WILLIAM J. AILA, JR.

CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

NEIL ABERCROMBIE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII

JESSE K. SOUKI
FIRST DEPUTY

WILLIAM M. TAM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - WATER

STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD, ROOM 555
KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707

AQUATIC RESOURCES
BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION
BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS
CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT
ENGINEERING
FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
KAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION
LAND
STATE PARKS

November 20, 2014

John Shaw, General Manager
Hokulia Community Association
P.O Box 247
Kealakekua, Hawaii 96750
(jshaw@hokuliaclub.com)

LOG NO: 2014.4891

DOC NO: 1411MV10
Archaeology
History & Culture

Dear Mr. Shaw,

SUBJECT:

Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review

Land Clearing Activities and Outstanding Historic Preservation Compliance Issues
Within the Hokulia Development and Amended Archaeological Monitoring Plan
Multiple Ahupuaa, North and South Kona District, Island of Hawaii
TMK: (3) 7-9 and 8-1

This letter corrects errors made in our previous letter (LOG NO: 2014.4591, DOC NO: 1410MV08) and replaces
that correspondence. Thank you for responding to our July 23, 2013 letter regarding land clearing activities and
historic preservation compliance within the Hokuli'a development. A response letter prepared by Dr. Alan Haun on
behalf of Oceanside 1250 Partners, The Club at Hokuli'a, and Hokuli'a Community Association Inc. (hereafter
collectively referred to as Hokuli'a) was received by our office on February 25, 2014. This letter included a revised
archaeological monitoring plan for the Hokuli'a development area. We apologize for the delayed response and thank
you for your patience. Our previous letter pointed out four specific areas where the Hokuli'a project had not fulfilled
its historic preservation commitments (Log 2013.3566, Doc 1307MV01). These four areas of concern are: 1) land
clearing activities in violation of the approved mitigation plan; 2) unresolved burial issues; 3) lava tube resurveys;
and 4) outstanding historic preservation compliance reports, plans and mitigation commitments. The lava tube
resurvey report (item 3) has since been accepted by SHPD (Log 2014.4416, Doc 1410MV07). Although the
February 25, 2014 letter and subsequent meetings have addressed some the concerns raised in our previous
correspondence, a review of the material that was submitted to address our concerns indicates that the Hokuli'a
project is not in compliance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 6E.
Attached to this letter is a comprehensive summary of the historic preservation review process at Hokuli'a to date, as
well as a background on the three remaining areas that Hokuli'a is not in compliance. We present below the results
of this background research on the compliance issues for the four areas identified in our previous letter (Log
2013.3566, Doc 1307MV01). For each of the three unresolved issues, SHPD has identified the potential 6E
violations or outstanding commitments, discussed the potential penalties pursuant to HRS 6E-11 and Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-284-13, and provided a recommendation for actions needed to resolve these issues.
The areas of concern are:
Lot Clearing:
Compliance Issues and Potential 6E-11 Violations:
1.

Violation of monitoring component of Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP by clearing and
grubbing lots without an archaeological monitor present [HAR 13-279-7 and HRS 6E-11(a)].

2.

Violation of Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan by clearing within the buffer of SIHP
22656 with heavy machinery [HAR 13-277-8 and HRS 6E-11(a)].

3.

Violation to Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle 1999 IAMP by impacting SIHP 10303 during lot clearing
without implementing additional investigation requested in the IAMP. [6E-11(a)].

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 2

4.

Violation to Oceanside 1250 (2000) burial treatment plan by clearing within the buffer of 50-10-37-16569
and 16570 with heavy machinery [HAR 13-300-43(b) and HRS 6E-11(b)].

5.

Impacts to unrecorded historic properties during possibly unpermitted grubbing activities [HRS 6E-11(c)].

Possible Penalties:
If the Board of Land and Natural Resources determines that these actions are violations of HRS 6E the
following civil or administrative penalties can be imposed: Each day where an archaeological monitor was
not onsite during project activity constitutes a separate offense for which the violator can be fined not less
than $500 nor more than $10,000. Each incident in which the conditions of a preservation plan or burial
treatment plan were violated constitutes a separate offense for which the violator can be fined not less than
$500 nor more than $10,000. Finally, each separate historic property impacted during unpermitted land
clearing activities can be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 (HRS 6E-11.5). In addition,
SHPD can propose other administrative remedies in addition to any civil or administrative penalties
pursuant to HRS 6E-11.6. The cooperation that we receive from Hokuli'a in addressing and resolving these
issues will be thoroughly considered when determining the appropriate remedies pursuant to HRS 6E11.6(b).
Actions Needed to Address Potential Violations:
1.

We request that an addendum archaeological inventory survey is undertaken in order to identify the unrecorded historic properties within the pahoehoe flow and determine what impacts occurred as a result of
the non-compliant land clearing activities. The results of this survey should be presented as an addendum
AIS report for SHPD review

2.

We request that documentation be provided to indicate that the additional work at SIHP 10303 specified in
the IAMP has been completed. If the work has not been completed we request that the site is re-recorded in
the addendum AIS and the questions on potential function be addressed.

3.

We request that the archaeological monitoring plan be revised to address the issues raised in the SHPD
review of the draft amended archeological monitoring plan (Log 2014.4492, Doc 1410MV11).
Burial Issues:

Compliance Issues:
1.

The following native Hawaiian burial sites do not have adequate protection through approved and
implemented burial treatment plans: (SIHP 16419, 16355, 16356-A, 16536, 16599, 21820, 21835, and
21839).

2.

In addition, a recent inspection of the inventory contained within Hale Iwi revealed the presence of
additional skeletal remains that do not have appropriate treatments identified. This includes human burials
from sites 16710, 16785, 16000, 16602, 16468, 16511, 16660, 16613, 16745, HT 008 Fea 1a, Ht 009
Fea2, and Ht 014 fea10. In addition Hale Iwi contains human skeletal remains in the form of teeth from
the following sites: 1645, T-842, 1600016468, 16373, 10280, 16683, 16377, and 16475. Due to our
incomplete records it is very possible that additional burials exist in a similar state.

Possible Penalties:
1.

Because no adequate mitigation plans exist for the burial sites identified the historic preservation review
process for Hokuli'a has not been completed pursuant to HAR 13-284-10(a) (3). Therefore SHPD may
provide a directive to permitting agencies not to proceed with the project pursuant to HAR 13-284-13.

Actions Needed to Address Compliance Issues:

SHPD requests that Hokuli'a generate a comprehensive list of all burial sites in the development area and
identify the burial treatment plan that serves to protect each burial. We also request a list of all burial sites
without approved burial treatment plans, which includes but is not limited to the sites identified in this
letter. We request that Hokuli'a prepare a time table for when the burial treatment plans will be prepared
and submitted to SHPD for review. We request that burial treatment plans are prepared, submitted to
SHPD, and subsequently implemented as soon as reasonably possible.

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 3

Outstanding Compliance Reports and Plans and Incomplete Mitigation Commitments:

Compliance Issues and Potential 6E-11 Violations:
1.

Interpretive plan for the northern section of the shoreline park has not been submitted and the agreed upon
date for submittal of June 2013 was not met (Log 2008.2141, Doc 0806MD29). [6E-11(a)].

2.

Block Sweep/Test(1B, 5-7) has not been submitted to SHPD for review.

3.

Phase 1 Block sweep reports (1a, 2, 3, 4) is currently under SHPD review but has not been accepted.

4.

Block sweep mitigation reports are incomplete.

5.

Golf Course Monitoring Revision has not been submitted to SHPD for review.

6.

Subdivision Monitoring Reports have not been submitted to SHPD for review.

7.

Data Salvage Reports have not been submitted to SHPD for review.

8.

Bypass Data Recovery Report has not been submitted to SHPD for review.

9.

Monitoring Report for completed section of Bypass has not been submitted to SHPD for review.

10. Archaeological documentation and preservation plan for the southern portion of the shoreline park has not
been submitted to SHPD for review.
11. Mitigation/preservation plan for the Old Cart Road (possibly component of southern shoreline park plan)
has not been submitted to SHPD for review.
12. Burial treatment plans as mentioned in previous section are not completed.
13. Revised archaeological monitoring plan should be revised and resubmitted.
14. Background research indicates that the mitigation commitments for individual sites identified in various
mitigation plans have not been implemented in many cases. The following are individual sites with
incomplete mitigation commitments: 10285, 10290, 10292, 10303, 10304, 16392, 16455, 16510, 16520,
16529, 16544, 16546, 16598, 16610, 16547, 16569, 16576, 16577, 16589, 16598, 16610 16614, 1670216730, 17189, 22592, 22657, 22669-1, 22994, 23236, 23241, 23242, 23244, 23245, 23334, 23431, and
23441
Possible Penalties:
1.

Failure to submit an interpretive plan for the northern portion of the shoreline park by the agreed upon date
constitutes non-compliance with the provisions of HAR 13-277-8 and a can result in a directive not to
proceed with project activity. HAR 13-277-8 also stipulates that non-compliance with provisions of this
administrative rule is subject to penalties as provided in 6E-11. In this case, pursuant to HRS 6E-11.6(b).
each day past the agreed upon date where the interpretive plan has not been submitted could potentially
constitute a separate violation of the mitigation plan for which the violator can be fined not less than $500
nor more than $10,000.

2.

Any impacts to sites that have not been subject to mitigation could be considered violations pursuant to
HRS 6E-11(a) and each incident in which the conditions of a mitigation plan were violated constitutes a
separate offense for which the violator can be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000.

3.

Because no adequate mitigation plan exists for the historic properties contained within the southern portion
of the Shoreline Park, the historic preservation review process for Hokuli'a has not been completed
pursuant to HAR 13-284-10(a) (3). Therefore SHPD may provide a directive to permitting agencies not to
proceed with the project pursuant to HAR 13-284-13.

4.

Overdue mitigation reports will result in the directive from SHPD to any permitting agencies not to proceed
with the project in the area of the overdue compliance reports pursuant to HAR 13-284-13.

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 4

Actions Needed to Address Potential Violations and Compliance Issues:

1.

A timetable for the submittal of all outstanding reports and plans must be submitted to SHPD for review
and acceptance. This timetable should be presented as a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for Hokuli'a,
SHPD and lineal/cultural descendants to sign.

2.

SHPD has prioritized the outstanding reports in order to provide guidance for Hokuli'a. The most essential
reports are the ones that identify previously unrecorded historic properties. The primary identification class
reports are the block sweep reports. We request that a timetable is prepared for the completion of the block
sweep reports for blocks 1a, 2, 3, and 4 as well as 1b, 5, 6, and 7. The block sweep reports should
memorialize the mitigation commitments and document the mitigation field work that has been carried out
for each historic property.

3.

The next priority is the golf course monitoring revision and the monitoring report for the subdivision area,
which your response letter indicates will not be submitted until field work is complete. Given the extended
build out that will likely take place over decades we request that the results of the monitoring activities that
have taken place within the subdivision to date be submitted to SHPD. We believe that these AMR should
be submitted as soon as reasonably possible, and that the results of subsequent monitoring activity should
be presented on an annual basis. We request that Hokuli'a provide a date by which the monitoring reports
will be submitted. Once a date is agreed upon, if the deadline is not met, the project will be again deemed
to be out of compliance again, and in addition to the direction not to proceed with the project civil and
administrative penalties can be sought.

4.

Our third compliance priority is the development of a preservation plan for the Southern portion of the
shoreline park. The development of the shoreline park as a cultural preserve is one of the general
mitigation commitments for the Hokili'a project. Therefore, all historic preservation compliance approvals
where historic properties are impacted are conditioned on the fact that sites are preserved as part of the
shoreline park. With no detailed mitigation plan for these sites in place Hokuli'a has not completed the
requirements of HAR 13-284-10(a)(3), and the historic preservation process has not been concluded. We
request that Hokuli'a provide a date by which the preservation plan will be submitted. Again, once a date is
agreed upon, if the deadline is not met, the project will be deemed to be out of compliance again, and in
addition to the directive not to proceed with the project, civil and administrative penalties can be sought.

5.

We request that Hokuli'a coordinate with the County of Hawaii on who is responsible for the completion of
the outstanding reports that pertain to the Mamalahoa bypass. We request that SHPD is given a written
statement acknowledged by both Hokuli'a and the County of Hawaii acknowledging who is responsible and
providing a date for the completion of the archaeological monitoring and data recovery reports.

6.

We request that Hokuli'a provide our office with an updated list of the mitigation field work that has been
completed at each of the sites identified in item 14 of the Compliance Issues and Potential 6E-11
Violations section. If any of the historic properties identified have not been mitigated, we request that
Hokuli'a provide a detailed plan for how these mitigation issues will be addressed. We believe that data
recovery sites that are in need of reevaluation (SIHP 10285, 10303, 10304) should be included in the block
sweep reports or the addendum inventory. We believe that the data salvage sites where additional field
work beyond the scope of planned data salvage excavations (SIHP 16392, 16455, 16529, 16547, 16576,
and 16577) should be reevaluated as part of the evaluation for the revised data salvage techniques that will
be presented in the amended AMP. If necessary, we believe that an additional preservation plan should be
prepared for historic properties that are recommended for preservation in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle
(1999) IAMP but not included in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan (16510,
16544, 16546, 16589, 16598, 16610 and 16614).

Pursuant to Hawaii Administrative Rule, and by a copy of this letter sent to the County of Hawaii, we recommend
that the County of Hawaii not proceed with any permits for Hokuli'a, until an agreement on the resolution of
the issues identified in this letter has been completed. This notice should apply only to projects proposed by the
entities collectively referred to as Hokuli'a, such as grading and construction of the club house and golf course
maintenance facilities etc. Whereas, projects proposed by individual lot owners will be reviewed on a case by case
basis. To be clear, the purpose of this review is not to stop the Hokuli'a development from moving forward, but to
ensure that historic properties throughout the Hokuli'a project area are adequately protected or appropriately

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 5

mitigated, and to ensure that the development moves forward in compliance with Hawaiis historic preservation
laws.
We look forward to working with Hokuli'a to resolve these issues so that the project can return to historic
preservation compliance.
Please contact Mike Vitousek at (808) 652-1510 or Michael.Vitousek@Hawaii.gov if you have any questions or
concerns regarding this letter.
Aloha,

Alan S. Downer, Ph.D.

Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
cc:
Kauanoe Hoomanawanui, Burial Specialist (Kauanoe.M.Hoomanawanui@hawaii.gov)
Duane Kanuha, Hawaii County Planning Director (duanekanuha@co.hawaii.hi.us)
Warren Lee, Department of Public Works (wlee@co.hawaii.hi.us)
Alan Haun, Haun & Associates (ahaun@haunandassociates.com)
Byron Moku, Oceanside 1250 Partners (bmoku@hokulia.com)
Kaleo Kualii, Kaleo@pcsa2006.com,
Tim Lui-Kwan" <tluikwan@carlsmith.com>,
Ka'anohi Kaleikini pkaleikini@hawaii.rr.com
Jim Madeiros kahunaiwi@aol.com

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 6

ATTACHMENT
General Historic Preservation Background:
Our records indicate this area was originally studied by Kaschko (1984) and Rosendahl (1988); and a portion of the
project area was recorded in an archaeological survey by Burgett and Rosendahl (1991). The entire 1,540 acre
Hokulia project area was later subjected to an archaeological inventory survey (AIS) by Hammatt et al. (1997).
The AIS identified a total of 408 archeological sites including 24 confirmed and 80 possible burial sites. Of the sites
identified in the AIS, 177 were recommended for preservation, 225 were recommended for data recovery, and two
were recommended for no further work. Subsequently, two addenda AIS by Collin and Hammatt (1999) and
McGerty and Dega (2014) were undertaken in order to test a portion of the sites identified as possible burials
throughout the project area. The results of these addenda AIS would alter the treatment recommendations for the
sites presented in the Hammatt et al. AIS (1997).
Based on the mitigation treatment recommendations of the Hammatt et al. 1997 AIS and the Colin and Hammatt
(1999) addendum, an integrated archaeological mitigation plan (IAMP) was prepared by Tomonari-Tuggle and
Tuggle (1999). This plan included data recovery, preservation and archaeological monitoring components. The data
recovery component of the plan provided a research design and sampling strategy for the historic properties
recommended for data recovery in the Hammatt et al. (1997) AIS. The DRP recommended an intensive excavation
approach where a larger percentage of a smaller number of sites would be subject to areal excavation. In order to
address the research questions, the DRP proposed three types of field investigations: data recovery at sites
recommended for data recovery, data collection at preservation sites, and data salvage during monitoring. The DRP
identifies data salvage during monitoring as a means of collecting information that can be incorporated into the
research goals identified in the DRP during ground disturbing activities. The DRP recommended additional data
recovery or data collection investigations at 106 historic properties, but left a significant amount of discretion to the
field archaeologists as to which sites to excavate. The archeological monitoring component of this plan further
clarifies the methodology for data salvage. The AMP states that the sites that were recommended for data recovery
in the AIS but not part of the sample chosen for intensive data recovery excavation would be evaluated for the
potential to be subjected to limited recording through data salvage. The AMP provides a list of 136 sites that should
be evaluated for their potential to be data salvaged, and defines the methodology of data salvage as the use of heavy
machinery to selectively section a structure to expose interior construction and documented as provided in the data
recovery plan. The data recovery plan component was accepted by SHPD in 1999 (Log 24063, Doc 9909PM09);
and the monitoring and preservation plan components were accepted with conditions (Log 24094, Doc 9909PM16).
In addition to the IAMP, a burial treatment and preservation plan were also prepared by Tomonari-Tuggle and
Tuggle (Oceanside 1999).
The SHPD review letter that accepts (with revisions) the preservation and monitoring component of the IAMP
indicates that grubbing has already begun on the golf course and a number of new features and sites have been
found in the course of the monitoring (Log 24094, Doc 9909PM16). An archaeological monitoring report for the
Hokuli'a golf course (Yeomans et. al. 2001) was submitted to SHPD for review. The SHPD review letter indicates
that the project area was resurveyed as part of the monitoring and a total of 78 previously unrecorded historic
properties including eight burial sites were identified and recorded in the AMR (Log 2003.1484, Doc 0308PM04).
This review requested revisions to the report and to date the revisions have not been submitted to SHPD for review.
This report is likely the only source of information on these 78 historic properties.
As observed in the golf course monitoring, multiple previously undocumented archaeological sites were identified
during the implementation of project activities, and the monitoring component of the IAMP was amended to allow
for the re-survey of the Hokulia development through sweeps of blocks of land, based on development priorities
determined by the developer (1250 Oceanside). The monitoring component of the IAMP was amended by SHPD in
2001 (Log 27475, Doc 0105RC20). The amended monitoring plan established that brief documentation on each
newly identified site would be prepared and submitted to SHPD to allow for an evaluation of the significance and
treatment recommendations of the inadvertent discoveries, and the technical documentation of the sites would be
written up in a technical report on monitoring. Our records indicate that brief site descriptions for block sweeps were
completed for all of the priority areas. SHPD reviewed the findings of the block sweeps and made recommendations
for mitigation treatments for the historic properties identified in the block sweeps.

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 7

The results of the block sweeps are as follows:

Block 1A contained 14 previously unrecorded historic properties (SIHP 22980-22993). The review of block 1A
monitoring sweeps was provided via SHPD correspondence Log 28013, Doc 0108RC05. In this correspondence
SHPD determined that unrecorded agricultural features were not to be recorded in the block sweep reports because
agricultural finds were not considered to be a new site. This correspondence letter also determined that none of the
sites need preservation and provided a very limited data recovery plan for the six sites where additional work would
be needed. These sites include 22990, 22991, 22983, 22986, 22987, and 22988. SHPD received a letter report from
SCS on May 23, 2003describing the completion of the mitigation commitments for the historic properties identified
in the various blocks. SHPDs response letter verifies that mitigation field work has been completed at all sites in the
block 1A priority area (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09).
SHPD records indicate that the monitoring sweeps of Block 1B recorded nine new historic sites (SIHP 2299422999 and 21813, 21814, and 21834). Through SHPDs review of the submitted material, a shrine (SIHP 22999)
and three burials (SIHP 21813, 21814, and 21834) were recommended for preservation, and a habitation complex
(SIHP 22994) was recommended for additional testing (Log 29554, Doc 0204RC06). Subsequently, the SHPD letter
verifying the completion of the mitigation commitments for all the blocks indicates that mitigation of Site 23220 has
been completed but Site 22994 has not yet been excavated (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09). Due to incomplete
records it is unclear when and how SIHP Site 23220 was found in the block 1B priority area, possibly identified
during archaeological monitoring of clearing.
Our records indicate that the monitoring sweeps of block 2 recorded 29 new historic sites (SIHP 23222-23249 and
21765). The SHPD review of the block 2 findings recommended one site, a burial (SIHP 21765) for preservation.
SHPD also recommended additional testing at 23224, 23225, 23226, 23234, and 23245 to clarify function, and
recommended that four sites (23236, 23241, 23242, and 23244) be added to the sample to be studied in the same
manner as the data recovery plan. The SHPD review letter documenting the implementation of the mitigation
commitments indicates that additional testing was carried out at sites 23224, 23225, 23226, 23234, and 23235.
However mitigation had not been completed at sites 23236, 23241, 23242, and 23245 and the mitigation
commitment for 23244 is not discussed (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09).
The sweeps of block 3 recorded 36 new historic sites (SIHP 23318-23348, 21820, 21821, 21822, 21766, and
21767). The SHPD review of informal block sweep findings recommended the five burial sites (21820, 21821,
21822, 21766, and 21767) be preserved, recommended data recovery at 14 sites (21822, 23326, 23328, 23339,
23342, 23333, 23334, 23340, 23342, 23343, 23344, 23345, and 23347, and provided a brief scope of work for the
data recovery at these features (Log 29557, Doc 0204RC10). SHPD verified that mitigation commitments had been
completed for all sites in block 3 except for 23334 (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09). SHPD also indicated that the
results of excavation on these sites would be presented in a report on the data recovery of all sites in the project area
(Log 2003.0408, Doc 0305JK05). The results of this field work are not included in the subsequent data recovery
report.
Monitoring sweeps of block 4 identified 17 new historic sites (SIHP 21769, 21770, 21833, 22592, 22652, 22654,
22657, 22659, 22664, 22668, 22669, 22670, 22674, 22675, 22699, 23431, and 23441). SHPD recommended that the
three burial sites (SIHP 21769, 21770, and 21833) be preserved, and recommended additional work at 23431,
22657, 22669 feature 1, 22592, 23441, and 22652 (Log 30513, Doc 0208RC10). SHPD verified that 22652 had been
excavated but indicated that the remaining sites have not been mitigated (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09).
Block 5 identified 43 new historic sites that were not found in the previous archaeological inventory survey (21789,
21790, 21818, 21819, 21836, 22595, 22617, 22618, 22625, 22665, 22666, 22667, 22672, 22674, 22676, 22677,
22680, 22681, 22683, 22687, 22688, 22689, 22690, 22691, 22692, 22703, and 23603-23619). The SHPD review of
block sweep information resulted in the recommendation that the five burial sites (21789, 21790, 21818, 21819,
21836) and the lava tube/petroglyph site (SIHP 23611) be preserved, and that data recovery take place at the
following 22 sites: 22595, 22618, 22625, 22680, 22681, 22683, 22689, 22690, 22691, 22692, 22703, 23604, 23605,
23606, 23608, 23609, 23610, 23613, 23614, 23616, and 23619. SHPD received notification that the mitigation field
work had been completed by Haun and Associates for all of the 22 sites recommended for data recovery except for
SIHP 22625-I which was destroyed prior to the fieldwork (Log 2007.1805, Doc 0706MK28).
In addition the sweeps of Block 6 identified 20 previously unrecorded historic properties (SIHP 24098-24117).
Through the review of the brief site descriptions, SHPD requested that the burial site (24114) be preserved, and

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 8

recommended additional testing at 12 sites which include 24099, 24100, 24102, 24103, 24104, 24105, 24106,
24107, 24109, 24110, 24111, and 24116. Our records indicate the testing was carried out at 19 features of the 12
sites recommended for data recovery. During excavation, the possible burial sites 24103 and 24107 were confirmed
to contain Hawaiian burial sites, and SHPD made the recommendation that the sites be preserved in accordance with
a burial treatment plan submitted to SHPD and the HIBC (Log 2007.1712, Doc 0705MK26).
Our records indicate that the preliminary report for priority area 7 has been accepted by SHPD (Rpt. H-02554); The
report recorded one newly identified historic property, a habitation site (SIHP 23965) and an agricultural mound
determined to be a portion of the Kona field system. SHPD determined that the excavations that took place at the
site (23965) during the monitoring sweep adequately mitigated future impacts to the site and no further work was
necessary (Log 2003.0681, Doc 0305PM10 and Log 2003.1352, Doc 0308JK03).
In total, 169 historic properties were recorded during the monitoring sweeps of priority areas. The majority of the
mitigation commitments for sites discovered during block sweeps have been handled through informal letter
reports and SHPD correspondence (Log 2003.0636, Doc 0305PM09, Log 2007.1805, Doc 0706MK28, and Log
2007.1712, Doc 0705MK26). Our records indicate that the technical reports that document the findings and
memorialize the mitigation commitments for blocks 1A, 2, 3, and 4 were submitted to SHPD for review and
approval on October 28, 2014 and the remaining block reports have not been submitted. It is currently unknown
what format the results of block sweep mitigation will be presented in.
The data recovery report for the Hokulia development area (Escott and Spear 2007) was accepted By SHPD in
2008 (Log 2008.2130, Doc. 0806MD20), however, this report pertains only to the sites identified in the Hammatt et.
al. (1997) AIS and does not include any data recovery work completed for the historic properties identified during
the block sweeps. The data recovery report documents the investigations that took place at 104 sites. According to
the report, excavation at six historic properties (16402, 16426, 16512, 16528, 16737, and 16765) was not conducted
because the properties could not be located, and may have been destroyed prior to mitigation. The report also
indicates that 5 burial sites (16356, 16360, 16383, 16436, and 16446) were identified during the implementation of
the data recovery plan.
The revised archeological monitoring plan (Haun 2014) that was submitted with your response letter provides a
summary of the data salvage work that has taken place in the Hokuli'a project area. According to the proposed AMP
data salvage excavations have been undertaken at 14 sites (16405, 16419, 16470, 16477, 16491, 16496, 16498,
16551, 16553, 16554, 16559, 16571, 16599, and 16612). Hawaiian burials were encountered at five of the 14 sites
subject to data salvage (16419, 16496, 16498, 16559, and 16599). In addition, the proposed amp revision indicated
that two sites (SIHP 16492 and 16593) were destroyed prior to data salvage efforts and the disposition of an addition
12 sites (SIHP 10283, 16367, 16372, 16547, 16572, 16573, 16576, 16584, 16601, 16609, 16624, and 16773) could
not be confirmed.
A revised preservation plan for non-burial sites within the Hokulia development was prepared by (TomonariTuggle and Tuggle 2008) and accepted by SHPD (Log 2008.4911, DOC NO 0811MD16). The purpose of this
revised preservation plan is to expand on the preservation and interpretation plans established in the TomonariTuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP. In contrast, from the data recovery report the revised preservation plan for nonburial sites includes both the historic properties recommended for preservation in the Hammatt et. al. (1997) AIS as
well as the historic properties recommended for preservation in the block sweeps. In addition to the preservation
plan for the development area, a large section of the makai potion of the project area has been set aside for
preservation in a shoreline park. This shoreline park encompasses a high number of the historic properties identified
in the overall project area. To date a preservation plan for the only the northern portion of the shoreline park has
been completed Nakamura et. al. 2008 that was approved by SHPD (Log 2008.2141, Doc 0806MD29). The
archaeological work for the preservation plan on the northern portion of the shoreline park included archaeological
monitoring of hand vegetation clearing (by hand) as guided by archaeological monitoring plans (Gosser and Clark
2003) and (Clark and Gosser 2006), and a subsequent resurvey and detailed recording of the historic properties. The
SHPD letter that accepted the historic preservation plan for the north side of the shoreline park indicated that the
HPP in only phase 1 of a multi phased project which will culminate in an integrated interpretive plan. The
acceptance letter memorializes a commitment made by Hokuli'a that a final detailed interpretive plan for this
preserve would be prepared on or before June 2013(Log 2008.2141, Doc 0806MD29).
Three state owned trails/roads have been recorded in the Hokuli'a project area. These trails include the Old
Government Rd. (OGR) (SIHP 10290) an Ala Loa or Stepping Stone Trail (SST) (SIHP 21664), and an Old Cart

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 9

Road (OCR) (SIHP 17189), which crosses the southern end of the shoreline park.
Archeological
preservation/mitigation plans were prepared for two of the state owned trails. A mitigation and management plan
was prepared for the OGR (SIHP 10290) by 1250 Ocenside in (2000), and a mitigation plan for the SST (SIHP
21664) was prepared by Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2007) and accepted by SHPD (Log 2007.3598, Doc
0711MD44). SHPD has received communication from a letter on October 13, 2014 from Haun and Associates
indicating that the data recovery field work for SIHP 21664 is underway. We do not, however, have records that
indicate the restoration of the OGR, as described in the mitigation plan, has been implemented. Currently there is no
mitigation or preservation plan in place for the OCR (SIHP 17189).
A condition of the Hokuli'a development was to construct a bypass highway from Keauohou to the Napo'opo'oMamalahoa interchange in Ka'awaloa. An archaeological inventory survey was conducted for the majority of this
project area by Robins et. al. (2001: SHPD Rpt. No H-01634) and 43 sites were identified. This AIS was accepted
by SHPD (Log 26885, Doc 0101PM16). An addendum AIS for a staging area associated with the bypass was
prepared by Haun and Henry (2002: SHPD Rpt. No. H-01824) and accepted by SHPD (Log 30422, Doc
0207PM22). A separate AIS for a mauka portion of the bypass project area was conducted by (Clark and Gosser
2006). An interim preservation and monitoring plan was prepared by Wolforth (2001) for the bypass area and
accepted by SHPD (Log 26886, Doc 0101PM17). A data recovery plan for the historic properties in the bypass was
prepared by Wolforth (2001) and accepted with conditions by SHPD (Log 27052, Doc 0102PM09). Our office was
then notified that during the implementation of data recovery field work additional unrecorded historic properties
were identified (Wolforth 2001 letter report). Subsequently our office was notified of the of data recovery field work
in phases (Logs 29321-29323, Docs 0203PM07-09). During the course of archaeological monitoring additional
historic properties including burial sites were identified (Haun September 12, 2002 letter report). However, no
archaeological monitoring report or data recovery report has been prepared for the bypass project area.
Through the multiple archeological surveys, addendum burial testing, block sweeps, data recovery excavation, data
salvage excavation, and archaeological monitoring, multiple native Hawaiian burial sites have been identified.
These burial sites have been treated in a variety of methods including a burial treatment plan prepared by Oceanside
1250 (2000) for the 93 burial and possible burial sites that were recorded in Hammatt et al. (1997) and
recommended for preservation. In other cases possible burial sites identified in Hammatt et al. (1997) were tested
and determined not contain burials and therefore not recommended for preservation. Multiple burials identified in
the monitoring sweeps of priority areas were preserved in a burial treatment plan prepared by Oceanside 1250
(2003), recommended for approval at the November 20, 2003 meeting of the Hawaii Island Burial Council, and
accepted by SHPD (Log 2004.1289, Doc 0404KM04), with the exception that site 21839 required an additional site
visit to determine the appropriate buffer. The remaining burials found throughout the Hokulia development area,
shoreline park, and bypass area have been subjected to a variety of burial treatment plans on case by case basis. As
a result, multiple burial treatment plans (BTP) exist for individual sites that are in varied states of implementation
and in some cases no burial treatment plans has been accepted for identified burial sites. Due to incomplete records
on burials at Hokuli'a it is not known exactly how many burial sites exist without approved treatment plans, but the
following burial sites have been identified without approved burial treatment plans: SIHP 16419, 16355, 16356-A,
16536, 16599, 21820, 21835, and 21839. Many burials were removed from their original location, and are
temporarily curated in a trailer known as hale iwi, located within the Keekee cultural preserve. This temporary
curation is approaching 10 years in some cases, and although progress is being made not all burial sites are protected
with approved burial treatment plans.
In addition to the archaeological reports and plans identified above, the March 2006 Settlement Agreement
stemming from the Kelly et. al. V. 1250 Oceanside Partners Kelly 2006 has shaped the historic preservation
review process. The settlement agreement led to the creation of the Park and Cultural Sites Association (PCSA) and
mandates that lava tubes be resurveyed and correctly mapped. The settlement agreement also memorialized the
practice of allowing the area to be resurveyed using the monitoring sweep methodology and indicated that block
sweep reports and lava tube surveys shall be subject to peer review. The settlement agreement also decided that
burial sites that were found during the block sweeps were determined to be previously identified and subject to
determination by the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC). However, as a result of Hokuli'a emerging from
bankruptcy in 2014, SHPD has been informed that the Kelly et. al. V. 1250 Oceanside Partners settlement agreement
is now void.

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 10

Background to Lot Clearing:

As described in our previous letter, SHPD received complaints from members of the public that Hokulia was
engaged in land clearing activities with the potential to impact historic properties. On May 24, 2013 a field visit was
conducted by SHPD archaeologist Michael Vitousek and Burial Site Specialist Kauanoe Hoomanawanui. The field
visit indicated that Hokulia was clearing vegetation from lots using a steel tracked excavator with a flail attachment
without an archaeological monitor on site. It was later confirmed by Hokulia representatives at the June 6, 2013
meeting that the land clearing activities were not monitored by an archaeologist, and that the practice of mowing
with a steel track excavator without an archeological monitor had been a common practice throughout the years. The
monitoring component of the IAMP prepared by Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) indicates that "Monitoring is
required for any development actions that can disturb or damage archaeological sites. These actions include clearing,
grubbing, and grading prior to construction, construction of roads, facilities, and above and underground utilities,
and landscaping (Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle 1999). The use of a steel track excavator with a flail attachment has
the potential to disturb and/or damage historic properties, as the tracks significantly alter the ground surface over
which they pass and the flail attachment can cause scarring on rocks and/or knock over dry stacked features of
historic properties. This action constitutes clearing of vegetation which is identified as an action to be monitored.
In addition, at the October 10, 2014 County of Hawaii Board of Appeals hearing, the act of clearing vegetation using
a tracked excavator with a flail attachment was determined to be grubbing, which is also clearly defined as an action
to be monitored. In addition, an April 9th, 2009 correspondence letter from SHPD to Hokuli'a indicates that
archeological monitors are required for land clearing activities on individual privately owned lots in addition to
areas owned by 1250 Oceanside (LOG NO 2009.1402, DOC NO 0904TMD07). Thus it appears as though Hokulia
is not in compliance with the monitoring component of the IAMP.
SHPD also noticed that the excavator with flail attachment was utilized to clear vegetation within the buffer zones of
historic properties and burial sites. This was also confirmed by Hokulia representative John Shaw at the June 6,
2013 meeting. Specifically, at burial Sites 50-10-37-16569 and 16570 as well as preservation Site 22656, the
mechanical arm of the excavator was used to reach over the marked buffer and clear vegetation all the way to the
ground surface. The approved BTP states that clearing of non-native vegetation within the permanent buffer zones
may only be accomplished with minimum use of mechanized hand held equipment such as weed eaters and
chainsaws (Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle 1999:21). The 2008 preservation plan by Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle
also states that exotic weeds and grasses throughout the historic preserve areas and buffer zones will be removed by
hand, low impact machinery such as weed-whackers or through herbicide treatment (page 40).
The use of heavy machinery to clear vegetation without an archeological monitor present and the use of heavy
machinery to clear inside of the buffer zones is a violation of the approved mitigation plans. According to Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-277-8 and HAR 13-279-7 non-compliance with the provisions of the
agreed upon mitigation plan shall result in a directive to the person not to proceed with construction in the project
area, shall result in a denial or revocation of SHPDs written concurrence or agreement, and shall also be penalized
as provided in section 6E-11, HRS and applicable laws. According to HAR 13-300-43, in addition violations under
6E-11, violation of the terms of a burial treatment plan are also subject to prosecution pursuant to section 7111107, HRS, the penalties for which shall be imposed in addition to, and not in lieu of, any penalties imposed by
section 6E-11
At the June 6, 2013 meeting a second field inspection was conducted by SHPD staff and Hokulia representatives at
the site of the clearing activities. During this inspection it was observed that SIHP site 10303, which is located on lot
(3) 8-1-026:007 had been impacted by heavy machinery during lot clearing activities. Site 10303 was recommended
for data recovery during the Hammatt et. al. (1997) AIS and the IAMP recommended that additional work take place
to re-examine the function of this site. However, there is no indication that this work was completed as a portion of
the data recovery work as reported on by (Escott and Spear 2007) and no indication that the site was subject to data
salvage as described in the proposed amended archeological monitoring plan (Haun 2014). Therefore, SHPD has no
record that the recommended mitigation for SIHP 10303 took place prior to it being impacted by heavy machinery
during lot clearing. This appears to be a recurring problem throughout Hokuli'a as background research for this
letter has indicated that at least 11 additional historic properties (16402, 16426, 16492, 16512, 16528, 16593, 16737,
16765, 22625, 22664, and 22699) were impacted prior to having their agreed upon mitigation commitments
fulfilled, and the disposition of an addition 12 sites (SIHP 10283, 16367, 16372, 16547, 16572, 16573, 16576,
16584, 16601, 16609, 16624, and 16773) has not been confirmed. SHPD believes that the unmitigated impacts to
these historic properties is likely the result of similar instances of lot clearing without an archaeological monitor,
which was described by representatives of Hokulia as a common practice.

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 11

In addition, during the June 6, 2013 field visit, SHPD staff archaeologists Michael Vitousek and Theresa Donham
noticed the presence of historic properties, such as stone mounds, modified outcrops, and possible cairns, that are
not depicted on the current Hokulia project area map. The majority of these features appear to be agricultural sites
that were not recorded in the AIS or any of the addendums, and at the time, it was unknown whether the sites were
recorded during the block sweep of priority area 4, because the report on the historic properties identified during the
block sweep of priority area 4 was not submitted to SHPD for review. Many of these sites were directly impacted by
the land clearing activities; the rocks that comprise these features display recent scarring from the steel tracks of the
excavator, and from the mechanical flail attachment.
In order to accurately review the impacts of the recent land clearing activities as well as any future permitting
operations, SHPD requested that project area map of Hokulia be updated to include all historic properties that have
been identified in all the archaeological studies that have been conducted in this project area. This includes all sites
recorded in the initial studies by Kaschko (1984) and Rosendahl (1988) the Archaeological Inventory Survey and
addendums (Burgett and Rosendahl 1991), (Hammatt et. al. 1997) (Collin/Hammatt 1999), and (McGerty and Dega
2014), as well as all of the sites recorded in the block sweeps, during monitoring, inadvertent discovery, or any other
form (LOG NO 2013.3566, DOC NO 1307MV01). We requested that in addition to an updated paper map, this
information be presented in a GIS compatible form so that is can be easily updated in the future if necessary. An
updated paper map showing the location of the identified sites was provided at a subsequent meeting. The map
confirmed that multiple unrecorded historic properties exist in the area that was subject to clearing without a
monitor. The majority of these features appear to be agricultural in nature, but given the significant amount of
disturbance from heavy machinery it is difficult to determine site function. Through background research it became
clear that a comprehensive approach to recording agricultural sites had not been undertaken in either the AIS or the
subsequent block sweeps. Instead large agricultural complexes, sometimes entire ahupuaa, were assigned SIHP
numbers and described as being components of the Kona field system. These sites were data recovered or mitigated
through the preservation of a portion of the site but were never systematically recorded to the feature level, as is
required by the current standards for archaeological inventory surveys (HAR 13-276). In addition, the Hammatt et.
al. (1997) AIS determined that the 20 agricultural sites located on the pahoehoe flow in the central portion of the
project area were not a continuation of the Kona field system and a state site number was not assigned to this area as
an agricultural complex. It has come to our attention through the field work associated with the lot clearing
activities as well as the results of multiple interim archaeological monitoring reports (Haun and Henry 2014
multiple) that numerous unrecorded agricultural features exist in the pahoehoe flow area. Therefore, no mitigation
has taken place for these features individually or for the agricultural complex collectively.
Background to Burial Issues:
Our previous letter outlines numerous issues relating to the appropriate treatment of native Hawaiian burial sites on
in the Hokuli'a project area. Specifically SHPD described examples of burial sites that have been impacted by
project activities and left in an unresolved and inappropriate condition for many years. An example is SIHP Site
21835, which came to light in a recent County of Hawaii grubbing permit application for Hokulia Lot 196 [TMK
(3) 8-1-029:048]. A burial was discovered and inadvertently impacted at SIHP 21835 during mechanical testing of
the site. This burial site was directly impacted by heavy machinery and due to disagreements over the buffer size,
the site was left in an unresolved and unprotected state covered only by a tarp (Log 2013.3559, Doc 1306MV17). In
our previous letter SHPD indicated that this site is not alone and many native Hawaiian burial sites remain in similar
unresolved and unprotected circumstances. During the background review of this letter it was noticed that the
following native Hawaiian burial sites do not have adequate protection through approved and implemented burial
treatment plans: (SIHP 16419, 16355, 16356-A, 16536, 16599, 21820, 21835, and 21839). Given the incomplete
records on Hokuli'a especially pertaining to burial sites it is very possible that additional sites exist in a similar state.
The response letter provided by Dr. Haun indicates that two sites where burials were protected with tarps (16599
and 16419) have been resolved. However, no burial treatment plans for these sites has been accepted by SHPD. In
addition, the letter states that Haun and Associates has been contracted to prepare amended BTPs for five sites that
have unresolved issued regarding setbacks. The letter also states that Oceanside 1250 partners is all other
outstanding burial related issues as soon as possible. While we appreciate any progress that has been made or
planned the fact remains that the burials identified in our previous letter have not been resolved to the point where a
burial treatment plan has been accepted and implemented.
A recent inspection of the inventory contained within Hale Iwi revealed the presence of additional skeletal remains
that do not have appropriate treatments identified. This includes human burials from sites 16710, 16785, 16000,

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 12

16602, 16468, 16511, 16660, 16613, 16745, and temporary site numbers HT 008 Fea 1a, Ht 009 Fea2, and Ht 014
fea10. In addition Hale Iwi contains human skeletal remains in the form of teeth from the following sites: 1645, T842, 1600016468, 16373, 10280, 16683, 16377, and 16475.
Background to Lava Tube Resurvey:
As described in our previous letter the Kelly (2006) settlement agreement mandated that the lava tube sites must be
resurveyed in order to determine their accurate location so that a buffer zone can be accurately depicted on the
surface above the lava tube LOG NO 2013.3566, DOC NO 1307MV01). Haun and Associates submitted the Lava
tube resurvey on April 24, 2014. This report was accepted by SHPD via correspondence LOG NO: 2014.4416,
DOC NO: 1410MV07. Now the buffers for these sites can be accurately plotted on the surface of the ground based
on the locational information obtained in the re-survey. SHPD considers this action to be adequately addressed.
Background to Outstanding Reports and Mitigation Commitments:
In our previous letter, SHPD expressed our concern that numerous historic preservation compliance reports for
Hokulia have not been submitted for review and approval, and that mitigation commitments for individual sites
have not been completed. SHPD requested the assistance of Hokuli'a in identifying any reports or plans that are
outstanding and any mitigation commitments that have not been implemented. We also requested that a list of
outstanding reports be presented to our office with a time line for when they will be submitted to SHPD for review
LOG NO 2013.3566, DOC NO 1307MV01). This list was included in the February 25, 2014 response letter to
SHPD by Dr. Haun, and updated in an email from Dr. Haun on September 3, 2014. A spreadsheet of all historic
properties in the phase 1 area and their mitigation status was also provided to SHPD. SHPD has undertaken a fairly
comprehensive review of the findings presented by Hokuli'a. However, given the incomplete records particularly
pertaining to burial sites we are not able to say with certainty that all of the outstanding reports and mitigation
commitments have been identified. The outstanding reports identified by Hokuli'a along with their proposed
duration are as follows:
Report
Lava Tube Resurvey
Burial Testing Revision
Block Sweep/Test(1B, 5-7)
Phase 1 Blocks (1a, 2,3,4)
Golf Course Monitoring Revision
Subdivision Monitoring
Data Salvage
Bypass Monitoring
Bypass Data Recovery
Ala Loa Mitigation
Agricultural Feature Documentation

Duration
Under SHPD Review (subsequently completed)
3-4 Mos. (subsequently completed)
12 mos. (subsequently submitted)
3-4 mos.
TBD
Fieldwork in progress
TBD after field work complete
TBD
TBD
24 mos. (Fieldwork in progress)
7 mos. (Fieldwork in progress)

Since this letter and subsequent email update were received two of the aforementioned reports have been reviewed
and accepted by SHPD. The lava tube resurvey (A. Haun and D. Henry March, 2014) was accepted by SHPD via
correspondence LOG NO: 2014.4416,DOC NO: 1410MV07. The resurvey establishes the extent of the tubes from
which the buffer zones will be measured. SHPD also accepted the revised addendum AIS by Leann McGerty and
Michael Dega (September 2014) that tested possible burials identified in the Hammatt et. al. AIS (1997) via
correspondence LOG NO: 2014.2590, DOC NO: 1410MV09. Our records indicate that there are additional
outstanding reports/plans that are not described in the February 25, 2014 letter. These plans and reports include: An
interpretive plan for the shoreline park that Hokuli'a committed to prepare on or before June 2013 (LOG NO
2008.2141, DOC NO 0806MD29), archaeological documentation and preservation for the south side of the
shoreline park and Pu'u Ohau, a mitigation/preservation plan for the Old Cart Road (SIHP 17189), a report on the
block sweep mitigation commitments, and burial treatment plans including but potentially not limited to the
following sites: (SIHP 16419, 16355, 16356-A, 16536, 16599, 21820, 21835, and 21839).
In addition to the outstanding compliance reports and plans that are identified above, on behalf of Hokuli'a, Haun
and Associates provided a site summary in the form of a spreadsheet for the sites identified in phase 1 of Hokuli'a.
The spreadsheet lists the sites by number provides their reference source, treatment recommendation, SHPD

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 13

correspondence letter, comments, and indicates whether the site needs attention. The spreadsheet indicates that
only three sites (SIHP 16355, 16599, and 21820) need attention. A comprehensive review of the previously agreed
upon mitigation commitments and mitigation plans indicates that there are additional incomplete mitigation
commitments, and multiple sites that need attention. Our review indicates that there are outstanding issues dating
back to the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP. While the Phase 1 spreadsheet was a useful tool in
conducting this research it became clear that the spreadsheet itself is incomplete and does not fully encompass the
needed mitigation commitments.
Addenda AIS:
As previously indicated, SHPD has recently accepted the addendum AIS by Leann McGerty and Michael Dega
(September 2014) that tested possible burials identified in the Hammatt et. al. AIS (1997) via correspondence LOG
NO: 2014.2590, DOC NO: 1410MV09. The report indicated that 24 features of 19 archaeological sites were tested
for the presence or absence of human skeletal remains. These sites include 50-10-37-10291, 10292, 10293, 10295,
16378, 16394, 16399-A, 16406-C, 16422-B,C, & E, 16442-A, B, & C, 16505, 16539, 16623, 16630, 16640, 16642,
16652, 16696, and 16697. Of the 19 possible burial sites that were tested, 3 were found to contain human burials.
These three sites (10293, 16422-B, and 16442) are now recommended for preservation. The remaining sites were
found not to contain human burials, and their treatment recommendations were reassessed. The following sites or
portions of sites were recommended for no further work: 10291, 10295, 16378, 16394, 16422-C, & E, 16442- B, &
C, 16505, 16539, 16623, 16640, 16642, 16652, 16696, and 16697. The remaining four sites: 10292, 16399-A,
16406-C, and 16630 were recommended for data recovery. A review of our records indicates that only SIHP 16630
was subjected to data recovery during the Escott and Spear (2007) data recovery effort. However, our records
indicate that SIHP 16399 and 16406 have been preserved through the SHPD approved non-burial preservation plan
prepared by Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008). Therefore, the only site with outstanding mitigation commitment
appears to be SIHP 10292.
The Collin and Hammatt (1999) addendum AIS tested 18 sites (SIHP 10278, 10281, 10296, 15248, 16362, 16389,
16407, 16412, 16520, 16598, 16610, 16611, 16617, 16618, 16620, 16625, 16635, and 16700) and two (SIHP 16389
and 16611) were found to contain burials. As a result of this addendum AIS the treatment recommendation for the
two burials (SIHP 16389 and 16611) and three non-burials (10296, 16598, and 16610) was maintained as
preservation, and 15 sites (10278, 10281, 15248, 16362, 16407, 16412, 16520, 16617, 16618, 16620, 16625, 16635,
and 16700) were recommended for data recovery. Our records indicate that the burial sites (16389 and 16611) were
preserved through the Oceanside 1250 (2000) BTP. Our records indicate that SIHP 10296, 16598, and 16610 were
established as preservation sites in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP, with special instruction provided
for the reevaluation of 16598 and 16610 as being part of a larger historic complex contiguous with SIHP 16595. It
appears as though this reevaluation was never accomplished and although 16598 and 16610 are described as
preservation sites in the Escott et. al. (2008) data recovery report they were never added to the list of sites that would
be preserved in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan. In addition, two sites (SIHP 10278 and
16407) of the fifteen sites recommended for data recovery by Colin and Hammatt (1999) were later recommended
for preservation and preserved in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan. Twelve of the sites
that were recommended for data recovery (10281, 15248, 16362, 16412, 16617, 16618, 16620, 16625, 16635, and
16700) were added to the sample of sites where the previous excavation would be utilized in the data recovery
component of the IAMP. The results of testing at one site (SIHP 16520) does not appear to have been incorporated
into the (1999) IAMP as this site is still considered a possible burial and recommended for preservation in the IAMP
and is not included in the sample of sites to be data recovered presented in the data recovery plan component of the
IAMP. This site is identified as needing data recovery in the Hokuli'a site spreadsheet submitted to SHPD, but is not
identified as a site that needs attention.
Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP:
A review of the mitigation proposed in the (1999) IAMP compared to the commitments that have been completed
through the Escott and Spear (2007) data recovery effort and the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) indicates that
a number of mitigation commitments for individual sites have not been completed. We recognize the majority of
the 136 sites recommended for data salvage have not been excavated, as the intention was that these sites would be
subject to data salvage during construction. Therefore, in regards to data salvage sites, only the sites where
additional work beyond the basic data salvage excavation has been proposed are included. The following list
includes preservation, data recovery and data salvage sites where additional work is recommended in the IAMP, and
there is no record that this was completed. The data recovery sites include: SIHP 10285(recommendation that the
site be remapped to include undocumented cattle wall to north), 10303 (re-examine function, may be part of

Mr. Shaw
November, 2014
Page 14

agricultural system), and 10304 (re-examine function, may be part of agricultural system). These sites had
recommendations for further work established in the IAMP and they were not included in the data recovery report
prepared by Escott and Spear (2007). There is no information in our records that indicates whether this agreed upon
additional work has been carried out.
The data salvage sites where additional field work beyond the scope of planned data salvage excavations are: SIHP
16392(site may be larger and more complex), 16455 (should be assessed as a part of same site as 16457), 16529 (reexamine site boundaries, additional undocumented features), 16547 (need better map, possibly part of complex that
includes 16546, 16549, and 16550), 16576 (reevaluated as part of complex with 16575, 16583, 16584), and 16577
(re-evaluate function, possibly modern disturbance and not trail).
In addition, there appears to be some discrepancies between the sites recommended for preservation in the IAMP
(1999) and the sites that have approved preservation commitments in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008)
preservation plan. It appears as though some sites with established preservation commitments in the TomonariTuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP are not included in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan.
These sites include SIHP 16510, which was recommended for a change from data recovery to preservation in the
IAMP and recommended to be combined with SIHP 16511 and 16569 for interpretation. SIHP 16510 is not included
in the preservation plan and is instead listed as a data salvage site. Additional sites in the development area that are
recommend for preservation in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999) IAMP but not discussed in the TomonariTuggle and Tuggle (2008) preservation plan are: SIHP 16544, 16546, 16589, 16598, 16610 and 16614). Finally, 28
historic properties (16702-16730) are recommended for preservation in the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999)
IAMP, but are not provided with any preservation measures because of their location within the southern portion of
the shoreline park which does not have any preservation plan in place.
Trail Mitigation:
A letter submitted by Haun and Associates (dated October 13, 2014) indicates that the mitigation commitments for
the ala loa trail (SIHP 21664) established in Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (2007) are being implemented. However,
we currently do not have records that the mitigation commitments established for the old government road (SIHP
10290) by the 1250 Oceanside (2000) mitigation plan have been implemented.
Block Sweep Mitigation:
As described above, the monitoring sweeps of priority areas identified 169 historic sites that were not recorded in
the Hammatt et. al. (1997) AIS. The SHPD reviews of the findings of these sweeps generated a list of the
recommended mitigation commitments for each block. According to our records, the following sites have mitigation
commitments that have not been carried out for sites identified within the block sweeps: 22592, 22657, 22669-1,
22994, 23236, 23241, 23242, 23244, 23245, 23334, 23431, and 23441. It is possible that some of these mitigation
commitments have been carried out and not reported or, possibly, changed. However, we do not have any records
that indicate the treatments for these sites have been adequately addressed.
Data Salvage:
The revised AMP indicates that 99 sites recommended for data salvage have not been excavated. Through the
review of the proposed amended archaeological monitoring plan that was submitted to our office with your response
letter, SHPD had the first opportunity to review the results of the data salvage mitigation method. The discussion on
the results of the data salvage excavations to date indicates that native Hawaiian burial sites were mechanically
exposed in 5 of the 14 data salvage excavations that have been undertaken to date. The impacts to burial sites at
35% of the data salvage sites to date indicate that this is not an effective means of mitigation, and should therefore
be reevaluated pursuant to HAR 13-284-11. We believe that manual excavation should replace the use of
mechanical equipment in some cases. We believe that mechanical equipment could be employed after initial manual
trenching, if no human remains are encountered. We also believe that, as the Tomonari-Tuggle and Tuggle (1999)
IAMP suggests, an evaluation should be made for which sites should be subjected to data salvage and, what level of
data salvage will be required. For instance manual excavation could potentially be limited to sites with a higher
probability of burials.