|
investigation, and I don’t want to say what he said and, you know, this is like hearsay, but
<br />I guess this is like just not evidentiary hearing, but I’ll just kind of repeat what he shared
<br />with us. And to the best of my recollection it’s that when he conferred with the State
<br />DLNR to see like what is a Cultural Resource Management Plan, he was informed that in
<br />the DLNR-HPD rules there’s nothing that specifically talks about a Cultural Resource
<br />Management Plan. All you have is like an archaeological inventory survey and, you
<br />know, the process thereto. And then once you have the survey done, then it’s like one of
<br />three things, or all three things would have to be done, pursuant to the approved
<br />archeological inventory survey. One is you either have like a data recovery plan, the
<br />other one is a site preservation plan and the third one is a burial treatment plan. But
<br />relative to the specific Cultural Resource Management Plan, he said like, you know, there
<br />was basically no articulation of what it is. And so that’s what he handed us, you know,
<br />what he handed us with.
<br />To date, I think that, you know, we’re looking for I guess like some guidance then from
<br />somebody that tells us like what is like a Cultural Resource Management Plan because
<br />the DLNR doesn’t, well, according to Dr. Haun, doesn’t have specific guidelines relative
<br />to that. However, you know, we are prepared, we have already, Dr. Haun has already
<br />completed the burial treatment plan. It hasn’t been filed yet but he has completed the
<br />burial treatment plan. He has also completed the site preservation plan which discusses
<br />the cultural components that, you know, Curtis Tyler was referring to. And I would
<br />submit that by the submission of those that I think that directly or indirectly, you know,
<br />you do have I think the archaeological inventory, excuse me, the preservation plan is
<br />really like your management program for that area.
<br />WATANABE:Okay, okay. Well, then -.
<br />FUKE:And we’re prepared to submit that.
<br />WATANABE:Yeah, it sounds like you want to comply, you’re just not sure how,
<br />what it would take to comply, etc. And it also seems like we’re not really prepared to tell
<br />you exactly what it would take to comply. Therefore, I don’t think it would be wise for
<br />us to reschedule this for the next meeting in Kona, unless within the next few days you
<br />and the Department -. Why don’t we leave it up to both, you know, the Applicant and the
<br />Department to determine when? That’s within the rules, yeah -?
<br />YUEN:Yeah, sure.
<br />WATANABE:When we would next revisit this? I mean, we’re agreeing that it’s
<br />going to be continued but I’m just looking at the date. And typically we would say the
<br />next meeting in Kona, but it doesn’t seem like we can settle on that ‘cause we’re not sure
<br />exactly what it is we’re going to ask of you.
<br />FUKE:Yeah, I think from our perspective would be like, we would agree
<br />to like having it subject to the Planning Director’s call, when it gets scheduled.
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />26
<br />
<br />
|