Island Burial Council Document Page
HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL
DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2004
TIME: 10:00 AM
PLACE: KONA OUTDOOR CIRCLE EDUCATION CENTER
76-6280 Kuakini Highway
Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740
Geri Bell (Chair)
Ruby McDonald, Kona (Vice-Chair)
Anna Cariaga, Ka'u
Ron Dela Cruz, Kohala
Ku Kahakalau, Hamakua
Lily Kong, Kona
Dutchie Saffrey, Puna
Ulu Sherlock, Hilo
Mary Carney, Burial Sites Program
Keola Lindsey, Burial Sites Program
Mary Anne Maigret, Hawai'i Island Archaeologist
Vince Kanemoto, Deputy Attorney General
Edward Halealoha Ayau
I. OPENING REMARKS
Lily Kong (Kong) offers a pule.
Introduction of Hawai'i Island Burial Council Members
A. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR SITES 50-10-37-8021: A AND 23556 LOCATED ON ALI'I DRIVE, KAUMALUMALU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK: (3) 7-7-04:57 AND 58]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Discussion of Hawai'i Island Burial Council Site Visit. Recognition of Lineal and/or Cultural Descendants. Presentation by Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific, Inc. Formal Council Determination for Proposed Preservation in Place of Previously Identified Burials found during Archaeological Inventory Survey Testing.
Mina Elison (Elison) of Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific (ACP) gives a brief overview of the project. It is a 5.5 acre parcel off of Ali'i Drive. ACP represents the landowner, Larry Smith. There are two sites on the property. ACP has revised the Burial Treatment Plan (BTP) since the last meeting: the proposed buffer zone has been increased from 3 meters to 6 meters, signage has been included, ACP has received additional correspondence from cultural descendants, and the wording of covenant conditions and restrictions now includes perpetual and unrestricted access (for descendants) to the sites at reasonable times with advanced notice.
Ku Kahakalau (Kahakalau) is still concerned about access for lineal and cultural descendants, it is a little clearer now, but still seems vague.
Elison refers to page 14 of the plan for the CC&R's that describe access for recognized descendants.
Geri Bell (Bell) recommends that recognized descendants who are in the audience make recommendations on access to the Council, who in turn can make a recommendation to the Department.
Lily Kong (Kong) says that the sites should be marked, which would make them easier to find. There were problems at the site visit with finding the sites.
Elison refers to page 13 of the BTP, which addresses signage.
Bell would also like to ask the descendants about their thoughts on signage.
Kahakalau says that sometimes the BTP refers to identified descendants, and other times refers to recognized ethnic organizations and/or individuals- it is unclear what is meant by that. There are also problems with the original Archaeological Inventory Survey saying this area is part of the Kula lands (Kona Field System), and that burials are not usually found on Kula lands. The Council just came from the property, and it is obvious that the property is makai, and not Kula lands.
Bell asks descendants to the project for their mana'o.
Clarence Medeiros (Medeiros) wants to make sure the buffers are big enough- he has heard others recommend 20 feet, and he will go with 20 feet.
Bell asks Medeiros if he has received a copy of the BTP.
Medeiros says he has not
Bell says that the BTP should have been mailed to the Descendants prior to the HIBC taking action on this agenda item. There were a few issues that the Council wanted clarification on and the mana'o of the descendants, one being signage, and the other access. The access issue seems vague in the BTP- the plan does say that the landowner agrees to provide identified descendants who wish to visit the burial site with a right of access at reasonable times and upon reasonable advanced notice.
Medeiros says he thinks there was a recommendation that there would be perpetual access.
Kahakalau asks Medeiros if he has mana'o about the signage.
Medeiros asks if that is signage near the site?.
Kahakalau says that what we saw this morning is that the burials are part of a larger feature and so there will be signage for the bigger feature, and not necessarily at the site of the two known burials versus having something specific right next to the burials, or nothing at all, and she would think those would be the two scenarios, and she wanted to know what Medeiros as a descendant would prefer.
Medeiros says he would go with the other descendants, and would like to wait before making a decision on that.
Bell says in that regard, the HIBC can also make a recommendation that the signage issue be worked out with the descendants.
Mary Anne Maigret (Maigret) says that when SHPD reviewed the Preservation Plan for non-burial sites there was at least one of the features there that has a significance assessment that requires consultation for reviewing the Preservation Plan as well, so in regards to signs or what level of interpretation, and it may be what happens at the rest of the sites, the SHPD will be taking into consideration the input of the descendants, so if there is doubt about the signs for a particular burial site, it can be reviewed again within the context of the review for the overall Preservation Plan..
Bell says that it is an added protection.
Iwalani Arakaki (Arakaki) says to leave it in place.
Bell says that is what the landowner has proposed
Curtis Tyler (Tyler) apologizes for not making it to the site visit. He is pleased that there was a site visit, and doesn't know if there has been discussion on it yet. He felt very strongly for a need for the HIBC to go and visit that area for those who are not familiar with it to see what kinds of cultural resources are on that 'Aina. He was concerned that when he printed out the tax map for that property to find out where these to parcels where, it showed that the now called Judd trail, which is a much older trail than that, isn't even in existence on the map. This has been a real problem, and if they didn't have the Judd Trail there, what else isn't showing up on maps. He hasn't seen the proposal, so he doesn't know exactly what it is.
He also mentioned also last time referring to Pua Kanahele's study for that area, for the Keolanahihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes, and he doesn't know if the HIBC has received copies of that study for review. John Kekahuna and Naluahineka'opua's map of that area which shows quite extensive cultural resources there. It is his strong belief, based on his lifetime residency here, and his personal interactions with people like Mr. Kekahuna, Mr. Naluahineka'opua, and others that came after them including Uncle Mauna Roy, and others who were very concerned- the Friends of Kamoa Point, who were concerned about development makai of what is now Ali'i Drive in Kaumalumalu, where there was at least one burial. Many Kupuna came from around the Island to speak about the significance of this area.
His first visit to the area was when he was 7 or 8 years old, and Mr. Thomas Sigfreed used to live in the two story house they had at Holualoa Bay. Sigfreed took him to the Keakealani area and beyond, and he will never forget it. He has studied this very carefully, and has many files on this area.
There have been representations by some persons who have done archaeology in the area in the past, that Kaumalumalu was not part of Holualoa 4th, and the Keakealani and Keolanahihi complex, and he does not believe that. The evidence is to the contrary, and Pua Kanahele's report done for the State also indicates to the contrary. He would ask the HIBC to be careful and vigilant on what is being proposed here. He does not have personal knowledge of the proposal, so he cannot speak to it, but he can speak on his personal knowledge of the area, which is in his na'au.
Bell says the trail is on the site map, a portion is slated for preservation.
Maigret says that what is on the site map is what is left of it, portions of the physical demarcation of the trail were destroyed in the 1980's during bulldozing which also affected the back of the parcel. She understands the County of Hawai'i is in engaged in making a set of conditions for consolidation and re- subdivision for the adjacent property which involves getting a surveyor out there, working with Land Division of the DLNR to establish a easement on a TMK map to connect the section from Ali'i Drive to the one above. It got dropped out when the Ho'omalu on Ali'i subdivision was built.
Kong says in between Keauhou and Holualoa, Kaumalumalu is right in the center. By White Sands is all Kaumalumalu. Judd trail comes by Helani Church on the north by where Ms. Hine had her maid's house.
Tyler says all long as the trail section is not going to be bulldozed over like other sections. He appreciates the HIBC's vigilance and being careful.
Ruby McDonald (McDonald) says she has two conflicting maps on page three and page six of the BTP. One map shows the trail going almost thru the middle of the property, the other map shows it on the side. One is a USGS map- that's the one with the trail in the middle of the property, and the other one is a Haun and Henry map.
Maigret says that was a topic of discussion where a previous landowner had said the trail with the double walls is not the Judd trail.
McDonald asks where we were this morning, and the wall to the south, was that part of the Judd Trail?.
Maigret says yes, it is right on the edge.
McDonald asks if that is the legal boundary?.
Maigret says yes the one wall on the north side is inside this property, and the other wall with the pin that sits in the middle. She knows when Alan (Haun) did the Inventory Survey the trail itself was included. The actual surveyed alignment of the trail is something that has not been legally defined, so we are going by physical evidence of the trail in preserving the trail site. There are survey issues.
McDonald asks how a decision can be made if nothing is definite on it- it is not legal.
Maigret the landowner can clarify exactly where the boundary is, but the intent of the Inventory Survey and the Preservation Plan was to preserve the Judd Trail, this section was part of the agreement.
Kahakalau says it is hard to make decisions when the HIBC has not seen the development plans for around the site. Is there a timeline, and why do BTPs come before the council, when there are no development plans?. Is there anything in the law that says when a landowner can come before the council?.
Vince Kanemoto (Kanemoto) says that is not really a legal question. The Council is interested in development plans because they want to make an informed decision. It is a matter of timing. The developer is the one that requests it is on the agenda.
Bell says it is the Division that puts it on the agenda. The HIBC has been asked to make decisions before, without the development plans. The HIBC has an opportunity to make recommendations without the development plans, and that could be to the Council's advantage.
Kong says she had mentioned this morning that plans should be presented to the Council, so the Council can see how actually everything goes. There is a big difference between paper and seeing the sites in the field.
Bell says the Council can recommend to the Department that items not be put on the agenda until the development plans are included. The Department can call the shots on what is provided to the Council. That is one of the things.
Dutchie Saffrey (Saffrey) says it seemed this morning that we were following someone who is supposed to have knowledge of the sites, only to find that we were being led in the wrong direction didn't make her trust what we had in hand. The archaeologists should do their work in the field, before the Council goes. She was really having a hard time finding where we where on the map. She was discouraged when we were going in the wrong direction. We couldn't walk easily.
Elison says that a lot times the landowner wants to sell the land, and wanted to do the archaeology, so there is no development plan, which is unfortunate.
McDonalld asks that at the last meeting the Council asked for a conceptual plan. Was the landowner informed?.
Elison thinks so, but doesn't think there is a plan to give out.
McDonald asks where are we with this particular agenda item ?.
Bell says we need to make a final decision today. The clock started ticking at the last meeting.
Tyler says he contacted the planning department to find out what kind activity they have on that property, and the have no record of anything. He did not check in Hilo. He suggests a motion to preserve in place, but to recommend that the landowner come back before the Council before the development plans are approved, so the Council can look at this in terms of buffers and setbacks.
A motion is made to preserve in place sites 8021 feature A, and 23556 (first/second)
All in favor
A motion is made that all burials found on the property be treated as previously known (first/second)
All in favor
Kahakalau says that the developer should come back to the Council to share the Preservation Plan for the entire feature, and the development plans will give the Council a clearer picture as to access and signage.
A motion is made that prior to the development plans are approved, and the Preservation Plan completed, that the landowner come back to the HIBC to discuss signage and access (first/second)
All in favor
B. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR BURIAL SITES 13161, 13165, 13166, 13168 AND INADVERTENT FIND IDENTIFIED AT BIG ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB, PU'UANAHULU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK: (3)7-1-05:26-34, 39-41]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by Haun and Associates. Formal Council Determination for Preservation in Place or Relocation of Previously Identified Burials found during Archaeological Inventory Survey Testing.
Bell says that this item is up for a formal determination.
Alan Haun (Haun) gives a overview of the BTP. The plan is for five burial sites within Big Island Country Club Estates Development, who is the applicant. In 1989 and 1990 Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. conducted archaeological inventory surveys of the overall 400 acre parcel, and identified four burial sites. Site 13161 is the Keakealani Family Cemetery 13165 is the Alapa'i Family Cemetery, Site 13166 is the Alapa'i Homestead with at least one burial, and Site 13168 is the Lewi-Mitchell Family Cemetery. The Plan also calls for the preservation of a site that was inadvertently discovered during construction activity in 1997, and a site where piko were buried by one of the families.
The applicant is planning a residential development, and nine more holes of golf. Notices were published, and all known families have been consulted, and have reviewed the plan. All of their requested revisions have been made in the plan, and they have approved the final form. Buffers are from 18-75 feet, some of the sites are irregular in shape, and the easements are all rectangular. All except one of the sites will be marked by hedges. The Keakealani Family Cemetery will be surrounded by a low stone wall.
Temporary construction buffers will be ten feet larger than permanent buffers. The landowner and the descendants will share responsibility for maintenance and security of the sites. There will be a restrictive covenant that will be incorporated into the property deed. The covenant will be reviewed by family representatives before it is recorded. Access will be permitted to all descendants.
Last meeting Ku'ulei Keakealani was here, and she has submitted a letter.
Keola Lindsey (Lindsey) reads a letter from Ku'ulei Keakealani (dated 10/21/04) in support of the BTP.
End Tape#1 Side A
Begin Tape #1 Side B
Anna Cariaga asks if all the families know that there is one family representative, if so they should have all signed the letter, and attached their names.
Bell says there have been several meetings in Pu'uanahulu, and the families have come out and it does appear that they have designated Ku'ulei as their spokesman. She is comfortable that Ku'ulei is speaking for the families, but it would be a good idea to attach a list of names, or something else that confirms everyone has approved a spokesman.
Kong says a lot of the families were there last meeting and Ku'ulei did stand up and speak for them.
A motion is made to preserve in place Sites 13161, 13165, 13166, 13168 and the Inadvertent Find at the Big Island Country Club in Pu'uanahulu (first/second)
All in favor
C. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR REISH 'OHANA PARCEL, LAMALOLOA, KAIPUHA'A AND KOAEAE AHUPUA'A, NORTH KOHALA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK: (3) 5-7-001:011]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation of Burial Treatment Plan by Landowner. Formal Council Determination for Proposed Preservation in Place of Previously Identified Burials found during Archaeological Inventory Survey.
Bob Reish says he has done more research, made more telephone calls, and written letters- he has not gotten any responses. He spoke with Fred Cachola, who was concerned about views from the highway- he did send pictures to Cachola.
Bell says there are temporary buffers, but is confused about the permanent buffers.
Reish says the sites are surrounded by dense kiawe trees in many locations, and he wants to carefully remove the trees before any more damage occurs. Through the CDUA process, the DLNR says he needs permission to remove the trees. Somebody suggested rockwalls, which will draw attention, so he is suggesting landscaping- unless there is a better suggestion. The sites are about a third of a mile off the highway.
Bell says there is a possibility that the property may be sold, so it is important to have permanent buffers around the site. Without demarcation or signage, it bothers her that there is no permanent buffer.
Reish says a rockwall will draw attention.
Bell asks if Reish received any responses to the newspaper notices from lineal or cultural descendants.
Reish says Aka Mahi and Mr. Ako.
Kong asks if Reish is he has ever gotten the history of the area, it looks like a ceremonial site. Will he be preserving the whole area?.
Reish says there have been four archaeological studies done. He will be preserving in place. There will be minimum 50 foot buffers.
Kong asks if shoreline access will be open to the public?.
Reish says shoreline access is always open to the public.
McDonald asks what the buffer will be from the burial itself.?
Reish says a minimum of 50 feet.
McDonald asks if that is a permanent buffer from the burial site?.
Reish says yes. There is an easement coming down the property that he would like to move away so there is a limiting factor, so the public doesn't come right down.
McDonald asks what site number?.
Reish says the major site number is 19748 on page 16 of the BTP, and there is an easement (the current road) that comes down which he trying to move. On page 5 the proposed plan is for a road to bypass the site by a larger margin, and well outside the 50 foot buffer. The closest construction will be to a site is 80 feet, and generally it is 100 feet or more. There are three possible burial sites on the property. Does the Council want a rockwall? - he would like to keep it obscure to not draw attention.
Kahakalau asks if there has been a survey along the shoreline? - there are lots of cave burials in this area.
Reish says he does not think there are any caves. He has gotten a certified shoreline survey.
Lindsey asks in terms of the long term treatment, Reish has said the landowner will protect the sites in perpetuity, but will the sites show up on the property deed, and be recorded that way?. The sites will be on construction plans, which is good, but will the sites be formally recorded in any way?.
Reish says he assumes they will be during the CDUA, he has never done this before. There must be something that formally records the sites.
McDonald says in the BTP, all the burials are identified as possible- has anyone confirmed these are burials?.
Reish says no.
Jean Rasor (Rasor) says in all the previous archaeological studies, the sites are called possible burials. They just left there a little while ago, he and Uncle Aka. These are very stereotype burial platforms, but they all have been previously identified. There are problems with identifying sites as burials (on maps), because you are calling attention to them by saying this is something. Rockwalls also may draw attention.
Bell says that the sites should be recorded legally, because if the property changes hands, and nobody knows there is a burial site there what happens?. We need to be looking down the road.
Rasor says these are large four or five feet high, not small burial mounds.
Reish says in Conservation you need anything to do a permit.
Bell says she hopes the Department follows up on the easements.
Cariaga says she has confidence that Reish has been working with the community. Sometimes permits are approved without all the information- without the formally recorded easements there could be problems. She is also looking at the long term- 100 years from now, or if the land is sold, will the sites be recorded in the file for the property?. If there is recordation it is all there. There is a lot of information in the BTP, and that is good.
Kong says if there is a new owner of the property, there should be documentation with the State that these burials are to remain in place, so that nothing will be disturbed.
Rasor says the State has the evidence on file for this tax map key. That evidence says these burials are to be preserved in place and not disturbed at all.
Valerie Luhiau (Luhiau) introduces herself to the Council. She represents the Luhiau 'Ohana who come from Lamaloloa, Koaeae, Kaipuha'a, and Lapakahi Ahupua'a. In regards to the Reish BTP, they have some concerns as descendants. They were recognized as descendants at a previous Burial Council meeting (2/19/04).
On page 6 and 7 of the BTP- figure four, the historical background, she wanted to be on recorded and say that the Luhiau 'Ohana have palapala that tie them into all four ahupua'a. Land Comission Award #7458 to Wahineka'oa'o borders the south boundaries of two of these ahupua'a- Kaipuha'a, and Lamaloloa. Her great-grandfather Reverend Samuel Clive, her Grand Uncle Samuel Luhiau Jr., and her Grandfather Clive Luhiau all born in Kaipuha'a, and all buried there- they have documents to show this.
The palapala show that the 17 acres Reish purchased was deeded to Nu'uanu. Yesterday she spoke with a direct descendant of Nu'uanu- they could not be here, so she (Luhiau) has permission to speak for them. Until all documents related to the Reish BTP can be reviewed by the Nu'uanu Family, and their descendant application processed by the SHPD, they (Nu'uanu) request an opportunity to give input and share their mana'o on this BTP.
The Luhiau 'Ohana did have a meeting concerning this parcel. Two years ago, before Reish purchased the property, there was a request for a different access. This access would go along the south boundary of Lapakahi State Park, and enter Lapakahi on the northern side of his (Reish's) property. The Luhiau 'Ohana did not agree to this access way, because there would be a direct impact to certain sites. She requests that the owner use the current easement, or an alternative route.
All previously identified burials are to remain in place. Any inadvertent discoveries of burials during construction should be reported immediately to the Burial Sites Program, and any descendants recognized by the HIBC notified.
The Luhiau 'Ohana has requested that Matha Yent of State Parks be a consultant to the family if any burials are discovered, because her family has worked with Yent before at Lapakahi. Lineal descendants must be involved with any decisions regarding inadvertents. Only recognized lineal descendants should have access rights to the burial sites. Access by groups or organizations other than lineal descendants would be improper.
Permanent buffer zones must remain 50 feet around burials to ensure zero disturbance to them. Her family is concerned about the burials on the parcel, to make sure the iwi kupuna is protected, and left undisturbed.
This property used to be owned by the Tabrah's, and Reish bought the property two years ago. That area down to Kawaihae is frequented by the local community for camping, gathering and fishing. They come from the area, and know about the sites and the burials there- it is second nature. She is saying that her family comes from the mauka area of that ahupua'a- families that come from the makai side are family to the Luhiau. The protection of the iwi kupuna is everyone's main concern.
Cariaga asks when the Luhiau owned the property, did they try and register the burials with the State or anyone?.
Luhiau says they never owned the subject property- the Luhiau were up Mauka. She feels they have been omitted from the whole BTP process. They have tried for two years to get information from Cultural Surveys who did the plan, but they got the run around. They just got the BTP from SHPD on Monday. They have not had time to review the plan. From last month's meeting to this month, they have not been contacted by anyone from the Reish 'Ohana.
Reish says he never had their contact information, he gave them his contact information.
Kong asks if any of the families have taken care of the graves.
Luhiau says the families she spoke to did not know any of this was going on. The one member of the Nu'uanu Family she spoke to went back to her Kupunas to prove lineal descendant status, and she (Nu'uanu) called her back and confirmed that she will need to submit her application to be processed. She made a copy of the BTP and sent her (Nu'uanu) descendant applications.
Kong asks have the families have gone to Mr. Reish to try and work with him?.
Luhiau says this is the first contact with the Nu'uanu 'Ohana she has had. She has been searching for 'ohana from that ahupua'a to come forward- it just so happened last week they found each other, but the Nu'uanu 'Ohana could not make it to the meeting, but would like they opportunity to comment on the BTP.
Kong says she had asked because families need to come before the Council so that the burials are known, and not inadvertent.
Cariaga asks if the families saw the newspaper notices?.
Luhiau says they did, and that is when they filed their papers with SHPD. Even before Reish bought the property, they worked very closely with all the sites along the coastline- it wasn't like they didn't know the sites were there. They worked with a previous landowner, but things fell apart and they had to sell the property. The sites were overgrown with grass and kiawe, and people who go down to the beach and liter, which is a growing problem.
As a child she went camping and fishing there, and her father told her there were burials, and house sites so to stay away. Her family knew about these sites, it is not that suddenly there are sites there- the sites are known to her family. They were hoping that the State would have purchased the property, and kept it with Lapakahi- but that did not happen. Her main concern is for the burials, and that they are properly treated and respected. The whole BTP is a lot to absorb- they have a worry that when everything is in place their burials will be protected, they just aren't sure. They just hope and will work with the landowner to do this.
Her reason for being here, and she is speaking for the Nu'uanu Family- they (Nu'uanu) need a chance to review the BTP, and they are going to give their mana'o. The Nu'uanu 'Ohana still needs to file with SHPD and be recognized by the HIBC as lineal descendants.
Cariaga asks how much time?.
Luhiau says one month should be enough. The Nu'uanu do have concerns about inadvertent discoveries- they are not sure if they are comfortable with moving them.
Cariaga says there is no time to be mili'apa- keep moving ahead. Everone knows what they have to do. The concern is for the long term- keep it on file. If they property is ever sold, it will be on record what has to be done. As long as everyone works together.
End of Tape #1 side B
* The rest of the conversation on this agenda item was not recorded- SHPD staff notes summarize the discussions on the remainder of this agenda item.
Anthony Ako (Ako) says that his 'Ohana has no other motive other than protection of the burial sites.
Linda Kaleo Paik-Mate (Paik-Mate) says she is a friend of Reish. She is from here and knows him personally. It is wrong to assume that Reish has lots of money. She says Reish wants to preserve the sites. She has a tutu buried in Kealia, South Kona on Bishop Estate land.
McDonald says that there should be a correction on page 19 of the BTP- she is a Cultural Descendant, not a Lineal.
A motion is made to preserve in place the possible burial sites on the subject property (first/second)
All in favor
It is recommended that prior to approval of the Preservation Plan by the Department,, additional lineal and/or cultural descendants be recognized, and allowed the opportunity to give their mana'o on buffers and signage to the Council.
The SHPD has 90 days from the date of the Council's decision to approve the Preservation Plan for the burial sites.
D. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE SHORES AT KOHANAIKI PROJECT, KOHANIKI AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND [TMK: (3) 7-3-09:3, 14]
Information/Determination/Recommendation: Recognition of Lineal and/or Cultural Descendants. Informational Presentation by Paul Rosendahl, Inc., Regarding the Proposed Treatment of Previously Identified Native Hawaiian Burials.
* The entire conversation on this agenda item was not recorded. SHPD staff notes summarize the discussions on this agenda item.
Paul Rosendahl (Rosendahl) provides a summary. The BTP is on the HIBC agenda for a determination for the first time. The BTP addresses 7 previously identified burial sites- 2 are possible burials. Rosendahl notes that technically, 4 of the burials are inadvertent, but are being treated as previously identified.
SHPD staff gave the Council a memorandum dated 10/20/04 from Kana'i Kapeliela, SHPD Cultural Specialist recommending that the HIBC recognize Jacqueline N. Freitas and Arthur Mahi as Cultural Descendants for the purposes of this case.
A motion is made to accept staff recommendation and recognize Jacqueline N. Freitas and Arthur Mahi as Cultural Descendants for the purposes of this case. (first/second)
All in Favor
Ginger Wurderman (Wurderman) says she is a recognized descendant. She wants a larger buffer zone. She has spent time doing title research and geneology recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances. She has paperwork from a legal case involving Kohanaiki, and all of the descendants recognized are not in the lawsuit. She has paperwork to give to Kana'i Kapeliela to give the Attorney Generals. She wants a larger buffer zone . She knows some descendants who were not sent the HIBC agenda.
Rosendahl says that descendant searches and recognition do not always overlap property ownership.
Tyler says the community says the burials should not be moved. He agrees with preservation in place.
The agenda item is deferred until the November HIBC meeting
E. KANUPA CAVE, KALALA AHUPUA'A, SOUTH KOHALA DISTRICT, HAWAI'I ISLAND
Information/Recommendation: Presentation by Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei Regarding the Reburial of Human Remains and Associated Items and Current Federal and State Investigations.
A motion is made to go into session closed (first/second)
All in favor
A motion is made to end the closed session (first/second)
All in favor
Bell says to the audience that no decisions were made while the Council was in closed session. The discussion centered around the description and location of Kanupa Cave.
Kevin Shimoda (Shimoda) says that the Department of Interior requests that items within Kanupa Cave be inventoried for investigative purposes. Specifically items that were repatriated to one area of the cave.
Edward Halealoha Ayau (Ayau) says Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hawai'i Island Burial Council, and Ka La Hui Hawai'i are four claimant owners in this case- with regard to iwi kupuna, and moepu that were repatriated from the Bishop Museum and the Peabody Essex Museum which is in Salem, Massachusetts. The purpose of the presentation was to seek guidance and expertise of the HIBC in matters in the on going investigation.
A motion is made to support the inventory of repatriated items in Kanupa Cave, required to complete the investigation, and to deter any other robberies of this sort.
All in Favor
Tape # 2 Side B
F. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR TWO FEATURES OF SIHP SITE 11059, PUA'A 2ND AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK: (3) 7-5-09:40]
Information/Recommendation: Informational Presentation by Rechtman Consulting LLC.
Bob Rechtman gives a summary of the agenda item. A representative of the landowner/developer, Ali Ghalamfarsa, of Ali'i Architects is here today as well. This particular property was first studied in 1991 by International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII). IARII was studying this property with the specific intent of identifying a historic grave site that was in the deed of the property. IARII recorded several features, and tested a feature that turned out to be a burial. It was a different landowner at the time, and they worked with a family that at the time were the lineal descendants to the burials at the site- two historic burials.
He isn't sure if they worked with the HIBC, but there was an agreement to disinter. They removed two historic coffin burials and they were reburied at Kahikolu Church. His firm was hired by the new landowner to reinvestigate the property. He has found all this old information. He has done an Inventory Survey, and found where the burials are. He saw where IARII did their excavations. When the two historic burials were removed, they (IARII) encountered at least three other sets of human remains which were left there in an enclosure feature, and in an area near the enclosure. The IARII maps are not accurate enough to determine the exact location of the feature.
They did not go looking for the exact location. They marked out where the enclosure feature is and any soil around it, and that is how they defined the area that contains burials. There is one feature that IARII found burials in, and another that IARII found a burial in near this feature- that whole area will be the burial preserve. A very large buffer area has been established to include any areas that may have other burials.
He has gone through all the records in SHPD, spoken with IARII and Kahu Teves but there is no record of the family. He ran the newspaper ads, hesitated to do it, but it is required so he did it. If there are family members he could go to as lineal descendants, he wanted to go to them, and not open it up to others since it is a family matter. There were no responses to the newspaper ads.
End Tape #2 Side B
Begin Tape #3 Side A
The area is where Walua Road and Ali'i Drive intersect. On the mauka side of Walua Road- the property runs from there up to Kuakini Highway. It is right below the entrance to University of the Nations, across from the old Hilton.
On page 12 of the BTP is a conceptual development plan which shows the preservation area, outlined with white. The distances from the edge of the feature to the edge of the preservation area going mauka is 44 feet, on the Kohala side is 39 feet, makai direction is 22 feet. The rest of the development at that point is sixteen feet below the preservation area. There is a terrace, and a retaining wall. The area is elevated in its own terraced plateau area, with retaining walls all around. On the south side there will be a 17 foot buffer.
McDonald asks for clarification on elevation- is it the topography?.
Recthman says from Walua Road to a certain point on the property is sixteen feet lower than the center of the property, which in turn is eight feet lower than the upper part of the property.
Kong asks about water run off?.
Ali Ghalamfarsa (Ghalamfarsa) says it is terraced, so the water is contained. They are out of the flood zone area.
Rechtman says the proposal is to create this very large perpetual preservation area within the development. The retaining walls will define its boundaries. Non-native plants will be removed. There will be a formal landscape plan, but it is to early in the development process to identify which species, and their arrangement of planting- there will be an effort to use shallow rooted native species.
Kong asks how the sites will be preserved if there is a new owner?.
Rechtman says that these conditions will be incorporated into the ownership papers that run with the property.
Ghalamfarsa says there will be association rules, and a perpetual easement and right of access that will be documented and recorded.
Kahakalau says page 11 of the BTP says that the right of access for recognized descendants will also be incorporated into the CC&R's.
Rechtman says access rights are culturally appropriate, but not something mandated by law. The law does not require developers to make access. The plan calls for an access easement on the north side of building "C" which leads to the site right from the highway, and also from public parking areas right to the burial site. There will be a secured gate, and signage. The language on the sign needs to be finalized- the current proposed signage is standard.
The developer will turn over management of the property to an association of property owners. As that association is established, all of these conditions will be perpetual- the association can't hold a meeting and get rid of the conditions.
There are no interim protection measures. Orange construction fencing will be put up at the permanent buffer boundaries when site work starts. The fencing will stay until all the development work is done.
There are piles of rock and dirt, left from the 1991 excavations. He will put it all back, and to some degree reconstruct the pavement of the feature.
McDonald asks about the picture of feature 3 on page 9 of the BTP. There appear to be walls around the feature- will heavy equipment disturb the walls?. Work will be taking place close by. She is looking at a wider buffer so machine work does not disturb the wall.
Ghalamfarsa says that during the initial site work it is necessary to get close, but after that the rockwalls will go up and protect the area.
Kong asks if the burial will be on the top of the terrace?.
Rechtman says that if you count three terraces, the burial will be in the middle terrace.
Tyler says that the Hawai'i County Council Planning Committee has considered the proposed amendment to the rezoning submitted by Mr. Ghalamfarsa. There are conditions in rezones that say if any historic, archaeological, or burial sites are found, the SHPD will be notified, and nothing will happen until SHPD gives clearance. This particular one said the Planning Director would give clearance. He called attention to this. He will be meeting with Ghalamfarsa to clear this up.
He is aware of the burials on the property. The proposed treatment of preservation in place is pono. According to the Hawai'i Administrative Rules, when there is a burial easement, it is recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances- it runs with the land on the deed. In this particular case, burials were recorded on the deed.
In the appendix of the BTP, attachment A is a February 22, 1991 letter from SHPD to Erwin Kurishige. The letter says that lineal descendants were found for the grave, and an agreement was reached to remove the burials and rebury at Kahikolu Church Cemetary. The letter goes on to say that it is the HIBC's policy to go with the wishes of lineal descendants. He feels a review of the matter would confirm that the matter probably never even went before the HIBC in 1991. The Council must maka'ala. The letter also says that the landowner should hire a professional archaeologist to remove the remains to make sure the removal is complete.
IARII also reported back to the landowner in 1991 that they had repaired everything and filled it back in. That is not the case- they (IARII) left the place a mess.
Kong says that is why she asked that this burial be documented- not only for them, but for every developer.
Tyler says that this site was on the map, recorded on the deed and look what happened- Rechtman cannot find who the lineal family is or what agreement was reached, or who was reburied at Kahikolu. He was talking to Rechtman and he feels they family must be known. The name Robert Kamaka has come up.
He says he will ask his father, who has drawn a map of all the families that used to live around here. He is concerned about the lack of information, and documentation on file for the removal of the burials.
Page 10 of the BTP points out that the lands of Pua'a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd were retained as Crown Lands during the Mahele. They were specifically set aside for Lot Kapuaiwa- Kamehameha the 5th. This tells him that these lands must have been very important- to have Kamehameha the 5th set them aside. He says this, because there may be other burials. For this reason, he asks Rechtman and Gharlamfarsa to be maka'ala when the machines get in there.
On Page 13 of the BTP, he understands that the interim preservation buffers are also the permanent buffers. The fencing will come down when the permanent buffers are erected.
Rechtman says in this case the permanent buffers involve mass excavation and construction of retaining walls- it is a process that all takes place at the same time. The retaining walls and the terracing will all be done before any construction. The fencing needs to be there so the workers know how far in they can come.
Tyler commends Gharlamfarsa for establishing a 5600 square foot preservation easement for the burials. The nature of the proposed development dictates the need to do this.
Page 11 of the BTP says the easement area will be elevated roughly 12 feet above the makai portion of the development, and will be 8 feet lower than the mauka portion- there will be a terracing effect. The autograph tree in the preservation area needs to be cut and poisoned right away so the roots can rot away. He would suggest to Gharlamfarsa not to use the common plants for landscaping- this is a chance to use the rare endemic plants- the ones people don't see very often. This is something he is trying to do at his own house, so we can remember what these mea kanu look like, and what they mean to the people.
Page 12 of the BTP encourages interaction, and communication pedestrian-wise. He understands that there is no thru traffic, which is pono. He wonders what the elevation difference is between the southern buffer wall of the preservation area- the Keauhou side, and the pool area.
Gharlamfarsa says it is a pool on a rooftop.
Tyler says he is concerned that the 17 foot buffer on the south side is too small. It should be a minimum of 20 feet, with a 10 foot no-build setback. There are building setbacks which are part of the building code.
Gharlamfarsa says a lot of times things are left there until someone wants to do something. These burial sites could have been left there for another 30 years. There is a problem where Walua Road meets Ali'i Drive- it is a very sharp intersection, which will be improved. If there was a way to deal with things, instead of waiting for a developer to come along, that would be best.
Tyler says that Lot Kapuaiwa was the founder of the Royal Order of Kamehameha. As a member, he wanted to come here to speak on this agenda item. No descendants have come forward. We need to find a mechanism so our kuleana to malama these iwi is not given away. There is a need for people to come together and step forward. He stepped forward in the Wai'aha case, and it turned out to be one of the heaviest kuleana he has ever had to accept. There were far more iwi found there than had ever been known- it was very kaumaha. He is ready to kokua.
McDonald asks Rechtman if IARII removed two burials in 1991?.
Rechtman says they removed two, but there were remains on top of one of the coffins, but it doesn't say if those were taken.
McDonald says the burial notice says three were removed.
Rechtman says there was another one removed from another feature.
McDonald asks three were taken to Kahikolu?.
Rectman says yes, and maybe a fourth- the pieces on the coffin. The guys that did the work couldn't remember, and Kahu Teves did not remember either.
End Tape #3 Side A
Tape #3 Side B is blank
Begin Tape #4 Side A
Hanalei Fergestrum (Fergestrum) requests to have an agenda item on next month's HIBC agenda. It has to do with the claiming of unclaimed iwi. This is kind of unknown territory he is speaking of. It relates to what was going on with the last agenda item- where there was iwi found. Part of the history that is not revealed are the religious battles that took place from South Kona to Kohala. He is from the Temple of Lono. Recognizing historical events and the kuleana that Curtis (Tyler) was referring to.
He feels it is proper and timely to bring the idea of claiming these iwi forward. We have to remember that there was a time in our history when there was a religious battle going on between the Old Religion and Christianity. He wants to acknowledge that there are unclaimed iwi that are part of our 'ohana. So from the Temple of Lono, he would like to make that claim, if there are no lineal descendants. What he is trying to do is create a third category other than lineal and cultural descendants- one that would be more closely associated with religion. It is a category that is between lineal and cultural descendants.
He would like to have that put on next month's agenda, so we can discuss our positions and move forward on this.
G. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR BURIAL SITE 20380 B AND A PROBABLE BURIAL LOCATED AT OWEN'S PARCEL, PU'ULANI RANCH SUBDIVISION, PU'UANAHULU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK: (3) 7-1-06:58]
Information/Recommendation: Informational Presentation by Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific.
Elison gives a summary of the agenda item. At the request of the landowner, Mr. Dave Owens, ACP has developed a plan to preserve in place two burials on a 1.1 acre parcel located at Pu'ulani Ranch in Pu'uanahulu Ahupua'a.
Page 7- figure 4 of the BTP shows a plan view of site 20380. It is described as two graves along the stone wall behind the Ka'iliwai Residence. Surface depressions are visible. The original inventory survey was completed in 2002 by Dye and Associates- in 1993 it was started by Chinago, Inc. There are two features there- we did a site vist. One feature consists of a 3 by 3 meter alignment, water-worn, and angular basalt cobbles. Right next to it is a rockwall. She did a site visit with Maryanne Maigret, Debbie Kailiwai-Ray, and John Kailiwai- they showed us an area in between the site and the rock wall is an area they believed to contain probable burials.
Surveyors did not find a line where the actual property boundary is. By line of sight they (ACP) determined where the property boundary was. The property line spilts the site (20380) in half.
The second site that was not recorded in the inventory survey was also shown to ACP by Debbie and John (Kailiwai). It is on page 9 of the BTP. The location of the site was confirmed by the descendants. It has a depression on the surface, and is the probable location of a hole which was dug for a cesspool in the late 1970's. John Kailiwai was told by his father-in-law, Nelson Ha'o to stay away from the area, and to not disturb it. No sub-surface testing was done. The descendants have suggested that the area contains one or more burials, and therefore has been included in the BTP.
The site does not have a site number, but once the site is recognized by the HIBC, the DLNR will assign a site number.
The interim and long term preservation methods are on page 9.
Bell asks about the procedure for site numbers
Maigret says it is her understanding that Elison could not get a site number from the O'ahu SHPD office unless the site has been registered with the Burials Program.
McDonald asks the SHPD refused to give a site number?.
Elison says because there is no documented feature.
Lindsey says it is like previous discussions on possible burials. There are a couple of ways burials are identified- one way is when archaeologists are working, and see the iwi- burial, another is a based on construction, and a third way is through oral testimony from the families. In this case that is the most likely route we are going to take. It takes the family presenting their information either through the archaeological consultant or directly to the Council, like we have had for Pu'ulani before, and the Council recognizing the site based on their testimony.
Kong says the history about the families in the BTP is very interesting.
Lindsey says fortunately we still have descendants that are coming forward.
McDonald asks for clarification on the TMK for the parcel
Elison says that it is an old map.
McDonald requests a updated map.
Elison says there will be a temporary buffer zone of 32.8 feet during construction activities. A qualified archaeologist will give a pre-construction briefing to make everyone aware of the preservation zones. A permanent buffer will be 16.4 feet. Non-indigenous plants will be removed by hand, and landscaped with indigenous plants.
Letters were sent to the 28 descendants. ACP received phone calls from Shirley Anne Keakealani and Barbara Alapa'i. Ms. Keakealani expressed her approval of the buffer zones. Ms. Alapa'i expressed some concern about the size of the permanent buffer zone, which she said was typically 20 feet. That input came in after ACP submitted the BTP.
The temporary buffers are 32.8 feet and the permanent buffers are 16.4 feet. In the last week, the property has been sold.
Kong says that the Families have been trying for many years to protect and preserve the burials- they have had a hard time.
McDonald says it is because this project never had a complete BTP- it was all piecemeal.
H. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT NICHOLS PARCEL, PU'ULANI RANCH SUBDIVISION, PU'UANAHULU AHUPUA'A, NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK: (3) 7-1-05:12 AND 7-1-06:129]
Information/Recommendation: Informational Presentation by Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific.
Elison says ACP is representing Mr. and Ms. Craig Nichols. The proposal is to preserve in place sites 18488, 20381, and another site which is a probable burial, which does not have a site number. Page 7 of the BTP shows the locations of the sites.
Site 18488 is located in the northeastern portion of the property. It is described by Barrera as an irregular mound 1.5 by 2.1 m and 0.8 meters high. It is constructed of basalt boulders, and is situated in a flat grassy area. The construction of the feature suggests it is a grave. Kailianu, one of Helen Wong Smiths informants indicated that there were graves in this general vicinity, which is called Ike'aka.
Site 20381 was identified during additional archaeological inventory surveys. It is described as a single grave in the Ha'o/Kailiwai garden. No surface features are present. Informant Charles 'Aipia remembers multiple graves in the immediate area. No sub-surface testing was conducted. A dirt road was graded near the site.
The probable burial was delineated by Charles 'Aipia, and John and Debbie Kailiwai. The site is close to site 20381. It is a large area 41 by 20.5 feet. It is 18.9 feet from site 20381.
The buffers are 32.8 for temporary, and the permanent is 16.4 feet. Letters were sent to the 28 descendants.
Bell asks if Debbie Kailiwai Ray and her dad, John are OK with the buffers?.
Elison says yes.
Kahakalau says that access should be perpetual for the descendants.
I. KA'ALAIKI AND HOKUKANO AHUPUA'A, KA'U DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAI'I [TMK: (3) 9-5-16:36]
Information/Recommendation: Presentation by Staff Regarding Community Concerns about Burial Sites.
Lindsey gives an overview of this case. SHPD has been contacted by the Ka'u community regarding concerns about a burial site and a house being constructed on the Kaalaiki, Hokukano border.
Cariaga says the area was registered in 1974 in Hokukano. There have been articles in the Hawai'i Island Journal that say it is in Kawa. Kawa is a bay, Hokukano is where the house is.
Lindsey says the CDUA talks about in the late 1970's, the County and an investigative report documenting the destruction of graves in this area. SHPD is still trying to track down all the information.
Cariaga says there are new property owners. She wants to know what can be done- there is a house being built now. The area was to be preserved, and it is wrong that this construction was approved
Lindsey says outside of the existing graded area, on this landowner's property, and the adjacent State property that burials exist.
Cariaga says there was a report from 1974 that says the sites should be preserved, and added to the Historic Register, so we need to get the facts.
Lindsey says SHPD commented in 2001 that there was a graded pad that a house could be constructed on. There are questions of if there was additional grading, and the SHPD is working with Land Division on that.
Additional information will be presented to the HIBC in November or December.
A motion is made to adjourn the meeting (first/second)
All in favor
Burial Sites Program