Download - OHA Stryker Survey Report
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
1/133
OHA Stryker Survey Report
Compliance Monitoring
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
February 2011
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
2/133
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iiiList of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... viiIntroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1Chapter I: The Proposed Stryker Transformation .......................................................................... 4
A. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966....................................... 5B. Stryker Brigade Transformation Project Programmatic Agreement ............................... 6C. OHA Litigation and Settlement Agreement .................................................................... 8
Chapter II: OHA Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 10A. Site Descriptions for the BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition) ......................... 11B. Artifacts Found at BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition) ................................... 76C. Site Descriptions for the Kahuku Training Area ........................................................... 89D. Artifacts Found at KTA ............................................................................................... 107E. Site Descriptions for the PTA ...................................................................................... 108F. Artifacts Found at PTA ................................................................................................ 111
Chapter III: Issues Associated with Historical Properties Affected by the Stryker BrigadeTransformation Project ......................................................................................................... 114
A. Unidentified Historic Properties and Cultural Resources ............................................ 115i. Temporary site SCS 31, 32, 33, 34 and SWCA-KTA-TS-3 at Kahuku Training
Area ..................................................................................................................... 119ii. SIHP 50-80-08-5448, Near QTR II, South Range .............................................. 120
B. Area of Potential Effect Underestimates Scope of SBCT Impacts .............................. 122C. Arbitrary Decisions on Areas Deemed Unsafe for Survey .......................................... 123D. Reports Left in Draft Form .......................................................................................... 124
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 126
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
3/133
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: GIS map depicting the newly discovered sites resulting from OHAs BAX survey(2009) ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Photo of SIHP 5381 (loi). Note the four distinct levels of terraces. View to the west.13
Figure 3: Photo of SIHP 5381 (loi). Note the four levels of terraces. View to the west. ......... 13Figure 4: Diagram of cross-section of SIHP 5381, Features 4, 5C, and 6C (loi). ...................... 14Figure 5: Photo of SIHP 5448, Feature 11 (terrace). View to the northwest. ............................. 15Figure 6: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 6 (terrace). View to the west. ....................................... 16Figure 7: Plan view map of SIHP 6687, Feature 6. ..................................................................... 17Figure 8: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 7 (mound). View to the east. ........................................ 17Figure 9: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure), taken at the eastern end of enclosure near
feature entrance. View to the east. ......................................................................................... 22Figure 10: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at the eastern end of enclosure near main
entrance. View to the west. .................................................................................................... 22Figure 11: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at the southern end of the feature, showing
upright stacking architecture. (See also Figure 18). View to the southwest. ........................ 23Figure 12: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at northern portion of enclosure near main
entrance. View to the west. .................................................................................................... 23Figure 13: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 24 and 25. .................................................... 24Figure 14: Profile of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, depicting upright stacking at southern end of
Feature 24. (See also Figure 11). ........................................................................................... 25Figure 15: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (burial site). View to the south. ............................. 26Figure 16: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 25. ................................................................. 27Figure 17: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (wall, terrace). .......................................... 28Figure 18: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform). ................................................ 29Figure 19: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (terrace, wall). .......................................... 30Figure 20: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (terrace, wall). .......................................... 31Figure 21: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31A (mound, possible burial) in foreground. View to
the west. .................................................................................................................................. 32Figure 22: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 31A and B. .................................................. 33Figure 23: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31B (terrace) in foreground. View to the southwest. . 34Figure 24: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (terraces). ................................................. 35Figure 25: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33A (mound, possible burial). View to the west........ 36Figure 26: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (boulder, portion of terrace). View to the west. . 36Figure 27: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (flat boulder at base of terrace). View to the west.
37Figure 28: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (portion of alignment). View to the northeast. ...... 37Figure 29: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (enclosure, possible burial). ..................... 38Figure 30: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 36. View to the southeast. .......................................... 39
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
4/133
iv
Figure 31: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (terrace). View to the southwest. .......................... 39Figure 32: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 37. ................................................................. 40Figure 33: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (portion of terraces). View to east. ........................ 41Figure 34: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 38. ................................................................. 42Figure 35: SIHP 6841, Feature 42 (terrace) .................................................................................. 43Figure 36: SIHP 6841, Feature 44 (terrace) ................................................................................. 43Figure 37: SIHP 6841, Feature 46 (retaining wall)...................................................................... 43Figure 38: SIHP 6841, Feature 47 (mound)................................................................................. 43Figure 39: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 3 (terrace). View to the north. .................................... 44Figure 40: Plan view map of SIHP 6844, Feature 3. ................................................................... 45Figure 41: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 4 (terrace). View to the south. .................................... 46Figure 42: Plan view map of DPW T-6, Feature 1 (terrace). ....................................................... 48Figure 43: Photo of DPW T-9, Feature 1A (enclosure). View to the south. .............................. 49Figure 44: Photo of DPW T-9, Feature 1 (enclosure, alignment; left), Feature 2 (alignment; far
right), and Feature 3 (stack; foreground). View to the north. ................................................ 50Figure 45: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1A (retaining wall, terrace). View to the southwest. . 51Figure 46: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1B (unknown). View to the west. .............................. 52Figure 47: Plan view map of DPW T-10, Feature 1A and 1B. .................................................... 52Figure 48: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-1 (petroglyph). View to the southwest. ........................ 53Figure 49: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-2 (petroglyph). View to the southwest. ........................ 54Figure 51: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing bird-like patterns). View to the
southwest................................................................................................................................. 58Figure 52: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing concentric circle). View to the
northwest. ................................................................................................................................ 59Figure 50: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-4 (petroglyph). View to the south. ............................... 60Figure 53: SWCA-BAX-TS-8 (petroglyph). View to the north. ................................................ 61Figure 54: SWCA-BAX-T-S9 (stacked boulders). View to the west. ........................................ 62Figure 55: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D (enclosure). View to the east. ........ 63Figure 56: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D........................................... 64Figure 57: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2 (alignment). View to the south. ................ 65Figure 58: Schematic drawing of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2. ............................................. 65Figure 59: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3 (terrace, possible trail). View to the east. . 66Figure 60: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4 (trail). View to the east. ............................ 66Figure 61: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the south. ..................... 68Figure 62: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1. .................................................... 69Figure 63: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 3A (mound). View to the southwest. .......... 70Figure 64: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9 (enclosure). View to the south. ................ 71Figure 65: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature1 (terrace). View to the southwest. .............. 72Figure 66: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2 (terrace). View to the west. ...................... 73Figure 67: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-16 (mound). View to the southwest. .............................. 75Figure 68: Photo of BAX-T-A1 (SWCA-BAX-IF-5). ................................................................. 76Figure 69: Photo of BAX-T-A2 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2). ................................................................. 77
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
5/133
v
Figure 70: Photo of BAX-T-A3 (SWCA-BAX-IF-3). ................................................................. 78Figure 71: Photo of BAX-T-A4 (SWCA-BAX-IF-4). ................................................................. 79Figure 72: Photo of BAX-T-A5 (SWCA-BAX-IF-8). ................................................................. 80Figure 73: Photo of BAX-T-A6 (SWCA-BAX-IF-6). ................................................................. 81Figure 74: Photo of BAX-T-A7 (SWCA-BAX-IF-10). ............................................................... 82Figure 75: Photo of BAX-T-A9 (SWCA-BAX-IF-9). ................................................................. 83Figure 76: Photo of BAX-T-A10 (SWCA-BAX-IF-7) ................................................................ 84Figure 77: Photo of BAX-T-A11 (SWCA-BAX-IF-12). ............................................................. 85Figure 78: Photo of BAX-T-A12 (SWCA-BAX-IF-11). ............................................................. 86Figure 79: Photo of QTR2-T-A1 (coral artifact). ........................................................................ 88Figure 80: GIS map depicting the sites visited during OHAs KTA survey (2009).................... 89Figure 81: Photo of SWCA-KTA TS-1 (portion of a mound). View to the east. ....................... 90Figure 82: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the east. ......................... 93Figure 83: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2 (clearing), and 3 (cubby-hole,
background). View to the southwest. ..................................................................................... 93Figure 84: Plan view map of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2, 3, 7. ......................................... 94Figure 85: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 (terrace). View to the northeast. .................................. 95Figure 86: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 (rock shelter). View to the west. ................ 96Figure 87: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 (rock shelter). View to the northeast. ......... 97Figure 88: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2. View to the south. ..................................... 97Figure 89: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 3 (modified outcrop). View to the southwest. 98Figure 90: GANDA T-2 (kohe stone). View to the east. ............................................................ 99Figure 91: Photo of GANDA T-8 (portion of mound). View to the south. .............................. 100Figure 92: GANDA T-13 (phallic stone). View to the east. ..................................................... 102Figure 93: Photo of GANDA KTA T-22 (enclosure). View to the west. ................................. 103Figure 94: Plan view map of GANDA T-22. ............................................................................. 104Figure 95: Photo of SCS T-33 (platform). Note the stone facing. View to the northeast........ 106Figure 96: Photo of SCS T-33. View to the north. ................................................................... 106Figure 97: Photo of KTA-T-A1 (kukui oil lamp perform). ...................................................... 107Figure 98: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1 (modified basalt outcrop). View to the northwest. .... 110Figure 99: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1. View to the northwest. .............................................. 110Figure 100: Volcanic glass blade. .............................................................................................. 112Figure 101: Volcanic glass core. ................................................................................................ 112Figure 102: Basalt mortar, side view. ........................................................................................ 112Figure 103: Basalt mortar, proximal end. .................................................................................. 112Figure 104: Wooden blade. ........................................................................................................ 112Figure 105: Wooden blade. ........................................................................................................ 112Figure 106: Wood debris. .......................................................................................................... 113Figure 107: Bird stone for cooking. ........................................................................................... 113Figure 108: Worked wooden implement. .................................................................................. 113Figure 109: Ti slipper................................................................................................................. 113Figure 110: Results of the Armys final GANDA archaeological survey (2003). .................... 116
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
6/133
vi
Figure 111: Findings by Cultural Monitors operating under the 2004 Programmatic Agreement(2004-06), superimposed over 2003 GANDA survey results. .............................................. 117
Figure 112: Findings by OHA survey team operating under the 2008 Settlement Agreement(2009), superimposed over 2004-06 Cultural Monitor surveys and 2003 GANDA surveyresults. ................................................................................................................................... 118
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
7/133
vii
List of Abbreviations
ACHP
BOT
BAX
EIS
GANDA
GIS
KTA
NEPA
NHO
NHPA
NRHP
OHA
PTA
QTR
SA
SBCT
SHPD
SHPO
TCP
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Board of Trustees
battlefield area complex
environmental impact statement
Garcia and Associates
global information systems
Kahuku Training Area
National Environmental Policy Act
Native Hawaiian organization
National Historic Preservation Act
National Register of Historic Places
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Phakuloa Training Area
Qualified Training Range
settlement agreement
Stryker Brigade Combat Team
State Historic Preservation Division
State Historic Preservation Officer
traditional cultural properties
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
8/133
1
Introduction
In early 2001, Hawaii was chosen by the Department of Defense as a potential site for a
division of a U.S. Army Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). The project required massive
construction and road rehabilitation to accommodate the training of Hawaiis 2nd Brigade, 25th
Light Infantry Division on Oahu and Hawaii island, which would eventually transform into a
SBCT. The Stryker vehicle is a wheeled, light-armored personnel carrier. Hawaii was chosen
as a home base for a SBCT because of its favorable training environment and central location in
the Pacific, which could be strategically important for future deployments.
After Hawaii was selected, a variety of studies were performed as required by federal
law. The studies included, but were not limited to, archaeological, botanical, cultural and
environmental studies, and were later used to develop the Stryker environmental impact
statement (EIS), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended. Throughout the development of the Stryker EIS, numerous individuals, groups, and
organizations voiced opposition to the Stryker transformation in Hawaii because of the potential
for harm to cultural and environmental resources, among other concerns. To this end, several
organizations sued the Army in a 2004 lawsuit entitled, Ilioulaokalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld,
369 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Haw. 2004), alleging deficiencies in alternative site considerations in
the EIS for the Stryker transformation. The Ilioulaokalani litigation ended when the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the Army to produce a supplemental EIS. The
Army produced a supplemental EIS, which still identified Hawaii as the recommended site for
SBCT transformation.
Following the release of the first draft EIS, the Army entered into a Programmatic
Agreement (PA) with a number of state entities, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
9/133
2
(OHA). This PA was created in response to concerns in the Hawaiian community that the
Stryker project would greatly affect cultural and archaeological sites, landscapes, and traditional
cultural properties (TCPs). The PA included several stipulations regarding how the Army
intended to protect historic properties during Stryker-related construction activities.
Of particular significance for this report, the PA contained a stipulation that cultural
monitors would be employed by the Army to assist in the identification of historic properties
and to observe the construction activities to ensure that the undertaking complied with various
federal historic preservation and environmental laws. The cultural monitors served an oversight
function and were selected from Native Hawaiian communities for their knowledge of the areas
to be developed, their knowledge of Native Hawaiian culture and protocol, and their willingness
to work with the military. Among the various purposes served by cultural monitors, their
presence allowed Native Hawaiians to have a window into the daily construction operations
related to SBCT construction activities. This observational role proved to be a very powerful
tool, as cultural monitors relayed key information to their communities, media, law firms, and
government agencies about how historic preservation laws and PA stipulations were, or were not
being followed by the Army or their contractors.
The cultural monitors reported numerous instances whereby the Army breached its duty
to protect TCPs. After failing to make Army administrators and contractors commit to changing
their practices or even admit that they violated the provisions of the PA, the cultural monitors
began to reach out to other agencies and organizations to gain leverage in dealing with the Army.
They began formal dialogue with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and
the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) regarding the infractions. After gaining
limited support from the SHPD and ACHP, the cultural monitors approached OHA with their
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
10/133
3
case. In 2006, the OHA Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to authorize the OHA Administration to
sue the Army for violations of federal law and placing historic properties in jeopardy.
The litigation action, originally known as Office of Hawaiian Affairs vs. Rumsfeld, No.
CV-06-00610, temporarily stopped all Stryker-related construction activities. This stoppage
lasted for several months and, after protracted negotiations, eventually led the Army to agree to a
settlement with OHA. The 2008 SA required the Army to allow OHA historic preservation
representatives with fifty days of access to the proposed construction areas for an independent
archaeological survey. The Army provided up to three of their own archaeologists in the field to
observe OHA staff at all times. OHA and the Army also agreed on Dr. Chris Monahan of
SWCA Environmental Consultants to serve as the neutral archaeologist for an independent
archaeological analysis and to participate in the survey of the project. Dr. Monahan was
contracted by both OHA and the Army, with each agency paying half of his fees, to ensure that
his findings would be unbiased toward either Army or Native Hawaiian interests.
This OHA report seeks to explain the outcome of the fifty days of surveys and concludes
that the historic properties under the Armys management in Hawaii remain in jeopardy. This
report serves as a supplement to the joint report by OHA and the Army, prepared by Dr.
Monahan (Monahan Report) and, upon a comparative view, verifies most of the findings made
by Dr. Monahan. Like the Monahan Report, this report also identifies crucial shortcomings in
the Armys identification and protection of TCPs, many of which formed the underlying basis
for Stryker Brigade opposition dating back to 2001. The aim of this report is not to find fault or
blame, but to provide constructive criticism on matters very critical to the Native Hawaiian
identity.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
11/133
4
Chapter I: The Proposed Stryker Transformation
The SBCT transformation project began in 2001 when Hawaii was selected as the
location for a Stryker Brigade training area. This 1.5 billion dollar project called for major
construction activities at a number of military instillations in Hawaii: Schofield Barracks,
Wheeler Airfield, Phakuloa Training Area (PTA), Dillingham Air Field, Kahuku Training Area
(KTA), East Range, and Haleman. In addition, the transformation project required the
acquisition of additional lands in Kawaihae, Phakuloa, Honouliuli, Wahiaw, and Haleman.
The conversion of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division to a Stryker Brigade combat team
comprised of 320, 21-ton Stryker vehicles required an increase in military presence, with an
additional 4,105 troops, their families, and 1,000 support vehicles. The construction of training
ranges was required for Stryker maneuvers, small arms training, additional housing, tactical
vehicle washes, a motor pool, a multiple-deployment facility, and numerous other support
initiatives.
The massive undertaking was determined to have the potential to cause numerous adverse
effects on the environment and historic properties. The potential adverse effects were met with
public disapproval from a variety of environmental and Native Hawaiian groups, who expressed
concerns over a wide range of issues, such as, limited land resources, contamination of air water
and soil, native species degradation, and wild fires. The community also expressed concerns
regarding impacts to historic properties, cultural landscapes, and the cumulative effects of the
military in Hawaii.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
12/133
5
A.Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to
take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the [ACHP] areasonable opportunity to comment. 36 C.F.R. 800. Despite the simple language of this
regulation, the review process has been continually revised since it was first implemented in
1966. The current regulations consist of a step-by-step process, which is used as a resource for
those who participate in the many aspects of historic preservation and remediation.
The consultation requirement is explained in the federal administrative rules. The
requirement for consultation states,
[t]he section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with theneeds of Federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and otherparties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties,commencing at the early stages of project planning. The goal of consultation is toidentify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects andseek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.
36 C.F.R. 800.1. Thus, the identification of historic properties is a crucial step in determining
the protections afforded under the NHPA. The rules also identify specific groups that the agency
official must consult with, most notably the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) who
oversees all historic preservation issues within each state. The rules also require consultation
with Indian tribes andNative Hawaiian organizations who may attach religious and cultural
significance to the affected properties, regardless of where they occur. 36 C.F.R. 800.2(c)(2)
(emphasis added). Consultation should begin at the early stages of project planning and prior
to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the
issuance of any license. 36 C.F.R. 800.1.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
13/133
6
B.Stryker Brigade Transformation Project Programmatic AgreementFrom the outset, the Army determined that the SBCT transformation project could have
potential adverse affects on historic properties. In January 2004, the Army entered into aprogrammatic agreement with the SHPO and ACHP to address Section 106 consultation
requirements under the NHPA. The Army also consulted with OHA, the National Park Service,
Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Oahu Council of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Hui Malama I Na
Kupuna O Hawaii Nei, Oahu Island Burial Council, Hawaii Island Burial Council, Historic
Hawaii Foundation, and Native Hawaiian organizations, families, and individuals who attach
traditional religious and cultural importance to cultural sites. (Programmatic Agreement at 14-
15). OHA was the only consulting party to sign the Programmatic Agreement, which was done
with reservations.
The Programmatic Agreement language deviated slightly from the Section 106
requirements. The main change was the inclusion of cultural monitors for all intrusive
activities connected with the transformation. The cultural monitor requirement originated from
community concerns about the standards employed by cultural resource management and
contract archaeology firms that lacked substantive input from Native Hawaiians. The
Programmatic Agreement provides that
[t]he Installation, to show an understanding of the significance and respect properties oftraditional religious and cultural importance, including burials and landscapes, play in thelives of Native Hawaiians, will work with a Cultural Monitor chosen from a list of
available Cultural Monitors generated by Native Hawaiians from the area of concern, andprovided to the Installation. These services will be obtained in accordance withapplicable federal laws and guidance.
(Programmatic Agreement at 4). The Programmatic Agreement also provides guidelines for the
cultural monitors: well-versed in Hawaiian protocols of cultural property management, a
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
14/133
7
cultural affiliation with the project area, trusted by the community, serves as a liaison throughout
the process, and work in tandem with archaeologists. Through the Hawaiian Civic Club of
Wahiaw, trusted members of the immediate community were identified to perform the duties of
cultural monitors for the various SBCT transformation projects. The cultural monitors organized
themselves into a working group they named Kahunn (Families of the Land).
Based on group discussions and consultation with the greater Native Hawaiian
community, Kahunn made recommendations about the protection afforded to historic
properties that might be affected by the SBCT transformation project. However, the cultural
monitors experienced severe restrictions from the start of their work. During a two year period,
from December, 2004 through October, 2006, cultural monitors recorded numerous violations to
the Programmatic Agreement, Section 106 of the NHPA, and NAGPRA. The cultural monitors
identified three main areas under the Programmatic Agreement where Army practices were
deficient: monitoring, identification, and consultation. Cultural monitors alleged that they were
being restricted from monitoring earth-disturbing activities and that the Army had not completed
the identification, evaluation, and assessment of historic properties, as defined in the
Programmatic Agreement. There were also allegations that information contained in Army
Section 106 consultation letters was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete. Cultural monitors
explained that these three deficiencies in the Armys historic preservation program resulted in
adverse impacts to several historic properties with great value to Native Hawaiians. Kahunn
presented their concerns to SHPD, ACHP and OHA, which all responded with letters urging the
Army to comply with applicable regulations. The lack of identification, consultation, and
monitoring, in addition to significant disturbances of cultural resources that occurred without the
supervision of cultural monitors, eventually led to an OHA lawsuit against the Army in 2006.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
15/133
8
C.OHA Litigation and Settlement AgreementOn November 14, 2006, OHA filed a complaint against the Army entitled Office of
Hawaiian Affairs v. Rumsfeld,
1
No. CV-06-00610, in the U.S. District Court for the District ofHawaii. The Complaint alleged violations of Section 106 of the NHPA, NAGPRA, and the
Programmatic Agreement resulting from activities related to the transformation of the 2nd
Brigade, 25th Light Infantry Division to a SBCT. The Army denied any violation of federal law
or the Programmatic Agreement, as alleged in OHAs complaint.
Rather than proceeding to trial and following protracted negotiations, the two parties
sought to resolve the case by entering into a settlement agreement (SA) in 2008. The SA
established a process for surveying the affected areas. The Army agreed to disclose to OHA its
global information systems (GIS) data and other specific information concerning each of the
actual or potential historic properties and cultural items known to the Army located in Stryker
transformation areas. On fifty days agreed upon by OHA and the Army, OHA representatives
would conduct ground surveys of the six Stryker transformation areas at locations containing
cultural sites or resources of significant concern. These surveyed areas were the Battle Area
Complex (BAX) at Schofield Barracks; Qualified Training Range 1 at Schofield; Qualified
Training Range 2 at Schofield; Kolekole Ranges 3, 4, 5 and 6; the KTA; and PTA Ranges 1, 8,
10 and 11T.
The OHA survey team was accompanied by cultural resource personnel for the Army and
a neutral archeologist who had been contracted jointly by OHA and the Army. At the conclusion
of OHAs surveys, the neutral archeologist, Dr. Christopher Monahan, submitted a report to the
1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the title of the lawsuit was amended from Office ofHawaiian Affairs v. Rumsfeldto Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Gates, in order to reflect the change of the U.S.Secretary of Defense from Donald Rumsfeld to Robert Gates.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
16/133
9
Army relating to cultural resource issues in the surveyed areas, and, to the extent OHA disagreed
with the archeologist's report, OHA was given the opportunity to submit its own findings and
analysis to the Army. The Army also acknowledged its continuing obligation to provide Native
Hawaiians access to traditional religious and cultural properties located in Stryker transformation
areas, as part of the settlement terms.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
17/133
10
Chapter II: OHA Survey Findings
This section of the report presents OHAs findings from surveys conducted under the SA.
The Monahan Report, which was completed in September 2009 by the neutral archeologist for
the Stryker surveys, serves as a cross-reference for sites also described in the OHA survey. OHA
staff and Dr. Monahan identified key sites with the help of a former cultural monitor. The team
then visited each site to verify earlier Army descriptions and determine potential eligibility for
further historic preservation. The findings contained in this report, in addition to those made as
part of Dr. Monahans joint OHA-Army report, serve as important guidse for historic site
preservation in areas subject to damage by construction activities and live-fire training related to
the SBCT transformation project. In addition, the reports of OHA and Dr. Monahan identify
overall shortcomings in past preservation efforts and propose specific recommendations for
improvements in future historic preservation work by the Army.
Although OHA conducted independent field surveys, this report references the temporary
site numbers applied in the Monahan Report. This practice is meant to aid the reader, but also
recognizes the level of agreement in the findings of OHA surveyors and the findings of the Dr.
Monahan. During the preparation of this document and the Monahan Report, staff shared their
preliminary findings with the Army and the lead archaeologist, as required under the SA terms.
Any discrepancies between OHAs final report and the lead archaeologists final report can be
attributed to differences in opinion or data interpretation.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
18/133
11
A.Site Descriptions for the BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition)
Figure 1: GIS map depicting the newly discovered sites resulting from OHAs BAX survey (2009)
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
19/133
12
State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) Number: 5381
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 8 (Features 4-8 discussed)
Form: Terrace
Function: Loi (irrigated taro fields)
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: SIHP 5381 is located within Mohikea Gulch, which is surrounded by the largeplateaus of the Schofield Barracks impact area. Although previous surface surveys adequatelydocumented Features 1-3, an additional five features, comprised of eighteen sub-features, were
not included in previous surveys. The Monahan Report provides a detailed account of SIHP5381 and the inadequate recognition of the site in previous survey reports. (Monahan Report at24-38).
The OHA and SWCA survey teams did not map Features 4-8 of SIHP 5381 due to timeconstraints. Instead, the positions of the features were recorded using a handheld GPS unit. (SeeFigure 1). The terraces are primarily of earthen construction and most have no visible bouldersin their retaining walls. Feature 4 is comprised of one large terrace measuring 50 by 20 m.Features 5-7 each consist of 5 small and discreet subfields, totaling 15 sub-features. Feature 8consists of two sub-fields. The retaining walls for the smaller terraces of Features 5A-5E, 6A-
6E, 7A-7E, and 8A-8B vary in height from 10 to 80 centimeters. Features 4-8 of SIHP 5381 arein good condition and are excellent examples of large-scale kalo production for the Lhue area.There are several auwai adjacent to the loi, which would have facilitated irrigation to thewetland garden plots. The wetland terraces of SIHP 5381 would have had excellent potential forproducing ample kalo for the surrounding communities.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
20/133
13
Figure 2: Photo of SIHP 5381 (loi). Note the four distinct levels of terraces. View to the west.
Figure 3: Photo of SIHP 5381 (loi). Note the four levels of terraces. View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
21/133
14
Figure 4: Diagram of cross-section of SIHP 5381, Features 4, 5C, and 6C (loi).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
22/133
15
SIHP Number: 5448 (South Range)
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 11 (Feature 11 discussed)
Form: Terrace
Function: Habitation and burial
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 5.0 1.0 0.5 m
Description: The survey team revisited SIHP 5448, which includes a large habitation and burialcomplex (Feature 6) atop a bluff located at an area known as Poupouwela. SIHP 5448 contains anumber of features, including terraces, enclosures, and mounds. Feature 11, a previously
unknown terrace, was discovered. The terrace runs roughly east to west and creates a flat surfacewith an area of approximately 25 m2. During previous work at SIHP 5448, Army surveyorsfound numerous artifacts, including an adze located on the surface of Feature 1 (enclosure).During OHAs fieldwork, a fragment of a cylindrical coral artifact of unknown function waslocated at the southwest end of the bluff (QTR2-T-A1). In addition, the Monahan Report alsonotes the discovery of an ike maka phaku (map stone) in the eastern portion of SIHP 5448.
Figure 5: Photo of SIHP 5448, Feature 11 (terrace). View to the northwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
23/133
16
SIHP Number: 6687
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 9 (Feature 6 discussed)
Form: Terraces and mound
Function: Various
Age: Various
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: SIHP 6687 is a large site located atop the western portion of Kalena plateau, justsouth from the existing firebreak road. As surveys at SIHP 6687 progressed, it became evidentthat the site included at least four additional features (Features 6-9), which had not been
identified during previous surveys.
Feature 6 is a terrace measuring 7.0 by 4.0 meters, with a height range of 0.3 to 0.5meters. The terrace is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked two to three high, whichcreate a partial enclosure with an opening to the north. The level surface created by the terracemeasures approximately 20 m2. Feature 6 is in fair condition, as bullets and ordnance haveimpacted the terrace retaining wall. Feature 6 likely dates to pre-contact period and would havelikely served a habitation function. Due to the slope of the ground, feature construction appearsto have focused on creating level surfaces for habitation and small-scale gardening.
Figure 6: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 6 (terrace). View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
24/133
17
Figure 7: Plan view map of SIHP 6687, Feature 6.
Feature 7 is a mound constructed of cobble and boulders, located to the east of Feature 6.The mound is fairly large, measuring 2.0 by 2.0 by 0.4 meters. The function and age of Feature7 are unknown. The mound is in fair condition, having been impacted by military activities.
Figure 8: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 7 (mound). View to the east.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
25/133
18
Feature 8 is a terrace measuring 6.0 by 3.0 meters, with a height of 0.3 to 0.4 meters.Feature 8 is constructed of rounded to sub-rounded basalt cobbles and boulders. The terrace is infair condition and likely dates to the pre-contact period.
Feature 9 is another boulder terrace. It measures 7.0 by 4.0 meters (inclusive of the
leveled area and retaining wall), with a height ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 meters. Like Features 6and 8, Feature 9 is constructed of basalt cobbles and boulders. This feature was likelyconstructed in pre-contact times and is in poor condition, displaying several peck marks frombullets or ordnance.
The Monahan Report describes another terrace, referenced as Feature 10, located inclose-proximity to Feature 9. The Monahan Report also provides additional site descriptions andmaps of SIHP 6687.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
26/133
19
SIHP Number: 6688
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 1
Form: Enclosure
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 40.0 42.0 0.65 m
Description: SIHP 6688 is a very large enclosure located on the upper half of the Kalenaplateau, just south of a steep buff and east of SIHP 6687. The enclosure, constructed of boulderand cobble, was previously identified as two discreet wall segments by Army contractors. After
careful inspection, however, the two walls clearly connect by a third, badly damaged wallremnant. Thus, SIHP 6688 has the form of an enclosure rather than a set of walls. The MonahanReport provides additional information about SIHP 6688, including an account of the conflictinginformation about this site from previous Army surveys.
SIHP 6688 has been heavily impacted by military training activities and is in poorcondition. The enclosed space contains a large amount of metal debris and ordnance; there arealso visible remnants of cars and track vehicles that were likely previously used as targets.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
27/133
20
SIHP Number: 6835
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 3
Form: Mound, L-shape, and alignments
Function: Habitation, possible burial
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 24 20 m
Description: The survey team visited SIHP 6835 to examine Feature 3, measuring 6.0 by 3.0meters. The feature was previously interpreted as a possible burial but was not photographed inthe GANDA report. OHA surveyors inspected a number of upright boulders not depicted in the
original sketch map. This site is not discussed in the Monahan Report, except as an example of asite impacted by firing range activities. (Monahan Report at 16-17).
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
28/133
21
SIHP Number: 6841
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 49 (Features 24-49 discussed)
Form: Various
Function: Various
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: SIHP 6841 is a large complex located in a small gulch between the Mohikea andKalena plateaus. (See Figure 1). SIHP 6841 contains a number of features, including terraces,enclosures, mounds, alignments, and platforms. Approximately half of the features of SIHP
6841 were mapped by GANDA, but twenty-five other features were either overlooked or omittedfrom previous reports.
Although subsurface testing was not performed as part of the survey, SIHP 6841 appearsto have served as a multi-functional complex that supported a variety of activities for manyindividuals or families. The waterway that formed the gulch was dry during the months ofJanuary to July. Thus, it does not appear that the gulch would have housed large loi unlesswater was previously delivered from another source. Gardening, habitation, and possibly animalhusbandry were likely the main functions of SIHP 6841, with large-scale kalo cultivation takingplace further east in Mohikea Gulch at locations such as SIHP 5381.
Features 24-49 of SIHP 6841 are described below by order of recordation. Due to thetime restrictions imposed on the survey work, the survey team performed only rudimentaryrecordation, particularly for those features discovered near the end of the schedule.
Feature 24 is a large enclosure of irregular shape, measuring approximately 40 by 30meters. The enclosure is relatively level on its southeastern end, an area of roughly 300 m2. Theremaining area of Feature 24 is moderately sloped. The surface architecture of this featureawallvaries between 1 to 4 tiers of boulder stacking, with materials ranging from rounded andsub-rounded boulders to very large in-situ boulders. The height of the boulders stacks rangefrom 0.28 to 1.18 meters high. Feature 24 also contains sections with deliberate placement of
upright boulders, indicative of pre-contact construction. The upright alignment sections areconcentrated in the southeast portion of the wall. The southwest portion of the enclosure wallserved as a retaining wall, roughly forming a terrace. Feature 24 appears to have served as ahabitation site because of the presence of a burial (Feature 25), which abuts the western end ofthe enclosure.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
29/133
22
Figure 9: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure), taken at the eastern end of enclosure near featureentrance. View to the east.
Figure 10: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at the eastern end of enclosure near main entrance.View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
30/133
23
Figure 11: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at the southern end of the feature, showing uprightstacking architecture. (See also Figure 18). View to the southwest.
Figure 12: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at northern portion of enclosure near main entrance.View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
31/133
24
Figure 13: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 24 and 25.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
32/133
25
Figure 14: Profile of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, depicting upright stacking at southern end of Feature 24.(See also Figure 11).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
33/133
26
Feature 25 is a small, rectangular enclosure, located at the far west end of Feature 21 atSIHP 6841. This feature lies on a terrace created by a small retaining wall that abuts Feature 21.Although the enclosure has suffered damage from natural processes, such as exotic tree growth,the feature remains relatively intact. The enclosure measures roughly 1.0 by 1.9 meters and isconstructed from sub-angular, bread loaf-shaped stones.
Due to the source material used (the boulders would have been specially selected for theirsimilar and unique shape), the formality of the feature, and its prominent location overlookingFeature 21, Feature 25 is very likely the site of a burial interment.
Figure 15: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (burial site). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
34/133
27
Figure 16: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 25.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
35/133
28
Feature 26 is a terrace comprised of a retaining wall measuring 2.0 by 2.0 by 0.2 meters,which creates a level area measuring 5 m2. Feature 26 lies approximately two meters west fromthe furthest point of Feature 24 and, like Feature 24, was probably a habitation site. Theretaining wall of Feature 26 is in fair condition, although most of the wall is buried by sedimentand cannot be analyzed without excavation.
Figure 17: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (wall, terrace).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
36/133
29
Feature 27 is a medium-sized platform, located east-southeast of Feature 24. Theplatform is constructed of small boulders and cobble, and measures 4.0 by 2.5 by 0.25 meters.Feature 27 is in fair to poor condition, having suffered damage from ordnance impacts. Shrapneland artillery debris litter this feature and the surrounding area. The former function of the site isunknown.
Figure 18: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
37/133
30
Feature 28 is a terrace, located approximately 8.5 meters west of Feature 24. The terracemeasures 4.0 by 3.5 by 1.2 meters. The retaining wall of the terrace consists of sub-angular,large cobble to small boulder fill placed between two large, in-situ boulders. To the west of theretaining wall there is a small alignment creating a level, semi-enclosed area that measures 3.5by 1.5 meters. The feature is in good condition, but its former function is unknown.
Figure 19: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (terrace, wall).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
38/133
31
Feature 29 is a small terrace, located just west of Feature 28. The retaining wall ofFeature 29 is constructed of irregular, modified boulders stacked atop two large boulders, with alevel area of soil to the northeast. The retaining wall measures 2.5 by 1.7 by 0.6 meters, with alevel area of approximately 3 m3. Feature 29 is in good condition. The terrace would have likelyfunctioned as a small habitation site or garden.
Figure 20: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (terrace, wall).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
39/133
32
Feature 30 is a medium-sized mound with upright stacking of columnar boulderintegrated into its siding and foundation. The mound is primarily constructed of small bouldersand measures 2.5 by 2.5 by 0.6 meters. The top of Feature 30 is filled in with small cobble andpebble stones; its relative formality makes it an anomaly among mounds in the vicinity.Although the mound is in good condition, its function is indeterminate, although Dr. Monahan
suggests that it may represent a burial mound. (Monahan Report at 61).
Feature 31A is a low mound abutting a very large boulder. The boulder is flattened at itstop and is a prominent natural feature in the area. Feature 31A measures 3.5 by 3.5 meters; themaximum height of the mound is 0.3 meters and the height of the boulder is 1.3 meters. The topof the mound is filled in with small cobble and pebbles, indicating a level of formality. At thecenter of the mound is a large, flat boulder measuring 0.7 by 0.6 meters, likely serving as acapstone for the contents of the mound. A small terrace and retaining wall abuts the largeboulder of Feature 31A to the southwest. The mound is in good condition. There is a highprobability that it functions as a burial site.
Figure 21: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31A (mound, possible burial) in foreground. View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
40/133
33
Figure 22: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 31A and B.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
41/133
34
Feature 31B is a terrace abutting Feature 31A to the southwest. Feature 31B is comprisedof a small retaining wall built of basalt cobbles to boulders, which measures 5.0 by 1.5 by 0.9meters. The retaining wall creates an area of level soil measuring approximately five squaremeters. Besides creating a terraced area for planting or habitation, Feature 31B is likely a burialsite. Feature 31B is in good condition.
Figure 23: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31B (terrace) in foreground. View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
42/133
35
Feature 32 is a set of two, adjacent terraces located east of Feature 31. The retainingwalls of the terraces are made of sub-angular basalt cobble to large boulders, stacked 1 to 3 tiershigh. The function of Feature 32 is unknown, but as with the other features in SIHP 6841, thisfeature was likely used for habitation or agriculture. Feature 32 remains in good condition.
Figure 24: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (terraces).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
43/133
36
Feature 33 is comprised of two sub-features: Feature 33A and 33B. Feature 33A is amound measuring 3.5 by 2.8 by 0.5 meters. The mound is constructed of rounded cobble, sub-rounded cobble, and small boulders. Feature 33B is a terrace measuring 11.0 by 3.0 by 0.7meters. The terrace is constructed of rounded and sub-rounded cobble to medium-sizedboulders. The former functions of Features 33A and 33B are unknown, although, Feature 33A
may represent a burial site. Both sub-features are in fair to good condition.
Figure 25: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33A (mound, possible burial). View to the west.
Figure 26: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (boulder, portion of terrace). View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
44/133
37
Figure 27: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (flat boulder at base of terrace). View to the west.
Feature 34 is not covered in this report. (See Monahan Report at 61).
Feature 35 is a rock alignment measuring 10.7 meters in length, a width ranging of 0.2 to0.4 meters, and a height ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 meters. The alignment is constructed mostly ofsmall, sub-rounded boulders. The feature runs east to west, running down slope. The function ofFeature 35 is indeterminate, but its appearance lends itself to being a trail remnant. The featureis in fair condition.
Figure 28: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (portion of alignment). View to the northeast.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
45/133
38
Figure 29: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (enclosure, possible burial).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
46/133
39
Feature 36 is a small enclosure measuring 2.2 by 1.6 by 0.3 meters. The enclosure isconstructed of a few rounded and sub-rounded basalt cobbles and boulders. The site is in fair togood condition, with a few boulders missing at the southeast corner of the enclosure. Given thenature of the construction, Feature 36 appears to be a burial site.
Figure 30: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 36. View to the southeast.
Feature 37 is a boulder terrace that measures 6.0 by 4.8 (inclusive of the retaining walland level portion of the terrace) by 1.4 meters. The retaining wall is constructed of rounded andsub-rounded basalt pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Feature 37 is in good condition and likely of
pre-contact origin. It may potentially have functioned as a habitation terrace.
Figure 31: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (terrace). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
47/133
40
Figure 32: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 37.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
48/133
41
Feature 38 is a series of terraces, located to the west of Feature 37. Feature 38 hasirregular retaining walls, constructed primarily of large, sub-angular boulders. The feature iscomprised of three main tiers, with a concentration of sub-rounded cobble at the center. Theoverall dimensions of Feature 38 are 7.0 by 5.0 by 0.7 meters. This feature is in fair to goodcondition, but its function is indeterminate.
Figure 33: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (portion of terraces). View to east.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
49/133
42
Figure 34: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 38.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
50/133
43
Site 6841 Features 39-46
The study team also surveyed and collected limited information from several otherfeatures from Site 6841. Features 39-46 are a series of terrace remnants and mounds constructedof small to large, round and sub-angular boulders. These features are irregular and in various
stages of preservation. Of particular note, Feature 46 is a long, well-preserved terrace andretaining wall constructed of medium to large boulders, located to the southwest of Feature 6.Further investigation indicated that Feature 6 extends several meters towards the west, beyondthe previously documented limits to that feature.
The lack of information on Features 39-46 highlights the problems presented by theextremely limited amount of time allocated for the Stryker studies. This also reinforces the factthat there are still numerous sites and site features that require proper identification, evaluation,and assessment in Stryker project areas.
Figure 35: SIHP 6841, Feature 42 (terrace) Figure 36: SIHP 6841, Feature 44 (terrace)
Figure 37: SIHP 6841, Feature 46 (retaining wall) Figure 38: SIHP 6841, Feature 47 (mound)
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
51/133
44
SIHP Number: 6844
Temporary Number: N/A
Number of Features: 4 (Features 2-4 discussed)
Form: Terraces and a hearth
Function: Various
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: Upon surveying the previously identified, single feature of SIHP 6844, a terrace,the survey team discovered three additional features at the site. These additional features are:Feature 2 (hearth), Feature 3 (terrace), and Feature 4 (terrace). SIHP 6844 is located at the
eastern end of Mohikea Plateau.
Feature 2 is a small, rock-lined hearth measuring 0.8 by 0.8 by 0.1 meters. The rocklining consists of rounded and sub-rounded cobble and small boulders, which are red due torepeated exposures to fire. The hearth is located approximately six meters east of the previouslyidentified Feature 1. Feature 2 is in good condition.
Feature 3 is a terrace measuring 7.0 by 4.7 (the width refers to the area from the retainingwall to the end of the leveled portion of the site) by 0.4 meters. The retaining face is constructedof rounded and sub-rounded cobble and basalt boulders. Feature 3 appears to be a habitationfeature constructed in pre-contact times and remains in good condition.
Figure 39: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 3 (terrace). View to the north.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
52/133
45
Figure 40: Plan view map of SIHP 6844, Feature 3.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
53/133
46
Feature 4 of SIHP 6844 is a large terrace constructed of rounded and sub-rounded cobbleand boulders. This feature has a length of 21.0 meters, a width ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 meters,and a height ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 meters. The central portion of Feature 4, measuringapproximately 3.0 to 4.0 meters long, is stacked 4 to 6 tiers high, with a large, flat-slab boulderplaced at the top. Feature 4 is in fair condition and likely served as a habitation site.
Figure 41: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 4 (terrace). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
54/133
47
SIHP Number: 6846
Temporary Number: GANDA T-195
Number of Features: 3 (Feature 3 discussed)
Form: Alignment
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: The survey team visited SIHP 6846 to confirm the site description provided in theGANDA report. Although GANDA performed adequate survey work on Features 1 and 2, the2005 report incorrectly identified a feature, T-221, as a natural occurrence. After the SA
surveys, however, T-221 was deemed an archaeological feature that should be incorporated intothe larger nearby complex, SIHP 6846. Thus, the OHA survey team and lead archeologistrenumbered T-221 to SIHP 6846, Feature 3. Feature 3 was photographed but not mappeddue to time limitations in the field. Photographs of the site, as well as recommendations forprotection and further evaluations of the site are contained in the Monahan Report, pages 111-115.
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
55/133
48
Temporary Number: DPW T-6 (temporary Army number)
Number of Features: Undetermined
Form: Possible habitation
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 40.0 35.0 m
Description: DPW T-6 is a terrace that was examined by the survey team on the last workingday of field surveys. The surveyors were unable to examine most of the site or record GPScoordinates because of the dense tree canopy and weather conditions. Instead, the team soughtto better identify and gauge the condition of the site.
The site is in poor to fair condition, showing a substantial amount of impacts from Armyactivities. The Monahan Report details an additional five features found at site DPW T-6.
Figure 42: Plan view map of DPW T-6, Feature 1 (terrace).
T-6
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
56/133
49
Temporary Number: DPW T-9
Number of Features: 4
Form: Enclosure, alignments, and boulder stacking
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: DPW T-9 is a group of features, located on the slopes of Kalena plateau. All ofthe features are out in the open and have suffered damage from ordnance, firearms, and otherArmy-related activities. No age or functional interpretations were made because the conditionand form of the features make them difficult to analyze. The Army had not formally describedthis site, so the survey team sought to confirm that DPW T-9 was an archeological site.
Feature 1 is comprised of two sub-features: Feature 1A (enclosure) and Feature 1B(alignment). Feature 1 includes a gap between Features 1A and 1B, although the survey teamwas unable to determine whether this was a result of construction design or erosion. Feature 1Ais an enclosure, which measures 36.2 by 0.5 meters, with a height ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 meters.Feature 1A contains upright and rounded boulders stacked 1 to 3 tiers high. Feature 1B is aroughly-stacked alignment, which measures 23.0 by 0.5 meters, with a height ranging from 0.3to 0.8 meters. Feature 1B contains rounded boulders stacked one tier high. Feature 1 is in faircondition and has been heavily impacted by ordnance. The Monahan Report provides a GPSmap of DPW T-9, which shows the relations between the sites features. (Monahan Report at
124).
Figure 43: Photo of DPW T-9, Feature 1A (enclosure). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
57/133
50
Feature 2 is an alignment measuring 23.0 by 0.5 meters, with a height range from 0.1 to0.2 meters. This feature runs parallel to Feature 1B to the east. Feature 2 is constructed of asingle tier of small to medium, sub-rounded boulders, but has suffered substantial damage fromordnance.
Figure 44: Photo of DPW T-9, Feature 1 (enclosure, alignment; left), Feature 2 (alignment; far right),and Feature 3 (stack; foreground). View to the north.
Feature 3 of DPW T-9 is a boulder with sub-rounded cobble stacked atop its surface. The
feature, inclusive of the boulder and cobble, measures 1.4 by 1.2 by 0.6 meters. A possiblegrinding stone, broken into two pieces, was found near the stack. Feature 3 is similar to severalother features located on Kalena plateau, of unknown function and purpose; it is in faircondition.
Feature 4 is a large boulder, with two smaller boulders stacked on its surface. Thisfeature measures 2.2 by 1.1 by 0.6 meters. Feature 4 is in fair condition, having suffered damageby ordnance impacts. Its function is unknown. The Monahan Report contains photographs ofFeatures 3 and 4. (Monahan Report at 126-27).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
58/133
51
Temporary Number: DPW T-10
Number of Features: 2
Form: Terraces
Function: Possible habitation
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: Site DPW T-10 was visited for reevaluation purposes. The site consists of Feature1, a previously identified soil and stone terrace, and Feature 2, a newly identified earthen terrace.Both features appear to be pre-contact in nature.
Feature 1A is a terrace with a retaining wall, with dimensions of 13.5 by 1.0 meters, with
a height range of 0.3 to 0.6 meters. Feature 1A was constructed of boulders stacked 2 to 3 tiershigh. The second sub-feature, Feature 1B, consists of two small boulders arranged at a rightangle, located near the southern boundary of DPW T-10. The terrace created by the retainingwall measures approximately 14.5 by 4.0 by 5.5 meters. Both Features 1A and 1B are in fair togood condition.
Figure 45: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1A (retaining wall, terrace). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
59/133
52
Figure 46: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1B (unknown). View to the west.
Figure 47: Plan view map of DPW T-10, Feature 1A and 1B.
Feature 2 is an earthen terrace, measuring 8.0 by 4.0 meters. No surface stonearchitecture is visible at the feature. Feature 2 is in good condition and may have served ahabitation function.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
60/133
53
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-1
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Petroglyph
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 0.65 0.39 0.23 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-1 consists of an etched basalt boulder with parallel horizontalstriations, which are light and difficult to discern. The petroglyph has been heavily impacted bytraining and construction activities; it appears to have been moved recently due to the exposediron sediment staining along the right half of the boulder. The boulder is located close to abulldozed road and construction trenches.
Figure 48: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-1 (petroglyph). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
61/133
54
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-2
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Petroglyph
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 1.10 0.50 0.63 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-2 consists of an etched basalt boulder with linear striations.Markings are located on the north side of a boulder and cover an area of at least 70 cm2. Theboulder has visible iron staining and bulldozer scars, indicating that it was recently moved. Thedisturbed sediment of the surrounding area and large-scale construction activities in the vicinityalso suggest that the boulder has been moved from its original location.
Figure 49: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-2 (petroglyph). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
62/133
55
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-3
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Possible petroglyph
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 1.10 0.50 0.63 m
Description: A potential small etching area is located on the lower end of the boulder on itssouth face. The markings cover an area of 30 cm2,but are difficult to discern. Similar toSWCA-BAX-TS-1 and TS-2, iron sediment from lithic weathering is evident on the lowersection of the boulder, indicating that it has been moved from its original location. The boulderhas been highly impacted by ordnance and gunfire, and evinces ground-altering activities aroundthe site.
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
63/133
56
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-4
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Possible petroglyph
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 0.70 0.65 0.42 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-4 consists of an etching of four, horizontal incisions. Totaletched area equals 30 to 40 cm2, appearing on the north face of the boulder. SWCA-BAX-TS-4sustained substantial damage from ordnance and gunfire. The feature shows no obvious signs ofrecent construction damage and appears to be in primary context (i.e., not moved since etchingdecoration occurred).
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
64/133
57
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-5
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Possible petroglyph
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 0.65 0.63 0.26 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-5 consists of an etching of a number of incisions runningsouthwest to northeast on a small boulder. The incisions are located on the top of the boulder, inplain view, and cover 25 by 40 centimeters or a total area of 1000 cm2. Although there are noclear signs of construction damage, the boulder is small in size and easily transported, andtherefore may not be in its primary context.
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
65/133
58
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (also referenced as DPW 25 and T12 in previousreports)
Number of Features: 1
Form:Incised boulder
Function: Petroglyph
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 1.55 1.20 0.55 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-6 consists of two etched or chiseled petroglyph features situatedon a large boulder. On the south face, near the ground, are at least three bird-like figurespointing toward the west. Below the bird figures are two horizontal incisions and possiblyanother incomplete etching that is difficult to discern. The bird etchings were covered in iron-stained sediment from weathering rock, indicating that they were previously below the surfaceand only recently uncovered.
Figure 50: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing bird-like patterns). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
66/133
59
On the southwest side of the same boulder is an etched concentric circle. The markingmeasures 18 by 14 centimeters; the design opens to the sky and may have been left unfinished.The boulder also exhibits several old bullet marks. Although the surrounding area has beenaltered, the boulder does not appear to have been impacted by recent construction activities.
Figure 51: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing concentric circle). View to the northwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
67/133
60
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-7
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Possible petroglyph
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 0.34 0.26 0.17 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-7 is a small boulder with a number of parallel linear incisionsmeasuring 5 by 15 centimeters. The boulder was fractured in the past and was likely movedfrom its primary context. There was evidence of recent, large-scale ground alterations in thearea. The striations may have been produced as a byproduct of tool-working. The MonahanReport features a picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-7 and its surrounding area. (Monahan Report at150-51).
Figure 52: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-4 (petroglyph). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
68/133
61
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-8
Number of Features: 1
Form: Incised boulder
Function: Petroglyph
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 0.83 0.51 0.26 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-8 is a petroglyph on a medium-sized basalt boulder. The totaletching is 15 by 25 centimeters. Unlike many of the other petroglyphs that feature linearstriations, SWCA-BAX-TS-8 is shaped like an upside down pitchfork, making it an anomalyamong other petroglyphs found on the range.
Figure 53: SWCA-BAX-TS-8 (petroglyph). View to the north.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
69/133
62
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-9
Number of Features: 1
Form: Alignment/stacked boulders
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 10.0 4.0 1.8 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-9 is a site comprised of boulders stacked and aligned aroundseveral, naturally situated basalt boulders. The large boulder is almost flat and may have someaesthetic or utilitarian function. The enclosure would be too small for any type of permanentdwelling. Although the function of SWCA-BAX-TS-9 is unknown without further analysis, theshape and construction suggests its use as a temporary habitation or a burial site. The MonahanReport describes a second feature, a pair of upright boulders, to the south (and outside of theframe to the left in Figure 54) of the feature described above. (Monahan Report at 155).
Figure 54: SWCA-BAX-T-S9 (stacked boulders). View to the west.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
70/133
63
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-10
Number of Features: 4
Form: Enclosure, alignment, and trail
Function: Various
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-10 is comprised of four features that have been combined intoone site due to their proximity. These features are located in the open atop a high plateau,located below the firebreak road. The Monahan Report posits the function of TS-10 as ahabitation site inhabited by the caretakers of the loi at SIHP 5381.
Features 1A to 1D form a large enclosure measuring 20.0 by 5.0 by 0.3 meters, orientedroughly north/south east/west. The enclosure is constructed of small to large, rounded basaltboulders that are stacked 1 to 2 tiers high. Based on the style of its construction and location,Feature 1 is likely a pre-contact habitation complex and is in good condition.
Figure 55: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D (enclosure). View to the east.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
71/133
64
Figure 56: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
72/133
65
Feature 2 is a rock alignment measuring 20.0 by 1.0 by 0.8 meters, located to the west ofFeature 1. Feature 2 has large upright boulders at its north end, with smaller basalt boulders andcobble at its south end. The alignment is stacked 2 to 3 tiers high in certain places. Althoughthis feature is in close proximity to Feature 1, its function is more ambiguous and without furtheranalysis, its interpretation will remain undetermined. The Monahan Report provides a
description of the building technique employed at this feature. (Monahan Report at 162).
Figure 57: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2 (alignment). View to the south.
Figure 58: Schematic drawing of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
73/133
66
Feature 3 is a terrace and a possible trail, characterized by three sub-features. Thisfeature has a length of 19.0 meters, a width ranging from 4.0 to 6.0 meters, and a height of 0.5meters. Feature 3A is a low-stacked retaining wall, with an area of level soil surface to the east.Feature 3A is believed to be the remnant of a trail segment. Feature 3B is a low stone andboulder alignment, located to the northeast of Feature 3A. Feature 3C is a retaining wall located
to the northwest of Feature 3A. Feature 3C creates an area of level soil to the east of the Feature3A. A fragment of a kukui oil lamp or cobble stone bowl was found near Feature 3A.
Figure 59: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3 (terrace, possible trail). View to the east.
Feature 4 is a trail segment constructed of rounded basalt cobbles and boulders, locatedapproximately seven meters north of Feature 3. The segment measures 9.0 by 2.5 meters, with a
height ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 meters. The trail has a width of 0.8 to 1.0 meters, with an interiorpartially paved with cobble. Although the age of Feature 4 is indeterminate, its constructionsuggests a trail function. Feature 4 is in good condition.
Figure 60: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4 (trail). View to the east.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
74/133
67
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-11
Number of Features: 1
Form: Alignment
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): 20.0 5.0 0.3 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-11 is a partially buried, linear rock alignment that runs upslopefrom SIHP 5381 to nearby SIHP 6561. The feature runs upslope for approximately twenty-fivemeters and then turns east, thus creating a terrace retaining wall. The function of TS-11 isindeterminate, although the site remains in fair condition.
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
75/133
68
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-12
Number of Features: 9
Form: Terraces, mounds, auwai, enclosure
Function: Various
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-12 is a group of nine, spatially related features that share similarform and construction materials. The terraces, mounds, auwai, and enclosure may be indicativeof an agricultural site, although the Monahan Report suggests that SWCA-BAX-TS-12 mayrepresent a burial mound complex. (Monahan Report at 176-84).
Feature 1 is a terrace, with an area measuring 9 m2 and a height ranging from 0.5 to 0.6meters. Feature 1 contains two sub-features: a small depression at its southeast corner and ananomaly in the western portion where the surface cobble has been cleared. The cobble clearingmeasures approximately 4 m2. The feature is in fair condition, but its function is indeterminate.
Figure 61: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
76/133
69
Figure 62: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
77/133
70
Feature 2 is a terrace measuring 15.0 by 5.5 meters, with a height ranging from 0.1 to 0.2meters. Constructed of rounded cobble, Feature 2 is the furthest east feature of TS-12. Thefeature is in poor condition; no photo of Feature 2 is available.
Feature 3 is a series of at least thirty-eight mounds composed of rounded basalt pebbles
to small boulders. Because time did not allow for documentation of each mound, Feature 3Awas examined as it appeared to be the largest mound of those discovered at the site. Feature 3Ameasures 2.3 meters in diameter and has a maximum height of 0.3 meters. An adze preform wasencountered within Feature 3A. The mound complex is likely pre-contact in nature and mayrepresent a large burial complex. Feature 3A is in fair condition and the remaining thirty-sevenmounds ranged from good to poor condition.
Figure 63: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 3A (mound). View to the southwest.
Features 4, 5, and 6 are three terraces located upslope and to the west from Feature 3.The exposed faces of the retaining walls are constructed of rounded to sub-rounded cobble,which each support leveled earthen terraces. The terraces are in fair condition and, like theconcentration of mounds comprising Feature 3, are likely pre-contact in origin. A basalt core
was encountered within the boundaries of Feature 4.
Feature 7 is a terrace measuring 1.0 meters in width, with a height ranging from 0.3 to 0.4meters, and is located at the south end of the mound complex of Feature 3. The retaining wall ofFeature 7 is constructed of rounded to sub-rounded, basalt cobbles, and boulders. Feature 7likely served to protect portions of Feature 3 from a nearby watercourse. Due to its spatialrelationship to other large, pre-contact features in the vicinity, Feature 7 is likely a pre-contact
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
78/133
71
feature as well. The feature remains in overall fair condition, as it has had some portions of theretaining wall collapse and has been further damaged by tree growth.
Feature 8 is either a manmade auwai (irrigation ditch) or a natural waterway created byoverflow from nearby Mohikea Stream. Feature 8 is an earthen feature with no obvious stone
construction, measuring 1.0 meters wide and with a maximum depth of 0.5 meters. The age andcondition of the feature are indeterminate, as this proposed feature may be the result of a naturaloccurrence.
Feature 9 is a small, circular stone enclosure located nearby to Feature 1. Constructed ofsmall, rounded boulders, Feature 9 measures 1.2 by 1.1 by 0.1 meters. The site has beenpartially buried by surface sediment, making it difficult to interpret without additional sub-surface archeological work. The feature is in fair condition, but its age and function areindeterminate.
Figure 64: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9 (enclosure). View to the south.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
79/133
72
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-14. Previously referred to as DPW CM 364 (Feature 1)and DPW CM 365 (Feature 2)
Number of Features: 4
Form:Terraces
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Indeterminate
Dimensions (max): Various
Description: After surveying two terraces, previously recorded as DPW CM 364 and DPW CM365, and finding two similar features in close proximity, the OHA and SWCA survey teamsdecided to designate all four features as site SWCA-BAX-TS-14, which included Features 1-2and newly identified Features 3-4. The survey team renumbered the sites because they wanted toidentify the features as archaeological sites and recognize the common construction style andspatial relationship between each feature of a single site.
Feature 1, formerly referred to as DPW CM 364, is a terrace consisting of a stacked stoneretaining wall and a leveled area. The feature measures 6.0 by 4.0 meters, with a height range of0.4 to 0.6 meters for the retaining wall. The retaining wall is constructed of rounded and sub-rounded basalt cobbles and boulders stacked 1 to 2 courses high. The feature is in goodcondition, despite substantial damage from ordnance and gunfire.
Figure 65: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature1 (terrace). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
80/133
73
Feature 2, formerly referred to as DPW CM 365, is a terrace measuring 1.4 by 1.2 by 0.6meters. The width of Feature 2 refers to the level area upslope from the retaining wall. Feature2 is constructed of medium, sub-rounded boulders stacked 1 to 2 tiers high. Feature 2 is in poorcondition, likely due to impacts related to Army training, ordnance, and gunfire.
Figure 66: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2 (terrace). View to the west.
Like Feature 2, Feature 3 is a terrace constructed of medium-sized boulders, measuring
10.0 by 4.0 by 0.5 meters, with a width that represents the measurement of the level area upslopeof the retaining wall. Feature 3 is in poor condition, having been impacted by ordnance.
The final feature of site SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 4, is similar to the terraces ofFeatures 2 and 3. Feature 4 also measures 10.0 by 4.0 by 0.5 meters and shares the sameconstruction style and condition as Features 2 and 3.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
81/133
74
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-15. Previously referred to as DPW TS 216
Number of Features: 1
Form: Terrace
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 12.7 3.0 0.4 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-15 is a terrace with a retaining wall constructed of boulders. Thesite is in poor condition and has been heavily impacted by military-related activities.
The survey team revisited the site, formerly referred to as DPW TS 216, in order toconfirm its status as an archaeological site. In previous surveys, Army archeologists had
described the site as a natural feature or a cultural monitor site, but had not considered the siteeligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site, although badly damaged,is an archaeological site and likely has subsurface integrity. The Monahan Report recommendsthe site as unevaluated and potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. (Monahan Report at192).
No photo available
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
82/133
75
Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-16
Number of Features: 1
Form: Mound
Function: Indeterminate
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions (max): 2.2 2.3 0.2 m
Description: SWCA-BAX-TS-16 is a small mound constructed of rounded and sub-roundedbasalt cobble and small boulders. The mound has been heavily impacted by military-relatedactivities and is in poor to fair condition. An adze fragment was found on the surface of thefeature, which suggests the feature may contain sub-surface deposits around its base. TheMonahan Report recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-16 be avoided and Phase I excavation to assistin a NRHP eligibility determination.
Figure 67: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-16 (mound). View to the southwest.
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
83/133
76
B.Artifacts Found at BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition)Temporary Number: BAX-T-A1 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-5 in Monahan Report)
Form:Worked basalt fragment
Function: Adze preform
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions: Not taken by OHA survey team
Description: BAX-T-A1 is an adze preform found at the base of a small prominence justsoutheast of BAX-TS-9. The provenance for BAX-T-A1 is unknown.
-
Figure 68: Photo of BAX-T-A1 (SWCA-BAX-IF-5).
-
8/6/2019 OHA Stryker Survey Report
84/133
77
Temporary Number: BAX-T-A2 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-2 in Monahan Report)
Form: Polished basalt
Function: Adze
Age: Pre-contact
Dimensions: 4.0 2.4 1.0 cm
Description: BAX-T-A2 was found on a flattened portion of a small hill, just west of SIHP 50-80-04-6562. T