Wednesday, August 17, 2011

EWA Update NPS Comments Critical Of Navy-Hunt Battlefield Survey

















Aloha,

NPS Comments Critical Of Navy-Hunt Battlefield Survey

HIGHLITES: From Attached Comments...

In short, the Ewa Battlefield retains quite a bit of integrity based on the
NR standards as set out in NR Bulletin 40

***********************************************************************
RE: Renewable Energy Park-

Recommend exploring options that would place the photovoltaic array away
from the Proposal runaway.

***********************************************************************

We do not consider the boundaries adequate for consideration since this
study was commissioned to represent the battlefield resources for this
portion of the Pearl Harbor engagement.

The evaluation is missing a presentation of the archeological battlefield
resources (especially field of fire) which might expand the boundary
significantly. There is no visual or view shed (observation) analysis, which
would certainly include more area than depicted. We recommend that the study
be revised to include archeological battlefield resources as well as view
shed analysis.

The report is generally well written and straight forward; however, we
believe that the findings of the evaluation are based on an incomplete
analysis that does not include some of the standard methodology used by the
American Battlefield Protection Program to evaluate battle fields. Given the
need for additional study and evaluation, we cannot concur with the findings
of AECOM's Battlefield evaluation of Ewa Field.

Our American Battlefield Protection Program staff would happily work with
the contractor to remove some of the inconsistent references to the core
area versus the historic extent of the battlefield, the supporting
assertions, the role of the avenue of approach and egress on all
battlefields and a detailed analysis of the report.

A concern with the report and the summary conclusion is the finding of
minimal integrity.

This conclusion is based on a misapplication of the NR (National Register)
standards as applied to the Ewa Battlefield and is incorrect. For example
there appears to be some confusion between the application of NR standards
for integrity and the concept of condition, as well as several contradictory
statements pertaining to the NR standards vis a-vis the defining features.

In addition, the battlefield integrity conclusions for the standards of
Association and Feeling are incorrect (pg. 20). In short, the Ewa
Battlefield retains quite a bit of integrity based on the NR standards as
set out in NR Bulletin 40

Only a defensive posture is considered rather than both sides of the
conflict. It is standard battlefield evaluation methodology to consider the
battle vantage point of both combatants. In an air assault where the planes
may have been as low as 20 feet from the ground, the view sheds (both attack
and defense) becomes critical to the understanding of the site. We recommend
that the evaluation be revised to include an analysis of both vantage
points.

*************************************************************************
APE = Area of Potential Effect

John Bond
Save Ewa Field