FINAL—Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan

for Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Based System

Improvements – GWA Route 4 Relief Sewerline Rehabilitation

and Replacement Project, Hagåtña and Sinajana

Municipalities, Guam

Prepared For:

AECOM

414 W. Soledad Avenue, Suite 708

Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Prepared By:

Cacilie E. Craft, MA, RPA

Garcia and Associates

Garden Villa, H-302

800 Pale San Vitores Road

Tamuning, Guam 96913

GANDA Report No. 2363-1

25 October 2016

i

ABSTRACT

At the request of AECOM, Garcia and Associates has prepared this

Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) to guide archaeological

monitoring for the GWA Route 4 Relief Sewerline Rehabilitation and Replacement

Project in Hagåtña and Sinajana Municipalities on the island of Guam. This sewerline

project is part of Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Based System

Improvements, a Section 106 undertaking funded through Drinking Water and Clean

Water SRF grant funds administered by the Unites States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). The AMDRP presents methods and protocols that will be followed

during archaeological investigations for the undertaking as well as environmental,

historical, and archaeological background information necessary to generate

monitoring expectations.

ii

iii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. I

FIGURES .................................................................................................................. IV

TABLE ..................................................................................................................... IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Nature of the Undertaking ............................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Area of Potential Effect .......................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Environmental Context ................................................................................. 4

2.2 Occupational History .................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Pre-Latte Period (1500 BCE–500 CE) and Transitional (500–800 CE) 6

2.2.2 Latte Period (800–1521 CE) ................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Pre-Colonial European Trade Period (1521–1668 CE) .......................... 7

2.2.4 Spanish Missionization / Colonial Period (1668–1898) ......................... 7

2.2.5 First American Territorial Period (1898–1941) ...................................... 9

2.2.6 World War II / Japanese Military Occupation Period (1941–1944) .... 10

2.2.6.1 Battle of Guam ............................................................................... 11

2.2.7 Second American Territorial Period (1944–1950) ............................... 13

2.2.8 Organic Act / Economic Development Period (1950–Present) ............ 13

2.3 Archaeological Context .............................................................................. 14

2.3.1 Coastal Archaeological Investigations ................................................. 18

2.3.2 Inland Archaeological Investigations ................................................... 18

2.3.3 Archaeological Expectations ................................................................ 20

3.0 PROJECT DESIGN ............................................................................................. 20

3.1 Ground Disturbing Activities ...................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Design Phase......................................................................................... 21

3.1.2 Construction Phase ............................................................................... 21

3.1.3 Archaeological Probability Model........................................................ 22

3.2 Archaeological Monitoring Design ............................................................. 22

3.2.1 Documentation of Monitoring Activities ............................................. 23

3.2.2 Sampling Strategies .............................................................................. 23

3.2.3 Stratigraphic Documentation ................................................................ 24

3.3 Inadvertent Discovery ................................................................................. 24

3.3.1 Data Recovery ...................................................................................... 24

iv

3.4 Post-Fieldwork Actions ............................................................................... 25

3.4.1 Laboratory Analysis .............................................................................. 25

3.4.1.1 Flotation .......................................................................................... 25

3.4.1.2 Radiocarbon Samples ..................................................................... 25

3.4.1.3 Ceramic Analysis ........................................................................... 26

3.4.1.4 Faunal Analysis .............................................................................. 26

3.4.1.5 Formal Artifacts ............................................................................. 26

3.4.1.6 Lithic Analysis ............................................................................... 26

3.4.2 Curation ................................................................................................ 27

3.4.3 Final Report .......................................................................................... 27

4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 28

APPENDIX A: .......................................................................................................... 31

FIGURES

Figure 1. Project location on the island of Guam and within the Western Pacific. . 2

Figure 2. Location of APE and anticipated excavation areas. ................................. 3

Figure 3. Documented soils within the APE. .......................................................... 5

Figure 4. Seventeenth-century Spanish map of Guam. ........................................... 8

Figure 5. Garcia’s 1881 map of the city of Hagåtña. .............................................. 9

Figure 6. The city of Hagåtña in the early-1900s. ................................................. 10

Figure 7. 1914 map of Hagåtña. ............................................................................ 11

Figure 8. U.S. objectives for 31 July 1944. ........................................................... 12

Figure 9. Oblique 1949 aerial view of Hagåtña. ................................................... 14

Figure 10. Previous archaeology conducted in vicinity of APE, Map 1 of 2. ....... 16

Figure 11. Previous archaeology conducted in vicinity of APE, Map 2 of 2. ....... 17

Figure 12. Burial concentrations encountered during SWCA investigations. ....... 19

TABLE

Table 1. Previous Archaeological Studies in Project Vicinity .............................. 15

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of AECOM, Garcia and Associates has prepared this

Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) to guide archaeological

investigations for the GWA Route 4 Relief Sewerline Rehabilitation and Replacement

Project in Hagåtña and Sinajana, Guam. This project is part of Sewer System

Evaluation Survey (SSES) Based System Improvements, a Section 106 undertaking

funded by Drinking Water and Clean Water SRF grant funds administered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The objective of archaeological work will

be to identify, record, sample, analyze, and catalog any historic properties that may be

exposed during the undertaking. Archaeological investigations for the project will

comply with federal cultural resource law, including Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, all applicable Guam Public Laws and

Executive Orders, and the methods and procedures outlined in this AMDRP.

1.1 Nature of the Undertaking

The objective of the undertaking is to rehabilitate and potentially replace portions

of an existing relief sewer pipeline on West Soledad Avenue, Route 1, and Route 4 in

Hagåtña and Sinajana (Figure 1). The relief sewer pipeline was installed in the 1990s

and runs parallel to the main sewer pipeline, but was never “placed in service and has

remained inactive due to poor or incomplete construction” (GWA 2015:17). In order

to help alleviate the amount of flow through the main pipeline, the current project aims

to “bring the inactive relief sewer line into service through rehabilitation, repair, or

replacement” (GWA 2015:17). Approximately 2,286 linear meters (7,500 linear feet)

of pipe along Route 4, Route 1, and West Soledad Avenue will be evaluated during the

Project to determine the level of improvements needed. The majority of planned

improvements include rehabilitating sewer lines by cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lining

methods to minimize the amount of trench excavation. However, some sewer pipe

sections will require replacement and new construction by conventional open-cut

trenching. Subsurface ground disturbance associated with the undertaking will

therefore involve trench excavation to repair existing pipe or construct new sections of

pipe.

1.1.1 Area of Potential Effect

The undertaking’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) comprises 2,286 linear meters

(7,500 linear feet) of existing relief sewerline beneath Route 4, Route 1, and West

Soledad Avenue in Hagåtña and Sinajana, Guam (Figure 2). This relief sewer pipeline

begins at the top of the hill on Route 4 in Sinajana and continues to the intersection of

Route 4 and Route 1 in Hagåtña, where it connects through West Soledad Avenue to

the main sewer pipeline on Route 1 in front of Chamorro Village. The APE includes

2

Figure 1. Project location on the island of Guam and within the Western Pacific.

3

Figure 2. Location of APE and anticipated excavation areas within Hagåtña and Sinajana

Municipalities.

4

the entire width of the Route 1 and Route 4 roadways, totaling 7.25 hectares (17.91

acres). Currently, ground-disturbing activities are only anticipated along portions of

the APE where excavations to replace or construct new sections of pipeline are

expected (Figure 2; also see Section 3.1 for a full description of ground disturbing

activities).

2.0 BACKGROUND

This section presents background information and archaeological expectations for

the project. This includes summaries of the physical environment, history, and previous

archaeological studies as they relate to the project area and its direct vicinity.

2.1 Environmental Context

Guam sits about 13 degrees north of the equator and has a tropical marine climate.

The island’s wet and dry seasons are defined by changes in rainfall, temperature, and

wind patterns. In the wet season, from July to November, annual rainfall averages 216

to 292 cm (Gingerich 2003:1). Guam has historically experienced frequent tropical

storms and typhoons due to its position in the western typhoon trough. Typhoons bring

large amounts of rainfall and strong winds that can devastate local vegetation,

infrastructure, and historic properties.

Geologically, the project area is comprised of Quaternary beach deposits

composed of beach sand and gravel with some detrital limestone (Tracey et al. 1964).

Soils throughout most of the project area are characterized by Young (1988:59) as

nearly level Urban Land-Ustorthents Complex due to the high volume of landscape

modification in Hagåtña (Figure 3). This soil series consists of areas covered by roads

(such as the current APE), parking lots, and buildings with Ustorthents of quarried fill

material (e.g., crushed limestone gravel). The soil series is indicative of large-scale

landscape modifications in the region as a result of the destruction sustained during

World War II and subsequent modern development. However, intact Shioya Loamy

Sand is still encountered in some areas of the coastal strand below modern construction

fill (Walth 2015; Young 1988:52). As the APE travels uphill, it reaches Pulantat Clay,

30 to 60 percent slope, a shallow and well-drained soil that forms in dissected plateaus

and hills (Young 1988:43). Soil depth is typically 30 cm to weathered limestone. The

terminal southern end of the APE is characterized by Pulantat-Urban Land, comprised

of half Pulantat Clay and half Urban Land on the nearly level upland limestone plateau

overlooking Hagåtña (Young 1988:48).

5

Figure 3. Documented soils within the APE.

6

2.2 Occupational History

Guam’s occupational history can be divided into pre-Contact and Historic eras.

The pre-Contact era encompasses indigenous settlement during the Pre-Latte,

Transitional, and Latte Periods. Guam’s Historic era is characterized by increasing

outside influence on the island and is divided into the Spanish Missionization/Colonial,

First American Territorial, World War II Japanese Military Occupation, Post World

War II/Second American Territorial Period, and Organic Act/Economic Development

Periods (GHRD 2014). These divisions are used to structure the following sections.

2.2.1 Pre-Latte Period (1500 BCE–500 CE) and Transitional Period (500–800

CE)

The Pre-Latte Period, extending from 1500 BCE to 500 CE, can be divided into

the Early (1500–1000 BCE), Middle (1000–500 BCE), and Late (500 BCE–500 CE)

Pre-Latte Periods (GHRD 2014). This era includes the initial settlement of Guam and

the Mariana Islands. Archaeological evidence indicates that the island’s early settlers

favored resource-rich coastal environments where they exploited reef flats for fish and

shellfish. Investigations conducted by Cordy and Allen (1986) indicate that the back

beach berm below the Agaña cliff line was occupied by about 600 BCE with the lower

and middle Agaña marshlands not yet filled in by this time. Habitation sites during the

Pre-Latte Period probably consisted of small, nucleated groups of stilt houses near the

early shoreline as well as caves and rockshelters in the Agaña cliff line useful for storm

protection (Russell 1998:90–91). The Transitional Period (500–800 CE) is marked by

an expansion from coastal sites to the island’s interior likely for exploitation of natural

resources and fresh water.

2.2.2 Latte Period (800–1521 CE)

The Latte Period (800–1521 CE) is differentiated from earlier periods largely by

the appearance of stone foundation structures called latte. The period can be further

divided into the Early (800–1100 CE), Middle (1100–1350 CE), and Late (1350–1521

CE) Latte Periods (GHRD 2014). Latte Period sites reflect island-wide land use and

settlement, as well as an increase in population that expanded to exploit fresh water

sources on the northern limestone plateau and southern river valleys. Cordy and Allen

(1986:203) describe the period from 1300–1600 CE as a time of great settlement

expansion and land use in the Hagåtña region with at least four recorded coastal

villages (Fonte, Anigua, Agaña, and Apurguan) and three inland villages (Sinajana,

Chochogo, and Mapaz). Surviving Latte Period sites were documented by Hornbostel

in the 1920s (n.d.; Thompson 1932). Artifact and pottery scatters as well as subsurface

archaeological deposits documented in the greater Agaña Marsh area attest to a range

7

of settlement activity in the centuries prior to the arrival of Europeans (Cordy and Allen

1986; Pangelinan 1984).

2.2.3 Pre-Colonial European Trade Period (1521–1668 CE)

When the Magellan expedition landed in Guam in 1521, it propelled the

indigenous population into contact with the European world, ushering in the Pre-

Colonial European Trade Period (1521–1668 CE). Soon thereafter, Spanish Galleons

routinely anchored in Guam to trade for fresh provisions before completing their

journey to the Philippines from Acapulco, Mexico. Spain did not formally

acknowledge colonial possession of the Mariana Island chain until 1565.

2.2.4 Spanish Missionization / Colonial Period (1668–1898)

In 1668, a Jesuit mission, led by Pale Diego Luis de San Vitores, arrived in Agaña

Bay and quickly began proselytizing to the local population. The missionaries

encountered a thriving late Latte Period settlement in Hagåtña, along with the

influential Quipuha, a local chief from the area (Garcia 1985). Latte Period settlement

patterns likely continued during the early phase of European encounters, with iron and

other exotic trade materials introduced into the material culture. Local villages slowly

morphed into Spanish mission villages, with Hagåtña’s first church erected in 1669.

An early Spanish Period map compiled by Alonso Lopez (reproduced in Le Gobien

1700; Figure 4) illustrates late pre-Contact and early Historic Period indigenous

settlement patterns on the island, with the main village of Agadña (later Agaña, now

Hagåtña) and its church noted along with several subsidiary villages in the project

region.

By the 1690s, after 30 years of conflict between the colonizing Spanish and

indigenous Chamorro, the Spanish government forcefully relocated the Mariana

archipelago’s population into six mission villages. Hagåtña became the Spanish capital,

and by 1886 supported a population of 5,979 with wide open streets occupied by

mampostería houses and government buildings (Garcia 2006:59). Garcia’s (2006:61)

1881 map of Hagåtña shows the general layout of the capital at that time with the future

route of Route 4 mostly outside of the main village sprawl (Figure 5).

Throughout the Spanish Period, Spanish-Chamorro families resided in Hagåtña and

other primary villages around the island while accessing the island interior to work on

lånchos (ranches). Numerous cross-island trails and unimproved roads traversed the

island, many leading into Hagåtña, the main economic and governmental hub of the

island. The main coastal road, or el Camino Real, passed directly by and through the

project area, leading from the capital at Hagåtña to the main anchorage point in Umatac

Bay on the southwest coast.

8

Figure 4. Seventeenth-century Spanish map of Guam designating village names and locations

(Le Gobien 1700).

9

Figure 5. Garcia’s 1881 map of the city of Hagåtña (from Garcia 2006:62–63).

2.2.5 First American Territorial Period (1898–1941)

In 1898, the United States secured Guam from Spain as a result of its success in

the Spanish-American War. The island was put under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Department of the Navy and commanded like a battleship with over two dozen naval

officers acting as governors from 1903 until the Japanese occupation in December 1941

(Rogers 1995:119–120).

Hagåtña remained the capital of the island and supported the bulk of the island’s

population through the First American Territorial Period (1898–1941). A photograph

on file at the Micronesian Area Research Center illustrates urbanized Hagåtña in the

1900s (Figure 6). The rows of houses are similar to those from the previous Spanish

Period, which Garcia (2006:60) described at the time as “built of wood…[and] erected

on harigues, a meter or more above the ground.” Harigue is a local Philippine term for

house posts or pillars made of solid tree trunks (Garcia 2006:60).

The Spanish-Chamorro way of life largely persisted during the early twentieth

century, although infrastructure improvement projects modernized life for residents of

the island’s larger villages.

General

project area

10

Figure 6. The city of Hagåtña in the early-1900s (photograph on file at MARC).

Among the improvements to Hagåtña’s infrastructure, for example, was the installation

of the first water system in the city in 1910 (Johnson 1926:66-7). Later water, sewer,

and road improvement projects followed. Existing bull-cart trails and paths were

improved across the island to enable the passage of carriages and other larger vehicles.

The newly paved roads consisted of cascajo or limestone at the time, although a portion

of the road from Hagåtña to Sumay was asphalted. Although primarily serving the

Naval government’s needs, road improvements benefited Chamorros who continued to

access their lånchos in the island interior. A 1914 map shows several of the roads

leading out of Hagåtña, including precursors to Route 4 at the top of the hill leading

into Sinajana (Figure 7).

2.2.6 World War II / Japanese Military Occupation Period (1941–1944)

Since American interests in securing Guam in the decades leading up to World

War II were never realized, the island was left unfortified when Japan invaded and took

possession of it in 1941. The invasion began with bombing raids on strategic military

positions, which included the capital at Hagåtña. Although the Insular Force Guard and

a few Americans attempted to defend the city from the Plaza de España, invading

Japanese troops from Tumon and Agaña Bay overran the local troops; Governor

11

Figure 7. 1914 map of Hagåtña.

McMillin surrendered the island less than six hours after the invading troops had landed

(Rogers 1995:156).

Japanese forces, numbering almost 6,000, overtook the capital, including every

public building and many residences. (Rogers 1995:158). During the ensuing Japanese

Occupation Period (1941–1944), many Chamorros fled their main residences to

lånchos in the island interior in an attempt to avoid the occupiers. Throughout the

occupation, however, the Chamorro population was forced to toil in agricultural fields

to feed Japanese troops and in the construction of airfields and defensive positions,

often with inadequate tools and during long grueling hours. Japanese defensive

positions, constructed in part by Chamorro labor, dotted the island’s west coast. The

Hagåtña cliff line to the west of the study parcel was used for air raid shelters (GHPI

Site 66-01-1052), which were excavated into the limestone hillside and used as early

as 1944.

2.2.6.1 Battle of Guam

Prior to the land invasion of Guam, U.S. military forces bombed the west coast of

the island for a grueling 13 days, the longest pre-bombardment sustained by any Pacific

12

island during World War II. Following the heavy bombardment of Japanese coastal

defenses as well as several local villages, U.S. troops stormed Asan and Agat beaches

on Guam’s southwest coast on 21 July 1944. After heavy fighting at the beaches and

sustaining brutal counterattacks from the Japanese Imperial Army stationed in the hills,

American forces secured the Force Beachhead Line on 29 July 1944. On 31 July,

American forces pivoted to the northeast to pursue the retreating Japanese army onto

the northern plateau of the island. En route to their goal of reaching the O-1 line just

east of Hagåtña (Figure 8), the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine

Division reached the main plaza of the city by 1045 on 31 July (Lodge 1954:124; Crowl

1993:383).

Figure 8. U.S. objectives for 31 July 1944, indicating location of O-1 Line east

of Hagåtña (from Lodge 1954).

13

Although casualties were reported from road mines navigating into the city, no

enemy resistance was reported once inside Hagåtña (Lodge 1954:124). There was little

left for Japanese forces to defend, since the city was largely destroyed. Hagåtña was

fully occupied by American forces by noon of that same day.

Following reconnaissance of the island’s northern plateau, General Geiger

announced the end of organized resistance on Guam on the 10th of August. The

remaining Japanese forces, numbering more than 9,000, were dispersed and

unorganized within the jungles of Guam, mostly in the northern interior.

Reconnaissance operations necessitated considerable search efforts by U.S. forces.

Small battles and confrontations occurred in the jungles, abandoned farms, and

dilapidated roads of the interior long after the island was declared secure.

2.2.7 Second American Territorial Period (1944–1950)

The U.S. military ramped up construction on Guam following the invasion and

recapture of the island. Large plots of land were acquired and bulldozed to

accommodate new airfields, depots, headquarters, and related facilities designed to

support the final mission against the Japanese homeland. One of the primary goals of

securing the Mariana Islands was fully realized with the construction of specialized

airfields to support the long-range, high-altitude B-29 Superfortress. Two of these new

airfields were constructed in northern Guam: North Field and Northwest Field (now

Andersen Air Force Base). Orote Peninsula and Apra Harbor were transformed into a

major forward operating U.S. Naval base. Support facilities sprung up around the

island. To improve accessibility to the various installations on island, Naval

Construction Battalions, or Seabees, bulldozed large networks of roads across the

island. The precursor to Route 1 was speedily bulldozed along the west coast, passing

through Agaña Bay. Route 4 was also improved to permit access for newly resettled

Sinajana residents, as shown in a 1949 aerial photograph of the capital (Figure 9).

With most of Hagåtña’s former residents displaced to post-war resettlement

villages, such as Sinajana to the south, the capital was left largely abandoned for a time.

The Navy’s intention was to rebuild the capital according to modern American cities,

but these plans were not enacted (Rogers 1995:186). Rubble from the war was cleared

into the mouth of the Agaña River (which was diverted) and the city was bulldozed.

2.2.8 Organic Act / Economic Development Period (1950–Present)

By 1955, the rubble that had been pushed to the mouth of the Agaña River was

made into a park, the Paseo de Susana (Rogers 1995:186). Residents had repopulated

the city by this time, but it was no longer the residential center of the island. Hagåtña

instead developed into one of the main commercial and administrative districts on the

14

Figure 9. Oblique 1949 aerial view of Hagåtña (photograph on file at Government

Maps and Documents Collection, University of Hawai‘i).

island with most of Guam’s residents living elsewhere and commuting into Hagåtña

for work. The main routes into the city, coastal Route 1 and inland Route 4, were paved

with asphalt. Underneath the asphalt, Route 1 and Route 4 support some of the city’s

main infrastructure for water, sewer, and communications systems.

2.3 Archaeological Context

Archaeological investigations conducted in the region prior to the extensive

destruction of World War II and subsequent modern development indicate pre-Contact

and Historic Period use of the Agaña floodplain. Hornbostel (n.d.), who conducted

island-wide investigations in the 1920s, noted sites with latte elements along the

eastern Agaña coastline. According to Thompson (1932:15), these sites included the

Latte Period Agaña and Apurguan coastal village sites. The results of more recent

archaeological investigations conducted in the last few decades help elucidate the

extent of post-World War II disturbance in the area and the potential for encountering

archaeological deposits that have been left intact. Eight recent studies conducted in the

vicinity of the APE are discussed in the sections below (Table 1; Figure 10 and Figure

11).

Route 4

15

Table 1. Previous Archaeological Studies in Project Vicinity

Reference Type of Archaeological

Investigation

Archaeological Findings

Hornbostel n.d. (Thompson

1932)

Island-wide survey Intact latte elements along

Hagåtña coastline

Amesbury et al. 1991 Monitoring and Data

Recovery

17 pre-Contact burials

Cordy and Allen 1986 Inventory survey and

subsurface testing

Latte Period pottery

scatters

Olmo 1995 Subsurface testing Mixed historical deposits

Yee 2010 and 2011 Monitoring None

Carson and Peterson 2010 Subsurface testing None

Walth 2015 Monitoring and Data

Recovery

Intact cultural deposits

with 3 concentrations of

pre-Contact burials

DeFant 2016 Monitoring None

Liston 2016 Monitoring Stratified cultural deposits

in a possible tidal zone

16

Figure 10. Previous archaeology conducted in vicinity of APE, Map 1 of 2.

17

Figure 11. Previous archaeology conducted in vicinity of APE, Map 2 of 2.

18

2.3.1 Coastal Archaeological Investigations

Despite the intensity of ground disturbance along the Hagåtña coastline in the last

75 years, buried components of Latte Period settlements have been documented, most

notably underneath Route 1. While monitoring for road construction projects,

Amesbury et al. (1991) and Walth (2015) recorded intact archaeological deposits and

clusters of pre-Contact burials (Figure 10). Amesbury et al. (1991) documented 17

burial features and scatters of human skeletal elements in beach sand below modern

road fill on the coastal side of the Route 1/Route 8 intersection (GHPI Site 66-01-

0261). Charcoal associated with the burials yielded radiocarbon dates ranging from AD

770 to 1410, or within the Latte Period. Walth’s (2015) investigations at the Agaña

Bridge also revealed intact cultural deposits below Route 1 (Walth 2015). Sixty-five

burial features dating from the Latte Period to the early post-Contact Period were

encountered. The burials were largely confined to three concentrations located on the

west, central, and east sections of the Route 1 project area (Figure 12). Three general

strata were recorded for the project area: Stratum I, consisting of multiple sublayers of

crushed limestone and sandy clay fill; Stratum II, a 40 to 60 cm thick sand containing

human remains, faunal bone, pre-Contact pottery, lithics, shell, and historical artifacts;

and Stratum III, a culturally sterile beach sand. According to the monitoring report

(Walth 2015), the upper portion of the cultural layer (Stratum II) was truncated in some

areas by road construction in the 1950s. As a result, some cultural features were

encountered as shallow as 10 to 20 cm below the lowest base coarse layer.

DeFant (2016) also conducted archaeological investigations along Route 1 in front

of Chamorro Village (Figure 10), but these excavations remained relatively shallow

(from 30 to 60 cmbs) and contained entirely within crushed limestone and clay fill

sediments. No cultural material was encountered.

Liston’s (2016) recent study for the Festival of the Pacific Arts huts at Paseo Loop

(on the coastal side of Route 1) posits that the pre-World War II shoreline was located

on or close to the southern arc of the recently constructed Festival huts (Figure 10). A

truncated cultural deposit containing scattered human skeletal remains and historic

artifacts in what appeared to be a tidal zone was encountered at 50 cmbs. The author

also noted a deeper (110 cmbs) light gray stained sand that was void of artifacts or

midden remains, but that may be the periphery of a pre-Contact deposit that extends

inland toward Route 1.

2.3.2 Inland Archaeological Investigations

Archaeological investigations conducted further inland from the Hagåtña coastline

attest to the limits of encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits along the inland,

Route 4 portions of the APE (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Olmo (1994) documented “a

19

Figure 12. Burial concentrations encountered during SWCA investigations for the Hagåtña Bridge (from Walth 2015:208).

20

mechanically disturbed deposit containing debris” associated with the pre- and post-

World War II Periods on the west side of Route 4. No intact cultural deposition was

documented, but a basalt lusong (mortar stone) was recorded in the basal sand layer of

a backhoe test trench. Other recent archaeological investigations include those

conducted by Yee (2010 and 2011) at the Nieves B. Flores Memorial Library on the

west side of the Route 1/Route 7a intersection and Carson and Peterson (2010) at the

Nanbo Insurance Building on the east side of the Route 1/Route 7a intersection. These

studies documented a lack of intact soil strata in the project vicinity. Both

investigations encountered modern rubbish mixed with mechanically introduced

sediment.

Cordy and Allen (1986) investigated a larger area even further inland, within the

Hagåtña marsh (Figure 10 and Figure 11). The authors posited that the lower and

middle Agaña marshlands would not have been filled in by the pre-Latte or Transitional

Periods, but that Latte Period artifact scatters with subsurface pottery and midden

indicated temporary use of the hummocks within the marsh during the later pre-Contact

Period.

2.3.3 Archaeological Expectations

Subsurface activity in the APE is expected to expose multiple layers of post-World

War II fill and modern base coarse. Excavations along Route 1 have the highest

potential to encounter intact cultural deposits, which may be present in Shioya sand

below modern road fill (Walth 2015; Amesbury et al. 1991). In contrast, recent

archaeological investigations conducted on either side of Route 4 in the heart of

Hagåtña have exposed either mixed Historic Period deposits disturbed by post-World

War II earth moving events (Olmo 1995) or a complete lack of subsurface cultural

deposition (Yee 2010 and 2011; Carson and Peterson 2010). As the APE travels upland

along Route 4, archaeological potential diminishes even further. Although no

archaeological studies appear to have been conducted in the direct vicinity of the

southern extent of the APE, any archaeological deposits that may have been present in

the shallow Pulantat clay soil were likely removed during road and sewerline

construction.

3.0 PROJECT DESIGN

The following section describes the anticipated scope of ground disturbing

activities associated with the GWA Route 4 Relief Sewerline Rehabilitation and

Replacement Project and details the project-specific methods and protocols to be

utilized during archaeological monitoring.

21

3.1 Ground Disturbing Activities

The undertaking involves various long-term improvements to the existing

wastewater collection system in Hagåtña, including the sewer infrastructure along

West Soledad Avenue, Route 1, and Route 4. Ground-disturbing activities associated

with these improvements will occur in two phases, as described below.

3.1.1 Design Phase

A series of test borings will be conducted within the APE to perform a soils

investigation. The objective of the investigation is to provide geotechnical

recommendations for the design and construction of the sewerline project. Four, 8-inch

soil borings will be drilled using a mobile drill hollow stem auger (see Figure 10 for

locations). Split spoon samplers will be used to extract soil samples at approximate 5

feet intervals.

3.1.2 Construction Phase

Improvements during the construction phase include new sewer pipe construction,

replacement of existing sewer pipe, and rehabilitation of existing sewer pipe. The

majority of the planned improvements include rehabilitating sewer lines by CIPP lining

methods to minimize the amount of trench excavation. However, some sewer pipe

sections will require replacement and new construction by conventional open cut

trenching. Subsurface ground disturbance during the construction phase will therefore

involve trench excavation to repair existing pipe or construct new sections of pipe.

Currently, anticipated excavation dimensions for the project include (Figure 2;

Appendix A):

Thirty-six (36) linear meters to repair existing pipe on Route 1 in

front of Chamorro Village;

One hundred seventy (170) linear meters to construct new pipe

along West Soledad Avenue;

One hundred seventy (170) linear meters to repair existing pipe

along Route 4 through Hagåtña; and

Two (2), 5 to 10-meter-long trenches to repair existing pipe on

Route 4 in Sinajana.

Excavations on West Soledad Avenue and Route 1 are anticipated to require an

approximate 1 to 1.5 m wide by 3 to 4 m deep trench. Excavations along Route 4 are

expected to require 3 to 4 m wide trenches, varying in depth from 1.5 to 4.5 m below

the road surface.

22

Currently, excavations to construct new pipe are only expected along West

Soledad Avenue, commencing at the intersection of Route 1 and 4 and continuing past

the Bank of Guam Building (Figure 2). This sewerline trench will be excavated

adjacent to the existing relief sewer line but will potentially occur in undisturbed

sediment. All other planned excavations for the project on Route 1 and Route 4 are

expected to occur within previously excavated sewerline trenches.

It is important to note that during construction these excavation dimensions may

need to be altered to accommodate unknown conditions along the sewerline, changes

in design requirements for new pipe construction, conflicts with existing utilities, and

so on. Therefore, there may be a need to excavate and repair additional pipe segments

within the APE or modify the location and scope of new pipe construction.

3.1.3 Archaeological Probability Model

Based on the current construction scope, excavations to construct new pipe along

West Soledad Avenue have the highest potential to expose archaeological deposits.

Pipe construction will involve excavating an approximate 1 to 1.5 m wide by 3 to 4 m

deep trench alongside the existing relief sewer pipe in this area. Since these excavations

will occur adjacent to, rather than on top of, the existing sewerline, undisturbed

sediment may be exposed. Previous archaeological studies in the vicinity of Route 1

and West Soledad Avenue have exposed intact archaeological deposits with large

concentrations of human burials (Walth 2015; Amesbury et al. 1991). It remains to be

seen if these deposits continue into the current APE and to what extent they have been

impacted by previous utility and road construction.

It is anticipated that all other ground disturbance for the project will involve

digging to expose and repair existing segments of sewer pipe. These excavations will

therefore occur within previously excavated utility trenches and will have a low

potential to expose intact archaeological deposits. Any ground disturbance that takes

place further inland and up the hill of Route 4 will also have a low potential to expose

intact cultural deposits due to the shallow nature of inland soils in this area.

3.2 Archaeological Monitoring Design

Garcia and Associates will conduct full-time, on-site archaeological monitoring

for select ground-disturbing activities associated with the GWA Route 4 Relief

Sewerline Rehabilitation and Replacement Project. All excavation schedules will be

closely coordinated with the client and the construction crew to ensure that an

archaeological monitor is present. Prior to any ground-disturbance work, Garcia and

Associates’ supervisory archaeologist will brief all field personnel on procedures

regarding the inadvertent discovery of cultural and/or archaeological resources. This

23

will include a discussion of the archaeologist’s authority to temporarily halt project

activity if potential resources are encountered.

During the project’s design phase, GANDA will monitor four soil borings up to a

depth of 2.1 meters (7 feet) or the water table; monitoring for soil auguring will

therefore only be conducted for the top 2.1 meters (7 feet) and not the entire auguring

depth. The archaeological monitor will observe auger tailings during boring and will

inspect soil samples from split spoon samplers extracted at approximate depths of 0.60

meters (2 feet) and 2.1 meters (7 feet).

During the construction phase, GANDA will monitor excavation trenches and

back dirt for the presence of cultural deposits. The client and construction crew will

ensure that a flat-blade bucket is utilized for any trenching conducted in sand.

Archaeological monitoring will not be conducted for excavation that occurs within

asphalt or concrete and will only be conducted to a limited extent for excavation

occurring in modern road fill. Monitoring will also not be conducted for excavations

that take place below the water table or within bedrock.

3.2.1 Documentation of Monitoring Activities

All monitoring activities will be fully documented by the archaeological monitor

in daily log and photographic form. If cultural resources are encountered, their location

will be recorded with a hand-held Trimble GPS with sub-meter accuracy using UTM

Zone 55 North and the WGS 1984 datum (GPS data will be differentially corrected

post-fieldwork). Monitoring activities and any recovered material will be

photographically documented with a photo board and scale. Standards for

documentation and analysis of archaeological sites and materials will be in accordance

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological

Documentation.

3.2.2 Sampling Strategies

Sampling strategies will be employed to collect pertinent information on the nature

of intact features or deposits. If discrete, single-event features are encountered, they

will be exposed in planview to the extent possible. The feature will then be bisected

and mapped in profile. One half of the feature will be collected as a soil sample for

possible future analysis, while the other half will be screened through ¼-inch mesh.

Whenever possible, bulk samples (in 1 liter units) will also be collected from intact

anthropogenic layers, if encountered. Bulk samples will be screened through ¼-inch

mesh, as appropriate. Artifacts that are diagnostic of a time period or cultural affiliation

or that are unusual in nature will be collected for laboratory analysis. Artifacts observed

24

in trench sidewalls will be point provenienced before being collected, while artifacts

collected from spoils will be provenienced as appropriate.

3.2.3 Stratigraphic Documentation

Stratigraphic profiles and descriptions will be recorded for the following: 1) areas

with subsurface cultural features or deposits, 2) sampled areas, and 3) areas with a

sedimentary change or unconformity that contains information relevant to past human

events. Profiles will also be recorded in areas void of cultural deposits with the aim of

representing the general stratigraphy of the area. All stratigraphic data will be described

in accordance with current National Soil Survey Center and Munsell Color Notation

conventions. All profiles will be recorded with a Trimble GPS and photographically

documented with a photo board and scale.

3.3 Inadvertent Discovery

If significant archaeological deposits or human skeletal materials are inadvertently

discovered during archaeological monitoring, the project archaeologist will carefully

expose enough of the discovery to ascertain its condition. The resource will then be

stabilized, protected, clearly marked and all work will cease within a 10-meter radius.

The Guam Historic Resources Division (GHRD) will be immediately notified.

Consultation will then commence to determine the significance of the exposed resource

and to establish the nature and extent of any data recovery and/or preservation measures

to be implemented.

3.3.1 Data Recovery

Should data recovery excavations be required for inadvertent discovery of

significant archaeological deposits or human skeletal remains, controlled excavation

units will be placed within the APE in order to recover data relative to the age, nature,

cultural affiliation, integrity, and depositional history of encountered deposits. The

size, number, and placement of excavation units will be determined through

consultation with the client and GHRD. Controlled excavation will proceed in 10 cm

arbitrary levels within natural strata using shovels and trowels. Measurements and

elevations will be recorded using a meter tape and level. All excavated sediment will

be sieved using 1/8 and 1/4-inch mesh.

Excavations units will be documented using standardized forms and procedures

for recording stratigraphic profiles, plan view maps, and digital photographs. A

minimum of one face of each excavation unit will be stratigraphically profiled and

described in detail. Special samples (e.g., soil pollen, charcoal) will be retrieved if

deemed appropriate by supervisory personnel. Each major excavation unit or level and

25

all in situ cultural features will be digitally photographed. Plan view sketches will be

recorded at the base of major excavation units or when cultural features are exposed.

The location of excavation units will also be recorded with a sub-meter accurate

Trimble GPS.

3.4 Post-Fieldwork Actions

The nature and scope of post-fieldwork actions will vary according to the results

of fieldwork. The following subsections describe methods for laboratory analysis,

curation procedures, and reporting requirements for the project.

3.4.1 Laboratory Analysis

All cultural material recovered during fieldwork will be processed and analyzed.

Transportation of samples from the field to the laboratory will minimally include

proper labeling, minimization of handling, isolation of specific samples in appropriate

storage containers, and ensuring an adequately arid environment for radiocarbon and

soil samples.

All artifacts and midden samples will be thoroughly cleaned prior to analysis.

Artifacts will then be photographed, sketched, and identified. All metric attributes will

be recorded and presented in tabular form in the final report. Midden samples will be

identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. A discussion of these finds in relation

to their archaeological context and inferred use will also be provided.

3.4.1.1 Flotation

If archaeological features are encountered, feature fill may be subjected to

flotation analysis. Flotation techniques are used to increase the quantity of cultural

remains recovered and provide additional knowledge of plant and animal use in an

archaeological context. Soil from features will be collected and poured into a sieve and

submerged into a container of water. The sieve will be agitated in the water, allowing

fine grained material to escape while lighter organic material floats to the surface.

These particles will then be gathered with a fine mesh and submitted for faunal and

botanical analysis.

3.4.1.2 Radiocarbon Samples

Should in situ archaeological features, such as hearths or cooking pits, be

encountered, carbonized remains will be collected and submitted for radiocarbon

dating. Prior to submission, all samples will be submitted for species identification.

Only short-lived species will be submitted for dating.

26

3.4.1.3 Ceramic Analysis

The goal of ceramic analysis is to generate data on form, function, and chronology

for the assemblage. The ceramic assemblage will be inspected for standard Mariana

analytical attributes to allow comparison with other Mariana assemblages. Pottery

sherds will be cleaned, sorted, counted, and weighed. Sherds will initially be sorted by

sherd type: diagnostic or undiagnostic. Undiagnostic pottery sherds are body sherds

that lack attributes related to a specific temporal period, function, or form. Diagnostic

sherds include rim sherds, decorated sherds, and sherds with distinctive morphological

features. Diagnostic sherds will be analyzed for the following attributes: temper type,

surface treatment, rim type, and morphological features.

Exterior surface treatment will be determined by inspecting each sherd and

classifying it according to the following types: plain, banded, boldly combed, faintly

combed, incised, striated, polished/burnished, slipped/washed, slipped, wiped/brushed,

lime-coated, lime-impressed, mat impressed, fabric/shell impressed, and eroded. For

each rim sherd, shape, rim thickness, and wall thickness will be recorded. When

possible, whole-vessel analysis will be performed. This will involve reconstruction of

articulating sherds or the presence of large rim sherds that display overall vessel form

and aperture size. Sherds with unique attributes, including surface treatment or

morphological features, will be photographed or illustrated. Profile drawings of a

representative sample of rims from the assemblage will be prepared.

3.4.1.4 Faunal Analysis

Any collected vertebrate or marine invertebrate material will be weighed, counted,

and taxonomically identified to the highest level of detail possible. Faunal and marine

shell analysis will be conducted using comparative collections. The final report will

discuss analytical methods employed, laboratory results, and descriptions of identified

species and their relationship to their environment and archaeological context.

3.4.1.5 Formal Artifacts

Formal artifacts will be measured, weighed, sketched or photographed, and

functionally classified as appropriate. If possible, artifact typologies will be used

according to currently accepted standards for pre-Contact and historic artifacts.

3.4.1.6 Lithic Analysis

Stone tools will be analyzed by form and inferred function. Typological affiliation

will conform to currently accepted typologies for pre-Contact and historic stone tools

on Guam and the Marianas Islands. Waste material from the manufacturing process

will be measured using metric and non-metric attributes. When possible, statistical

27

calculations will be made to summarize and describe the assemblage, as well as to

compare data to other collections.

3.4.2 Curation

All archaeological materials will be clearly labeled, catalogued, packed for long-

term archival storage, and temporarily curated at the Garcia and Associates’ Guam

laboratory before being transferred to the Guam Museum.

3.4.3 Final Report

Following completion of archaeological fieldwork, a technical report will be

prepared to include at a minimum: 1) abstract, 2) project overview, 3) background

research, 4) project methodology, and 5) discussion and analysis of results. Guam

Historic Properties Inventory (GHPI) site numbers will also be obtained and submitted

with GHPI Data Forms for each site. Final deliverables will include two hard copies

and one digital copy (PDF file and GIS shapefiles on CD) of the final approved report.

28

4.0 REFERENCES

Carson, M. and J. Peterson

2010 Archaeological Test Trench Findings in Support of Construction of the New

Nanbo Insurance Building. Prepared for Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co.,

Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam,

Mangilao, Guam.

Cordy, R. and J. Allen

1986 Archaeological Investigations of the Agaña and Fonte River Basins, Guam.

Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Shafter, Hawai‘i. J. Stephen

Athens, Ph.D., Archaeological Consultant, Honolulu.

Crowl, P.A.

1993 Campaign in the Marianas. Center of Military History, United States Army,

Washington, D.C.

DeFant, D. G.

2016 End of Fieldwork Letter Report: Archaeological Monitoring, Route 1

Signalized Pedestrian Crossing at Chamorro Village Project, GU-NH-

0001(129), Hagåtña, Island of Guam. Prepared for U.S. Department of

Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Hawaii Federal-Aid Division,

Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Prepared by Southeastern Archaeological Research Inc.,

Tamuning, Guam.

Garcia, F.

1985 The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis de San

Vitores. Originally published in 31 parts as “First History of Guam,” Guam

Recorder 1936–1939. Partial translation by M. Higgins. Compiled Ms. on file,

Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam.

2006 The Mariana Islands, 1884–1887: Random Notes. Translated by M.G.

Driver. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao,

Guam.

Gingerich, S.B.

2003 Hydrologic Resources of Guam. Water Resources Investigation Report 03-

4126. U.S. Geological Survey, Honolulu.

Guam Historic Resources Division (GHRD)

2014 Guam Historic Properties Inventory Data Form. Guam Department of

Parks and Recreation, Hagåtña, Guam.

Guam Waterworks Authority (GWA)

2015 Request for Proposals: Route 4 Relief Sewerline Rehabilitation and

Replacement, GWA Project No. S15-006-EPA. Prepared by Guam Waterworks

Authority, Mangilao, Guam.

Hornbostel, H.

n.d. Unpublished field notes, 1921–1924. Manuscript on file at Bernice Pauahi

Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

29

LeGobien, C.

1700 History of the Mariana Islands Newly Converted to the Christian Religion

and of the Glorious Death of the First Martyrs who Preached the Faith There.

Translated by Father P.V. Daly, C.P.S. (1949). Manuscript on file, Micronesian

Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam.

Liston, J.

2016 Draft Report on Archaeological Monitoring of Construction Excavations for

Festival of the Pacific Huts, Paseo, Hagåtña, Guam. Prepared for RNK

Architects, Tamuning, Guam. International Archaeology, LLC, Tamuning,

Guam.

Lodge, R.

1954 The Recapture of Guam. U.S. Marine Corps Monograph Series, Historical

Branch G-3 Division Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Fredericksburg, Texas.

Olmo, R.

1995 Archaeological Testing for the TOMEN Office Building, Agaña, Guam.

Prepared for Sumitomo Construction Co., Ltd. International Archaeological

Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.

Rogers, R.F.

1995 Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam. University of Hawai‘i Press,

Honolulu.

Russell, S.

1998 Tiempon I Manmofo'na: Ancient Chamorro Culture and History of the

Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 32.

Division of Historic Preservation, Department of Community and Cultural

Affairs, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.

Thompson, L.

1932 Archaeology of the Mariana Islands. Bulletin No. 100. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum, Honolulu.

Tracey, J., S. Schlanger, J. Stark, D. Doan, and H. May

1964 General Geology of Guam. Geological Survey Professional Paper 403-A,

Washington, D.C.

Walth, C.

2015 Draft – Archaeological Investigation for the Agaña Bridge #1 and Route

1/Route 8 Intersection Improvements, Hagåtña, Guam, Volume I. Prepared for

Guam Department of Public Works, Tamuning, Guam. Prepared by SWCA

Environmental Consultants, Tamuning, Guam.

30

Yee, S.

2010 Archaeological Monitoring at the Nieves B. Flores Memorial Library for

Cable Installation. Prepared for MCV Guam Holding Corp., Tamuning, Guam.

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tamuning, Guam.

2011 Archaeological Monitoring of GPA Excavations for Line Replacement at the

Intersection of Route 4 and O'Brien Drive, Hagåtña, Guam. Prepared for Guam

Power Authority, Hagåtña, Guam. International Archaeological Research

Institute, Inc., Barrigada, Guam.

Young, F.J.

1988 Soil Survey of the Territory of Guam. United States Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Guam

Department of Commerce and the University of Guam. Washington, D.C.

31

APPENDIX A:

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF TRENCH EXCAVATION

GU

AM

WA

TE

RW

OR

KS

AU

TH

OR

IT

Y

RO

UT

E 4 R

ELIE

F S

EW

ER

LIN

E

RE

HA

BILIT

AT

IO

N A

ND

R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

GW

A P

RO

JE

CT

N

O. S

15-006-E

PA

FIG

UR

E 1

AP

PR

OX

IM

AT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y O

F

TR

EN

CH

E

XC

AV

AT

IO

N - R

OU

TE

1

JU

LY

2016

N

TRENCH

EXCAVATION

SEWER MANHOLE

AND PIPE

LEGEND

GROUND ELEVATION

GU

AM

WA

TE

RW

OR

KS

AU

TH

OR

IT

Y

RO

UT

E 4 R

ELIE

F S

EW

ER

LIN

E

RE

HA

BILIT

AT

IO

N A

ND

R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

GW

A P

RO

JE

CT

N

O. S

15-006-E

PA

FIG

UR

E 2

AP

PR

OX

IM

AT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y O

F

TR

EN

CH

E

XC

AV

AT

IO

N - R

OU

TE

4 - A

JU

LY

2016

N

TRENCH EXCAVATION

SEWER MANHOLE AND PIPE

LEGEND

GROUND ELEVATION

ST

A 35+

00 M

AT

CH

LIN

E S

EE

F

IG

UR

E 3

GU

AM

WA

TE

RW

OR

KS

AU

TH

OR

IT

Y

RO

UT

E 4 R

ELIE

F S

EW

ER

LIN

E

RE

HA

BILIT

AT

IO

N A

ND

R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

GW

A P

RO

JE

CT

N

O. S

15-006-E

PA

JU

LY

2016

N

FIG

UR

E 3

AP

PR

OX

IM

AT

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y O

F

TR

EN

CH

E

XC

AV

AT

IO

N - R

OU

TE

4 - B

TRENCH

EXCAVATION

SEWER MANHOLE

AND PIPE

LEGEND

GROUND ELEVATION

S

T

A

3

5

+

0

0

M

A

T

C

H

L

I

N

E

S

E

E

F

I

G

U

R

E

2