2024-03-05 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Dr. Gina McGuire Opposition Testimony

Home

based management on Native coasts without a plan based on ecologically driven, evidence-based management alongside socially just stewardship. "There are several discrepancies in the documented of the size of this proposed area, on pg. 8 of the SMA referring to 29.52 acres, pg. 1 referring to 42-acre coastline management and conservation area. The County's own agenda for March 5th has a discrepancy for this area: "dedication of a portion of coastline as a conservation area on an approximately 147 acres portion of a larger 434-acre project site within the Special Management Area." Non-compliance of SMA cultural site disturbance plan There are significant cultural sites that cannot be relocated, and will undeniably be impacted by the development(either directly or in close proximity to the development). These include three loko i`a(fishponds), a loko wai (anchialine pond, home to threatened and endemic `opae ula (Halocaridina rubra)), extensive archaeological sites that can't be moved such as the Ninole Complex, Heiau Lanipao, walls, and large burial cysts and complexes. This data is drawn from several spatial layers: the SHPD historic sites database, TNC fishponds layer, and DLNR layer of anchialine ponds. The SMA admits that "the proposed development will likely impact some cultural resources during and after construction, such as sub-surface structures, midden, artifacts or unmarked burials" (pg. 91). While the plan identifies mitigation strategies such as presence of a cultural monitor and archaeologist present during ground disturbance, it is not up to the developers to decide acceptable levels of risk without a burial treatment plan in place. There is no plan provided for the post-construction detriment that increased development may cause to these sites. According to Hawaii State Law the determination of whether previously identified (already known as heavily present in this area)Native Hawaiian burial sites that appear to be over 50 years old should be preserved in place or relocated is dependent on the Ka`u Burial Council (HRS § 6E-43; HAR § 13-300-24(a)). In addition to the initial construction-phase disturbance, there is no doubt that increased non-lineal descendent(visitor) interaction with these sites will have profound effect on their integrity. Decision on this application should not be made without a full assessment of a burial treatment plan and mitigation plan,which are alluded to but not currently laid out in the SMA (HAR § 13-300-2, HRS § 6E-2). Restriction to previously disturbed areas is not justification for reduced impact and is reliant on the integrity of the construction that occurred in 1988. Previous archaeological surveys documented heavy disturbance and destruction of cultural sites including petroglyphs and walls during historic land clearing'. There is a legacy of disregard for cultural sites in this locality (and particularly within the spatial extent of this development)that cannot be ignored or justified as acceptable, as this SMA does. The SMA uses words such as 'should' rather than 'will'when referring to the approval of a burial treatment plan and long-term protection/preservation measures prior to project implementation (pg. 29). County acceptance of this proposal would represent willful acceptance of the loss and detriment to Hawaiian cultural sites in one of the last cultural kipuka(refuges) within the state and on- island. 'Tulchin,Todd,David Shideler,and Hallett H.Hammatt 2006 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Approximately 430-Acre Sea Mountain at Punalu`u Resort,Punalu`u,Wailau,and Nmole Ahupua`a,Ka`n District, Island of Hawaii TMK: [3]9-5-019:011,015,024,026,030-031;9-6-001:001-003,006,011-013;9-6-002:008, 037-038,053.Report for Group 70 International,Honolulu,HI,from Cultural Surveys Hawaii,Inc.,Kailua,HI.