oratet 1g # BOE 6G soa FirdlL— DRAFT—Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Construction of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Kahuku Trai ing Area, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i Prepared For: US. Army Engineer District, Honolulu CEPOH-EC-E, Building 252 Fort Shatter, HI 96858-5440 Contract No, DACA83-03-D-0011 ‘Task Order No, 0017 Prepared By: Garcia and Associates 146 Hekili St., Suite 101 Kailua, HI 96734 GANDA July 2005 ‘GANDA Report No, 2078-AMPMANAGEMENT SUMMARY At the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Garcia and Associates has prepared an Archaeological Monitoring Plan for construction of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Kahuku Training Area, Otahu Island, Development of the Kahuku facility is one element of the transformation of the 2™ Brigade of the 25" Infantry Division (Light) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. ‘The monitoring plan has been developed in accordance with Stipulation V.A. of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team Programmatic Agreement and complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Army Regulation 200-4. If archaeological features or remains are encountered, they will be recorded with accurate GPS positions, mapped in profile and/or plan, and sampled. Recording and sampling will be conducted in ¢ manner that maximizes data on nature, location, age, and depositional environment of features while minimizing impact to ongoing construction activities. The archacological monitor will work closely with a cultural monitor to ensure that all work is conducted in a culturally sensitive manner.CONTENTS Management Summary... List of Figures... List of Tables. 1,0 INTRODUCTION....... 1.1 Authority... 1.2 Personnel and qualifications 2.0 BACKGROUND... 2.1 Environment. 2.2 Cultural and Historical Background... 2.3 Previous Archaeology. 2.3.1 CACTE Probability Designation for Cultural Resources. 2.3.1.1 Traditional Hawaiian Sites... 2.3.1.2 Kahuku Nike Missile Battery OA-17 2.3.1.2 Ongoing Investigations. 3.0 CULTURAL MONITORING... 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING... 4.1 General. 4.2 Excavation and Sampling. 4.3 Documentation... 4.3.1 Stratigraphie Documentation 4.3.2 Photographic Documentation. 4.4 Notification for Findings of Cultural Resources. 4.5 Monitor Communication and Chain of Command... 5.0 INADVERTANT DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS. 6.0 POST-FIELD ACTIONS . 6.1 Laboratory Analysis.. 6.1.1 Radiocarbon Samples. 6.2 Curation. 6.3 Reporting and Deliverables. 6.3.1 Draft and Final Reports. 6.3.2 GIS Dat 7.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS .. 7.1 Safety Plan.. 7.2 Rights Of Entry. ooron 7.3 Use Of Information... 8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE .. 9.0 REFERENCES. ow 18FIGURES Figure 1. Map of O‘ahu Island showing Kahuku Training Area and project area location, Figure 2. Kahuku Training Area and CACTF Project Ate ..rsnnnnnnnen Figure 3. Project area location... Figure 4, Construction schematie for CACTF, Kahuku Training Area, O'ahu... Figure 5. Construction schematic for CACTR, Kahuku Training Area, O'ahu. Figure 6. Locations of previously identified sites near the Kahuku CACFT project area. Figure 7, Chain-of-command for monitoring activities... ae Figure 8, Communication protocol for monitoring activities. TABLES. 10 19 ‘Table 1. Cultural Resource Investigations at Kahuku Training Area. ‘Table 2. Anticipated Schedule for Archaeological Monitoring... iii1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District (USACE POH), Garcia and Associates has prepared an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) for construction of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTR), Kahuku Training Area (K'TA), O*ahu Island (Figures 1-5). Development of the Kahuku facility is one element of the transformation of the 2"! Brigade of the 25" Infantry Division (Ligh!) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). The monitoring plan has been developed in accordance with Stipulation V.A. of the SBCT Programmatic Agreement and complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Army Regulation 200-4. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted under contract to the USACE POH as specified in the ‘Task Order No. 0017 scope-of-work (SOW) dated 17 May 2005. This AMP was developed with reference to the format and stipulations included in the SOW and will be used to guide archaeological monitoring, sampling, data recording, laboratory analysis, and report preparation. Ongoing consultation with USACE POH environmental technical staff will be an important part of the successful implementation of this AMP. Tn the course of the project, Garcia and Associates will also coordinate closely with the United States Army Garrison-Hawaii Cultural Resources Manager (USAG-HI_CRM). The project’s Principal Investigator (John Peterson, PhD) or Field Director (Michael Desilets, MA) will be available to accompany State Historic Preservation Division personnel and U.S. Army representatives on inspections of cultural resources, if determined necessary by USAG-HI CRM and USACE POH environmental technical staff. Figure 1, Map of O*ahu Island showing Kahuku Training Area and project area location.7 cette rn oe ff HE reccisco i Kilometers Es — : CACTF Project Area, northern O'ahu (USGS Haleiwa, Waimea, Kahuku, and Hauula Quadrangles).E Kahuku Training Area Boundary KilometersSa Construction_Footprint Figure 4. Cons quadrangle),Construction_Footprint Figure 5. Construction schematic for CACTF, Kahuku Training Area, O'ahu.1.1 AUTHORITY All aspects of the archaeological monitoring project will be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Army Regulation 200-4, and the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Historic Preservation, The AMP, letter reports, and the draft and final monitoring reports may be used for coordination with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, the Pre nt's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, appropriate U.S. Army authorities, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and other historic preservation agencies and interested parties. 1.2 PERSONNEL AND QUALIFICATIONS. Michael Desilets, MA (Field Director), under the ditect supervision of John Peterson, PhD (Principal Investigator), will coordinate and oversee all archaeological and cultural monitoring, If multiple monitors are needed, field personnel will expand to include Cassidy DeBaker, BA, Esme Hammerle, BA, or Brad Ostroff, BA. The Government will be notified of proposed changes in the Principal Investigator of Field Director, ‘The institutional and professional qualifications for performance of this project will conform to the standards developed and compiled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engincers for the master contract (DACA83-03-D-0011) of this Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, and the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines (48 CFR, 44716 ff, 29 September 1983), 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 ENVIRONMENT KTA is 2 9,650-acre parcel located on the northeastern side of O‘ahu Island, The training area is situated on the windward side of the Ko‘olau Mountains and its borders extend across the upland limits of eight aiupua‘a within the district of Ko‘olau Loa. These ahupua'a include Kiapapa‘u, » Malaekahana, Keana, Kahuku, Paumalu, Pupukea and Waimea. KTA property ranges in elevation from approximately 25 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on the coastal plain to 1860 fect amsl in the uplands, Annual rainfall amounts vary from approximately 40 inches on the coastal plain to 150 inches in the mountains (Armstrong 1983:64). Vegetation at KTA has been historically altered through ranching, pineapple, and sugarcane cultivation, As a result, vegetation in the KTA project area presently consists of introduced grasses, drought-resistant trees, Polynesian introductions, and a few indigenous Hawaiian plant species. According to Sohmer and Gustafson (1987:145-154) and Anderson and Williams (1998:5-1), the lowlands and degraded slopes consist of the grasses Miscanthus (sp.) and Gramminae (spp.), a8 well as historically introduced tree species such as ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia), guava (Psidium guajava), Kiawe (Prosopis Padilla), Christmas berry (Schinus terrebinthefolios), and koa haole Zeucaena glauca). Candlenut, or kukuti (Aleurites molluccana), is a Polynesian introduction that persists in valley interiors, Indigenous Haweiian plants previously identified in the uplands of KTA include tree fern (hapu'u, Metrosideros sp.) and ‘Ohi‘a (Metrosideros sp.). KTA soils are broadly classified into four categories: Helemano-Wahiawa, Kaena-Wailua, Mountainous Land-Kapaa, and Lolekaa-Waikane Associations (Foote et al. 1972). Helemano-Wahiawa Association soils are deep, well drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils found in the uplands. Kacna-Wailua Association soils are decp, poorly drained to excessively drained, fine to coarse textured, and are found in coastal settings, talus slopes, and drainageways. The rough Mountainous Land-Kapaa association is found in very steep land dissected by numerous Grainageways and consisting of well drained soils in gulches and narrow ridges. Lolekaa-Waikane Association, by contrast, is found on terraces, fans, and uplands. The association consists of deep, well-drained, fine-textured soils found in level to very steep environments. In addition to the four associations, basaltic lavas are exposed along the Kahuku escarpment, along the sides of drainages, and along upland ridges. 2.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. Although settlement of the windward region of Oahu followed closely behind initial colonization of the Hawaiian archipelago around AD 600 (Kirch 1985:107), the area encompassing KTA may have been settled later than other windward locations because of its drier climate. Rich fishing grounds, springs, streams, and forest resources, however, would have made it more desirable than many other localities on the island. It was likely settled by AD 1100-1300 (Anderson and Williams 1998:5-3). Fishing and agriculture were once important activities within the KTA area, Irrigated agriculture (10%) occurred, though not extensively, along permanent streams in the vicinity of the project area and dryland agriculture (Aula) occurred in sandy soils along the coast and in drier upland reaches (Handy end Handy 1991:462). Previously recorded agricultural sites on KTA property include a possible agriculture terrace complex (Site 4887) between Kaunala Gulch and Waialc’e Gulch, a stone-faced irrigation ditch (Site 9506) in Kea‘aulu Gulch, and a small agricultural terrace (Site 9509) in ‘O*io Gulch (Rosendahl 1977; Williams and Patolo 1998:42). Religious practice at KTA is evident in the presence of eiau, fishing shrines (Koa), and a sacred stone site. Heiau recorded within KTA include Pu‘uala Heiau (Site 260), previously located on a ridge overlooking Kahuku Ranch (McAllister 1933:152), Pahipahialua Helau (Site 4885), located at the mouth of the Pahipahialua Gulch (Williams and Patolo 1998:60-64), and Hanakaoe Heiau, Fishing shrines located in the coastal area include Keanakua Fishing Shrine (Site 263) located at Kahuku Point, and an unnamed shrine (Site 274) in Laie (McAllister 1933:152-156). In 1779, members of Cook’s final voyage described Kahuku as a thriving fertile area (Handy and Handy 1991:462). A mere thirteen years later, however, Captain George Vancouver remarked that production on the land was not flourishing and that populations were diminished, Anderson and Williams (1998:5-15) note that the discrepancy may be related to one of several factors including warfare, disease, or seasonal shifts in populations. In the early 1800s, missionary schools were established in Latie and Malaekahana and the harvesting of sandalwood for export was undertaken. During the Mahele of 1848, a total of 269 land claims were submitted from the Ko‘olau Loa District, indicating a minimum residential population of approximately 800 individuals (Anderson and Williams. 1998:5-18). Claimant testimonies show the importance of both coastal and upland resources. Hawaiian government lands consumed a large portion of the district and were subsequently leased and turned into ranch lands. The Kahuku and Malaekahana Ranches developed in the Ko‘olau Loa District around 1852. These ranches were eventually combined and the land was sold to James Campbell in 1876 (Anderson and Williams 1998:5-34),James Campbell, James B. Castle, and Benjamin F. Dillingham joined to charter the Kahuku Plantation Company in 1890, Dillingham leased land from Campbell to establish new sections of the O.R.&L. Co, Railroad that reached the Kahuku Sugar Mill in 1899 (Conde and Best 1973:308-309), Pineapple cultivation began around 1916 on patts of the Kahuku Plantation. Historic topographic maps indicate land-use alterations over time throughout the project area and surrounding lands (Buffum et al. 2004:34-36). A 1909/1913 U.S. Amy map shows what appears to bea fenceline north and east of the project area that delineates sugarcane and pineapple lands along the coast, A network of roads is shown extending from the coast to approximately 300 feet amsl, though none of the roads intrude into the current project area. A 1929/1930 USGS Laie quadrangle map also shows a fenceline delineating sugarcane lands, though cane land-use is not specified symbolically or in text. Numerous ditches, reservoirs, aqueduets, fumes, and California Packing Company camps are shown within the makai portions north and east of the project area. According to Williams and Patolo (1998:21): (@)mall scale pineapple cultivation on Kahuku Plantation lands was begun around 1916 with ‘additional leases of small parcels for pineapple leased to individual growers between 1921 and 1927. As the small leases expired, many of them mortgaged, the leases were acquired by the California Packing Company Some portions of the Kahuku Training Area are former pineapple fields and contain plantation camp sites The 1929/1930 USGS map indicates an extensive network of roads and what appear to be fencelines within the project area, The fences appear to form large enclosures and generally follow contours within the highly dissected terrain, One section of fenceline appears to traverse a steep slope in the vieinity of previously recorded Site 50-80-02-4884. A few fencelines appear to be represented on a 1943 USGS. map, particularly in the western portion of the project area. They appear to be straighter and form larger enclosures than on the 1929/1930 map. This may indicate property ownership changes from individual parcels to corporate control as referred to by Williams and Patolo (1998:21). The 1943 map also indicates a concentration of buildings in the northeast portion of the project area. Approximately twelve buildings are indicated within the project area and another dozen to the northeast outside the project area, Several roads lead to the community and other parts of the project area from the northern coast. Other features shown on the 1943 map include flumes, ditches, railroad spur lines, reservoirs, and pumps indicating intensive agricultural and commercial activity along the coast. According to the map, none of these latter features occur within the project area, ‘The O.R.&L. Co. began scrapping the track and rolling stock that serviced the plantation between 1948 and 1951. Campbell Estate began preparing development plans for Kahuku lands as a tourist destination by the late 1950s, signaling the decline of the sugar industry and advent of tourism. In 1956, 280 acres of Kahuku Plantation were leased to the U.S. Government by the Kahuku Plantation Company for creation of Kaluku Training Area, Additional leases allowed the military facility to expand to its current size of more than 9600 acres. The U.S. Government currently owns all of Kahuku with the exception of Training Area A-1. The reader is directed to Anderson and Williams (1998:5-1 to 5-73) who provide a more detailed overview of legend and myths, historical accounts, and history of Kahuku,2.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY A number of cultural resource surveys have been undertaken within KTA, most of them within the last fifteen years (Table 1). All studies confirm that the large portions of Kahuka have been heavily impacted by both economic (agriculture and grazing) and military uses. Despite this, the various studies have identified sites ranging from traditional Hawaiian agricultural complexes to Cold War ‘era missile launch and contro sites. An accurate count of previously recorded and extant sites within KTA has been difficult to ascertain, Anderson and Williams (1998:33) reported a “total of twenty-four cultural resources” within KTA. Of that number, eight sites (Sites 259, 260, 1043, 2357-2360 and 9517) have probably been destroyed but are undocumented. According to Anderson and Williams (1998:33): Fiftcen' cultural resources still exist at KT (Sites 2501, 9506-9509, 4881-4888, 4930, 0599 and 9745). Twelve? of these sites (Sites 9506-9509, 4882-4888, 4930 and 0599) are eligible or potentially eligible for nomination to the HRHP and NRHP. A fairly recent archaeological survey was undertaken within a northwest portion of KTA mauka of the Wailee coastal community (Drolet 2000). Thirteen new sites were identified during this survey including eight of pre-Contact age. Buffum et al. (2004) also identified three new late historic sites during their 2003 survey. Recent work by Scientific Consultant Services (SCS in prep.) has also identified numerous new cultural resources (n > 65) throughout Kahuku Training Area, bringing the total number of recorded sites to well over 100, 2.3.1 CACTF Probability Designation for Cultural Resources In addition to the studies listed in Table 1, Anderson and Williams (1998) have prepared an historic preservation plan for KTA that establishes a three-level probability scheme (high, moderate, low) for presence of cultural resources (Anderson and Williams 1998:59). The probability areas were based on geographic and environmental considerations as well as on the likelihood of modem cultural impact. Given the results of previous survey work, it is clear that the major gulches, particularly low elevation areas surrounding their mouths, are the primary locus of traditional Hawaiian activity with KTA. These areas are therefore designated as having a high probability for containing archacological sites, despite the likelihood of substantial impact from ranching and sugarcane cultivation, More rugged inland areas including steep ridge slopes and minor drainages, by contrast, have received far less historic impact and consequently can be expected to exhibit a low site density but at a higher state of preservation, Drolet’s 1997 (2000) survey results support this probability model, but also seem to indicate that preservation at the gulch mouths (e.g. Pahipahialua and Kaunala) may be quite good. ‘The Kahuku CACTF project area is designated as having a low probability for containing archaeological sites (Anderson and Williams 1998:59). Situated on a high plateau between ‘Ohi‘a‘ai and East ‘Otio Gulches, the area is squarely within the lower reaches of the Koolau foothills at an elevation range of 560-680 ft above mean sea level. Previous survey work has confirmed that sites are indeed rare in this geographic area and that “low probability” is an accurate designation (Rosendahl 1977; Williams and Patolo 1995; Buffum et al. 2004; SCS in prep.). "The wewal number fs sixteen, as listed later inthe quotation, ° The actual naraber is thirteen, as listed later in the quotation‘able 1. Cultural Resource Investigations at Kabuku Training Area. Year Author(s) Investigation Resources Documented 19x 1970 1977 1981 1990, 191, 1994 1995 1998 2000 2004 Meallister Survey Survey Inventory Survey (TA) Davis Roconnaissance Survey (KTA) US. Department of | HRHP, NRHP, NHL the Interior (listed) Fareell and Reconnaissance Cleghom Survey (Punamo Comm. Station) Williams and Patolo Inventory Survey and Excavation Drolet Inventory Survey Buffum etl Survey ‘Walkane Sucred Stone (Site 259) Pu'uala Heiau (Site 260), Reported destroyed. Hanakoae Platform (Site 2501) ~ NRHP listed Kawela Agricultural Terraces (Site 1043) Kanealii Agricultural Terraces (Site 9517) Stone-facediigation ditch (Site 9506) Stone faced terrace (Site 9507) Stone platform (Site 9508) Stone faced agricultural terace (Site 9509) Histosie wall (Site 2357) ‘Traditional Hawaiian Complex - two houses (Sites 2358, 2389) and a hetau (2360) “Opana Mobile Radar Site (Site 9745) ‘World War II era structures (Sito 0599) Includes 3 bunkers cligible for NRHP Residential enclosure/mounds (Site 4877) ‘Two rock shelters (Sites 4878 and 4879) ‘Two linear mounds (Sites 4880 and 4930) ‘Octagonal concrete slab (Site 4881) Military observation post (Site 4881) ‘Two bunkers (Sites 4882 and 4886) ‘Two coastal defense sites (Sites 4882, 4886) Plantation era house (Site 4883) Isolated carth oven (Site 4884) Heiau (Site 4885) Habitation complex (Site 4887) ‘Temporary habitation rock shelter (Site 5534 and $685) Burial cave (Site $535) Rock shelter (Site $536) Enclosure (Site 5537) Wall (5538) Agricultural teraces (Sites 5539 and 5540) Enclosure (Site 5684) Ahupus'a boundary wal (Site 5686) Historic roadway (Site S688) Excavated military cavern (Site 5689) Military bunker (Site $690) Linear stone alignments and terrace (Site 6535) Conerete foundation, driveway, banyan trees (Site 6536) Conerete foundation (Site 6537) 102.3.1.1 Traditional Hawaiian Ss In 2003, archaeological survey was conducted across the entire CACTE project area in support of SBCT transformation (Buffum et al. 2004:27-43). This work produced no traditional Hawaiian cultural resources. To date, the nearest traditional Hawaiian site (50-80-02-6535) is approximately 350 meters northwest of the CACTF area, along the east bank of East ‘O*io Stream (Figure 6). The site was identified by Buffum et al. (2004:42) as a traditional Hawaiian agricultural feature consisting of cobble and boulder alignments. Another traditional Hawaiian site (50-80-02-4884) is located about a kilometer west of the CACTE, on the west bank of ‘O‘io Stream (Figure 6). This site consists of a single imu and was originally identified and sampled by Williams and Patolo (1995:67~71), A sample of carbonized tuber from the feature returned calibrated date ranges (26 ) of AD 1490-1680 or AD 1770-1800, Although the likelihood of archaeological features remains low for the CACTF area, Sites 4884 and 6535 demonstrate that such features may be present in this geographic zone. These sites were discovered in a topographic cnvironment and at elevations similar to that of the CACTF project area It is therefore reasonable to expect that such features may be exposed during CACTF construction activities, particularly where vegetation clearing provides improved ground surface visibility. igure 6. Locations of previously identified sites near the Kahuku CACFT project arca. 1 u2.3.1.2 Kahuku Nike Missile Battery OA-17 Although no traditional Hawaiian sites have been recorded in the project area, it does contain an important Cold War era site—Kahuku Nike Missile Battery OA-17 (Figure 6). This site has been fully documented according to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards (Buffum et al.:Appendix B). The battery contains three principal components: a Launcher Area, a Control Area, and an Administrative Area. The Contro! Area is situated over a kilometer west of the CACTF project area, The Administrative Arca is directly adjacent to the CACTF construction footprint, but no construction activities will occur here, ‘The Launcher Area is within the proposed CACTF training area and is slated for use as an open-air market, The Launcher Arca was cleared of vegetation and surface cleared for unexploded ordnance (UXO), According to HAER documentation (Buffum et al. 2004:Appendix B, HAER No. 69-A, page 2): ‘The Launcher Area currently contains all the original buildings and nearly all the site features from when the base was in operation, It contains the 1) Missile Assembly and Test Building and the 2) Warhead Building where the missiles were assembled, the 3) Generator Building and 4) Frequency Converter Structures, the 5) missile launch pads and surrounding earth berms, 6) Underground Control Stations; and for security, the 7) Sentry Box, 8) Sentry Control Station, 9) Guard Towers, and 10) security fencing and floodlights. The facility was constructed in 1960. All of the structures are connected by roads and sidewalks, providing ease of movement about the site for both personne! and vehicles, such as contro! and radar vans that carried essential equipment. The area is quite overgrown with litle or no maintenance of the plant life, but the roads and walkways appear fo be in fair o good condition. 2.3.1.2 Ongoing Investigations At the time this plan was drafted, archaeological monitoring in support of UXO clearance at the CACTF was ongoing. This effort has produced several features of interest which had not been previously recorded, and it is possible that other features remain to be discovered. All such potential cultural resources will be fully recorded and analyzed prior to the constuction phase of the CACTE Project. Site data from the UXO monitoring project will be incorportated into the final archaeological monitoring plan for CACTF construction. 3.0 CULTURAL MONITORING As stipulated in the Cultural Monitoring Plan (Peterson and Desilets 2005), the archagological monitor will work closely with a cultural monitor from the local Hawaiian community. Cultural monitors will act as independent observers who are both knowledgeable and sensitive to Native Hawaiian site management and who have the trust of members of his/her community. Cultural monitors will also provide a liaison with Native Hawaiians if properties of traditional religious and cultural importance are discovered or inadvertently impacted, and assist in the identification and treatment of such sites. Some of the items falling within the purview of the cultural mot clude Native Hawaiian graves and artifacts, natural resources used for food, ceremonies, or traditional crafls, and places that have special cultural or historic significance.4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING Qualified Garcia and Associates personnel will monitor all earth-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Kahuku CACTF. Such activities may include road construction, grading, areal excavation, and trenching. If needed, multiple monitors will be employed at physically separated carth-disturbing activities. Prior to the beginning of fieldwork, the archaeological monitor will have a coordination meeting with the construction team to make them aware of the AMP and its stipulations. 4.1 GENERAL If subsurface archaeological features or remains are encountered, they will be recorded with accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) positions, mapped in profile and/or plan, and sampled. Recording and sampling will be conducted in a manner that maximizes data on nature, location, and age of features and their depositional environments. Recording and sampling will also be conducted in a ‘manner that minimizes impact to ongoing excavation work. Protection measures such as physical barriers will be implemented for sites threatened by the undertaking, Sites which are not threatened by the undertaking, but are near enough to be of concem, will be conspicuously marked with surveyor’s flagging tape. 4.2 EXCAVATION AND SAMPLING Test excavation, if necessary, will be conducted according to the following specifications. All excavated material will be passed through a minimum 1/4 inch mesh screen; however, 1/8 inch mesh will be used whenever possible. Any non-retained portion of the excavated material will be visually inspected for general compositional characteristics, artifacts, and/or significant cultural remains, All ‘observations including depth of excavation from datum, plan view maps, and in-situ locational data will be recorded on standard excavation forms. If appropriate, redundant sets of archaeological materials will be retained, Regarding specific excavation methodology (arbitrary levels or stratigraphic layers), decisions will be made by the Principle Investigator and Ficld Director based on the stratigraphic context of the unit. Soil, pollen, charcoal, and other sample types will be collected as deemed appropriate by supervisory personnel, 4.3 DOCUMENTATION All stages of the project will be fully documented in daily log and photographic form. The daily log will contain data indicating time spent monitoring, sampling, and testing, the amount of sediment removed and its location, the presence or absence of cultural remains and/or significant soil strata, and the locations of all sampled areas. 4.3.1 Stratigraphic Documentation ‘Where subsurface cultural features are present, detailed stratigraphic profiles will be recorded. Likewise, where sampling or testing has been performed or where there is major sedimentary change, detailed stratigraphie profiles will also be recorded, Profiles recorded in areas containing no cultural deposits will convey the general stratigraphy of the area in a manner that provides for Future management needs.In the event that test excavations are needed, detailed stratigraphic information will be recorded for at least one face of each excavation unit. If a test unit contains cultural features, all faces will be profiled. All stratigraphic data will be described in accordance with current National Soil Survey Center and Munsell Color Notation conventions (Schoenberger et al. 1998; Munsell 1992) 4.3.2 Photographie Documentation All stages of fieldwork will be documented using 35 mm film as well as digital photography. All in situ cultural features and surface artifacts will be photo-documented using both technologies. ‘Two sets of photographic documentation will be delivered to POH. One set will consist of 35mm project photographs with corresponding photo logs. A contact shect of the photographs will be included as well as two sets of negatives. Lastly, all project specific color photos will be printed on high quality photo paper and included in the unbound final report ‘The second set of photographic documentation will consist of digital project photographs with corresponding photo logs. These will be submitted in hard copy and on a Compact Dise (CD). As needed, the archaeological monitor(s) will also shoot video of field discoveries, testing, and/or sampling, The video will be delivered in DVD format with explanatory text. 4.4 NOTIFICATION FOR FINDINGS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES If the archaeological monitor or cultural monitor recognizes imminent destruction of a potentially valuable cultural resource, the archaeological monitor will request temporary suspension excav: activities at that location. Findings of cultural resources will be communicated in a timely fashion through the chain-of-communication outlined in Section 4.5. Should cultural resources be identified during excavations, and avoidance of cultural resources or items is not possible, consultation with the USAG-HI CRM, SHPO, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, shall be undertaken, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, pursuant to implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800, to determine significance and proper disposition of the cultural items. If there is a possibility that human remains will be disturbed, the local burial council will also be notified, pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. AA data recovery plan or site protection plan may be developed if necessary. In general, recordation of archaeological remains will include line drawings and documentation, including photography wherever feasible, of profiles showing intact cultural deposits. Whenever practical, collection of charcoal and bulk samples from intact cultural deposits will be undertaken for radiocarbon dating, and other basic analyses (such as faunal remains, pollen, etc.) and soils from the deposits will also be sieved through 1/8 inch screen to assist in the retrieval of cultural material. The location of all intact cultural deposits will be mapped on a base-map of the project area, Inadvertent discovery of human remains are addressed in Section 5.0. 4.5 MONITOR COMMUNICATION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND The cultural and archaeological monitors are employees of Garcia and Associates and will conform to company policy and protocol for the project, as required by the Garcia and Associates Employee Handbook, as amended. Chain-of-command for monitoring work will follow the flowchart shown in Figure 7, This chart shows the formal chain of responsibility and general levels of decision making for the monitoring 4US. Amy Garson - Hawa Directrate ef Pune Wo US. Amy Comps ot Enginosr Paci Ocean Heaceuartars GANDA Principal vesiptor GANDA Prefect Orato al an Figure 7. Chain-of-command for monitoring activities. U.S. Army Garon - Hava seach Wapevomagepese vere tee a viele Ea ica cant) ---[ SS Cree unt SaEEe Figure 8. Communication protocol for monitoring activities.project. Issues will be resolved at the lowest possible level and move up the hierarchy only as it becomes necessary. Actual day-to-day communication channels are somewhat more fluid than the chain-of-command and will correspond to the level of urgency and availability of personnel during particular field situations (Figure 8), For purposes of efficiency and cleat channels of communication, the cultural monitor will schedule with and report to the archaeological monitor on duty. ‘The archaeological monitor and the cultural monitor will report to the Garcia and Associates PD for the project. The PD is responsible for assuring that appropriate activities are being monitored by archaeological and cultural monitors, as required. The PD will be the Point of Contaet for USACE and USAG-HI personnel. The PD will communicate to the Garcia and Associates PI copies of all communications and regular updates on the project. The PI and PD will meet weekly (or as determined necessary) with USACE and USAG-HI personnel on the project. ‘As necessary, USAG-HI and USACE personnel and cultural monitors may communicate directly in order to facilitate scheduling and logistical support for the project. All such communication will be documented and reported in the daily log for the project. In emergency situations, as discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.0, the archaeological monitor may communicate directly with available USAG-HI personnel at the installation 5.0 INADVERTANT DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS Inadvertent discovery of human remains is not anticipated, If human remains are encountered all ‘excavation work will immediately stop and a reasonable effort will be made to protect the remains and associated cultural items. USACE environmental technical staff and USAG-HI CRM will be notified immediately. As per Appendix C of the SBCT PA, Garcia and Associates will provide immediate telephone notification of the discovery, with written back-up to the Garrison Commander and the Installation Cultural Resources Manager. ‘Utmost care will be taken to ensure that any associated artifacts or stratigraphic features included within the provenience of the burial are not further disturbed and are secured from vandalism and the elements. There will be no photographing of human remains. Additional treatment or handling of the human remains will only occur at the direction of USACE. environmental technical staff and USAG-HI CRM and after consultation with Native Hawaiian groups as outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and Appendix C of the SBCT PA. 6.0 POST-FIELD ACTIONS A number of actions will be performed relative to the materials and data collected during archaeological monitoring and sampling. These actions consist of laboratory analysis of cultural remains and samples, curation of remains, and submission of reports and data to POH environmental technical staff,6.1 LABORATORY ANALY’ ‘Transportation of samples from the field to the laboratory will follow the general practices outlined in Section 9.5 of the ID/IQ contract (No. DACA83-03-D-0011). This will minimally include proper labeling of samples and boxes, minimization of handling, storage comparable to original site conditions, isolation of specific samples in appropriate storage containers, ensuring an adequately arid environment for radiocarbon and soil samples, and compilation of a packing list forall boxes, All artifacts and midden samples will be thoroughly cleaned prior to analysis, Artifacts will subsequently be photographed, sketched, and identified. All metric attributes, including weight, will be recorded and presented in tabular form in the final report. Midden samples will be identified to the lowest taxonomic degree possible, 6.1.1 Radiocarbon Samples If in-situ archaeological features such as hearths or cooking pits are encountered, carbonized remains will be collected and submitted for radiocarbon dating. Prior to submission, all samples will be submitted for floral species identification. Only short-lived species fragments will be submitted for dating. In selecting radiocarbon dating options, Garcia and Associates will consider critically the full range of methodologies and technologies available. 6.2 CURATION ‘Temporary curation for matcrials collected during field investigations will be provided in Garcia and Associates’ Hawaii laboratory until one month after all project related activities are completed, Cultural material recovered and project related documentation will be turned over to the USAG-HI DPW Environmental Office after all project related activities are completed. All retrieved cultural material will be sufficiently documented and preserved according to specifications presented in Section 9.5 of the IDIQ contract. 6.3 REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES Garcia and Associates will be in regular contact with POH environmental technical staff and the USAG-HICRM regarding the progress of archaeological and cultural monitoring activities. Succinct e-mail progress reports will be provided throughout the course of the project. These will include information regarding discovery of cultural material, testing and sampling actions taken, and assessments of the impact of discovered cultural material on the undertaking, ‘When the field portion of the project is complete, a letter report will be submitted to the government within sixty days. The report will summarize field schedutes as well as archaeological and cultural monitoring, testing, and sampling activities performed during the project. Locational information for all areas containing cultural resources will be provided in the letter report. This will consist of a map and Geographic Information System (GIS) layers provided on CD (see Scction 6.3.2 below). 63.1 Draft and Final Reports Draft and final reports will comply with specifications presented in Section 6.3 of the ID/IQ contract.Fifteen draft reports will be delivered to POH environmental technical staff for preliminary review no later than sixty calendar days following the end of fieldwork. The draft report will incorporate all specifications listed in the SOW dated 17 May 2005. POH will return review comments to Garcia and Associates no later than thirty calendar days after receipt of the draft report. Garcia and Associates will then incorporate POH and/or USAG-HI comments on the draft report into a revised draft report. Fifteen bound hardcopies of the revised draft report will be submitted to the Government no later than thirty calendar days after receipt of Government comments. The revised draft report will then be returned to Garcia and Associates with review comments no later than fifty calendar days after receipt. Review comments will be addressed and a final report subsequently produced. ‘Thirty-three copies of the final report (including all color graphics and tables, and GIS data in UTM format on CD) will be submitted in the following manner: + Two unbound hard copies with color photos on high quality photo paper. + Three electronic copies on CD in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat. + Twenty-eight bound copies with color graphics Accomplete set of original site forms (one unbound copy and two loosely bound copies), photographs (including those not used in final report), digital photographs on CD, and other locational data collected or generated will be submitted to the government after acceptance of final report. A legible copy of all field notes will also be submitted at this time. 6.3.2 GIS Data Prior to beginning archacological monitoring, a data dictionary will be acquired from POH environmental staff. Only the supplied data dictionary will be used during the field project. Data collection standards will then follow those outlined in Section 12.3 of the SOW. Universal Transverse Mercator projection (Zones 4, O'ahu) and North American Datum 1983 will be used during data collection, Garcia and Associates will submit two copies of all interim GIS data in ESRI’s shapefile format with the end-of-field letter report. Two copies of all final GIS data in ESRI’s shapefile format will be submitted with the Final Report. A report of the field collection methodology will be included with the copies submitted with the Final Report. This methodology report will explicate the data, accuracy, and collection procedures used. 7. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7A SAFETY PLAN Garcia and Associates will ensure that all appropriate safety standards as contained in the Department of the Amy and US Amy Corps of Engineers regulations (EM 385-1-1) and directives are complied with during the performance of this project. A Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP), including a Risk Analysis Assessment per EM 385-1-1, was submitted to the Corps Safety & Occupational Health Office for review within ten calendar days after award of task order. The SSHP specifically addresses ficld conditions under which monitoringEEE HE HS FF SF FF FE HF FF SF 6 np Ss eS will not be performed. Garcia and Associates will begin fieldwork only after the SSHP is accepted by the USACE POH Contracting Officer. 7.2 RIGHTS OF ENTRY ‘The Government is responsible for obtaining all rights-of-entry in the study areas. Garcia and Associates, however, will consult and coordinate with the appropriate officers and offices, including Military Police and Range Control personnel, and provide any documentation needed to facilitate the righis-of-entry. Garcia and Associates will strictly conform to all KTA procedural matters as ‘outlined by the Range Control Office during performance of fieldwork. 7.3 USE OF INFORMA’ IN ‘The information, data, and material recovered, developed, gathered, assembled, and reproduced by Garcia and Associates, their subcontractors, or their associates in the fulfillment of the contract requirements, as defined in or related to the SOW, will become the complete property of the Government and will, therefore, not be used by Garcia and Associates, their subcontractors, or their associates for any purpose or use, nor released prior to publie release by the Government without the ‘written consent of the contracting officer or the contracting officer's designated representative. 8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE, During the progress of work, the Principle Investigator will confer by telephone with POH environmental technical staff to ensure that tasks are being successfully accomplished. When it becomes known by Garcia and Associates that project milestones will not be met, written requests for extensions will be submitted to the POH Contract Officer with reasonable justification. The anticipated work schedule is shown in Table 2. According to the schedule, the entire period of the contract will not exceed 1095 calendar days following award of task order. ‘Table 2. Anticipated Schedule for Archaeological Monitoring Project Coordination Milestone Calendar Days After Estimated Percentage of Work ‘Award Completed Submittal of Draft SSHP 10 5% Gov't Provides Review of SSHP 0 i Submittal of Final SSHP and Draft AMP and CMP Is 10% Gov't Provides Review of AMP and CMP 45 - ‘Submittal of Final AMP and CMP 18 15% Pro-fieldwork coordination meeting with POH & 18 - USAG-HICRM Start of Fieldwork 1s 45% End Fieldwork 890 : ‘Submitel of End of Field Report and GIS Data 20 : , 19—_ SE aS See ese ese fs es ese Se SE eS eS SE SE EE Table 3, Anticipated Schedule for Archaeological Monitoring (continued) Project Coordination Milestone ‘Calendar Days After Estimated Percentage of Work ‘Award ‘Completed Suiomittal of Draft Monitoring Report 980 15% Government Review of Draft Monitoring Reports 1010 ‘Submittal of Finel Monitoring Reports and Field Data 1040 903%, ‘Submit Colletion/Curation Material and Photographs 1095 100% ' 209.0 REFERENCES Anderson, L., and $.S. Williams 1998 Final Report: Historie Preservation Plan for the Kahuku Training Area. Prepared for U.S. Amy Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, Fort Shafer, Hawaii, Contract No. DACA83-91-0025, Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu. Ammstrong, W.R. (ed.) 1983 The Atlas of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Buffum, A., M, Desilets, . Roberts, J. Robins, and A. Roberts 2004 Archaeological Surveys of Proposed Training Areas for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), U.S. Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Shafter, Honolulu. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, HI. Chapman, P. 1970. Field Notes and Site Fortn for Site $0-80-02-2501, Hanakoae Platform. Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology, Honolulu, Conde, J.C. and GM. Best 1973 Sugar Trains: Narrow Guage Rails of Hawaii. Glenwood Publishers, Felton, Davis, Bertell 1981 Archaeological Reconnaisance Survey of Hawaiian Wind Farm Project Area at Kahuku O'ahu, Hawai'i. Ms. 060481. Prepared for Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles. Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology, Honolulu. Drolet, R. 2000 Archaeological Inventory Survey of Area Al, Kahuku Training Area, O'ahu Island, Hawai'i. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Shafter, Honolulu. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Honolulu. Farrell, N. and P. Cleghom 1995 Archaeological and Historical Investigations at U.S. Air Force Punamano ‘Communications Station Kahuku, O'ahu Island, Hawai i, Propared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Honolulu. Foote, D. E., B. L, Hill, 8. Nakamura, and F, Stephens 1972 Soil Survey of she Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. US.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C., in cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Handy, B.S. and C.G. Handy 1991 Native Planters in Old Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. (Reprint) Bishop Museum, Press, Honolulu.Kirch, P.Y. 1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, McAllister, J.G. 1933 Archaeology of Oahu. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104, Honolulu. Munsell® Soil Color Chart 1992 Munsell® Soil Color Chart, Revised edition. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., New York Peterson, J. and M. Desilets 2005 Cultural Monitoring Plan for Construction of the Combined Arms Collective Training Facility, Kahuku Training Area, O‘ahu Island, Hawai'i. Prepared for Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, Fort Shafter, HI, Garcia and Associates, Kailua, HI. Rosendahl, P. 1977 Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation Report for U.S. Army Support Command, Hawaii (USASCF), Parts I and If. Prepared for the Department of Amy, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, Prepared by Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Schoenberger, P.J., Wysocki, D. A., Benham, B.C., and Broderson, W.D. 1998 Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Sohmer, S.H., and R. Gustafson 1987 Plants and Flowers of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Williams, $.S,, and T. Patolo 1998 Final Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Portion of the Kahuku Training Area, for the Legacy Resource Management Program, Oahu Island, Hawaii. Prepared for US. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, Contract No. DACA83-91-D-0025, Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Serviees Inc., Honolulu, 1 2