in which the criteriaare now used. It would, however, allows sand mining both onshore and offshore, withoutregard to the depth and distance criteria under certain circumstances that are consideredin SB 682 to be non-commercial.By itself, SB 1037 would not allow any commercial mining from any offshore depositsthat would be significant in natural beach maintenance, but would continue prohibitions,somewhat more extensive than those that would result from SB 682, against commercialmining from offshore deposits that are insignificant in natural maintenance.SB 683 & SB 1037 3The effects of offshore sand mining on water quality and on the benthic biota mayalso be of concern. Among these, the turbidity and sedimentation effects that may resultfrom the mining operation, are probably the most likely to be significant, particularlyif the deposit contains much sediment of finer grain size than the sand itself. Wherecommercial offshore sand mining is permissible, any regulatory control that could beexercised on the basis of turbidity and sedimentation effects would have to be on theauthority of laws other than Section 205-33.The benthic population of sand deposits is sparse relative to populations on andin other types of marine bottom, and there are unlikely to be any endangered speciesin the sand-deposit populations. Hence effects on the biota in the sand seem to be ofsmall importance.SB 682 and SB 1037 do not differ significantly as they relate to turbidity, sedimentationand benthic biota effects.Sand mining for public beach replishmentBoth SB 682 and SB 1037 would amend HRS 205-33 so as to allow the sand miningfor the replenishment by the State or county of sand on public beaches. As indicatedin the justification supplied by the Department of Transportation for HB 617, a companionbill to SB 682, the intent is to exempt sand mining for the indicated purpose from thegeneral prohibition against sand mining. This intent would be met in different ways inthe two bills.In SB 682, the allowance is combined with the allowance for reasonable domestictakings, in a provision which permits "the mining or taking of sand, etc." "within theshoreline area and the territorial ocean." However, the specific allowance of miningactivities for the state or county replenishment of sand on public beaches is then restrictedto offshore sand deposits.There is a possible problem with this provision in SB 682 in that it is not specificallyphrased as an exception to the prohibition against commercial sand mining. Althoughthe replenishment of sand on a public beach would be at the behest of the state or countythe mining might be done by constructors and thus considered commercial and subjectto the depth and distance limitations.In SB 1037, the allowance is phrased as an exception to the prohibition againstremoval of sand, etc., and applies to onshore as well as offshore deposits. However,in that bill the allowance is unnecessarily limited to mining for replenishment a beachin the vicinity of the deposits to be mined.Commercial coral takingOther than the two exceptions relating to commercial sand mining in the presentversion of HRS 205-33, its provisions regarding the commercial removal of "coral, rocks,soil, or other beach compositions", and the changes proposed in SB 682 are identical tothose relating to the commercial mining of sand. Of the non-sand materials covered,SB 683 & SB 1037 4coral is the most important. Insofar as the regulatory authority in HRS 205-33 is concerned,the major effect of the proposed amendment would be to allow commercial taking ofcoral closer than 1000 feet from shore if in water of more than 30 feet in depth, andin water of less than 30 feet in depth if more than 1000 feet from shore.It may be pointed out that there are areas of relatively luxuriant coral growthwithin the space in which commercial taking is now prohibited by HRS 205-33 but wouldbe allowed under the amendment proposed in SB 682. Most of the barrier reefs andthe patch reefs of Kaneohe Bay, for example are within this space. Any restrictionson such taking in this space would have to be by authority other than that of Section205-33.SB 1037 would not make any change in HRS 205-33 as it relates to coral taking.Permit and environmental reguirementsThe present version of HRS 205-33 does not itself provide any agency discretionaryauthority or refer to permits that may be required under other statuatory authority.The amendments proposed in both SB 622 and SB 1037 would make the sand miningfor the replenishment of public beaches subject to the "written permission of all governmentagencies having jurisdiction thereof." In SB 682 there is no indication what environmentalcriteria should be supplied by the agencies in determing whether the permission shouldbe granted. SB 1037 leans too far, however, in requiring that before permission can begranted it must be determined that there would be no negative environmental impact.As we have pointed out earlier, sand mining may be expected to have some adverseimpacts in the form of turbidity, sediment redistribution, and effects on the benthicbiota. The condition that should appropriately be met is that the mining should be restrictedto areas from which there is no significant natural movement of sand to any beach andin which the mining will result in any detrimental impact that is not offset by the benefitof the use of the sand mine.The requirement of all pertinent agency permissions would be extended appropriatelyin SB 682 to commercial sand mining and to commercial taking of coral and rock, butthe extension would not be provided in SB 1037.The criterion for permission that is appropriate in the case of sand mining for publicbeach replenishment is appropriate also in the case of commercial sand mining, but wouldnot be applied in either SB 682 or SB 1037.SummaryThe intent of both SB 682 and SB 1037 is appropriate. SB 682 would accomplishwhat is intended if the sand mining for replenishing public beaches is not consideredcommercial, and SB 1037 would if the requirement of an absolute determination of nonegative environmental impact were relaxed. Permission of all pertinent agencies wouldbe required by both bills in the case of sand mining for public beach replenishment butSB 683 & SB 1037 5only by SB 1037 in the case of commercial sand mining and coral taking. SB 682 is undulyrestrictive in limiting the sand mining for public beach replenishment to deposits in thevicinity of the beaches.The justification provided by the DOT for HB 617, to which we have referred above,relates in particular to a proposal for sand mining from a deposit in Kaneohe Bay forthe restoration of the Kualoa Beach. We are aware of community objections to the project.However, in our opinion sand mining from the particular deposit intended to be mined will nothave a detrimental effect on the beaches. In any case, the rationale for the bills is notrestricted to that project, and that project will be subject to review before necessarypermits are granted.Either SB 682 or SB 1037 could easily be amended to accomplish the intent withoutundue limitations or relaxation of appropriate restrictions.PROPOSED AMENDED VERSION OFHRS 205-33(a)The mining or taking sand, coral, rocks, soil, or other beach or marine depositsis prohibited with the following exceptions:(1) Removal for reasonable, domestic, non-commercial uses;(2) Mining or taking more than 1000 feet seaward from the shoreline and in waterof 30-foot depth or greater; governmental agencies having pertinent jurisdiction;(3) Mining or taking of sand for the replenishment of public beaches by the Stateor a county.The written permission of all governmental agencies having pertinent jurisdictionshall be required for any mining or taking or for any mining of sand for public beachreplenishment. Permission for sand mining for public beach replenishment shall be deniedunless it can be reasonably demonstrated that sand does not move naturally from thearea to be mined to any beach. Permission for any mining or taking shall be denied ifit will result in significant environmental detriments not offset by public benefits.Doak C. CoxFebruary 1979

SB 682 & SB 1037, Relating to the Removal of Sand - Statement for Senate Committee on Ecology, Environment and Recreation Economic Development Public Hearing, 28 February 1979

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/31261/1/RL0342.pdf

SB 682 & SB 1037, Relating to the Removal of Sand - Statement for Senate Committee on Ecology, Environment and Recreation Economic Development Public Hearing, 28 February 1979

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa