OHA Stryker Survey Report Compliance Monitoring

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

February 2011

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: The Proposed Stryker Transformation .......................................................................... 4 A. B. C. A. B. C. D. E. F. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966....................................... 5 Stryker Brigade Transformation Project Programmatic Agreement ............................... 6 OHA Litigation and Settlement Agreement .................................................................... 8 Site Descriptions for the BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition) ......................... 11 Artifacts Found at BAX and QTR2 (South Range Acquisition) ................................... 76 Site Descriptions for the Kahuku Training Area ........................................................... 89 Artifacts Found at KTA ............................................................................................... 107 Site Descriptions for the PTA ...................................................................................... 108 Artifacts Found at PTA ................................................................................................ 111

Chapter II: OHA Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 10

Chapter III: Issues Associated with Historical Properties Affected by the Stryker Brigade Transformation Project ......................................................................................................... 114 A. i. ii. B. C. D. Unidentified Historic Properties and Cultural Resources ............................................ 115 Temporary site SCS 31, 32, 33, 34 and SWCA-KTA-TS-3 at Kahuku Training Area ..................................................................................................................... 119 SIHP 50-80-08-5448, Near QTR II, South Range .............................................. 120 Area of Potential Effect Underestimates Scope of SBCT Impacts .............................. 122 Arbitrary Decisions on Areas Deemed Unsafe for Survey .......................................... 123 Reports Left in Draft Form .......................................................................................... 124

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 126

ii

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. ......... 13 Figure 4: Diagram of cross-section of SIHP 5381, Features 4, 5C, and 6C (loi). ...................... 14 Figure 5: Photo of SIHP 5448, Feature 11 (terrace). View to the northwest. ............................. 15 Figure 6: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 6 (terrace). View to the west. ....................................... 16 Figure 7: Plan view map of SIHP 6687, Feature 6. ..................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Photo of SIHP 6687, Feature 7 (mound). View to the east. ........................................ 17 Figure 9: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure), taken at the eastern end of enclosure near feature entrance. View to the east. ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 10: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at the eastern end of enclosure near main entrance. View to the west. .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 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. ........................ 23 Figure 12: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at northern portion of enclosure near main entrance. View to the west. .................................................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 24 and 25. .................................................... 24 Figure 14: Profile of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, depicting upright stacking at southern end of Feature 24. (See also Figure 11). ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 15: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (burial site). View to the south. ............................. 26 Figure 16: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 25. ................................................................. 27 Figure 17: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (wall, terrace). .......................................... 28 Figure 18: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform). ................................................ 29 Figure 19: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (terrace, wall). .......................................... 30 Figure 20: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (terrace, wall). .......................................... 31 Figure 21: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31A (mound, possible burial) in foreground. View to the west. .................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 22: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Features 31A and B. .................................................. 33 Figure 23: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31B (terrace) in foreground. View to the southwest. . 34 Figure 24: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (terraces). ................................................. 35 Figure 25: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33A (mound, possible burial). View to the west........ 36 Figure 26: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (boulder, portion of terrace). View to the west. . 36 Figure 27: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 33B (flat boulder at base of terrace). View to the west. 37 Figure 28: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (portion of alignment). View to the northeast. ...... 37 Figure 29: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (enclosure, possible burial). ..................... 38 Figure 30: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 36. View to the southeast. .......................................... 39 iii

Figure 31: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (terrace). View to the southwest. .......................... 39 Figure 32: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 37. ................................................................. 40 Figure 33: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (portion of terraces). View to east......................... 41 Figure 34: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 38. ................................................................. 42 Figure 35: SIHP 6841, Feature 42 (terrace) .................................................................................. 43 Figure 36: SIHP 6841, Feature 44 (terrace) ................................................................................. 43 Figure 37: SIHP 6841, Feature 46 (retaining wall)...................................................................... 43 Figure 38: SIHP 6841, Feature 47 (mound)................................................................................. 43 Figure 39: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 3 (terrace). View to the north. .................................... 44 Figure 40: Plan view map of SIHP 6844, Feature 3. ................................................................... 45 Figure 41: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 4 (terrace). View to the south. .................................... 46 Figure 42: Plan view map of DPW T-6, Feature 1 (terrace)........................................................ 48 Figure 43: Photo of DPW T-9, Feature 1A (enclosure). View to the south. .............................. 49 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. ................................................ 50 Figure 45: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1A (retaining wall, terrace). View to the southwest. . 51 Figure 46: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1B (unknown). View to the west. .............................. 52 Figure 47: Plan view map of DPW T-10, Feature 1A and 1B. .................................................... 52 Figure 48: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-1 (petroglyph). View to the southwest. ........................ 53 Figure 49: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-2 (petroglyph). View to the southwest. ........................ 54 Figure 51: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing bird-like patterns). View to the southwest................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 52: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing concentric circle). View to the northwest. ................................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 50: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-4 (petroglyph). View to the south. ............................... 60 Figure 53: SWCA-BAX-TS-8 (petroglyph). View to the north. ................................................ 61 Figure 54: SWCA-BAX-T-S9 (stacked boulders). View to the west. ........................................ 62 Figure 55: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D (enclosure). View to the east. ........ 63 Figure 56: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Features 1A-1D........................................... 64 Figure 57: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2 (alignment). View to the south. ................ 65 Figure 58: Schematic drawing of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2. ............................................. 65 Figure 59: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3 (terrace, possible trail). View to the east. . 66 Figure 60: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4 (trail). View to the east............................. 66 Figure 61: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the south. ..................... 68 Figure 62: Plan view map of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1. .................................................... 69 Figure 63: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 3A (mound). View to the southwest. .......... 70 Figure 64: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9 (enclosure). View to the south. ................ 71 Figure 65: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature1 (terrace). View to the southwest. .............. 72 Figure 66: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2 (terrace). View to the west. ...................... 73 Figure 67: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-16 (mound). View to the southwest. .............................. 75 Figure 68: Photo of BAX-T-A1 (SWCA-BAX-IF-5).................................................................. 76 Figure 69: Photo of BAX-T-A2 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2).................................................................. 77 iv

Figure 70: Photo of BAX-T-A3 (SWCA-BAX-IF-3).................................................................. 78 Figure 71: Photo of BAX-T-A4 (SWCA-BAX-IF-4).................................................................. 79 Figure 72: Photo of BAX-T-A5 (SWCA-BAX-IF-8).................................................................. 80 Figure 73: Photo of BAX-T-A6 (SWCA-BAX-IF-6).................................................................. 81 Figure 74: Photo of BAX-T-A7 (SWCA-BAX-IF-10)................................................................ 82 Figure 75: Photo of BAX-T-A9 (SWCA-BAX-IF-9).................................................................. 83 Figure 76: Photo of BAX-T-A10 (SWCA-BAX-IF-7)................................................................ 84 Figure 77: Photo of BAX-T-A11 (SWCA-BAX-IF-12).............................................................. 85 Figure 78: Photo of BAX-T-A12 (SWCA-BAX-IF-11).............................................................. 86 Figure 79: Photo of QTR2-T-A1 (coral artifact). ........................................................................ 88 Figure 80: GIS map depicting the sites visited during OHAs KTA survey (2009).................... 89 Figure 81: Photo of SWCA-KTA TS-1 (portion of a mound). View to the east. ....................... 90 Figure 82: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the east. ......................... 93 Figure 83: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2 (clearing), and 3 (cubby-hole, background). View to the southwest...................................................................................... 93 Figure 84: Plan view map of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2, 3, 7. ......................................... 94 Figure 85: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 (terrace). View to the northeast. .................................. 95 Figure 86: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 (rock shelter). View to the west. ................ 96 Figure 87: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 (rock shelter). View to the northeast. ......... 97 Figure 88: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2. View to the south. ..................................... 97 Figure 89: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 3 (modified outcrop). View to the southwest. 98 Figure 90: GANDA T-2 (kohe stone). View to the east. ............................................................ 99 Figure 91: Photo of GANDA T-8 (portion of mound). View to the south. .............................. 100 Figure 92: GANDA T-13 (phallic stone). View to the east. ..................................................... 102 Figure 93: Photo of GANDA KTA T-22 (enclosure). View to the west. ................................. 103 Figure 94: Plan view map of GANDA T-22. ............................................................................. 104 Figure 95: Photo of SCS T-33 (platform). Note the stone facing. View to the northeast........ 106 Figure 96: Photo of SCS T-33. View to the north. ................................................................... 106 Figure 97: Photo of KTA-T-A1 (kukui oil lamp perform). ...................................................... 107 Figure 98: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1 (modified basalt outcrop). View to the northwest. .... 110 Figure 99: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1. View to the northwest. .............................................. 110 Figure 100: Volcanic glass blade. .............................................................................................. 112 Figure 101: Volcanic glass core................................................................................................. 112 Figure 102: Basalt mortar, side view. ........................................................................................ 112 Figure 103: Basalt mortar, proximal end. .................................................................................. 112 Figure 104: Wooden blade. ........................................................................................................ 112 Figure 105: Wooden blade. ........................................................................................................ 112 Figure 106: Wood debris. .......................................................................................................... 113 Figure 107: Bird stone for cooking. ........................................................................................... 113 Figure 108: Worked wooden implement. .................................................................................. 113 Figure 109: Ti slipper................................................................................................................. 113 Figure 110: Results of the Armys final GANDA archaeological survey (2003). .................... 116 v

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 survey results. ................................................................................................................................... 118

vi

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

vii

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 1

(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

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.

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.

A. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Section 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] a reasonable 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 the needs of Federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties 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 to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek 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 and Native 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.

B. Stryker Brigade Transformation Project Programmatic Agreement

From 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 a programmatic 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 1415). 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 of traditional religious and cultural importance, including burials and landscapes, play in the lives 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, and provided to the Installation. These services will be obtained in accordance with applicable 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

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.

C. OHA Litigation and Settlement Agreement

On 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 of Hawaii. 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 of Hawaiian Affairs v. Rumsfeld to 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.

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.

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.

10

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)

11

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 large plateaus of the Schofield Barracks impact area. Although previous surface surveys adequately documented 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 SIHP 5381 and the inadequate recognition of the site in previous survey reports. (Monahan Report at 24-38). The OHA and SWCA survey teams did not map Features 4-8 of SIHP 5381 due to time constraints. Instead, the positions of the features were recorded using a handheld GPS unit. (See Figure 1). The terraces are primarily of earthen construction and most have no visible boulders in 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 8 consists of two sub-fields. The retaining walls for the smaller terraces of Features 5A-5E, 6A6E, 7A-7E, and 8A-8B vary in height from 10 to 80 centimeters. Features 4-8 of SIHP 5381 are in 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 the wetland garden plots. The wetland terraces of SIHP 5381 would have had excellent potential for producing ample kalo for the surrounding communities.

12

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.

13

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

14

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 burial complex (Feature 6) atop a bluff located at an area known as Poupouwela. SIHP 5448 contains a number 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 surface with an area of approximately 25 m2. During previous work at SIHP 5448, Army surveyors found 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 was located at the southwest end of the bluff (QTR2-T-A1). In addition, the Monahan Report also notes 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.

15

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, just south from the existing firebreak road. As surveys at SIHP 6687 progressed, it became evident that 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 0.5 meters. The terrace is constructed of cobbles and boulders stacked two to three high, which create a partial enclosure with an opening to the north. The level surface created by the terrace measures approximately 20 m2. Feature 6 is in fair condition, as bullets and ordnance have impacted the terrace retaining wall. Feature 6 likely dates to pre-contact period and would have likely served a habitation function. Due to the slope of the ground, feature construction appears to 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.

16

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 Feature 7 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.

17

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 in fair 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 6 and 8, Feature 9 is constructed of basalt cobbles and boulders. This feature was likely constructed in pre-contact times and is in poor condition, displaying several peck marks from bullets or ordnance. The Monahan Report describes another terrace, referenced as Feature 10, located in close-proximity to Feature 9. The Monahan Report also provides additional site descriptions and maps of SIHP 6687.

18

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 Kalena plateau, just south of a steep buff and east of SIHP 6687. The enclosure, constructed of boulder and 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 wall remnant. Thus, SIHP 6688 has the form of an enclosure rather than a set of walls. The Monahan Report provides additional information about SIHP 6688, including an account of the conflicting information about this site from previous Army surveys. SIHP 6688 has been heavily impacted by military training activities and is in poor condition. The enclosed space contains a large amount of metal debris and ordnance; there are also visible remnants of cars and track vehicles that were likely previously used as targets.

19

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 3.0 meters. The feature was previously interpreted as a possible burial but was not photographed in the 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 a site impacted by firing range activities. (Monahan Report at 16-17).

No photo available

20

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 and Kalena 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 omitted from previous reports. Although subsurface testing was not performed as part of the survey, SIHP 6841 appears to have served as a multi-functional complex that supported a variety of activities for many individuals or families. The waterway that formed the gulch was dry during the months of January to July. Thus, it does not appear that the gulch would have housed large loi unless water was previously delivered from another source. Gardening, habitation, and possibly animal husbandry were likely the main functions of SIHP 6841, with large-scale kalo cultivation taking place 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 the time restrictions imposed on the survey work, the survey team performed only rudimentary recordation, particularly for those features discovered near the end of the schedule. Feature 24 is a large enclosure of irregular shape, measuring approximately 40 by 30 meters. The enclosure is relatively level on its southeastern end, an area of roughly 300 m2. The remaining area of Feature 24 is moderately sloped. The surface architecture of this featurea wallvaries between 1 to 4 tiers of boulder stacking, with materials ranging from rounded and sub-rounded boulders to very large in-situ boulders. The height of the boulders stacks range from 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 are concentrated in the southeast portion of the wall. The southwest portion of the enclosure wall served as a retaining wall, roughly forming a terrace. Feature 24 appears to have served as a habitation site because of the presence of a burial (Feature 25), which abuts the western end of the enclosure.

21

Figure 9: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure), taken at the eastern end of enclosure near feature entrance. 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.

22

Figure 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.

Figure 12: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 24, taken at northern portion of enclosure near main entrance. View to the west.

23

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

24

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

25

Feature 25 is a small, rectangular enclosure, located at the far west end of Feature 21 at SIHP 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 is constructed from sub-angular, bread loaf-shaped stones. Due to the source material used (the boulders would have been specially selected for their similar and unique shape), the formality of the feature, and its prominent location overlooking Feature 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.

26

Figure 16: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 25.

27

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 from the furthest point of Feature 24 and, like Feature 24, was probably a habitation site. The retaining wall of Feature 26 is in fair condition, although most of the wall is buried by sediment and cannot be analyzed without excavation.

Figure 17: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (wall, terrace).

28

Feature 27 is a medium-sized platform, located east-southeast of Feature 24. The platform 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. Shrapnel and artillery debris litter this feature and the surrounding area. The former function of the site is unknown.

Figure 18: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform).

29

Feature 28 is a terrace, located approximately 8.5 meters west of Feature 24. The terrace measures 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 the retaining wall there is a small alignment creating a level, semi-enclosed area that measures 3.5 by 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).

30

Feature 29 is a small terrace, located just west of Feature 28. The retaining wall of Feature 29 is constructed of irregular, modified boulders stacked atop two large boulders, with a level area of soil to the northeast. The retaining wall measures 2.5 by 1.7 by 0.6 meters, with a level area of approximately 3 m3. Feature 29 is in good condition. The terrace would have likely functioned as a small habitation site or garden.

Figure 20: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (terrace, wall).

31

Feature 30 is a medium-sized mound with upright stacking of columnar boulder integrated into its siding and foundation. The mound is primarily constructed of small boulders and measures 2.5 by 2.5 by 0.6 meters. The top of Feature 30 is filled in with small cobble and pebble 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 its top and is a prominent natural feature in the area. Feature 31A measures 3.5 by 3.5 meters; the maximum height of the mound is 0.3 meters and the height of the boulder is 1.3 meters. The top of the mound is filled in with small cobble and pebbles, indicating a level of formality. At the center of the mound is a large, flat boulder measuring 0.7 by 0.6 meters, likely serving as a capstone for the contents of the mound. A small terrace and retaining wall abuts the large boulder of Feature 31A to the southwest. The mound is in good condition. There is a high probability that it functions as a burial site.

Figure 21: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31A (mound, possible burial) in foreground. View to the west.

32

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

33

Feature 31B is a terrace abutting Feature 31A to the southwest. Feature 31B is comprised of a small retaining wall built of basalt cobbles to boulders, which measures 5.0 by 1.5 by 0.9 meters. The retaining wall creates an area of level soil measuring approximately five square meters. Besides creating a terraced area for planting or habitation, Feature 31B is likely a burial site. Feature 31B is in good condition.

Figure 23: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 31B (terrace) in foreground. View to the southwest.

34

Feature 32 is a set of two, adjacent terraces located east of Feature 31. The retaining walls of the terraces are made of sub-angular basalt cobble to large boulders, stacked 1 to 3 tiers high. The function of Feature 32 is unknown, but as with the other features in SIHP 6841, this feature was likely used for habitation or agriculture. Feature 32 remains in good condition.

Figure 24: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (terraces).

35

Feature 33 is comprised of two sub-features: Feature 33A and 33B. Feature 33A is a mound measuring 3.5 by 2.8 by 0.5 meters. The mound is constructed of rounded cobble, subrounded cobble, and small boulders. Feature 33B is a terrace measuring 11.0 by 3.0 by 0.7 meters. The terrace is constructed of rounded and sub-rounded cobble to medium-sized boulders. 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.

36

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 to 0.4 meters, and a height ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 meters. The alignment is constructed mostly of small, sub-rounded boulders. The feature runs east to west, running down slope. The function of Feature 35 is indeterminate, but its appearance lends itself to being a trail remnant. The feature is in fair condition.

Figure 28: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (portion of alignment). View to the northeast.

37

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

38

Feature 36 is a small enclosure measuring 2.2 by 1.6 by 0.3 meters. The enclosure is constructed of a few rounded and sub-rounded basalt cobbles and boulders. The site is in fair to good condition, with a few boulders missing at the southeast corner of the enclosure. Given the nature 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 wall and level portion of the terrace) by 1.4 meters. The retaining wall is constructed of rounded and sub-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.

39

Figure 32: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 37.

40

Feature 38 is a series of terraces, located to the west of Feature 37. Feature 38 has irregular retaining walls, constructed primarily of large, sub-angular boulders. The feature is comprised of three main tiers, with a concentration of sub-rounded cobble at the center. The overall dimensions of Feature 38 are 7.0 by 5.0 by 0.7 meters. This feature is in fair to good condition, but its function is indeterminate.

Figure 33: Photo of SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (portion of terraces). View to east.

41

Figure 34: Plan view map of SIHP 6841, Feature 38.

42

Site 6841 Features 39-46 The study team also surveyed and collected limited information from several other features from Site 6841. Features 39-46 are a series of terrace remnants and mounds constructed of 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 and retaining 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, beyond the previously documented limits to that feature. The lack of information on Features 39-46 highlights the problems presented by the extremely limited amount of time allocated for the Stryker studies. This also reinforces the fact that 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)

43

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 rock lining consists of rounded and sub-rounded cobble and small boulders, which are red due to repeated exposures to fire. The hearth is located approximately six meters east of the previously identified 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 retaining wall to the end of the leveled portion of the site) by 0.4 meters. The retaining face is constructed of rounded and sub-rounded cobble and basalt boulders. Feature 3 appears to be a habitation feature constructed in pre-contact times and remains in good condition.

Figure 39: Photo of SIHP 6844, Feature 3 (terrace). View to the north.

44

Figure 40: Plan view map of SIHP 6844, Feature 3.

45

Feature 4 of SIHP 6844 is a large terrace constructed of rounded and sub-rounded cobble and 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, measuring approximately 3.0 to 4.0 meters long, is stacked 4 to 6 tiers high, with a large, flat-slab boulder placed 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.

46

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 the GANDA report. Although GANDA performed adequate survey work on Features 1 and 2, the 2005 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 into the larger nearby complex, SIHP 6846. Thus, the OHA survey team and lead archeologist renumbered T-221 to SIHP 6846, Feature 3. Feature 3 was photographed but not mapped due to time limitations in the field. Photographs of the site, as well as recommendations for protection and further evaluations of the site are contained in the Monahan Report, pages 111115.

No photo available

47

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 working day of field surveys. The surveyors were unable to examine most of the site or record GPS coordinates because of the dense tree canopy and weather conditions. Instead, the team sought to better identify and gauge the condition of the site. The site is in poor to fair condition, showing a substantial amount of impacts from Army activities. The Monahan Report details an additional five features found at site DPW T-6.

T-6

Figure 42: Plan view map of DPW T-6, Feature 1 (terrace).

48

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 of the features are out in the open and have suffered damage from ordnance, firearms, and other Army-related activities. No age or functional interpretations were made because the condition and form of the features make them difficult to analyze. The Army had not formally described this 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 team was unable to determine whether this was a result of construction design or erosion. Feature 1A is 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 a roughly-stacked alignment, which measures 23.0 by 0.5 meters, with a height ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 meters. Feature 1B contains rounded boulders stacked one tier high. Feature 1 is in fair condition and has been heavily impacted by ordnance. The Monahan Report provides a GPS map 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.

49

Feature 2 is an alignment measuring 23.0 by 0.5 meters, with a height range from 0.1 to 0.2 meters. This feature runs parallel to Feature 1B to the east. Feature 2 is constructed of a single tier of small to medium, sub-rounded boulders, but has suffered substantial damage from ordnance.

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 possible grinding stone, broken into two pieces, was found near the stack. Feature 3 is similar to several other features located on Kalena plateau, of unknown function and purpose; it is in fair condition. Feature 4 is a large boulder, with two smaller boulders stacked on its surface. This feature measures 2.2 by 1.1 by 0.6 meters. Feature 4 is in fair condition, having suffered damage by ordnance impacts. Its function is unknown. The Monahan Report contains photographs of Features 3 and 4. (Monahan Report at 126-27).

50

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 Feature 1, 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 tiers high. The second sub-feature, Feature 1B, consists of two small boulders arranged at a right angle, located near the southern boundary of DPW T-10. The terrace created by the retaining wall measures approximately 14.5 by 4.0 by 5.5 meters. Both Features 1A and 1B are in fair to good condition.

Figure 45: Photo of DPW T-10, Feature 1A (retaining wall, terrace). View to the southwest.

51

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 stone architecture is visible at the feature. Feature 2 is in good condition and may have served a habitation function.

52

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 horizontal striations, which are light and difficult to discern. The petroglyph has been heavily impacted by training and construction activities; it appears to have been moved recently due to the exposed iron sediment staining along the right half of the boulder. The boulder is located close to a bulldozed road and construction trenches.

Figure 48: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-1 (petroglyph). View to the southwest.

53

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. The boulder has visible iron staining and bulldozer scars, indicating that it was recently moved. The disturbed sediment of the surrounding area and large-scale construction activities in the vicinity also suggest that the boulder has been moved from its original location.

Figure 49: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-2 (petroglyph). View to the southwest.

54

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 its south face. The markings cover an area of 30 cm2, but are difficult to discern. Similar to SWCA-BAX-TS-1 and TS-2, iron sediment from lithic weathering is evident on the lower section of the boulder, indicating that it has been moved from its original location. The boulder has been highly impacted by ordnance and gunfire, and evinces ground-altering activities around the site.

No photo available

55

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. Total etched area equals 30 to 40 cm2, appearing on the north face of the boulder. SWCA-BAX-TS-4 sustained substantial damage from ordnance and gunfire. The feature shows no obvious signs of recent construction damage and appears to be in primary context (i.e., not moved since etching decoration occurred).

No photo available

56

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 running southwest to northeast on a small boulder. The incisions are located on the top of the boulder, in plain view, and cover 25 by 40 centimeters or a total area of 1000 cm2. Although there are no clear signs of construction damage, the boulder is small in size and easily transported, and therefore may not be in its primary context.

No photo available

57

Temporary Number: SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (also referenced as DPW 25 and T12 in previous reports) 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 situated on a large boulder. On the south face, near the ground, are at least three bird-like figures pointing toward the west. Below the bird figures are two horizontal incisions and possibly another incomplete etching that is difficult to discern. The bird etchings were covered in ironstained sediment from weathering rock, indicating that they were previously below the surface and only recently uncovered.

Figure 50: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (petroglyph showing bird-like patterns). View to the southwest.

58

On the southwest side of the same boulder is an etched concentric circle. The marking measures 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 been altered, 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.

59

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 incisions measuring 5 by 15 centimeters. The boulder was fractured in the past and was likely moved from its primary context. There was evidence of recent, large-scale ground alterations in the area. The striations may have been produced as a byproduct of tool-working. The Monahan Report features a picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-7 and its surrounding area. (Monahan Report at 150-51).

Figure 52: Picture of SWCA-BAX-TS-4 (petroglyph). View to the south.

60

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 total etching is 15 by 25 centimeters. Unlike many of the other petroglyphs that feature linear striations, SWCA-BAX-TS-8 is shaped like an upside down pitchfork, making it an anomaly among other petroglyphs found on the range.

Figure 53: SWCA-BAX-TS-8 (petroglyph). View to the north.

61

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 around several, naturally situated basalt boulders. The large boulder is almost flat and may have some aesthetic or utilitarian function. The enclosure would be too small for any type of permanent dwelling. Although the function of SWCA-BAX-TS-9 is unknown without further analysis, the shape and construction suggests its use as a temporary habitation or a burial site. The Monahan Report describes a second feature, a pair of upright boulders, to the south (and outside of the frame 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.

62

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 into one 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 a habitation 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, oriented roughly north/south east/west. The enclosure is constructed of small to large, rounded basalt boulders 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.

63

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

64

Feature 2 is a rock alignment measuring 20.0 by 1.0 by 0.8 meters, located to the west of Feature 1. Feature 2 has large upright boulders at its north end, with smaller basalt boulders and cobble at its south end. The alignment is stacked 2 to 3 tiers high in certain places. Although this feature is in close proximity to Feature 1, its function is more ambiguous and without further analysis, 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.

65

Feature 3 is a terrace and a possible trail, characterized by three sub-features. This feature has a length of 19.0 meters, a width ranging from 4.0 to 6.0 meters, and a height of 0.5 meters. 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 and boulder 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 Feature 3A. 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, located approximately 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 interior partially paved with cobble. Although the age of Feature 4 is indeterminate, its construction suggests a trail function. Feature 4 is in good condition.

Figure 60: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4 (trail). View to the east.

66

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 upslope from SIHP 5381 to nearby SIHP 6561. The feature runs upslope for approximately twenty-five meters and then turns east, thus creating a terrace retaining wall. The function of TS-11 is indeterminate, although the site remains in fair condition.

No photo available

67

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 similar form and construction materials. The terraces, mounds, auwai, and enclosure may be indicative of an agricultural site, although the Monahan Report suggests that SWCA-BAX-TS-12 may represent 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 0.6 meters. Feature 1 contains two sub-features: a small depression at its southeast corner and an anomaly in the western portion where the surface cobble has been cleared. The cobble clearing measures 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.

68

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

69

Feature 2 is a terrace measuring 15.0 by 5.5 meters, with a height ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 meters. Constructed of rounded cobble, Feature 2 is the furthest east feature of TS-12. The feature 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 3A was examined as it appeared to be the largest mound of those discovered at the site. Feature 3A measures 2.3 meters in diameter and has a maximum height of 0.3 meters. An adze preform was encountered within Feature 3A. The mound complex is likely pre-contact in nature and may represent a large burial complex. Feature 3A is in fair condition and the remaining thirty-seven mounds 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 the concentration 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 0.4 meters, and is located at the south end of the mound complex of Feature 3. The retaining wall of Feature 7 is constructed of rounded to sub-rounded, basalt cobbles, and boulders. Feature 7 likely served to protect portions of Feature 3 from a nearby watercourse. Due to its spatial relationship to other large, pre-contact features in the vicinity, Feature 7 is likely a pre-contact

70

feature as well. The feature remains in overall fair condition, as it has had some portions of the retaining wall collapse and has been further damaged by tree growth. Feature 8 is either a manmade auwai (irrigation ditch) or a natural waterway created by overflow 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 and condition of the feature are indeterminate, as this proposed feature may be the result of a natural occurrence. Feature 9 is a small, circular stone enclosure located nearby to Feature 1. Constructed of small, rounded boulders, Feature 9 measures 1.2 by 1.1 by 0.1 meters. The site has been partially buried by surface sediment, making it difficult to interpret without additional subsurface archeological work. The feature is in fair condition, but its age and function are indeterminate.

Figure 64: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9 (enclosure). View to the south.

71

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 CM 365, and finding two similar features in close proximity, the OHA and SWCA survey teams decided to designate all four features as site SWCA-BAX-TS-14, which included Features 1-2 and newly identified Features 3-4. The survey team renumbered the sites because they wanted to identify the features as archaeological sites and recognize the common construction style and spatial relationship between each feature of a single site. Feature 1, formerly referred to as DPW CM 364, is a terrace consisting of a stacked stone retaining wall and a leveled area. The feature measures 6.0 by 4.0 meters, with a height range of 0.4 to 0.6 meters for the retaining wall. The retaining wall is constructed of rounded and subrounded basalt cobbles and boulders stacked 1 to 2 courses high. The feature is in good condition, despite substantial damage from ordnance and gunfire.

Figure 65: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature1 (terrace). View to the southwest.

72

Feature 2, formerly referred to as DPW CM 365, is a terrace measuring 1.4 by 1.2 by 0.6 meters. The width of Feature 2 refers to the level area upslope from the retaining wall. Feature 2 is constructed of medium, sub-rounded boulders stacked 1 to 2 tiers high. Feature 2 is in poor condition, 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 upslope of 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 of Features 2 and 3. Feature 4 also measures 10.0 by 4.0 by 0.5 meters and shares the same construction style and condition as Features 2 and 3.

73

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. The site 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 to confirm 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 site eligible 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 recommends the site as unevaluated and potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. (Monahan Report at 192).

No photo available

74

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-rounded basalt cobble and small boulders. The mound has been heavily impacted by military-related activities and is in poor to fair condition. An adze fragment was found on the surface of the feature, which suggests the feature may contain sub-surface deposits around its base. The Monahan Report recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-16 be avoided and Phase I excavation to assist in a NRHP eligibility determination.

Figure 67: Photo of SWCA-BAX-TS-16 (mound). View to the southwest.

75

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 just southeast of BAX-TS-9. The provenance for BAX-T-A1 is unknown.

Figure 68: Photo of BAX-T-A1 (SWCA-BAX-IF-5).

76

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 5080-04-6562. The design of the adze is formal and the artifact is in good condition. Although a surface find, the adze was found in close proximity to other artifacts, including a volcanic glass scatter and a probable kukui oil lamp. Although BAX-T-A2 was partially imbedded in the surface sediment, its provenance is unknown.

Figure 69: Photo of BAX-T-A2 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2).

77

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A3 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-3 in Monahan Report) Form: Vesicular basalt Function: Lamp (kukui oil) Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 6.0 6.4 4.7 cm Description: BAX-T-A3 is likely a kukui oil lamp found approximately one meter north of the BAX-T-A2 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2) adze. The lamp was partially buried in the eroded surface sediment, but it was likely redeposited and was found in a secondary context near SIHP 50-8004-6562. The lamp was associated with a volcanic glass scatter found nearby. However, the provenance of these artifacts are unknown.

Figure 70: Photo of BAX-T-A3 (SWCA-BAX-IF-3).

78

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A4 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-4 in Monahan Report) Form: Polished basalt fragment Function: Adze Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 5.8 5.3 4.0 cm Description: BAX-T-A4 is the distal-end fragment of a large, finished adze. The tool fragment appears to have had a secondary use as an impact toollikely a hammer-stoneafter breakage based on a number of impact marks on its far distal-end. BAX-T-A4 is a surface find and was not found in its primary context.

Figure 71: Photo of BAX-T-A4 (SWCA-BAX-IF-4).

79

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A5 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-8 in Monahan Report) Form: Worked basalt Function: Adze preform fragment Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 9.5 7.7 6.0 cm Description: BAX-T-A5 is a fragment of an adze preform. The preform was rough and in a preliminary stage of development when it was broken, making it difficult to discern the part of a potential adze represented by the fragment. BAX-T-A5 was a surface find without a primary context, nearby SHIP 6562.

Figure 72: Photo of BAX-T-A5 (SWCA-BAX-IF-8).

80

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A6 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-6 in Monahan Report) Form: Worked basalt Function: Polished flake/blade Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 5.6 2.5 0.5 cm Description: BAX-T-A6 is a basalt flake with sharp polished facets, which was probably utilized as a blade. Percussion bulbs indicate that it was chipped off of a larger basalt core, a product of lithic reduction or toolmaking. The blade is a surface find and has an unknown provenance.

Figure 73: Photo of BAX-T-A6 (SWCA-BAX-IF-6).

81

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A7 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-10 in Monahan Report) Form: Worked basalt Function: Abrader fragment Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 7.4 5.6 1.4 cm Description: BAX-T-A7 is a fragment of an abrading stone. The fragment is a surface find that was found in proximity to SIHP 6562.

Figure 74: Photo of BAX-T-A7 (SWCA-BAX-IF-10).

82

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A9 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-9 in Monahan Report) Form: Worked basalt Function: Sling stone Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 4.4 2.8 2.5 cm Description: BAX-T-A9 is an intact basalt sling stone in good condition. Found partially imbedded in the surface sediment, the artifact likely rolled down slope due to erosion. The sling stone was in the vicinity of SIHP 6562 and is likely associated with the site.

Figure 75: Photo of BAX-T-A9 (SWCA-BAX-IF-9).

83

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A10 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-7 in Monahan Report) Form: Worked basalt Function: Basalt abrader fragment Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 7.4 5.6 1.4 cm Description: The artifact is a fragment of a well-formed abrader, which is smooth on both sides. Similar to BAX-T-A8 and T-A9, BAX-T-A10 likely migrated from an upslope location associated with SIHP 6562 as a result of erosion.

Figure 76: Photo of BAX-T-A10 (SWCA-BAX-IF-7)

84

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A11 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-12 in Monahan Report) Form: Polished basalt Function: Adze fragment Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 5.0 2.8 0.9 cm Description: BAX-T-A11 is a distal-end fragment of a small, finished adze. This adze fragment was found on the surface and has an unknown provenance. The study team had limited time to document BAX-T-A11 due to a planned ordnance detonation in the area.

Figure 77: Photo of BAX-T-A11 (SWCA-BAX-IF-12).

85

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A12 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-11 in Monahan Report) Form: Polished basalt Function: Adze fragment Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 3.3 2.6 0.7 cm Description: BAX-T-A12 is a proximal-end fragment of a small, finished adze. This adze fragment was found on the surface and has an unknown provenance. Although this adze fragment was found in very close proximity to BAX-T-A11, the two artifacts do not appear to be fragments from the same tool. The study team has limited time to document BAX-T-A11 due to a planned ordnance detonation a few meters away.

Figure 78: Photo of BAX-T-A12 (SWCA-BAX-IF-11).

86

Temporary Number: BAX-T-A13 (referred to as SWCA-BAX-IF-13 in Monahan Report) Form: Polished basalt Function: Adze preform Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 6.1 3.4 2.5 cm Description: BAX-T-A13 is an adze preform that was found west of SIHP 6844. The preform is a surface find and therefore has an unknown provenance. The Monahan Report contains a picture of this artifact, which is referenced as SWCA-BAX-IF-13.

No photo available

87

Temporary Number: QTR2-T-A1 Form: Worked coral Function: Indeterminate, ornamental Age: Pre-contact Dimensions: 4.0 7.0 cm Description: QTR2-T-A1 is a small cylindrical artifact made from bleached coral. The artifact was thoroughly worked, but due to its brittle construction material, the coral piece is probably of ceremonial or ornamental nature. QTR2-T-A1 may possibly be a variation on a palaoa (whaletooth pendant). This find was not documented in the Monahan Report.

Figure 79: Photo of QTR2-T-A1 (coral artifact).

88

C. Site Descriptions for the Kahuku Training Area

Figure 80: GIS map depicting the sites visited during OHAs KTA survey (2009).

89

Temporary Number: SWCA-KTA-TS-1 Number of Features: 1 Form: Mound/pile Function: Indeterminate Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 50.0 10.0 2.0 m Description: SWCA-KTA-TS-1 is located to the northeast of SCS 32-24 and just west of an abandoned sugarcane field. The feature is composed of very large boulders and cobble, and may have functioned as a clearing mound for nearby commercial sugarcane activities. Due to the sheer size of the site, thick vegetation cover, and time constraints, the survey team could not perform a thorough inspection of the mound. A single GPS point was taken at the far west end of the site. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 is in fair to good condition.

Figure 81: Photo of SWCA-KTA TS-1 (portion of a mound). View to the east.

90

Temporary Number: SWCA-KTA-TS-2 Number of Features: 1 Form: Modified outcrop Function: Indeterminate Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 2.5 2.0 1.5 m Description: SWCA-KTA-TS-2 consists of a rock outcropping with hand-stacked boulders. The function of the site is unknown, but the use of hand-stacking would qualify it as an archaeological site, assuming the site is more than fifty years old. The Monahan Report suggests that the site may be a type of shrine, based on the molelo (oral historical knowledge) about the surrounding area. (Monahan Report at 225-26). Subsurface testing would be very helpful in any further assessment of the site. SWCA-KTA-TS-2 is in good condition.

No photo available

91

Temporary Number: SWCA-KTA-TS-3 Number of Features: 7 Form: Terrace complex Function: Habitation or agriculture Age: Pre-contact Dimensions (max): 20.0 10.0 m Description: SWCA-KTA-TS-3 is a complex of terraces and alignments that form several level surfaces and other small features, including a cubby-hole and a small clearing. The terrace complex is constructed of sub-angular basalt cobble to large boulders, most of which are now covered by lichen. The site is located in close proximity to temporary sites SCS 32-34. SCS 34 was previously excavated and carbon dating revealed a date of around 1090 AD for the site. Feature 1 is a terrace built atop three, very large boulders. The feature measures 10.0 by 5.0 by 3.0 meters, including the level terrace area. The retaining wall of the terrace, which was constructed in a relatively informal fashion, is comprised of cobble and large boulders. The terrace lies to the south of the retaining wall. Feature 1 is in good condition and does not appear to have been heavily impacted by military-related activities. Feature 2 is a rectangular space with a slight slope, located between Features 1 and 3. The space measures 1.7 by 0.7 meters and has a maximum depth of 1.0 meters below the constructed areas of Features 1 and 3. There is a small collapsed area of cobble north of Feature 2, indicating that there may have once been an enclosure or some other type of feature. Feature 2 is in good condition. Feature 3 is a small storage compartment cubby-hole within the boundaries of SWCAKTA-TS-3. The feature is comprised of several large, sub-rounded boulders arranged to create a recessed compartment. The feature measures 0.6 by 0.3 by 0.3 meters. This feature is not associated with any surface finds, but has a high potential for future excavation. Feature 3 is in good condition. A photo of the cubby-hole is available in the Monahan Report on page 235. Feature 4 is a terrace measuring 9.0 by 5.0 by 1.5 meters, located to the north and perpendicular to the orientation of Feature 1. This feature shares many characteristics with Feature 1, including building material and construction style. Feature 4 is intact and is in good condition. Feature 5 is a leveled area measuring 10.0 by 5.0 meters, located to the southwest of Features 1 and 4. The function of the leveled area is unclear, but it is certainly a manmade feature, as it is an anomaly in an area that is naturally sloped and undulating. Feature 5 is in good condition and has a high potential for future excavation.

92

Feature 6 is another leveled area, located to the northwest of Feature 4. The survey team did not make many observations at this feature due to extensive vegetation cover. Feature 7 is an alignment, located north of Feature 1, at its base. Feature 7 measures 3.0 by 3.0 by 0.4 meters. Feature 7 is located on a steep slope and has suffered significant collapse, leaving it in fair to poor condition.

Figure 82: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Feature 1 (terrace). View to the east.

Figure 83: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2 (clearing), and 3 (cubby-hole, background). View to the southwest.

93

Figure 84: Plan view map of SWCA-KTA-TS-3, Features 1, 2, 3, 7.

94

Temporary Number: SWCA-KTA-TS-5 Number of Features: 1 Form: Terrace Function: Agriculture Age: Indeterminate, likely historic Dimensions (max): 20.0 7.0 2.0 m Description: SWCA-KTA-TS-5 is a large terrace measuring approximately twenty meters long. The terrace is formed by a retaining wall, constructed of sub-angular and angular basalt boulders stacked two to three tiers high. The terrace is also flanked to the southeast by two large mounds, which may be acting as supports. The level area extends through thick vegetation to the north and west of the retaining wall. A number of square, wooded fence posts and heavy-gauge fence wire were located in and around the site, indicating that it was used at some point as an agricultural or ranching site. SWCA-KTA-TS-5 is in good condition.

Figure 85: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 (terrace). View to the northeast.

95

Temporary Number: SWCA-KTA-TS-9 Number of Features: 3 Form: Rock shelters and modified outcrop Function: Temporary habitation Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): Various Description: SWCA-KTA-TS-9 is comprised of two overhang features and one modified outcrop, all of which are located along io Stream. Although excavation would have helped to understand the history of the rock shelters, there was ample evidence that the natural features were modified to create temporary habitation sites. Feature 1 is a rock shelter with an interior space measuring of 1.5 by 1.5 by 1.0 meters. The northern portion of the shelter contains hand-stacked cobble and boulders that form a partial enclosure for the feature. Feature 1 is a crawl space with a sandy loam floor, which has high excavation potential. The rock shelter is constructed in a traditional style and is likely precontact in nature. Feature 1 is in good condition.

Figure 86: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 (rock shelter). View to the west.

Feature 2 is another rock shelter, located to the north of Feature 1. Feature 2 is comprised of a very large boulder, which has a rock shelter on both its north and south sides. The northern shelter measures 1.6 by 1.0 by 1.2 meters and has a small collapsed alignment at its

96

entrance. The southern shelter measures 2.5 by 1.5 by 1.4 meters. A large noni tree and k plant grows north of Feature 2. Like Feature 1, these rock shelters are likely pre-contact in nature.

Figure 87: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 (rock shelter). View to the northeast.

Figure 88: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2. View to the south.

Feature 3 is a small modified outcrop, located just north of Feature 2. Feature 3 is constructed of sub-angular and sub-rounded cobble and small boulders, and measures 1.7 by 1.7 by 0.6 meters. The outcrop stacking is two to three tiers high and creates a level surface, 97

although some collapse at the feature is evident. The function and age of Feature 3 is not known, although its spatial relationship to Features 1 and 2 suggests that Feature 3 is also a pre-contact feature. Feature 3 is in good condition.

Figure 89: Photo of SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 3 (modified outcrop). View to the southwest.

98

Temporary Number: GANDA T-2 Number of Features: At least 3 Form: Rock alignments and culturally significant boulder Function: Indeterminate Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 25.0 15.0 m Description: The site referred to as GANDA T-2 was originally identified by cultural monitors, but was found by GANDA archeologists to be a non-archaeological site. Upon review by the survey team, the site is clearly an archaeological site, with small enclosed areas associated with each rock alignment. GANDA T-2 is comprised of cobble and boulders. A coral manuport was also found within the site, wedged between two boulders. In addition to the manmade features within the site, Native Hawaiian individuals and at least one organization identified a small boulder as spiritually important. The boulder has a natural indentation that resembles a kohe (female genitalia), which the Monahan Report recognizes as evidence that GANDA T-2 may have served as a womens heiau. (Monahan Report at 256). The site has been impacted by nearby road construction and is in fair condition.

Figure 90: GANDA T-2 (kohe stone). View to the east.

99

Temporary Number: GANDA T-8 Number of Features: 1 Form: Terrace and mound Function: Indeterminate Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 6.85 5.3 1.25 m Description: GANDA T-8 is a site previously identified by cultural monitors during a GANDA survey, but later determined ineligible for the NRHP because Army staff subsequently interpreted the feature as a sling load clearing mound (i.e., a load of rocks carried in a net by a helicopter). The survey team reexamined the site in order to verify the Army interpretation. After clearing the site thoroughly, the OHA and SWCA survey teams determined that this site is a formal, hand-stacked feature. The southern portion of the site is terraced, with a relatively flat area of medium-sized, sub-angular boulders and well-defined facing in its retaining wall. In contrast to the southern portion of the feature, the northern portion of GANDA T-8 has the appearance of a mound feature. One distinct feature of the north section of GANDA T-8 is the presence of a small storage compartment at its northernmost end, which is topped by a cap rock. GANDA T-8 is in fair condition. The site is difficult to interpret in its current state, as it may have been impacted or modified by a number of activities through the years. The Monahan Report contains additional details of the site, pictures, and arguments that refute the Armys interpretation of the site. (Monahan Report at 267-70).

Figure 91: Photo of GANDA T-8 (portion of mound). View to the south.

100

Temporary Number: GANDA T-12 Number of Features: 1 Form: Platform Function: Possible habitation Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 9.0 6.0 0.7 m Description: GANDA T-12 is a site previously identified by cultural monitors but later determined by GANDA archeologists to be a non-archaeological site. After clearing vegetation and debris from the site, the OHA survey team determined that the site is archaeological in nature. The site is comprised of mostly angular basalt boulders, with some sub-angular boulder fill. The site features exposed rock facing on its western side and has two upright boulders at its southern end. The rough, angular boulder construction is indicative of a pre-contact building style found elsewhere at KTA. Although part of the site has been impacted by a jeep trail to its east, the site is in an overall good condition. The Monahan Report provides additional pictures, written descriptions of the site, and recommends the site unevaluated and potentially eligible for the NRHP. (Monahan Report at 271-75).

No photo available

101

Temporary Number: GANDA T-13 Number of Features: 4 Form: Mound Function: Indeterminate Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 28.0 12.0 m Description: The survey team revisited GANDA T-13 based on Army action to downgrade the sites significance from an archaeological site to a cultural monitoring site, which entitles the site to less protection. Upon inspection, the OHA survey team determined that GANDA T-13 is an archaeological site with several features, which appear quite old and modified by humans. GANDA T-13 is a group of features built into a traditional terrace, which themselves are part of a larger terrace system. Two features are U-shapes, aligned back-to-back, on the same terrace. A third feature is located at the eastern end of a nearby road is a phallic stone, measuring approximately one meter in length, depicting male anatomical features. The site was previously mapped in the 2005 GANDA Survey Results.

Figure 92: GANDA T-13 (phallic stone). View to the east.

102

Temporary Number: GANDA T-22 Number of Features: 1 Form: U-shape Function: Possible temporary habitation Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 2.0 1.2 0.35 m Description: GANDA T-22 is a U-shaped enclosure, 1.2 meters wide and 2.0 meters in height. The enclosure is constructed of small, sub-rounded and sub-angular basalt boulders. The site is located near the top of a prominence, which provides a good vantage point to the land mauka of GANDA T-22. Although the site is in good condition, it is difficult to determine its function without subsurface testing or comparison to similar sites in the vicinity. The Monahan Report recognizes a second feature associated with the site: a rock stacking atop a bedrock-outcropping to the south of the enclosure described above. (Monahan Report at 276). The Monahan Report also suggests that the U-shaped enclosure may be either a military training feature or a Native Hawaiian burial site, and cautions against the use of excavation within the enclosed feature space.

Figure 93: Photo of GANDA KTA T-22 (enclosure). View to the west.

103

Figure 94: Plan view map of GANDA T-22.

104

Temporary Number: SCS T-33 Number of Features: 1 Form: Platform Function: Likely habitation Age: Indeterminate Dimensions (max): 8.0 7.0 1.5 m Description: The survey team visited SCS T-33 in order to verify the original interpretation of the site and to understand the relationship of the site to SCS T-32 and especially SCS T-34, a pre-contact site previously dated to the 11th century. SCS T-33 had been described as a clearing mound and a faced mound by Army staff. After clearing the site of vegetation, the survey team determined that SCS T-33 is a formal platform with well-defined facing, four corners, and a protuberance at its western end. The platform measures 8.0 by 7.0 by 1.5 meters and is constructed of basalt boulders, cobble, and pebbles that are mostly sub-angular, but include angular and rounded construction elements. The platform is believed to be a pre-contact feature that had a habitation function because of its well-filled surface construction of small cobble and pebble fill that created a flat surface. However, the Monahan Report considers that the platform feature may represent a burial platform, while stressing the uncertainty surrounding the site. (Monahan Report at 282). The platform is in good condition and does not appear to have been impacted by military-related activities.

No photo available

105

Figure 95: Photo of SCS T-33 (platform). Note the stone facing. View to the northeast.

Figure 96: Photo of SCS T-33. View to the north.

106

D. Artifacts Found at KTA

Temporary Number: KTA-T-A1 (referred to as SWCA-KTA-IF-1 in Monahan Report) Number of Features: 1 Form: Worked basalt Function: Kukui oil lamp preform Age: Pre-contact Dimensions (max): 6.8 6.5 6.2 cm Description: KTA-T-A1 is a split basalt cobble that has been worked at the point of the break to form a bowl. Although the artifact has been worked significantly, it remains in preform stage. KTA-T-A1 was found on the surface in a cow wallow and has an unknown provenance.

Figure 97: Photo of KTA-T-A1 (kukui oil lamp perform).

107

E. Site Descriptions for the PTA

The proposed SBCT transformation project at PTA will impact three major areas: the Battle Area Complex (BAX), the Anti Armor Live Fire and Training Range (AALFTR), and the AALFTR extension. Army archaeological contractors were able to survey approximately 4,380 acres at PTA, amounting to approximately half of the project area. The remaining portions of the project area remain unsurveyed. Several Native Hawaiians with extensive knowledge about the area have stated that significant archaeological sites exist within the impact area. The scope of OHA surveys were limited due to access restrictions imposed by Army personnel. OHA staff were told that the main reason for the limited documentation and surveys was due to safety hazards posed by improved conventional munitions found within the PTA impact area. In addition, survey access was further limited by provisions in the SA. Within the 4,380 acre project area, the OHA field team was only allowed to survey on portions of Ranges 1, 8, 10 and 11Ta fraction of the total acres of PTAand of the five survey days scheduled, only four were completed due to the lack of Airlift/Medivac services required by the Army. Despite the extremely limited access and timeframe, the survey teams were still able to collect valuable information pertinent to the Armys previous documentation efforts. The documentation of a new feature and several artifacts adds to the archaeological record and sheds light onto how the Army could improve its historic preservation program. The PA explicitly states that the identification process would be complete prior to implementing any SBCT project. Given the emphasis placed on safety, the Army needs to mitigate the safety hazard posed by UXO and range contaminants in order for proper documentation to proceed. Much of the identification process at PTA remains incomplete and conflicts with the language of the PA.

108

Temporary Number: SWCA-PTA-TS-1 Number of Features: 1 Form: Modified outcrop Function: Temporary habitation Age: Pre-contact Dimensions (max): 8.0 3.0 2.0 m Description: SWCA-PTA-TS-1 is a basalt outcrop with stacked angular and sub-angular, basal boulders, cobbles, and pebbles. The stackings and alignments create two, enclosed level areas that served as a temporary habitation for a single person. The larger leveled area to the north measures 4.0 by 1.5 by 1.0 meters. The smaller leveled area to the south is approximately half the size of the larger area and contains a small cubby-hole constructed of stacked rocks. A small, basalt cutting tool was found at the site. SWCA-PTA-TS-1 is in good condition and would likely provide excellent excavation results. The Monahan recommends this site eligible for the NRHP. (Monahan Report at 293).

No photo available

109

Figure 98: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1 (modified basalt outcrop). View to the northwest.

Figure 99: Photo of SWCA-PTA-TS-1. View to the northwest.

110

F. Artifacts Found at PTA

While reviewing previously documented archaeological sites at PTA that had been agreed upon by OHA and Army personnel, OHA discovered numerous new artifacts. Most of the newly discovered artifacts were located in lava tube systems on Range 8, Range T11, and Range 1. The artifacts are an integral part of the identification, evaluation, and assessment process of sites, which in turn determines the level of protection to be afforded. SIHP 50-10-31-18673 is described in the 2006 final archaeological report for PTA as a lava tube used for occupation and ceremony. This site was documented once by BioSystems and once by GANDA. Archaeologists from BioSystems collected grass matting, gourd pieces, a bird or sling stone, volcanic glass, perforated opihi shell, bird bone and kukui nut. Despite this previous work, the OHA survey team identified several significant artifacts that were missed. At SIHP 18673, the OHA team identified a Nene bird eggshell, a polished basalt pestle, a roughly carved wooden dagger, debris from carving, a volcanic glass knife, and pieces of dehydrated pig skin. Another site, SIHP 50-10-31-23626, was also reevaluated. The survey team relocated a ti leaf slipper near the entrance of the tube that had been documented in a previous GANDA report. In addition, the survey team located five additional artifacts in the back of the cave: two modified wooden implements, a bird stone, bird bones, and a volcanic glass core. These artifacts were not given incidental find numbers.

111

Figure 100: Volcanic glass blade.

Figure 101: Volcanic glass core.

Figure 102: Basalt mortar, side view.

Figure 103: Basalt mortar, proximal end.

Figure 104: Wooden blade.

Figure 105: Wooden blade.

112

Figure 106: Wood debris.

Figure 107: Bird stone for cooking.

Figure 108: Worked wooden implement.

Figure 109: Ti slipper.

113

Chapter III: Issues Associated with Historical Properties Affected by the Stryker Brigade Transformation Project
In addition to observations made at specific survey sites, OHA staff recognized other issues related to the protections of historic properties located in areas controlled by the Army for SBCT activities. This section of the report identifies general problems that arose during the survey process and the planning leading up to OHA field surveys. Many of these problems were also identified in the Monahan Report, thus validating many of the problems that arose during indepth review of cultural properties at Schofield Barracks, KTA, and PTA.

114

A. Unidentified Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

As shown from the large number of reevaluated and newly identified sites, there was a major shortcoming in early Army studies that supposedly identified historic sites in the SBCT transformation area. This failure to identify sites by previous Army surveys is best illustrated by a series of maps of the Schofield BAX, which depict historic properties identified in a 2003 final archaeological report by GANDA (Figure 110), the findings of cultural monitors in 20052 and 2006 (Figure 111), and the 2009 findings from the SA surveys (Figure 112). As seen in these maps, numerous additional sites were identified by the surveys performed by cultural monitors and later the SA survey teams. It is also worth reiterating that numerous sites likely remain undocumented within the APE of the SBCT undertakings, as the SA surveys did not trace the entirety of the SBCT construction footprint, nor the surveys extend to areas that could be impacted by training fire (e.g., areas surrounding targets). Inaccurate identification information regarding the amount, size, and relationships among cultural sites leads to inaccurate significance assessments and inadequate protection from construction and training activities. Although previous Army studies would suggest that there are few historic properties located within the APE, the cultural monitor and SA surveys contradict this position and indicate the potential for massive adverse effects to many historic properties. (See Figure 112). The numerous sites could also complicate mitigation measures, as avoiding one site could increase impacts to another. The following two sub-sections examine two examples of misidentification of cultural sites in previous surveys conducted by the Army.

The areas covered by the work of the cultural monitors were primarily limited to the immediate construction footprint and should not be construed as an indication of historic properties distribution beyond these areas.

115

Figure 110: Results of the Armys final GANDA archaeological survey (2003).

116

Figure 111: Findings by Cultural Monitors operating under the 2004 Programmatic Agreement (200406), 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 survey results.

118

i.

Temporary site SCS 31, 32, 33, 34 and SWCA-KTA-TS-3 at Kahuku Training Area

During fieldwork at KTA, the survey staff noted a number of discrepancies at a previously surveyed site complex. Four sites, designated with the temporary identification numbers SCS-31, SCS-32, SCS-33, SCS-34, are located approximately 600 meters southeast of the main entrance gate to the training area. (See Figure 80). The sites had not been the subject of any follow-up studies, aside from the initial mention of these sites in the archaeological and cultural monitoring reports. (See Figure 83). In preparing for the 2009 surveys, the Army supplied the survey teams with a map from NHPA Section 106 consultations, which depicted sites SCS 31-34 in relation to one another and Drum Road. Once the survey teams entered the field, however, none of the sites were found in the areas depicted in the Army map. Only after the Army provided the UTM coordinates for SCS 32-34 was the survey teams able to locate site SCS 32-34, albeit nearly 150 meters from the location shown on the Section 106 map. In addition to the inaccurate depiction of the sites, the information supplied by the Army to OHA, SHPD, and the other NHOs regarding SCS-34 varied from one report to another. Initially, SCS-34 was described as a concrete foundation for a military bunker in Army GIS files and data tables. Another Army data table, however, described the sites as a complex of walls, modified outcrops, terraces, rock mounds and a ditch. Later, OHA survey staff discovered that a previous study had excavated a charcoal unit from one of the features at SCS34 and carbon dated the charcoal to 1090 A.D., a very old date relative to other items recovered from sites on Oahu.

119

Inconsistencies were also discovered between the descriptions of SCS-32 and SCS-33 of the Army and OHA survey teams. SCS-32 was described by the Army as a linear mound but was later determined to be a stone wall. SCS-33, originally described as a clearing mound, turned out to be a formal platform with cobble paving. A new find was also discovered in close proximity to SCS 32-34. The site, SWCA-KTA-TS-3, is large and comprised of several terraces and a cubby. KTA-TS-3 is an important site due to its proximity and potential relationship to the pre-contact site SCS-34.

ii.

SIHP 50-80-08-5448, Near QTR II, South Range

On March 21, 2009, OHA and SWCA survey staff visited SIHP 50-80-08-5448 at the urging of Kamoa Quitevis, a former GANDA cultural monitor and current OHA staff member. Mr. Quitevis noted that he had encountered a burial at SIHP 5448, Feature 6 while working as a cultural monitor and that he had attended a reburial ceremony at the site in early 2005. Based on the experiences of Mr. Quitevis, OHA survey staff requested permission to visit SIHP 5448 and compare field observation against site documentation by SCS in 2000. (See Carson, 2002). Despite personal knowledge of the burial at SIHP 5448, OHA survey staff received varied accounts of the features at the site. Prior to the first visit to SIHP 5448, the Army did not provide OHA staff with any final report or documentation of the site or others in the vicinity. On the day of the SIHP 5448 site visit, an Army Department of Public Works environmental representative informed OHA staff that no burial had been encountered at SIHP 5448 according to Army records and her supervisor at the Army Conservation Branch. Instead, the Army representative stated that pig bone and midden were encountered during the 2000 excavations. On the second visit to SIHP 5448, however, the same Army representative supplied OHA staff 120

with typed field notes from a former Army employee explaining that a burial was indeed encountered at SIHP 5448, Feature 6 in 2000, and that a ceremony or repatriation had occurred in 2005. A report from one of the Schofield South Range surveys (Carson, 2002) included a brief statement that a burial had been found during the subsurface testing portion of a 2000 survey, but did not mention the ceremony or repatriation. Surprisingly, the report described the function of SIHP 5448, Feature 6 as a habitation site, rather than a burial or mixed-use site. Like the problems identified with sites SCS 32-34, the lack of institutional knowledge related to SIHP 5448 raises concerns over the protection of historic properties affected by the SBCT transformation project. The burial located at SIHP 5448 represents one of the few confirmed burials at Schofield BAX, but Army surveys of the site did had not listed SIHP 5448, Feature 6 as a burial site. Rather, the site was described as a habitation site, entitled to a lower level of protection than a burial. The improper identification of a burial site also affects the protections afforded to nearby sites and features, as well as the activities that take place around these features. In this case, OHA and SWCA survey staff found an additional feature (SIHP 5448, Feature 11), which is a terrace of similar construction to other SIHP 5448 features and located to the west of the burial at Feature 6. The proximity and construction similarities suggest that the remaining features may have an adjunct burial function as part of a larger interment complex. At the time of the field surveys, however, the area around SIHP 5448 was being used for military training, as evinced by military rubbish, foxholes excavated at the site, various numbered post markers, and oral confirmation of training activities by an Army representative. The presence of training activities around a confirmed burial site highlight the importance of clear and accurate records of historic sites, so that the Army can adjust military operations in areas of particular cultural significance.

121

B. Area of Potential Effect Underestimates Scope of SBCT Impacts

Federal regulations define an area of potential effect as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. 36 C.F.R. 800.16(b). This broad definition allows for the consideration of a variety of impacts that an undertaking may have on environmental, cultural, and aesthetic resources. Visual effects, socioeconomic effects, effects on resources with subsistence or religious value to an indigenous group, and secondary effects, such as erosion, all must be taken into consideration in creating an APE. In addition, cumulative effectsthe past, present, and future uses of a project areamust also be considered. Army APE designations do not include many areas affected by the proposed construction activities. For example, the APE designation at KTA appears as the Drum Road corridor and the immediate area around the construction. However, observations made at KTA suggest that the KTA APE underestimate the scope of the area that will be affected by SBCT construction. Field work at KTA revealed that previous road construction projects by the Army have resulted in large-scale erosion directly below existing Army roads, where sections of the hillside have become completely denuded and can no longer support plant life. Based on the impacts of previous projects at KTA, the APE for the current project must include more than the road corridor. Historic properties within these expanded APEs must be identified and consultation initiated with NHOs prior to the commencement of construction. In addition, construction APEs lack clarity, particularly those in the Schofield BAX and South Range Acquisition. Based on reviews of maps and reports submitted to OHA, the Army appears to have considered the APE for the SBCT as the entirety of the Schofield BAX, including McCarthy Flats, West Range Impact Area, and the Impact Range. Assuming that the

122

Army considers the entire BAX as the APE for the SBCT, there are serious problems with the Armys ability or willingness to identify historic properties under its control. As described in the findings of OHA and Dr. Monahan, the Army failed to identify many historic properties in designated APEs. The identification of historic properties, in turn, affects the eligibility of these properties for protection from construction. However, if the entire BAX is not considered the APE, a different issue arises because of the wide range of impacts of training and construction activities within the BAX. Even if the construction activities for the SBCT do not have direct effects on particular areas of the BAX, cumulative and secondary effectsincluding the effects of future training activitiesmust be considered as part of a modified APE that reflects the full range of effects from the SBCT. Despite these two alternate concerns, it is unclear which applies without further clarification over the size of the Schofield APE. In this respect, the Army must first clarify the boundaries of the APE at the Schofield BAX.

C. Arbitrary Decisions on Areas Deemed Unsafe for Survey

Although safety is of primary concern during field surveys, Army staff appeared to make arbitrary decisions over areas that were determined safe for OHA field surveys. The unexploded ordnance hazards in areas deemed unsafe for field surveys were identical to the hazards in areas deemed safe for field surveys. Previously, the Army imposed similar restrictions on cultural monitors by limiting their construction monitoring because of perceived safety concerns. During both surveys, Army employees, contractors, and other individuals directly associated with the Army, retained access to areas deemed unsafe for the OHA survey team and cultural monitors. Hundreds of pre-contact archaeological sites are located in areas the

123

Army has deemed unsafe. As such, access restrictions continue to reduce the Armys compliance with the PA. Even when allowed into critical areas, other problems hindered survey efforts. Although the Army and OHA agreed to a general survey schedule when survey teams would have access to SBCT transformation sites, the parties had not agreed upon the specific sites to be visited. This practice resulted in the survey team having to use available days in the field to negotiate with the Army for access to specific sites. Once access was agreed upon, new safety restrictions were imposed that complicated survey logistics. For example, the Army required the survey team to use safety equipment that was not available for purchase and pay for emergency helicopter medivac service, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, to secure.

D. Reports Left in Draft Form

On many occasions during field survey planning, Army staff informed the OHA and SWCA survey teams that the final reports from a number of archaeological studies associated with the SBCT undertaking were unavailable. For example, the Army could not produce any reports pertinent to SBCT undertakings at KTA, except for a draft Archaeological and Cultural Monitoring Report from March 2008. (See Descantes, 2008). Many other studies remained in draft form, despite being conducted as far back as 2004. This lack of information created planning difficulties for the survey teams given the time constraints imposed by Army staff. The unavailability of final reports may also implicate the Armys obligations under Section 106 or Section 110 of the NHPA. Section 106 states:

124

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the [NRHP]. 16 U.S.C. 470f. Many of the descriptions of sites at Schofield BAX and KTA only include brief site descriptions, sketches, or GPS coordinates. These identified sites have not yet been evaluated for eligibility on the NRHP and are not receiving the protections provided by the NHPA.

125

Conclusion
Under the terms of the 2008 settlement agreement, OHA surveys focused on some areas that would be impacted by the construction and training of the Stryker Brigade. Surveys were limited to certain locations: Schofield BAX, QTR1, QTR2, and Kolekole Ranges 3-6, as well as portions of KTA and PTA Ranges 1, 8, 10 and 11T. This report provides the findings of these surveys, which were done in conjunction, but independent from, with the work of the lead archeologist, Dr. Christopher Monahan of SWCA Environmental Consultants. The main purpose of these surveys was to identify, evaluate, and assess the artifacts, historic properties, archeological sites, and TCPs within the APE for each project. The work of the OHA and SWCA survey teams revealed information about previously surveyed sites and uncovered additional sites eligible for protection. In addition to these findings, the OHA survey team also identified problems in the inventories and protection measures for cultural properties. These problems confirmed the concerns of the cultural monitors, OHA, ACHP, and SHPD, and also emphasized the need for additional historic preservation work. It is hoped that the SA and the reports produced from the field work will provide a bridge between OHA and the Army. The potential partnership between these agencies could improve historic preservation efforts and improve relationships between Native Hawaiians, the community, and the Army. Although there are still believed to be significant historic properties entitled to protection, this report opens the door to correct the deficiencies of previous work done on these important cultural properties.

126