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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/133

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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.


21/133

14

Figure 4: Diagram of cross-section of SIHP 5381, Features 4, 5C, and 6C (loi).


22/133

15

SIHP Number: 5448 (South Range)


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.


23/133

16

SIHP Number: 6687



Form: Terraces and mound

Function: Various

Age: 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.


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.


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.


26/133

19

SIHP Number: 6688


Number of Features: 1

Form: Enclosure

Function: Indeterminate

Age: Indeterminate


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.


27/133

20

SIHP Number: 6835



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


28/133

21

SIHP Number: 6841



Form: Various

Function: Various

Age: Pre-contact


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.


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.


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.


31/133

24

Figure 13: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 24 and 25.


32/133

25

Figure 14: Profile of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, depicting upright stacking at southern end of Feature 24.(See also Figure 11).


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.


34/133

27



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).


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).


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).


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).


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.


40/133

33

Figure 22: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 31A and B.


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.


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).


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.


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.


45/133

38

Figure 29: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (enclosure, possible burial).


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.


47/133

40



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.


49/133

42



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)


51/133

44

SIHP Number: 6844



Form: Terraces and a hearth

Function: Various

Age: Pre-contact


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.


52/133

45



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.


54/133

47

SIHP Number: 6846

Temporary Number: GANDA T-195


Form: Alignment


Age: Pre-contact


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


55/133

48

Temporary Number: DPW T-6 (temporary Army number)

Number of Features: Undetermined

Form: Possible habitation


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


56/133

49

Temporary Number: DPW T-9


Form: Enclosure, alignments, and boulder stacking


Age: Indeterminate


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.


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).


58/133

51

Temporary Number: DPW T-10


Form: Terraces

Function: Possible habitation

Age: Pre-contact


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.


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.


60/133

53

Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-1


Form: Incised boulder

Function: Petroglyph

Age: Indeterminate


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.


61/133

54





Age: Pre-contact


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.


62/133

55




Function: Possible petroglyph

Age: Indeterminate


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


63/133

56





Age: Indeterminate


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


64/133

57





Age: Indeterminate


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


65/133

58

Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (also referenced as DPW 25 and T12 in previousreports)


Form:Incised boulder


Age: Pre-contact


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.


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.


67/133

60





Age: Indeterminate


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.


68/133

61





Age: Pre-contact


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.


69/133

62



Form: Alignment/stacked boulders


Age: Indeterminate


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.


70/133

63



Form: Enclosure, alignment, and trail

Function: Various

Age: Pre-contact


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.


71/133

64

Figure 56: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D.


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.


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.


74/133

67



Form: Alignment


Age: Indeterminate


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


75/133

68



Form: Terraces, mounds, auwai, enclosure

Function: Various

Age: Indeterminate


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.


76/133

69

Figure 62: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1.


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


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.


79/133

72

Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-14. Previously referred to as DPW CM 364 (Feature 1)and DPW CM 365 (Feature 2)


Form:Terraces


Age: Indeterminate


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.


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.


81/133

74

Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-15. Previously referred to as DPW TS 216


Form: Terrace


Age: Pre-contact


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


82/133

75



Form: Mound


Age: Pre-contact


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.


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).


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

oha stryker survey report

Documents