2022-06-08 Cultural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes

Home

testifiers mentioned the blue tent and desecration, but this is why the blue tent was erected. No other work was done on Parcel 1. At this time, Chair Bell opened the floor for comments or questions from commissioners. She began the discussion by asking if additional attempts to contact the lineal and cultural descendants listed in the burial treatment plan were made beyond the newspaper articles. Mr. Arai stated that he is unaware of additional efforts made to contact descendants and asked Dr. Alan Haun to respond to the question. Dr. Haun responded that one individual was identified as a potential descendant. He provided a copy of the burial treatment plan to that individual in March 2017, and received no further comment from him. In obtaining the burial treatment plan approval, it was required for the applicant to attend three meetings which were held in November 2016, April, and May. Mr. Haun did not elaborate on the discussion at the meetings. He reported that the burial council extended extra efforts in reviewing the plan and treatments in attempt to compensate for the lack of descendant input. Other individuals who attended the meetings provided comment as well. The plan underwent three revisions associated with the three meetings and other potential descendants were able to get their requests recognized. The plan was changed in response to information gathered during the meetings. Chair Bell pointed out that a testifier at this meeting identified herself as a lineal descendant. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Van Bergen for clarification on parcel 121, if was grubbed in 2018. Mr. Van Bergen replied that it could have been 2017, but yes, they grubbed most of the 11 acres outside of the construction fencing around the burial areas. Upon further questioning from Commissioner Clark, Mr. Van Bergen stated that they hired Dr. Haun's office to provide on-site archaeological monitoring, and reported the monitor was present at all times when the equipment was running. Commissioner Clark asked Dr. Haun about the status of the data recovery plan and monitoring report and asked for a summary of the findings. Dr. Haun responded that the data recovery plan was implemented, and the field work was completed in 2017. At that time, they requested a 2-step verification process where SHPD acknowledges that the field work is complete and permits on-site construction to begin with the commitment that the report will be submitted in the future. SHPD agreed and the report has been competed and is pending the assignment of a SHPD number from their new system. During the original inventory survey, they did 23 square meters of testing, and during the data recovery work another 16 square meters of testing was done and was focused on the habitation sites in the primarily seaward portion of the parcel and some excavations in some agricultural features. They found a small inventory of remains that appeared to be transient. The material found is not typical of permanent habitation sites. Dating results indicate that the activity falls within 1600 and 1700s. The work is not guided by a SHPD-required monitoring plan but was done in response to requests received during burial treatment plan hearings, and SHPD has acknowledged this. A report has not yet been completed as more work will be done in the future. Dr. Haun noted that there were no new discoveries during the monitoring. Commissioner Kinney asked if the walkthrough with the Nahale family took place and what resulted from the walkthrough. Mr. Arai stated that based on Mr. Van Bergen's presentation, some grubbing had occurred, but is unclear if grading occurred. Commissioner Kinney repeated his question if the lineal descendants had the opportunity to walk through the area Page 8 of 14 Cultural Resources Commission June 8,2022