Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999 01 20 HPC
LOU � oz o s CFM OF TN�O HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA The Regularly Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California on January 21, 1999, has been changed to January 20, 1999 3:30 P.M. L CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historical Preservation Commission on matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quinta which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Historical Commission, please state your name and address and when discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of i:he site(s) for their protection. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA IV. PRESENTATION V. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Approval of the regular Minutes for the meeting of December 17, 1998. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Report on Archaeological Testing and Mitigation for the Rancho La Quinta project. CRM Tech - Bruce Love, Ph.D. and Mr. Harry Quinn B. Cultural Resources Report for Proposed Borrow Area within the Rancho La Quinta project, Archaeological Testing and Project Impact Mitigation. CRM Tech - Bruce Love. Ph.D. C. Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey for the Revised Tentative Tract Map 26855, Brookfield Homes. TKC - Paul G. Chace, Ph.D. .-- 0 0 i HPC/AGENDA D. Paleontological Resource Assessment - Washington Street Bridge Widening Project (CIP 98-09). LSA Associates - Mr. Steven Conkling and Mr. Brooks Smith. E. Cultural Resources Report for Washington Street Bridge Widening Project (CIP 98-09). LSA Associates. F. Interim Cultural Resources Report - Testing and Evaluation of CA-RIV-2936 - Hotel 111 Project Site, Highway 111 and Adams Street. CRM TECH - Bruce Love, Ph.D. and Mr. Harry M. Quinn. G. Cultural Resources Regulations and Procedures - Qualifications. VIL CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT 002 HPC/AGENDA MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA DECEMBER 17, 1998 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairman DeMersman at 3:30 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Present: Commissioners Irwin, Puente, Wright and Vice -Chairman DeMersman. B. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Commissioner Wright requested on Item 28, Page 6, a last line be added to :read: "Ms. Williams inferred that the Commission was dictated to by staff." It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Wright to approve the Minutes of November 19, 1998. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Report on Archaeological Monitoring for the La Quinta Resort Homes nroiect. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, the report was accepted for file as presented. Unanimously approved. B. Monitoring Report for Tract 28458 - Bella Vista. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a. copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. i C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -1- "' l7 lnl ',) Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, the report was accepted for file as presented. Unanimously approved. C. Interim Archaeology Report for St Francis Church Temporary Parking Lot. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Commissioner Irwin had questions about the walkway area and whether it was to be a protected area. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand .answered that it was her understanding that the agreement was the walkway would be taken out. Ms. Betty Williams, representing the Church, interjected that the walkaway area would be excluded; and would not be impacted. 4. Commissioner Wright asked if most of the project would be on the lower graded area. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand replied that the temporary lot would be on the lower area of the parcel, next to Washington Street. 5. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any further questions or comments. There being none it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Wright to adopt Minute Motion 98-011 accepting the Interim Archaeology Report for a Temporary Parking Lot located on the west side of Washington Street, south of 47' Avenue and north of 48" Avenue: for Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church by CRM Tech, Bruce Love, PH.D. Unanimously approved. D. An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 25691 a 10+ acre parcel located adjacent to Miles Avenue. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked for questions and comments from those present. Commissioner Irwin asked to reserve her opinion until after the developer made his presentation. Michael Smith of Warner Engineering, representing the developer., stated the archaeologists had given them a clean site and they were asking that no further monitoring be required. Most of the project will be utilizing fill dirt that will be imported from an area that has be surveyed. They therefore, do not see a need for further monitoring. 004 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 4. The developer, Jim Snellenberger, stated 90% of the trenching would be in the fill. Mr. Smith concurred and added any utility trenching would be in the, fill areas. 6. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked for comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Irwin stated her concern that they would be working in a very sensitive area of the City of La Quinta and it is unknown when the ]Lake Bed receded, where the original settlements or campsites were located. She would be hesitant about giving a "carte blanche" approval and not require the monitoring. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if the areas that go below the fill could be identified. Mr. Smith answered he would supply the City with a map identifying the areas. Planning Manager di Iorio asked if the developer could provide monitoring in those areas as it would be one of the conditions. The developer replied he could. 8. Commissioner Wright said he would be comfortable with any trenching or digging that is done in non -fill areas. In areas where there will be fill, it would be like a capping the site. Planning Manager di Iorio reiterated that a condition would be added. that required the developer to provide monitoring. The developer and representative concurred. 10. Michael Smith went on to ask why the monitoring would be required a second time as this project was using import fill from an area that: had been monitored. 11. Planning Manager di Iorio stated that if they would define the area it would help with your contract. Mr. Smith asked if it could be made a condition to the map prior to construction. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it would be prior to grading. 12. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any further questions or comments. There being none it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 98-012 accepting the Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 25691 with the condition that the developer provide a map of the area that is not being filled, and requiring it to be monitored. Unanimously approved. .. C105 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 E. Tentative Tract MaI2 28964 - Feasibility Assessment for Phase III alternatives for potentially significant cultural resources. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio commented on the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. She also added that two sites had been determined to be potentially significant for listing on the National Register. At the last meeting, the Commission requested the applicant prepare a feasibility study to evaluate the two resource mitigation alternatives as discussed in the CEQA Guidelines. Those alternatives are: 1) preservation of the two potentially significant sites through avoidance by various means; and 2) data recovery through 100% salvage excavation program. In response to the request by the Historic Preservation Commission the applicant submitted a letter of the proposed excavation, a letter regarding the projected financial loss, a memo front the engineer regarding cut and fills, and a map with the quantitative artifact and site location information overlaid on the proposed subdivision. Staff reviewed the information and provided a recommendations in the staff report. Staff wanted to devote the time to the key concern of the preferred alternative in CEQA which is Alternative One. Staff is recommending additional information regarding redesign to leave some of the potential significant areas as open space and also to address a combination of in situ preservation and data recovery. Not everything would be preserved and what was not preserved would be 100% excavated. The staff report discusses several options to redesign the project to avoid some of the potentially significant site areas, pursuing reducing lot sizes and moving lot lines, and reducing the 42- foot width of the proposed streets. The General Plan specifies streets to be 36 feet in width with parking on both sides. A recent General Plan Amendment allows street width to be reduced to 28 feet with additional parking to be provided elsewhere. A 32 foot width would accommodate parking on one side. There is also some consideration of re -designing the circulation pattern as it may be possible to preserve some sites with a cap featured in a landscape setting with conservation easements. Staff is recommending the applicant re -design the proposed Tentative Map to preserve the potentially significant sites. 2. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated that if there were no questions of staff, would the applicant like to address the Commission. 3. Mr. Dick Oliphant, applicant, stated they had received a copy of the staff report and reviewed it with their consultants. He then asked Ms. Leslie Irish of L & L Environmental to address her concerns regarding the staff report. 4. Ms. Leslie Irish, Principal Archaeologist, L & L Environmental introduced Ms. Julia Casperzak, field director on the site, and stated Ms. Barbara Hall, project archaeologist was unable to attend due to family illness. Ms. Irish VU6 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 commented on the Conditions of Approval. First, is a procedural question as it appears that the recommendation by staff on Condition #1 is that the applicant submit a redesign of the tract to the Commission for review prior to proceeding to Planning Commission. It was her understanding they were still in the phase of analyzing the feasibility of preservation as opposed to mitigation and that mitigation was what staff had recommended? Is it appropriate to require the redesign at this point in time since they are still analyzing the feasibility of preservation as opposed to data recovery. In addition, they have been working with staff to resolve Condition #5 regarding the Native American consultation for the Phase 3 component of the work be coordinated through, and in compliance with, the Native American Heritage Commission. It has now been determined by the Riverside County Coroner that the bones recovered from the site are not officially identified as human. Therefore, the Native American Heritage Commission was never contacted and the next of kin never identified. While they have Mr. Mark Benitez on the site acting as a consultant and making recommendations, this condition would then be somewhat inappropriate to this project. What has been agreed to is that they would comply with any requirements the Commission had that are applicable to the project. Then there are a number of conditions in the staff report that are either a writing assignment for our firm or some combination of writing assignment for Robert Bein Frost, the engineers, and I think they will probably speak to the feasibility, but I would like to reiterate my point that L & L continues to feel that excavation of this site is appropriate for this project and they have proposed 100% mitigation of the site. Although some have expressed a concern that this site be preserved for a variety of reasons, the developer has stated they do not think it is feasible. Therefore, they are still recommending mitigation at 100% of the significant sites. This is over and above what CEQA actually requires which is 3n/o to 5% of the site. Their desire is to explore the site, recover the data, analyze the material recovered, and utilize that information. 5. Mr. Oliphant introduced Mark Benitez from the Cabazon Tribe. Mr. Benitez introduced Judy Staub, Cultural Programs Director for the Tribe, who has been doing the cataloging and tracking of artifacts found on the site. 6. Mr. Oliphant interjected that Mark Benitez has been their Native American representative overseeing the project. He asked Mr. Benitez to give his opinion. 7. Mr. Benitez stated their position was to a liaison to the archaeologist on the site. In his opinion they are to lend advice, observe, and see what the site may be holding as far as any type of cultural remains. He has been doing this type of work for about three years and has seen a number of sites. His work has primarily been with Bruce Love who has been working extensively in this area. Most of his experience has come from on-the-job training to understand CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -5- I'll 007 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 all the different aspects of archaeology. This particular site, from what he; has seen in the area, isn't much different than any of the others that have been developed. The lower section of the Coachella Valley is probably one of the most sensitive areas in the whole Valley and would require a more thorough and thoughtful recovery process due to the fact that the cremation sites on those locations are definitely identifiable. This location appears to be a sparse location. A large gathering of a village would have a much more intensive locations, or remains that would give a true presence of the inhabitants of the village that stayed at that location. 8. Mr. Oliphant stated some studies had been made since the last Commission meeting with their engineers. They looked at the project to see if it was feasible to re -design and made some suggestions, but they do not work. 'They are here to graphically demonstrate why it will not work. In addition, they have made efforts to do alternate layouts without much success. Mr. Bob Ross, Vice President of RBF Engineers, is here with exhibits to demonstrate some of the problems with this particular site regarding preservation. 9. Mr. Ross stated that since the last Commission meeting they had looked at a couple of exhibits showing a cross-section across the two areas that are considered for preservation. When you look at the cross-section there; is a large dune approximately 25 - 26 feet in height. The cross -sections show what was proposed on the original tract as far as elevations, in relation to the existing ground. Marked in pen are the two areas considered for preservation. The first area is on the side of the dune. We anticipate cutting down this area to the pad, or approximately six feet. In the second area, it is a fill area of approximately ten feet. If you look at preserving those two areas and maintaining the lot configuration, the fill site will be difficult. It could be capped. On the cut area, you would lose several lots and create: some cut slopes outside the preservation area. Then the other area of concentration would be 100% recovery. After looking at this we went back and taken the City's comments, we came up with the schematic of what the Commission was asking. 10. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated this was true. Staff had worked on this design with the City's Public Works Department and came up with some ideas. What they are looking at is taking the cul-de-sac, extending it and tying it in with the street section. This could possibly preserve the ridge. 12. Mr. Bob Ross explained this was the cut area, elevation -wise of the City streets. It shows this concept would not work because it would be cutting away approximately eight or nine feet which creates a two -to -one slope or 16 feet horizontally. This would put you into the preservation area. What they did was create a different configuration that would keep the lots essentially the same size, reduce several lots in area, and remove three lots from the lot Q0$ C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17. 1998 count to 75 or 76. This would require some cut slopes. The area to the west would appear as a large mound, approximately 10 feet above the surrounding lots. This area, assuming you could cap it, you would want approximately 10 feet of fill to create an open space area between the two cul-de-sacs. This would be nine feet, ten feet up above the adjacent lots or relatively close to the graded lots height due to the ten feet of fill on from the existing; ground. 13. Mr. Dick Oliphant stated that in studying the different layouts created by the engineers, it became evident that the project becomes financially difficult. In addition, it becomes a project that has real difficulty as far as trying to preserve the historic sites. Building lots with a ten foot high sand dune behind it within the middle of the project is not feasible. The slopes blend into the two lots on either side making them essentially unbuildable which causes them to lose more lots and on the other side. This that becomes a ten foot fill or a cap situation which is different. They could bring it up to lot levels. They have already lost at least two lots and probably three, now with the slopes they lose two more lots for a total of five. This makes the project impossible financially to survive. They would be giving up essentially half -a - million dollars or more in revenues. These lots will start selling roughly about $110,000 to $150,000 each. One of the reasons for the large lots is to eliminate the common area. People can put their amenities on their own lot. So, it defeats a lot of what we're trying to achieve financially in fact it makes it financially not possible. They believe the recommendation of their consultant to mitigate the areas above the requirements of CEQA is a very generous offer, but preservation becomes something that's just physically and financially not feasible for this project. 14. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Irwin asked if the skeletons that they found had been proven to be human or animal? Ms. Leslie Irish replied they have not been proven to be animal and are not identifiable as human. There is not enough material to be able to identify them. They have a memo from the Riverside County Coroner which states there was some burned bone and pieces of bone that were recovered, but none of them are large enough to be identifiable as human. It does not mean they are not. It just means, that legally these are not identifiable as human. 15. Commissioner Puente asked the applicant to explain the statement in the report about the human cremation remains, or how do you identify that they are human remains. Ms. Irish stated that in other cases there are other factors that might be used to be determine that it is actually a burial. Unfortunately, in this case because of the motion of the dunes the area was eroded and CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -7- 009 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 deflated and additionally eroded so that whatever it was that was originally there was almost gone. There were some fragments on the surface on a slope and in the course of a drainage area that were recovered. But most of what was originally there is now gone. 16. Commissioner Puente stated that in their report a number of findings were listed as being found in this area. It seemed to be very rich with deposits and appeared to have a lot of activity. Ms. Irish replied that this was actually referring to was an analysis of the surrounding area. With a records search they pick up anything within a certain radius and report it in our report. 17. Commissioner Irwin asked about the representative of the Native American people and if there was a representative from the Cabazon Indians and is he a member of the Heritage Commission? Mr. Mark Benitez stated he is not. l 8. Commissioner Irwin questioned why the Cabazon Indian Tribe is working on this project area when traditionally this has been a Torres -Martinez area. She did not know if it made any difference, but as far as artifacts who had ownership rights. She questioned why a representative of the Torres - Martinez Tribe was not involved. Mr. Mark Benitez stated it was his understanding the Torres -Martinez Tribe did not come this far west and that was the reason the Cabazon Indians were brought onto the scene to mace a recommendation. 19. Commissioner Irwin stated it was her understanding that the Act of 1970 stated artifacts were to return to the Native American people and I have a concern about it being returned to the proper group. 20. Mr. Benitez stated that as far as he knows, from Washington Street probably to somewhere near Coachella on the west side, but because the Cabuilla people have reservations that extends all the way into Mecca it is pretty extensive central location in the Valley. He was not sure exactly, cohere Torres -Martinez leaves off and the Cabazon Indians begins. 21. Commissioner Irwin asked staff if they agreed. Associate Planner, Leslie Mouriquand stated she was not a authority on the territories and believes traditional territories changed through time. 22. Mr. Benitez stated he would supply a map of the Coachella Valley showing the different territory boundaries of each of the Bands. The Agua Caliente Band has traditionally been involved with providing advice on archaeological resources from Washington Street to Palm Springs. 010 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -8- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17. 1998 23. Commissioner Irwin stated she has a real concern about the bones that have been found and would rather assume that they were human and find out that they were animal rather than assume that they are animal and then find out at another point they are human. 24. Commissioner Puente stated if the bones have not been identified as human does that means they're not going to conduct further research to identify the bones? Ms. Irish stated the law requires that when human bones are potentially identified on the site that we contact the Coroner. The Coroner makes the determination of whether or not they are human bones and they contact the Native American Heritage Commission. If they're not identifiable as human there is no contact made and no requirement for a notification of next of kin occurs. The Native American Heritage Commission does not recommend monitors or consultants. They only recommend next of kin. So, in this case, a memo from the forensic anthropologist with the County of Riverside was submitted regarding her original work report which was handed out at this meeting. It further clarified the issue as to whether or not the Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission would be involved in this project. The issue that is not resolved has more to do with who takes control of these bones and where they are ultimately re -interred. It is not our current plan to continue testing because the Coroner has stated they are not identifiable. The only way to identify these bones as positively human would be DNA testing. We have not recommended that, because there is nothing in the law that compels us to do that and I guess the question would be what would we be trying to accomplish by identifying the bones? If, under the law, the indeterminate status of the bones does not change because they are not identifiable by the Coroner, we intend to hand them over to the Native Americans and allow them to do what they want with them. What would we be gaining by spending the additional funds? 25. Commissioner Puente inquired about what level of jurisdiction the project site fell in. Ms. Irish stated it is private land and no Federal jurisdiction. 26. Commissioner Puente asked what governing laws apply to the archaeological sites on this land; Federal or State? Ms. Irish stated that only on public land do you apply the Federal laws. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that. There are Federal laws that effect developable land, but in this case, they're not changed by the presence of human bones. 27. Mr. Jim Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, asked if there was a zooarchaeologist looking at the rest of the bone material. Those bones should be provided to him to see if he can identify them as non -human. Ms. Irish stated there is a possibility, I mean I probably would do this. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -9- 1111 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 28. Ms. Irish asked what they would gain by doing this? Mr. Brock stated you are evaluating an archaeological site. Every piece should fit together to form a big picture. 29. Leslie Irish stated this would enable them to designate them in their report and possibly determine, by additional testing whether or not the :Fragments were actually human bone. That is a possibility. It is not necessarily absolute. 30. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated his concerned that he was listening to someone who purports to be an archaeologist concerned about archaeology, saying "what do we gain?". Archaeology is about understanding previous cultures, it is part of a bigger picture. To simply say "Eh, they're bones' and you don't care what kind of bones they are really disturbs me. 31. Ms. Irish responded that was not her intention and she did not believe that she said she did not care about it. What she said was, what would they be accomplishing in this event. I think we need to weigh the scientific value of analyzing bones against the cultural value of returning them to the Indians and allowing them to do what they want with them. Now, it's true that if we went and analyzed these bones further we would know, possibly, whether they were human or not. What I am saying is I am not sure this is something we should care about. I'm just saying that analyzing these bones and subjecting them to scientific analysis is, in itself, sometimes as offensive to Native Americans as it is to just allow them to re -inter them in an area that they designate as appropriate. It was not my intention to indicate that I do not care whether or not these bones are actually human. I'm just saying that my actions probably won't change as far as the ultimate deposition of the bones. 32. Commissioner Irwin stated she thought the sensitivity of the area is more extensive than just the bones. The bones are part of it, and are important to us, but we are trying to understand the lifestyle and what was here before us. The City of La Quinta has decided to research its archaeological heritage and learn as much as we can about who was here and how they lived. This Commission is very serious about this endeavor. Every aspect of this report is important to us. 33. Commissioner Puente stated the although the bones have been found in an area where there was so much prehistoric activity and human remains appear in places where some human activity has been conducted. This is then an indicator that the bones may be human and you stated at our last meeting that a human cremation was found. It is my understanding that you are now stating the bones are of no significant value for additional analysis; they are just bones and not that important. 1 C Wy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -10- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 34. Ms. Irish stated that legally this distinction has been made; they are not identifiable as human. The site is still significant. It does not change the designation of the site. 35. Commissioner Puente stated she had been doing research to become more aware and familiar with the legal disposition of bones. What she discovered was that there should be something like an Archaeological Resources Protections Act permit issued under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act before removing any bones or any other artifacts. How does this fit in with your Coroner order to remove the bones? She has spoken to one of the representatives of the Torres -Martinez Band and she has made me aware that there is a new Federal Repatriation and Discovery Law adopted in January, 1998, that affects human remains on either Federal or private owned land. It is suppose to address the issue of any artifacts with Indian remains whether or not it belongs to Federal or private land. Sites are to be considered sacred site and the appropriate Indian tribe is to be notified. 36. Mr. Jim Brock stated this is taken care of when the Coroner is notified that bones have been discovered. 37. Ms. Irish stated she would be willing to research this law and see; if it was pertinent. However, she is not presently aware of any change in the law and after speaking with the Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission and they did not inform her of any new changes in the laws pertaining to human remains in an archaeological context. 38. Commissioner Wright stated he believes this could be a very rich site. He understands the developer's financial concerns. It would either make or break the project, but unfortunately too many projects have gone forward in this Valley without an archaeological study and an enormous amount of information has been lost regarding our past and the past of the Coachella Valley. As mentioned by Commissioner Irwin, the City of La Quinta has gone forward to maintain the integrity of its historical past. He stands by what was stated at the last meeting and he completely agrees with staff s recommendations on all the points with the exceptions of the ones made regarding the Native American Heritage Commission. He does not believe a project should be evaluated on its financial concerns when it comes to an issue of costs versus preservation. In regard to discovery he thinks the City needs to hold firm. 39. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated he had read the report numerous tames trying to understand the concerns of the developer. His conclusion was the same as Commissioner Wright. His only exception would be the elimination of Condition 41, the re -design. Commissioner Wright concurred. 013 C9My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC 12-17-98.wpd -11- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 40. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated the applicant had shown this was not feasible. In regard to the remainder of the conditions, he would agree with staff s recommendation. They are appropriate and needed. 41. Planning Manager di Iorio stated she would like to ask a question about the re -design issue; specifically looking at the design and area that needed to be cut. Did the applicant address the problems in the fill areas? Mr. Bob Ross discussed the areas in question and solutions that had been introduced. 42. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if Mr. Ross had looked at those areas in regards to lot sizes. They could add another lot by reducing the lot size from 19,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet to allow for open space 43. Mr. Bob Ross stated they were trying to keep the original lot size to retain a certain price for the lots. The smaller lots will not bring as much money. 44. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio acknowledged the change involved, but stated the City was looking at maintaining the lots at a minimum of 15,000 square feet and above. This would retain one lot for open space area with the fill and possibly gaining another lot by reducing the lot size. 45. Mr. Ross stated the reason they have 19,000 square foot lots and 42 foot wide streets was to keep it from being a cookie -cutter type of subdivision. 46. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio pointed out that the City encourages smaller streets because it's more of a neighborhood atmosphere and brings the landscaping out to the street. This design concept proposed by the applicant differs from what the City has adopted in the General Plan Amendment to reduce street widths and reduce the amount of asphalt. This project is therefore, in opposition to what the City is trying to accomplish. Discussion followed regarding possible redesign alternatives. 47. Mr. Ross concluded there would be a net loss of lots. It would be: a gain of one lot, but a sacrifice on the corners resulting in additional flag lots 48. Vice Chairman DeMersman asked if the Commissioners wanted to delete Condition 41 or leave it in. 49. Commissioner Puente believed the most important conditions were 44 and #5. 50. Discussion followed as to whether a zooarchaeologist should analyze the faunal remains and whether there should be a condition recommended for proper identification of the bones. 51. Commissioner Irwin asked where the bones would be stored. Ms. Irish stated /' C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -12- U A Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 they would be re -interred, but if the Commission wanted a condition requiring them to make an analysis first, this could be accomplished. 52. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand asked if the applicant was proposing that all bone be re -interred? Ms. Irish stated they would be sending the bones out for analysis. If the City would like them to send the potentially human bones out for further analysis to determine, by whatever method is most appropriate, then they could do that. 53. Commissioner Irwin asked what the method would be used for excavation of the artifacts to avoid mixing the artifacts. Would they be using a backhoe or hand excavation? Ms. Irish responded they apply a grid and tied it to a survey locations so we know precisely where each unit is on the ground. Then do the collection with every bag being identified with that grid number, identifying what it is, and at what level it was retrieved. 54. Commissioner Puente asked if the bones had been collected. Ms. Irish stated the bones were collected in part on the day that the Coroner was there and then in total by the next day after some more excavation was done to make sure that everything had been recovered. There was a possibility :more material could be below in the drainage courses, but the upper areas were all excavated and whatever bone was there had been recovered 55. Vice Chairman DeMersman stated he would like further clarification of the Indian Band boundaries to be sure they were returned to the rightful owners. 56. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 98-013 approving the Feasibility Assessment for Phase III Alternatives for Tentative Tract Map 28964 as amended: a. Delete Conditions #1 and #6. b. Add new Condition #9: The applicant shall provide current tribal boundaries for the purposes of correct disposition of any human remains. C. Add new Condition 410: The potentially human cremation bone material referenced in the Phase II Interim Testing report and subsequently determined, "not large enough for a positive identification", as human by Consulting Biological Anthropologist Debbie Gray shall be submitted with all other bone material to a qualified zooarchaeologist for study and possible identification. The results of this study are to be included in the final Phase III data recovery report. CANly Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -13- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL Commissioner Wright commended Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand for her article in the CRM Magazine. Commissioner Irwin suggested the City Council be given a copy of the article. VII COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Wright asked if the City Council was still looking to fill the empty positions on the Commission as he had been approached by Stewart Woodard, who had served on the Planning Commission, who stated he was very interested in serving on the Commission. Vice Chairman DeMersman informed the Commission that he would be resigning from the Commission as he had accepted the position of the Executive Director of the Hayward Area Historical Society. The January, 1999 meeting would be his last meeting at which time he would tender his resignation. Commissioners wished him well and congratulated him on his promotion. So, I'll give my official letter of resignation at our next meeting. Commissioner Wright commented on two articles in the local newspapers, the Desert Sun and Los Angeles Times, about the Indio neighborhood and historic buildings in Los Angeles. One article in particular dealt with a neighborhood where they are doing spectacular things and asked that they be put on file. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:52 P.M. Unanimously approved. Following the meeting a training session was held where Mr. Jim Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group spoke regarding Archaeological Method and Theory; the Avenue 48 Corridor. 1916 C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC12-17-98.wpd -14- Ell #A DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: CONSULTANT: DEVELOPER: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 20, 1999 FINAL REPORT - ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND MITIGATION - RANCHO LA QUINTA PROJECT, CITY OF LA QUINTA 350 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN 48T" AVENUE AND 50TH AVENUE CRM TECH - BRUCE LOVE, PH.D. T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT Between May and December 1998, a Phase II testing and evaluation program was conducted by CRM TECH on 18 previously recorded archaeological sites located in the vacant eastern half of the existing Rancho La Quinta project. The location of this study area is shown on Page 2 of the attached report. The report presents the final compilation of the results of testing. The report does not address preservation as an alternative for any of the sites investigated. The CRM TECH field investigation, conducted three years after the ARU survey, consisted of resurveying the project area for site locations and boundaries, site mapping, surface collection of the artifacts, testing the sites with hand -excavated units and surface scrapes, and trenching dunes for additional buried deposits and profiles. Lab analysis of the recovered artifacts types included ceramics, lithics, faunal, groundstone, burned clay, and fire -affected rock. The survey initially produced 31 potential sites, of which 1 was historic. Several of the artifact clusters were later defined as loci of larger sites and the total site number was reduced to 18. The 1 historic site was determined to be less than 50 years old based on the types of artifacts present. Nine sites previously recorded by the ARU could not be relocated, possibly due to shifting sands. A total of 1,453 items were collected during the study. Of these, 1,232 are pottery sherds, 34 are lithic debitage (chipping waste), 5 are pieces of groundstone, 1 is an arrow point fragment, and the rest are miscellaneous collections of clay, rock, and 017 shell. Cremation remains were located at three loci near the northern portion of the project site. Small fragments of burned bone of the size to be human were found along with a burned arrow point. The Coroner's office was called and forensic anthropologist Deborah Gray visited the site and confirmed the identity of the bones as human. Further analysis of the 2,357 pieces of bones by Zooarchaeologist Thomas Wake confirmed the identification as discussed in the analysis contained in the report. it is possible that more than one individual is represented by the bone material, that perhaps three adults or two adults and an older subadult are present, and that one may be a young adult male between the ages of 17 and 25. Native American consultation regarding the human remains recommended that the remains be sent to UCLA for analysis, returned to CRM TECH to be held in trust until reinterment can be performed somewhere on the project site. A location for reburial will be agreed upon after grading is completed where the remains can be protected from further disturbance. The developer will place a plaque or memorial, designed in consultation with the Torres -Martinez representatives, near the reburied remains commemorating Native American heritage. A detailed faunal analysis is included in the report indicates that the sites were occupied during a period when fish were available, at or near the most recent high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Razor -back suckers, bonytail, and striped mullet are represented in the fish bones and were probably caught with nets. Waterfowl, rabbits, rodents, reptiles, and small mammals are also represented which indicate a mixed economy of hunting and fishing. Bighorn sheep remains are included in the collection, however they only represent a very low percent of the food supply . The burned bones suggests roasting of food or possibly disposal through fire. The lithics analysis included 230 artifacts from the investigation, including 13 projectile points, 1 probable point preform, 7 millingstone fragments, and 1 flake with a modified edge. The Desert Side -Notched arrow points indicate that the sites date to no earlier than A. D. 1300. The collection of tools and projectile points suggests that the lakeshore sites were occupied by small temporary groups conducting residential activities in the Late Prehistoric Period. The cremation further suggests occupation during that time period. The lithic material for the tools in this collection were found in the local region. Only a few tools were possibly obtained through trade due to their exotic material. The ceramic analysis was conducted by Cahuilla potter, David Largo, and conclL,ded that three types of vessels were found at the larger sites: cooking, storage, and water. In addition, bowl and scoop fragments were also found. Both buffware and brownware vessels are represented in the sherd collection. The fired clay analysis studied more than 500 pieces of fired clay from the project area. Some of the clay is thought to be naturally occurring, while other is not. A proposed typology is presented in the analysis that divides the clay into three types. This clay could have been used for cooking purposes, house construction, or as a lining for fire pits. The report suggests the use as a lining for fire pits with the support that such clay is commonly associated with fire -affected rocks and charcoal. Possible fired clay ball fragments were identified in the analysis. The report contains analyses on lag gravel deposits, lag bone deposits, rock, and the buried dune profile that provide important technical information that supplements interpretation of the prehistoric environment and cultural activities represented by the artifacts. The cultural interpretation and synthesis of the several analyses in the report is found beginning on Page 97. The findings are correlated with the research design in such a way that broad interpretations are possible. Radiocarbon testing of two charcoal samples found in association with cultural deposits resulted in dates of 165 B.C. and 150 B.C., pointing to occupation more than 2000 years ago, while the lithic assemblage indicates a Late Prehistoric occupation. Suggestions for future research are offered for dating of fish bone, finer screening of excavated material, clay sourcing, and pottery vessel function analysis. The report concludes that the cremation site (322-20) is significant under Criterion B, C, and E of CEQA. Site 322-13 was determined significant under Criterion C as it appears to be a pre -ceramic site dating to more than 2000 years ago. The remaining sites have been determined to be interesting but do not rise to the level of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. The report concludes that all reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate project effects to the archaeological resources. No further investigation is recommended. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the report and concurs with the results and conclusions. Staff recommends monitoring of the earth disturbing activities as a condition of project approval and as a condition of issuance of any grading permits. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report titled, "Final Report- Archaeological Testing and Mitigation - Rancho La Quinta Project, City of La Quinta,.." in partial compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and subject to the condition that all earth disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and that a report of the monitoring activities be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of the first building permit within each area monitored if the project is graded in phases. Attachment: 0 1 V�VJ .iJ 1 . Archaeological Survey Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: L slie Mouriqu nd,�sociate Planner Submitted by: CL--- Christine di lorio, Planning Manager C:\Mydata\HPCrptRanchoLaQuintaCRMTECHfina11-21-99.wpd 020 i QjQ FINAL REPORT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND MITIGATION RANCHO LA QUINTA PROJECT City of La Quinta Riverside County, California Submitted to: Grady Sparks T.D. Desert Development C/o Sparks Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 1716 La Quinta, CA 92253 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Harry M. Quinn, Field Director, Geologist Thomas A. Wake, Faunal Leslie Quintero, Lithics David Largo, Ceramics CAM TECH In �-- 2 126 Barrett Road I� �.� Riverside, CA 92507 �,� U CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 4, 1999 CRM TECH Contract #322 Approximately 350 Acres La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle Section 32, T5S WE, San Bernardino Base Meridian Sites CA-RIV-119, -1176, -1177, -5764 to -5775, -5777 to -5780, and -6136 to -6145 02 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between May and December, 1998, CRM TECH performed a testing,, evaluation and mitigation program on eighteen archaeological sites located in a 350-acre area known as the Rancho La Quinta Project, consisting of a portion of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to assess the significance of the archaeological sites within the project area and to complete mitigation measures on those sites that constitute "historical resources" or "important archaeological resources," as defined by CEQA. During the course of the study, CR1Vl TECH completed the following field and laboratory procedures: a systematic resurvey of the project area; field mapping of the eighteen sites on the property; redefining previously recorded site boundaries; 100°/o surface collection of artifacts; test excavations, including lxl-m :hand excavation units, 1x2 m units, surface scrapes, backhoe trenches, and a vertical dune profile; and lab analysis of the various classes of artifacts recovered during the field work, most notably ceramics, lithics, faunal, groundstone, burned clay, and fire -affected rock. Preparation of site records and site record updates is complete, and the presentation of this report represents the final compilation of the results of testing and data recovery. All but two of the sites represent temporary camp sites based on short- term resource exploitation associated with ancient Lake Cahuilla. Two sites meet CEQA criteria for importance and project effects to both have been mitigated by means of data recovery. CRM TECH has completed the testing/mitigation program and recommends a finding that based on the extensive data recovery that has been completed, project effects to archaeological resources have been reduced to levels less than significant. All reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate project effects to archaeological resources. It is recommended that the City of La Quinta may reach a finding that the proposed project is in compliance with the conditions on cultural resources as defined by CEQA and implemented by the City. Archaeological monitoring during grading is required based on the potential presence of buried archaeological resources. ' E ` l''v`iiUi- 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENTSUMMARY.................................................................................................i INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 SETTING.......................................................................................................................................3 CURRENTNATURAL SETTING..............................................................................3 GEOLOGICSETTING.....................................................................................................3 CULTURALSETTING...................................................................................................5 RESEARCHDESIGN..................................................................................................................6 CHRONOLOGY...............................................................................................................7 SUBSISTENCE.................................................................................................................7 SETTLEMENTPATTERNS..........................................................................................7 TRADE..............................................................................................................................8 ETHNICITY......................................................................................................................8 CLAY..................................................................................................................................8 ROCK.................................................................................................................................9 METHODS........................................................................................................................ I...........9 REVIEWOF PREVIOUS STUDY................................................................................9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD WORK...........................................................................9 FieldSurvey.........................................................................................................90 SiteMapping........................................................................................................ SurfaceCollection...............................................................................................10 TestUnits..............................................................................................................10 BackhoeTrenches...............................................................................................10 DuneProfile.........................................................................................................11 CREMATIONSITE.........................................................................................................11 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION................................................................11 ARTIFACTANALYSIS.................................................................................................11 Ceramics........................................................................................................... I....11 Lithics....................................................................................................................14 Faunal....................................................................................................................14 CremationRemains...........................................................................................15 Burned Clay ...........15 Fire -Affected Rock..............................................................................................15 REVIEWOF PREVIOUS STUDY............................................................................................15 SUMMARYOF FIELD WORK.................................................................................................16 FIELDSURVEY...............................................................................................................16 SITEMAPPING...............................................................................................................17 SURFACECOLLECTION..............................................................................................17 TESTUNITS....................................................................................................................18 Locus 322-1 (Site CA-RIV-6136)........................................................................18 Locus 322-2 (Site CA-RIV-6137)........................................................................18 Locus 322-3 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)..............................................................18 Locus 322-4 (Site CA-RIV-6138)........................................................................18 Locus 322-5 (Site CA-RIV-6139)........................................................................18 n n r- .... 02 U L;Vui Locus 322-6 (Site CA-RIV-5774)........................................................................18 Locus 322-7 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)..............................................................IS Locus 322-8 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)..............................................................19 Locus322-9 (Not a Site)......................................................................................19 Locus 322-10 (Site CA-RIV-6140)......................................................................19 Locus 322-13 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)............................................................19 Locus 322-14 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)............................................................19 Locus 322-15 (Site CA-RIV-6141)......................................................................19 Locus 322-16 (Site CA-RIV-6142)......................................................................19 Locus 322-17 (Site CA-RIV-5774)......................................................................19 Locus 322-18 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)............................................................19 Locus 322-19 (Site CA-RIV-1177/5765)............................................................20 Locus 322-20 (Site CA-RIV-5764)......................................................................20 Locus 322-21 (Site CA-RIV-1177/5765)............................................................20 Locus 322-22 (Site CA-RIV-5770)......................................................................20 Locus 322-23 (Site CA-RIV-5778)......................................................................20 Locus 322-24 (Site CA-RIV-5764)......................................................................20 Locus 322-25 (Site CA-RIV-1176)......................................................................20 Locus 322-26 (Site CA-RIV-1176)......................................................................21 Locus 322-27 (Site CA-RIV-6144)......................................................................21 Locus 322-28 (Site CA-RIV-6145)......................................................................21 Locus 322-29 (Site CA-RIV-5774)......................................................................21 Locus 322-30 (Site CA-RIV-5775)......................................................................21 Locus 322-31 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775)............................................................21 SURFACESCRAPES......................................................................................................21 BACKHOETRENCHES.................................................................................................21 DUNEPROFILE...............................................................................................................21 Dune Profile Column Samples........................................................................22 Dune Profile Tier Samples................................................................................22 ISOLATEDARTIFACTS................................................................................................23 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION............................................................................23 FAUNALANALYSIS................................................................................................................23 RESEARCHQUESTIONS.............................................................................................24 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................24 Locus322-3............................................................................................................24 Fish.............................................................................................................24 Amphibians.............................................................................................27 Reptiles......................................................................................................27 Birds...........................................................................................................28 Mammals..................................................................................................28 Locus322-5............................................................................................................30 Locus322-6............................................................................................................30 Fish.............................................................................................................30 Amphibians and Reptiles.....................................................................30 Birds...........................................................................................................30 Mammals..................................................................................................31 024 U , U, U i� l.T l� it V Locus322-7............................................................................................................32 Fish.............................................................................................................32 Amphibians.............................................................................................33 Reptiles......................................................................................................34 Birds...........................................................................................................34 Mammals..................................................................................................34 Locus322-8............................................................................................................35 Locus322-13..........................................................................................................35 Fish.............................................................................................................38 Amphibians.............................................................................................38 Reptiles......................................................................................................38 Birds...........................................................................................................39 Mammals..................................................................................................39 Locus322-14..........................................................................................................40 Locus322-15..........................................................................................................41 Locus322-17..........................................................................................................41 Locus322-19..........................................................................................................42 Reptiles......................................................................................................42 Birds...........................................................................................................43 Mammals..................................................................................................43 Locus322-21..........................................................................................................44 Fish.............................................................................................................44 Amphibians.............................................................................................46 Reptiles......................................................................................................46 Birds...........................................................................................................47 Mammals..................................................................................................47 Locus322-22..........................................................................................................48 Locus322-23..........................................................................................................49 Locus322-25..........................................................................................................49 Fish.............................................................................................................50 Amphibians.............................................................................................53 Reptiles......................................................................................................53 Birds...........................................................................................................54 Mammals..................................................................................................54 Locus322-26..........................................................................................................55 Locus322-27..........................................................................................................56 Locus322-29..........................................................................................................57 Locus322-31..........................................................................................................57 Fish.............................................................................................................57 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Birds.........................................................58 Mammals..................................................................................................59 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................59 SaltonBasin Fishes.............................................................................................59 Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)..........................................................60 Bonytail(Gila elegans).......................................................................................61 Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus).....................................................................61 1V •... _ 0 12 5 VUiiV: Procurement and Processing............................................................................62 Reptiles..................................................................................................................62 Birds.......................................................................................................................64 Mammals..............................................................................................................64 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................66 CREMATION REMAINS ANALYSIS...................................................................................66 IDENTIFICATION OF REMAINS...............................................................................67 Locus322-7............................................................................................................67 Locus322-8............................................................................................................68 Locus322-20..........................................................................................................68 Locus322-25..........................................................................................................71 CONDITION....................................................................................................................71 AGEAND SEX.................................................................................................................72 Locus322-7............................................................................................................72 Locus322-8............................................................................................................72 Locus322-20..........................................................................................................72 Age.............................................................................................................72 Sex..............................................................................................................73 Locus322-25..........................................................................................................73 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................73 LITHICANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................74 TOOL -STONE RESOURCES.........................................................................................74 MicrocrystallineQuartz.....................................................................................74 Quartzand Quartzite..........................................................................................75 Basalts, Granitics, Schist....................................................................................75 Obsidian................................................................................................................76 FLAKEDTOOLS..............................................................................................................76 ProjectilePoints...................................................................................................76 ArrowPoints............................................................................................76 ArrowPoint Preform.............................................................................78 Edge -Modified Percussion Flake......................................................................79 MILLINGTOOLS............................................................................................................79 Manos....................................................................................................................79 Metates..................................................................................................................79 Pestles....................................................................................................................79 DEBITAGE........................................................................................................................80 Results...................................................................................................................80 Stone Processing Strategies...................................................................80 Tool -Production Strategies...................................................................81 SUMMARYAND DISCUSSION.................................................................................81 Chronological Assessment...............................................................................81 Functional Interpretation of the Lithic Assemblage...................................81 Lithic Economy ....82 CERAMICS...................................................................................................................................82 FIREDCLAY.................................................................................................................................85 OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................85 v U U 'U6 PROPOSEDTYPOLOGY.................................................................................................86 POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS.................................................................................86 DESCRIPTIONS OF COLLECTED SAMPLES............................................................87 Locus322-21..........................................................................................................87 Locus322-15..........................................................................................................87 Locus322-7............................................................................................................88 Locus322-6............................................................................................................88 Locus322-3............................................................................................................88 LAGGRAVEL DEPOSITS.........................................................................................................88 LAGBONE DEPOSITS...............................................................................................................89 ROCK......................................................................................................................................... I...90 BURIEDSITE DUNE PROFILE....................................................................................91 Tier5......................................................................................................................91 Tier6......................................................................................................................92 Tier7......................................................................................................................93 Tier8......................................................................................................................94 Tier9......................................................................................................................94 322-3 SURFACE SCRAPE..............................................................................................95 RESEARCHDESIGN REVISITED...........................................................................................97 CHRONOLOGY...............................................................................................................97 SUBSISTENCE.................................................................................................................98 SETTLEMENTPATTERNS..........................................................................................99 TRADE..............................................................................................................................99 CLAY..................................................................................................................................99 ROCK.................................................................................................................................100 FUTUREDIRECTIONS.............................................................................................................100 RADIOCARBON DATING OF FISH BONE.............................................................100 FINESCREENING..........................................................................................................101 CLAYSOURCING..........................................................................................................101 POTTERY VESSEL TYPES AT OTHER KINDS OF SITES......................................101 EVALUATIONAND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................I..........101 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................102 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................103 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................109 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF IDENTIFIED VERTEBRATE SPECIES .........................113 0 2 7 vi 11I�VVi� TABLES Table 1. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-3....................................................25 Table 2. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-3...................................................27 Table 3. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-3................................................29 Table 4. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-3...................................................29 Table 5. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-5....................................................30 Table 6. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-6....................................................31 Table 7. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-6...................................................31 Table 8. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-6................................................32 Table 9. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-7....................................................33 Table 10. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-7.................................................34 Table 11. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-7..............................................34 Table 12. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-8..................................................35 Table 13. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-13................................................36 Table 14. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-13...............................................37 Table 15. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-13............................................39 Table 16. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-13...............................................40 Table 17. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-14................................................41 Table 18. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-15................................................42 Table 19. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-17................................................42 Table 20. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-19................................................43 Table 21. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-21................................................45 Table 22. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-21...............................................46 Table 23. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-21............................................47 Table 24. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-21...............................................48 Table 25. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-22................................................49 Table 26. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-23................................................50 Table 27. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-25................................................51 Table 28. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-25...............................................52 Table 29. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-25............................................54 Table 30. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-25...............................................55 Table 31. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-26................................................55 Table 32. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-27................................................56 Table 33. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-29................................................56 Table 34. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-31................................................57 Table 35. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-31...............................................58 Table 36. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-31............................................58 Table 37. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-31...............................................59 Table 38. Arrow Points and Fragments from Cremation Site..........................................77 Table 39. Debitage Material Type by Locus............................................................................80 Table 40. Distribution of Pottery Vessel Types by Locus....................................................82 Table 41. Distribution of Pottery Vessel Types at Six Larger Loci....................................83 Table 42. Distribution of Pottery Types by Locus.................................................................84 Table 43. Comparison of Vessel Types by Pottery Type.....................................................84 vii U UUtJ'v FIGURES Figure 1. General vicinity of the project area.......................................................................1 Figure 2. Location and configuration of the project area..................................................2 Figure3. Dune Profile...............................................................................................................12 Figure 4. Base of dune removed by tractor...........................................................................13 Figure 5. 20-cm column sample screened.............................................................................13 Figure 6. Locations of archaeological loci recorded during this study ............................16 Figure 7. Locations of the eighteen archaeological sites....................................................17 Figure 8. The more complete arrow points from the cremation site .............................76 Figure 9. Distribution of pottery vessel types.......................................................................84 020 viii ljliliiJiJ INTRODUCTION Between May and December, 1998, at the request of T.D. Desert Development, CRM TECH performed a testing and evaluation program on eighteen archaeological sites located in a 350-acre area known as the Rancho La Quinta Project, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists of a portion of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles (Fig. 2). The study is a part of the environmental review process for for the proposed project, which is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to assess the significance of the archaeological sites within the project area and to complete mitigation measures on those sites that constitute "historical resources" or "important archaeological resources," as defined by CEQA. During the course of the study, CRM TECH completed the following field and laboratory procedures: a systematic resurvey of the project area; field mapping of the eighteen sites on the property; redefining previously recorded site boundaries; 100% surface collection of artifacts; test excavations, including lxl-m hand excavation units, surface scrapes, backhoe trenches, and a vertical dune profile; and lab analysis of the various classes of artifacts recovered during the field work, most notably ceramics, lithics, faunal, groundstone, burned clay, and fire -affected rock. The following report is a complete account of the methods and results of the various avenues of research, and the final conclusion of this study. Figure 1. General vicinity of the project area. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition) 1 030 UUii0_1'i o n v- 29 o Trei'8+ i Part' :+.4 6 Trailer Park { Traller Park ; Well UI w J ., project` area A w 3+IoWeil 49 3 7 --k fNUB =,4',— _ 60 AI {"• I +: w r a. v�s• .`Q a +>- � it �.• -� ➢ it !i t { F . AVENUE`I °i 60 T:'S HTE �rSH7E z o c : V7eli % i =- u• i 7 1 ji v 8 � . � � '•Na � r eTt 1 ak9 �f li eCY -, 1•• f f. 40 r 3� Iq e I r (M b SCALE 124;000 Pl., •, 0 112 1 tulle „ II R • + i 1000 0 1000 200 33000 4000 feet " •" ` AVENUE $4 Figure 2. Location and configuration of the project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 124,000 quadrangle, 1980 edition) 031 2 a UUU'vi0 SETTING CURRENT NATURAL SETTING The project area is located in the Coachella Valley, which is the northern portion of the Salton Trough, separated by the Salton Sea from the Imperial Valley in the southern portion. A tilted fault block extending along the southwest side of the San Andreas Fault, the valley is often referred to as a portion of the Colorado Desert. It is bounded on the northeast side by the Little San Bernardino, Cottonwood, and Orocopia Mountains. The southwest side consists of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The valley's northern end is usually taken to be the San Gorgonio (Banning) Pass, a low area extending almost east -west and separating the San Jacinto Mountains on the south from the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains are the northernmost extension of the Peninsular Range, a range that extends the full length of the Baja Peninsula. At over 10,000 feet, Mount San Jacinto is the tallest mountain in the range. Toro Peak, at over 8,000 feet is the tallest point in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Because of their height, these mountains create an effective barrier to coastal storms and produce a pronounced rain shadow effect on the entire Coachella Valley. The climate of the Coachella Valley today is that of a rain shadow desert. The area is characterized by low humidity, low precipitation, high evaporation, hot summers, and mild winters. Summer temperatures can reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer, yet portions of the valley can have frost in December and January. Because of the rain shadow effect, most winter precipitation falls on and west of the mountains. Only a few winter storms make it to the valley. However, during the summer tropical storms can move north from the Gulf of California and produce heavy rains and. even flash flooding. The valley is a true desert, having an annual average evaporation rate in excess of five feet and an annual precipitation rate of 3.2 inches, as given for Indio. The project area is located at an elevation of 40 feet to 80 feet above mean sea level and lies within the Sonoran Desert Scrub plant community. Among the plants observed in the project area during the survey that could have been utilized by the prehistoric inhabitants were mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), creosote bush (Larrea divaricata), saltbush (Atriplex californica), and desert sage (Salvia dorrii). Of these plants, the mesquite was probably the most important one growing here that would have been used as a food resource. GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject property is located along the distal portion of the Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex. Here terrestrial sediments from fluvial (water -born) and aeolian (wind -born) sources met with finer grained sediments of the lake environment. Being along the southeastern portion of the delta/dune complex, the area was downwind of the delta's high point. Here dune sands prograded southeasterly into the lake 3 032 .. _ uUUvi0 interfingering with and being deposited atop the finer grained lake sediments. This produced sand dune lobes that extended into the lake area and also produced adjacent bays, marshes, and sloughs that extended inland from the lake shore. The Soil Conservation Service (Knecht 1980) maps only two types of surface soils at the subject property. These are the Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (MaD) and Myoma fine sand, wet, 0 to 5 percent slopes (MaB). The MaD is shown to include some dune areas along the ancient beach lines that have sand profiles. The MaB usually contains a high water table, the soil tends to be saline, and because of this salinity the soil requires drains for sustained crop production. Based on the results of the site excavations and backhoe trenches, the MaD is associated with the sand dunes and. mesquite dunes and the MaB with ponded sediments, such as silts, clays, and lacustrine sands. In some areas there is a thin to thick coating of recent dune sand covering the ponded sediments. In order to better understand the site geology, the larger picture of the Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex is examined. The Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex apparently got its start back in the Pleistocene, some 1.6 million to 10,000 years ago. At that time, the Whitewater River flowed water on a year round, or nearly year round basis. Deltas form where a flowing river carrying sediment empties into quiet waLters. Here the energy level drops abruptly, and the transported sediment drops out because of the rapid energy loss. As the sediment accumulates, it creates a high area that causes the river to seek a new passage in an adjacent lower area. This causes the river to shift back and forth in a lateral direction. Over time, the shifting river deposits sediment in a D-shaped or Delta -shaped deposit, hence the name delta. While the bulk of delta deposition takes place along the main river channel, additional deposition occurs along flanking distributary channels. The distributary channels flow laterally off the main channel and many times are only active during flood stages. Since a river is at a high energy stage during flooding, these distributary charmels can transport and deposit coarser grained sediments across the existing finer grained sediment of the delta flanks. This is especially true during major flood stages. When these sand and gravel laden sediments are subjected to wind, the blowouts may form a surface lag gravel. The main channel will also carry coarser grained sediments during flood stages. These sediments could be carried out to the distal end of the delta and then transported along the shoreline by the action of longshore currents. These shoreline gravels may someday prove useful in mapping the different beach lines associated with the past lakes that filled the Salton Sink. The Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex is somewhat unique in that the deltas formed when the fresh water lakes were present and then the dune development took over when the lakes receded. Since the different lakes had different high stands, the deltas did not always form in the same place. Because the lakes formed in an area that was down wind of the delta/dune complex, both the delta and dune sediments 033 4 l.'iJUli1��� f prograded into the lakes, both by onlapping and interfingering with the lake sediments. Much of the lake sediment was silt and clay carried in suspension by the river waters and then distributed along the bottom areas of quiet water. The Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex formed several times in the vicinity of Point Happy. The Point Happy area just happens to also be the terminus of the blowsand ridge that formed near the middle of the upper Coachella Valley. This ridge forms a valley -wide sand dune high that extends from near San Gorgonio Pass, east- southeast to the La Quinta area just east of Point Happy. During times when the river was flowing into the lake, the water table within the delta/dune complex remained high. At this time blowouts and other low areas within the dunes would have contained standing water. These scattered low area would have been present as cienegas, marshes, bogs, and sloughs and could have formed in low areas well above the lake level. These areas would have offered water sources to a large variety of native plants and animals, as well as to the local Indian population. During times when the river was not flowing into the lake, the water table would drop This could cause many of the low areas to dry out and expose them to additional wind action, resulting in both erosional and/or depositional events. Even though the main water table would become lower, it would have normally still remained higher than the lake level itself. Some of these lows would have retained silt and/or clan liners when water was present, so may have retained a limited shallow perched water zone. Thus, even though the main water table had dropped, some of these low areas rr,ay have retained small areas of riparian -like habitat, such a groves of willow, cottonwood and reeds. CULTURAL SETTING The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where a large number of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Desert Cahuilla peoplE were observed in the mid -nineteenth century. The basic written sources on Desert Cahuilla culture are Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnographic discussion of the Cahuilla people is based on these sources. The Cahuilla people are generally divided, by anthropologists, into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the Banning -Beaumont area the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilh Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership w� in terms of lineages or clans that were in turn grouped within the two main divisions of the people. Members of clans in one division, or moiety, had to marry into clans from the other division. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territoriE they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of huntin game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with oth clans in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. 5 C13� UtJvvi Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in the Coachella Valley, including Cabazon, Torres Martinez, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and Augustine. Members of these reservations are highly conscious of the archaeological remains of their past, and have great concern when earth -moving activities disturb cultural remains. Although only a few elders can remember the old ways or speak the Cahuilla language, there appears to be a revitalization trend among many tribal members. Native lifeways in the Coachella Valley was greatly influenced in centuries past by the comings and goings of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, whose last drying up period began around AD 1650-1680 (see "Chronology," below). During its peak years before that, the northern shore of the lake reached the present-day 42-foot elevation contour line, which runs through the southeastern corner of the project area. Located mostly just above this ancient shoreline, the project area undoubtedly presented an ideal location for early occupants of the Coachella Valley to exploit fish, water foul, and other food resources from this now -vanished freshwater lake. Archaeological investigations along the old shoreline try to reconstruct Native lifeways, answering the hows and whys of Indian life on the shoreline dunes RESEARCH DESIGN A research design is intended to guide archaeological explorations, directing investigators to focus on those questions which have the best potential to fill. in gaps it current knowledge and theory. Archaeologists plan their field and laboratory strategies to collect scientific data that can paint a picture of past lifeways, focusing especially on those questions which are the subject of ongoing debate, trying to advance the field by building on previous work, by supporting or refuting current understandings, and by asking questions that lead in new directions, thus laying the groundwork for future studies. In archaeological investigations in general, there are a set of research questions that ca be asked of almost any excavation project, but the specifics of each case require refinement and focus. The standard set of questions includes (1) chronology, the age and duration of site occupation; (2) subsistence, the daily diet and range of natural resources that were hunted, collected, and consumed; (3) settlement patterns, the nature of site occupation be it temporary or permanent, large scale or small; (4) trade o external contacts, the evidence for materials exchange with outside groups based on tl presence or absence of exotic items in the archaeological record; and (5) ethnicity or culture, what was the tribal or linguistic affiliation of the people who occupied the Ian at the time. These five general questions, which are common to site investigation 6 035 V� U'vl everywhere, generate more specific inquiries and focused lines of research when applied to the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. CHRONOLOGY The age of Native settlements along the north shore of ancient Lake Cahuilla is of course a function of the history of the lake itself. Until recently, the last high stand of the lake was thought to have occurred in the 1500s, with its final recession leaving the valley dry by around 1600 (Schaefer 1994:67). However, just within the last five years, new information points to yet another full in -filling of the lake in the 1600s, with a high stand at the 42-foot elevation around AD 1650-1680 (Laylander 1997:68, 96, Rockwell 1995, 1997). Can sites at Rancho La Quinta confirm the later date and add support to this recently revised chronology? Besides the question of settlement during the most recent high stand, there are many unanswered questions regarding older time periods. The lake has come and gone a number of times during the last millennium, but newly discovered buried midden deposits in the nearby City of Indio suggest lakeshore occupation older than two thousand years ago (Love 1997). Every time the lake fills, it must be assumed Native peoples took advantage of the rich plant and animal resources along its shoreline. Are there records of these earlier visits by the ancestors of today's Cahuilla people in the form of older, buried archaeological deposits? SUBSISTENCE The earliest major study of Cahuilla diet based on the archaeological record is W ilke's doctoral dissertation on animal and plant remains extracted from ancient Indian fecal remains in the sand dunes of Myoma and vicinity (Wilke 1976). Since then dozens of archaeological studies have analyzed animal bone remains from numerous sites in thf La Quinta region, and Cahuilla exploitation of lacustrine resources, particularly in the form of freshwater fish, water fowl, and small land mammals is well documented. Current research is no longer asking whether or not the Indians were using the Jake's resources --it is now well established that they were. Today it is more a question of refinement of details. What percentages of which animals constituted their diet, and are there hints from the bone remains telling the probable means by which the animal were captured and how were they prepared for consumption? SETTLEMENT PATTERNS The question of year-round "village" occupation vs. temporary campsite on the north shore of Lake Cahuilla has been debated since the 1970s (reviewed in Schaefer 1994:68 i seq.). Recent large-scale excavations and data recovery programs tend to support: the temporary camp hypothesis, finding light surface scatters of ceramics and fire -affected rock, little or no midden, no multiple cremations or evidence of cemeteries, no featur or site "furniture" suggesting permanence, and a dearth of ceremonial objects that would occur at villages where large gatherings would take place for ritual purposes 7 036 l�UVV�.0 (Love 1996). A recent re -analysis of Wilke's original data, using statistical modeling, also supports the temporary camp hypothesis (Sutton 1998). The Rancho La Quinta property, because of its large size--350 acres --and density of sites, provides an excellent opportunity to lend weight to one side of the argument or the other. TRADE Evidence of trade is usually found archaeologically in the form of exotic goods, materials or items whose origin is some distance away. Stone materials are the most commonly cited evidence for such external contacts. Shell beads are another sure sign of trade, often brought to the Coachella Valley from the Pacific Coast, presumably by Mojave long-distance traders who had a tradition of passing frequently between the Colorado River and the western seashore. Careful identification of stone types, as part of the lithics analysis phase at the Rancho La Quinta property, can partially address this question, although one must remember there could have been heavy trade in perishable items that do not last in the archaeological record and which would be undetectable during present-day explorations. ETHNICITY Although archaeologists continually try to tie ethnicity to the artifact record, their efforts for the most part remain frustrated. Peoples of different linguistic and cultural heritage may use the same kinds of artifacts when it comes to everyday subsistence activities like hunting, collecting, food preparing, etc. The simple mano, or hand-held grinding stone, would not reveal the ethnic identity of its owner, unless perhaps it showed artistic elaborations or design work specific to one culture or another. More generally, it is assumed that the people who lived at a site prior to modern times were the same people who were living there in recent recorded history. In the case of the Coachella Valley, the Cahuilla people occupied a wide expanse of territory in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it is assumed that the archaeological sites from the few centuries prior to that also represent Cahuilla cultures. What of sites 2000 years old? The present-day Cahuilla traditions say the Cahuilla people were always here, that in fact the Cahuilla people were created here, at the beginning of time. There is nothing in the rock chips and burned animal bone from 2000-year-old sites that would dispute this. However, historical linguists and students of cultural change and migration would argue that new cultures entered the Coachella Valley some 2000 to 2500 years ago. For the present, there is little that the archaeological record can shed on this; question, other than to document the presence or absence of artifacts and features from earlier periods. The question of cultural affiliation and ethnicity remains open. CLAY In addition to the generalized research questions, archaeology in specific locales tends tc produce questions that pertain to those regions in particular. Such is the case with partially fired silty clay pieces that are ubiquitous in Coachella Valley archaeological sites, but little understood. From site to site, varying in density and type, hardened clay 8 037 UuU 6.J apparently unshaped by human hands, lies scattered among the pottery sherds, chipped stone, and fire -affected rock. Possible explanations include daub, to line walls or small structures like granaries; flooring, where clay had been imported to line house floors; ceramic production, either stockpiling clay to be used in making pots or discarding extra clay after pots are completed; and baking foods, wrapping small animals, especially fish, before baking in a fire. A detailed analysis of multiple clay samples at the Rancho La Quinta site is intended to further this on -going research. At the least, a typology needs to be created based on variations in clay samples, separating the fired clay into discreet categories or descriptive units, the first step in analysis when dealing with unknown properties. ROCK Another regionally specific research focus are the innumerable rocks found on sand dune sites in the La Quinta area. Many are fire -affected, but some are not. How and why were they used, and what kinds of analysis, if any, can answer those questions? METHODS The following sections detail the methods and procedures used during this study REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDY The Archaeological Research Unit from University of California, Riverside, performed a 100% surface survey of the property in 1995. In their report (Hall and Moffitt 1995), they reviewed previous work at the project location, identified survey methods, reported their findings, and made recommendations for further studies. In the process the ARU team completed site record forms and isolate records and plotted all sites on the La Quinta USGS quad sheet. Their report and their site records were used as the base line information for the present study. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD WORK Field Survey The first step in the current field work was to re -survey the entire property i'or archaeological finds. A six -person crew (see App. 1 for qualifications) accomplished thi by walking parallel north -south lines at 15 meter (50-feet) intervals, pin -flagging artifacts as they were observed. Found artifacts were double-checked by Field Director Harry Quinn and/or Principal Investigator Bruce Love (see App. 1 for qualifications). As artifacts were flagged, crew members marked nearby bushes with pink ribbon to facilitate re -locating the sites at a later time. No collection was done at this stage in the field work. 9 038 uGU Site Mapping After the project area was completely surveyed and flagged, the Field Director and Principal Investigator revisited the clusterings of artifacts in order to determine site or locus boundaries. At this point, each cluster of artifacts that was separated from other nearby clusters by a space of 30 meters or more, was considered to be a separate site, and their boundaries were thus mapped. Using a range finder and hand-held compass, the mapper located each artifact on a field map and plotted its location in relation to a datum stake of wooden lath. The datum locations with the temporary site numbers were plotted on the project engineer's map. Individual artifacts that fell outside of any groupings were deemed isolates, and mapped as such. Surface Collection Simultaneous with surface mapping, artifacts were collected and bagged according to temporary site numbers. In addition to individual artifacts, such as pottery, chipped stone, etc., collections were also made of fire -affected rock, clay (burned and unburned), and shell. Test Units Test units were placed throughout the property, spaced so as to provide a good sample of subsurface conditions in each of the sites. A total of 137 units were excavated by hand in 10-cm levels, dry -screening all materials through 1/8-inch hardware mesh. The depth of each unit was determined by the nature of the finds. As a rule of thumb, units were excavated at least two levels beyond the last found artifact. In fact, most units went beyond the 20 crn rule, for example at Locus 322-2, four units were dug to 40 cm each, but only three pieces of lithic debitage (chipped stone) were found --two in one unit, one in another --and all were found in the first 10 cm. Units were continued to 40 cm regardless, but were finally abandoned based on negative findings. Some units were expanded to 1x2-meter size, with the hope or expectations of finding materials or geologic strata that might otherwise be missed. At the conclusion of the excavations, unit sidewalls were drawn by the Field Director in order to document the stratigraphy and geologic makeup of the units. Surface Scrapes Four surface scrapes, 2x8 meters, 10 cm deep, were excavated and screened. It was thought, based on the dearth of artifacts in most units, that horizontal recovery might yield more valuable data. Backhoe Trenches Of great concern in all archaeological endeavors, and especially in the sand dune sites c this part of the Coachella Valley, is the possibility of missing buried deposits by not 10 1.,039 going deep enough. To address this question, the field strategy included backhoe trenching in the locations that appeared most likely to have such remains. In all,, 19 backhoe trenches were excavated to depths ranging from 120 to 330 cm (10 feet). As the trenching proceeded, the Field Director and/or the Principal Investigator inspected the back dirt and the trench walls for any signs of artifacts or cultural remains. At the completion of trenching, drawings and measurements were made of the trench profiles Dune Profile On one particularly steep dune face, at Locus 322-13, fire -affected rock appeared to be emanating from the sand several meters below the high point of the dune. 'There seemed to be a distinct possibility of exposing a deeply buried deposit at this spot. A vertical profile was cut by stair -stepping the face of the dune by hand (Fig. 3), and then using a tractor to remove the lower levels (Fig. 4). After promising finds were exposed in the face, a 20-cm square column sample was cut into the profile, beginning at the top of Tier 5, and screened through 1/8-inch mesh (Fig. 5). Two radiocarbon samples, in the form of single pieces of charcoal, were collected and submitted to Beta Analytic laboratories for dating. CREMATION SITE Along the northern edge of the project area, just inside the fence along Avenue 9.8, a suspected cremation site was found. Small fragments of highly burned bone of the proper size to be human were found along with a burned arrow point. Following established procedures, a call was made to Riverside County Coroner's Office, and forensic anthropologist Deborah Gray visited the site to make a determination of whether the bones were human or not, and if human, whether they were Native American or more recent. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION When the cremation site was discovered, the Principal Investigator notified two Cahuilla elders, Ernest Morreo of the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation, and Anthony Andreas of the Agua Caliente Reservation. Both arrived at the site at the same time as the coroner's anthropologist, consulted with the PI, and made recommendations for treatment of the site. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS All collected samples were separated, individually bagged, and catalogued. 'Various classes of artifacts went out to different specialists for analysis and interpretation.. Ceramics All pottery sherds were analyzed by ceramics specialist David Largo, a native Ca]uilla potter. He categorized the individual pieces as belonging to one of several types; brown 11 040 U U 0 b 2 0 2 4m Figure 3. Dune Profile. Tiers were exposed by hand excavation but not screened. Fire -affected rock were collected for analysis. The 20-cm column sample was screened. Radiocarbon samples were collected from points labeled 150 and 200. 12 041 Figure 4. Base of dune removed by tractor to allow screening of 20-cm-wide vertical column sample. Figure 5. 20-cm column sample screened beginning at the top of Tier 5. (Cf. Fig. 3) 0 4 2'. 13 UV�UUi 0 ware made of mountain clays vs. buff ware made of sedimentary clays. More important to site interpretation, Largo typologized the pottery into functional classes, i.e., water jar, storage vessel, cooking pot, small bowls, and 'other." Cooking vessels are the thickest, have the coarsest paste and contain the largest pieces of temper. Large temper combined with thickness helped prevent breakage during heating over cooking fires. Storage vessels have medium thickness and medium size temper. Frequently, storage vessels have wide bodies and narrow mouths, something like a modern day "cookie jar." Water vessels are thin with very fine temper. The principal reason for the thinness is to reduce weight for carrying purposes. The resulting data were tabulated and used for comparisons, one locus to another, in the interpretation phase. Lithics Chipped stone debitage, projectile points, and groundstone fragments were analyzed by Leslie Quintero at the Lithic Technology Laboratory at University of California, Riverside. Analysis included identification of material type, e.g., chert, jasper, chalcedony, etc., as well as classification of the debitage into categories based on how the stone was chipped, e.g., decortication flake, biface thinning flake, shatter, etc. Faunal The non -fish vertebrate skeletal remains from these sites were identified and analyzed by the staff of the UCLA Zooarchaeology Laboratory including Mercedes Duque, Lady Harrington, ;Judith Porcasi, Wendy Teeter, and Thomas A. Wake. All identifications were confirmed using the comparative osteological collection housed in the UCLA Institute of Archaeology Zooarchaeology Laboratory. Each bone specimen was identified to the most discrete taxonomic level possible. More detailed taxonomic assignment is limited to elements with sufficient distinguishing features allowing identification to the given level. Bones lacking discrete morphological features were sorted into broad size categories by class. Size categories are defined as follows: for mammals, large represents deer size or greater, medium represents smaller than deer but larger than jackrabbit, and small represents jackrabbit or smaller; for birds large represents goose size or greater, medium represents ducks to roadrunners, and small represents jays or smaller. The fish bone specimens were identified by Thomas Wake using the fish comparative osteological collection housed in the UCLA Institute of Archaeology Zooarchaeology Laboratory, augmented by specimens on loan from the California Academy of Sciences, in San Francisco, and comparative specimens housed in the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACMNH), following Gobalet's (1992) methods. Less identifiable fish were classed as Osteichthyes (bony fish). Refer to Appendix A for the reference numbers and locations of the fish comparative specimens examined. For each discretely identifiable bone a series of data were recorded including catalogue number, complete provenience and screen size information, skeletal element, part of element, side, age, and modification. Data recorded regarding modification of bone 14 0 A 3 UilvU.. f specimens include evidence of burning, cut marks, gnaw marks, and indications of tool or other artifact manufacture. The bone was counted and weighed to the nearest 0.01 g using electronic scales. Archival quality paper tags with the above information are included in each individual bag of analyzed bone specimens. Complete detailed information for each site is provided in the accompanying catalogue (App. 2). Cremation Remains Human bone specimens were counted and examined carefully in three dimensions for diagnostic characters including articular surfaces, foramina, cancellous tissue, inner and outer tables for skull fragments, general morphology and bone thickness (Bass 1987; Ubelaker 1984; White 1991). Unidentifiable fragments and fragments identifiable only as human were then replaced in their original bags. Bone specimens bearing; sufficient diagnostic characters to determine skeletal element were then directly compared to a disarticulated plastic resin cast of an adult male human skeleton (UCLAZL-525), an articulated male human skeleton (UCLAZL-999), and a disarticulated female human skeleton (UCLAZL-998). The identifiable remains were placed in plastic bags, marked with the appropriate provenience information, and analyzed in greater detail in order to determine, if possible, age and sex. Criteria used for age and sex determination follow those in Bass (1987) and White (1991). Additional criteria used to determine sex were obtained from Holland (1986) and age from Meindl and Lovejoy (1985). Where specific criteria could not be addressed, general size and robusticity was taken into consideration. Burned Clay Burned clay was inspected by Harry Quinn, project Field Director and Geologist, in an attempt to further the archaeological interpretation of this enigmatic material, so ubiquitous to archaeological sites yet so poorly understood. Fire -Affected Rock Fire -affected rock likewise has been analyzed by Quinn in an attempt to understand Native use of such resources, which may have had many uses other than as roasting pi stones, as they are usually interpreted. Rocks were inspected with a 10-power hand lens. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDY The ARU study recorded eighteen archaeological sites, two of which were previously recorded and sixteen of which were "new" (Hall and Moffitt 1995:16). As a whole, the recorded sites were interpreted as being rather typical of this portion of the Coachella Valley, exhibiting the usual presence of ceramics, flaked and ground stone artifacts, burned and unburned animal bone, charcoal, and fire -affected rock. The presence of 044 15 fish and bird bone and mussel shell indicated use at the time of Lake Cahuilla high stands, and the presence of brownware pottery placed the sites within the last 1000 years. The authors also point out there is no reason to believe the site could not have been occupied when the lake was not present, since mesquite stands and other plant and animal resources could surely have been exploited. The general interpretation was that the project area was visited on a recurrent basis, probably by fairly small groups or individuals, and that the larger sites found today could represent numerous episodes of short-term small-scale occupations, spaced out over time, leaving an accumulation of artifacts with the appearance of being remains from a larger population (ibid.:22-2.3). SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK FIELD SURVEY The field survey for the current project initially produced thirty-one potential sites, or clusterings of artifacts --thirty prehistoric and one historic. They were numbered sequentially using temporary designations, i.e., 322-1, 322-2, etc. (Fig. 6). Test excavations began simultaneously with the mapping phase, therefore these original temporary numbers were still in use during the excavation phase, and continued to be used during the sorting and cataloguing. As it turned out, many of these later became loci of larger sites (see "Site Mapping," below). Eight isolates were also flagged. - 322-31 22-22 Trailer .$x k 1 e i �., 322-13 322-2 M 322-18 s: 322 7 : j �HUE _ _ _ a 322-14 ell a •r, 322-15 Wait, 322-17 - 322- 322- 2 -6; 322- 1322-28 r,� `.._.e, i 322- £NUE... . 33,oWeil y� 3 T �' . 322-2 32:.. — 44 322-t8 z 32 -25 " .rF - , �� ..' 3 2-1\ , et 322-5 322- 32 j ({ ' —=1 4 322 8 32 7 � 'so ' project area r' u '. as --- locus boundary -- f. boundary:.` sfte boundary SCALE 1:24,000 1000 0 1000 2000 feEt i Figure 6. Locations of archaeological loci recorded during this study. Loci 322-9, -11, and -12 were subsequently determined not to be archaeological sites, and are therefore not included in this reap. (Cf Fig. 7 for site designations) 045 W1 - r' 'CA-RIV-5764=G Ica �ter Pau CA-R€V-5770 CA-RIV-117715765 --; a� [A-RIV6141- l �: CA-RIV-5774 CA-RIV 5778 i7 CA-RI'V-6145 �'' 1�31 CA-RIV-6137 �2 CA-RIV-6143 331 I{I: CA-RIV-614] r 1 �... CA-RIV-6136 yi - CA-Fi1V-6139 CA-RIV-6144 8 lr_ CA-RIV-613F) CA-RIV-6140��� tqt SCALE 1:24,000 1000 0 1000 2000 feel Figure 7. Locations of the eighteen archaeological sites in the project area SITE MAPPING At the completion of site mapping, a number of the original thirty-one loci with their temporary numbers were combined into larger sites. The one possible historic site (322- 12) was determined to be less than fifty years old based on the materials present --green, brown, and clear glass, screw top jars, other can fragments, and a broken cast iron skillet --and was dropped from the field inventory. 322-11 was likewise determined not to be a site based on lack of artifacts. In the final tally, there are eighteen sites (Fig. 7), some of which retain previous tri-nomials or site designations, and some of which are now assigned new tri-nomials. For the artifacts analysis and cataloguing, the temporary locus designations (322-1, 32.2-2, etc.) are used (Fig. 6). Nine previously recorded sites, as reported by the ARU (Hall and Moffitt 1995) could not be re -located with certainty. In all cases they were small sites with minor numbers of artifacts. The sites could have been buried by shifting sands or they could have been slightly misplotted in the original report. In either case, CA-RIV-119, -5766 to -5769, -5772, -5777, -5779 and -5780 were not found during the CRM TECH survey, and for management purposes, no longer exist. SURFACE COLLECTION A total of 1453 items were bagged and collected from the surface of the property. Of this total, 1232 are pottery sherds, thirty-four are lithic debitage (chipped stone), five are 046 17 Ui1U'J'J0 pieces of ground stone, 1 is an arrow point fragment, and the balance consists of miscellaneous collections of clay, shell and rock. TEST UNITS A summary of test units and levels, giving total depths of the units, is as follows: Locus 322-1 (Site CA-RIV-6'136) Tested by 4 1xl-m units taken to depths of: Unit 1: 50 cm; Unit 2: 50 cm; Unit 3: 50 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-2 (Site CA-RIV-6137) Tested by 4 1xl-m units take to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-3 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775) Tested by 2 1xl-m units, 5 1x2-m units, 2 2x8 m surface scrapes, and ). backhoe trench to depths of: Unit 1: (lx2) '100 cm; Unit 2: (1x2) 60 cm; Unit 3: 60 cm; Unit 4: 50 cm; Unit 5: (1x2) 60 cm; Unit 6: (1x2) 60 cm; Unit 7: (1x2) 110 cm; Surface Scrape 1: 2x8; 0-10 cm; Surface Scrape 2: 2x8; 0-10 cm; Trench 19: 250 cm. Locus 322-4 (Site CA-RIV-6138) Tested by 4 1x1-m units taken to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-5 (Site CA-RIV-6139) Tested by 2 1x1-m units taken. to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Locus 322-6 (Site CA-RIV-5774) Tested by 9 lxl-m units and 3, 1x2-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 30 cm; Unit 4 (lx2): 40 cm; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 40 cm; Unit 7: 40 cm; Unit 8: 40 cm; Unit 9a: 40 cm; Unit 9b (lx2): 120 cm; Unit 10 (1x2): 220 cm; Unit 11: 40 cm. Locus 322-7 (Site CA-RIV-5771/57'75) Tested by 22 lxl-m units and 4 1x2-m units, 5 backhoe trenches to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2 (lx2): 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 40 cm; Unit 7: 40 cm; Unit 8: 50 cm; Unit 9: 60 cm; 18 047 U10 'ij W Unit 10: 40 cm; Unit 11: 40 cm; Unit 12: 40 cm; Unit 13: 40 cm; Unit 14 (lx2): 40 cm; Unit 15: 40 cm; Unit 16: 40 cm; Unit 17: 40 cm; Unit 18: 40 cm; Unit 19 (1x2): 40 cm; Unit 20: 40 cm; Unit 21 (lx2): 70 cm; Unit 22: 40 cm; Unit 23: 40 cm; Unit 24: 40 cm; Unit 25: 40 cm; Unit 26: 40 cm; Trench 1: 120 cm; Trench 2: 170 cm; Trench 16: 330 cm; Trench 17: 330 cm; Trench 18: 170 cm. Locus 322-8 (Site CA-RIV-5'771/5775) Tested by 4 1xl-m units and 1 backhoe trench to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm; Trench 3: 120 cm. Locus 322-9 (Not a Site) This locus was tested, but subsequently determined not to be site. Testing was accomplished with 3 1x1-m units excavated to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm. Locus 322-10 (Site CA-RIV-6140) Tested by 4 lxl-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-13 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5'775) Tested by 1 Dune wall profile and 6 1x1- m units to depths of: Dune wall profile: 7 meters Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 4: 80 cm; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 60 cm; Unit 7: 40 cm. Locus 322-14 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5'775) Tested by 2 lxl-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm. Locus 322-15 (Site CA-RIV-6141) Tested by 4 1x1-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-16 (Site CA-RIV-6142) Tested by 1 lxl-m unit to a depth of: Unit 1: 40 cm. Locus 322-17 (Site CA-RIV-5774) Tested by 1 1x1-m unit to a depth of: Unit 1: 40 cm. Locus 322-18 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5775) Tested by 3 lx1-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm. 048 19 r Locus 322-19 (Site CA-RIV-1177/5765) Tested by 17 1x1-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm,; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 40 cm,; Unit 7: 40 cm; Unit 8: 40 cm; Unit 9: 40 cm,; Unit 10: 50 cm; Unit 11: 30 cm; Unit 12: 40 cm; Unit 13: 10 cm; Unit 14: 40 cm; Unit 15: 40 cm; Unit 16: 40 cm; Unit 17: 100 cm. Locus 322-20 (Site CA-RIV-5764) 100% retrieval; 9.0 m to depth of 40 cm. Locus 322-21 (Site CA-RIV-1177/5765) Tested by 16 1x1-m units and 4 backhoe trenches to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 70 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 40 cm; Unit 7: 40 cm; Unit 8: 40 cm; Unit 9: 70 cm; Unit 10: 70 crn; Unit 11: 90 crn; Unit 13: 40 cm; Unit 15: 160 cm; Unit 16: 40 crn; Unit 17: 40 crn; Unit 18: 70 cm; Trench 12: 160 cm; Trench 13: 150 cm; Trench 14: 150 cm; Trench 15: 150 cm. Locus 322-22 (Site CA-RIV-5T70) Tested by 2 1x1-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 50 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm. Locus 322-23 (Site CA-RIV-5778) Tested by 1 IxI-m unit to a depths of: Unit 1: 50 cm. Locus 322-24 (Site CA-RIV-5764) Not tested by any units. Locus 322-25 (Site CA-RIV-1176) Tested by 20 Ix1-m units and 7 bar_khoe trenches to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm; Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm; Unit 5: 40 cm; Unit 6: 40 cm; Unit 7: 40 cm; Unit 8: 40 cm; Unit 9: 40 cm; Unit 10: 40 cm; Unit 11: 10 cm;_ Unit 12: 40 cm; Unit 13: 40 cm; Unit 14: 40 cm; Unit 15: 30 cm; Unit 18: 40 cm; Unit 19: 40 cm; Unit 20: 120 cm; Surface Scrape 1: 2x8; 10 cm; Surface Scrape 2: 2x8; 10 cm; Trench 5: 220 cm; Trench 6: 150 cm; Trench 7: 150 cm; 04 20 Trench 8: 150 cm; Trench 9: 170 cm; Trench 10: 170 cm; Trench 11: 180 cm. Locus 322-26 (Site CA-RIV-1.176) Tested by 4 lxl-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm, Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm. Locus 322-27 (Site CA-RIV-6144) Tested by 4 lxl-m units and 1 backhoe trench to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm, Unit 3: 40 cm; Unit 4: 40 cm; Trench 4: 150 cm. Locus 322-28 (Site CA-RIV-6145) Tested by 2 lxl-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm. Locus 322-29 (Site CA-RIV-5T74) Tested by 2 lxl-m units to depths of: Unit 1: 40 cm; Unit 2: 40 cm. Locus 322-30 (Site CA-RIV-5775) Tested by 1 lxl-m unit to a depth of: Unit 1: 40 cm. Locus 322-31 (Site CA-RIV-5771/5'775) Tested by 1 lxl-m unit to a depth of: Unit 1: 30 cm. From the total of 137 test units, only 80 sherds and 112 pieces of chipped stone were recovered, almost all from the top 10 cm. Very few units found cultural materials lower than 20 cm, indicating that as a whole the sites are surface manifestations only. SURFACE SCRAPES Surface scrapes were employed as a strategy to collect more data than the vertically oriented test units, but in fact produced only four pieces of debitage, one ceramic sherd, and a small collection of ceramic bits and pieces too small to_bag separately. BACKHOE TRENCHES None of the 19 backhoe trenches found subsurface cultural deposits. Occasional burned rock and charcoal were encountered, but lack of cultural remains suggest these may have resulted from natural mesquite burns in times past. DUNE PROFILE The dune profile produced two sets of data: fire -affected rock from the shovel excavation of one -meter tiers, not screened; and a more fine-grained collection of materials from the screened column sample. 050 21 u0i,'u:, t • r Dune Profile Column Samples, Beginning at Top of Tier 5 Level 1: 0-20 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, fish vertebrae; Level 2: 20-40 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, fish vertebrae, and 1 rock, fire -affected; Level 3: 40-60 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, fish vertebrae, and 3 rocks, 2 unburned & 1 slightly fire -affected; Level 4: 60-80 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, fish vertebrae, and 1 rock, possibly fire -affected; Level 5: 80-100 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. Shell fragments, common fish vertebrae; Level 6: 100-120 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, and fish vertebrae; Level 7: 120-140 cm: Bone fragments, Anadonta sp. shell fragments, and fish vertebrae; Level 8: 140-160 cm: A few bone fragments; Level 9: 160-180 cm: A small heavily fire -affected rock; Level 10: 1.80-200 cm: Small bone fragments; Level 11: 200-220 cm: No Recovery; Level 12: 220-240 cm: No Recovery; Level 13: 240-260 cm: No Recovery; Level 14: 260-280 cm: No Recovery; Level 15: 280-300 cm: No Recovery; Level 16: 320-340 cm: No Recovery; Level 17: 340-360 cm: No Recovery; Level 18: 360-380 cm: No Recovery; Level 19: 380-400 cm: No Recovery; Level 20: 400-420 cm: No Recovery. The following findings were made outside the column: Level 6: 100-120 cm: Basalt core, found by backhoe just below the top of Tier 6; Level 7: 120-140 cm: Wonderstone core, found in situ about 2 meters north. of the column section. Dune Profile Tier Samples The following rocks recovered from the Dune Profile tiers have been analyzed: Tier 1: No Recovery Tier 2: No Recovery Tier 3: No Recovery Tier 4: Noted 3 fire -affected rocks, not recovered or analyzed. Tier 5: Recovered 19 Rocks. Tier 6: Recovered 6 rocks. Tier 7: Recovered 12 rocks. 051 22 , V0U Lf ;iJ Tier 8: Recovered 3 rocks. Tier 9: Recovered 4 rocks: Rock recovered from Tiers 7, 8 and 9 appear to have slumped down the dune face from the cultural zone above. When the base of the dune was removed to expose the interior sands, there were no cultural deposits lower than the top of Tier 7. ISOLATED ARTIFACTS Outside the locus boundaries, individual pieces, or pieces from an individual poi:, were mapped as isolates and not considered to be sites. ISO-1: 2 sherds, both brownware, probably from the same vessel. ISO-2: 1 mano fragment. ISO-3: 1 sherd, brownware. ISO-4: 2 sherds, both brownware, probably from the same vessel. ISO-5: 1 sherd, brownware. ISO-6: 1 sherd, brownware. ISO-7: 12 sherds, brownware, probably from the same vessel ISO-8: 1 sherd, brownware. Isolate total is 1 mano fragment and 20 sherds, all brownware. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION After conferring with one another, Ernest Morreo and Anthony Andreas agreed on a set of recommendations regarding the cremation remains. Permission was given to collect the remains in total through a program of excavation and screening. The remains would be sent to UCLA for analysis as to number of individuals, age and gender. The remains would then be returned to CRM TECH and held in trust until such time that reinterment could be performed. A spot for reburial would be agreed upon after completion of final grading, in a place that would be secure from any foreseeable disturbance. Tribal elders would perform a burial ceremony at that time. The director of construction. at Rancho La Quinta would then provide, upon consultation with tribal elders, that a plaque or memorial would be placed on or near the burial site, commemorating Native American heritage. The design and wording of the monument would be agreed upon through consultation with Torres Martinez representatives. FAUNAL ANALYSIS By Thomas A. Wake A variety of vertebrate skeletal remains, including fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals, have been recovered from surface and subsurface archaeological investigations at CA- 052 23 RIV-6136 to -6145. These sites contain various indications of occupation, including excellent stratification in some cases, features, a few surface ceramic sherds, sparse ground and chipped stone artifacts, and numerous bone fragments (Wake 1998). Surface indications such as the presence of ceramics and small triangular projectile points date these sites to the Late Prehistoric Period. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This analysis specifically identifies and addresses the dietary patterns observed in the vertebrate faunal assemblage. Interpretation will focus on what these patterns suggest in terms of resource focus, vertebrate acquisition, and processing. Any changes irk species frequencies or relative abundances will be discussed in terms of their relation to the desiccation of ancient Lake Cahuilla and concomitant shifts in vertebrate subsistence patterns. To identify resource focus and any shifts, data (in the form of tables) detailing which animal species are represented in this assemblage are presented and discussed. RESULTS The results of laboratory identification and analysis are presented below. Findings are organized by locus, in consecutive order. A table listing the identified taxonomic categories, genera and species is included for each locus. Additional tables are included for loci with larger sample sizes and higher diversity in order to highlight any visible patterning. Locus 322-3 Locus 322-3 produced one of the more numerous and diverse vertebrate faunal assemblages of the eighteen loci examined in this report. A total of 1624 bone specimens (104.49 g) recovered from Locus 322-3 have been identified and analyzed (Table 1). Fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all well represented at this locus (Table 2). No amphibians are identified. The Locus 322-3 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish, predominantly razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus), birds, primarily ducks, and reptiles, mostly snakes, follow (Table 2). Thirty-nine various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Sixteen vertebrate genera, and sixteen species are identified (Table 1), including three genera and species of fish, three genera and two species of reptiles, three genera and two species (representatives of three orders) of birds, and seven genera and seven species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with thi northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Meffitt 24 053 . , 1 36 1 V Table 1. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-3 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Chub - Bonytail 3 .07 Catostomidae Sucker Family 6 .14 Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 22 1.10 Cypriniformes Minnow Order 1 .06 Cypriniformes 32 1.37 Perciformes Mugilidae Mugil cephalu.s Mullet - Striped 8 .114 Perciformes B .44 Osteichthyes Fish - Bony 6 .2.8 Total Fish 46 2.09 Chelonia Testudinidae Gopherus agassizii Tortoise - Desert 4 2.93 Chelonia 4 2.93 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae - Colubrid Snake Family 9 .26 Masticophis flagellum Coach Whip 1 .07 viperidae Crotalus sp Rattlesnake - Unid 1 •09 Squamata - Serpentes 11 .12 Total Reptile 15 3.35 Anseriformes Anatidae Duck, Geese, Swan Family 3 .27 Anas sp Duck - Unidentified 1 .09 Oxyura 3.amaicensis Duck - Ruddy 2 .15 Anseriformes 6 .51 Il Gruiformes Rallidae Fulica americana IlPasseriformes Turdidae Aves Aves, and Coot - American 1 .07 Gruiformes 1 .07 Thrush Family 1 .01 Passeriformes 1 .01 Bird - Unid 11 .51 Bird - Medium 1 .07 12 .58 Total Bird 20 1.17 U54 UUU�,J00 Table 1. Identified vertebrate Species from Locus 322-3 (Cont.) Lagomorpha Leporidae Hare, Rabbit Family 1 .05 Lepus californicus Jackrabbit - Black -tailed 3 .69 Lepus sp Hare - Unid 3 .39 Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 10 .155 Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 42 1.94 Lagomorpha 59 3.72 Rodentia Sciuridae Squirrel, Chipmunk Family 1 .08 Spermophilus beecheyi Ground Squirrel - California 6 .:34 Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Pocket Gopher - Botta's 12 .156 Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Wood Rat - Desert 11 .52 Neotoma sp Wood Rat - Unid 31 1.00 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 6 .06 Rodentia 67 2.56 Carnivora Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat 1 .:37 Carnivora Carnivore Order 1 .09 Carnivora 2 .46 Artiodactyla Bovidae Ovis canadensis Sheep - Bighorn 3 4.78 Artiodactyla Even -toed Ungulates - Unid 10 2.'34 Artiodactyla 13 7.32 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 190 18.09 Mammalia, lg Mammal - Large 62 18.21 Mammalia, and Mammal - Medium 4 .60 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 1136 46.71 Mammalia, v sm Mammal - Very small 2 .)4 -- -- 1394 83.65 Total Mammal 1535 97.71 Vertebrata Vertebrate 8 .17 TOTAL TAXA 1624 104.49 and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-3 archaeological fish fauna, while somewhat limited in diversity and number, is representative of the regior and comparable to other known assemblages. Fish represent the second most common class vertebrate animals by count, and the third by weight, in the Locus 322-3 archaeofaunal sample. A total of 46 (2.09 g) fish bonE U55 26 V U U li :i Table 2. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-3 Class Count Weight (g) % Bird 20 1.2 1.17 1.1 Fish 46 2.8 2.09 2.0 Mammal 1.535 94.5 97.71 93.5 Reptile 15 0.9 3.35 3.2 Vertebrate 8 0.5 0.17 0.2 Total 1624 100.0 104.49 100.0 specimens are identified (Table 1). Three different species of fish are represented. Most (N=32, 1.37 g) of the bone represents 2 species of cypriniform fishes (Order Cypriniformes), the bonytaiil (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=3, 0.07 g) and the razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus, N=22, 1.10 g). One upper precaudal vertebra Striped mullet (Perciformes, Mugilidae, Mugil cephalus, N=8, 0.44 g) are also identified. Six (0.14 g) fragments are referred to the Catostomidae, and one (0.06 g) to the Cypriniformes . The remaining six (0.28 g) elements are identifiable only as bony fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Preservation of the fish bones is fair, but some specimens are quite brittle, and some appear weathered. Few fragile individual head bones are identified. Most Salton Basin archaeological ichthyofaunas are dominated solely by more durable vertebral elements (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Vertebral elements do dominate this fish assemblage. Three fish bones are burned. The presence of burned fish bones suggests that whole fish may have been roasted over open fires or tossed into hearths subsequent to consumption. No cut marks were observed on any of the fish bones. Amphibians No amphibian remains are identified from this Locus. Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and many of them are represented in the Locus 322-3 vertebrate archaeofauna (Table 1). No lizards, eleven snake vertebrae, and four gopher tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) bones are identified from this Locus. It is somewhat surprising that no lizards are represented in the Locus 322-3 archaeofaunal sample, since other loci discussed below and many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. Desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), the zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), the desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuc_kwallas (Sauromalus obelus), and the fringe -toed lizard (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in the La Quinta area. The majority of the snake vertebrae identified at Locus 322-3 are assigned to the Colubridae (Non -venomous snakes, N=9, 0.26 g). One specimen is assigned to the coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum, 0.07 g). One rattlesnake (Genus Crotalus) vertebra is identified ( 0.05 g). All of the snake genera identified here are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, 27 056UUv U�: '•.J including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the locus' occupants cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Three snake ribs are burned. The four desert tortoise identified in the Locus 322-3 reptile assemblage are interesting for a variety of reasons. No turtles, not even the hearty desert tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii), are presently common in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). It is well known that desert tortoises were consumed by desert peoples (Schneider and Everson 1989).. However, desert tortoise remains have been positively identified from only two other sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Schneider and Everson 1989; Wake 1998). Three of the tortoise specirens are carapace fragments, one of which is unmistakable and identified as the distal end of vertebral plate #5, from the left side. The fourth tortoise specimen is unmistakable as well, the anterior portion of the right epiplastron. Consumption of turtles at other local sites is suggested by the presence of their remains in general and especially burned plastron fragments (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1996; 1998). No aquatic turtle species such as the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), or any of the Colorado River turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense and Trionyx spiniferus) are identified in the Locus 322-3 faunal assemblage or any other reported faunal assemblage from the local area. The lack of aquatic turtle elements at this locus and in the general area is quite interesting, especially in the light of the large number of fish remains that suggest the presence of suitable, calm, freshwater habitat, which are ideal conditions for western pond turtles or Colorado River turtles. Birds Twenty bird bone specimens are identified from Locus 322-3 (Table 1.). Six of these represent ducks (Family Anatidae). Two of these are identified as ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis, 1.01 g). One other bone is identified as duck (Genus Anas, 0.09 g). One specimen is identified as American coot (Fulica americana, 0.07 g). One specimen is identified as a terrestrial bird, representing the Turdidae (thrushes, 0.01 g). The twelve remaining bird bones are identified only to relative size classes. Ducks and coots, are strongly associated with lacustrine or estuarine environments, and their presence, and association with fish remains, strongly suggests exploitation of such habitats. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, some of which are lacustrine, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Mammals Mammals (N=1535, 97.71 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-3 (Tables 1, 2). A total of seven mammal genera and seven species are identified. Rodents are the most diverse mammal order with three genera and three species represented (Table 3). Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and species (Lepus californicus - the black -tailed jackrabbit, and Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon s cottontail). Carnivores are represented by one Genus and Species (Lynx rufus - bobcat). Artiodactyls (even -toed ungulates) are 28 U i� v 3 -.1111 057 Table 3. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-3 Order Count % Weight (g) 052.1 Artiodact la 13 9.2 7.32 Carnivora 2 1.4 0.46 3.3 La omor ha 59 41.8 3.72 26.5 Rodentia 67 47.5 2.56 18.2 Total 141 100.0 14.06 100.0 represented by three specimens identified as bighorn sheep (4.78 g), and ten (2.54 g) identified to the order. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=1394, 83.65 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=1136, 46.71 g) dominating. Unidentified medium mammal remains constitute the smallest of these less identifiable groups (N=4, 0.60 g) in the mammal assemblage, with large mammals represented by 62 (18.21 g) bone fragments. The most numerous identified mammal taxa in order of relative abundance are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=52, 1.59 g), woodrats (Genus Neotoma, N=42, 1.52 g), and pocket gophers (Genus Thomomys, N=12, 0.56 g), California ground squirrels (Genus Spermophii'us, N=6, 0.34 g), and hares (Genus Lepus, N=6, 1.08 g). All of these taxa were probably consumed by the locus' occupants, and some of them are burned, although natural occurrence should not be ruled out. Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). The low number of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) specimens (N=3, 0.69 g) is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The majority of the burned bones in this assemblage (Table 4) are mammal. Table 4. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-3 - - - -- Count % Weight (g) % Unburned 1491 91.8 88.93 85.1 Burned 133 8.2 15.56 14.9 Total 1624 100.0 104.49 100.0 The 1136 (46.71 g) indeterminate small mammal specimens most likely represent rodents. Although common and known as burrowers, the various identifiable rodent specimens (Table 1) could also represent dietary constituents since some are burned (App. 2). The burning could represent roasting or disposal, although natural wildfires are a possibility (Erlandson 1993). Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game ...", probably rodents. Rodent remains are well represented in other reported faunal assemblages from the northern Coachella Valley 053 29 U �' i LJ w (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998, Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Locus 322-5 Only one unidentified mammal bone fragment is identified from this locus (Table 5). It may or may not represent dietary refuse. It could also easily represent a natural occurrence. Little more can be said. Table S. Identified 'Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-5 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 1 .27 TOTAL TAXA 1 .27 Locus 322-6 Locus 322-6 produced a relatively diverse vertebrate faunal assemblage for its small size. A total of 33 bone specimens (1.71 g) recovered from Locus 322-6 have been identified and analyzed (Table 6). Fish, birds, and mammals are all represented at this locus (Table 7). No amphibians or reptiles are identified. The Locus 322-6 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish and birds follow far behind (Table 7). Twelve various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Four vertebrate genera, and four species are identified (Table 6), including one genus and species of fish, and three genera and species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996,; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-6 archaeological fish fauna, while quite limited in diversity and number, is representative of the :region and offers no surprises. A total of 2 (0.02 g) fish bone specimens are identified (Table 6). One fish species is represented, the bonytail (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=1, 0.01 g). The other fragment (0.01 g) is referred to the Cypriniformes. Amphibians and Reptiles No amphibian or reptile remains are identified from this Locus. Birds One bird bone specimen is identified from Locus 322-6 (Table 6). The fragmentary specimen can only be referred to as bird, since the shaft fragment has no 05S 30 U 'U U ii 4 3 Table 6. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-6 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Cypriniformes Aves Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii sylvilagus sp Rodentia Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Neotoma sp Rodentia Mammal i a Mammalia, sm Vertebrata Chub - Bonytail 1 .01 Minnow order 1 .01 Total Fish 2 .02 Bird - Unid 1 .01 Total Bird 1 .01 Cottontail - Audubon's 2 .1.1 Rabbit - Unid 9 .91 Lagomorpha 11 1.02 Pocket Gopher - Botta's 7 .7.7 Wood Rat - Desert 1 .05 Wood Rat - Unid 1 .04 Rodent - Unid 2 .20 Rodentia 11 .116 Mammal - Unid 1 .02 Mammal - Small 6 .03 7 .05 Total Mammal 29 1.53 Vertebrate 1 Total Vertebrate 1 .15 TOTAL TAXA 33 1.71 diagnostic features other than the characteristic supporting struts of cancellous tissue on the interior table. Mammals Mammals (N=29, 1.53 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-6 (Tables 6, 8). A total of three mammal genera and Table 7. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-6 Class Count % Weight (g) % Bird 1 3.0 0.01 0.6 Fish 2 6.1 0.02 1.2 Mammal 29 87.9 1.53 89.5 Vertebrate 1 3.0 0.15 8.8 Total 33 100.0 1.71 100.0 0 6 C 31 UliUli�i`>4 . .L Table 8. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-6 Order Count % Weight (g) % La omor ha 11 50.0 1.02 68.9 Rodentia 11 50.0 0.46 31.1 Total 22 100.0 1.48 100.0 species are identified. Only rodents and rabbits are identified. Rodents are the most diverse mammal order with two genera and species represented. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni). Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=7, 0.05 g) are few, with small mammals (N=6, 0.03 g) dominating. The most numerous identified mammal taxa in order of relative abundance are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=11, 1.02 g), followed by pocket gophers (Genus Thomomys, N=7, 0.17 g), and woodrats (Genus Neotoma, N=2, 0.09 g). All of these taxa may have been consumed by the locus' occupants, although natural occurrence should not be ruled out. Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game ...", probably rodents. The lack of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and other rodent specimens is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Locus 322-7 Locus 322-7 produced a relatively diverse vertebrate faunal assemblage for its small size (Table 9). A total of 51 bone specimens (8.62 g) recovered from Locus 322-7 have been identified and analyzed. Fish, reptiles, and mammals are represented at this locus (Table 10). No amphibians or birds are identified. The Locus 322-7 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish and reptiles follow far behind (Table 10). Fifteen various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Seven vertebrate genera, and four species are identified (Table 9), including one ,genus and species of fish, two genera and one species of reptiles, and four genera and two species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-7 archaeological fish Table 9. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-7 Cypriniformes Catostomidae Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 2 .92 Total Fish 2 .92 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae Pituophis melanoleucus Viperidae Crotalus sp Serpentes Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus sp Sylvilagus audubonii sylvilagus sp Rodentia Cricetidae Neotoma sp Rodentia Carnivora Canidae Canis latrans Artiodactyla Mammalia Mammalia, lg Mammalia, sm Vertebrata Snake - Gopher 1 .12 Rattlesnake - Unid 1 .13 Snake suborder - Unid 1 .D6 Total Reptile 3 .31 Hare - Unid 1 .18 Cottontail - Audubon's 5 .81 Rabbit - Unid 2 .13 Lagomorpha 8 1.12 Wood Rat - Unid 1 .14 Rodent - Unid 2 .15 Rodentia 3 .29 Coyote 1 .36 Carnivora 1 .36 Even -toed Ungulates - Unid 1 1.10 Mammal - Unid 6 1.29 Mammal - Large 3 2.65 Mammal - Small 12 .40 21 4.34 Total Mammal 34 7.21 Vertebrate 12 .18 Total Vertebrate 12 .18 TOTAL TAXA 51 8.62 fauna, while quite limited in diversity and number, is representative of the region and offers no surprises. A total of 2 (0.92 g) fish bone specimens are identified (Table 9). Both are identified as razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus). Amphibians No amphibian remains are identified from this Locus. 06,' 33 U(iUJniv Table 10. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-7 Class Count % Weight (g) % Fish 2 3.9 0.92 10.7 Mammal 34 66.7 7.21 83.6 Reptile 3 5.9 0.31 3.6 Vertebrate 12 23.5 0.18 2.1 Total 51 100.0 8.62 100.0 Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and many of them are represented in the Locus 322-7 vertebrate archaeofauna (Table 9). No lizards or turtles are identified at this Locus. Three snake vertebrae, however, are identified. It is somewhat surprising that no lizards are represented in the Locus 322-7 archaeofaunal sample, since other loci discussed below and many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. Desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), the zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), the desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuckwallas (Sauromalus obesus), and the fringe -toed lizard (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in the La Quinta area. Both venomous and non -venomous snakes are present at this locus. One specimen is identified as gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus, 0.12 g). One rattlesnake (Genus Crotalus) vertebra is identified ( 0.13 g). The two snake genera identified here are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the occupants of this locus cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Birds No bird remains are identified from this Locus. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, some of which are lacustrine and usually in relatively low numbers, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Mammals Mammals (N=34, 7.21 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-7 (Tables 9, 11). A total of four mammal genera and two species are identified. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and Table 11. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-7 Order Count % Weight (g) % Artiodact la 1 7.7 1.10 38.3 Carnivora 1 7.7 0.36 12.5 La omor ha 8 61.5 1.12 39.0 Rodentia 3 23.1 0.29 10.1 Total 13 100.0 2.87 100.0 34 � - (,} �U , li li species (Lepus sp., probably the black- tailed jackrabbit, and Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon's cottontail). Carnivores are represented by one Genus and Species (Canis latrans - coyote). Artiodactyls (even -toed ungulates) are represented by one specimen (1.10 g) identified to the order. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=21, 4.34 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=12, 0.40 g) dominating by count only. Large mammals represented by three (2.65 g) bone fragments. The most numerous identified mammal taxon is cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=7, 0.94 g). The other three identified mammal taxa (Genus Lepus, 0.18 g, Genus Neotoma, 0.14 g, and Canis latrans, 0.36 g), are represented by one specimen each. The rabbits and perhaps the woodrat could have been consumed by the occupants of this locus, and some of them are burned (App. 2), although natural occurrence should not be ruled out. Coyotes were not usually consumed by the Cahuilla (Bean 1978). Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). The low number of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) specimens (N=3, 0.69 g) is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area. and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Locus 322-8 Only one turtle bone is identified from this Locus. This specimen most likely represents a gopher tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii), although other turtles, including potentially Colorado River species, cannot be ruled out (Table 12). This specimen may or may not represent dietary debris. Table 12. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-5 Chelonia Turtle Order 1 .26 TOTAL TAXA 1 .26 Locus 322-13 Locus 322-13 produced one of the more numerous and diverse vertebrate falanal assemblages of the eighteen loci examined in this report. A total of 579 bone specimens (53.09 g) recovered from Locus 322-13 have been identified and analyzed (Table 13). Fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all well represented at this locus (Table 14). No amphibians are identified. This vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish, predominantly razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus), birds, primarily ducks, and 35 Table 13. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-13 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Chub - Bonytail 15 .53 Catostomidae Sucker Family 15 .46 Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 106 7.00 Cypriniformes Minnow Order 10 .22 Cypriniformes 146 8.21 'Perciformes Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Mullet - Striped 7 .66 Perciformes 7 .66 Osteichthyes Fish - Bony 162 3.22 Total Fish 315 12.09 Chelonia Testudinidae Gopherus agassizii Tortoise - Desert 1 .65 Chelonia 1 .65 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae Masticophis sp Whip Snake - Unid 1 .:L0 Squamata - Serpentes 1 .10 Total Reptile 2 .75 Anseriformes Anatidae Duck, Geese, Swan Family 4 .43 Anas sp Duck - Unidentified 1 .25 Aythya affinis Scaup - Lesser 1 .42 Oxyura jamaicensis Duck - Ruddy 1 .14 Anseriformes 7 1.24 Falconiformes Accipitridae Hawk Family 1 .43 Falconiformes 1 .43 Gruiformes Rallidae Fulica americana Coot - American 4 .42 Gruiformes 4 .42 Aves Bird - Unid 17 .63 Aves, lg Bird - Large 2 .:L5 19 .78 Total Bird 31 2.87 0 36 ri . �. VIJUU49 e 13. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-13 (Cont.) Lagomorpha Leporidae Hare, Rabbit Family 1 .09 Lepus sp Hare - Unid 1 .43 Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 7 .69 Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 9 .30 Lagomorpha 18 2.01 Rodentia Sciuridae Spermcphilus beecheyi Ground Squirrel - California 1 .06 Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Pocket Gopher - Botta's 1 .07 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 5 .L3 I Rodentia 7 .26 Artiodactyla Bovidae Ovis canadensis Sheep - Bighorn 3 5.22 Artiodactyla Even -toed Ungulates - Unid 6 8.52 Artiodactyla 9 13.74 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 42 3.44 Mammalia, lg Mammal - Large 21 12.97 Mammalia, and Mammal - Medium 4 .74 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 128 4.18 195 21.33 Total Mammal 229 37.34 Vertebrata Vertebrate 2 .J4 Total Vertebrate 2 .04 TOTAL TAXA 579 53.09 reptiles follow in relative abundance (Table 14). This Locus has the highest relative frequency of fish remains of any of the loci reported here. Thirty various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Fourteen vertebrate genera, and eleven species are identified (Table 13), including three genera and species of fish, two genera and one species of reptiles, four genera and three Table 14. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-13 Class Count % weight (g) % Bird 31 5.4 2.87 5.4 Fish 315 54.4 12.09 22.8 Mammal 229 39.6 37.34 70.3 Reptile 2 0.3 0.75 1.4 Vertebrate 2 0.3 0.04 0.1 Total 579 100.0 53.09 OJI 37 species (representatives of three orders) of birds, and five genera and four species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-13 archaeological fish fauna, while appearing somewhat limited in diversity and number, is representative of the region and comparable to other known assemblages, including other loci discussed in this report. Fish represent the second most common class vertebrate animals by count, and by weight, in the Locus 322-13 archaeofaunal sample. A total of 315 (12.09 g) fish bone specimens are identified (Table 13). Three different species of fish are represented. Most (N=121, 7.53 g) of the bone represents 2 species of cypriniform fishes (Order Cypriniformes), the bonytail (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=15, 0.53 g) and the razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus, N=106, 7.0 g). Striped mullet (Perciformes, Mugilidae, Mugil cephalus, N=7, 0.66 g,) are also identified. Fifteen (0.46 g) fragments are referred to the Catostomidae, and ten (0.22 g) to the Cypriniformes. The remaining 162 (3.22 g) elements are identifiable only as bony fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Preservation of the fish bones is fair, but some specimens are quite brittle, and some appear weathered. A number of relatively fragile individual head bones are identified (App. 2). Most Salton Basin archaeological ichthyofaunas are dominated solely by more durable vertebral elements (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Vertebral elements dominate this fish assemblage as well. Amphibians No amphibian remains are identified from this Locus. Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and two of them are represented in the Locus 322-13 vertebrate archaeofauna (Table 13). No lizards, one snake vertebrae, and one gopher tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii) bone is identified from this Locus. It is somewhat surprising that no lizards are represented in the Locus 322-13 archaeofaunal sample, since other loci discussed below and many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. Desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), the zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), the desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuckwallas (Sauromalus obesus), and the fringe -toed lizard (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in the La Quinta area. The one snake vertebra specimen is assigned to the coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum, 0.10 g). These snakes are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and 38 therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the locus' occupants cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The one desert tortoise specimen identified in the Locus 322-13 reptile assemblage are interesting for a variety of reasons. No turtles, not even the hearty desert tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii), are presently common in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). It is well known that desert tortoises were consumed by desert peoples (Schneider and Everson 1989). However, desert tortoise remains have been positively identified from only two other sites in the northern Salton Basin area, as well as Locus 322-3 (Schneider and Everson 1989; Wake 1998). As with Locus 322-3 no aquatic turtle species such as the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), or any of the Colorado River turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense and T'rionyx spiniferus) are identified in the Locus 322-13 faunal assemblage or any other reported faunal assemblage from the local area. The lack of aquatic turtle elements at this locus and in the general area is quite interesting, especially in the light of the large nurlber of fish remains that suggest the presence of suitable, calm, freshwater habitat, which are ideal conditions for western pond turtles or Colorado River turtles. Birds Thirty-one bird bone specimens are identified from Locus 322-13 (Table 13) Seven of these represent ducks (Family Anatidae). One of these is identified as ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis, 0.14 g), and on as lesser scaup (Aythya affinis, 0.42 g). One other bone is identified as duck (Genus Anas, 0.09 g), and four to the duck Family, Anatidae (0.43 g). Four specimen are identified as American coot (Fulica americana, 0.42 g). One specimen is identified as a hawk, representing the Accipitridae (0.01 g). The nineteen remaining bird bones are identified only to relative size classes. The three species of ducks and coots are strongly associated with lacustrine or estuarine environments, and their presence, especially in association with fish remains, strongly suggests exploitation of such habitats. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, somE of which are lacustrine, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Mammals Mammals (N=229, 37.34 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-13 (Tables 13, 15). A total of five mammal genera and four species are identified. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and Table 15. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-13 Order Count % Wei ht (g) % Artiodact la 9 26.5 13.74 85.8 La omor ha 18 52.9 2.01 12.6 Rodentia 7 20.6 0.26 1.6 Total 34 100.0 00.0 39 UUvU�. a species (Lepus sp.- probably the black -tailed jackrabbit, and Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon's cottontail), as are rodents (California ground squirrel - Spermophilus beecheyi and Botta's pocket gopher - Thomomys bottae). No carnivores are represented. Artiodactyls (even -toed ungulates) are represented by three specimens identified as bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis, 5.22 g), and six (2.54 g) identified to the order. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=195, 21.33 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=128, 4.18 g) dominating. Unidentified medium mammal remains constitute the smallest of these less identifiable groups (N=4, 0.74 g) in the mammal assemblage, with large mammals represented by twenty- one (12.97 g) bone fragments. The most numerous identified mammal taxa in terms of relative abundance are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=16, 1.49 g). Pocket gophers (Genus Thomomys, 0.07 g), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi, 0.06 g), and hares (Genus Lepus, 0.43 g) are all represented by single specimens. All of these taxa were probably consumed by the occupants of this locus, and some of them are burned, although. natural occurrence cannot be completely ruled out. Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). The low number of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) specimens (N=1) is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages, but :it is consistent with the other sites reported here (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The 128 (4.18 g) indeterminate small mammal specimens most likely represent rodents. Some of the small mammal (probably rodent) bones are burned (Table 16), possibly indicative of their consumption or disposal (App. 2). The burning could represent roasting or disposal, although natural wildfires are a possibility (Erlandson 1993). Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game ...", probably rodents. Rodent remains are well represented in other reported faunal assemblages from the northern Coachella Valley (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Table 16. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-13 Count % Weight (g) % Unburned 548 94.6 46.91 88.4 Burned 31 5.4 6.18 11.6 Total 579 100.0 53.09 100.0 Locus 322-14 Locus 322-14 produced a relatively small depauperate faunal assemblage. A total of 11 bone specimens (0.68 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed 40 VL'uvU Table 17. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-14 Aves Bird - Unid 2 .08 Total Bird 2 .08 Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 1 .05 Lagomorpha 1 .05 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 3 .34 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 1 .07 4 .41 Total Mammal 5 .46 Vertebrata Vertebrate 4 .14 Total Vertebrate 4 .14 TOTAL TAXA 11 .68 (Table 17). Only birds and mammals are represented at this locus. No fish, amphibians or reptiles are identified. The Locus 322-14 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by unidentifiable bone fragments, the most common of which are mammals. Only one specimen is identified ( Sylvilagus auduboni, 0.05 g). Birds are represented by two unidentified fragments. One of the bones is burned (App. 2). It is possible that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-15 Locus 322-15 produced a relatively small depauperate faunal assemblage. A total of 16 bone specimens (1.03 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed (Table 18). Only mammals are represented at this locus. No fish, amphibians, reptiles or birds are identified. The Locus 322-15 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by cottontail rabbit (Genus. Sylvilagus sp., N=9, 0.65 g). Rodents are represented by one unidentified fragment. None of the bone is burned. It is possible that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-17 Locus 322-17 produced a very small depauperate faunal assemblage (Table 19'). Both of the specimens (0.68 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed. Only mammals are represented at this locus. No fish, amphibians, reptiles or birds are identified. Only one specimen is identified (Sylvilagus auduboni, 0.05 g). The other specimen is only referable to the Vertebrata. None of the bone is burned. It is possible 41 e Table 18. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-15 Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 8 .63 Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 1 .02 Lagomorpha 9 .65 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 1 .10 Rodentia 1 .10 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 6 .28 6 .28 TOTAL TAXA 16 1.03 that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-19 Locus 322-19 produced a relatively diverse vertebrate faunal assemblage for its small size. A total of 46 bone specimens (1.47 g) recovered from Locus 322-19 have been identified and analyzed (Table 20). Reptiles, birds, and mammals are represented at this locus. No fish or amphibians are identified. The Locus 322-19 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Reptiles and birds follow far behind. Eleven various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Four vertebrate genera, and two species are identified (Table 20), including one genus and species of reptiles, and three genera and one species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Reptiles Only non -venomous snakes are present at this locus. The one identified specimen represents a glossy snake (Arizona elegans, 0.01 g). One other Table 19. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-17 Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 1 .22 Total Mammal 1 .22 Vertebrata Vertebrate 1 .01 Total Vertebrate 1 .01 42 U�'�i'u� J.. Table 20. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-19 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae Arizona elegans Aves Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii sylvilagus sp Rodentia Heteromyidae Perognathus sp Cricetidae Neotoma sp Colubrid Snake Family Snake - Glossy Total Reptile Bird - Unid Total Bird Hare, Rabbit Family Cottontail - Audubon's Rabbit - Unid Lagomorpha Pocket Mouse - Unid Wood Rat - Unid Rodentia Mammalia Mammal - Unid Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small Mammalia, v sm Mammal - Very small Total Mammal TOTAL TAXA 1 .02 1 01 2 .03 1 .01 1 .01 1 .04 1 .09 5 .19 7 .32 3 .05 2 .10 5 .L5 2 .14 22 .76 7 .06 31 .96 43 1.43 46 1.47 colubrid vertebra is identified (0.02 g). This snake is commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the occupants of this locus cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Birds One specimen, identifiable only as bird is identified from this Locus. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, some of which are lacustrine and usually it relatively low numbers, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Mammals Mammals (N=43, 1.43 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-19 (Table 20). A total of three mammal genera and one species are identified. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by one genera and species (Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon's cottontail). No carnivores or artiodactyls 43 1 , UU,UUJU a (even -toed ungulates) are represented. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=31, 0.96 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=22, 0.76 g) dominating by count only. No large mammals are represented. The most numerous identified mammal taxon is cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=6, 0.28 g). The other three identified mammal taxa (Genus Neotoma, N=2, 0.10 g, and Genus Perognathus, N=3, 0.05 g), are represented by less than four specimens each. The rabbits and perhaps the woodrat could have been consumed by the occupants of this locus, and some of them are burned. It is not likely that the small pocket mouse was consumed as food. Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). None of the bone is burned. Locus 322-21 Locus 322-21 produced one of the more numerous and diverse vertebrate faunal assemblages of the eighteen loci examined in this report. A total of 369 bone specimens (10.43 g) recovered from Locus 322-21 have been identified and analyzed (Table 2.). Fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all well represented at this site (Table 22). No amphibians are identified. 'The Locus 322-21 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals, the most common of which are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish, predominantly razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus), birds, and reptiles, mostly snakes, follow (Table 22). Twenty-seven various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Eleven vertebrate genera, and ten species are identified (Table 21), including two genera and species of fish, three genera and two species of reptiles, two genera and species (representatives of three orders) of birds, and four genera and species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated -with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994;: Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-21 archaeological fish fauna, while somewhat limited in diversity and number, is fairly typical for the region and comparable to other known assemblages. Fish represent the second most common class vertebrate animals by count, and by weight, in the Locus 322-21 archaeofaunal sample. A total of 63 (2.75 g) fish bone specimens are identified (Table 21). Three different species of fish are represented. Mos (N=23, 1.90 g) of the bone represents 2 species of cypriniform fishes (Order Cypriniformes), the bonytail (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=4, 0.11 g) and the razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus, N=19, 1.79 g). One (0.02 g) fragment is referred to the Catostomidae, and nine (0.38 g) to the Cypriniformes . The 44 - iJ 1 Table 21. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-21 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Chub - Bonytail 4 .:Ll Catostomidae Sucker Family 1 .02 Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 19 1.79 Cypriniformes Minnow Order 9 .38 Cypriniformes 33 2.30 Osteichthyes Fish - Bony 30 .45 Total Fish 63 2.75 Squamata - Sauria Iguanidae Iguana 1 .02 Phrynosoma platyrhinos Horned Lizard - Desert 1 .O1 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae Colubrid Snake Family 3 .04 Pituophis melanoleucus Snake - Gopher 1 .03 Viperidae Crotalus sp Rattlesnake - Unid 3 .14 Serpentes Snake suborder - Unid 3 .:12 Squamata Reptile Order 1 .01 Total Reptile 13 .37 Anseriformes Anatidae oxyura jamaicensis Duck - Ruddy 1 .D8 Anseriformes 1 .08 Galliformes Odontophoridae Callipepla californica Quail - California 1 .05 Galliformes 1 .05 Aves Bird - Unid 15 .43 Total Bird 17 .56 Lagomorpha Leporidae Hare, Rabbit Family 5 .50 Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 10 .52 Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 8 .23 Lagomorpha 23 1.25 Rodentia Sciuridae Squirrel, Chipmunk Family 3 .12 Spermophilus beecheyi Ground Squirrel - California 3 .08 Spermophilus sp Ground Squirrel - Unid 1 .04 Table 11: Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-21 (cont.) Rodentia Heteromyidae Perognathus penicillatus Pocket Mouse - Desert 1 _02 i n'. ('(' U 1J 'Ju Table 21. Identified Vertebrate species from Locus 322-21 (Cont.) Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Wood Rat - Desert 16 .76 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 54 .96 Rodentia 78 1.98 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 9 .44 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 28 1.16 37 1.60 Total Mammal 138 4.83 Vertebrata Vertebrate 138 1.92 Total Vertebrate 138 1.92 TOTAL TAXA 369 10.4LJJ remaining thirty (0.45 g) elements are identifiable only as bony fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Preservation of the fish bones is fair, but some specimens are quite brittle, and some appear weathered. A few fragile individual head bones are identified (App. 2). Most Salton Basin archaeological ichthyofaunas are dominated solely by more durable vertebral elements (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Vertebral elements dominate this fish assemblage. Three fish bones are burned. The presence of burned fish bones suggests that whole fish may have been roasted over open fires or tossed intc hearths subsequent to consumption. No cut marks were observed on any of the fish bones. Amphibians No amphibian remains are identified from this Locus. Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and many of them are represented in the Locus 322-21 vertebrate archaeofauna (Table 21). Two lizard, seven snake vertebrae, and four reptile bones are identified from this Locus. It is no surprise that lizards are represented in the Locus 322-21 archaeofaunal sample, since many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. Desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), the zebra- tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), the desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuckwallas (Sauromalus obesus), and the fringe -toed lizard Table 22. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-21 Class Count % weight ( ) % Bird 17 4.6 0.56 5.4 Fish 63 17.1 2.75 26.4 Mammal 138 37.4 4.83 46.3 Reptile 13 3.5 0.37 3.5 Vertebrate 138 37.4 1.92 18.4 Total 369 100.0 10.43 OJI Ui 46 Table 23. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-21 Order Count % Weight (g) % Lagomor ha 23 22.1 1.21 38.7 Rodentia 78 77.2 1.98 61.3 Total 101 100.0 3.23 100.0 (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in the La Quinta area. The identification of a single desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhitios, 0.01 g) head spine add another common species to the list. Horned lizards are small, spiny, and have little food value. They are almost certainly occur naturally at this Locus. Most of the snake vertebrae identified at Locus 322-21 are assigned to the Colubridae (Non -venomous snakes, N=4, 0.07 g). One specimen is identified as gopher :snake (Pituophis melanoleucus, 0.03 g). Three rattlesnake (Genus Crotalus) vertebrae are identified (0.14 g). All of the snake genera identified here are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the occupants of this locus cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Birds Seventeen bird bone specimens are identified from Locus 322-21 (Table 21). One of these represents ducks (Family Anatidae), and is identified as ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis, 0.08 g). The other identified specimen is a terrestrial bird, California quail (Callipepla californica, 0.05 g). The fifteen remaining bird bones are identified only to relative size classes. Ducks are, of course, strongly associated with lacustrine or estuarine environments, and their presence, and association with fish remains, strongly suggests exploitation of such habitats. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, some of which are lacustrine, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Five of the bird bones are burned, suggesting either roasting and/or disposal in fires. The quail bone is unburned and could represent a naturally occurring individual, however, they were also consumed as food when captured, and their topknots are used in basketry by some native Californian groups. Mammals Mammals (N=138, 97.71 g) constitute the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-21 (Tables 21, 23). A total of four mammal genera and species are identified. Rodents are the most numerous and diverse mammal order represented with three genera and species represented. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon's cottontail. No carnivores or artiodactyls (even -toed ungulates) are represented. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=37, 1.60 g) are common, with small mammals (N=28, 1.16 g) 076 47 u00U6J dominating. No other size classes are represented, so no large mammals are represented at all. The most numerous identified mammal taxa in order of relative abundance are cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=18, 0.75 g), woodrats (Genus Neotoma, N==16, 0.76 g), ground squirrels (Genus Spermophilus, N=4, 0.12 g), and pocket mice (Genus Perognathus, N=1, 0.02 g), All of these taxa, excepting the pocket mice, were probably consumed by the locus' occupants, and some of them are burned, although natural occurrence should not be ruled out. Rabbit remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). The lack of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) specimens (N=3, 0.69 g) is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area, and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The twenty-eight indeterminate small mammal specimens most likely represent: rodents. Although common and known as burrowers, the various identifiable rodent specimens (Table 21) could also represent dietary constituents since some small mammals specimens are burned (Table 24; see also App. 2). The burning could represent roasting or disposal, although natural wildfires are a possibility (Erlandson 1993). Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game ...," probably rodents. Rodent remains are well represented in other reported faunal assemblages from the northern Coachella Valley (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Table 24. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-21 Count % Weight (g) Unburned 1 352 1 95.4 9.51 91.2 Burned 17 4.6 0.92 8.8 Total 369 100.0 10.43 100.0 Locus 322-22 Locus 322-22 produced a relatively small depauperate faunal assemblage. A total of 17 bone specimens (10.62 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed (Table 25). While reptiles, birds and mammals are represented at this locus, they are all few in number. No fish or amphibians are identified. The Locus 322-22 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by rodent bone fragments. Only three specimens are identified, one snake (Crotalus sp., 0.03 g) and two desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida, 0.05 g) bones. Birds are represented by one unidentified fragment (0.01 g). Large mammal bone fragments (N=4, 10.45 g) constitute the bulk of the mass of this sample. None of 07 48 0a0( Table 25. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-22 Squamata Colubridae Colubrid Snake Family 1 .02 Viperidae Crotalus sp Rattlesnake - Unid 1 .03 Total Reptile 2 .05 Aves Bird - Unid 1 .01 Total Bird 1 Al Rodentia Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Wood Rat - Desert 2 .07 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 6 .13 Rodentia S .20 Mammalia, lg Mammal - Large 4 10.45 Total Mammal 12 10.65 Vertebrata Vertebrate 2 .01 Total Vertebrate 2 j TOTAL TAXA 17 10.' the bone is burned. It is possible that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-23 Locus 322-23 produced a relatively small depauperate faunal assemblage. A total of 11 bone specimens (0.19 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed (Table 26). Only fish and mammals are represented at this locus, and they are all few in number. No amphibians, reptiles, or birds are identified. The Locus 322-23 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by small mammal fragments. Only two specimens are identified, one striped mullet (Mugil cephalus, 0.01 g) and one cottontail (Sylvilagus sp. 0.05 g) bones. Birds are represented by one unidentified fragment (0.01 g). Large mammal bone fragments are identified. None of the bone is burned. It is possible that much of the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although the fish specimens almost certainly represent food debris, and association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-25 Locus 322-25 produced one of the more numerous and diverse vertebrate faunal assemblages of the eighteen loci examined in this report. A total of 698 bone specimens (24.92 g) recovered from Locus 322-25 have been identified and analyzed (Table 27). 49 0 jg IiUUUE Table 26. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-23 Cypriniformes Minnow Order 3 .1.0 Cypriniformes 3 .1.0 Perciformes Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Mullet - Striped 1 .01 Perciformes 1 .01 Total Fish 4 .1.1 Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 1 .02 Lagomorpha 1 .02 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 4 .05 Total Mammal 5 .07 Vertebrata Vertebrate 2 .01 Total Vertebrate 2 Al TOTAL TAXA 11 .19 Fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all well represented at this locus. No amphibians are identified. The Locus 322-25 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by mammals (Table 28), the most common of which are rodents (woodrats, Genus Neotoma) and cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish, predominantly razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus), birds, primarily ducks, and reptiles follow (Table 28). Twenty-six various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Twelve vertebrate genera, and ten species are identified (Table 27), including three genera and species of fish, three genera and two species of reptiles, one genus and species (representatives of two orders) of birds, and five genera and three species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-25 archaeological fish fauna, while somewhat limited in diversity and number, is representative of the regior and comparable to other known assemblages, lacking only one other rare Colorado River fish species (the Colorado squawfish - Ptychocheilus lucius) that has been identified at only a few other sites. Fish represent the second most common class vertebrate animals by count, and by weight, in the Locus 322-25 archaeofaunal sample. A total of 87 (3.22 g) fish bone V 0U0J 6. 50 0 7 -) Table 27. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-25 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Chub - Bonytail 20 .66 Catostomidae Sucker Family 1 .02 Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 34 1.40 Cypriniformes Minnow Order 17 .:16 Cypriniformes 72 2.44 Perciformes Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Mullet - Striped 11 .60 Perciformes 11 .60 Osteichthyes Fish - Bony 4 .18 Total Fish 87 3.22 Chelonia Testudinidae Gopherus agassizii Tortoise - Desert 1 .17 Chelonia 1 .17 Squamata - Sauria Iguanidae Dipsosaurus dorsalis Iguana - Desert 1 .01 Squamata - Serpentes Colubridae Colubrid Snake Family 1 .03 Viperidae Crotalus sp Rattlesnake - Unid 2 .06 Squamata 4 .:LO Total Reptile 5 .27 Anseriformes Anatidae Duck, Geese, Swan Family 3 .25 Anseriformes 3 .25 Passeriformes Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos Crow - Common 1 .OS Passeriformes 1 AS Aves Bird - Unid 8 .23 Total Bird 12 .56 Lagomorpha Leporidae Hare, Rabbit Family 1 .07 Lepus sp Hare - Unid 4 1.54 Sylvilagus sp Rabbit - Unid 19 1.25 51 , 00006 Table 27. Identified Vertebrate species from Locus 322-25 (Cont.) Rodentia Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Pocket Gopher - Botta's 8 .29 Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Wood Rat - Desert 4 .09 Neotoma sp Wood Rat - Unid 16 .84 Rodentia Rodent - Unid 15 .112 Rodentia 43 1.64 arnivora Canidae Canis latrans Coyote 1 .26 Carnivora 1 .26 rtiodactyla Even -toed Ungulates - Unid 1 .130 Artiodactyla 1 .50 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 54 2. (33 Mammalia, and Mammal - Medium 1 .25 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 361 10.42 416 13.30 Total Mammal 485 18.156 Vertebrata Vertebrate 109 2.31 Total Vertebrate 109 2.31 TOTAL TAXA 698 24.92 specimens are identified (Table 27). Three different species of fish are represented. Most (N=54, 2.06 g) of the bone represents 2 species of cypriniform fishes (Order Cypriniformes), the bonytail (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=20, 0.66 g) and the razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus, N=34, 1.40 g). Striped mullet (Perciformes, Mugilidae, Mugil cephalus, N=11, 0.60 g) are also identified. One (0.02 g) fragment is referred to the Catostomidae, and seventeen (0.36 g) to the Cypriniformes.. The remaining. four (0.18, g) elements, are identifiable only as bor:y fish (Osteichthyes) remains. Preservation of the fish bones is fair, but some specimens are quite brittle, and some appear weathered. A few fragile individual head bones are identified. Most Salton Table 28. Distribution of Animal Hone from Locus 322-25 Class Count % Weight (g) % Bird 12 1.7 0.56 2.2 Fish 87 12.5 3.22 12.9 Mammal 485 69.5 18.56 74.5 Reptile 5 0.7 0.27 1.1 Vertebrate 109 15.6 2.31 9.3 Total 698 100.0 24.92 100.0 52 put 000G, Basin archaeological ichthyofaunas are dominated solely by more durable vertebral elements (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Vertebral elements dominate this fish assemblage. Twenty-one fish bones (24%) are burned. The presence of burned fish bones suggests that whole fish may have been roasted over open fires or tossed into hearths subsequent to consumption. No cut marks were observed on any of the fish bones. Amphibians No amphibian remains are identified from this Locus. Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and three of them are represented in the Locus 322-25 vertebrate archaeofauna (Table 27). One gopher tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii) bone, one lizard, three snake vertebrae, are identified from this Locus. It is somewhat surprising that only one lizard element is represented in the Locus 322- 25 archaeofaunal sample, since other loci discussed below and many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. Most of the sites and loci discussed in this report have few, if any, lizards represented. The one Desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) specimen is not unexpected. The zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), the desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuckwallas (Sauromalus obesus), the desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos; see "Locus 322-21," above), and the fringe -toed lizard (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in the La Quinta area. The majority (N=2) of the snake vertebrae identified at Locus 322-25 are assigned to the rattlesnake (Genus Crotalus). One specimen is assigned to the Colubridae (Non- venomous snakes, N=9, 0.26 g). Representative of both of the snake families identified here are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The individual snake vertebrae are not burned or modified in any detectable way, and therefore could be intrusive. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the occupants of this locus cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The one desert tortoise identified in the Locus 322-25 reptile assemblage are interesting for a variety of reasons. No turtles, not even the hearty desert tortoise (Gopherus agasssizii), are presently common in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). It is well. known that desert tortoises were consumed by desert peoples (Schneider and Everson 1989). However, desert tortoise remains have been positively identified from only two other sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Schneider and Everson 1989; Wake 1998). Consumption of turtles at other local sites is suggested by the presence of their remains in general and especially burned plastron fragments (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1996; 1998). No aquatic turtle species such as the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), or any of the Colorado 53 08 U.19 ;I River turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense and Trionyx spiniferus) are identified in this faunal assemblage or any other reported faunal assemblage from the local area. Birds Twelve bird bone specimens are identified from Locus 322-25 (Table 27). Three of these represent ducks (Family Anatidae, 0.25 g). One other bone is '.identified as common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos, 0.08 g). The eight remaining bird. bones are identified only to relative size classes. Ducks are strongly associated with lacustriine or estuarine environments, and their presence, and association with fish remains, strongly suggests exploitation of such habitats. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, some of which are lacustrine, have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Some of the bird bone is burned (App. 2). Mammals Mammals (N=485, 18.56 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-25 (Tables 27, 29). A total of five mammal genera and three species are identified. Rodents are the most diverse and numerous mammal order with two genera and species represented. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and species as well (Lepus californicus - the black -tailed jackrabbit, and Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon s cottontail). Carnivores are represented by one Genus and Species (Canis latrans - coyote). Artiodactyls (even -toed ungulates) are represented by one specimen (0.50 g) identified to the order. Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes (N=426; 13.30 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=361, 10.42 g) dominating. Unidentified medium mammal remains constitute the smallest of these less identifiable groups (N=1, 0.25 g) in the mammal assemblage, with large mammals represented by 54 (2.63 g) bone fragments. The most numerous identified mammal taxa in order of relative abundance are woodrats (Genus Neotoma, N=20, 0.93 g), cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus, N=19, 1.25 g), pocket gophers (Genus Thomomys, N=8, 0.29 g), and hares (Genus Lepus, N=4, 1.54 g). All of these taxa were probably consumed by the occupants, and some of them are burned, although natural occurrence should not be ruled out. Rabbit and woodrat remains, especially cottontails, are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997; 1998). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits (Bean 1978). The low number of hare (Lepus californicus) Table 29. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-25 order Count % Weight (g) % Artiodact la 1 1.4 0.50 9.5 Carnivora 1 1.4 0.26 4.9 La omor ha 24 34.8 2.86 54.4 Rodentia 43 62.3 1.64 31.2 Total 69 100.0 5.26 100.0 54 Table 30. Burned and Unburned Bone from Locus 322-25 count Weight (g) % Unburned 629 90.1 20.37 81.7 Burned 69 9.9 4.55 18.3 Total 698 100.0 24.92 100.0 specimens is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as this, since they are common in the local area and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991; 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). This pattern is, however, consistent with the other assemblages discussed in this report. Some of the mammal bone is burned (Table 30). Locus 322-26 Locus 322-26 produced a relatively diverse faunal assemblage for its small size. A total of six bone specimens (2.20 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed (Table 31). Only fish and mammals are represented at this locus. Four vertebrate genera and species are represented. No amphibians, reptiles, or birds are identified. The Locus 322-26 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by small mammal bone tragments. your specimens are iaenuneu, uiie rawrodcx suuser Table 31. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-26 Cypriniformes Catostomidae Xyrauchen texanus Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus californicus Sylvilagus audubonii Rodentia Cricetidae Neotoma lepida Rodentia vora Sucker - Razorback 1 .09 Total Fish 1 .09 Jackrabbit - Black -tailed 1 .17 Cottontail - Audubon's 1 .10 Lagomorpha 2 .27 Wood Rat - Desert 1 .06 Rodent - Unid 1 .08 Rodentia 2 .14 Carnivore order 1 1.70 Carnivora 1 1.70 Total Mammal 5 2.11 TOTAL TAXA 6 2.20 55 G0 }U 084 (Xyrauchen texanus, 0.09 g), one black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus, 0.17 g), one Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii, 0.10 g), and one desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida, 0.06 g) bones. Carnivores are represented by one unidentified fragment (1.70 g). No large mammal bone fragments are present. The razorback sucker element is burned. It is possible that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although the burned fish bone and association with other artifact classes indicates some degree of human influence. Locus 322-27 Locus 322-27 produced a relatively small depauperate faunal assemblage. A total of 9 bone specimens (1.17 g) recovered from this Locus have been identified and analyzed (Table 32). Only birds and mammals are represented at this locus, and they are all few in number. No fish, amphibians, or reptiles are identified. The Locus 322-27 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by various small mammal bone fragments. Only three specimens are identified, one hare (Lepus sp., 0.19 g), one pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae, 0.04 g), and one woodrat (Neotoma sp., 0.05 g) bones. Birds are represented by one unidentified fragment (0.05 g). No large mammal bone fragments are present. The one hare bone is burned. It is possible that the bone assemblage found at this locus is entirely natural, although the burned hare bone and association with other artifact classes might indicate some degree of human influence. Table 32. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-27 Aves Bird - Unid 1 .05 Total Bird 1 .05 Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus sp Hare - Unid 1 .19 Lagomorpha 1 .L9 Rodentia Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Pocket Gopher - Botta's 1 .04 Cricetidae - Neotoma sp Wood Rat - Unid 1 .05 Rodentia 2 .09 Mammalia Mammal - Unid 4 .32 Mammalia, am Mammal - Small 1 .02 5 .84 Total Mammal 8 1.12 TOTAL TAXA 9 1.17 0J5 56 ll HGHS ! 4 Table 33. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-29 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 4 .OS TOTAL TAXA 4 OS Locus 322-29 Four small mammal fragments are identified from this locus (Table 33). None of them are burned. They could all represent naturally occurring stray bones. Little more can be said. Locus 322-31 For a relatively small sample Locus 322-31 produced a rather diverse vertebrate faunal assemblage. Especially interesting is the high relative frequency of fish, the highest, in fact of any of the Loci reported here. A total of 140 bone specimens (2.84 g) recovered from Locus 322-31 have been identified and analyzed (Table 34). Fish, birds, .and mammals are all well represented at this locus (Table 35). No amphibians or reptiles are identified. The Locus 322-31 vertebrate faunal assemblage is dominated by small mammals, the most common of which are rodents, and cottontail rabbits (Genus Sylvilagus). Fish, predominantly suckers (Catostomidae and Xyrauchen texanus), and unidentified birds follow (Table 35). Ten various taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Three vertebrate genera and species are identified (Table 34), including two genera and species of fish and one genus and species of mammals. The remaining taxonomic categories consist of bone fragments that are identifiable only to the Family or Order level, or relative size class category. Fish Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated with the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). The composition of the Locus 322-31 archaeological fish fauna, while somewhat limited in diversity and number, is representative of the regior and comparable to other known assemblages. Fish represent the second most common class vertebrate animals by count, and by weight, in the Locus 322-31 archaeofaunal sample. A total of 42 (1.06 g) fish bone specimens are identified (Table 34). Two different species of fish are represented. Most (N=22, 0.68 g) of the bone represents 2 species of cypriniform fishes (Order Cypriniformes), the bonytail (Family Cyprinidae, Gila elegans, N=2, 0.05 g) and the razorback sucker (Family Catostomidae, Xyrauchen texanus, N=5, 0.17 g). Fourteen (0.45 g) fragments are referred to the Catostomidae, and one (0.01 g) to the Cypriniformes. The remaining twenty (0.38 g) elements are identifiable only as bony fish (Osteichthyes) remains. 1... 086 57 0000 Table 34. Identified Vertebrate Species from Locus 322-31 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Gila elegans Chub - Bonytail 2 .05 Catostomidae Sucker Family 14 .45 Xyrauchen texanus Sucker - Razorback 5 .17 Cypriniformes Minnow Order Cypriniformes 22 .68 Osteichthyes Fish - Bony 20 .:38 Total Fish 42 1.06 Aves Bird - Unid 13 .25 Total Bird 13 .25 Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii Cottontail - Audubon's 2 .03 Lagomorpha 2 .03 odentia Rodent - Unid 3 .07 Rodentia 3 .07 Mammalia, sm Mammal - Small 50 1.05 Total Mammal 55 1.15 Vertebrata Vertebrate 30 .38 Total Vertebrate 30 .38 TOTAL TAXA 140 2.84 Preservation of the fish bones is fair, but some specimens are quite brittle, some appear weathered, and one is burned. Most Salton Basin archaeological ichthyofaurias are dominated solely by more durable vertebral elements (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Vertebral elements dominate this fish assemblage as well. Amphibians, Reptiles, and Birds No amphibian or reptile remains are identified from this Locus. The bird remains consist of 13 unidentified shaft fragments, one of which is burned. Table 35. Distribution of Animal Bone from Locus 322-31 Class Count % Weight (g) % Bird 13 1.7 0.25 2.2 Fish 42 12.5 1.06 12.9 Mammal 55 69.5 1.15 74.5 Vertebrate 30 15.6 0.38 9.3 Total 140 100.0 2.84 100.0 u000' 58 0% Table 36. Distribution of Mammal Bone from Locus 322-31 Order Count % Weight (g) % La omor ha 3 50.0 0.03 30.0 Rodentia 3 50.0 0.07 70.0 Total 6 100.0 0.10 100.0 Mammals Mammals (N=55, 1.15 g) represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from Locus 322-31 (Tables 34, 36). One mammal species, Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus, N=2, 0.03 g) identified. Rodents are represented by three (C.07 g) unidentified fragments. Unidentifiable small mammals (N=50, 1.05 g) predominate. No large mammals are represented. The indeterminate small mammal specimens most likely represent rodents. Sorne of the small mammal (probably rodent) bones are burned (Table 37; see also App. 2), possibly indicative of their consumption or disposal, although natural wildfires are a possibility (Erlandson 1993). Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game ...", probably rodents. Rodent remains are well represented in other reported faunal assemblages from the northern Coachella Valley (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; 1998; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Table 37. Burned and unburned Bone from Locus 322-31 Count % Weight (g) % Unburned 123 87.9 2.41 84.9 Burned 17 12.1 0.43 15.1 Total 140-1 100.0 2.84 100.0 DISCUSSION Salton Basin Fishes The bonytail and razorback are native to the Colorado River system. Both of these species were originally most common in the rapidly flowing, turgid waters of the lower Colorado River, from the Grand Canyon down. Gobalet (1992:76) believes that ancient Lake Cahuilla, fed by nutrient laden Colorado River waters, was a plankton rich environment and could have supported large numbers of filter feeding razorbacks and omnivorous bonytail and striped mullet. The striped mullet is a euryhaline species that ascends the Colorado from the Gulf of California. The only predatory fish species known from northern Salton basin archaeological sites, the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), and the machete (Elops affinis) could both have feasted on young bonytail and razorbacks. However, no squawfish or machete are identified in any of the Rancho La Quinta assemblages. Gobalet and Wake (n.d.) report the discover, of a single pupfish (Cyprinodon) vertebra from a non -archaeological late Holocene paleontological assemblage, and suggests that small fish species such as woundfish (Plagopterus argentissimus), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and. desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularis) might eventually turn up in archaeological assemblages when the possibility of their presence is considered prior to excavation (1- mm mesh screens should be used to process representative samples). l}0007 59 083 It is generally believed that the fish species found at these and other local archaeological sites were delivered to ancient Lake Cahuilla during the late Holocene, when the Colorado River periodically left its banks and flooded into the Salton Basin, :filling it and dramatically changing the local environment from desert to lacustrine (Wilke 1976:194). At least four, and possibly five, individual lake filling events are believed to have occurred throughout the late Holocene (Hubbs and Miller 1948; Laylander 1995; Schaefer 1994; Sutton and Wilke 1988; Waters 1983; Wilke 1976). During its high stand, Lake Cahuilla lay at 12 m above sea level, had a depth of 95 m, and covered over 5700 km2 (Waters 1983:374). These lacustrine intervals of roughly 100 to 250 years must have had profound influences on past human subsistence and settlement patterns. Razorback sucker Myrauchen texanus) Razorback suckers, the most common fish species in the assemblages discussed above, are also well represented at many other Salton Basin archaeological sites (Gobalet 1992; 1994; Gobalet and Wake n.d.). Razorbacks are one of the two most common archaeological fish species in the region. In many sites razorbacks are the dominant fish species (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). Razorback suckers have adapted to meet the ecological conditions found in the various swift water drainages that constitute the lower Colorado River system (Moyle 1976:173). Razorbacks are relatively robust, but for a sucker (Catostomidae) they have a relatively streamlined body, with a prominent hump behind and above the head, capped by a sharp keel, and large fins. It is believed that the fish's shape is a result of adaptation to the swift water of the lower Colorado River and helps the fish to maneuver and stay or the bottom in the face of strong currents during seasonal floods (Moyle 1976). Razorback suckers are filter feeders and therefore quite selective in their food choices. They are primarily planktivores, straining out most small food items floating in the water column with their long gill rakers and specialized pharyngeal teeth (Papoulias and Minkley 1990). Gut contents of 34 preserved razorbacks from Lake Mojave included planktonic crustaceans, rotifers, diatoms, detritus, and filamentous algae (Marsh and Papoulias 1987:117). These fish grow to a large size, attaining average lengths of up to 1 m and weights of 7 kg, but fish over 60 cm and 4.5 kg are unusual (Moyle 1976:230). Spawning typically occurs in the spring in tributaries or shallow lake waters over silty sand, gravel, or rocks (Moyle 1976:230). Spawning females are often attended by groups of up to 12 males (Moyle 1976:230). Due to relatively small effective sample size, no one sample of razorback bones was large enough to permit analysis of size and age, like those performed on the bonytail (Gila elegans) bone from CA-RIV-4754 and -6060 (Wake 1997; 1998). While proa:las vertebrae were identified, time constraints did not allow revisiting Casteel's (1976:138- 141) analysis of growth rates. One observation is apparent though. The razorback bone from the Rancho La Quinta assemblage are all of relatively uniform size; none are strikingly small and none are really large. Gobalet and Wake (n.d.) note that this pattern is common throughout virtually all known Salton Basin archaeological fish 60 - 08;9 Ov`,30 assemblages and believe that this uniformity in size may have something to do with procurement practices (see below). Bonytail (Gila elegans) Bonytail, the second most common fish species at the Rancho La Quinta loci, are well represented at many other Salton Basin archaeological sites (Gobalet 1992; 1994; Gobalet and Wake n.d.; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996). Bonytail are one of the two most common archaeological fish species in the region in general, the other being razorback. sucker (Follett 1980; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Wilke 1978). Bonytail are part of a three species complex (Gila cypha, Gila elegans, Gila robusta) that have adapted to meet specific ecological conditions found in the various drainages that constitute the lower Colorado River system (Moyle 1976:173). Possible hybridization resulting in apparently intermediate forms has caused some confusion over the placement of species in this complex, and some have considered Gila elegans and Gila robusta to be sister subspecies of Gila robusta (i.e., Gila robusta elegans and Gila robusta robusta; Gobalet 1992:74; Kaeding et al. 1986; Holden and Stalnaker 1970). However, it is now generally accepted that Gila elegans is a valid species (Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moyle 1976). Bonytail have a streamlined body, a hump behind and above the head, large fins and a long tail. It is believed that the shape of these fishes is a result of adaptation to the swift water of the lower Colorado River and helps them to maneuver and stay on the bottorr in the face of strong currents during seasonal floods (Moyle 1976). Bonytail are not selective in their food choices, eating virtually anything in or on the water including filamentous algae, plant debris, insects, insect larvae, planktonic animals, and occasional small fish (Vanicek and Kramer 1969). These fish grow quickly in the first three years of their lives, attaining average lengths of 158 mm and weights of 31 €; by their third year (Vanicek and Kramer 1969:200). Growth slows after their fourth year, when they reach sexual maturity and begin to spawn at sizes of 258 mm and 129 g. Bonytail have been observed spawning over gravel beds, broadcasting their adhesive eggs widely (Jonez and Sumner 1954). Unfortunately, no bonytail samples were large enough to provide statistically significant samples for length estimations like those from CA-RIV-4754 and -6060 (Wake 1997; 1998). As with the razorback suckers, the bonytail from the Rancho La Quinta sites are all relatively good sized. No strikingly small individuals appear. This is consistent with observations reported from various other local area sites (Gobalet 1992; 1994; Gobalet and Wake n.d.; Wake 1997; 1998). Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Ken Gobalet (1992; 1994; 1997) indicates that striped mullet are generally rare in Lake Cahuilla area archaeological fish assemblages, although they were apparently much more common in the Salton Basin earlier in the 20th century (Dill 1944; Moyle 1976). Follett (1988) has reported finding large numbers of striped mullet otoliths (up to 220 saggitae) at various locations in the Salton Basin. The striped mullet is a marine 01 000 species that breeds in offshore waters, although Moyle (1976:342) implies that some spawning may occur in fresh water. Striped mullet typically ascend up to 190 km up the Colorado River and return to the Gulf of California to spawn. Striped mullet are thick bodied fish with broad, flat heads and small, terminal mouths. They have long gill rakers and typically filter fine detritus that they scoop from the bottom in shallow waters. Ancient Lake Cahuilla would have represented fine habitat for this species with its calm waters and high productivity. The representation of striped mullet (typically the third most common species) at the Rancho La Quinta loci is consistent with its relative abundance at other Salton Basin archaeological localities (Follett 1988; Gobalet 1992, 1994; Gobalet and Wake n.d.; Wake 1997, 1998). As with the other two fish species identified in this report, all the striped mullet specimens represent good sized, certainly not small, individuals. Procurement and Processing Fish were clearly an important part of the diet at many of the Rancho La Quinta :loci. However, their acquisition by the occupants of this property is somewhat problematic. Bean (1970:68) notes in his dissertation that "three or four hundred years ago, fish played an important part in the Cahuilla diet." Bean (1970:68) mentions that both the use of nets and bows and arrows to capture fish is recorded in Cahuilla oral history. While it is certainly possible that bows and arrows were used to capture fish along the shore line of ancient Lake Cahuilla, the number of individuals represented at this locus suggests some other means of mass capture, probably nets. The use of large mesh nets would help explain the absence of bones from small fishes in the Rancho La Quinta loci faunal assemblages. No specimens representing fingerling sized fish are present in the available fish remains. Bones from small fishes have been recovered from Salton Basin archaeological sites, and were clearly consumed by people since some have been extracted from human coprolites (Farrell 1988; Follet 1988; Sutton and Wilke 1988; Wilke 1978). Smaller, immature fishes and fingerlings could easily escape large mesh nets designed to capture mature fish. The fact that no small fishes are represented in the Rancho La Quinta loci assemblages, along with the relatively large average skeletal lengths determined above, strongly supports the hypothesized use of some size -graded mass capture technique such as netting. Some fish bones from these loci are burned. The presence of burned fish bones suggests that whole fish may have been roasted over open fires or tossed into hearths subsequent to consumption. No cut marks were observed on any of the fish. bones. Reptiles A variety of reptile taxa are present in the La Quinta area, and many of there are represented in the Rancho La Quinta loci vertebrate archaeofauna. Only two lizard species, various snakes, and gopher tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) bones are identified from the Rancho La Quinta loci. 091 62 O000 It is somewhat surprising that so few lizards are represented in the Rancho La Quinta archaeofaunal sample, since many other La Quinta area sites have yielded them. In addition to the desert horned lizard identified from Locus 322-21, the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra -tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), and fringe -toed lizard (Uma cf. Inornata) have all been identified at various other local sites. Dipsosaurus is particularly common in other La Quinta area sites, sometime charred or burned, suggesting possible dietary inclusion at a residual level. Lizards do not appear to have been included in the dietary refuse in the Rancho La Quinta loci, and probably represent naturally occurring intrusive individuals. A variety of snake remains are identified from seven of the eighteen loci reported here. The species present in the Rancho La Quinta assemblage include gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), glossy snake (Arizona elegans), and rattlesnake (Genus Crotalus). Snakes such as long nosed snakes (Rhinocheilus lecontei), patch nosed snakes (Salvadora hexalepis), kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getulus), and rosy boas (Lichanura trivirgata), as well as those mentioned above, have been identified at other local area sites (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1997, 1998). All of these snake genera are still commonly found in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). The greatest local species diversity is seen in the Family Colubridae, and that is reflected in the archaeological remains, most of which represent colubrids. The heavier bodied rattlesnakes are common both today and archaeologically. Rattlers are eaten today and may have provided a fair amount of meat to hungry people. Some of the individual snake vertebrae in these collections have been burned. Snake remains, including burned specimens, have been reported from a number of sites along the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla in the northern Coachella Valley, so the inclusion of serpents in the diet of the occupants cannot be discounted (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Still, snakes are relatively poorly represented, compared to fish and mammals. The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) identified in the Locus 322 assemblage are -interesting for a variety of reasons. No turtles, not even the hearty desert tortoise, are presently common in the La Quinta area (Stebbins 1985). It is well known that desert tortoises were consumed by desert peoples (Schneider and Everson 1989). Consumption of turtles at other local sites is suggested by the presence of their remains in general and especially burned plastron fragments (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992; Wake 1996, 1998). However, desert tortoise remains have been positively identified from only two other sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Schneider and Everson 1989; Wake 1998). The turtle remains from these sites, together with those from other local area sites suggest that these animals were once more common in the area. While no aquatic turtle species such as the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), or any of the Colorado River turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense and Trionyx spiniferus) U 9:1 63 UU0;i 7 are identified in the Locus 322-3 faunal assemblage or any other reported faunal assemblage from the local area, the possibility of their presence should not be discounted. If Colorado River fish were washed into ancient Lake Cahuilla, it stands to reason that riverine turtles could have been introduced as well. The lack of aquatic turtle elements at these sites, and in the general area, is quite interesting, especially in the light of the large number of fish remains indicating the presence of suitable habitat, which could be ideal conditions for western pond turtles or Colorado River turtles. Birds A variety of bird bone specimens are identified from the Rancho La Quinta loci. Some of these remains represent terrestrial birds such as crows, thrushes, quail, and hawks, but these are all isolated single elements and do not appear to be dietarily important. The vast majority of bird remains identified at the Rancho La Quinta loci represent waterfowl, primarily ducks (ruddy ducks - Oxyura jamaicensis, lesser scaup - Aythya affinis, and dabblers Genus Anas) and coots (Fulica americana) Ducks and coots are strongly associated with lacustrine or estuarine environments, and their presence --and association with fish remains --strongly suggests exploitation of such habitats. Many of the waterfowl bones from the Rancho La Quinta localities are burned, further suggesting their inclusion in the diet. Remains of greater varieties of bird species, most of which are lacustrine (i.e., ducks and coots), have been reported from other archaeological sites in the northern Salton Basin area (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Wake 1997; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Beezley (1995) identified one Lake Cahuilla shoreline site, The Elmore Ranch Site (CA-IMP-6427) as a coot kill site, based on the high frequency of Fulica specimens identified. It appears that waterfowl, specifically ducks and coots, were the birds of choice for many of the inhabitants of ancient Lake Cahuilla's shoreline. Mammals Mammals are the most commonly encountered vertebrates in the faunal assemblages from these loci, as demonstrated above. A total of nine mammal genera and nine _species are. identified, from these sites. Rodents are the most diverse mammal order with four genera and species represented (Neotoma lepida - desert woodrat, Thomomy: bottae - Botta's pocket gopher, Perognathus penicillatus - desert pocket mouse, and Spermophilus beecheyi - California ground squirrel). Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and species (Lepus californicus - the black -tailed jackrabbit, and Sylvilagus auduboni - Audubon's cottontail). Carnivores are represented by two genera and species (Canis latrans - coyote, and Lynx rufus - bobcat). Artiodactyls are represented by bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size classes are numerous, with small mammals dominating. Unidentified large mammal remains are present but rare. Rabbit remains are probably more dietarily significant that rodents at these sites. The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits for food and other purposes such as 64 _ 093 'J'9'00 blanket manufacture (Bean 1978). Rabbit remains, especially cottontails (Genus Sylvilagus), are common constituents of archaeofaunas in the local area and many other California desert mammal archaeofaunas. The low number of jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) specimens in general is somewhat surprising for a desert locale such as the Rancho La Quinta loci, since they are common in the local area and often well represented in other neighboring archaeological assemblages, although cottontails do tend to dominate (Christenson 1990; Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Sutton 1991, 1993; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). The dominance of cottontails at sites along the ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla is not necessarily surprising. Cottontails prefer brushy areas with a good amount of closed cover for them to hide in, as opposed to jackrabbits who prefer more open areas (Jameson and Peeters 1988). The mesquite groves and patches in La Quinta today are perfect habitat for cottontails, and such areas may have been more widespread in the past with the increased availability of groundwater provided by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Although commonly disregarded by archaeologists because, as burrowers, their remain: occur naturally in the ground, the various identifiable rodent specimens could also represent dietary constituents since some specimens are burned (App. 2). The large numbers of indeterminate small mammal specimens most likely represent rodents. Bean (1978:578) mentions the consumption of "rabbits and other small game," probably rodents. Rodent remains, including burned specimens, are well represented. in faunal assemblages from the northern Coachella Valley (Hudson 1993; Hudson and Sanchez 1996; Zooarchaeology Laboratory 1992). Particular attention should be paid to rodent remains recovered from archaeological sites, since many groups are noted to have consumed them ethnographically. Such remains should be examined in detail for burning and cutmarks, which might indicate purposeful modification and consumption. They should not be dismissed as merely intrusive. The presence of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) at some of the Rancho La Quinta loci is both interesting and important. Artiodactyls, especially bighorn sheep, are rare in sites surrounding ancient Lake Cahuilla, yet they are one of the largest animals in the region, can provide large amounts of usable meat, and are consistently pointed to as the highest ranked prey item available from an optimal foraging perspective. Wher, they do occur at these kinds of sites, they appear in relatively low numbers and are usually quite fragmented. There are a number of possible explanations for their presence, but two seem the most likely: individuals were hunted elsewhere and parts returned to the sites; or bighorns came to the lake edge for forage and water and were captured locally. Both propositions are quite possible. Bighorns are seen today in the canyons and mountains above La Quinta, even occasionally wandering around the edges of town. 7 large body of water and the plant growth it would support around its edges would probably be tempting to hungry animals. Luxuriant, or just greater than normal, plant growth could also provide ample cover for human hunters. However, locally hunted bighorn sheep would almost certainly produce greater numbers and varieties of bones than are seen in these sites, since more bones from more parts would be close by and could be readily transported a relatively shorter distance. The bighorn skeletal 65 GOOO 094 elements identified at these sites are relatively few in number and represent meaty parts (leg bones) of animals that are typically transported back to a more central site from a kill site. Few low utility (Binford 1984) elements are represented in Lake Cahuilla shoreline sites. It is much more likely that the bighorns represented in these lakeside sites were hunted elsewhere, perhaps in the canyons above La Quinta, butchered, and portions of them transported to the site where they are found archaeologically. CONCLUSIONS The presence of fish remains at these sites suggest that they were occupied during a period when fish were available, probably at or near the most recent high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla. The species composition and number of specimens is similar to that of many other sites in the area (Follet 1988; Gobalet 1992; 1994; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). Fishing activities at the Rancho La Quinta loci emphasized razorback suckers, with the occasional inclusion of bonytail, and striped mullet. These occupations may correspond to the spawning cycles of each of these fish species. The presence of fish and waterfowl strongly indicate exploitation of lacustrine environments by the occupants of most of the larger (and some of the smaller) Rancho La Quinta loci, similar to the sites of CA-RIV-4754, -6059, and -6060. The fish were probably captured with nets. The domination of the mammal assemblage by rabbits, rodents, and small mammals and the presence of reptile taxa illustrate exploitation of local terrestrial habitats as well. Based on the vertebrate faunal assemblage recovered from these sites it is apparent that the occupants pursued a mixed strategy of fishing and hunting rabbits, and perhaps other small mammals and reptiles. Bighorn sheep were occasionally consumed at these sites, but not in great numbers, and probably were derived from areas other than the lake margins. Analysis of the vertebrate faunal assemblages from the Rancho La Quinta loci indicate that the vertebrate portion of the diet consisted primarily of small mammals, mainly cottontail rabbits and rodents supplemented by fish, reptiles, and a few birds. Some of the fish, rabbit, and rodent bones are burned, suggesting that they were roasted or disposed ofina fire. While a few large wild ungulates (bighorn sheep or Artioda.ctyl) are identified, their remains are relatively rare, further supporting the idea of a high degree of dependence on small game and fish. CREMATION REMAINS ANALYSIS By Thomas A. Wake This section reports the results of laboratory analysis of human remains recovered from four loci in the Rancho La Quinta project area. Field identification of bone fragments visible on the surface, conducted on July, 1998, confirmed the presence of human remains at Locus 322-13. Other remains were not known to be human in origin until the laboratory analysis was underway. The primary goals of this, analysis 66 095 0000 were to determine the number of individuals represented and if possible, age and sex a the identifiable remains. WN OI11i4C41VYf9]►[O]9MIuVA1►F9 A total of 2357 pieces of bone were examined from all four loci; 117 specimens from 322 7, 63 specimens from 322-8, 2174 specimens from 322-20, and 3 specimens from 322-25. Portions of crania, and appendicular skeletal bones were positively identified. Numerous pieces are identified as human based on general attributes such as size, thickness, curvature, and visible surface morphology. Some teeth were encountered, however they were treated to such high temperatures that all the enamel had burned away, fragmenting the roots and yielding little useful information regarding identification. While many of the smaller splinters and bone specimens examined in the laboratory could not conclusively be identified as human, it is likely that they are, since they are so strongly associated with elements positively and generally determined to be human. A number of bone fragments were both large enough and had sufficient diagnostic characteristics present on them to permit positive identification of the skeletal element and species (Homo sapiens) subsequent to,referral to the comparative laboratory specimens. The identified elements include: Locus 322-7 Total human remains; 117, including 1 right Mandible fragment, part of the ascending ramus with a portion of the endocoronal ridge. 1 left Radius, the proximal (round) articulation. The specimen was in 3 pieces and was reconstructed. 20 Frontal/Parietal cranial vault fragments, all roughly 3 cm by 3 cm in size, bearing distinctive surface morphology on both bone surfaces including evidence of a rich blood supply to the brain on the endocranial surface (arterial and capillary grooves) and fine surface pitting or rugosity on the ectocranial surface (various proveniences).. 95 long bone shaft fragments, ranging from less than 1 cm2 to 5 cmz in size, that exhibit cortical bone thickness in excess of any large native terrestrial game mammal, anal/or have remnants of surface rugosity within human parameters (various proveniences). Many of the other bone fragments inspected bear characteristics, such as thickness, curvature, and surface morphology that suggest identification as human, but lack specific diagnostic characters to absolutely determine their identification. Locus322-8 Total human remains; 63, including: 1 distal Phalanx (Phlx I1I, manus), distal portion bearing the distinctive rounded 'bony pad. 2 vertebral neural arch fragments. 11 Frontal/Parietal cranial vault fragments, all roughly 3 cm by 3 cm in size, bearing distinctive surface morphology on both bone surfaces including evidence of a rich blood supply to the brain on the endocranial surface (arterial and capillary grooves) and fine surface pitting or rugosity on the ectocranial surface (various proveniences). 49 long bone shaft fragments, ranging from less than 1 cmz to 5 cm2 in size, that exhibit cortical bone thickness in excess of any large native terrestrial game mammal, and/or have remnants of surface rugosity within human parameters (various proveniences). Locus322-20 Total human remains; 2174, including: 1 left Mandible ascending ramus fragment. 1 left Mandible horizontal ramus fragment, at the ascending ramus with a portion of the endocornal ridge. 1 right Mandible ascending ramus fragment with the mandibular condyle, endocoronal ridge and a portion of the Molar 3 alveolus (6 pieces reconstructed). 1 right Mandible lingual horizontal ramus fragment with a portion of a molar alveolus. 1 central Mandible superior distal labial fragment with the labial portions of the left Incisor 2, left Incisor 1, right Incisor 1, right Incisor 2, and right Canine alveoli. 1 central Mandible inferior lingual fragment with mental spines. 1 left anterior Maxilla palate fragment with a portion of the incisive foramen and portions of the Incisor 1, Incisor 2, Canine, and Premolar 1 alveoli (2 pieces reconstructed.) 1 left Maxilla fragment with portions of the zygomatic process, infraorbital foramen, and inferior maxillary sinus. 68 007 0000 I 1 right Maxilla palate fragment with a portion of the incisive foramen. 1 left Frontal fragment with a portion of the zygomatic process. 1 right Frontal fragment with a portion of the superior left and right Nasals fused to it, with a portion of the inferior frontal sinus on the endocranial surface. 1 right basal Occipital fragment (2 pieces reconstructed). 1 large Occipital fragment (left and right aspects together) bearing the superior nuchal line and the external occipital protruberance on the ectocranial surface, and the occipital transverse cerebral sulci on the endocranial surface (17 pieces reconstructed). 1 right posterior Parietal fragment, roughly 6 cm by 3 cm in size, with part of the Parietal -Occipital -Temporal suture line present (4 pieces reconstructed). 1 left lateral Parietal fragment at the occipital angle. Remnants of a pronounced superior nuchal line, more reminiscent of a ridge, are present on the ectocranial surface (9 pieces reconstructed). 1 Parietal fragment with a portion of the saggital suture (5 pieces reconstructed). 7 anterior Parietal fragments. 1 left Petrosal pyramid fragment (4 pieces reconstructed). 1 Sphenoid fragment with a portion of the pterygoid canal. 1 left Temporal fragment with a portion of the jugular fossa and styloid process. 1 left Temporal fragment with a portion of the suprameatal crest at the base of the zygomatic process. 1 right Temporal fragment with most of the mandibular fossa. 1 right Temporal fragment with most of the mastoid process, portions of the suprameatal and supramastoid crests, and a portion of the parietal notch (9 pieces reconstructed). 2 right Humerus distal shaft fragments (13 pieces reconstructed). 1 right Humerus mid shaft fragment. 1 left Humerus proximal shaft fragment. 1 left Humerus mid shaft fragment (10 pieces reconstructed). 69 . 0()3 000 I left Radius mid shaft fragment (4 pieces reconstructed). 1 right Ulna proximal shaft fragment (3 pieces reconstructed). 1 left Ulna proximal shaft fragment. 1 left Ulna mid shaft fragment (5 pieces reconstructed). 1 left Metacarpal 3, proximal fragment. 3 Metacarpal fragments. 5 Phalanx 1, distal fragments. 5 Phalanx 2, distal fragments. 3 Phalanx 3 specimens, 2 complete, 1 distal fragment. 5 Phalanx (1-3) proximal fragments (manus). 6 Phalanx (1-3) fragments (manus). 7 Femur shaft fragments with linea aspera. 1 right Tibia proximal shaft fragment. 1 right Tibia upper midshaft fragment (5 pieces reconstructed). 10 Tibia shaft fragments. 1 left Fibula upper midshaft. 1 right Astragalus superior articulation fragment. 2 Navicular fragments. 1 right Phalanx 1, digit 5, distal fragment. 1 left Phalanx 2, digit 3, complete. 60 small vertebral neural arch and articular fragments. 88 rib shaft fragments. 47 cranial vault fragments, ranging in size from roughly 1 cmz to 3 cm2 in size, bearing distinctive surface morphology on both bone surfaces including evidence of a rich 70 3 000C c blood supply to the brain on the endocranial surface (arterial and capillary grooves) and fine surface pitting or rugosity on the ectocranial surface. 412 long bone fragments, ranging from roughly 1 cm2 to 3 cm2 in size, that exhibit cortical bone thickness in excess of any large native terrestrial game mammal, and/or have remnants of surface rugosity and cancellous tissue within human parameters. Many of the other bone fragments (n=1320) inspected bear characteristics, such as thickness, curvature, cancellous structure, and surface morphology that suggest identification as human, but lack specific diagnostic characters to absolutely determine their identification. Locus322-25 Total human remains; 3, including 2 Frontal/Parietal cranial vault fragments, all roughly 3 cm by 3 cm in size, bearing distinctive surface morphology on both bone surfaces including evidence of a rich blood supply to the brain on the endocranial surface (arterial and capillary grooves) and fine surface pitting or rugosity on the ectocranial surface. 1 long bone shaft fragment, roughly 3 cmz in size, that exhibits cortical bone thickness in excess of any large native terrestrial game mammal, and has remnants of surface rugosity within human parameters. CONDITION All of the bone examined appears burned. The majority of it is calcined, or burned to a white color. Many of the bone specimens appear charred or burned to a black color as well. Calcination of bone occurs as a result of direct contact with temperatures in excess of 800 degrees C (Ubelaker '1984:34). According to Ubelaker (1984:34) "White color indicates longer exposure to higher temperatures than blue or gray." Many of the bone fragments inspected.bear distinctive cracking and warping patterns indicative of the burning of fresh bone at high temperatures (Ubelaker 1984:35-36; White 1991:407-415), suggesting cremation soon after death. No multiple matching skeletal elements such as, hypothetically, two left and one right distal femur were found at any of the four loci. Such a finding would indicate the presence of more than one individual. Based on laboratory analysis to date, there is no evidence implying the presence of more than one individual each at 233-7, -8, -22, or -25. 71 100 0000 • 6 AGE AND SEX Both Bass (1987) and White (1991) discuss a wide variety of aging Criteria for human skeletal remains. Assessment of the age of the individuals represented at these loci is somewhat difficult since many of the criteria laid out by Bass (1987) and White (1991) cannot be addressed due to the fragmentary nature of the skeletal remains. Only one long bone epiphysis is present. No teeth are available so tooth eruption and wear cannot be discussed. Determinations of age and sex of the individuals discussed here are based on the observable criteria presented in Bass (1987) and White (1991). Three of these loci (322-7, 322-8, and 322-25) produced human remains that are not assignable to sex and only broadly assignable to any age category. Locus 322-7 Taking into account effects of cremation -induced shrinkage, the individual represented at 322-7 is probably an adult:, based on the fact that the proximal radial epiphysis is completely fused (fusion occurs between the ages of 15 and 18 years) and subsumed (no longer visible), and the relatively large size of the individual bone specimens. Locus 322-8 The individual represented at 322-8 is probably an adult, based on the relatively large size and overall thickness of the individual bone specimens, taking into account effects of cremation -induced shrinkage. Locus 322-20 The human remains recovered from Locus 322-20 are more numerous, better preserved, and many elements could be reconstructed. The result of painstaking reconstructions and detailed study is a more precise estimation of the age and sea: of the single individual represented by the 2174 available bone fragments. Age There are three features of the bones in this collection that can provide more detailed information regarding age of this individual; cranial suture closure, tooth eruption, and general size. The cranial fragments mentioned above indicate a low degree, if any, of sutural fusion at the occipital and parietal regions. Most cranial sutures begin to close around age 25, and the degree of sutural fusion generally increases with age (Meindl and Lovejoy 1985; Morse et al. 1983). Therefore, the low degree of sutural fusion at these areas indicates a relatively young individual, probably younger than 25 years. A number of the maxillary and mandibular fragments have portions of alveoli visible. All of these alveoli appear to have held the adult dentition. One alveolus is particularly important. The right Mandible ascending ramus specimen from 322.-20 72 101 HOW bears a portion of a molariform alveolus. This alveolus appears to be that holding the third molar. The third molar erupts between the ages of 17 and 25 years. The overall size of both the cranial and postcranial elements is quite large and robust. It is also likely that these elements have undergone considerable shrinkage (up to 25%) due to burning (Ubelaker 1984:34; White 1991). The muscle insertions visible on the occipital, ulna, humerus and femur are well developed. The large (adult) size of these bones and their well -developed muscle insertions indicate an adult or near adult condition. The adult condition of the postcranial skeleton combined with the low degree of cranial sutural fusion and erupted third molars indicates a young adult between the age of 17 and 25 years. Sex The most accurate determination of sex can be made from the pelvic bones (Bass 1987; White 1991). However, no pelvic material is identified from this or any of the other loci. According to Bass (1987:72), the skull is the second best area of the skeleton for sex determination. Overall, the cranial elements are quite thick and robust, broadly male characteristics (Bass 1987; White 1991). Two of the cranial fragments in this assemblage suggest the probability that this individual is a male. The right Temporal fragment exhibits a pronounced posterior suprameatal crest extending from the area of the zygoinatic process past the approximate position of the external auditory meatus. The same specimen has a strong supramastoid crest and a robust mastoid process. These three attributes, strong suprameatal and supramastoid crests and a robust mastoid process are all considered generally to be male attributes (Bass 1987:74). The large, reconstructed occipital fragment (most of the actual skeletal element) has a pronounced, sharply defined superior nuchal line, another broadly male characteristic. The Occipital fragment also has a pronounced, sharp, external occipital protruberence, yet another broadly male characteristic. The right mandibular condyle is also quite robust, also broadly male. Finally, the identified postcranial elements, specifically the humeral and femoral fragments are relatively large and robust with prominent muscle insertions and associated ridges, indicating a well -muscled individual, another broadly male characteristic. Locus 322-25 The individual represented at 322-25 is probably an adult or older subadult, based. on the relatively large size of the individual bone specimens, taking into account effects of cremation induced shrinkage. CONCLUSIONS Laboratory analysis indicates the presence of one individual each at Loci 322-7, 322-8, 322-20, and 322-25. Three loci produced human remains only broadly assignable to an 102 73 0000 age class. The individual represented at 322-7 is probably an adult. The individual represented at 322-8 is also probably an adult. The individual represented at 322-25 is probably an adult or older subadult. The skeletal remains from Locus 322-20 are the most numerous and best preserved. Reconstruction of key bones allowed for more accurate age and sex estimations. Based on skeletal morphology and development the individual represented at 322-20 appears to be a young adult male between the ages of 17 and 25. The sex attribution is further supported by the presence of at least 12 chipped stone projectile points found at the cremation site. Such artifacts are traditionally associated with male individuals. These identifications should be considered somewhat tentative, due to the fragmentary nature of the remains and the lack of primary diagnostic regions (pelvis and teeth) of the skeletons (Bass 1987; White 1991). LITHIC ANALYSIS By Leslie Quintero The Rancho La Quinta lithic assemblage consists of 230 artifacts collected from sixteen archaeological loci. There are thirteen projectile points (conjoined fragments considered as representing single artifacts) and one probable point preform, seven millstone fragments representing metates, manos, and pestles, and one edge -modified flake. The remainder are lithic debitage specimens resulting from tool production and procurement of lithic tool materials. This analysis discusses the significance of the tool and debitage specimens, their technological attributes, certain aspects of their function, and, lastly, some implications of these artifacts for understanding the aboriginal occupations in the La Quinta area. Basic classifications of flaked stone tools and milling tools are used in these considerations. The analysis begins with an evaluation of the lithic resources that provided tool -stone materials for the people who occupied the project area. TOOL -STONE RESOURCES This discussion appraises the regional lithology, and assesses the varieties of tool stone selected for use at the various loci. With the exception of a single small flake of nonlocal obsidian and six flakes of jasper, all of the lithic materials may be found in local geological sources that are known to be available, and that were undoubtedly available for use at the time these loci were occupied. Resources used for flaked -tool production include vein quartz, several varieties of microcrystalline quartz (predominantly wonderstone, chalcedony, and jasper), and a very small amount of quartzite and fine-grained basalt. Milling tools were produced from various granitic rocks and from schist. An assessment of the availability of these tool stones follows. Microcrystalline Quartz Microcrystalline quartz is the most abundant lithic material in this assemblage. The dominant tool stone (45.5%) was a siliceous sediment known as wonderstone from the 74 103 000 Wonderstone Quarry or the adjacent Wonderstone Wash, with the primary outcrop being Rainbow Rock on the northwest flank of the Salton Basin, ca. 40 km southwest of La Quinta. These rocks were used for production of flakes for tool blanks, in particular for creating arrow points. While numerically arrow points form a small percentage of the lithic assemblage, debitage from their production, from core reduction, and possibly from the production of other bifacial tools, constitutes a significant portion of the tool - production debris. No doubt wonderstone was selected for its excellent flaking qualities; however, there is ample evidence in the tool assemblage that indicates that it was heat -treated to improve its flaking quality. The small quantity (15.7%) of chalcedony, agate, and jasper debitage in the collection implies that these rocks were also desirable, although less intensely used, tool stones. Some varieties of chalcedony are located in the Wonderstone Quarry locality. However, these materials also could have been found in small quantities in fluvia along the Whitewater River drainage, the nearest point of which is ca. 1 km north of the project area during the time that the loci under consideration appear to have been occupied. Nonetheless, these rocks probably were not abundant or as readily available as wonderstone. Quartz and Quartzite Vein quartz is found in the La Quinta area, as elsewhere, in plutonic exposures such as those in the local mountain environments and their alluvial deposits, and as fluvial material in drainages that emit from the mountains. Vein quartz is, therefore, readily available and was amply exploited at the archaeological loci sampled (28.1% of the artifacts recovered). Most of these pieces are shatter, or angular pieces of rock that result generally from percussion reduction of quartz. However, it should be noted that some shatter in the collection may be naturally altered angular pieces of quartz that were collected on the landscape and brought back to the occupation areas for use. A small number of quartz crystal flakes are present as well, indicating that some crystalline quartz was available, possibly in these same fluvial deposits. Quartzite was modestly used, accounting for only 6.3% of the entire assemblage. These percussion flakes derived from quartzite pebbles that probably were obtained. from the Whitewater River drainage. Basalts, Granitics, Schist The quality of basalt ranges from fine-grained varieties with very good fracture qualities that allowed their use for flaked -stone tool production to very coarse, often vesicular basalt, that sometimes was used for mortars and bowls. However, the small amount (3.1%) of basalt retrieved from these loci is medium -fine grained shatter and percussion flakes, suggesting that they derived from the production of flaked -stone tools. Basaltic rocks of this quality are known from numerous Tertiary and redeposited Quaternary sediments in Riverside County mountains (Jahns 1954), and probably derived from the nearby Santa Rosa Mountains. Granitic rocks and schist form a small portion (1%) of 75 104 0000 the debitage assemblages, but comprise the entire millingstone component of the collection. These materials probably derived from plutonic rocks that are intermingled with the local volcanics. Obsidian A single piece of obsidian debitage, a pressure flake, is present in this assemblage. While it is well known that a local obsidian resource, Obsidian Butte, located at the southern end of the Salton Sea, was episodically available to aboriginal occupants of the Salton Basin, this obsidian piece did not derive from the local deposit. Visual characteristics suggest that it may have originated from one of the small -class sources of obsidian in the Mojave Desert, the closest known example of which is near the railroad siding of Bagdad, about 110 km northeast of the project area. FLAKED TOOLS Projectile Points A general discussion of the attributes and distribution of arrow points from the La Quinta project follows. Table 38 summarizes the provenience data and pertinent characteristics of 12 arrow points and one point preform recovered at a cremation excavated at Locus 20. A single other arrow point was recovered elsewhere on the site. Arrow Points Apparently part of the grave accompaniments of a cremated individual, all of these complete points and fragments (Fig. 8) that can be typed are Figure 8. The more complete arrow points from the cremation site. 1OJ 76 1190f1, Table 38. Arrow Points and Fragments from Cremation Site (Locus 322-20) _ ID Type Color Dimensions Comments (LxWxT, Wt)a _ P13 DSNb White 2.6xl.3xO.3 cm, 0.6 g Deep concave base, heat -crazed, several tiny potlids on both faces, blackened from heat, complete _ Pl DSN Tan 2.Sx1.4x0.3 cm, 0.6 g fanged point with deep concave base, narrow body and shallow notches, heat - treated, complete, reworked DSN? P10 DSN Tan >1.9xl.4xO.4 cm, 0.6 g Concave base, heavily reworked distally, minor heat damage on tip, burned, minor barb breakage, blackened around haft area, Dearly complete P4 DSN Light grey >1.3xl.2xO.2 cm, 0.2 g Concave base, extensively reworked tip, heat -crazed, blackened, minor heat damage to tip, heat -treated, nearly complete _ P3 DSN White >2.Ox1.6x0.3 cm, 0.6 g Concave base, slight heat damage to tip, heat -crazed, heat -treated, nearly complete P2 DSN White >2.7x2.OxO.4 cm, 0.8 g Two nearly conjoinable fragments, concave base, heat -crazed, crenate fracture, heat - treated, small medial fragment missing, nearlv complete _ Pll DSN White 2.8x_2.OxO.3 cm, 0.6 g Concave base (?), reworked diagonal break, lacking one ear, heat -treated, heat -crazed P6 DSN Grey banded >1.2x>1.8xO.3 cm, 0.3 g Basal fragment, concave base, heat - fractured through notches, heat -treated P7 DSN Grey >1.8x>1.7xO.4 cm, 0.4 g Basal fragment, concave base, heat - fractured at tip and ear P5 DSN Tan >2.6x>0.8xO.4 cm, 0.6 g Distal fragment, heat -fractured through notches, heat -crazed, heat -treated P12 DSN Grey >1.6x>0.6xO.3 cm, 0.3 g Tip fragment, nondiagnostic, consistent with the remainder of the assemblage, heat -fractured through midsection and laterally, heat -crazed, blackened P14/ ? Grey >2.3xl.2xO.3 cm, 0.7 g Two conjoinable fragments, concave base, P9 possible DSN preform, heat -fractured, tip is heat-spalled, heat -treated, nearly complete P8 DSN Grey >0.7x>1.3x>0.2 cm, -- Basal fragment that is one face detached by heat-spalling, concave base, heat - fractured, blackened at notches; and through one ear a. Dimensions m metric. b. DSN = Desert Side -Notched. c. All of the lighter materials, and possibly all materials, probably derive from the Wonderstone source. representative of the Desert Side -Notched (DSN) type or series (Baumhoff and Byrne 1959). All of the specimens adhere to the same template, being concave -based, but not basally notched, as is often the case within the type. Desert Side -Notched arrow points are considered a time -marker of the Late Prehistoric and Historic periods, dating no earlier than about A.D. 1300 (Heizer and Hester 1978). As is typical of Desert Side- 77 106 OOJ� w Notched points, all of the specimens in the collection are very small, none reaching a weight of a gram. All specimens are made of wonderstone. While some of them are fragmentary or broken and reasonably conjoinable, all of the breakage fractures were heat -induced, suggesting that the points were complete and functional at the time of deposition. Most of the points show blackening, crazing, and spalling of their surfaces as a result of intense heat. All of the arrow points were made on wonderstone flakes (as attested by remnant detachment scars) and there are good indications that: the raw material was heat -treated prior to point production. There is good evidence in the collection that these points represent a working assemblage. One specimen (P10) has a blackened surface pattern implying that it was burned while still in the haft. Another (P13) has burned areas suggestive of 'burned hafting mastic in the haft zone. The distribution of heat -induced fractures may indicate that the haft zones of individual points were partially protected from the catastrophic heat shock of the crematory fire by the enclosing arrowshafts, while exposed barbs and tips were more vulnerable to these effects. Further, while several points are whole or finely configured, others show reworking of barbs and tip areas, further supporting the interpretation that these specimens represent a collection of functioning arrows, probably those of the individual that was cremated. One (specimen P11) has a bifacially retouched diagonal break, suggesting that it was retooled for use in its present rather odd configuration. An additional arrow point (specimen 8-Surf-2-32) was recovered elsewhere on the project area. Of white and gray chalcedony, it is classified as a Cottonwood Triangular, concave -based, arrow point (Riddell 1951). Although incomplete, the specimen would have weighed less than half a gram, and its lateral margins are strongly serrated. The fine flaking and serrations suggest that the material from which the point was made had been heat -treated. It was made on a flake blank, as in the case with the other points recovered from the cremation. The piece is missing its distal portion, which was spalled away by impact. An ear is also broken away in a bending break. Both of these attributes suggest that the point broke during use. The point likely entered archaeological context either as a discarded specimen, as a result of detachment during use, or on an unrecovered arrow. Arrow Point Preform What appears to be a Desert Side -Notched arrow point preform is also part of the cremation assemblage and consists of two conjoinable fragments (P9, P14) that were separated by heat -induced fracture. The conjoined fragments represent a nearly complete, concave -based artifact missing only a small portion of the heat-spalled tip. This specimen also was made on a flake blank of gray chert of unknown origin. The possibility exists that these specimens represent an unnotched arrow point of the Cottonwood series (Riddell 1951). Points of this series were in use in the Salton Basin during the same time as those of the DesertSide- Notched type or series, but appear not to have been as common as the latter. However, the specimen appears not to have been finished; the edges are less finely worked, and it is not notched. 107 78 ii00J Edge -Modified Percussion Flake While projectile points are usually considered "formal tools" because methods of their production and their forms are tailored to culturally accepted patterns, most flaked - stone tools are "informal" tools, or generalized cutting and scraping tools, that were lesE restricted in shape and function. Edge -modified flakes as a tool class are notoriously problematic since the modest amount of alteration apparent on their "working" edges may also result from post - depositional movement, ground pressure, and trampling, as well as from use as tools. Nonetheless, the category is legitimized by experiments using flakes as cutting tools that demonstrate the validity of the use -wear pattern, and by comparative analysis of other flakes in the same depositional contexts. A single unifacially edge -modified flake of green wonderstone is the only other formed flake tool in the assemblage. It is made on a noncortical percussion flake and probably represents a simple cutting and/or scraping tool. MILLING TOOLS A small assemblage of seven portable milling tools was collected from the La Quinta project area. It includes one mano fragment, two metate fragments, fragments representing at least three pestles, and one nondiagnostic millstone fragment of ,granitic material (22-Surf-9). While the collection is admittedly small, it nevertheless represents a wide range of food -processing activities. Four of the millstones are of granitic material; three are of schist. Manos A single unburned mano fragment (150-2) is of quartz monzonite and is too fragmentary to say anything; of its form, whether it originally was unifacial, bifacial, or some other form. Metates Two metate fragments (22-Surf-10, 7-Surf-178), both granitic, were recovered. Both appear to represent unifacial metates. The remnant smoothed milling surface of each shows prior pecking. Whether the fragments represent slabs or blocks cannot be determined. Pestles Three pestles (19-21-Surf-104, 3-4-1-9, 20-1-7 [Cremation Locus]) are represented in the assemblage. All are of schist. The specimen from the cremation is badly burned and completely fragmented into more than 40 crumbly pieces. The largest of these burned 79 103 Gonna pieces is a distal fragment that shows extensive battering. The dimensions of the original implement cannot be determined. The other two pestle fragments are also too fragmentary to determine original dimensions. These specimens, as well as the previous, exhibit pecking marks on their surfaces, which are the result of final shaping. It cannot be determined if they originally were flaked prior to pecking. No stone mortars or mortar fragments were found, and it is possible that wooden mortars were used with these pestles. During ethnographic times wooden mortars were commonly used in the Salton Basin (Strong 1929). DEBITAGE The debitage analysis was directed by several goals. The analysis considered both stone types and formal technological categories of debitage. Data of these kinds reflect various reduction strategies and lithic industries, as well as choices of appropriate tool stone that were made by the inhabitants of the site. No attempt was made to seriously study horizontal or vertical distribution of debitage within the project area because of the sparseness of the sample and the fact that it was collected from a large number of loci. Results Table 39 presents a breakdown of material type by locus. The assemblage includes 113 flakes and flake fragments (50.4%) and 95 pieces of shatter (42.4%), which is largely vein quartz. Of the flakes and flake fragments, 108 are percussion flakes with little or no cortex. Almost all of these are small, "interior," or noncortical, flakes that resulted from the reduction of flake cores. Clear evidence of biface thinning is represented only by five small pressure flakes. Stone Processing Strategies The overwhelming pattern of debitage types throughout the assemblage supports a reliance on reduction of flake cores to produce Table 39. Debitage Material Type by Locus —� Locus Number Material 2 3 4 7 8 14 14 21 25 26 27 31 Total % Quartz 2 12 1 2 1 10 2 28 1 4 63 30.3 Chalcedony/ Agate 22 2 4 28 13.5 Jasper 5 1 6 2.9 Wonderstone 1 46 1. 8 26 1 4 87 41.8 Quartzite 8 2 1 1 1 14 6.7 Basalt 4 1 2 7 3.4 Obsidian 1 1 0.5 Schist 1 1 0.5 Granitics 1 1 0.5 Total 3 99 3 13 5 43 1 2 30 1 4 4 208 100.0 80 �) if 000 flake blanks for tools. Most of the core -reduction process was in the middle or late stages of reduction and created interior, or noncortical, flakes. There is very little cortical debitage or early percussion debitage in this collection, and large percussion flakes and shatter are lacking. This situation clearly suggests that lithic material was decorticated elsewhere and that good, "clean" stone, perhaps even formed cores, were transported to the project area for further reduction. There also is some indication that microcrystalline quartz was modified by heat treating prior to tool production. Tool -Production Strategies The interior percussion flakes mentioned above comprise almost the entire collection of the debitage; only 11 pieces of debitage exhibit any cortex at all. It is probable that most of the tools produced at the project area were simple flakes detached for use in cutting. The fact that the arrow points were all made on flake blanks indicates that appropriate flakes were produced or selected for use in arrow point production. In some cases this material was heat -treated, as mentioned above, but whether cores or flakes were so treated cannot be determined. Pressure flakes attest to the production or refurbishing of tools, such as arrow points. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Chronological Assessment The only chronological markers in the assemblage are the Desert Side -Notched arrow points that are widely accepted as dating after A.D. 1300 across all of the American West persisting into the Historic period. There are no data in the flaked -stone assemblage that support the conclusion that the project area was inhabited prior to the Late Prehistoric period. Likewise, the absence of obsidian from the Obsidian Butte source at the south end of the present Salton Sea argues that the project area was inhabited or used during a time when Obsidian Butte was inundated by the waters of Lake Cahuilla and therefore unavailable for human use. Functional Interpretation of the Lithic Assemblage Even though the assemblage is limited and was derived from widely dispersed surface collections and shallow subsurface probes, some statements can tentatively be made about the nature of the archaeological deposits represented here. The character of the assemblage and its location in the dunes adjacent to the former shoreline of Lake Cahuilla both suggest use of the lakeshore on a nonintensive basis by people occupying small temporary camps. That the project area represents a Late Prehistoric occupation zone is further supported by the presence of a cremation. Debitage in the sample indicates that lithic tool -production materials were obtained an( essentially decorticated elsewhere, and occasionally brought to the project area for further reduction. This interpretation is supported by a lack of large debitage pieces, particularly large cortical flakes, and large shatter. The debitage collection consists mainly of small interior flakes of wonderstone and quartz shatter, presumably resultin; from the reduction of flake cores on the site. 81 00009 The flaked -stone assemblage, and the milling -tool assemblage are indicative of residential activities, at least on an intermittent basis. The wide distribution of milling implement fragments supports this interpretation. Probable evidence of arrow point production (in the form of heat -treated pressure flakes of moss agate and wcnderstone, and of obsidian), however, was found in only one locus, 3-SST-3. Lithic Economy There is a dominant pattern of use of regionally available tool stone. The abundant wonderstone was obtained at a distance of about 40 km. The remaining tool stones, including those used in production of milling equipment, were accessible within a short walking distance. Use of clearly exotic, nonlocal tool stone was extremely minor at the site locality, consisting of one flake of obsidian and six of jasper, that could have derived from traded material or from a traded tool. CERAMICS By David Largo Three principal kinds of vessels were found at the larger sites; cooking, storage, and water. In addition, a very small number of food bowl fragments were counted and two rare fragments of scoops (Table 40). Of the 6 loci with 30 or more sherds, storage vessels Table 40. Distribution of Pottery Vessel Types by Locus Number of Vessels b T e Locus No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 or 2 2 or 3 7 Total 322-01 3 1 4 322-02 3 a 2 1 9 322-03 3 1 2 1 7 322-04 10 13 5 P1 1 1 30 322-05 21 27 22 1 4 1 76 322-06 4 2 6 322-07 38 53 50 2 1 1 8 154 322-08 5 6...... 10- - _ _ 1- _ 1 23 322-10 1 6 1 1 3 12 322-13 2 2 322-14 1 4 322-15 1 1 322-16 1 1 322-17 2 2 322-19/21 27 33 23 2 3 88 322-20 1 1 2 322-21 2 2 322-22 3 2 5 322-23 ]. 1 2 322-24 1 2 1 3 Vessel type: 1 = cooking vessel; 2 = storage vessel; 3 = water jar; 4 = small bowl or shallow bowl; b = bowl; b =scoop; , = umaennne. 82 ill 000i Table 40. Distribution of Pottery Vessel Types by Locus (Cont.) Number of Vessels b T e Locus No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 or 2 2 or 3 7 Total 322-25 67 162 88 2 2 1 8 330 322-26 14 8 3 25 322-27 4 11 9 3 3 30 322-28 3 3 322-29 2 1 3 322-30 2 2 4 Isolates 1 1 2 4 Grand Total 202 343 229 7 3 2 11 1 34 832 Vessel type: 1 = cooking vessel; 2 = storage vessel; 3 = water jar; 4 = small bowl or shallow bowl; 5 = bowl; 6 = scoop; 7 = unidentified. Table 41. Distribution of Pottery Vessel Types at Six Larger Loci Number and Percents a of Vessels b T e Locus No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 or 2 2 or 3 7 Total 322-04 10 13 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 30 % 33.3 43.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 100.0 322-05 21 27 22 0 0 0 1 4 1 76 % 27.6 35.5 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.3 1.3 100.0 322-07 38 53 50 2 1 1 0 1 8 154 % 24.7 34.4 32.5 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 5.2 100.0 322-19/21 27 33 23 2 0 0 0 0 3 88 % 30.7 37.5 26.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 100.0 322-25 67 162 88 2 2 0 0 1 8 330 % 20.3 49.1 26.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 100.0 322-27 4 11 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 30 % 13.3 36.7 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Other " 35 44 32 1 0 0 1 1 10 124 % 28.2 35.5 25.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 8.1 100.0 Grand Total 202 343 229 7 3 1 2 11 34 832 % 24.3 41.2 27.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.3 4.1 100.0 Vessel type: 1 = cooking vessel; 2 = storage vessel; 3 = water jar; 4 = small bowl or shallow bowl; b = bowl; 6 = scoop; / = mudennnea. - Total for all isolates and loci with fewer than 30 identified vessels. predominate in every case (Table 41; Fig. 9). The second most frequent type varies between water jars (4 loci) and cooking vessels (2 loci). Prior to the analysis it was thought that water jars would probably be mostly buff ware, because of the fineness of the clay and lack of large temper, enabling the potter to produce very thin walls. Conversely, the cooking pots should be mainly brownware with the coarseness and large temper providing thick walls with thermal resistant properties. Both types of clay were found at virtually all the loci (Table 42), and the analysis revealed that all three vessel types are made from both kinds of clay. There is statistical trend, which perhaps further studies can confirm or refute, that --as expected -- cooking vessels as a group have a higher percentage of brownware pots, storage vessels the second highest, and water jars the lowest, but the range from highest to lowest is not great --from 78% to 68% (Table 43). 11� 83 000i-(' Figure 9. Distribution of pottery vessel types at the six loci where more than 30 vessels were identified. (Cf. Table 41) Table 42. Distribution of Potte T es b Locus Locus No. Brown- ware Buff- ware Total Locus No. Brown- ware Buff - ware Total 322-01 3 1 4 322-19/21 73 15 88 322-02 5 4 9 322-20 2 0 2 322-03 4 3 7 322-21 0 2 2 322-04 28 2 30 322-22 5 0 5 322-05 49 27 76 322-23 1 1 2 322-06 5 1 6 322-24 1 2 3 322-07 135 19 154 322-25 198 132 330 322-08 19 4 23 322-26 21 4 25 322-10 10 2 12 322-27 26 4 30 322-13 2 0 2 322-28 1 2 3 322-14 2 2 4 322-29 3 0 3 322-15 0 1 1 322-30 2 2 4 322-16 1 0 1 Isolate 2 2 4 322-17 2 0 2 Grand Total 600 232 832 Table 43. Comparison of Vessel Types by Pottery Type _ Vessel Type T e of Potte Brownware % But fware °/u Total Cooking Vessel 157 77.7 45 22.3 202 Storage Vessel 243 70.8 100 29.2 343 Water Jar 156 68.1 73 31.9 229 Other 17 70.8 7 29.2 24 Unidentified 27 79.4 7 20.6 34 Grand Total ±2LL 72.1 232 27.9 832 113 84 019000) J FIRED CLAY By Harry Quinn An examination of partially fired silty clay pieces is part of an on -going research effort to explain these ubiquitous yet poorly understood phenomena. OVERVIEW More than 500 pieces of fired clay were recovered from this project area. Fired clay was recovered from almost every site investigated. The clay is generally tabular in shape, fragmented, and often in a friable condition. Many of the fragments are too small and/or too deteriorated to reconstruct any possible past usage. Some of the clay may be naturally occurring, not representing cultural activities. As evidence of this, during the excavation of the deep unit (Unit 15) at Locus 322-21, a silty clay lens was encountered at about 100 cm below grade. This silty clay varied in thickness from two to three centimeters and had some scattered vertical sand -filled borings running through it. During the surface collecting at Locus 322-6, several pieces of burned clay were found to be between 2 and 3 cm thick and to contain vertical sand filled borings like those found in the clay lens of the deep unit. One large area of burned clay and charcoal was found to be partially exposed in Locus 322-21. The burned clay formed a surface feature that was reddish brown on the crop and dark gray to black on the bottom. A unit (Unit 18) was dug through this feature. It revealed a lot of charcoal scattered along the top surface of the clay feature and nothing of apparent cultural origin below it. The geometry of the clay feature resembles that of the clay lens found in nearby Unit 15. The clay appears to have been fired from the top down, and the presence of the charcoal along the upper surface of the feature indicates that this feature probably resulted from a fire that burned on top of a natural clay lens that was exposed at the surface. When the clay pieces are sandblasted, the resulting surface tends to accentuate the bedded nature of the fired clay. The same, or very similar, bedded texture can be seen it water derived silty clays deposited by local rains in some blowout areas of the present- day dunes and within what is interpreted to have been ponded sediment areas. This suggests that at least some of this fired clay is of natural origin. However, for the most part, the clay pieces appear to be culural in origin, being closely associated with artifact scatters, fire -affected rock, shell, and lithic debitage. Almost all of the fired clay fragments contain no temper and are too silty for the manufacture of pottery. Since the clay has been fired or partially fired, it cannot be ground and used as a clay paste in future ceramic manufacturing. It could, however, be crushed and used for temper. Some of the fired clay pieces contain tube -like structures, usually perpendicular and/or parallel to the clay bedding. These tubes tend to be small and straight, like that of twigs, 85 114 0000' 0 1 roots, grasses, or earthworm burrows. These structures can be found in all of the clay types listed below. On a few pieces, the tube -like structures are actually curved and three were found to be branching. Some of the tubes have a white caliche-like lining, indicating that they were animal burrows. However, similar caliche coatings were noted around roots in the clay zones exposed during nearby borrow pit grading. Two samples had wall structures that indicate a branch -like structuring. Pieces of this clay are also reddish brown on one side and gray to blackish on the other side. No samples were found that showed the dark clay portion to be in a core position, indicating they were fired from only one side. PROPOSED TYPOLOGY The clay pieces are subdivided into different types as follows: 1. Massive, blocky Most of the clay is a massive form that breaks blocky to splintery. Most of the material with the vertical sand -filled burrows falls within this type. These pieces have a reddish brown color on one side and are medium to (lark gray on the other side. Only one sample was found that showed the dark clay to be in a core position, indicating that it were fired from both sides. Most of the material only shows firing from one side. 2. Thin bedded, platy The second most common variety is a thin bedded clay that separates along the bedding. This forms a series of thin platy clay remains that break up very easily when touched. This appears to be the most fragile of the different clay types, and it seldom holds together after being collected. These pieces also have a reddish brown color on one side and are medium to dark gray on the other side. No samples were found that showed the dark clay to be in a core position, indicating they were fired from one side. 3. Irregular, vuggy Some pieces have a vuggy to very vuggy texture, similar to i:hat of a vesicular basalt or scoria. These pieces also have a reddish brown color on one side and are medium to dark gray on the other side. No samples were found that showed the dark clay to be in a core position, indicating they were fired from one side. Some of these have been oddly shaped/sculptured by wind blown sand abrasion. One kind of clay artifact, perhaps too few in number to be considered a type or class, is a fired clay ball. Thus far, only four of the burned clay pieces examined exhibit an exterior surface that looks as if the silty clay had been formed into a ball -shaped object before firing. These have a reddish brown exterior with a rounded medium to dark gray core, indicating they were fired from all surfaces. POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS The Archaeological Advisory Group, in their report on the Burning Dune Site, did a rather detailed investigation of fired clay (Brock and Smith 1998: 63-65). Culturally, clay 1 r.• 86 GWOO 99 has been reported to have been used in a variety of ways. According to Bean (1972:60) animal carcasses were encased in wet clay and then baked in a fire. Trippel (1889) observed the Yumans encasing fish in wet clay and then baking them. However, none of the over 300 samples examined thus far have had any identifiable skin, hair, or fish scale imprints. Clay was also used in the construction of a kish, or house, by waddle and daub construction and as possible flooring material. It was also used to seal the basket granaries used to store mesquite beans (Barrows 1900:38; Bean 1972:72). One possible origin for this fired clay that has not been found mentioned in other publications is as a lining for fire pits. If one has ever cooked over an open camp fire in loose sand, one can see the advantage of lining the fire pit with something that would harden and keep the sand from flowing into the fire. Such a use may be supported by the large volume of this fired clay that is present in the mesquite dune sites of the La Quinta area. This fired clay is also commonly associated with fire -affected rocks and charcoal, in fact at Locus 322-18 only fired clay, charcoal, and fire -affected rocks were recovered. Except for one sherd, Locus 322-15 only produced fired clay, charcoal, and fire -affected rocks. The presence of fired clay with fire -affected rocks and charcoal was also observed at Loci 322-7, 322-13, and 322-21. Most of the fired clay exhibits burning from one side only, a characteristic that could also support a fire pit origin. At least three pieces of what appears to be fired clay balls were found along with the other generally flat textured types of fired clay. These could have been used in place of rocks to lift the cooking utensil off the bottom of the pit. Since a fire hearth would only have been used for a season at the most, or for perhaps a much shorter time of a day or two, a new hearth would have been required for the next visit and every visit after that. Thus, numerous areas of fired clay would have been produced over time. DESCRIPTIONS OF COLLECTED SAMPLES Descriptions of clay samples from five loci are presented here as examples of the variations found between loci and within a single locus. Locus 322-21: Surface Collected near Trench 15 A total, of twenty_ pieces. of fired clay greater that one cubic centimeter in size were collected from Locus 322-21. One piece was found to have a gray interior and reddish brown on both sides and also on both ends. This site contained both the thin bedded and vuggy types of fired clay. Some of the cracks in the clay are at right angles to the bedding and appear to be typical clay shrinkage cracks. Locus 322-15: Surface Sample 2 A total of two hundred and thirty-nine pieces of fired clay greater than one cubic centimeter were collected from Locus 322-15. This site contained both massive and vuggy types of fired clay. Most of the samples are of the massive type. Both types contain tubular structures that cut through at different angles to the bedding. Most are nearly parallel or perpendicular to the bedding. Some of the smaller tube -like 116 87 0001.30 structures exhibit a white calcareous lining, indicating that they are probably of organic origin. At least two of the samples have tubular structures that appear to bifurcate, or branch. At least two wall patterns were noted and both of these appear to be of organic origin. The massive type fired clay contains a number of very small air holes. These could be natural or they could result from someone scraping up the clay and redepositing it without working out the air bubbles. None of the tube -like structures were found to be greater than five millimeters in diameter, with the majority of them being three millimeters or less. Locus 322-7: Surface Sample 175 A total of sixty-eight pieces of fired clay greater than one cubic centimeter were collected from Locus 322-7. It was from the analysis at this site that the fired clay types were first proposed. The site had two pieces of clay ball and numerous pieces of the massive, thin bedded, and vuggy types. Tubular structures, like those found at 322-15, were found to be present in all but the ball type at this site. Locus 322-6: Surface Sample 14 A total of one hundred and three pieces of fired clay greater than one cubic centimeter were collected from this site. This had massive to thin bedded fired clay with sand - filled burrows running perpendicular to the bedding. This clay was in flat chunks about 1.5 to 2 centimeters thick. The burrows were between 1 and 1.5 centimeter!" in diameter. The thickness of the clay pieces and the diameter of the sand -filled burrows was found to be about the same as that found in a thin clay lens in the deep unit at Locus 322-21. This site contained multiple samples of the massive, thin -bedded, and vuggy types of fired clay. Locus 322-3 A total of eighty-one pieces of fired clay greater than one centimeter were collected from this site. This site had samples of only the massive and thin -bedded types. Pieces of both types exhibited tubular structures like those described above. One sample from this site may have been of the ball type, but because of weathering it cannot be positively assigned to that type. Most of the tubular structures found in the fired clay samples appear to be worm burrows. Some look like they were formed by roots growing into the clay for water. Still others resemble casts created by branches. LAG GRAVEL DEPOSITS By Harry Quinn Of interest was the discovery of the presence of a small pebble lag gravel developed at an elevation of 42 to 50 feet and near the contact between the MaD and MaB, as napped in the soil survey (Knecht 1980). This lag gravel is commonly associated with some fist 88 1 00()101 and small mammal bone and occasionally some mussel (Anadonta sp.) shell fragments. As mapped, the MaB appears to correspond with lake bed and/or slough deposits and the MaD with mesquite dune sand deposits. This lag gravel appears to be developed along the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, as it contains locally abundant small bone fragments, fish vertebrae, and Anadonta sp. shell fragments. The gravel was probably washed down the Whitewater River and deposited near the mouth of a delta that formed where the river entered the lake. The small gravel was then moved by longshore currents southerly along the lake shore and distributed along the beach by wave action. Of greater interest was the finding of a small pebble lag gravel within portions of the dune complex itself, well above the 42-feet elevation assumed for the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla. This gravel had no associated bone and may have been brought in along a distributary channel associated with the Whitewater River Delta/Dune Complex. However, it could also represent a shoreline feature from an older high lake stand. Other lag gravels have developed in place from the disintegration of mica -rich, coarse - grained granitic rocks. These gravels are commonly found associated with fire pits/fire hearths. Granitic rocks contain a high percentage of biotite mica, which burning alters, causing it to lose its ability to hold the rock grains together. This allows the rock to fall apart, leaving a gravel -like deposit. The character of these three types of lag gravels can often be distinguished by their shape and composition. The lacustrine and fluvial lag gravels tend to be subangular and to contain fragments of both igneous and fine-grained metamorphic rocks. They also were found to contain minor amounts of the mineral sphene. The ones of lacustrine origin were found to contain fish otoliths and small snail shell fragments. The grains in lag gravels that formed from the disintegration of burned micaceous granitic rocks tend to be angular and to consist mainly of large white feldspar grains. These gravels often exhibit evidence of burning and tend to be associated with areas containing charcoal and burned sand. LAG BONE DEPOSITS By Harry Quinn A number of the interdune blowout areas are covered by thin localized deposits of bleached rodent bone fragments containing some Anadonta sp. shell fragments and minor amounts of small fish vertebra and/or flakes. Some of the bone is burned; however, most is not. When excavating through these lag bone deposits, it was noted that about the only thing found was scattered rodent bone and an occasional Anadonta sp. shell fragment. Debate continues as to whether these bone scatters are cultural in nature or produced by natural causes. The areas within the mesquite dunes 11� 89 0001 are commonly highly disturbed by rodent burrow activity and these areas produce a larger that average amount of unburned rodent bone when screened. At times the mesquite has been burned and the rodent bone fragments found associated with these burned area can also be burned. These lag bone deposits tend to lack any associated gravel, but a few were found to contain small flakes of chert and/or wonderstone. Because of their size, shape, and weight, the Anadonta sp. shell fragments, fish vertebra, and flakes may be blown into the area by the same wind that removes the sand to expose the bone fragments. ROCK By Harry Quinn In a sand dune environment, it must be assumed that any rocks that can not be moved by wind or local sheet wash represent some form of cultural activity. Rocks, other than groundstone, were only surface collected from a couple of sites. Field observations indicate that a large percentage of the rocks present at the various sites have been fire affected. Most exhibit various degrees of heating, but a few have been heated to the point where they crumble when touched. In some cases these crumbling rocks appear to have been subjected to high temperature and in other cases it appears that the disintegration is a function of the rock type. Since the vast majority of the rocks present are fire affected, it must be assumed that they were used for some method of cooking. Many of the groundstone fragments tend to be about the same size as the other rocks present at these sites. Like the other rocks, most of them are also fire affected.. These groundstone fragments may not represent food preparation tools broken during use at these localities, but may instead be groundstone fragments carried in for cooking purposes. For anyone who has done much camping in the desert, the presence of fire -affected rocks should not come as a surprise. Anyone who has tried to cook over a campfire in soft sand knows the value of rocks, or a grate, to get their cooking utensil up out the fire. Most of the fire affected rocks present at this locality are of a proper size to lift a cooking utensil up off the fire, but are not too large to have been easily hand carried in from the nearby mountains. Basically it takes a minimum of three rocks to prop a utensil above the ashes and to allow one to add wood to the fire under that utensil. Depending on the size and shape of the utensil, it may take five or six rocks to do the job. If these rocks were carried in for cooking purposes, there would have been no reason to carry them out after they were used. Thus, the rocks would just be left behind after each camping trip. If new rocks were brought in for each camping trip and :some of them did not get used and some of the older rocks were found and reused, this could account for the presence of rocks ranging from unburned to very heavily fire affected. 90 0001 11 BURIED SITE DUNE PROFILE Detailed descriptions of rocks, mostly fire -affected, from the buried site in the dune profile are given here to facilitate comparison with the rocks found on the surface sites, in this case Locus 3. Tier 5 1. Quartz Diorite: Medium grained; medium gray; exhibits weak foliation; contains plagioclase, possible orthoclase, biotite, and quartz; Fire -affected, more on one side than the other; Medium small size. 2. Quartz Diorite: Coarse grained; medium gray; exhibits some foliation; one flat surface is almost a biotite schist; contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and. quartz; Slightly fire -affected; Medium size. 3. Granulite: Medium grained; Dark gray brown to reddish brown; exhibits weak foliation; contains plagioclase, orthoclase, biotite, and quartz; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 4. Quartzite: Fine to medium grained, Dark gray and tan; Foliated; Contains quartz, biotite, and feldspar; Unburned; Medium size. 5. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black, medium to coarse grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Medium size. 6. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black, medium to coarse grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Medium size. 7. Granulite: Mottled light gray, tan, brown, and gray green; Medium to coarse grained; Contains feldspar, quartz, biotite, and epidote; Slightly fire -affected; Medium small size. 8. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black, medium to fine grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Mediurr size. 9. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black, Medium grained, Contains Plagioclase, Biotite, and Quartz; Moderately fire -affected; Small size. 10. Epidote and Quartz: Mottled and banded green and white; Contains epidote, milky quartz, and minor clear quartz; Dike material; Unburned; Small size. 91 0 1 0 0 1 C 4 11. Biotite Quartz Diorite Gneiss: Banded dark gray and white; Fine to medium grained; Well foliated; Contains Feldspar, quartz, and biotite; Cut by thin milky quartz veinlets; Unburned; Small size. 12. Biotite Quartz Diorite Gneiss: Dark gray to black with some dark gray bands; Moderately foliated; Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz; Moderately fire -affected; Small size. 13. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Medium gray; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation and is locally porphyritic; Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz;: Unburned Small size. 14.• Diorite -Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains feldspar with minor quartz and biotite; Moderately fire -affected; Medium small size. 15. Diorite -Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains feldspar with minor quartz and biotite; Moderately fire -affected; Small size. 16. Diorite -Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains feldspar with minor quartz and biotite; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 17. Diorite -Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains feldspar with minor quartz and biotite; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Small size. 18. Diorite -Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to fine grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains feldspar with minor quartz and biotite with some of the plagioclase and biotite altering to chlorite; Moderately fire -affected; Small size. 19. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black, medium to coarse grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Small size. Tier 6 1. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Medium to dark gray; Coarse grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains plagioclase, biotite, and quartz with plagioclase and biotite locally altering to chlorite; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Medium size. 2. Quartzite: Dark gray to black with some rusty brow coatings; Fine to medium grained; Contains quartz, feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Small size. 121 92 U00]L�j5 3. Quartz and Feldspar Dike: White to tan with iron oxide staining; Coarse grained; Contains quartz, feldspar, and a few brown garnets; Unburned; Medium small size. 4. Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to coarse grained; Contains plagioclase, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Small size. 5. Quartzite: Dark gray to dark gray brown; Fine to medium grained; Contains quartz, feldspar and biotite; Moderately fire -affected; Medium small size. 6. Quartz Diorite Dike Material and Quartz Diorite: Medium gray to black; Medium grained to cryptocrystalline; Black chill zone of unidentified cryptocrystalline material in a medium to coarse grained Quartz Diorite; Unburned; Medium size. Tier 7 1. Quartz Biotite Schist: Dark gray to black; Contains biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Moderately to heavily fire -affected; Crumbly on one surface; Large size. 2. Quartzite: Dark gray, tan, and black; Fine to medium grained; Contains quartz, biotite, and feldspar; Moderately fire -affected; Medium size. 3. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Medium to coarse grained; Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Small size. 4. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Medium to fine grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Unburned; Has a caliche coating on one face; Small size. 5. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Coarse to medium grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Slightly fire -affected; Medium size. 6. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Coarse to medium grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 7. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Coarse to medium grained; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 8. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Coarse to medium grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 122 93 0(1��vf� 9. Biotite Quartz Diorite Porphyry: Mottled dark gray and white; Coarse to medium grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Contains plagioclase, orthoclase?, biotite, and quartz with some plagioclase altering to chlorite; Slightly fire -affected; Small size. 10. Quartz Feldspar Epidote Dike: White with green and gray green bands and inclusions; Altered in some areas to resemble a hornfels; Weathers with a honeycomb -like surface with milky quartz coating; Slightly fire -affected on one end, Medium size. 11. Meta -Volcanic Porphyry: Dark gray on weathered surface and brick red on broken surface; Fine grained with some large white feldspar crystals, Cortex surface indicates it was a stream cobble before being fire cracked; Caliche coating on at least three surfaces; Medium size. 12. Quartz Biotite Schist: Medium Gray to Black; Locally may be a gneiss, Heavily fire - affected on one side; Large size; appears to be a metate fragment Tier 8 1. Biotite Quartz Diorite Gneiss: Banded light gray and black; medium to coarse grained, Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz; Slightly fire -affected; Medium large size. 2. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray to black; Coarse grained; Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly, Small size. 3. Meta -Volcanic (Basalt?) Porphyry: Dark gray to black, Vesicular and porphyritic; Caliche coating on two side; Unfired; Small size. Tier 9 1. Biotite Quartz Feldspar Gneiss: Banded light gray and black; Well Foliated; Breaks along foliation; Unburned; Medium size; appears to be a metate fragment. 2. Quartz Feldspar Biotite Gneiss: Banded light gray and dark gray; Well foliated; Breaks along foliation; Unburned; Medium size. 3. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Dark gray and white, Coarse grained; Exhibits weak foliation; Unburned; Small size. 4. Quartzite: Dark gray to brown; Fine to medium grained; Poorly foliated; Unburned; Small size. The rocks found in Tiers 7, 8, and 9 probably slumped down from the once -intact: cultural zone in Tiers 5 and 6. As mentioned, when the base of the dune was cleared by tractor, there was no cultural zone behind Tiers 7, 8, and 9. 1— 123 94 000.11"17 322-3 SURFACE SCRAPE 1. Quartz Feldspar Biotite Gneiss: Banded light gray and white; Medium to coarse grained; Breaks along foliation; Contains quartz, feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Large size. 2. Quartz Feldspar Biotite Gneiss: Banded light gray and white with a tan colored weathered surface; Medium to coarse grained; Breaks along foliation; Contains quartz, feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Large size. 3. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 4. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 5. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Medium gray to black; Coarse grained; Contains plagioclase, biotite, and quartz; Moderately fire -affected, mainly on one side; Large size. 6. Arkosic Sandstone: Light tan gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 7. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Medium gray to black; Coarse to medium grained; Contains plagioclase, biotite, and quartz; Slightly fire -affected; Large size. 8. Biotite Quartz Diorite: Medium to fine grained; Medium gray to black; Contains feldspar, biotite, and quartz; Moderately fire -affected; Medium large size. 9. Quartz Hornblende Biotite Schist: Dark gray to black with some white specks; Course to medium. grained; Dense; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 10. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 11. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 12. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. .124 95 Ly "i 13. Quartz Hornblende Biotite Schist: Dark gray to black with some white specks; Course to medium grained; Dense; Moderately fire -affected; Medium large sire; Fits onto number 9. 14. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 15. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse ;grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Medium large size. 16. Arkosic Sandstone: Dark gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Medium small size. 17. Quartz Biotite Schist: Tan to black; Contains biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Heavily fire -affected; Crumbly; Medium small size. 18. Quartz Feldspar Biotite Gneiss: Banded dark gray and black; Medium to coarse grained; Breaks along foliation; Contains quartz, feldspar, and biotite; Slightly fire - affected; Large size. 19. Arkosic Sandstone: Light gray to black; Medium gray; Medium to coarse grained; Subangular to subrounded; Massive to poorly bedded; Well indurated to locally friable; Moderately fire -affected; Large size. 20. Quartz Biotite Schist: Tan to black; Contains biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Moderately fire -affected; Medium small size. 21. Quartz Biotite Schist: Tan to black; Contains biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Moderately fire -affected; Small size. 22. Quartz Feldspar Biotite Gneiss: Banded dark gray and black; Medium to coarse grained; Breaks along foliation; Contains quartz, feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Small size. 23. Quartzite: Gray to Gray green to tan on weathered surfaces; Fine to medium grained; Massive to poorly foliated; Contains quartz with minor feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Large size. 24. Quartzite: Gray to Gray green to tan on weathered surfaces; Fine to medium grained; Massive to poorly foliated; Contains quartz with minor feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Medium large size. 96 00011 Ej9 25. Quartzite: Gray to Gray green to tan on weathered surfaces; Fine to medium grained; Massive to poorly foliated; Contains quartz with minor feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Large size. 26. Quartzite: Gray to Gray green to tan on weathered surfaces; Fine to medium grained; Massive to poorly foliated; Contains quartz with minor feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Medium small size. 27. Quartzite: Gray to Gray green to tan on weathered surfaces; Fine to medium grained; Massive to poorly foliated; Contains quartz with minor feldspar, and biotite; Unburned; Small size. 28. Quartz Diorite: Medium gray to black; Coarse grained, Exhibits weak foliation; Moderately fire -affected; Medium large size. 29. Quartz Biotite Schist: Dark gray to black; Contains Biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Moderately fire -affected; Large size; appears to be a metate fragment. 30. Quartz Biotite Schist: Dark gray to black; Contains Biotite, quartz, and feldspar; Moderately fire -affected; Large size; appears to be a mano fragment. To summarize, the most interesting difference between the two sets of rocks is the presence of meta-volcanics in the buried site and the presence of sandstone in the surface sites. All the other rocks are typical and local, but the meta-volanics and sandstone had to have been imported. RESEARCH DESIGN REVISITED Having presented the results of multiple lines of research, the findings are now applied to the original research design in an attempt to further flesh out the picture of Native lifeways at ancient Lake Cahuilla. CHRONOLOGY The question of recent chronology, or the dating of the surface sites at Rancho La Quinta, has not been answered because no charcoal samples were found that: could clearly be tied to the ceramics, burned bone, chipped stone and other indicators of site occupation. Ties to the last high stand of the ancient lake are clear when the faunal remains contain high percentages of fish remains and water fowl, but these sites had nc intact stratigraphy that would place the charcoal with the artifacts. Mesquites burn by man-made fires as well as natural, and charcoal often exists in non -cultural contexts in these dunes. The charcoal could have been dated, but the date would not necessarily reflect the age of the artifacts. One set of faunal remains suggests that the Rancho La Quinta sites may have been occupied at different times, when the lake was there and when it was not. Locus 322-3 97 126 00011( Y shows 95% mammal remains and only 3% fish, suggesting the area provided important food resources, even when the lake's contribution was minimal. Before and after the high water years, abundant mesquite would have provided significant shelter for rabbit and other mammals, drawing Native hunters and collectors to the area, with or without the lake being present. In one buried site, charcoal was found that corresponds to a layered cultural deposit. At Locus 322-13, where a dune profile was excavated to expose deeply laid artifacts, two radiocarbon dates were obtained. They produced dates remarkably close to each other, approximately 165 B.C. and 150 B.C. Fish bone, fire -affected rock, and chipped stone artifacts were found in this deposit, clearly pointing to Indian occupation more than 2000 years ago, at another more distant time when the ancient lake was full. SUBSISTENCE Although Native visitors to the ancient lakeshore exploited the fish and waterfowl available to them, their dominant meat source was in fact small mammals, mainly cottontail rabbits and rodents. The marshes, bogs, bays, and sloughs would have provided restricted quiet water areas where fish could have been trapped and mussels collected. These areas probably supported growths of reeds and other aquatic plants that provided food and shelter for migratory water fowl. Heavy plant growth around. the lake made an excellent environment for small mammals, and could account: for the dominance of cottontail over jack rabbit. As Wake points out in his conclusions (see "Faunal Analysis," above), jack rabbits tend to be more frequent in desert environments, and cottontails prefer brushy areas. The cottontails could have been taken by driving them out of their protected cover onto the sand dune points that jutted into the lake. Rodents would have been caught in traps and roasted. At 322-3, 95% of the food remains are mammal and only 3% fish, while at nearby 322-1: fish outnumber mammals 54% to 40%. The balance of the loci represent ranges of percentages lying between these two extremes. It is interesting that the site with the highest percentage of rabbit bone also had the greatest number of chipped stone pieces. Perhaps there is a correlation between rabbit preparation and the use of stone cutting tools for butchering and preparing them. The faunal analysis has lead to some interesting findings regarding procurement strategies. For one, it appears that fish were netted with large mesh nets. Fish bone is too plentiful to be accounted for by hunting with arrows or harpoons. The massive numbers suggest large-scale capture, i.e., the use of nets; and the complete absence of small fish bone, in particular fingerling size, indicates the use of large -mesh nets. Another food strategy indicated by the analysis is the importing of meat from outside the area. Wake, in his conclusions presented above, points out that big horn sheep meat was consumed (to a very small extent), but that it was probably imported, most likely in the form of leg bones. If sheep had been killed locally, there would have been a variety of skeletal remains at the sites, but at the Rancho La Quinta property, only leg bone remains were found. 127 98 000111 In summary, the Cahuilla came to the lakeshore not primarily for the fish and waterfowl, but mainly for the small game living on the land around the lake, and they certainly may have been visiting the area even when the lake was in recession. Such a rich environment attracted first the hunters' prey, and then the hunters themselves. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS All indications from the present study support the temporary camping hypothesis over the permanent village. Common sense would say that if rabbit hunting was a high priority, one would not camp in the very place where the game was. If fishing and waterfowl hunting were paramount, it might make sense to settle on the shoreline, but the faunal analysis has shown that rabbit hunting took precedent. The shoreline was used as a resource area, but not a place for day-to-day living. The almost total dearth of groundstone is another indicator that the Rancho La Quinta property was not a permanent or even semi -permanent settlement. Village sites always leave high numbers of manos and metates behind. As Quintero concludes in the lithic analysis (see above), the chipped stone remains indicate Native land use on a "nonintensive basis by people occupying small temporary camps." The ceramics analysis shows that some cooking was taking place at the camp sites, but it was not the dominant activity. Food storage held a higher priority. Largo interprets the higher percentages of storage vessels as consistent with the temporary camp hypothesis. Persons visiting the area for short stays to collect resources would tend to leave the bulk of the collected resources at the resource area, in storage jars. Only small, easily portable amounts would be carried back to the main camp, as needed. At the main camp, or village site, cooking jars would be in higher number. TRADE Of all the chipped stone recovered from the Rancho La Quinta property, there were only seven small pieces that clearly came from outside the area, a tiny flake of obsidian and six flakes of jasper. All the other chipped stone material is locally available. The small groups, or individuals, that came to the lake brought only locally made items, pots and stone tools, indicating a self-sufficiency and perhaps even isolation from surrounding Native groups to the east and west. Large established villages tend to have high numbers of imported items, especially shell beads and prized chipping stone. The absence of such items once again supports the temporary campsite model of lakeshore life. CLAY Clay analysis has led to a working typology of three basic categories --thin flakey, 'thick blocky, and irregular vuggy--as explained above. These preliminary groupings shall be elaborated and refined as work continues at other sites in the region. ti The clay was not collected for ceramics manufacture. It is too silty for the making; of pottery. Inspection of hundreds of pieces of clay from Rancho La Quinta makes anothei point very clear. The clay was not shaped by hand. A very high percentage of the piece,, have small tubular cavities, both from animal action, such as worm borings, and root growth. If the clay had been collected wet and mashed together, these holes would no longer exist. The clay appears to have been collected in its natural state and thus used, without modification. Careful inspection found no traces of fish scales or impressions that would be left: if wet clay had been wrapped around fish or small game for roasting purposes. Neither finger prints, palm prints, impressions of sticks, nor any other indications of shaping were found. The absence of such markers rules out its use as daub, flooring, or lining, at least at the Rancho La Quinta sites. All indications are that the clay was collected dry or at least in a very hard state. 'The suggestion that Quinn makes in the analysis section --that the clay may have been used in lieu of rocks as fire pit liners --fits all the findings very well. At least the thick blocky kind, if used in pits, would keep food and vessels off the sand, allowing the heat and flames to circulate underneath. This is a reasonable hypothesis, worthy of consideration, that could be testable in subsequent investigations. ROCK Both the Tier excavations and the surface collections found some rock that was not local. This would suggest that rocks were selected for certain properties that were important, probably having to do with cooking or heating. It is unclear why the vast majority of the rocks are the local variety, but sandstones and volcanics were brought in. More research is needed along these lines of inquiry. For the most part, the fire - affected rock appears to have been used as fire -pit liners, or supports for cooking vessels. FUTURE DIRECTIONS As always in archaeology, as some questions get answered, new ones arise. The findings presented here suggest new possible research goals and strategies in the future. RADIOCARBON DATING OF FISH BONE In order to date surface sites where there is little or no stratigraphy, quantities of fish bone could be dated by radiocarbon means. In sites near the shoreline, yet higher than 42 feet elevation, fish bones are clearly cultural in origin, whereas rodent or small mammal bone may be naturally occurring from die -offs. Dried and/or burned fish bone have very little collagen for dating purposes (three recent samples of individual fish vertebrae were rejected by Beta Analytic as have insufficient organic material to obtain dates), but a mass of fish bone from a single locus would have the potential to give reliable and useful dates of occupation. 100 129 000113 FINE SCREENING The absence of fingerling size fish bones suggests the use of large mesh netting to capture fish. However, it could also be due to the 1/8 inch screen size used to sift the excavated sands. At least a sample of the excavations in the future should be sifted through finer mesh in search of fingerling bones, in order to substantiate or refute the hypothesis that only mature fish were caught and consumed. CLAY SOURCING Simple field analysis of clay, perhaps at the 10-power lens range of inspection, should be able to tell the researcher if clays are from silty lake bottom deposits, remnant flooding episodes, imported from the mountains, or found in buried layers below the sand dunes. Clay at sites --whether flakey, blocky, or vuggy--may be better interpreted if such guidelines for analysis can be established. POTTERY VESSEL TYPES AT OTHER KINDS OF SITES The analysis of pottery by function rather than technological attributes is new to Coachella Valley archaeology. The relative percentages of cooking -water -storage vessels appear fairly consistent for the temporary short-term camps at the Rancho La Quinta project, but would these percentages change at village sites? David Largo believes that village sites would have a higher percentage of cooking vessels. A good test for this hypothesis would be the Kavanish village in Indian Wells or the unnamed village occupation area along the Whitewater River north of Highway III between Dune Palms Road and Adams Street. Future categorization of pottery finds along the same lines as done at Rancho La Quinta could provide some very interesting comparisons. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS As a general overview, the sites in question represent temporary use areas. The almost complete lack of grinding stones, the very low number of pieces of chipped stone debitage, and the absence of specialize artifacts such as beads, clay pipes, stone cores, etc., lead CRM TECH to agree with the ARU's initial interpretation in 1995. The Rancho La Quinta property appears to have been the site of numerous small scale temporary camps, perhaps over some time period as yet to be determined, but never approaching the scale of a permanent settlement. The vast majority of the excavation units found nothing below the first or second levels. Two exceptions occur. The most obvious is the cremation site, 322-20. This is a site of obvious high significance to the Native American descendants of the former inhabitants of Rancho La Quinta. The presence of over 1200 pieces of bone and no less than 12 arrow points gives this site a particular quality such as "best example of it kind, 101 .130 0 ` 0114 making it fall within Criterion C of CEQA Appendix K. It is of demonstrable public interest to the Cahuilla people and is scientifically consequential based on the number of remains and the associated artifacts, thus meeting Criterion B. It also meets Criterion E of Appendix K and Criterion 4 of the California Register, as it has yielded important information in prehistory. The second site of importance is the deeply buried site at 322-13. This appears to be a pre -ceramic site dating to more than 2000 years ago. To this point, only two or three such sites have been discovered in the Coachella Valley, making this kind of site rare enough to qualify under CEQA Appendix K Criterion C, having a "special or particular quality such as oldest ..." Radiocarbon dates have been obtained and sufficient data have been collected to consider mitigation to be complete. However, this area will be closely watched during the monitoring phase, and any further appearance of this buriec cultural strata will cause diversion in grading activities and intensive data recovery to take place. The balance of the sites are interesting and important in their own right, however it must be said that similar sites are ubiquitous to the old lake shore region. Their cultural and scientific import is considerable and certainly worthy of study, but they do not rise to the level of eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS CRM TECH has completed the testing/mitigation program and recommends a finding that based on the extensive data recovery that has been completed, project effects to archaeological resources has been reduced to levels less than significant. A field survey and a combination of testing and data recovery has been completed at the Rancho La Quinta property. Field work included resurveying and redefining; site boundaries, mapping of all surface artifacts, 100% surface collection of artifacts, completing hand excavation units, collection of surface scrapes, backhoe trenching in search of buried sites, and deep vertical exposure of a dune cut with buried deposits. Artifact analysis is completed including ceramics, lithics, faunal, groundstone, burned clay, and fire -affected rock. Preparation of site records and site record updates is complete, and the presentation of this final report represents the results of testing and data recovery. CRM TECH concludes that all reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate project effects to archaeological resources, and recommends to the City of La Quinta a finding that the proposed project is in compliance with the conditions on cultural resources as defined by CEQA and implemented by the City. 131 102 (i01Jlg, REFERENCES Barrows, David Prescott 1900 The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bass, William M. 1987 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri. Baumhoff, M. A., and J. S. Byrne 1959 Desert Side -Notched Points as a Time Marker in California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 48:32-65. University of California, Berkeley. Bean, Lowell John 1970 Ecological Integration Among the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Binford, Lewis M. 1984 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. Brock, James 1998 Preliminary Draft Archaeological Report on Test and Limited Data. Recovery Programs for the Village on the Green Project, La Quinta, California. Manuscript report on file, City of La Quinta, California. Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 1998 Investigations at the Burning Dune Site (CA-RIV-4754), Avenue 48 Extension/Adams-Street Widening Project, La Quinta, California (Draft). Manuscript report prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, Pioneertown, California. Casteel, Richard W. 1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. Academic Press, New York. Christenson, Lynn E. 1990 Western Mojave Subsistence: Faunal Analysis at the Farm Drop Zone Site LAN-1296, LAN-1158. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 3:365- 379. 132 103 41 A Dill, W. A. 1944 The Fishery of the Lower Colorado River. California Fish and Game 30(3):109-211. Farrell, N. 1988 The Analysis of Human Coprolites from CA-RIV-1179 and CA-RIV-2827. Archives of California Prehistory 20:129-142. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. Follet, William I. 1988 Analysis of Fish Remains from Archaeological Sits CA-RIV-1179, and CA- RIV-2827, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Archives of California Prehistory 20:143-155. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. Gobalet, Kenneth W. 1992 Colorado River Fishes of Lake Cahuilla, Salton Basin, Southern California: A Cautionary Tale for Zooarchaeologists. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 91(2):70- 83. 1994 Additional Evidence for Colorado River Fishes in the Salton Basin of Southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 93(1):38-41. 1997 Personal communication. Gobalet, Kenneth W., and Thomas A. Wake n.d. A Collective Summary of Fish Remains from the Ancient Shores of Lake Cahuilla, Salton Basin, California. Manuscript submitted to Southwestern Naturalist. Hall, Matthew C., and Steven A. Moffitt 1995 Cultural Resources Survey of the Eastern Portion of Parcel 20469, Adjacent to Rancho La Quinta Country Club, Central Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file (MF# 304), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Holden,.P..B., and. C..B._Stalnaker_______ _ 1970 Systematic Studies of the Cyprinid Genus Gila in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Copeia 1970(3):409-420. Holland, Thomas D. 1986 Sex Determination of Fragmentary Crania by Analysis of the Cranial Base. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 70:203-208. Hubbs, Carl L., and R. R. Miller 1948 The Zoological Evidence: Correlation Between Fish Distribution and Hydrographic History in the Desert Basins of the Western United States. Bulletin o) the University of Utah 30:17-166. 133 104 GuU117 Hudson, Jean 1993 Faunal Analysis. In Dicken Everson (ed.): Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations at Sites CA-RIV-3788 and CA-RIV-3789, Located on Tentative Tract 24087 in the Hemet Area of Riverside County California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Hudson, Jean, and Julia Sanchez 1996 Faunal Remains Analysis Results. In Bruce Love (ed.): Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Final Results from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring; pp. 85-99. Manuscript report on file (MF# 4159), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Jahns, R. H. 1954 Geology of the Peninsular Range Province, Southern California and Baja California, Paper 3. In R. H. Jahns (ed.): "Geology of the Natural Provinces," Chapter II of Geology of Southern California; pp. 29-52. California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines (Bulletin No. 170), San Francisco. Jonez, Al, and Robert C. Sumner 1954 Lakes Mead and Mojave Investigations. Nevada Fish and Game Commission, Wildlife Restoration Division. Kaeding, L. R., B. D. Burdick, P. A. Schrader, and W. R. Noonan 1986 Recent Capture of' a Bonytail (Gila elegans) and Observations on this Nearly Extinct Cyprinid from the Colorado River. Copeia 1986(4):1021-1023. Knecht, Arnold A. 1980 Soil Survey of Riverside County, California: Coachella Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Map Sheet No. 11; pp. 15-18, 20-24. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology (Bulletin No. 78), Washington, D.C. Laylander, Don 1995 The Chronology of Lake Cahuilla's Final Stand. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 8:69-78. 1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 33(1/2):1-138. Love, Bruce 1996 Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Filial Results from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring. Manuscript report on file (MF# 4159), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1997 Unpublished paper presented at the 1997 Kelso Conference, Ocotillo, California. 105 1.. 1 134 6001118 Marsh, Paul C., and Diana Papoulias 1987 Digestive Tract Contents of Adult Razorback Suckers in Lake Mojave, Arizona -Nevada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:117-119. Meindl, Richard S., And C. Owen Lovejoy 1985 Ectocranial Suture Closure: A Revised Method for the Determination of Skeletal Age at Death Based on the Lateral -Anterior Sutures. American fournal of Physical Anthropology 68- 57-66. Moffitt, Steven, and Linda Moffitt 1996 Fish Remains Analysis Results. In Bruce Love (ed.): Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Final Results from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring; pp. 99-111. Manuscript report on file (MF# 4159), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Morse, Dan, Jack Duncan, and James Stoutamire 1983 Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology. Rose Printing CO. Tallahassee, Florida. Moyle, Peter B. 1976 Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California) 1994 CEQA and Historical Resources. Governor's Office of Planning and Research Sacramento. Papoulias, Diana, and William L. Minkley 1990 Food Limited Survival of Larval Razorback Suckers, Xyrauchen te:xanus, in the Laboratory. Environmental Biology of Fishes 29:73-78. Riddell, H. S. 1951 The Archaeology of a Piute Village Site in the Owens Valley. University of __California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 12:14-28. University of California, Berkeley. Rockwell, Thomas K 1995 Unpublish lecture given a Coachella Valley Archaeological Society 1997 Personal communication to Bruce Love Rogers, T. H 1965 Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. In R. H. Jahns (ed.): "Geology c the Natural Provinces," Chapter II of Geology of Southern California; pp. 29-52. California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines (Bulletin No. 170), San Francisco. 1 106 t,u0119 Schaefer, Jerry 1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(l):60-80. Stebbins, Robert C. 1985 A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. Sutton, Mark Q. 1991 Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California. Museum of Anthroplogy (Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 1), California State University, Bakersfield. 1993 Archaeological Studies in Rosamond, Western Mojave Desert, California. Museum of Anthroplogy (Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 3), California State University, Bakersfield. 1998 Cluster Analysis of Paloefecal Data Sets: A Test of Late Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Northern Coachella Valley, California. American Antiquity 63(1):86-107. Sutton, Mark Q., and Philip J. Wilke 1988 Archaeological Investigations at CA-RIV-1179, CA-RIV-2823, and CA-RIV- 2827, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Archives of California Prehistory 20. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. Treganza, Adan E. 1945 The "Ancient Stone Fish Traps" of the Coachella Valley, Southern California. American Antiquity 10(3):285-294. Tripple, Eugine J. 1889 The Yuman Indians. Overland Monthly, second series, 13:561-584; 14:1-11. Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1984 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C. Vanicek, C. David, and Robert H Kramer 1969 Life History of the Colorado Squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius, and the Colorado Chub, Gila robusta, in the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument, 1964-1966. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98(2):193-208. 107 00014-:0 Wake, Thomas A. 1996 Faunal Analysis. In Bruce Love (ed.): Archaeological Mitigation Report: Site CA-RIV-5832, on Lapis Energy Property APN 649-030-014, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California; pp. 13-24. Manuscript report on file (MF# 4352), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1997 Identification and Analysis of Vertebrate faunal Remains from CA-RIV-4754, Riverside County, California. In James Brock and Brenda D. Smith (eds.): Investigations at the Burning Dune Site (CA-RIV-4754), Avenue 48 Extension/Adams Street Widening Project, La Quinta, California. Manuscript report prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, Pioneertown, California. 1998 Identification and Analysis of Vertebrate faunal Remains from CA-RIV-6059 and CA-RIV-6060, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report submitted to Archaeological Advisory Group, Pioneertown, California. Waters, Michael R. 1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Quaternary Research 19:373-387. Wilke, Philip J. 1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University of California, Berkeley. 1980 Prehistoric Weir Fishing on Recessional Shorelines of Lake Cahuilla, Salton Basin, Southeastern California. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 11:101-102. White, Timothy D. 1991 Human Osteology, Academic Press, New York. Zooarchaeology Laboratory _1992_ . Appendix C: Faunal Remains. In Dicken Everson (ed.): Excavations at Archaeological Site CA-RIV-3682, City of La Quinta, Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 108 0 () 0 12t APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 109 00011? PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists) Professional history 1993- Owner and Principal, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1990-1993 Director, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside; Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UC Riverside. 1989-1990 Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UCLA. 1987-1990 Owner and Principal, Pyramid Archaeology, Palmdale, California. 1986-1987 Junior Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre -Columbian Research, Washington, D.C. 1981-1986 Part-time cultural resources management consultant; doctoral student at UCLA. Education 1986 Doctor of Philosophy,, Anthropology, UCLA. 1981 Master of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA. 1976 Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA. 1996 "CEQA 101," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1995 "CEQA Workshop," presented by Association of Environmental Professionals. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented. by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "CEQA 1994: Issues, Trends, and Advanced Topics," presented by UCLA Extension. 1990 "Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law," presented by U.S. General Services Administration Training Center. Memberships Society of Professional Archaeologists (certified in field research, teaching, and archaeological administration). Association of Environmental Professionals. American Planning Association. Society for American Archaeology. Society for California Archaeology. Society for Historic Archaeology. American Society for Ethnohistory. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 110 00012 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn Education 1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach. 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington. 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet. 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs. 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert. Professional Experience 1998- Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C.E.S., Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Independent Geological/Archaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines. 1991-1992 Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates, Inc., San Bernardino. 1988-1991 Director of Environmental Services, Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., San Bernardino. 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, JIRSA Environmental Services, Norco. 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, Loco Exploration, Inc., Aurora, Colorado. 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil Exploration and Production, Englewood, Colorado. 1966-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles. Memberships Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (President, 1993-1994; Vice President, 1992, 1995-1997; Basic Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1997). Coachella Valley Historical Society. Southwest Museum. Malki Museum. Publications in Archaeology and History Approximately forty-five articles in the publications of the Southwest Museum, the American Rock Art Research Association, the Colorado Archaeological Society, the Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and the Coachella Valley Historical Society, 1978-1998. 111 00()1:24 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD CREW The crew consists of three members of the Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians, Joe Loya, Landon Duro, and Gary Resvaloso; two Naive Americans with economic affiliation to Torres Martinez, Adrian Duro and Tony Lavato; and a non-Cahuilla with economic affiliation, Antonio Gonzalez. Field Experience (Survey) • Indian Palms Country Club: field survey of ca. 400 acres; identification and flagging; of artifacts at six prehistoric sites. • Coral Mountain Development Project: field survey of ca. 1,279 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 32 prehistoric sites, some with historic components. • State Route 86 Extension: field survey of ca. 30 acres; no sites found. • Palm Hills Specific Plan: field survey of ca. 1,200 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at three historic sites. • Cabazon Resource Recovery Park: field survey of ca. 160 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 13 prehistoric loci. • Tract 26595, Indian Wells: field survey of ca. 20 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 12 prehistoric loci. • St. Francis of Assisi Church Parking Lot Site: field survey of ca. 29 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 3 prehistoric sites. • Tentative Parcel Maps No. 29052/29053: field survey of 50 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at seven prehistoric sites. • Hotel Ill Project Site: field survey of seven acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at a large prehistoric site. • La Quinta Corporate Centre: field survey of 53 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at a large prehistoric site. • Habitat Golf Course: field survey of ca. 1,300 acres. Field Experience (Excavation) Tract 26595, Indian Wells: test excavation and screening at 12 prehistoric loci; completing 24 lxl-m test units and 4 vertical dune profiles. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052: test excavation and screening at three prehistoric sites; completing 10 Ixl-m test units. Hotel 111 Project Site: test excavation and screening at a large prehistoric site; completing 20 1xl-m test units; exposing multiple fire hearth features. Laboratory Experience (Artifact Cataloguing) • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: sorting, counting, and re -bagging level bags from lest excavation. Classroom Training The crew attended classes at Torres Martinez presented by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love, Ph.D., for a total of eight hours. Subjects included the following: anthropology as a sub -field of archaeology, pre -historic vs. historic archaeology, overview of pre -history of desert Southern California, overview of major historical events in early Spanish contact with Native Southern California. In classroom workshops, the crew was trained in reading USGS topographic maps, using an engineering scale, compass reading, and scaled feature drawing a feature using metric tape scale, compass, and gridded note paper. 112 (.il)0125 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF IDENTIFIED VERTEBRATE SPECIES 113 0001 '( Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W 322-00 D.Profile 01-01 Manualia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .06 B 322-03 SST-01 .4natidae radius distal R 1 .05 322-03 SST-01 Anatidae tarsometatarsus distal 1 .03 B 322-03 SST-01 Aves radius distal 1 .02 322-03 SST-01 kves, and tibiotarsus distal 1 .07 322-03 SST-01 2olubridae vertebrae most 3 .13 B 322-03 SST-01 Cypriniformes rib proximal 1 .06 322-03 SST-01 Lepos californicus tarsal,astraglus and fragment L 1 .15 322-03 SST-01 Lepus sp humerus distal R A 1 .24 322-03 SST-01 Marmalia, lg indeterminate fragment 6 2.03 322-03 SST-01 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 13 2.09 B 322-03 SST-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 5 .44 322-03 SST-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 88 3.60 322-03 SST-01 Manvnalia, sm indeterminate fragment 529 21.09 322-03 SST-01 Mammalia, sm metapodial distal A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01 Mamnalia, sm vert,caudal most A A 1 .03 B 322-03 SST-01 Mamnalia, v sm femur head A 1 .01 322-03 SST-01 Mammalia, v sm vert,caudal complete A A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01 Masticophis flagellum vertebrae complete 1 .0 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp cranial alveolar A 1 .05 B 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp femur proximal R A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp femur shaft R A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01 Nectoma sp humerus distal L A 4 .11. 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp humerus proximal epiph R A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01 NeotOma sp innominate, i l ium fragment L A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp tibia proximal L S 2 .08 322-03 SST-01 Nectoma sp tooth,molar complete A 4 .10 322-03 SST-01 Neotoma sp Cf metapodial distal shaft 1 .011 B 322-03 SST-01 Ms canadensis femur distal artic. L 1 .90 322-03 SST-01 Oxyura jamaicensis coracoid distal L 1 .09 322-03 SST-01 Oxyura jamaicensis coracoid distal R 1 .015 322-03 SST-01 Spermophilus beecheyi cranial alveolar R A 1 .O'3 B 322-03 SST-01 Spermophilus beecheyi tibia distal L A 1 .02 B 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp cranial alveolar R A 1 .01 B 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp cranial,premax fragment R A 1 .013 322-03 SST-01 -- 'Sylvilagus"sp - ' -- cranial,premax most 1 .0'7 322-03 SST-01 Syl,lagus sp cranial,zygom fragment R A 1 .OS 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp femur head L A 2 .11 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp metapodial proximal A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp metapodial shaft, proximal A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp phalanx distal+shaft A 1 .02 B 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp phalanx,lst complete A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp phalanx, 1st proximal epiph J 1 .02 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp phalanx, 2nd complete A 2 .02 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp scapula neck R A 1 .09 B 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp ulna proximal notch R A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp vert,caudal complete A A 3 .10 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp vertebrae centrum A A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01 Sylvilagus sp vertebrae centrism A A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01 Thomomys bottae femur head R A 1 .04 114 V 0 01 i Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modlf. Locus unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W --------------- 322-03 SST-01 ----- ------------------------- 'Phomomys buttes femur shaft, distal R 1 1 .04 322-03 SST-01 'Phomomys bottae femur shaft, proximal L A 1 .06 322-03 SST-01 'Phomomys bottae innominate,acet fragment A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01 'Phomomys bottae tibia distal L A 1 .03 B 322-03 SST-01 Xyrauchae ❑exams scapula fragment L 1 .04 322-03 SST-01 Xyrauchen texanos vertebrae 81 most 2 .06 322-03 SST-01 01-04 Xyrauchen texanos interneural bus fragment 1 .05 B 322-03 SST-01-1 Anas sp quadrate most L 1 .09 322-03 SST-01-1 Carnivore mandible fragment 1 .09 322-03 SST-01-1 Catostomidae vertebrae centrum frag 4 .10 322-03 SST-01-1 Catostomidae vertebrae fragment 2 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Colubridas vertebrae fragment 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Colubridae vertebrae fragment 4 .08 322-03 SST-01-1 Colubridae vertebrae most 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Gila elegans vertebrae ®1 centrum 3 .07 322-03 SST-01-1 Lepus sp mandible distal L A 1 .10 B 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .12 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 8 1.01 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm humerus shaft R A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 96 3.51 B 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 400 14.26 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, am metapodial shaft, proximal 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm phalanx fragment 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm phal.,lst most A 2 .lc 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm tarsal,calcaneus shaft L 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, am vert,caudal complete 1 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal most A 4 .15 322-03 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm vertebrae centrum A A 1 .01. 322-03 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith L 2 .13 322-03 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith R 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith,saggita most L 2 .08 322-03 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus vertebrae centrum 2 �05 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp cranial,premax fragment A A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur distal epiph L 1 2 .06 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur head A 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur proximal L A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur proximal L A 1 .09 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur proximal R A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur proximal R A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp femur shaft, proximal R A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp humerus distal R A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp humerus head R A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp tarsal, caleaneus complete R 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp tibia proximal epiph L J 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Neotoma sp tooth,molar complete A 2 .07 322-03 SST-01-1 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 2 .11 322-03 SST-01-1 Spermophilus beecheyi humerus distal L A 1 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Spernophilus beecheyi tibia distal R A 1 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Spervophilus beecheyi Cf tarsal,astraglus complete R A 1 .12 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp cranial,premax fragment L 1 .C9 115 ,CI01 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modlf. Locus unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W 322-03 SST-01-1 sylvilagus sp cranial,premax fragment R A 1 .08 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp cranial,premax most A S 1 .12 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp femur distal A 1 .14 322-03 SST-01-1 sylvilagus sp femur head L A 1 .09 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp mandible ascending ramus R A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp metapodial distal 2 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp metapodial distal A 1 .03 B 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp metapodial proximal A 1 .03 B 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp metapodial proximal+shaft 2 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp metapodial proximal+shaft A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp phalanx,2nd complete A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus as phalarmc,2nd complete A 2 .05 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp phalanx,3rd complete A 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp tarsal,astraglus complete R A 2 .11 322-03 SST-01-1 Sylvilagus sp tarsal,calcaneus distal L A 1 .11 322-03 SST-01-1 'Phomomys bottae femur distal epiph L A 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Thomomys bottae femur distal epiph L S 1 .09 322-03 SST-01-1 Thomomys bottae femur distal+shaft R J 1 .06 322-03 SST-01-1 'Phomomys bottae femur head 1 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Thomomys bottae sacrum fragment A A 1 .13 322-03 SST-01-1 'Phomomys bottae tarsal,astraglus complete L A 1 .01 B 322-03 SST-01-1 'Phomomys bottae tibia proximal spiph L J 1 .02 322-03 SST-01-1 'Purdinae tibiotarsus distal L 1 .01 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrvm fragment 2 .11 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus opercular proximal L 1 .04 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus otolith,saggita complete L 2 .03 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae 81 complete 1 .02 E 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae kl fragment 2 .06 322-03 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus weberian, complex fragment 1 .09 322-03 SST-02 Anatidae coracoid proximal L 1 .19 322-03 SST-02 Artiodactyla tooth enamel 3 .2C 322-03 SST-02 .Nrtiodactyla vert,thoracic arch 1 .2E B 322-03 SST-02 Artiodactyla vertebrae fragment 2 1.24 322-03 SST-02 Fulica americans scapula proximal R 1 .09 322-U3 SST-02 Lopes californicus scapula proximal R 1 .1E 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 50 3.5i 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, lg cranial fragment 2 .5-, 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, lg limb shaft,frag 1 .11. W 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, 1g limb shaft,frag 3 1.28 B 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, lg limb sh.ft,fr.g 21 4.45 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, and limb shaft 4 .60 B 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 14 1.15 322-03 SST-02 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 1 .06 W 322-.03 SST-02 Ovis canadensis fibula complete L 1 .99 322-03 SST-02 Sciuridae cranial,maxilla fragment L 1 .013 322-03 SST-02 Xyrauchen texanus ceratchyal distal L 1 .12 322-03 SST-02 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 1 .06 322-03 SST-02 Xyrauchen texanus epihyal complete R 1 .03 322-03 SST-02 Xyrauchen texamas urohyal complete R 1 .11 322-03 SOB-16 Mammalia, lg limb shaft,frag A 1 1.31) 116 ii a 012 : Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Mod:i f . Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W 322-03 SUR-16 Mammalia, lg tibia shaft,frag A 1 1.32 B 322-03 SUR-16 Ovis canadensis metacarpal medial condyle L A 1 3.09 B 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 Artiodactyla tooth fragment 1 .07 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 Lepus sp carpal fragment 1 .05 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 3 .99 B 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment Y] 2.94 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .11 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 14ammalia, sm limb shaft 2 .19 322-03 Unit-01 01-02 5ylvilagus audubonii cranial,zygom most R 1 .06 322-03 Unit-Ol 01-02 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 1 .09 B 322-03 Unit-Ol 02-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 5 .9"] 322-03 Unit-01 02-02 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 1 .55 322-03 Unit-01 03-04 Artiodactyla carpal complete 1 .57 322-03 Unit-01 03-04 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .08 322-03 Unit-01 03-04 Neotoma lepida humerus most L J 1 .11 322-03 Unit-01 03-04 Spermophilus beecheyi mandible most R S 1 .09 322-03 Unit-01 04-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 5 .74 322-03 Unit-01 04-01 Nectoma lepida tooth fragment 1 .03 322-03 Unit-01 04-01 xyrauchen texanus articular proximal L 1 .04 322-03 Unit-01 06-02 Osteicbthyes fin ray fragment 1 .05 322-03 Unit-01 06-02 .Sylvilagus audubonii cranial,palatine fragment A 1 .04 322-03 Unit-02 02-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .44 B 322-03 Unit-02 02-02 Neotoma lepida tarsal, calcaneus complete 1 .03 322-03 Unit-02 03-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .17 B 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Artiodactyla tooth fragment 1 .17 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Aves indeterminate fragment 4 .13 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Lynx rufus phalanx c.,Vista R 1 .39 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 18 2.48 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Mammalia, 19 indeterminate fragment 2 1.04 322-03 Unit-03 01.-01 Mammalia, am rib shaft 2 .06 322-03 Unit-03 01.-01 Neotoma lepida femur distal epiph R J 1 .06 322-03 Unit-03 01.-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .06 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Rodentia vertebrae centrism A 1 1 .02 322-03 Unit-03 01.-01 Sylvilagus audubonii cranial,premax fragment R 1 .02 322-03 Unit-03 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf vert,caudal most A A 1 .01 322-03 Unit-03 Ol-Cl Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 2 .02 322-03 Unit-03 01.-09 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .24 B 322-03 Unit-03 01.-14 Artiodactyla tooth fragment 1 .02 322-03 Unit-03 02-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 1 .01. 322-03 Unit-03 03-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .21 322-03 Unit-03 04-03 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 1 .01. 322-03 Unit-04 0'--09 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 15 1. 11I 322-03 Unit-04 01-09 Mamma.ia, lg limb shaft 3 1.76 322-03 Unit-04 01-07 Nests. lepida humerus distal L 1 .01. 322-03 Unit-04 01-09 Rodentia cranial,occip fragment 1 .0]- 322-03 Unit-04 01-09 Sylvilagus audubonii tarsal,astraglus complete R 1 .05 322-03 Unit-04 01-09 Sylvile,es audubonii tibia distal R A 1 .113 322-03 Unit-04 01-09 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf femur distal 1 .013 322-03 Unit-04 02-03 Ave. sternum fragment 1 .11 322-03 Unit-04 02-03 Lepus californices femur distal 1 .313 117 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Locus Unit 322-03 Unit-04 322-03 Unit-04 322-03 Unit-04 322-03 Unit-04 322-03 Unit-04 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-05 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-06 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-07 322-03 Unit-15 322-05 Unit-01 322-06 Unit-02 322-06 Unit-04 322-06 Unit-06 Level Taxon 02-03 Mammalia 02-03 Mammalia 02-03 Neotoma lepida 02-03 Nectoma lepida 02-03 Sylvilagus audubonii 01-03 Gopherus agassizii 01-03 Mammalia 01-03 Sylvilagus sp 02-03 Aves 02-03 Gopherus agassizii 02-03 Gophers agassizii 02-03 Gophers agassizii 02-03 Mammalia 02-03 Vertebrata 03-01 Aves 03-01 Mammalia 01-04 xyrauchen texanns 01-06 Mammalia 03-02 11.gil cephalus 03-02 Rodentia 03-02 Vertebrata 04-01 Ave. 04-01 Crotalus sp 02-02 Mammalia 02-02 Mammalia 02-02 IAammalia, sm 02-02 Mamuralia, sm 02-02 Neotoma lepida 02-02 Sylvilagus sp 02-02 xyrauchen texanus 03-01 Leporidae 03-01 Mammalia 03-02 19ammalia, sm 03-01 Neotoma lepida 03-01 Neotoma lepida 03-01 Neotoma lepida 03-01 Osteichthyes 03-01 Rodentia 03-01 Rodentia 03-01 Sylvilagus audubonii 03-01 Sylvilagus audubonii 03-01 :Kyrauchen texanus 04-01 Ave. 04-01 Mammalia 06-01 Mammalia 04-03 Osteichthyes 01.-02 Mammalia 02-03 'rhomomys bottae 01.-03 Sylvilagus sp 01-02 'rhomomys bottae Cf Element Part indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment CE cranial,bulla mast Cf cranial,bulla most tooth fragment Weberian,pleural fragment indeterminate fragment Cf cranial alveolar limb shaft epiplastron complete peripheral fragment vertebral plate5 fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment vertebrae fragment indeterminate fragment interneural bus fragment indeterminate fragment vert,caudal centrum frag. innominate,acet fragment indeterminate fragment coracoid articlr surface Cf vertebrae centrum indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment phala. complete rib shaft Cf femur proximal Cf phalanu,3rd complete epihyal fragment tooth fragment indeterminate fragment vert,caudal complete femur proximal humerus distal humerus most indeterminate fragment vertebrae arch vertebrae centrum tarsal,calcaneus proximal Cf sacrum most vertebrae 81 fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment tibia proximal shaft tarsal,calcaneus complete humerus complete Modif. Side Age Count Weight e C G W --- --- ----------------'--- 1 .05 B 3 .30 L 1 .05 R 1 .05 1 .03 1 .50 12 1.14 1 .02 1 .08 R 1 .84 1 1.22 L 1 .37 4 .60 3 .06 1 .08 2 .29 1 .07 1 .21 B 1 .13 1 .01 1 .07 1 .08 A 1 .09 4 .35 B 10 .70 A 1 1.01 1 .02 R A 1 .03 1 .01 R 1 .04 1 .05 B 21 .64 A A 1 .03 L A 1 .03 L 1 .05 R 1 .07 1 .02 A 1 .01 A A 2 .01 1 .03 A S 1 .09 1 .04 2 .01 1 .04 1 .11 1 .04 B 1 .27 L 2 OE L A 1 .17 R S 1 .04 j 118 G-0131 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W 322-06 Unit-06 02 02 Sylvilagus sp patella complete A 1 .09 322-06 Unit-06 03-02 Mammalia, am indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-06 Unit-06 03-02 Mammalia, am phalaux,lst proximal 1 .01 322-06 Unit-06 03-02 Sylvilagus sp tarsal,astraglus complete L A 1 .06 322-06 Unit-06 03-02 Sylvilagus sp tarsal,calcaneus complete L A 1 .16 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Aves limb shaft 1 .01 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 1 .01 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Gila elegans Cf vert,caudal centrum 1 .01 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Nectoma lepida Cf cranial,bulla fragment 1 .05 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Neat. sp femur Proximal L A 1 .04 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Rodentia humerus shaft R 1 .15 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Rodentia radius shaft J 1 .01. 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus audubonii ulna distal R A 1 .04. 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus audubonii vert,atlas most A A 1 .07 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus sp femur distal R S 1 .06 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus sP humerus head L 1 .11. 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus sp mandible ascending ramus R 1 .01. 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus sp tarsal, calcaneus fragment L A 1 .14 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus sp tibia proximal epiph L S 1 .11 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Thomomys battae femur head R A 3 .06 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Thomomys bottae scapula articlr surface L A 1 .01 322-06 Unit-09 01-03 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 1 .15 322-06 Unit-13 04-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .O1 322-07 SUR-165 Artiodactyla metapodial distal 1 1.10 B 322-07 SM-165 Mammalia cranial fragment 1 .44 B 322-07 SUR-165 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .61 322-07 SM-165 Mammalia, 1g limb shaft 1 1.77 B 322-07 Unit-02 01-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 4 .09 322-07 Unit-04 03-01 Pituophis mclancleneas vertebrae complete 1 .12 322-07 Unit-04 03-01 Sylvilagus audubonii femur distal spiph L J 1 .17 322-07 Unit-11 01-01 Crotalus sp vertebrae fragment 1 .13 322-07 Unit-11 01-01 Lepus sp fibula proximal L 1 .18 322-07 Unit-11 01-01 Memnalia, sm innominate,acet fragment L 1 .06 322-07 Unit-11 01-01 Serpentes vertebrae cent. A 1 .06 322-07 Unit-11 01-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 3 .07 322-07 Unit-11 02-01 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 2 .06 322-07 Unit-11 02-01 Sylvilagus audubonii innominate, ilium fragment R 1 .15 322-07 Unit-11 02-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 5 .03 322-07 Unit-11 02-01 Xyrauchen texarms neural complex complete 1 .87 322-07 Unit-18 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii femur proximal R A 1 .35 322-07 Unit-21 05-01 Canis latrans carpal,cuneiform most R 1 .36 322-07 Unit-21 06-02 Sylvilagus audubonii ulna proximal R 1 .05 322-07 Unit-22 01-01 Mammalia, 19 indeterminate fragment 1 .`57 322-07 Unit-22 01-01 Mammalia, lg limb shaft,frag 1 .Al 322-07 Unit-22 02-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .09 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment _ 1 .Li 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .05 B 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Mammalia, am limb shafc,frag 4 .t8 119 G 01 01 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count weight. D C G w 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Mammalia, sm phalanx distal 1 .05 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Nectoma sp femur proximal R 1 .14 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Rodentia femur shaft S 1 .OS 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Rodentia tarsal,calcaneus complete L A 1 .Of 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii humerus distal L A 1 .DS 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Sylvilagus sp ulna proximal R A 1 .09 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf radius shaft 1 .04 322-07 Unit-27 01-01 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae complete 1 .04 322-08 Unit-02 01-01 Chelonia carapace fragment 1 .26 P 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Aves vertebrae fragment 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Catostomidae indeterminate fragment 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Catostomidae indeterminate fragment 3 .11. 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Fulica americana humerus proximal L 1 .1] 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Mammalia, and indeterminate fragment 1 .10 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 19 .76 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 12 .24 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 Xyrauchen texanus premaxilla proximal R 1 of, 322-13 D.Profile 01-01 xyrauchen texanus vert,upperpreca complete 2 .06 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Ales indeterminate fragment 3 .09 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Aves vertebrae fragment 2 .07 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 6 .12 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Fulica americana coracoid proximal L 1 .10 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Gila elegans pelvis proximal L 1 .04 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Gila elegans scapula proximal L 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Gila elegans vertebrae 41 tantrum 1 .OE3 322-13 ➢.Profile 02-01 Gila slogans vertebrae R2 complete 1 .09 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Mugil cephalus articular complete R 1 .13 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Mugil cephalus vert,upperpreca fragment 1 .09 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 34 .72 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Rodentia vert,caudal complete 1 .01 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 Xyrauchen texanus intemeural bus fragment 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 02-01 xyrauchen texanus vert,upperpreca complete 1 .115 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 1 .OL 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Fulica americana coracoid proximal L 1 .04 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Gila elegans parietal most L 1 .Ot 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Gila elegans weberiab,par.pop complete L 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .20 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Mammalia, Sm indeterminate fragment 15 .42 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Osteichthyes 'indeterminate fragment 45 .75 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Sylvilagus sp scapula neck L A 1 .14 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus basihyal anterior 2 .03 322-13 D.Profile D3-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleith. fragment 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 xyrauchen texanus hypobrachial complete L 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus palatine complete R 1 .12 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Xyraucben texanus vert,caudal complete 3 .14 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 xyrauchen texanus vert,precaudal complete 2 .13 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 xyrauchen texanus vert,upperpreca complete 2 .04 322-13 D.Profile 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae 81 complete 1 .08 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Anatidae radius distal L 1 .08 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Anatidae radius shaft 1 .29 120 iJ 0 013 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon ------------------------ Cf Element -- Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W ------ 322-13 --------- D.Profile ----- 04-01 Aves ---------------- indeterminate --------------- fragment ---- --- ----- 1 ------- .03 ------- 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Aves vertebrae fragment 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Catostomidae vertebrae fragment 6 .12 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 1 .03 B 322-13 ➢.Profile 04-01 Gila slogans dentary mid fragment L 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Mammalia, am indeterminate fragment 1 .03 B 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 9 .25 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Mugil cephalus quadrate proximal L 1 .01 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 20 .45 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Oxyura jamaicensis scapula proximal L 1 .14 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanus articular proximal L 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanus dentary distal R 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal cent. 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanas vert,caudal complete 3 .16 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanas vert,precaudal complete 2 .05 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanas vertebrae #4, TV proximal L 1 .04 322-13 D.Profile 04-01 Xyrauchen texanas weberian,parapop proximal R 1 .06 B 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Anas sp tibiotarsus distal L 1 .25 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Anatidae femur distal L 1 .04 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Anatidae tarsometatarsus distal 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Gila elegans ceratohyal most R 2 .05 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Gila elegans hyomandibular proximal L 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Gila elegans pharyngeal inferior spine L 1 .10 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Gila elegans vert,caudal complete 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Gila elegans vert,upperpreca complete 3 .06 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Leporidas innominate, ilium fragment R 1 .09 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Lepus sp cf limb shaft,frag A 1 .43 B 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .09 B 322-13 D.Prcfile 05-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .07 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 15 .37 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Spermophilus beecheyi humerus shaft R 1 .OE 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas cleithrvm fragment 2 .09 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas cleithrvm mid fragment L 1 .3E 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas interneural bus fragment 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 xyrauchen texanas parasphenoid cent. 1 .24 322-13 D.Proff le 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas pelvis articlr surface L 1 .2C 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas pharyngeal fragment 1 .01 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal sent. 2 .li 322-13 ➢.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vert,caudal centrum 13 .45 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vert,precaudal centrum 4 .2S 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vertebrae complete 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vertebrae #2, TV proximal L 1 .11. 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vertebrae #4, TV fragment 3 .42 322-13 D.Profile 05-01 Xyrauchen texanas vertebrae #4,TV proximal L 1 .09 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Aves indeterminate fragment 6 .31. 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Aves, 19 phal. proximal 1 .01. 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Aythya affinis Cf coracoid proximal R 1 .42 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Catostomidae cleithrum fragment 1 .02 B 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Maemnalia indeterminate fragment 4 .311 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Mugil cephalus vert,caudal centrum 1 .lS 121 t�u01 a Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Moc.i f . Locus Unit Level Taxon ------------------------ Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B C G W ------ 322-13 --------- D.Profile ----- 06-01 Osteichthyes ------------------ indeterminate --------------- ---- fragment --- ----- 20 ------- .32 ------- 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 3 .22 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus epiotic most L 1 .12 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal cent rum 6 .24 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,precaudal centrum 6 .30 322-13 D.Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae #2 most 2 .21 322-13 D.Profile 06-06 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .05 322-13 D.Profile 07-01 Ayes ulna proximal 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 07-01 Mugil cephalus vert,caudal centrum 2 .27 322-13 D.Profile 07-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .06 B 322-13 U.Profile 07-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 15 .31 322-13 ➢.Profile 07-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,lowerpreca centrum 4 .09 322-13 D.Profile 07-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian,parapop complete R 1 .14 322-13 D.Profile 07-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian,parapop fragment L 1 .03 322-13 D.Profile 10-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 1 .02 322-13 D.Profile 10-01 Rodentia limb shaft 3 .08 322-13 D.Profile 10-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian, complex fragment 2 .03 322-13 Profile 01-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum inferior L 1 .10 322-13 Profile 03-01 Gopherus agassizii plastron fragment 1 .65 322-13 Profile 05-01 Artiodactyla scapula mid fragment 1 1.29 B 322-13 Profile 05-01 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment A 1 .73 B 322-13 Profile 05-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 5 .10 322-13 Profile 05-01 Sylvilagus sp innominate,isch fragment L A 1 .14 322-13 Profile 05-01 xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 5 .21 322-13 Profile 06-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .34 322-13 Profile 06-01 19ammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 10 .31 B 322-13 Profile 06-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 40 1.14 322-13 Profile 06-01 Mugil cephalus vertebrae fragment 1 .05 322-13 Profile 06-01 Sylvilagus sp cranial alveolar R A 1 .09 322-13 Profile 06-01 Sylvilagus sp cranial,zygom alveolar R A 1 .22 322-13 Profile 06-01 Sylvilagus sp mandible alveolar L A 1 .03 322-13 Profile 06-01 Sylvilagus sp tooth fragment 4 .18 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus coracoid proximal 1 .07 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus exoccipital most L 1 .22 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus interneural bns fragment 1 .08 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus pectoral ray #1 proximal R 1 .09 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus quadrate proximal R 1 .05 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus scapula proximal R 1 .15 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,precaudal fragment 3 .13 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae #3,W proximal L 1 .14 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian, complex fragment R 1 .15 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian,parapop complete L 1 .24 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberi an,parapop most R 1 .04 322-13 Profile 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus weberian,parapop most R 1 .09 322-13 Profile 07-01 INis canadensis metapodial distal epiph J 1 1.58 322-13 Profile 07-01 M. canadensis metapodial distal epiph J 1 2.6C 322-13 Unit-01 01-02 Ovis canadensis radius distal 1 1.04 B 322-13 Unit-01 03-01 Aves indeterminate fragment 1 .04 322-13 Unit-01 03-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .OE 322-13 Unit-01 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus pectoral spine proximal R 1 .11 122 GG0-13 Catalogue of Identified vertebrate species (cont.) MOCi£. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B CG W ------ 322-13 --------- Unit-02 ----- 02-01 ------------------------ Mammalia ------------------ indeterminate --------------- fragment ---- --- ---- - 4 ------- .10 ------- 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae centrum frag 1 .04 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 8 .64 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Ma alia, am limb shaft 2 .19 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Sylvilagus audubonii cranial,palatine most A 1 .10 322-13 Unit-04 02-01 Sylvilegus audubonii Cf vertebrae centrism A A 1 .07 322-13 Unit-04 03-02 Artiodactyla metapodial distal 1 .96 322-13 Unit-04 03-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 4 .21 322-13 Unit-04 03-02 Sylvilagoe aodub.nii cranial,palatine most A 1 .12 322-13 Unit-04 04-03 Ave., lg phalanx proximal 1 .14 322-13 Unit-04 04-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .17 322-13 Unit-04 04-03 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 2 .76 322-13 Unit-04 04-03 Mammalia, lg limb shaft 2 1.91 322-13 Unit-05 01-01 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 3 1.06 322-13 Unit-05 01.-01 Mammalia, lg limb shaft 1 .61 B 322-13 Unit-05 01-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .07 322-13 Unit-05 01-03 Mammalia, and limb shaft 1 .30 B 322-13 Unit-05 01-04 Artiodactyla tooth fragment 1 .16 322-13 Unit-05 02-01 Mannalia indeterminate fragment 2 .16 322-13 Unit-05 02-01 Mammalia, lg limb shaft 2 .73 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Ave. indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Catostomidae cleithr fragment 3 .15 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Catostomidae vertebrae fragment 1 .03 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Finite americans sternum tantrum A 1 .15 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Mammalia, am femur distal 1 .05 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Ma alia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .10 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 10 .44 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Masticophis sp vertebrae most 1 .10 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Rodentia ulna shaft 1 .02 322-13 unit-06 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii cranial fragment 1 .07 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Sylvilague audubonii tarsal, calcaneus most L 1 .14 322-13 Unit-06 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf humerus proximal 1 .OE 322-13 Unit-06 02-01 Artiodactyla scapula blade R 1 4.OF 322-13 Unit-06 02-01 Mammalia, lg indeterminate fragment 2 .6C 322-13 Unit-06 02-01 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 1 .05 322-13 Unit-06 02-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-13 Unit-06 03-02 Mammalia, 1g indeterminate fragment 2 .93 322-13 Unit-06 03-02 Mammalia, lg limb shaft 1 3.37 322-13 Unit-06 03-02 Sylvilagus audubonii ulna shaft L 1 .13 322-13 Unit-06 03-02 'rhomomys bottae femur shaft L 1 .07 322-13 Unit-06 04-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .46 322-13 Unit-06 05-01 Mammalia, 1g indeterminate fragment 2 1.48 322-13 Unit-06 06-01 Accipitridae carpometacarpus proximal L 1 .4''� B 322-13 Unit-06 06-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .02 B 322-13 Unit-06 06-02 Mammalia, am indeterminate fragment 1 .05 322-13 Unit-07 01.-01 Mamnalia indeterminate fragment 2 .05 322-13 Unit-07 01-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 4 .39 B 322-13 Unit-07 01-01 Manmalia, lg indeterminate fragment 3 .79 322-13 Unit-07 01-03 Artiodactyla tooth fragment 1 .OF 123 JuO� Ju Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight. B C, G W 322-13 Unit-07 01-03 Mammalia, and limb shaft 1 .23 B 322-13 Unit-07 01-03 Mammalia, and limb shaft,frag 1 .11 B 322-13 Unit-07 03-01 Artiodactyla metap.di.1 distal 1 1.97 322-13 Unit-07 03-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .23 322-13 Unit-08 08-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .06 322-14 Unit-01 01-02 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .31 322-14 Unit-01 01-02 Sylvilagus audubonii crani.l,premax fragment R 1 .05 322-14 Unit-01 01-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 2 .12 322-14 Unit-01 01-07 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 1 .07 322-14 Unit-01 02-01 Aves carpometacarpus shaft 1 .07 322-14 Unit-01 02-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .03 B 322-14 Unit-01 02-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 2 .02 322-14 Unit-11 04-01 Aves limb shaft 1 .01 322-15 Unit-02 01-02 Mammalia, am limb shaft 1 .03 322-15 Unit-02 01-02 Sylvilagus audubonii tarsal,calcaneus shaft L 1 .11 322-15 Unit-03 01-02 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .04 322-15 Unit-03 01-02 Sylvilagus audubonii vert,atlas articlr surface A 1 .02 322-15 Unit-04 01.-01 Mammalia, sm humerus shaft, proximal R 1 .06 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .15 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Rodentia femur shaft R J 1 .10 322-15 Unit-04 01.-01 Sylvilagus audubonii cranial,premax fragment A 1 .07 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii cranial,premax fragment L 1 .07 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii tarsal,calcaneus shaft R 1 .20 322-15 unit-04 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii tooth fragment 2 .09 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf femur proximal R A 1 .07 322-15 Unit-04 01-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf cranial fragment 1 .02 322-17 Unit-01 02-03 Sylvilagus audubonii tibia distal L A 1 .22 322-17 Unit-01 02-03 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-19 Unit-01 01-03 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal complete A 3 .03 322-19 Unit-01 02-03 Colubridae vertebrae fragment 1 .02 322-19 Unit-02 02-03 Aves radius distal 1 .01 322-19 Unit-02 02-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .09 322-19 Unit-03 04-42 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .08 322-19 Unit-05 01-02 Arizona elegans vertebrae complete 1 .01 322-19 Unit-07 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .25 322-19 Unit-07 03-02 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .1C 322-19 Unit-07 04-02 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .06 322-19 Unit-07 04-02 Sylvilagus sp mandible alveolar R A 1 .08 322-19 Unit-07 04-02 Sylvilagus sp tooth fragment 1 .03 322-19 Unit-08 02-01 Mammelia indeterminate fragment 1 .05 322-19 Unit-11 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .13 322-19 Unit-13 02-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .03 322-19 Unit-14 04-01 Neotoma sp femur most L A 2 .1C 322-19 Unit-15 01-01 Sylvilagus audubonii mandible horizntl ramus R 1 .05 322-19 Unit-15 04-01 Leporidae innominate,acet fragment 1 .04 322-19 Unit-15 04-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .04 322-19 Unit-15 04-01 Sylvilagus sp femur head J 1 .02 322-19 Unit-15 04-01 Sylvilagus sp vertebrae centrum A A 1 .03 322-19 Unit-16 04-01 Mammalia, v sm indeterminate fragment 6 .OS 322-19 Unit-16 04-01 Mammalia, v sm vert,caudal complete A A 1 .01. - 1 124 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Moci f . Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight E CG W ------ 322-19 --------- Unit-16 ----- 04-01 ------------------------ Perognathus sp -- ---------------- cranial --------------- bulla ---- --- ----- L 1 ----------_--- .01 322-19 Unit-16 04-01 Percgoathus sp femur complete L S 1 .02 322-19 Unit-16 04-01 Perognathus sp mandible most R 1 .02 322-19 Unit-15 09-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .04 322-19 Unit-15 09-01 Sylvilagus sp cranial alveolar A 1 .03 322-21 Profile 07-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 2 .09 322-21 SST-87 Crotalus sp vertebrae most 1 .06 322-21 Unit-01 01-04 Iguanidae dentary most R 1 .02 322-21 Unit-03 03-03 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-21 Unit-03 03-03 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 3 .02 322-21 Unit-03 03-03 Pituophis melanoleucus vertebrae complete A 1 .03 322-21 Unit-03 03-03 Xyrauchen texanus vert,upperpreca centrum 1 .06 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Cypriniformes ptergiophore proximal 1 .03 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Cypriniformes in fragment 3 .19 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Leporidae i..minate fragment 4 .42 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .10 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Oxyura jamaicensis carpometacarpus distal L 1 .08 B 322-21 Unit-03 04-04 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal centrom 2 .29 322-21 Unit-03 05-06 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 3 .30 B 322-21 Unit-03 05-06 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrvm fragment 3 .28 322-21 Unit-03 05-06 Xyrauchen texanus interneural Los most 1 .28 B 322-21 Unit-03 05-06 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal cent. 3 .46 322-21 Unit-03 05-06 Xyrauchen texanus vert,lowerpreca centrum 1 .11 322-21 Unit-05 01-02 Ma alia indeterminate fragment 3 .09 322-21 Unit-05 01-02 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-05 01-02 Serpentes vertebrae fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-05 02-02 Crotalus sp vertebrae centrum 1 .04 322-21 Unit-05 02-02 Rodentia cranial alveolar 1 .01 322-21 Unit-06 01-04 Mammalia, sm metapodial distal A 1 .04 322-21 Unit-06 01-04 Rodentia cranial fragment 1 .05 322-21 Unit-06 01-04 Sciuridae tarsal,calcaneus complete L A 1 .06 322-21 Unit-06 01-04 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 3 .05 322-21 Unit-08 04-02 Cyprini formes weberian,parapop complete 1 .02 322-21 Unit-OB 04-02 11odentia femur proximal L A 1 .03 322-21 Unit-09 01-03 Sylvilagus audubonii scapula glenoid fossa L 1 .09 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Aves indeterminate fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 2 .11 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Rodentia tibia proximal epiph S 1 .01 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Sylvilagus audubonii humerus distal L J 1 .10 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf cranial alveolar 1 .01 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Sylvilagus sp Cf metacarpal proximal shaft 1 .04 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 8 .11 322-21 Unit-09 03-02 Xyrauchen texanus weberian,parapop complete 1 .04 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Aves coracoid articlr surface L 1 .06 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Cypriniformes rib proximal 1 .09 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .09 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 1 .19 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Neotoma lepida femur proximal L A 1 .22 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Neotoma lepida Cf scapula glenoid fossa L S 1 .02 - 1 125 0UO13(- Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level. Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight. B C G W ------ 322-21 --------- Unit-09 ----- 04-03 ------------------------ Perognathus penicillatus ------------------ mandible --------------- horizntl ---- ramus L --- ----- 1 ------- .02 ------- 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Rodentia humerus distal 1 .01 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Rodentia limb shaft 3 .03 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Spermophilus sp mandible alveolar R 1 .04 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .04 B 322-21 Unit-09 04-03 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 9 .29 322-21 Unit-09 0-3-04 Mammalia, am vertebrae centrum A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Rodentia vert,axis odontoid proces A 1 .02 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Spermophilus beecheyi CE mandible alveolar L 1 .04 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Sylvilages audubonii cranial fragment 1 .05 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Sylvilagus audubonii tooth fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 5 .1c 322-21 Unit-09 05-04 Xyrauchen texanas pectoral spine proximal 1 .03 322-21 Unit-09 07-01 Rodentia mandible horizntl ramus R 1 .01 322-21 Unit-09 05-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 5 .02 322-21 Unit-10 02-02 Gila elegans pharyngeal mid fragment L 1 .03 322-21 Unit-10 02-02 Mammalia, am indeterminate fragment 2 .02 322-21 Unit-10 02-02 Neotoma lepida humerus proximal epiph R S 1 .04 322-21 Unit-11 01-01 Osteichthyes rib fragment 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 e1-01 Rodentia humerus distal 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 01-01 Sciuridae mandible horizntl ramus 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 01-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 11 .14 322-21 Unit-11 01-02 Mammalia, am phalanx,lst conplete A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 01-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 6 .02 322-21 Unit-11 01-02 Xyrauchen texanus vert,upperpreca centrum 1 .0` 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Colubridae vertebrae complete 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Rodentia indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Rodentia scapula blade 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Rodentia tooth,incisor fragment J 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-11 03-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 5 .04. 322-21 Unit-11 04-02 Aves scapula fragment 1 .03 B 322-21 Unit-11 04-02 Crotalus sp vertebrae complete A 1 .04.. 322-21 Unit-11 04-02 Gila elegans pelvis articlr surface L 1 .02: 322-21 Unit-11 04-02 Mammalia, so metapodial proximal 1 .03 322-21 Unit-11 04-02-Mammalia, sm vert,caudal 'centrum A J 1 .04 322-21 Unit-11 04-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 11 .12 322-21 Unit-11 05-01 Gila elegans pharyngeal fragment 2 .06 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 2 .12 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal cent. A S 2 .06 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Neotoma lepida Cf ulna proximal R J 1 .01, 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Rodentia femur proximal L 1 .03 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Rodentia femur shaft L J 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Rodentia indeterminate fragment 4 .10 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Rodentia vertebrae cent. A J 1 .01. B 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Sylvilagus audubonii Cf ulna proximal 1 .04 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 13 .26 322-21 Unit-11 05-02 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal cent. 1 .06 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 M.lia indeterminate fragment 2 .04 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .04 126 15 Liu 01, Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus ------ Unit --------- Level_ ----- Taxon ------------------------ Cf Element -- Part Side Age Count Weight: B l' G W 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Mammalia, sm ---------------- innominate,acet --------------- most ---- R --- ----- 1 ------'- .00. ---.---- 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Mammalia, sm vezt,caudal centrum A J 1 .0:_ 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Neotoma lepida Cf tarsal,calcaneus complete 1 O.F. 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Osteichthyes vertebrae fragment 1 .01_ 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Rodentia cranial,prema, fragment A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Sylvilagus audubonii inoominate,isch fragment L 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Sylvilagus audubonii metatarsal proximal A 1 .03 B 322-21 Unit-11 06-01 Xyrauchen texanus vert,caudal centrum 1 .01 B 322-21 Unit-11 09-01 Leporidae mandible fragment 1 .08 322-21 Unit-11 09-01 Sylvilagus audubonii carpal,cuneiform complete L 1 .05 322-21 Unit-11 07-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 4 .04. 322-21 Unit-11 09-02 Sylvilagus sp Cf phalanx, lst Complete A 1 .02. 322-21 Unit-11 07-02 Vertebrata limb shaft 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 09-03 Aves vertebrae fragment 1 .01 B 322-21 Unit-11 09-03 Rodentia tibia distal L 1 .OE� 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Aves limb shaft 1 .01 B 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Mammalia, sm cranial fragment 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal cent. J 2 .11 322-21 Unit-il 10-02 Rodentia ulna proximal R 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Rodentia vertebrae cents. J 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Rodentia vertebrae centrum A J 1 .03 B 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Sciuridae Cf femur proximal R A 1 .05 322-21 Unit-11 10-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 9 .0" 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae centrum 2 .02 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Neotoma lepida Cf tibia distal R 1 .02 B 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Rodentia cranial alveolar 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Rodentia femur distal epiph J 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 12.-01 Rodentia vertebrae centrum A A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .01 B 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 10 .06 322-21 Unit-11 11-01 Kyrauchen texarus ot.lith complete L 1 .01 B 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Aves vert,caudal complete A A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Callipepla cali:`.omica Cf carpometacarpus proximal+shaft 1 .05 322-21 Unit-il 12-01 2.lubrida. vertebrae complete A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Mammalia, sm femur shaft J 1 .03 322-21 unit-11 12-01 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal cent. A J 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Mannalia, sm vert,caudal most A A 1 .02 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Neotoma lepida Cf innominate,acet fragment R 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 20 .13 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Phrynosoma platyrhincs Cf cranial fragment 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 liodentia tibia shaft L 1 .04 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Rodentia vert,axis most A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Rodentia vert,thoracic most A J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-11 12-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf femur distal epiph L J 1 .08 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Aves sternum fragment 1 .08 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Aves ulna shaft 1 .05 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Neotoma lepida cranial alveolar 1 .06 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Neotsue lepida tibia distal L 1 .07 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Rodentia femur distal epiph J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Rodentia indeterminate fragment 2 .06 1 L 127 j L) Catalogue of Identified vertebrate species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level. Taxes Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight'. S C G W 322-21 Unit-13 01-01 Serpentes vertebrae fragment 2 .09 322-21 Unit-13 02-01 Neotoma lepida Cf tooth,molar upr,pos?,ind L A 1 .03 322-21 Unit-13 02-01 Rodentia tooth fragment 1 .0`. 322-21 Unit-13 02-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 3 .12 322-21 Unit-15 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 3 .06 322-21 Unit-15 01-04 Ave. vertebrae fragment 1 .03 E 322-21 Unit-15 01-04 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .19 322-21 Unit-15 02-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-15 03-02 Spermcphilus beecheyi cranial alveolar J 1 .O2 322-21 Unit-15 03-02 SWamata limb fragment 1 .01. 322-21 Unit-15 03-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 2 .01. 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Neotoma lepida cranial,bulla fragment R d 1 .10 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Neotoma lepida mandible horizntl ramus R J 1 .05 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Neotoma lepida tooth most 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Neotoma lepida Cf femur shaft L J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Neotoma lepida Cf humerus distal+shaft R J 1 .04 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sept. lepida Cf tibia shaft R J I .OS 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Rodentia femur proximal R J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Rodentia humerus distal L J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Rodentia limb shaft J 4 .06 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Rodentia vert,cervical most A J 1 .0:. 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Rodentia vert,thoracic arch A J 1 .0. 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Spermophilus beecheyi radius proximalishaft R A 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sylvilague audubonii mandible horizntl tomes L J 1 .13 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sylvilagus sp humerus distal L J 1 .03 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sylvilagus sp mandible horizntl rands L S 2 .0.1 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf scapula blade J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 05-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf scapula glenoid fossa d 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Colubridae vertebrae complete A 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Matemalia, sm limb shaft 1 .0'7 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Rodentia cranial,bulla fragment 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Rodentia limb shaft 4 .07 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Rodentia metatarsal complete 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Rodentia radius shaft L J 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 06-02 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 12 .07 322-21 Unit-15 07-01 Cyprinifonmes vertebrae fragment 1 .03 322-21 Unit-15 07-01 Mammalia, sm scapula glenoid fossa 1 .02 322-21 Unit-15 07-01 Rodentia scapula glenoid Loses L 1 .01 322-21 Unit-15 07-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 13 .19 322-21 Unit-16 02-01 Mammalia limb fragment 1 .05 322-21 Unit-16 02-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 3 .07 322-21 Unit-16 08-01 Aves indeterminate fragment 6 .12 322-21 Unit-16 08-01 Rodentia vert,lumbar complete A 1 .01 322-21 Unit-17 03-01 Catostemidae vertebrae centrum 1 .02 322-21 Unit-17 04-01 Rodentia mandible proximal L 1 .02 322-22 SM-01 Mammalia, 1g indeterminate fragment 3 5.61 322-22 SM-01 Mammalia, 1g limb shaft 1 4.84 322-22 Unit-01 01-01 Colubridae vertebrae fragment 1 .02 322-22 Unit-01 03-01 Ave. vertebrae centrum 1 .01 322-22 Unit-02 01-01 Neotoma Lerida tarsal,calcaneus complete R A 1 .05 128 �ii01 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight, B C G W 322-22 Unit-02 01-01 Rodentia vert,cervical articlr surface A 1 .01. 322-22 Unit-02 02-01 Crotalus sp vertebrae centrum A 1 .O3 322-22 Unit-02 02-01 Neotoma lepida Cf femur proximal R A 1 .02 322-22 Unit-02 02-01 Rodentia cranial fragment 1 .O2 322-22 Unit-02 02-01 Rodentia humerus distal L 1 .04. 322-22 Unit-02 02.-01 Rodentia vertebrae centrum A J 1 .01. 322-22 Unit-02 03-01 Rodentia limb shaft 1 .01. 322-22 Unit-02 03-01 Rodentia vert,lumbar centrum A J 1 .04. 322-22 Unit-02 03-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment R 2 .01. 322-23 Unit-01 04-01 Cypriniformes rib fragment 3 .10 322-23 Unit-01 04-01 Vertebrate indeterminate fragment 2 .01. 322-23 Unit-01 05-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .OS 322-23 Unit-01 015-01 Mugil cephalue vertebrae centrum 1 .03. 322-23 Unit-01 05-01 Sylvilagus sp Cf cranial alveolar 1 .02 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Mamtalia, sm femur head '/ .16 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Manmalia, sm indeterminate fragment 42 1.32 322-25 SST-00 OL-01 Mamnalia, sm indeterminate fragment 157 3.36 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Neotoma sp femur proximal R A 1 .0? 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Neotoma sp tooth,molar complete A 1 .OIL 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Sylvilagus sp femur head L A 1 .OIL 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Sylvilagus sp mandible ascending ramus L A 1 .02 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Sylvilagus sp mandible ascending ramus L A 1 .03 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Sylvilagus sp tooth fragment 1 .03 322-25 SST-00 01-01 Thomomys bottae tarsal,astraglus articlr surface L A 1 .01 322-25 SST-00 OL-01 Thomomys bottae tarsal,calcaneus complete R A 1 .03 322-25 SST-01 Aves limb shaft 2 .0-. 322-25 SST-01 Aves phalanx, 3rd proximal 1 .09 B 322-25 SST-01 Aves radius proximal 1 .0.3 322-25 SST-01 Colubridae vertebrae complete 1 .03 322-25 SST-01 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 2 .0:3 322-25 SST-01 Dipeosaurus dcrsalis vert,caudal fragment A 1 .O1 322-25 SST-01 Gila slogans Cf pharyngeal fragment 4 .OS 322-25 SST-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 11 .26 B 322-25 SST-01 Mammalia tooth root 1 .04 322-25 SST-01 Mavmalia, am femur distal 1 .115 322-25 SST-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .07 322-25 SST-01 Mamnalia, sm limb shaft 1 .03 B 322-25 SST-01 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 9 .213 322-25 SST-01 Mammalia, sm phalanx proximal epiph 1 .01 322-25 SST-01 Marzmalia, sm rib shaft 2 .06 B 322-25 SST-01 Matmtalia, sm vert,caudal centrum S 4 .11 322-25 SST-01 Neotoma lepida humerus distal L 1 .01 322-25 SST-01 Neotoma lepida tibia distal R 1 .01 322-25 SST-01 Neotoma lepida Cf femur proximal L S 1 .06 322-25 SST-01 Neotoma lepida Cf humerus distal R 1 .01 322-25 SST-01 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 1 .03 322-25 SST-01 Rodentia cranial,frontal fragment 1 .06 B 322-25 SST-01 Rodentia femur proximal 4 .10 322-25 SS17-01 Rodentia humerus distal 1 .05 322-25 SST-01 Rodentia humerus proximal epiph J 1 .01 1, 129 �0014 Catalogue of Identified vertebrate species (cont.) Modif. Locus unit Level Taxon CE Element Part Side Age Count Weight. B C G W ------ 322-25 --------- SST-01 -'---_------------------------ ---_----_---_-_--------- Sylvilagus so ------------------ tarsal,calcaneus --------------- fragment ---- --- ------------ 1 .04 ---"---- 322-25 SST-01 Sylvilagus so tooth fragment 1 .04 322-25 SST-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 105 2.24 322-25 SST-01 Xyrauchen texanus interneural bns fragment 2 .OS 322-25 SST-01-1 Aves indeterminate fragment 2 .03 322-25 SST-01-1 Cypriniformes rib fragment 2 .OE B 322-25 SST-01-1 Cyprinif ormes vertebrae fragment 6 .14 322-25 SST-01-1 Cypriniformes vertebrae fragment 9 .11 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Gila elegans articular proximal L 1 .04 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Gila elegans ceratohyal proximal L 1 .05 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Gila elegans dentary proximal L 1 .04 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Gila elegans pharyngeal mid fragment R 1 .05 322-25 SST-01-1 Gila elegans Cf pharyngeal inferior L 2 .07 322-25 SST-01-1 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .04 322-25 SST-01-1 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .V 322-25 SST-01-1 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .OE 322-25 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith complete L 3 .2C 322-25 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith complete R 1 .05 322-25 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith complete R 2 .11 322-25 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus otolith fragment L 2 .12 322-25 SST-01-1 Mugil cephalus vertebrae fragment 1 .02 322-25 SST-01-1 Rodentia indeterminate fragment 2 .04 322-25 SST-01-1 Rodentia indeterminate fragment 2 .04 322-25 SST-01-1 Thomomys buttes ulna proximal L 1 .OE 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus articular proximal L 1 .02 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchea texanus interneural has fragment 1 .04 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus interneural has fragment 1 .04 B 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus otolith complete 3 .01 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus otolith complete L 2 .0`- 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus otolith complete L 2 .OS 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus otolith complete R 1 .02. 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus quadrate anterior L 1 .0-, B 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus quadrate anterior R 1 .04. B 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae kl fragment 1 .02. 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus vertebrae R1 fragment 1 .0-4 322-25 SST-01-1 Xyrauchen texanus Cf vert,upperpreca centrum 1 .01. 322-25 SST-01-1 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 2 .04. B 322-25 SST-64 Xyrauchen texanus cleithrum fragment 1 .06 322-25 SST-87 Anatidae furculum fragment 1 .08 B 322-25 SST-B9 Anatidae tarsometatarsus proximal L 2 .14 322-25 SST-87 Artiodactyla limb fragment 1 .50 322-25 SST-87 Aves vertebrae fragment 1 .0" 322-25 SST-87 Catostomidae vertebrae centrum frag 1 .02 322-25 SST-87 Corvus brachyrh.ynchos ulna distal L 1 .08 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans pharyngeal fragment 1 .0:1 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans pharyngeal inferior spine R 1 .05 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans pharyngeal mid fragment L 1 .05 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans pharyngeal superior spine 2 .06 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans pharyngeal superior spine L 2 .05 322-25 SST-87 Gila elegans vertebrae k2 cent. 2 .06 j 130 0 00.14 3 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Locus Unit 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 SST-87 322-25 Unit-02 322-25 Unit-02 322-25 Unit-05 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 322-25 Unit-06 Level Taxon Gopherus agassizii Leporidae Lepus sp Lepus sp Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia, sm Mammalia, sm Mammalia, sm Neat.. sp Neotoma sp Neotoma sp Neotoma sp Neotoma sp Neat.. sp Neotoma sp Osteichthyes Rodentia Sylvilagus sp Sylvilagus sp Sylvilagus sp Sylvilagus sp Sylvilagus sp Thomomys bottae Thomomys bottae Thomomys bottae Xyrauchen texanus Xyrauchen texanus Xyrauchen texanus Xyrauchen texanus Xyrauchen texanus 01-01 Xyrauchen texanus OL-03 Mammalia, and 03-01 Xyrauchen texanus 0:3-01 Xyrauchen texanus 07-01 Mugil cephalue 02-01 Lepus sp 02-01 Mammalia, sm 04-02 Mammalia, om 01-01 Canis latrans 01-01 Mammalia 01-01 Mammalia 01-01 Neotoma sp 01-01 Neotoma sp 01-01 Sylvilagus sp 01-01 Sylvilagus sp 01-01 Xyrauchen texanus 02-01 Mammalia 02-01 Mam .lia, sm Cf Element Part plastron fragment mandible fragment ulna proximal Cf phalanx,3rd complete indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment femur head indeterminate fragment vert,caudal complete femur proximal humerus distal humerus proximal mandible anterior tarsal,calcaneus complete tarsal,calcaneus complete tibia proximal indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment cranial,maxilla fragment humerus distal metapodial distal metapodial most phalanx, lot complete femur head tarsal,calcaneus complete tibia distal interneural boa fragment vert,caudal most vert,precaudal complete vert,upperpreca complete weberian, parapop fragment weberian, parapop fragment limb shaft,frag cleithrum fragment vert,caudal complete vert,caudal centrum frag femur head indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment metatarsal,III proximal indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment innominate, acet fragment tibia proximal+shaft femur distal tarsal,astraglus complete weberian,parapop complete indeterminate fragment indeterminate fragment 131 Modif. Side Age Count Weight. B C G W 1 .17 1 . 01 L A 1 lE A 1 .04 2 DE 4 .37 14 .7E B S 1 .04 77 2.75 A 1 .02 R S 1 .04 R A 1 .04 R 1 .01 R A 1 .10 L A 1 .02 R A 2 .10 R 1 .04 3 .1P 2 OE' R S 1 . 13 R A 1 .14 A 1 .06 1 .05 A 1 .04, 1 .02 R A 1 .04, R A 1 .0`i 2 .0a 5 .33 1 . 03 1 .02 R 1 .03 1 .06 1 .2:5 B 14 B 1 .0i B 2 .10 L A 1 .22 1 .07 B 2 .26 L 1 .26 3 .32 B 12 .52 R A 1 .05 L A 1 .03 L J 1 .12 R A 1 .13 L 1 .06 2 .14 B 1 .04 Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit LeveL Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight: B C G W ------ 322-25 --------- Unit-06 ----- 02-01 ------------------------ Thomomys bottae ------------------ femur --------------- ---- distal epiph L --- ----- J 1 -------- .06 ---'---- 322-25 Unit-07 01-01 Sylvilagus sp mandible anterior R A 1 .19 322-25 Unit-10 01-01 Lepus sp tibia shaft L A 1 1.10 B 322-25 Unit-10 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .31. B 322-25 Unit-11 04-01 Gila elegans pharyngeal fragment L 1 .03 322-25 Unit-12 02-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .08 322-25 Unit-12 02-01 Sylvilagus sp phalanx,lst most 1 .05 322-25 Unit-12 02-01 Sylvilagus sp tooth fragment 1 .05 322-25 Unit-13 01-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 5 .ill 322-25 Unit-13 04-01 Aves limb fragment 1 .011 322-25 Unit-14 02-01 Manmielia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .13 322-25 Unit-14 02-01 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal complete A A 1 .011 322-25 Unit-14 04-01 Crotalus sp vertebrae most 1 .02 322-25 Unit-14 04-01 Mammelia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .02 B 322-25 Unit-14 04-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .07 322-25 Unit-14 04-01 Sylvilagus sp tibia proximal R 1 .06 322-25 Unit-20 02-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 4 .16 B 322-25 Unit-20 02-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment it .27 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .01 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Mammalia, sm vert,caudel complete A A 2 .0.1 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Neotoma sp humerus distal 1 .0:-. 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Nectoma sp humerus distal R 1 .08 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Sylvilagus sp carpal most A 1 .02 322-25 Unit-20 08-01 Thomomys bottae femur proximal R A 1 .02 B 322-25 Unit-20 10-01 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-25 Unit-20 10-01 Neotoma sp tarsal,calcaneus complete R A 1 .03 322-25 Unit-20 10-01 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 4 .07 322-25 Unit-20 11-01 Neotoma sp femur proximal L A 1 .015 B 322-25 Unit-20 11-01 Rodentia vertebrae centrum A 1 .02 B 322-25 Unit-20 11-01 Rodentia vertebrae centrum A S 1 .02 322-25 Unit-20 11-01 Sylvilagus sp metapodial proximal A 1 .02 322-25 Unit-20 12-01 Crotalus sp vertebrae most 1 .04 322-25 Unit-20 12-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 13 .33 322-26 SM-44 Carnivora mandible ascending ramus R 1 1.70 322-26 Unit-02 02-01 Lepus californicus carpal, cunei form complete R A 1 .17 322-26 Unit-02 02-01 Neotoma lepida humerus proximal R A 1 .05 322-26 Unit-02 02-01 Rodentia femur distal R S 1 .03 322-26 Unit-02 02-01 Sylvilagus audabonii humerus proximal R 1 .10 322-26 Unit-02 02-01 Xyrauchen texanus cleith. fragment 1 .03 B 322-27 SI -44 Mammalia indeterminate fragment 2 .77 322-27 SUR-44 Mammalia, sm vert,caudal complete A A 1 .02 322-27 Unit-02 01-01 Lepus sp tarsal,calcaneus distal A 1 .19 B 322-27 Unit-02 02-01 Aves limb shaft,frag 1 .05 322-27 Unit-02 02-01 Manmialia indeterminate fragment 2 .05 322-27 Unit-02 02-01 Thomomys bottae humerus distal R 1 .04 322-27 Unit-02 03-01 Neotoma sp innominate,ilium most L A 1 .05 322-29 Unit-02 01-04 Mamvmalia, sm limb shaft 2 .02 322-29 Unit-02 01-04 Mammalia, sm phal. proximal 1 .01 322-29 Unit-02 02-01 Ma alia, sm indeterminate fragment 1 .02 322-31 SM-01 Mam alia, sm indeterminate fragment 2 .10 132 1 1 uG01� Catalogue of Identified Vertebrate Species (cont.) Modif. Locus Unit Level Taxon Cf Element Part Side Age Count Weight B - G W ------ 322-31 --------- SUR-01 ----- ------------------------ Mammalia, am -- ---------------- indeterminate --------------- ---- fragment --- ----- 8 ------- .20 ------- B 322-31 SUR-01 Xyrauchen texazms vert,caudai centrum 1 .01 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Aves coraccid blade 2 .03 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Aves limb shaft 1 .02 B 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Aves limb shaft 5 .03 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Aves rib articlr surface 1 .01 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Aves sternum costal fragment 1 .02 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Catostomidae cleithrum fragment 4 .115 B 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Catostomidae cleith. fragment 6 .22 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Catostomidae vertebrae fragment 2 .01 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Cyprinifarmes pterygiophore coaqplete 1 .01 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Gila elegans Cf pharyngeal fragment 1 .02 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Gila elegans Cf vertebrae complete 1 .03 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 11 .27 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Mammalia, sm limb shaft 9 .11i 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Mansell., sm rib shaft 2 .05 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Osteichthyes indeterminate fragment 19 .35 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Rodentia femur distal 1 .03 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Rodentia rib shaft 1 .01 322-31 Unit-Ol 01-04 Rodentia vert,cervical cent. A 1 .03 B 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Sylvilagus audcbonii cranial alveolar 1 .01 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Sylvilagus audcbonii vertebrae epiphysis A a 1 .02 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 9 .11 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Vertebrata indeterminate fragment 23 .27 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Xyrauchen texarms interneural Isis fragment 1 .03 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Xyrauchen texarus interneural beg most 1 .07 322-31 Unit-01 01-04 Xyrauchen texarss vertebrae #1 most 1 .02 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Aves limb shaft,frag 3 .06 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Catostomidae cleithrum fragment 2 .04 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 3 .03 B 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Mammalia, sm indeterminate fragment 19 .25 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Osteichthyes pterygiophore complete 1 .02 322-31 Unit-01 03-01 Xyrauchen texar.us neural complex 1 .04 133 l OCt014 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD rage L Ur 4 P1. Other Identifier Other Listi Review Coi Primary # 33-8417 HRI # Trinomial CA-RIV-6136 NRHP Status Code 6z nesource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 3 2 2 - a *P2. Location: Not for Publication _Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P21b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad— La Ouinta, Calif. Date 1959. photorevised 1980 T55; R7E; NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SW 114 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip_ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 566770 mE/ 3727920_mN e. Other Locations] Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):_ *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries):—� light scatter of two dozen sherds over area 70 m x 30 M. Testing shows site to be on surface only. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter *P4. Resources Present:_BuildingStructure_Object--�__Site_District_Element of District _Other (isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings structures and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_ Historic__�_Prehistoric_Both _ *P7. Owner and Address: T. D D. Desert evelonment c/o Sparks Construct'ion. Inc.. P.O. Box 1716, La Ouinta CA 92253 *P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Bruce Love CRM TECH 126 Bar�;ett Road. *P9. Date Recorded: May 29, 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) —Archaeological testing program *P11. Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter 'none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Quinn (1998), Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Rancho La Ouinta Project City of La Ouinta. Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center. University of California, Riverside. *Attachments: _None�Location Map_ Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record ,Archaeological RecordDistrict Record —Linear Resource Record —Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record —Photograph Record-J—Other (List): Site sketch map DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 163 000147 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8417 - DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6136 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 'Hesource Name or � lrssiyueu uy �-) Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 70 m (N=S) b. Width ca 30 m (E W) Method of Measurement:--Paced—Taped—Visual estimate 1) Other: Hand-held compass and range finder - Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 1) Artifacts--Features—Soil—Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank --Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High 4 Low_Explain:_Sh i f tiny sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply):_Restricted access—Paved/built over_Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances_Vegetation_Other (Explain): Shifting sands over time - A2. Depth: 10 cm. None Unknown Method of Determination: Four test. units 'A3. Human Remains:_Present 1) Absent_ Possible —Unknown (Explain): A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None - "A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) A light scatter of 34 pottery sherds •A6. Were Specimens Collected?_No 1] Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good_-JFair_Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time •A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 1.4 mile to N 'A9. Elevation: Ca. 50 ft A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. -------l1C111P Al 1. Historical Information: *Al2. Age: __2�LPrehistoric_Protohistoric 4 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 _Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:_ Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla roughly AD 1650 A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area Limited data Dotential A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register Al5. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 'A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tana Date: January 8 1999 Affiliation and Address:_ CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 I.. 164 DPR 523C (1/95) "Required information 000143 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8417 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6136 Page 3 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CHM '1'E(:H 322-a 'Map Name: La ouinta Calif. *Scale: 1:24.000 _ *Date of Map: 1959, ohotorevised 1980 r 8M .61 Itr CIA 7 (�,_,'Tts�4�r � r � s Triw Pam � STraUar Paiit .. CA-RJV-5764 ma's"ear, CA-RIV-577- 11 iA CA-RIV-117715765�� — -- i. t1 a CRIV6141 CA-RI�V 5` 77v8' - CA-RIV 5774 CA-RIV-577115773 CA-RIV-5775 C -RIV145oil, �. . ,..._ CA-RIV-6143 33,wer=, "a itl3 CA-RIY-6137 .c 6.0 CA-RIV'6142 d CA-RIV-1176 fz. CA-RIV-6136 ' 4 v I„w r ` CA-RIV-6139 v �; a CA-6144 i, x �r ! CA-RIV-I313$ CA-RIV-6140 a g0- 8s ti n F a ♦ ID C `a [ ,._.w.... ...�.,:.�� study area y i .F� I p � 7 {r bounda o 1 6 aL {- ? �� U wm & x � l,. tCrY:..� s _. —i' SCALE 1:24,000 --- ,r-sc ) 0 112 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Um feet 4 y a.. ti_ 0 4Val U ,) DPR 523J (1195) *Required information 000149 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8417 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6136 Page 4 of 4 'Resource Name or v (nssignea Dy recoroerl uk(m rr;cn s<;z,-a `Drawn by: Bruce Love 'Date: May 29, 1998 _ gate to golfcourse { chain link fence ( dirt road nit temporary UnO3 datum stake Unit 20 ti'"'�-•-.... Unit 10 ✓ / sherd 0 20 40 m DPR 523K (1/95) Batt oaf /j`a a `o ,0 166 'Required information i�00150 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8418 _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial CA-RIV-6137 NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings _ Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-b Pi. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: 1 Not for Publication _Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad La ouinta Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip_ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 566520 mE/ 3728030 mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate): _ *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): Licht scatter of about 24 pottery sherds with one niece of chalcedony debitage covering area 65 m x 50 m. Testing shows site to be *133b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP2-lithic scatter; AP3-ceramic scatter *P4. Resources Present: —Building —Structure —Object 1 Site —District —Element of District P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_ Historic 4 Prehistoric_Both _ *P7. Owner and Address: T.-D. Desert Development c/o Sparks Construction Inc., P.O. Box 1716 La ouinta CA 92253 *P6. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Bruce Love CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside, CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: May 29 1298 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe)_Archaeological testing program _ * P 11 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. ouinn (1998)• Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Rancho La ouinta Project City of La ouinta. Riverside County California On file Eastern Information Center University of California Riverside _ *Attachments: _None_�_Location Map —Continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record —District Record _Linear Resource Record_Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record_Photograph Record - Other (List): Site sketch map DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 167 G�015. State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8418 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6137 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 31,2-b Al. Dimensions: a. Length_ca. 65 m (E-W) b. Width ca. 50 m (NS) Method of Measurement:--Paced—Taped—Visual estimate_ Other: Hand held comoass and range finder Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): _ ArtifactsFeatures_Soil_Vegetation _Topography_Cut bank --Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High _ Low_Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access—Paved/built over —Site limits incompletely defined DisturbancesVeget�ationOther(Explain): Shifting sands over time - A2. Depth: 10 cm. None Unknown Method of Determination: Four test, units •A3. Human Remains:_Present T Absent_ Possible _Unknown (Explain): - 'A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None •A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with "A6. Were Specimens Collected? —Noyes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good_FairPoor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands ever time 'A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 1.3 mile to N *AS. Elevation: Ca. 50-60 ft - A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore, A11. Historical Information: *At2. Age:_Prehistoric_Protohistoric_1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:_Probably associated with the last high stand pf ancient Lake cahuilla, roughly AD 1650 A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area Limited data potential A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register - A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . - A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at. CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 'A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tang Date: January 8 19439 Affiliation and Address:—CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside, CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) 163 'Required information G0015^ State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8418 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6137 Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-b _ *Map Name: La Ouinta. Calif. *Scale:_1:24.000 _ *Date of Map: 1959. ohotorevised 1980 IN, k, y a ju ... • Traifer Park Jraflff Park Z t CA-RIV-5764 `" VO'I wr n CA-RIV-5770 i d 4 ta—CA-RIV 117715765 — ri d a CA-RIV-5778_ _ ra ., CA-RIV-5774_ " - b a �\ F CA-RIV-577115773 CA-RIV-5775� f b C4-R IV-614S + 31 CA RIV�fi143 33 �. 1+1 CA R(V-6137 \ ,yd�N 4e i!I CA-RN-6142 d i o ` CA-RIV-1176. r' CA-RIV-813S r ��ir v ° w CA-RIV-6139 r CA-fl1V-6144 CA-RIV-6138 CA RIV-614L3 x y —ice .4, \ i • A '1 fl ._ _ 35 t, AV$M U E ., .._.. Study area j boundary CZ �. s. a r SCALE 1:24,000 0 112 1 mile r 1000 20DO 3000 4000 feet ry i X, DPR 523J (1/95) 169 *Required information 000153 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8418 _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RZy-6137 Page 4 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-b 'Drawn by: Bruce Love "Date: May 29, 1998 DPR 523K (1/95) / p�fi �~ • Unit 4 / temporary r datum stake ����✓ f ✓ Unit 3 r nft 2 • •• • D /r shard Unit 1 ❑ ,/ D debitage, chalcedony, shatter 0 20 40 m 170 'Required information u00154 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 01 4 P 1 . Other Identifier: Other I Review Primary # 33-8419 HRI If Trinomial CA-Riy-6138 _ NRHP Status Code 67. *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-d *P2. Location: � Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad— La Ouinta, Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; NE 1/4 of —SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip_, d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 566980 mE/ 3727700mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):_. *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A moderately dense scatter of 58 ceramic sherds _and one or two nieces of cart ally fired clay, in an area 80 m x 40 m. Testing shows site to be surface only. *133b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter _ *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object � Site_District_Element of District P5b. Description of Photo: (view, (late, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic 1 Prehistoric Both *P7. Owner and Address: T.D. Desert Development c/o Sparks Construct i.on. Tnc.. P.O. Box 1716, La Ouinta, CA 92253 *P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Quinn, CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside, CA 92507 _ *P9. Date Recorded: June 4. 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) —Archaeological testing program _ *P11 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Ouinn (1998): Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Rancho La Ouinta Protect City of La Ouinta Fiverside County California. On file Eastern ]:nformation Center University of California Riverside *Attachments: _None 4 Location Map —Continuation Sheet_ Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record_ District RecordLinear Resource RecordMilling Station RecordRock Art Record _Artifact RecordPhotograph Record 4 Other (List): Site sketch map DPR 523A (1/95) *Required) information 171 U00155 State of California -The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8419 P DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6138 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 'Hesource Name or tr (Assigneu oy recurueri gun rain 0LG-u Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 80 m (N=S) b. Width ca. 40 m (E W) Method of Measurement:--Paced—Taped—Visual estimate 4 Other: Hand-held compass and range finder - Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 1) Artifacts_Features_Soil_Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank__Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): - Reliability of Determination: —High � Low_Explain:_Shiftincr sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply):_Restricted access_Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined 4 Disturbances_VegetationOther (Explain): Shifting sands over time - A2. Depth: 10 cm _None_Unknown Method of Determination: Four test units *A3. Human Remains:_Presenl: 1] Absent _Possible _Unknown (Explain): *A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None - 'A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) A moderately dense scatter of 58 ceramic sherds and one or two pieces of partially fired clay. - *A6. Were Specimens Collected?—No-4-yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: —Good-'Fair—Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time *A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 1.5 mile to N *A9. Elevation: Ca. 50-60 ft - A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, Iandform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore ---I ovnncn Ye_ Al1. Historical Information: — *Al 2. Age: 4 Prehistoric_Protohistore q 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 _Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:_ Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla roughly AD 1650 - A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity ax'ea Limited data potential.- A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register - A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . - A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 *A17. Form Prepared by: Brun-e I ove and Bai "Tom" Tang Date: January 8 1999 Affiliation and Address:_ CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 925C:7 DPR 523C (1/95) *Required information 00015G) State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8419 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial cA-RIv-6138 Page 3 of 4 "Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-d _ 'Map Name: La Ouinta, Calif. 'Scale: 1:24, 000 'Date of Map: 1959, ohotorevised 1980 !� C[RV57 �A4"3T2 73' -'.. CA-RVIV C- -"o f f tr> study area �y bounda I " N Y 82' i28 TraUer Dark ) ;, f' a s Trailer -Park 1 S Ir k-RIV-5764 CA-RIV-5775 y r ; a CA-RIV-6143 33'wen 49 CA-RIV-1176 .J r ✓' ; U7 `�� W ; 34 j.� AVENUE, l � �n 0 1� i Kxc=q vac#p l' Y Y g 5 3 � Y 1 " SCALE 1:24,000 0 1/2 1 mile n 1000 0 1000 2000 sow +3400 feet —_ iVnl DPR 523J (1/95) 'Required information / 3 000157 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8419 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6138 Page 4 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-d 'Drawn by: Harry M. Quinn 'Date: June 4 1998 f �� II r----, �� .4Unit 4 T C. T x Unit 2 J { ❑ IIr �/ Unit l N� +, Unit 3 /� temporary datum stake' f 0 20 40 m DPR 523K (1/95) • sherd C clay edge of grading 174 *Required information 000158 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 4 Pi. Other Identifier: Other I Review Primary # 33-8420 HRI # Trinomial CA-RTV-6139 NRHP Status Code 6Z 'Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 3 2 2 - e '132. Location: 1j Not for Publication Unrestricted 'a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) 'b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip__ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 567020 mE/ 3727800 _mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate): 'P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries):_A small dense scatter of 41 ceramic sherds, with a light scatter of 7 outlying sherds covering area 55 m x 35 m. Testing ,shows site to be surface only. 'P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter •134. Resources Present:Building_Structure_Object 1j SiteDistrictElement of District P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) _ 'P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_ Historic 1) Prehistoric_Both _ 'P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Development c/o Sparks Construct' -on, Inc.. P.O. Box 1716, La Ouinta CA 92253 'P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M Ouinn CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road. Riverside, CA 92507 `P9. Date Recorded: June 4 1998 •P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program _ *Pit. Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Quinn (1998): Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Rancho La Ouin,ta Project City of La Ouinta, Riverside County California. On file, Eastern Information Center University of California Riverside. _ Attachments: _None � Location Map —Continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record � Archaeological Record —District Record —Linear Resource Record —Milling Station Record Flock Art Record _Artifact Record_Photograph Record Other (List): Site sketch map 171) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information v00]159 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary If 33-8420 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6139 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 -nesource rvamu ur a y .! Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 55 m (E-W) b. Width ca. 35 m (IDS) Method of Measurement:__Paced_Taped_Visual estimate � Other: Hand-held compass and range finder - Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): � Artifacts_Features_Soil_Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank __Animal burrow —Excavation —Properly boundary _Other (Explain):. Reliability of Determination:_High ' Low_Explain: shifting sands over t5.me Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access_Paved/built over _Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances —Vegetation —Other (Explain): Shifting sands over time - A2. Depth: 10 cm _None_Unknown Method of Determination: Two test units *A3. Human Remains: —Present 1( Absent —Possible _Unknown (Explain): *A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None - *A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantity artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) A small den:-e scatter of 41 ceramic sherds with a light scatter of 7 outlying sherds. - *A6. Were Specimens Collected?—No-4 Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: —Good—'Fair—Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time *A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): whitewater River, ca. 1.4 mile tc;r N *A9. Elevation: Ca. 50 ft - A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush strut mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. open exposure. - A11. Historical Information: *Al2. Age: 4j Prehistoric_Protohistoric 1] 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 _Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:_ Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla roughly AD 1650 - A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area Limited data potential. A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register —. A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road R.iversideCA 92507 *A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tana Date: January B 1999 Affiliation and Address:_ CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) 17u *Required, irffRrTV State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8420 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6139 Page 3 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-e . *Map Name: La Ouinta Calif. *Scale: 1:24. 000 _ *Date of Map: 1959 nhotorevised 1980 deems r�e`4a <tva .fir �. yi \ _ Yg kp 02, 29, a p a r �Iratier Park .. •! °I l ARiV5764 1(•4e1± a a CA-RlV-5770 '6 ¢ G .RIV-117715765 -'- '- c �E'weit- CA-RIV 6141' CA-RIV-5778 CA-RIV-5774' ~\ kkk CA-RIV-5771/5773 i, CA-RIV-5775 IL � GA-RIV-6145 i CA-RIV-61433 3': 31,CA-RIV-6137 2Wei' as ill � CA-RIV-6142 IH • r,°. f a CA-RIV-6136 .7 v r• w t •'� I +% '.�/� 1 1` r CA-RIV-6139 CA R1V_-6144 �i$•I_. - CA-RIV-6138CA-RIV-6140. ���„e „" sa: „•.,� __ �'"' ' .. a ;.?._.<" w€Huc® v r i 'r Q study area a imp i..,....1��_✓.c_I `'` '. � - w 1 , SCALE 1:24,000 a .._ 33 1I 0 112 1 tulle 0 1000 2000 3000 -UM feet T DPR 523J (1/95) .L I *Required information 0 )016 1 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8420 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _. SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6139 Page 4 of 4 -Hesource name or s trssyneu uy lewiucij ten.� lnrl j i� 'Drawn by: Harry M. Quinn `Date: June 4. 1998 •---� .---� .----------`- Unit 2 ❑ temporary datum Stake• -"'A • \• .Unit 1 \\ \\ Sherd DPR 523K (1/95) 'Required information 000162 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 4 Pi. Other Identifier Other I Review Primary # 33-8421 HRI # Trinomial CA-RIV-6140 _ NRHP Status Code 6Z Rev *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-g *P2. Location: 4 Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County —Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta, Calif. Date 1959, ohotcrevised _1980 TSS; R7E; SE 114 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip___ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 567430 mE/ 3727820 _mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate): *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A light scatter of 20 ceramic sherds 5 oieces of partially fired clay, and about a dozen oieces of fire -affected rock covering an area 90 m x85 m. Testing shows site to be surface only. _ *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter _ *P4. Resources Present: —Building —Structure —Object 4 Site_District_Element of District Other (isolates. etc.) PSb. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_ Historic 4 Prehistoric_Both _ *P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Development c/o Suarks Construct',on. Inc.. P,Q. Box 1716 La Ouinta CA 92253 *P6. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Quinn CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: June 4 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe)_Archaeological testing urogram _ *1311 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter 'none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Quinn (1998)• Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Rancho La Ouin.ta Proiect City of La Ouinta Riverside County California. On file. Eastern Information Center. Universitv of California. Riverside. *Attachments: _None__�_Location Map —Continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological RecordDistrict Record —Linear Resource Record_Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record Artifact RecordPhotographRecord 4 Other (List): Site sketch man '- 17 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 000163 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8421 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6140 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD • ..yam nesou rue rvame or s (Hssignea oy recorder) CRM TECH ] 22-a Al. Dimensions: a. Length. ca. 90 m (E-W) b. Width ca. 85 m (N-S) Method of Measurement:. —Paced —Taped —Visual estimate 4 Other: Hand-held compass Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 1) Artifacts_Features_Soil_Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank -_Animal burrow —Excavation —Properly boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High q Low_Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access_Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined q Disturbances_vegetation—Other (Explain):_ Shifting sands over time A2. Depth 10 cm _None Unknown Method of Determination: Four test uni.ts *A3. Human Remains:_ Present � Absent_Possible_Unknown (Explain): *A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show Vocation of each feature on sketch map.) None *A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) 20 ceramic sherds 5 pieces of partially fired clay, about a dozen pieces of fire -affected rock *A6. Were Specimens Collected? —No 1) Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: _Good- � Fair Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time *A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River. ca. 1.4 mile t_o N *A9. Elevation: Ca. 50-60 ft A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation; fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope,aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. At 1. Historical Information: *Al2. Age: 4 Prehistoric_Protohistoric 1( 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_11914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla. roughly AD 1650 A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area. Limited data potential A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 *A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tana Date: January 8 1999 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road, Riverside CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) *Required information uOO164 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8421 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6140 Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-a _ *Map Name: La ouinta. Calif. *Scale: 1:24.000 *Date of Map: 1959 ohotorevised 1980 _ CA RIV-577115773 1l' - CA-RIV-6145 f++�I CA-RIV-6137 wL CA-RIV-6142 d� i� CA-RIV-6136 T CA-R1V 6139 'mm CA-RIV-6138 C 3tti 'y study area bounds � DPR 523J (1/95) s `^1! Trailer Park �Tra4er ,Faris b CA-RIV 5775 it � a r CA-RIV-1176 + :i >H CA RIV-6144 C ; u k a y ! � I a p u t E 1 ^ 1 F n SCALE 1:24,000 �^ 0 t/2 t mite n o 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet wer 181 *Required information G��O�G5 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SKETCH MAP Primary # HRI # Page 4 of 4 "Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH -,22-a 'Drawn by: Harry M. Ouinn 'Date: ,June 4. 1998 7/�,+�^\.- Unit 1 -t \ R H � �r r [emporary Ij datum stakeA, El Unit 2 CC// - CC %f C �R Unit 3 C j t((/ Unit 4 / 1 fence M • sherd C clay R rock 0 29 4o m 132 DPR 523K (1/95) 'Required information v00166 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Primary If HRI # Trinomial CA-RTV-6141 NRHP Status Code 6Z _ Other Listings _ Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 4 'Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-h P 1 . Other Identifier: 'P2. Location: 4 Not for Publication _Unrestricted `a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) 'b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta Calif. Date 1959 photorevised .1980 T5S; R7E; SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone_ 11; 567080 mE/ 3728700 _mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):___ 'P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A light scatter of more than two dozen nieces of, partially fired clay and a half dozen nieces of fire -affected rock with one Mann fragment and one nottery sherd scattered over an area 40 m x 15 m. Testing shows site to be sux-face only. '133b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter, AP16-other (Qroundstone) 'P4. Resources Present:_Building_Structure_Object � Site —District —Element of District P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_Historic__�_Prehistoric_Both _ 'P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Development c/o Sparks Construction. Inc., P.O. Box 1716 La Ouinta CA 92253 'P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Quinn CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road. Riverside A 92507 'P9. Date Recorded: June 4 1998 'P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program . P 11 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter 'none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Quinn (1998) Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Rancho La Quir.ta Project City of La Ouinta Riverside County California. On file, Eastern Information Center University of California. Riverside. 'Attachments: _None_�_Location MapContinuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record —District Record_Linear Resource Record —Milling Station Record —Flock Art Record _Artifact Record_Photograph Record—�-Olher (List): Site sketch map DPR 523A (1/95) 'Required information i.i001G 7 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8422 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6141 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 -mesource name ui n tmaaiyuc.. „y .. / - Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 40 m (E=W) b. Width ca. 15 m (N=S) Method of Measurement: —Paced —Taped —Visual estimate � Other: Hand-held compass and range finder - Method of Determination (Check any that apply.):—4 Artifacts_FeaturesSoil_Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank _Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): - Reliability of Determinatioh:_High __�_Low_Explain: Shiftina sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access—Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined . Disturbances_Vegetation_Other(Explain): Shiftina sands over time -- A2. Depth:10 cm —None—Unknown Method of Determination: Four test units 'A3. Human Remains:_Present 1( Absent —Possible _Unknown (Explain): -- 'A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None - 'A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., riot associated with features.) One mano fraument one pottery sherd more than two do:zen_.pieces of partially fired clay, and a half dozen pieces of fire -affected rock.. 'A6. Were Specimens Collected?_Noyes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good 4 Fair —Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time 'A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 0.8 mile tc: N 'A9. Elevation: Ca. 60 ft — A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. A11. Historical Information: — 'At2. Age: 4 Prehistoric_Protohistoric 1] 1542-1769_1769-1848,_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 _Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand .if ancient Lake Cahuilla roucfhly AD 1650 A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert ah illa activity area. Limited data otential. —. A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Reoister — A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . — A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Recor'd.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside CA 92507 'A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tana Date: January 8. 999 Affiliation and Address:_ CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 925C17 184 DPR 523C (1/95) 'Required information a�;aiGa State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8422 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-Riv-6141 Page 3 of 4 "Hesource Name or s IHssigneu uy recuruep Unrm rn� n �ZL-i, "Map Name: La Ouinta Calif. `Scale: 1,24,000 'Date of Map: 1959 ohotorevised 1980 185 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information (J001G9 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8422 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6141 Page 4 of 4 'Resource Name or s tASSigneo oy recoruep ctt, Ins n *Drawn by: Harry M. Quinn *Date: June 4 1998 U3 C cc 0C C C C C t / C C C C� Unit 2 -�`-- �'MC'C` _ •R C C: 1 P Unit R` C 3 • `_ Unit 4D C • sherd C clay M mano fragment P pipe survey stake R rock 0 temporary datum stake Q 10 20 m DPR 523K (1/95) 186 *Required information 000170 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page -!-Of 4 Other I Review Primary # 33-8423 -- HRI If _. Trinomial CA-RIV-6142 -- NRHP Status Code 6z - mesource Name or s: fvssiyneu uy icwwmt P1. Other Identifier: •P2. Location: Not for Publication _Unrestricted `a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) 'b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta Calif. Date 1959 photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of SW 114 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip_- d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 566910 mE/ 3727920 mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):__- 'P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A very small site consisting of only 3 ceramic sherds and 3 -ieces of partially fired clay, covering an area 4 m x 3.5 m. Testing shows site to be surface only. — •P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter _. 'P4. Resources Present:—Building—Structure_Object � Site —District of District P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) •P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: —Historic 4 Prehistoric_Both •P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Development c/o Sparks Construction. Inc.. P.O. Box 1716 La Ouinta CA 92253 - 'P6. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Barry M. Quinn,CRM TECH, 326 Barrett Road. i ersi CA 92507 - •p9, Date Recorded: June 4 1998 -P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program `P11. Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. (1998) cultural Resources Assessment Report, Rancho La Ouirita Proi ect Quinn City of La Ouinta, Riverside County. California. On file. Easterrn[.nformation Center University of California Riverside. 'Attachments: _None 4 Location Map —Continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record_ District Record —Linear Resource Record —Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record_Photograph Record _-�LOther (List): Site sketch map 7 DPR 523A (1/95) Required information 000171 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8423 — DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RTV-6142 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 'Resource Name or a (Hssignea oy recoraeq uxm iEux 3..z-i Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 4 m (N=S) b. Width ca. 3.5 m (E W) Method of Measurement: —Paced —Taped —Visual estimate � Other: Hand-held compass and range finder Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 4 Artifacts_Features_Soil_VegE�tation —Topography----Cut bank —Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High _�_Low_Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access—Paved/built over _Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances_Vegetation—Other(Explain): Shifting sands over time A2. Depth: 10 cm —None—Unknown Method of Determination: One test unit 'A3. Human Remains:_Present-�L-Absent_Possible _Unknown (Explain): — 'A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None —. 'A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) 3 ceramic sherds and ""3 pieces of partially fired clay 'A6. Were Specimens Coll ected?_Non_Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good —� Fair_Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time •A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 1.4 mile to N 'A9. Elevation: Ca. 50 ft A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesguite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore, nncn e11n913re- At1. Historical Information: •Al2. Age: 4 Prehistoric_Protohistoric 4 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla, roucrly AD 1650 — A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, funclion[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area Limited data potential A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . - A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside, AA 2507 'A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tang Date: January 8, 1999 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside, CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) 'Required information UU��an State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8423 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6142 Page 3 of 4 "Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-i - 'Map Name: La Ouinta Calif. 'Scale: 1:24,000 'Date of Map: 1959 ohotorevised 1980 _ may �L CA-RiW ',CA-F �N 31 CA -RI tll � - CA-RIV6 "� >.CA-RIV-61: l 3t �� CA-RIV-61; a IW DPR 523J (1/95) w yy+ R • # i `A J • Trailer Palk Trader :Bark } 5764 CA-RIV-11771° ._{ C .?j w ,� # CA RIV-614A CA-RIV-6140 b•�- ! r ) "� ...,= • it ,i }4' t JG _% AVENU£I v [ n B � � r qq e n — - i I• � S P ( E A • • • { SCALE 1:24,000 0 1/2 1 mile 1000 0 1000 20M 3000 4000feet • 1 89 *Required information 0010173 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8423 _ )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6142 Page 4 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-i *Drawn by: Harry M. Quinn *Date: June 4, 1998 Unit 1 $ temporary 1 datum stake �/)Jj DPR 523K (1195) sherd 0 2 4m 190 1 n *Required information v�01a4 * State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other I Review Primary # 33-8424 _. HRI # Trinomial CA-RIV-6143 _ NRHP Status Code 6Z rage 1 Vl 4 -Hesource Name or S: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH :S22-n P 1 . Other Identifier: *P2. Location: q Not for Publication _Unrestricted *a. County_Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta, Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R 7 E ; SE 114 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 567180 mE/ 3728490 _mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):__. *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): 3 ceramic sherds in an area. 20 m x 10 m. _ *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter _ *P4. Resources Present:_Building_Structure_Object 1 Site —District —Element of District _Other isolates, etc. P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_ Historic ' Prehistoric_ Both . *P7. Owner and Address: T.D. Desert Development, c/o Sparks Constri)ct ,on, Inc.. P.O. Box 1716, La Ouinta. CA 92253 *P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Quinn, CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road. *P9. Date Recorded: June 5. 1998 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program *P11 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter 'none."): Bruce Love and Harry M. Ouinn (1998), Cultural Resources Assessment Report: Rancho La Ouinta Project City of La Ouinta Riverside County California. On file, Eastern Information Center University of California Riverside *Attachments: _NonegLocation Map continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record_ District Record_Linear Resource Record_Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record_Photograph Record � Other (List): Site sketch map 191 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8424 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6143 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 'Resource Name or if (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 3a2-n Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 20 m (N=S) b. Width ca, 10 m (E W) Method of Measurement:Paced_Taped_Visual estimate 4 Other: Hand-held compass and range finder Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 4 Artifacts —Features —Soil --Vegetation —Topography--Cut bank —Animal burrow —Excavation —Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High 4 Low_Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access—Paved/built over —Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances_VegetationOther (Explain): Shifting sands over time A2. Depth: _None .J Unknown Method of Determination: Not tested due to small number of artifacts 'A3. Human Remains:_Present J Absent_ Possible_ Unknown (Explain): •A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None _. •A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.)_ 3 ceramic sherds — •A6. Were Specimens Collected? —No 4 Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good 1) Fair poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time `A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River. ca. 1.1 mile to N •A9. Elevation: Ca. 40 ft —. A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore, At1. Historical Information:_ — 'Al2. Age: 4 Prehistoric_Protohistoric 4 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla roughly AD 1650 --. A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilia activity area Limited data potential A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11, A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside. 'A d2507 •A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tang Date: January Sr 1999 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) .192 `Required information 5,001"C State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8424 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6143 rage � or 4 `nesouree Name or a iASsignea by reCoroer) CRM TECH 322-n - 'Map Name: La Ouinta Calif. •Scale: 1:24.000 *Date of Map: 1959, ohotorevised 1980 CA-RIV-6141 rare , ., CA-RIV-5774 CA-RIV-5771/5773 CA-RIV-614 CA-RIV6137 CA-RIV 6142 d� i0it ? ", CA-RIV 6136 sd � CA-RIV-6139 . ' 8 CAV 6138 "�• 'S01,". A: 31l i r- �+ 0+ studyarea bounda r o17 1 P � t ijiiIs� Traier Pay L� f 4 •i� i TraW $erk a CA-RIV-5778_ RIV-1178 CA-7-1 �� WA X � � •V X { '� 1 4VEMVe. � "-'n " M e �i TT i - -W a X i w• .• t �jy Y t X 4 f g r n A ��. SCALE 124,000 38 rt ii o 1/2 t mile n t � a I low 0 1000 2000 3000 4000feet ..._ - -- DPR 523J (1/95) "Required 'informafd/i3 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8424 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6143 rage 4 oT 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 3322-n 'Drawn by: Harry M. Quinn 'Date: June 5. 1998 temporary datutke C ® jjj sherd 0 5 10 m 194 DPR 523K (1/95) "Required information 0001"8 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 4 P1. Other Identifier: Other Listings Review Code Primary # 33-8425 _ HRI # Trinomial CA-RIV-6144 _. NRHP Status Code 6Z 'Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-D/348-7 P2. Location: 4 Not for Publication _Unrestricted 'a. County_ Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) 'b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta. Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; SW 114 of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 567640 mE/ 3727800_mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):__ 'P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A large site covering an area 125 m x 80 m :7ont:ainina 60+ ceramic sherds half a dozen nieces of lithic debitage severa:L dozen nieces of fire -affected rock, a dozen nieces of partially fired clay, a dozen nieces of burned small mammal bone. Testing in northern half or site shows site to be surface only. Southern half of site not vet tested. _ •P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP2-lithic scatter: AP3-ceramic scatter: AP16-other (bone/shell) 'P4. Resources Present:_Building_Structure_Object__�_Site_District_Elerrient of District isolates, etc. _ PSa _Other Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, dale, accession #) 'P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: —Historic lj Prehistoric —Both 'P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Development c/o Sparks Construct Lon. Inc. P.O. Box 1716 La Ouinta CA 92253 `P6. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Quinn,CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road, Riverside CA 22507 —. '09. Date Recorded: June 5/November 2 1998 'P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program/intensive sux-vev_ ' P 1 1 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): (1) Bruce Lam: and Harry M. Ouinn (1998)• Cultural Resources Assessment Renort• Ran-ho_La Ouinta Protect City of La Ouinta. Riverside County, California. On file. Eastern Information Center University of California Riverside (2) Bruce Love. Bai Tom" Tana and Harry M. Quinn (1998)• Cultural Resources Rend_: Tentative Parcel Maps No 29052 & 29053 City of La Ouinta Riverside County. California On file Eastern Information Center University Df California. `Attachments: _None q Location Map —Continuation Sheet —Building, Structure, and Object Record ,Archaeological Record_ District Record —Linear Resource Record —Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record —Photograph Record__)LOther (List): Site sketch map DPR 523A (1/95) `Required information State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8425 —_ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6144 —. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-D/348-7 Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 125 m (NS) b. Width ca. 80 m (EW) Method of Measurement:_Paced_TapedVisual estimate 1) Other: Hand-held compass and range finder Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 4 Artifacts —Features —Soil --Vegetation —Topography--Cut bank —Animal burrow_Excavation_Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High 4 Low Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply): —Restricted access—Paved/built over —Site limits incompletely defined . Disturbances_Vegetation_Other(Explain): Shifting sands over time A2. Depth: _None � Unknown Method of Determination: Four test units in northern half of site show site to be surface only. Southern half of site is not vet tested —. 'A3. Human Remains:_Present_Absent 1( Possible _Unknown (Explain): — 'A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None —. 'A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) 60+ ceramic sherds half a dozen nieces of lithic debi.taoe. several dozen nieces of fire -affected rock a dozen nieces of partially fixed clay, a doze f burned small mammal bone — 'A6. Were Specimens Collected? —No � Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good 4 Fair —Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time •A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Whitewater River, ca. 1.4 mile to N 'A9. Elevation: Ca 40-60 ft —. A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub mesquite sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. All. Historical Information: "� —. *Al2. Age: � Prehistoric_Protohistoric_y_1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla roughly AD 1650 -- — A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area Limited data potential.— A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item P11 . — A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road, Riverside. CA ?2507 'A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tang Date: January 8 1999 Affiliation and Address:_ CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside CA 92507 DPR 523C (1/95) 196 'Required information u0Q180 State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8425 _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6144 Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-0/348-7 *Map Name: La Ouinta. Calif. *Scale: I:24.000 *Date of Map: 1959, ohotorevised 1980 ld,,.72 �01 BM 1' @ ii1 y' "00-PSrJi �� � N 1 y. 7 ti i !Vier Reds Z. u Y railer A*k t .Y Wed a L3� ik f CA-RIV-6144 V M Y� 1 E� ,-, �'" water JA ww a it fl Y rt + IY a+r^ .cam— Y Y t Y w t q Y-i Y Y Y Y r Y M1 ' well SCALE 1:24,000 0 112 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet 97 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information vOQl�l State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8425 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRIIf SKETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RTV-6144 rage 4 or 4 "resource Name or a (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322--D/348-7 'Drawn by: Harry M. Ouinn *Date: June 5/November 2 1998 Unk 3 Unit 4 ' R temporary ❑ Trench 4 ` \datum stakeAL ' \ unitl0} R Unfit BR R CB F R\\v g S c� `R R.R R fence S. R. B, R B•R \ 8 RR C B R B R O RS R RB R B R B lemrary CRR'. C datu mstake�R RBBR R R C •CBCC jj C.8 R R /j I BC / .RC B shard ✓ B bone C clay F flake R fire -affected rock S shell -- backhce trench 0 20 40 m DPR 523K (1/95) 198 `Required information 600182 State of California --The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 4 Other I Review Primary # 33-8426 _ HRI # Trinomial CA-RIV-6145 NRHP Status Code 6Z Reviewer *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-a P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: � Not for Publication _Unrestricted *a. County —Riverside and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta. Calif. Date 1959, photorevised 1980 T5S; R7E; SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 32 ; S.B. B.M. c. Address N/A City La Ouinta Zip._ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 567160 mE/ 3728270 _mN e. Other Locational Data (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate):__ *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): A small site covering 18 m x 10 m with 6 ceramic _sherds and a dozen nieces of fire -affected rock. Testing shows site to be surface only. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP3-ceramic scatter _ *P4. Resources Present:_Building_Structure_Object_�_Site_District_Element of District Other (isolates etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:_Historic__�_Prehistoric_Both _ *P7. Owner and Address: T D Desert Develonment, c/o Snarks Construction, Inc.. P.O. Box 1716 La Ouinta CA 92253 *P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address): Harry M. Ouinn. CRM TECH. 126 Barrett Road. *P9. Date Recorded: June 6 1996 _. *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Archaeological testing program *P11 . Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none."): Bruce Love, and Harry M. Ouinn (1998): Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Rancho La (uinta Proiect City of La Ouinta Riverside County California. On file. Eastern :Information Center. University of California. Riverside. Attachments: _None_�Location Map Continuation Sheet_Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological RecordDistrict RecordLinear Resource Record —Milling Station Record —Rock Art Record _Artifact Record —Photograph Record__�,Other (List): Site sketch map _ DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information }J y State of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8426 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CA-RIV-6145 _ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD rage vi 4 -nesource Name or a (Assigned oy recorder) CRM TECH 322-a Al. Dimensions: a. Length ca. 18 m (E-W) b. Width ca. 10 m (N-S) Method of Measurement:_ Paced_ Taped_ Visual estimate 4 Other: _ Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): 1) Artifacts_Features_Soil_Vegetation —Topography—Cut bank —Animal burrow —Excavation —Property boundary _Other (Explain): Reliability of Determination: —High __�_Low_Explain: Shifting sands over time Limitations (Check any that apply):_Restricted access—Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined q Disturbances_ VegetationOther (Explain): Shifting sands over time A2. Depth: 10 cm. —None—Unknown Method of Determination: Two test units •A3. Human Remains:_Present 1) Absent_Possible_Unknown (Explain): 'A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.)_ None •A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) 6 ceramic sherds, a dozen pieces of fire -affected rock `A6. Were Specimens Collected? —No q Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) 'A7. Site Condition: _Good-1 Fair —Poor (Describe disturbances.): Shifting sands over time •A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.):_ Whitewater River. ca. 1.1 mile to N •A9. Elevation: Ca. 50 ft _ A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Creosote bush scrub, mesquite, sand dunes formed along ancient lake shore. Al1. Historical `Al2. Age: 1' Prehistoric_Protohistoric lj 1542-1769_1769-1848_1848-1880_1880-1914_1914-1945 _Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Probably associated with the last high stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla, roughly AD 1650 A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations.) Desert Cahuilla activity area. Limited data potential. A14. Remarks: Not eligible for listing in the National Register A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item Pil. At6. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road, Riverside, CA 9.2507 •A17. Form Prepared by: Bruce Love and Bai "Tom" Tana Date: January 8. 1999 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 126 Barrett Road, Riverside. CA 22507 -. 200 DPR 523C (1/95) Required information iJ Cl'� 1. v,1 State of iCalifornia--The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8426 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6145 Page 3 of 4 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322=g_ *Map Name: La Ouinta, Calif. •Scale: I:24.000 — *Date of Map: 1959, ohotorevised 1980 — -, T - tiE'c��p rTrai� �1" , Fir �` �j. � m• j� l 29.. fit.! %1'10 ! ... Traiter Park r - !Trailer CA-RIV-5764 ,Clan!` n CA-RIV-5770 >e CA-RIV-1177/5765 r-a— C — -- ' W& CA-RIV 6141' GA-RIV-5774� d CA-RIV 5778- b CA-R11A57711nt 1%5 C7. A-RIV 5775v fl CA-RtV-6146 f CA RIV-6137 13T a._,. CA-RIV-6143 ' "f .. _. 33 av kv1; GA RIV 6t42 3 d ' v t CA-RIV-1176, CA-RIV-6136 ,� i W �' i� ,i •11� p i GA-RIV 6139� CA R1V-614-0 ' CA-RIV-61 CA-RIV rAVCNU II: '�''s. ' SO ;.... ..i' [ II ✓� 34 ty i study area �k d t bounda 3' ^`--f Y Vffit, ..—' - s 6 • L • SCALE 1:24,000 C_ n _...........�-,r..�yr �I o ' 1/2 1 mile n 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 UW feat ar— I Wei 201 DPR 523J (1/95) •Requirecl information i7i��!iV 1 R of California --The Resources Agency Primary # 33-8426 _ ARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ETCH MAP Trinomial CA-RIV-6145 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CRM TECH 322-a by: Harry M. Quinn 'Date: June 6 1998 P" temporary Unit 1 1\ datum stake ❑ . R F . \\i R R Unit 2 C R ❑ C • shard C clay R fire -affected rock 0 5 tom DPR 523K (1/95) 202 *Required information 11001 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ao DATE: JANUARY21, 1999 ITEM: INTERIM CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR PROPOSED BORROW AREA - RANCHO LA QUINTA PROJECT, CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN 48T" AVENUE AND 50TH AVENUE, ROUGHLY MIDSECTION OF SECTION 32 CONSULTANT: CRM TECH - BRUCE LOVE, PH.D. and HARRY M. QUINN DEVELOPER: T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT PAW temeivl�m In July 1998, archaeological monitoring of a proposed 21 acre borrow area was conducted by CRM TECH as part of a larger cultural resources assessment program for the Rancho La Quinta project. The location of this study area is shown on Page 2 of the attached report. The report presents the results of the monitoring. Previously, the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU) from the University of California, Riverside, had included the borrow area in a 100% surface survey conducted of the study area in 1995. The borrow area is also part of the evaluation investigation conducted by CRM TECH between May and December 1998. There had not been any archaeological resources recorded within the proposed borrow area prior to the monitoring, and no artifacts or cultural deposits were observed during the monitoring. The report concludes that no further mitigation is necessary for the borrow area. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the report and concurs with the results and conclusions. 20J RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report titled, "Archaeological Monitoring Report- Construction Borrow Area- Rancho La Quinta Project, City of La Quinta,.." in partial compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Attachment: 1. Archaeological Monitoring Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: Submitted by: ��� e� 06L� - e ie unqu Moid, As ociate Planner Christine di lorio, P nning Manager C:\M ydata\H PC rptR nacho La Quintaborro wa rea. wpd 204 CF A.fiPJlf•ii CEPARTAAENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT CONSTRUCTION BORROW AREA Rancho La Quinta Project City of La Quinta, Riverside County Submitted to: Grady Sparks T.D. Desert Development C/o Sparks Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 1716 La Quinta, CA 92253 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Harry M. Quinn, Archaeologist CRM TECH 126 Barret Road Riverside, CA 92507 September 9, 1998 CRM TECH Contract #322B Approximate )yy 21 Acres La Quints, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian 1-. 205 INTRODUCTION In July, 1998, at the request of Sparks Construction, Inc., CRM TECH performed an archaeological monitoring program at a borrow area on the site of the Rancho La Quinta Project, located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The borrow area, approximately 21 acres in size, is a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The monitoring program is a part of the on -going cultural resources study for the project, which was required by the Lead Agency, namely the City of La Quinta, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the program is to assist the project proponent and the Lead Agency in preventing the construction activities from causing substantial adverse changes to any historical resources that may exist in or around the borrow area. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and conclusions of the monitoring program. METHODS Archaeological monitoring at the project site was performed between July 14 and 22, 1998, by Bruce Love, CRM TECH principal, and Harry M. Quinn, project archaeologist. Dr. Love received his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1986, and has extensive experience in archaeological field research in southern California since 1981. Mr. Quinn holds a certificate in archaeology from the University of California, Los Angeles (1978), in addition to an M.S. degree in geology from the University of Southern California (1968). A former president of the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, Mr. Quinn's engagement in archaeological field research in southern California dates to 1953. The methods used involved walking behind the heavy equipment (scrapers) after each pass, inspecting the ground surface for any artifacts, features, sites, or cultural resources greater than fifty years old. Areas of darkened soil, ash, or charcoal were inspected especially closely. RESULTS AND FINDINGS No artifacts, features, sites, or other archaeological remains were observed during monitoring of the borrow area operations. Scattered remains of burned and unburned mesquites were found ranging from the upper area of the dune to the base of the grading level and some large areas of burned soil and charcoal were exposed. These, however, had no cultural material associated with them, but appear to be related- to pieces of burned mesquite limbs and branches. The burned soil areas tend to be thin and undulating, one to three centimeters thick, and appear to be burned duff areas associated with the mesquites that helped form the dune. The burned mesquite wood commonly has reddish -brown sand halos around it, indicating the mesquite was burned in place. 1 206 : y y 4`k e +.iV p� � 1 E {Yd1E "tF l4 n v Inae i[er Fk" [Toiler 11 rP, .� F � , _ borrows _ =-�- , area 29 w1_ k t 1 usNUc b tp 1 rt `E I 1 Z i;J Welt f � t , - a 1 F r SCALE 1:24,000 0 1/2 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet a Figure 1. Location and configuration of the borrow area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle, 1981) edition) 2 20 The mesquite wood that has not been burned is present in various stages of decomposition, from rather fresh wood to some that is locally lignitic, a condition intermediate between peat and coal. There was at least one altered area of unburned duff that was very lignitic. The clay/silt area in the lower west end of the dune was saturated during the sprinkler program, apparently by a pipeline break. This clay/silt sequence was found to range in thickness from about a foot to nearly four feet. As grading continued, this clay/silt was exposed further and further to the east, indicating that it may continue under the dune, forming an aquitard (a bed that retards water flow) that is holding up perched groundwater, which has allowed this mesquite dune to exist. The water applied to the surface sands sank out of site rapidly, saturating the upper portion of the clay/silt layer making it into a mire. The material below this wet zone was entirely dry, showing the effectiveness of the clay/silt layer in forming an aquitard supporting a perched water table. In sum, monitoring during sand removal at the borrow area provided interesting insights into dune formation and geologic processes that helped the archaeologists to interpret geologic features occurring at other parts of the project, however, no artifacts or cultural features were observed during the monitoring. RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). This study has concluded that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the borrow area, and therefore no substantial adverse change to a historical resource will be caused by past and future construction activities in that area. Accordingly, no further cultural resources investigation is recommended for this portion of the Rancho La Quinta project site. CONCLUSION The foregoing report has outlined the methods and results of the archaeological monitoring program and discussed the pertinent statutory and regulatory guidelines. Throughout the course of the monitoring program, no "historical resources" or "important archaeological resources," as defined by CEQA guidelines, were discovered within or adjacent to the borrow area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of La Quinta a finding of "No Impact" on cultural resources regarding past and future construction activities within the borrow area. The overall cultural resources study on the Rancho La Quinta project site, comprising some 300 acres in total area, is still underway, and this report does not constitute an archaeological clearance on the entire project. 3 DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: CONSULTANT: DEVELOPER: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ao JANUARY 2-1, 1999 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26855 10 ACRES ON EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN 50T" AVENUE AND 52ND AVENUE THE KEITH COMPANIES - PAUL G. CHACE,PH.D. BROOKFIELD HOMES In December 1998, a Phase I cultural resources field survey was conducted on a 10 acre parcel. The parcel is to be added to a previously approved residential subdivision for which a Phase I cultural resources assessment was conducted by Love in 1998' and accepted by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 2, 1998. The assessment conducted by Love did not result in any resources identified. Since that time, the developer has acquired the 10 acre parcel and proposes to include it with the project. The Phase I assessment on the 10 acre parcel did not result in archaeological or significant historical resources being observed. In the recent past a single family residence was demolished on the parcel that was located on an elevated dune. All indications are that the house was constructed sometime after the 1959 USGS map for the area was printed, as the house is not depicted on that map or earlier maps. There are remnants of the structure on the dune, such as pieces of cement foundation, iron rebar, concrete blocks, pipes, and surviving trees. The report concludes that no archaeological resources or significant historical resources were observed on the parcel. In addition, the report proposes no further investigation or specific mitigation measures, beyond the State policy regarding buried resources uncovered during grading requiring the contractor to halt work in that area and call a qualified archaeologist to assess the discovery. No mitigation was recommended or imposed for the main portion of the subdivision approved in 1998. �6 1 ENNUTrom Staff has reviewed the report and concurs with the results and conclusions. The lack of previously recorded sites in the immediate vicinity of the project area, east of Jefferson Street, indicate a lower level of potential for prehistoric resources, although prehistoric artifacts have frequently been discovered in areas disturbed by agricultural activities. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report titled, "Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey for the Revised T.T.M. 26855,° in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Attachment: 1 . Archaeological Survey Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: /v��J—% (/Le$lie Mouriqu nd, A ociate Planner C:\Mydata\HPCrptTTM26855-1 Oacres. wpd Submitted by: XI 11 Christine di lorio, Plannimg Manager THE KEITH COMPANIES IftJ PC'�,"I _ C i1 .1 ni I DEC, 1. t> M8 Q1 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE REVISED T.T.M. 26855 (BROOKFIELD TRACT), CITY OF LA QUINTA 611 #40472.001: TSC #13383.000 Prepared for: Planning KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. Palm Desert Division a^g^ee^^g 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 a°""°°inP0ta1 sa,",yes LaWSu,,,,, Pum1c w°,xa Prepared hV: wafer Resources THE KEITH COMPANIES atuaiRes°u,ce Cultural Resources Division 2955 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Author: Paul G. Ch ce, Ph.D., S.O.P.A. Projec Archaeologist December 1998 USGS La Quinta Quad 10 acres, survey No cultural sites (714)540-0800 r 1 PO. Box 25127. Santa Ana, CA 92799 4- i 2955 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 926:26 EXECUTIVE: SUMMARY A phase I archaeological resources survey was undertaken in December 1998 by The Keith Companies to locate any cultural resources located on a 10 acre project tract recently acquired and added into the planning for the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855. This new project parcel, APN 769-270-003, is located along the eastern side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, within the incorporated City of La Quinta. No archaeological resources or significant historical landmarks were found to exist on or near this property being added to the T.T.M. No. 25855. Previously, a comprehensive cultural resources survey report had been completed on the other portion of this tract map, and no archaeological or historical resources were reported as present. The Revised T.T.M. No. 215855 is being proposed as a residential subdivision., with 95 residential lots. Under CEQA planning law, it is concluded that this, proposed development will have no definable direct or indirect effect on any recognized cultural resources, and no specific planning considerations are warranted for known cultural resources. However, should buried archaeological resources be uncovered during the: grading and construction, work in the area of the discovery should be halted until these resources are evaluated by a qualified Professional Archaeologist, and, if appropriate, any significant archaeological resources present are recorded and salvaged. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER II PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3 CHAPTER III METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 14 CHAPTER IV ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 16 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 20 REFERENCES CITED 21 APPENDIX: A REQUEST, AND STATE CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH REPORT APPENDIX: B LETTER: TO LOCAL, TORRES-MARTINEZ TRIBAL COUNCIL APPENDIX. C RESUME OF PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST %113 JI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared at the request of the KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC., Palm Desert Division. Under their authorization of December 1998, a Phase l archaeological resources survey was undertaken to locate and assess any cultural resources located on the 10 acre tract being added to the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855. This project property is located along the eastern side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, within the incorporated City of La Quinta. The project 10 acre tract, APN 769-270-003, is a portion of Section 4, T. 6 S., R. 7 E., in south central Riverside County. It is being proposed that the 10 acre project tract be added into the Revised T.T.M. No. 26855. As a proposed residential subdivision, this revised tract map is being processed for review and approval by the City of La Quinta. This survey and report has been prepared to address the City's environmental planning requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed residential subdivision(s) along Jefferson Street and its environmental planning has a length}history. Back in 1991-1992, the original tract map proposed by the Kanlian family and approved by the City of La Quinta as T.T.M. No. 26855 included only 23 acres and did not included the—L0 acres of the curr nt_p j.cct paLcel (APN 769-270-003). Also, at that same time, the Thomas Hansch ranch, a 40 acre property to the immediate south (APN 769- 270-001) was proposed as another residential subdivision, and the City approved T.T.M. No. 26718 for that 40 acre tract. Ultimately, in February 1998, a comprehensive cultural resources survey was completed on these two properties, a combined acreage of 63 acres. No archaeological and no significant historical resources were reported as present on these two tracts (Love 1998). In considering time extensions and as part of its environmental planning considerations for these tentative tract maps, the City accepted and approved that cultural resources report (City of La Quinta, Historic Preservation Commission, 19 March 1998, Motion 98-004). Subsequently, the two properties comprising these two previously proposed but still unbuilt subdivisions were purchased by' Brookfield California Land Holdings, Inc., of Santa Ana, California. Recently, Brookfield also was able to acquire the tract of 10 acre, APN 769-270-003, the current project property. This key' 10 acre tract is situated immediately between the two previously proposed residential subdivision tracts. Acquisition of this key 10 acre parcel provided authority for its planning and incorporation into much improved and integrated area subdivision plans. However, this new acquisition remained to be surveyed and accessed for any cultural resources which might be present. This report addresses that environmental planning issue. 214 This report describes the archaeological resources survey of the 10 acre project tract recently acquired for the now Revised T.T.M. No. 26855. No archaeological or significant historical resources were found to exist on or near the newly added project property. It is concluded that the proposed and revised residential subdivision will have no definable direct or indirect effect on any recognized cultural resources, and no specific planning considerations are warranted for known cultural resources. It is State policy, however, that should buried archaeological resources be uncovered during the construction of this project, that work in the area of the discovery should be halted until these resources are evaluated by a qualified Professional Archaeologist,, and, if appropriate, any significant archaeological resources present are recorded and salvaged. This report follows the procedures for addressing cultural resources planning considerations required under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (P.R.C, Sec. 21000 et seq.) and as amended for archaeology in 1982 (P.R.C. Sec. 21083.2), as stipulated in the State C.E.Q.A. Guidelines, Appendix K, "Arch- aeological Impacts." This report conforms to the procedures recommended the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (1989). The ARMS format for archaeological reports has been adopted by the City of La. Quinta. This investigation also complies with the Federal guidelines (36 CFR 60 and 36 CFR 8Cb) to conform with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4327). This archaeological survey program was carried out and this report was prepared by Paul G. Chace, Ph.D. Dr. Chace has been certified since 1977 as a. member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists (S.O.P.A.), and he is qualified under the Secretary of the Interior's 1983 standards as a Professional Archaeologist. Dr. Chace also is recognized as a qualified Historian. CHAPTER II PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proi.e_ct_1_o_ca i_Qn_ The current project property is the 10 acre tract, APN 769-270-003, being added to the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855, a revised and expanded tentative tract map being processed as a proposed residential subdivision in the City of La Quinta. With this added acreage, the newly revised tract map has been expanded from approximately 23 to 33 acres (but the original 23 acres were addressed in a previous cultural resources survey report). The current project property is located along the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenue 52, within the incorporated City of La Quinta. This new 10 acre project. tract being added to the revised subdivision, is situated in a northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in south central Riverside County. This project tract, approximately 660 by 660 feet in size, is a portion of Section 4, in Township 6 South, Range 7 East, S.B.M. The general location, as shown on the USGS La Quinta quad map, is illustrated in Figure 1. The previous "'study area," the other 23 acres of the prior tentative tract map previously addressed with, a cultural resources study, is shown in Figure 2 (based upon Love 1998, Figure 2.) The newly Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855 novv includes a total of 95 residential lots, as well as private streets, open spaces dedicated for landscaping, a common area, and a separate lot for storm water retention. The Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855 for the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 3, which includes the 10 acre addition forming, the; southwest portion of this subdivision tract map. The actual 10 acre parcel along the east side of Jefferson Street, APN 769-270-003, addressed in this current archaeological survey also is illustrated in Figure 4. The boundaries of the 10 acre parcel being added to the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855 were clearly evident in the field. Jefferson Street is developed along the west side of the project property, and a fence of white -painted wood rails had been constructed along the street, with a gated opening leading from the Jefferson up a gravel driveway to mounded home pad in the northwestern portion of the property (Figures 5 and 6). The north side of the project property marked with a wire fence, with a large open yard (or fallow pasture) and residence beyond. The east boundary of the property- follows a dirt roadway leading to the residence northward of the property, with fallow agricultural fields to the east of the road (Figure 7). The furrowed but fallow field of the south side of the project property abutted the adjacent property developed with an dense citrus grove of mature grapefruit trees which has not been trimmed and maintained in recent seasons (Figure 8). 3 Elevations 21Lths__Pro,jest_-Propert,y. The current project tract is within the old basin of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla which filled the valley up to its ancient shoreline at approximately +40 above mean sea level and created beach line features at this elevation along the margins of the valley. The project tract is at an elevation of approximately +27 to +30 feet above mean sea level, and slopes very slightly to the east into the old basin of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. Thus, this entire property was submerged within the old lake, Further, this submerged hear -shore area was subject to erosional surge and wind waves which would have leveled and smoothed the lake basin surface. However, in the northwestern portion of the tract is an elongated, tall, mound. This mound is about ten to eleven feet tall above the general level of the surrounding fields, the floor of the old lake basin. This mound has fairly steep sides (Figure 9), and the top has been flattened and leveled for a distance of approximately 200 feet. Across the truncated top of this mound, a modern residence was built [about 19591. This residence has been removed, and this building pad was essentially cleared some seasons back. This mound in the northwestern portion of the tract appears not be a natural sand dune, but it appears as if it is an artificially created mound graded from the surrounding lake bottom soils to form an elevated residential building pad. This mound is not indicated on the 1959 topographic map of the area (Figure 1), although its height might barely fit between the depicted map contours] Multitudes of old sea shells from the lake bed deposits, just as are found in the surrounding low fields, are! present across the surface of the mound. Thus, the soil forming this mound apparently was scraped up to create this mound feature, probably when the residence was built there. If this mound was a natural dune of wind-blown fine sands, as are commonly encountered further to the northwestern up the valley, such fossil shells would not be expected. The natural wind-blown sand of the nearby sandy dunes do not contain any notable quantities of these lake -bed fossil shells. Previously EA!stia"eaid_ence_, A modern residence previousl}had been developed on the mound or building pad in the northwest part of the tract. This house site was cleared some time ago. The residence is not indicated on the USGS maps of 1904, 1941, or 1959; but it was added into the photorevised map of 1980 (Figure 1). Two water wells with electrical pumps and an electrical juncture box remain southwest of the mound, along with a cylindrical water tank (Figure 10). The tank has a metal label, "National Tank & Manufacturing Co., Los Angeles, Calif./ Year Built 1959." These facts suggest that the residence was constructed shortly after the USGS map Nvas printed in 1959. Remnants of modern building debris are present, in keeping with a residential structure dating from the ca. 1959--1980s period. A few broken pieces of thick. cement building pad are present, as well as segments of iron rebar, concrete: blocks, red ceramic sewer drain pipe, and white PVC garden irrigation piping. Palm trees, eucalyptus trees, a small fig tree, and several other planted trees survive on the mound; but these trees do not appear to be of great age. A modern -style porcelain -coated iron bath tub is lying in the field just northeast of the house mound. Otherwise, this building site has been carefully cleared. The fields around the mound have been farmed but currently are fallow. 4 �1,7 77 ............... 0 z ..... ...... pe e\]2 2 BM D, 71 -PO . Mi fiTrailer Park L as Trailer Park NUE Wo . .. ........ O C' :0 W. 4 C) :: 1J( ENUE 33".Well - ----------- �3 1 32 II 13 11 II "*Water Q4 501: 134 1 A VENUEJ11 -50 Well . 0 7: ... ..... IT a 6 ------- 7r— -9 Ale ...... - --------- :.a Well_ Jr ._AVENUE 52 (LQ Pul MP V Figure 1. The general location of the current project property, the: 10 acres addition to T.T.M. No. 26855 along Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta, as shown on the USGS La Quinta quad map, edition of 1959 photorevised to 1980. Scale 1: 24,0M 1" = 2,000'- 216 railer .Park '� ' • , J � { .4 F - 1 n • �• -. __.\ I\ /'-_�VtNUE 33�..WlII �o 3B a 60 - study �= o „t we are%a r J . T55 R]E;: n - • "G 1, ♦V M E, �'' •30 TiSRIE Wdl, •J o r• , i m r p ; , 1 , , , n n v e _ Puma '•s (% 9 SCALE ae,000 e 0 112 , MOO 1000 0 i ,Ooo z000 300o boon r.ec Figure 3. A copy of the stud% area previoush coi eyed for T.T.M. No. 26855 and T.T.M. No. 16718 (from LoNe 1998, Figure ^_), which omitted the 10 acre current project property forming the nets southwest portion of the revised T.T.M. No. 26855 residential subdivision. Scale is 4,000; 1" _ .000'. 219 Figure I The revised T.T.M. No. 26855 along the east side of Jefferson Street, including the added 10 acre current project property (dashed line) forming the nevv southwest part of the revised subdivision. Scale 1: 2,4M I" _ 200'. 220 FiEure 4. The current project property of 10 acres, .APN 769-270-003, alone the east side of Jefferson Street being added to the revised T.T.M No. 5855 as the new southt3est part of the subdivision. Scale 1: 1 '00; 1" = 100'. - 221 Figure 5. The project property looking northeast from near the southwest corner on Jefferson Street, with the building mound in the middle distance. Figure 6. The cinveway from the Jefferson Street gate to the mounded residential pad in the north�%cstcrn portion of the property, looking west. 222 Geography. The project area is part of the northern portion of the vast Coachella Valley, an immense enclosed basin, an isolated trough extending northward from the Gulf of California. In long -past geological times, this trough was isolated from the ocean waters of the gulf by the great delta deposited at the mouth of the Colorado River. The present base of this valley basin, where the Salton Sea currently exits, is at an actual elevation of about 250 feet below sea level. In this northern portion of the valley basin, the Indio Hills and the San Bernardino Mountains frame the distant northeastern side of the valley. The rugged Santa Rosa Mountains flank the western side of the valley. These mountains to the west extend to elevations greater than 6,000 feet above sea level. These mountains and ridges are composed of Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks. The Whitewater River emerges from the San Bernardino Mountains and courses down through the! northern end of the valley to the project area and on to the present Salton Sea. However, the river waters normally sink beneath the sandy soils along the western side of valley basin before reaching the project area. Only with the drainage run-off of a rare major desert storm is there any surface water in Whitewater River stormwater channel near the project area. Following one of these rare major storms in the desert, the river channel may be filled with a vigorous discharge which quickly scours and erodes the water course. Soil,. The soil deposits infilling the Coachella Valley are composed of alluvial sands and, sandy loans, and clayey silts which are materials eroded and washed in from the surrounding highlands. Vast areas of the upper valley are covered by sandy dunes. In the lower Coachella Valley basin, below an elevation of about +40 feet above: mean sea level, the valley soils are mostly clayey -silty sands, lacustrian deposits formed within a prehistoric lake which long -filled much of the lower valley basin. The project tract is actually covered by such lacustrian clayey - silty fine sands of gray -white color. Multitudes of small white sea shells are present in these lacustrian soils formed near the shallow lake margins. Biota. The natural vegetation in the clayey -silty fine sands of the project area was probably a sparse desert scrub biotic community, with some riparian elements near the river channel to the north. However, all of the project area has been cleared, leveled, and cultivated over the past decades. The fields of project property have been fallow for some seasons. A number of domestic trees have been planted at various locations on the property. Palm trees and eucalyptus trees are situated near the entrance: gate on Jefferson and around the residential mound site (Figures 5, 6, 9, and 10). A small fie tree and several other planted trees also survive on the mound. Southwest of the mound is a small duster of spiny desert mesquite trees. 12 Prehistoric L-ake_ Oahmilla_ansl_ Abori.ginal_S_e_ttlements. For most of the last two millennia, the Coachella Valley basin has been inundated by prehistoric Lake Cahuilla, an immense fresh -water lake that extended about 105 miles in length. This valley basin lake, on the western side of the Colorado River delta, was filled by the river's annual flood discharge. The lake filled the valley trough to a height of +40 above mean sea level and created beach line features at this elevation along the margins of the valley. When Lake Cahuilla filled the valley basin, the lake resources included abundant fishes, wildfowl, marsh plants, etc. These resources supported many aboriginal settlements around the lake's shoreline. Other groups from settlements in the Santa Rosa Mountains may have come down seasonally to occupy camp sites along the shoreline. About A.D. 1,500 the lake basin dried up rather suddenly when the Colorado River altered its course to the other side of the delta cone, and its flow discharged directly into the Gulf of California. As the lake dried up much of the local aboriginal population dispersed. Some people remained and adjusted their life -ways to the local desert resources, occupying new settlements within the old lake basin (such as Torres and Martinez), or in the nearby desert (such as at nearby Indian Well and Palm Springs), or by moving seasonally between settlements in the desert and in the surrounding mountain regions. In historic times these desert: people have been known as the Cahuilla Indians. As the project tract is beneath the elevation of the prehistoric Lake Cahuilla, this tract would have been inundated when the lake existed. Any archaeological resources present encountered here almost certainly would date to the period after the desiccation of the prehistoric lake about A.D. 1,500. !3 226 CHAPTER III METHODS OF INVESTIGATION The methods employed for this phase I archaeological resources survey included: (1) a review of previously filed archaeological site records and reports, and historical landmark sites, at the State's Regional Information Center, (3) a comprehensive field reconnaissance over the surface areas of the 10 acre project tract, (3) a request to the local Torres -Martinez Tribal Council for Native American views on any sites of concern associated with the project tract, and (4) a review of the region's existing archaeological and historical literature. Prey iously RecDde_d—Archaeology_. A review of all previously recorded archaeological sites and historical landmarks in the region, plus all unpublished archaeological reports for the area, was conducted by the Eastern Information Center of the State's California Historical Resources Information System, housed at the University of California, Riverside. Their review dated December 9, 1998, covered all the properties within a radius of one-half mile of' the project property. (A copy of their Cultural Resources Records Search letter report is provided as Appendix A.) The available records filed with the State's California Historical Resources Information System indicated that no known cultural resources are recorded in or near the project tract. Within the area, including the lands one: -half mile adjacent to the project tract, about three-quarters of the properties have been archaeologically surveyed for prehistoric sites. Three archaeological sites have been located and recorded on these lands (CA-RIV ?975, -2976 and -3131, but each site is nearly one-half mile from the current project property. Field Reconnaissance- The entire 10 acre project property was traversed on foot in a systematic series of transects to locate and assess any archaeological resources present. The survey transects were conducted systematically through the open fields of the tract and spaced approximately every 75 feet, with the ground surface between each transect carefully scanned for resources. A number of additional transects were made around and across the large residential mound in the northwest part of the property. The field survey was conducted on December 8, 1998. A total of one and one: - half hours was expended in the field reconnaissance. Ground visibility was generally excellent throughout the entire property, and it was certainly sufficient to detect any major or minor archaeological sites that might once have been present. Ground visibility was nearly 807c almost everywhere on the property. The fields had been disked and kept generally clear of eroNyth in recent seasons. 14 22 7 Local Torres -Martinez Native—Ajmerlcan Views. A letter request with a map was sent on December 14, 1998, to the local Torres -Martinez Tribal Council for Native American views on any sites of concern associated with the project property. (A copy of this letter is provided as Appendix B.) Thereare Native American concerns about archaeological and sensitive locations in the nearby region but, as yet, no issues of concern have been recognized with the project property. F.xistingRegional Literature An overview of the regional archaeological and historical literature provided the background information contained in the following chapter. This chapter summarizes current archaeological knowledge and the cultural traditions represented in the region, as well as unresolved problems of information and interpretation which give. significance to the heritage resources which might be encountered. 1s 228 CHAPTER IV ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND An overview of the existing archaeological and historical literature for the region is presented in graphic form in Figure 11. The past societies that have occupied this region of Riverside County are represented by cultural patterns in the archaeological record and by historical landmarks. This theoretical framework, which originally focused on prehistoric cultural traditions and their ecological adaptations, has been adapted from Warren (1968). The approach has been further developed to recognize the cultural patterns of the traditions of the historic period. A highly detailed review of the literature on the prehistoric archaeology in the Coachella Valley basin has been published recently by Schaefer (1994). Schaefer pointedly has commented that investigations within this geographical region has yet to find good archaeological evidence of any traditions older than about 5,000 years, and that the east majority of locally surviving archaeology resources have been dated to the last one thousand years. Thus, a major problem of information and interpretation with the local prehistoric heritage simply is recognizing where archaeology resources still may be present in the dynamic local landscape. The evidence for the very ancient occupations in southern California, before 9,000 B.C., is meager and controversial. Proposals for a Wisconsin Glacial Age Bi-Polar Tool Tradition, for a Paleo-Indian Tradition, and for Tradition of Ancient Coastal People have been presented by various scientists. However, the validity and significance of the evidence has been disputed. :Many of the chemical dating techniques employed in determining ancient dates have been shown to yield spurious results, and the basic claims for many of these very early finds have been withdrawn. Sites elsewhere in the Americas raise the possibility that very ancient occupation sites could be preserved in favorable geological situations. The San Dieguito Tradition people are recognized as early hunters occupying. lakeside and streamside camps. Their camps are common in the deserts to the east and in San Diego County, but they rarely have been recognized in western. Riverside County. Their tool assemblages are distinctive, primarily sharp - edged scrapers and long knives. It now seems apparent that this tradition emerged in the Great Basin, but the cause for its apparent late flourishing in southern California and its subsequent disappearance remain a mystery. The remains of Encinitas Tradition settlements appear about 7,000 B.C. throughout coastal southern California. This society was focused on the: gathering of plant foods and shellfish. A diversity of hunting and fishing; pursuits were modestly pursued, but little of the equipment required is archaeologically preserved. Cobble handstones and milling platforms are the 16 .229 A.D. 1.990's -j I Indian Reservations A.D. 1.860 Landless Indian Period A.D. 1.830 A.D. 1.770 A.D. 1.600 A.D. 1.540 A.D. 800 American Developement Era ` USA. mope' Asia & Africa Mexican Ranch— / Mexico Pastoral Era \ & USA Colonial Spnaish— // Slain & Mission Era \ Mexico Late f-- Shoshonean — — _ — — Tradition It_ Explorer ----_----- Spain d Incident England Hakataya Tradition Early Shoshonean Tradition Colorado River C/ G ^eat Basin Desert A.D. 400--________ Encinitas L (Amargosan Tradition) Tradition \ 1,500 H.C. 2,000 B.C. ' < \�Inland or Campbell (Pinto) Tradition North Coast 3,000 B.C. 7,000 B.C. ------ ------------------/— / Lakes Basin San Dieguito Tradition < \'1� 9.000 B.C. Ancient Coastal People < ? 7 25,000 B.C. -------------------------- Wisconsin Glacial Age /Asia & Bering Bi—Polar Tool Tradition \ Straits _ \r 80,000 H.C. Fieure 11. Cultural traditions in the central Riverside County area. 230 characteristic tools encountered, while sharp -edged tools of flaked stone are few and notably simple. A late phase of this tradition occurs inland, away from the coast, where most camp sites were occupied only after 2,000 B.C. The apparent simplicity of the technology, its persistence, and the mane known sites imply a very successful adaptation to seasonal food resources. The specific food utilized, the strategies employed, and the cause of the apparent population shift inland have not been established as yet. The Campbell (Pinto) Tradition people were a society of desert hunters who apparently migrated to the coast. Their campsites exist around lakes, along inland streams, and along the coast from Santa Barbara southward to northern Baja California. Campbell Tradition sites are marked by numerous bones of land or sea mammals, large projectile points typically made in a side -notched style, and a variety of hunting and seed milling equipment. A co -existence in some regions with Encinitas Tradition people seems proven, but the ultimate merging, evolution, or extinction of this cultural tradition remains to be En investigated. The Shoshonean Tradition appears as one or more migrations of desert peoples who moved towards the coast and developed diverse economies of hunting, gathering, and coastal fishing. People of this tradition occupied the villages along the northern and western beach lines of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. Archaeological sites of this tradition are very numerous and indicate the presence of many populated villages and specialized satellite camps. The cultural remains vary and reflect the particular activities pursued at each location. Characteristic items are small arrow points, shell ornaments, and mortars for processing acorns. Pottery became a part of this tradition in the Riverside County area. The diversity and flexibility in economies seemingly led to population increases, enhanced trade, and elaborations in social and political structures, which, in turn, resulted in increasingly greater complexities in archaeological remains. Shoshonean groups, such as the; Cahuilla, appear to have surged northward and westward as the vast prehistoric Lake Cahuilla, with its associated resources, dried up about A.D. 1,500. Even Shoshonean settlements as far north and west as the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay appears to have been affected. The Hakatayan Tradition emerged along the Colorado River as a society of horticulturists and food gathers. It spread westward into the deserts and into coastal San Diego County, and it may have assimilated with the earlier Encinitas Tradition. The tradition is archaeological characterized by the manufacture of pottery, but it also includes small arrow points and numerous other tools. Some early sites of the tradition occur in Riverside County, but south of Riverside County there are numerous late Hakatayan Tradition villages and satellite activitycamps with various arrays of equipment, ornaments, and ceramics. Hakatayan peoples probably occupied the southeastern shoreline of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. The diverse patterns of the seasonal economies with people moving from central villages to special activity camps, and the patterns of social interactions with the neighboring Shoshonean Tradition peoples, all remain difficult to reconstruct. 231 The Explorer Incidents of the historic period are principally the Coronado expedition and the Cabrillo exploration of 1540 and 1542. The era ends with the exploration party of Portola in 1769-70 which founded the coastal missions, the t772 Fages reconnaissance through the region, and the four parties led by Anza in 1774-76 establishing a trail across the inland desert territory from Arizona to the coast. The ]full impact of these events on native society and the archaeological record has received scant attention. The Colonial Spanish Mission Era introduced a Hispanic cultural tradition to the region with adobe architecture, agriculture, cattle herding, and new crafts. This historic contact greatly reduced the native Hakatayan and Shoshonean populations, and subsequent accounts of the native lifeways are often incomplete or greatly altered. The Mexican Ranch Pastoral Era expanded Hispanic cattle raising and ranch settlements throughout the southern California. Investigations at rural ranch sites reflect diverse populations and demonstrate a mixture of local craft items mixed with worldly imported goods. The Landless Indian Era reflects the adjustments of shifting settlements and economic pursuits of disrupted native populations following the incursion of Hispanic and Anglo ranching. Although historically documented, only a few local archaeological sites of this era have been studied. The Indian Reservation Era is marked with the formal creation of reservations. These lands have provided bases for the continuation of traditional customs into the present. For the ongoing American Development Era with its poly -ethnic society, no single description presents a comprehensive depiction of this complex tradition. Rapidly changing cultural patterns linked into expanding world - system economies characterize this era. Fmergent issl s in_ the ite -atsir-e The regional literature includes two recent publications that have raised important emergent issues regarding; the regional aboriginal heritage. Both issues apply to the historic developments of the prehistoric Shoshonean Tradition settlement of the valley region. Laylander has provided a critical interpretive review of the reliability of radiocarbon dating and other evidence for the chronology of the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla and the following aboriginal reoccupation of the lower valley basin. Laylander concludes (1997:68) that the simplest scenario is that the lake receded and refilled maybe twice in the fifteenth century, and then filled and receded for the final time in the seventeenth century. Sutton (1998) has analyzed the daily diet represented in human paleofecal samples from aboriginal settlements around the old lake shore, and he suggests that only limited occupancy occurred during winter seasons and that the early historic pattern of large permanent village settlements near reliable water sources in the valley developed only after Lake Cahuilla disappeared. 19 232 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS This archaeological resources investigation found no prehistoric archaeolo- gical resources and no significant historic landmarks to be located on or near with the 10 acre property, APN 769-270-003, being added to Tentative Tract Map No. 26855. Similarly, the prior survey for cultural resources report on the other portions of T.T.M. No. 26855 found no archaeological or historic resources present that are a concern under CEQA planning law (Love 1998). Archaeological. Conclusions. The field reconnaissance conducted as part of the planning for this 10 acre addition to the revised residential subdivision being proposed as T.T.M. No. 26855 observed no archaeological resources on the project tract. If any major or minor archaeological midden site deposit ever had been present here, remnants should have been evident during the current field reconnaissance. Further, no archaeological sites have been recorded nearer than about one-half mile of the project tract, and no archaeological sites or historic landmarks have been noted in the available literature on the area. Lastly, inquiry to the Native American community, as yet, have not reported that there are any known concerns regarding the project tract. It can be concluded that there are no recognized archaeological resources associated with the project tract. It could be expected that this area was utilized for foraging by aboriginal peoples, particularly after prehistoric Lake Cahuilla dried up about A.D. 1,500. If general foraging activities occurred here, however, there were of a minor nature, and no surviving archaeological trace was left upon the land. The intensive modern development of the tract into agricultural fields and a mounded residential pad has obscured or eliminated any minor archaeological trace that ever may have been present. PIanning__CQnsideraW)ns. For planning purposes, it is concluded that the development of the proposed residential subdivision will have no definable direct or indirect effect on any recognized cultural resources of significance. It is proposed, therefore, that no further specific planning considerations for significant cultural resources are warranted to mitigate any direct or indirect impacts of the proposed. development of the Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 26855. It is State policy, however, that should buried archaeological resources be uncovered during grading, that work in the area of the discovery should be halted until these resources are evaluated by a qualified Professional Archaeologist, and if appropriate, any significant archaeological resources present are recorded and salvaged. Under CEQA (P.R.C. Sec. 31083.2i; and CEQA Guideline, Appendix K), the lead agency may "make provisions for archaeological sites accidentally discovered during; construction." 20 133 REFERENCES CUED Laylander, Don 1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological Societv 330 & 2):1-138. Love, Bruce 1998 Cultural Resources Report, Tentative Tract Maps No. 26855 and No. 26718, City of La Quanta, Riverside County, California. Report prepared by CRM TECH, Riverside. Schaefer, Jerry 1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80. Sutton, Mark Q. 1998 Cluster Analysis of Paleofecal Data Sets: A Test of Late Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Northern Coachella Valley, California. American Antiquity 63(1):86-107. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico Universitv Contributions in Anthropology 1(3) 1-14. CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological resources report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: ' Signed:e- 21 23,1 APPENDIX A REQUEST, AND STATE CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH REPORT 235 THE KEITH COMPANIES Dr. Matt C. Hall, Coordinator California Historical Resources File System Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92374 Dear Colleagues: 7 December 1998 pchace@ sdcoe.kl'_'.ca.us FAX (909) 787-5409 Re: TTM 26855, La Quinta The Keith Companies are conducting an archaeological survey of the proposed 10-acre addition to TTM 2,6855 (Brookfield Tract), in the City of La Quinta. The subject property is located along the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenues 52, in the City of La Quinta. The proposed project is situated in a portion of Section 4 of Township 6 South, Range 7 East. The study area is indicated on the accompanying map, reproduced from a portion of the USGS LA QUINTA Quad sheet. Please provide a records file search of the project study area and the area within a one-half mile of the indicated study area. Please provide a copy of all recorded prehistoric site record forms and a copy of all historical sites or landmark record forms for this area, along with any available historic maps and any available bibliography of cultural resources reports and published heritage materials for this study area. Please call if you have any questions. Respectf y yo rs, A Paul G. Cultural map enclosed Ph.D., Director ces Division 1-1 G 1 5a0_.800 1� Planning Engmeenng F.nvnonmemal Servees -anC Svrvelmg Pud¢'works water Aesi, ¢ , CWtwa Reto,,.$ P0. Box 25127. Santa Ana. C:. 92799 2955 Rea Hill Avenue. Costa tlesa, CA 921k26 236 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Paul G. Chase The Keith Companies P.O. Box 25127 Santa Ana, CA 92799 ,a ihF t Mario z f� taYo �y wvsas�oe Re: Cultural Resources Records Search for TI M 26855 Dear Mr. Chase: Eastern Intomu8on Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 December 9, 1998 RS #2015 We received your request on December 8, 1998 for a cultural resources records search for the project designated TTM 26855 located in Section 4, T.6S, R.7E, SBBM, near the City of La Quinta in Riverside County. We have reviewed our site records, maps, and manuscripts against the location map you provided. Our records indicate that a cultural resources survey has been conducted on a portion of the subject property as part of a larger survey. Fourteen cultural resources studies have been conducted that are adjacent to or within a half -mile radius of the subject property. These reports are listed on the attachment entitled "Archeological Reports" and are available upon request at $0.15/page plus $7.50 per 1/2 hour. The KEYWORD section of each citation lists thegeo- graphic area, quad name, listing of trinomials (when identified), report number in our manuscript files (MF #), and the number of pages per report. No archaeological sites are known within the project boundaries; however, our records indicate that three archaeological sites have been recorded within a half mile radius of the project area. Copies of the site records are included for your study needs. The above information is reflected on the enclosed map. Areas that are shaded in yellow indicate areas that have been surveyed. Numbers in pencil indicate the report number :in our manuscript files (MF #). Areas in red show the location of cultural resources, and their corresponding numbers in black represent the state trinomial. In addition to the California Historical Resources Information System, the following were reviewed: The National Register of Historic Places Index (01/15/97): None of the properties or sites are listed. 23 7 Mr. Chase December 9, 1998 Page 2 Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (listed through 01/15/97): None of the properties or sites have been evaluated for eligibility. Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (dated 01/15/97): None. A review of USGS Toro Peak 15' (1941) and Indio 30' (1904) topographic maps, indicated no historic strictures/features present. The General Land Office plat map for T.6S, R.7E, were not available. This statement does not constitute a negative declaration of impact. This statement reports only known archaeological materials on or in the vicinity of the property in question. The presence of cultural resources on the property cannot be ruled out until a systematic survey is conducted. Federal and State law requires that if any cultural resources are found during construction, work is to stop and the lead agency and a qualified archaeologist be consulted to determine: the importance of the find. As the Information Center for Riverside County, it is necessary that we receive a copy of all archaeological reports and site information pertaining to this county in order to maintain our map and manuscript files. Site location data provided with this records search are not to be used for reports unless the information is within the project boundaries. This information is confidential. Sincerely, Martha Smith Information Officer Enclosures 233 APPENDIX B LETTER TO LOCAL TORRES-MARTINFZ TRIBAL COUNCIL Z3 THE KEITH COMPANIES 14 December 1998 Mr. Art Lopez, Chairperson Torres -Martinez Tribal Council c/o Torres -Martinez Tribal Office P. O. Box I1-60 Thermal, California 92274 Dear Chairperson Lopez: Re: TTM 26855, La Quinta (Brookfield Tract) The Keith Companies is conducting an archaeological surrey and cultural resources assessment for the 10-acre addition to TTM 26855 (Brookfield Tract) in the City of La Quinta. A comprehensive archaeological field reconnaissance recognized no archaeological resources on the property. Vlarvang The proposed project area is indicated on the accompanying map, reproduced S�eB from a portion of the USGS LA QUINTA Quad sheet. This tract is a portion of Section 4 of Township 6 South, Range 7 East. The project study area is approximately 10-acres located along the east side of Jefferson Street, between Avenue 50 and Avenues 52, in the City of La Quinta. °smier°s The City of La Quinta will be considering the cultural resources assessment d,cwmw report being prepared, under the California Environmental Quality Act. The anticipated land development project is a proposed residential subdivision. As proposed, the project would probably result in the grading and development of most of this property. If you are aware of any special sites of Native American concern associated with this property, your counsel would be appreciated so that they be addressed within the planning process. Please call if you have any questions. I usually can be reached best at (760) 743-8609. Respectf lyurs, !� Paul G. C ace, Ph.D., Director Cultural Resources Division - " sdo-ca;, 240 Q Sox 2S-7 Zama Ana. CA 92793 -955 Rea ndi Avenue. Costa Mesa. CA 92626 APPENDIX C RESUME OF PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 241 PAUL G. CHACE, Ph.D.., SOPA Archaeologist, Historian Technical Services • Archaeological Investigations and Reports • Historic Landmark Assessments • Federal 106 and State CEQ.A Compliance • Heritage Research and Planning Experience Dr. Chacehas 18 years experience directing archaeological programs serving the cultural resources management needs of private developers and government agencies. Prior to joining The Keith Companies, Dr. Chace operated an independent archaeological planning firm, serving as the Principal Investigator and organizing archaeological and historical assessments and legal compliance components for land development projects throughoutsouthem California Dr. Chace has conducted the archaeological programs required for the Caltrans Bakersfield Amtrak station, for the Las Montanas resort and housing subdivision in SanDiego County, for land subdivisions in Riverside, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties, for General Plan amendments in San Diego County, for Redevelopment Agency projects in the Cities of Banning, Fontana, and San Buenaventura, and for numerous similar projects. His technical reports and management recommendations, addressing the legal aspects ofboth CEQA and Federal requirements, have been prepared for the planning, review, and permit processes ofvarious governmental agencies, including the State Office ofHistoric Preservation, the Water Resources Control Board, and the Coastal Commission, plus various counties and cities. For documentation of historical landmarks and heritage sites, Dr. Chace has assessed historic buildings near Lake Elsinore fora Bureau ofReclamation project, and near Lakeside fora San Diego County Public Works project. Forthe Bureau of -and Management, he directed the investigation and site stabilizationofthe Army's 1860s Fort Piute which protected the old southern desertroad into California. Atthe 1880s Sepulveda Building in Los Angeles' E1Pueblo State Park, he directed the archaeological study forthe building restoration and Historic Structure Report Dr. Chace also has publishedscholarly descriptions ofhistoric Chinese temples and Chinese community festivals in California Dr. Chace is a past -president of the Society for California Archaeology and a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists. In 1982-1984 he served on the State Legislature's California. Heritage Preservation TaskForce, and in 1993-1995 he has served on Caltrans T.E.A. Advisory Council. Education • PhD., University ofCalifomia,Riverside • M.A., State University ofNew York, Oneonta • B.A., California State University, Long Beach continued ... M 11w.=39985.PXJ.w HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 2p DATE: JANUARY 1999 ITEM: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT- WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT, CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA - (CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 98-09) LOCATION: WASHINGTON STREET AT 50TH AVENUE, FROM APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET SOUTH OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE OVER THE LA QUINTA EVACUATION CHANNEL TO APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF 50 AVENUE. CONSULTANT: LSA - STEVEN W. CONKLING AND BROOKS SMITH DEVELOPER: CITY OF LA QUINTA ITRA IfTffsITIM In August 1998, a paleontological resources field survey was conducted on the linear project area for the proposed bridge widening project (See Project Location Map in report). The proposed project is sponsored by the City of La Quinta as a Capitol Improvement Project to widen the existing bridge to accommodate existing and future traffic needs. The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is why the paleontological resources study was performed. This project will be considered by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1999, and by the City Council on January 19, 1999. The paleontological survey did not result in any paleontological resources being observed and there were no previously recorded paleontological resources within the project boundaries. It did determine that the project site is located within high shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and that the native sediments under the project consist of lake sediments and near shore alluvium. These types of sedirrients are known to contain paleontological resources. Figure 2 of the report illustrates two cross sections identifying where the lake sediments are located in relationship to the project. 243 The report concludes that no paleontological resources were identified through the records search or observed during the field survey within the project area, and that monitoring is not required during ground disturbing activities, unless paleontological resources are discovered during construction activities. A series of steps to be taken are discussed in the report if such discoveries are made during construction. Staff has reviewed the report and has one comment. The pilings and bridge supports that will be placed subsurface are not addressed in the report and should be monitored for paleontological deposits since the pilings and supports will be placed down into the potentially -paleontological resource bearing lake sediments. This monitoring should be made a project condition of approval. A report of the monitoring should be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review prior to the completion of the bridge project. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report title,"Paleontological Resource Assessment - Washington Street Bridge Widening Project, La Quinta,...", prepared by LSA, in partial compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subject to the condition that the excavation for the pilings and bridge supports that will reach into the lake sediments are monitored by a qualified professional paleontologist, and that a report of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission prior to completion of the bridge project. Attachment: 1. Paleontological Survey Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: e e Mouriquan ,Ass late Planner C:\Mydata\HPCrptCIP98-09 pal ea. wpd Submitted by: A � AM Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager 244 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT - WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT, LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 12, 1998 Prepared for: Holmes and Narver 999 Town and Country Road Orange, California 92868 Prepared by Steven W. Conkling and Brooks Smith LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project #HNA830 Paleontological Data Base Information: Type of Study: Assessment Survey Localities Recorded: None USGS Quadrangle: La Quinta 7.5 Minute Formation Encountered: Fluvial and Lacustrine Sediments Key Words: Lake Cahuilla 245 LSA Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS ]PAGE ABSTRACT....................................................1 INTRODUCTION...............................................4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................4 PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION ..........................4 PERSONNEL.............................................6 METHODS..............................................6 NATURAL SETTING.............................................6 GEOLOGICAL SETTING....................................6 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING ..............................7 RESULTS......................................................7 GEOLOGICAL RESULTS....................................7 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESULTS ..............................8 CONCLUSIONS................................................8 REFERENCES CITED...........................................10 LIST OF FIGURES 1 - Project Location..........................................3 2 - Stylized Cross Section and Profile of the Project ................ 5 APPENDIX A - Records Search Letter - - 827i98«P:V-INASi30\CULTURAL\PALEO.RP1» li 246 L41 Associates, fnc. ABSTRACT LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) was retained by Holmes and Narver to conduct a paleontological resource assessment for the Washington Street Bridge widening project, located within the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, California (Figure 1). The project involves the widening of the Washington Street Bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Channel) and improvements to Wash- ington Street from approximately 450 feet south of the bridge to approximately 150 feet north of Avenue 50. The assessment was conducted to identify paleontological resources as required by guidelines developed by the County of Riverside and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. A records and literature search was conducted for the subject property at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCiM), and a field survey of the parcel was completed on August 11, 1998. The records search did not identify any paleontological resources within the project area. It did determine that the project area is located on within the high shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and that the native sediments tinder the project consist of lake sediments and near shore alluvium. These types of sediments are known to contain paleontological resources elsewhere in the Coachella Valley. The field survey did not identify any paleontological resources within the project boundaries. Because no paleontological resources were identified by either the records search or the field survey, and because there will be only limited amounts of excavation in native sediments, monitoring will not be required during ground disturbing activities, unless paleontological resources are discovered during construction activities. If paleontological resources are discovered during project construction, the following conditions are recommended by the SBCM: A trained paleontological monitor should be present during all ground disturbing activities within the project area in sediments that are likely to contain paleontological resources. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoid- ance of adverse impact to paleontological resources. • During monitoring, samples will be collected and processed for microvertebrates. Processing will include, but not be limited to, screen- ing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify small vertebrate remains. If small fossils of this type are encountered, a standard, 6,000 pound bulk matrix sample will be collected from each locality. These sediments will be processed to allow collection of small fossils. • All fossils collected during the project will be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Itemized catalogues of all material collected will be provided to the museum repository with the specimens. • In the event a large deposit of bone in encountered, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. • All fossils collected during this work, along with copies of all relevant field notes and reports from the project, shall be donated to the San 827i98«P:ViNA830\CULTURAL\PALEO. RPM 24 7 LSAAyso ate. 1n Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) for permanent curation and stor- age. SBCM currently charges a one-time curation fee of $75 per cubic foot for all paleontological materials. Compliance with these recommendations will ensure that impacts to the paleontological resources are below a level of significance. 827/98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\PALEO. RPT» 248 62 — Riverside Counry Y 111 •' ST :v Palm Springs 10 r /-\S Source: USGS 7.5' PROJECT LOCATION. "La Quinta, Calif. Figure 1 N 249 LSA Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 Project Location ISAAssaclates, Inc. INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) was retained by Holmes and Narver to conduct a paleontological resource assessment for the Washington Street Bridge widening project, located within the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, California (Figure 1). The project involves the widening of the Washington Street Bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Channel) and improvements to Wash- ington Street from approximately 450 feet south of the bridge to approximately 150 feet north of Avenue 50. Minor widening will also be done to Avenue 50 from its intersection with Washington Avenue to 300 feet to the east This work was completed in compliance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and the Paleontological Resource Mitigation Standards of the San Bernardino County Museum. This survey also serves to assess potential im- pacts to paleontological resources, as mentioned in the California Environmen- tal Quality Act (CEQA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves the widening of the Washington Street Bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and improvements to Washington Street. The major improvement to Washington Street will be widening the west side of the street an average of 50 feet from the bridge to Avenue 50. Currently the road- way is at an elevation of 43' to 55' Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). All elevations over 38' to 40' AMSL are in artificail fill, and all elevations below this are in native sediments (see Figure 2) Specifically, the project is located on Washington Street between Stations 35+50 to 51+35, with the majority of the work occurring on the west side of the roadway. Additionally, Avenue 50 will widened from its intersection with Washington Street (Avenue 50 Station 50+65) to Avenue 50 Station 54+05, The widening of Avenue 50 will be a maximum of 30 feet on each side of the street at Station 50+65 and will taper to no widening at Station 54+05. Geo- graphically, the project is located on the La Quinta 7.5' topographic map within the northern half of the northern half of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East; San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION Paleontological, or fossil, resources are considered to be a significant, non- renewable resource. They are afforded protection by both CEQA and the devel- opment standards of the County of Riverside. As such, the presence and poten- tial for adverse impacts to these resources should be assessed before impacting activities are allowed in an area. This can be completed through an assessment survey to determine whether paleontological resources are present on, or (likely to be contained within, a particular parcel; or monitoring of excavation can be conducted to recover fossils encountered during development. The current study provided a paleontological resource assessment of the Washington Street Bridge widening project. 827N8<<P:\HNA830\CULNRAL\PALEO. RPI» 250 4 54' WEST PROPOSED WIDENING EAST EXISTING ROADWAY ELEVATION -------------------- --- 50' .IN r.r..i:::iil. - ................ 1\11 �r.r..rr...r...r.r. %ARTIFICIAL FILL (Monitor ng Not Required) .............:.... .... ......................... ......................... ANSITION ZONE^(Motntorins Not Re EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ,ed) i i i 1 i i! r IT 1 i 171 171 1 1 1. i LAKE SEDIMENTS . ) i�i!!�!!izllllllilllllllllll!IIi1111111111 CROSS SECTIONMIDWAYBETWEEN WASHINGTONSTREET BRIDGEAND AVENUE SO SOUTH WASFUNGTON ST BRIDGE EXISTING ROADWAY ...... .........r...r.r. .............................. :'.:'.:'"'.'.'ARTIFICIAL FILL... ..::::. . ........ .r........... . ....... (Monitoring Not Required) ................ . TRANSITION ZONE (Monitoring No NORTH AVENUE 50 ELEVATION ............ —43' ....................... .................. . .. .r.........r.r....:.:r: .n rr`c'nr=iTf_i=i�ri=r =38' LAKE SEDIMENTS 111!1111illili111111111illlillll111111111 PROFILE FROM WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE TO AVENUE SO 8/31/98(HNA830) Figure 2 �1 11 I Stylized Cross Section and Profile of LCh Washington Street Widening Project Depicting IJ Not to Scale Areas Requiring Paleontological Monitoring LYA Associates, /nc. PERSONNEL METHODS The field survey was performed by Brooks R. Smith, a paleontologist with LSA. Mr. Smith has completed similar surveys and assessments for a variety of pro- jects throughout California. The records search was completed by Robert Reynolds at the San Bernardino County Museum. This report was written by Mr. Smith and Steven W. Conkling, a Paleontologist with LSA. Mr. Conkling is a research associate at the San Bernardino County Museum, and has completed similar assessments for a variety of projects throughout the United States. Mr. Conkling has been actively involved in paleontological resource management for 12 years. A records search was conducted through the Regional Paleontological Lacality Inventory (RPLI), located at the San Bernardino County Museum, to identify all previous paleontological resource assessments and localities that are within one -quarter mile of the project area. A field survey of the project area was conducted on August 11, 1998. The pedestrian survey included all areas that will be impacted by the widening of the bridge and the road. The entire project area was surveyed using systematic transects spaced approximately three meters apart. This included a 75 foot wide strip of land on the east side of Washington Street from Avenue 50 to the Channel that will be used to gain access to the staging area and the Channel. The staging area will be in the northeast comer of the Channel and Washington Street and could be as large as 200 feet north and 200 feet east from the comer; this area was also surveyed. NATURAL SETTING The Washington Street Bridge widening project is located within northwestern Colorado Desert and, in the less disturbed areas, contains vegetation typical of the salt bush scrub type. The western side of the project has been landscaped with non-native species of plants such as lawn grasses, oleander (Nerium olean- der), and date palms (Pbeonix dactilfera) Drainage into the area is derived from Eisenhower and Indio mountains to the west. GEOLOGICAL SETTING The project area is located in the northwestern portion of the Colorado Desert province in an area known as the Coachella Valley. The boundaries of this province are somewhat arbitrary and can vary from author to author. In gen- eral, however, the Colorado Desert province is bounded on the north by the southern edge of the eastern Transverse Ranges, on the east by the Colorado River, on the south by the Mexican border, and on the west by the Peninsular ranges (Norris and Webb, 1976). o... ) r 827i98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\PALEO.RP'I» L 3 -- LSA Associates, Inc. A major feature in the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a large 180 mile (290 km) structural depression that extends from the area around Palm Springs to the head of the Gulf of California. Movement along the San Andreas Fault from the Miocene to the present created the Salton Trough. During the Pleistocene and Holocene, the Salton Trough was filled with. over 4,000 feet of sediment (Proctor, 1968). The term Salton Trough refers to the entire basin from San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California; the term Salton Basin refers to the region that drains directly into the Salton Sea. The majority of the Colorado Desert lies at low elevations. The Colorado River Valley at the Riverside -San Bernardino County Line is at an elevation of 350 feet (107 m) above sea level; the elevation at Winterhaven in the southeast corner of the province is 130 feet (40 m) above sea level. The lowest elevation is the Salton Basin, which is divided into the Imperial Valley in the south and the Coachella valley in the north. The Salton Sea is located in the central portion of the basin, and has a surface elevation of 235 feet (72 m) below sea level. Lake Cahuilla is the name that is given to the freshwater lake that occupied the basin in the past. Evidence for this lake is preserved by fossil gastropods, pelecypods, vertebrate remains, and travertine (lime) deposits. The travertine deposits were secreted by algae below the waterline along the edge of Lake Cahuilla. Although the entire history of the lake is not known, it is likely that Lake Cahuilla filled on several occasions when the distributaries on the Colo- rado River delta changed their course from the Gulf of California into the basin (Norris and Webb, 1976). Between fillings of the lake, evaporation lowered the level of the lake, leaving a salty crust on the basin floor. The last lake filling, prior to the formation of the Salton Sea in 1905, has been dated to around 300 years ago (Norris and Webb, 1976) The sediments exposed on the surface of the project area are Quaternary allu- vium and Pleistocene lacustrine (lake) deposits. Artificial fill is also present in areas near the existing roadway and Channel walls. PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING Many paleontological localities are known from Lake Cahuilla sediments. They range from gastropods and bivalves to vertebrate remains of fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. The vertebrate remains range in size from very small fish to large mammals such as: Camels (Camelops sp); Bison (Bison antiquus); and horses (Equus sp.). RESULTS GEOLOGICAL RESULTS No desert varnish was present on rocks in the area, and the sediments appear to be from alluvium, lacustrine deposits, and artificial fill. The alluviurn and lacustrine deposits were present mostly in an area 30 feet and more east of Washington Street. Alluvium and lacustrine deposits are known to exist in the area below the fill. The artificial fill primarily occurred at elevations above 40 827/98aP:\IINA830\CULTURIL\PALEO.RPTPI 7 )53 C LSA Assoc(ates, Inc. feet above sea level. This fill is along most of the western portion of Washing- ton Street, the eastern 30 feet along Washington Street, the north and south sides of Avenue 50, and along the sides of the Channel. The fill was indicated by artificial slopes and the presence of concrete, asphalt, and other modem debris mixed into the desert soil. The southwest comer area of Washington Street and Avenue 50 has been landscaped with grass, and the soil is not visible. The lacustrine deposits in the project area consist of light grayish -green slit to clayey silt with abundant mica. The alluvial sediments consist of grey to white silty sand with some gravel. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESULTS The results of the records search (Attachment A) indicated that there have been no paleontological assessments conducted within the project boundaries or within one -quarter mile of the project area. In addition, there are no previ- ously recorded paleontological localities within the project boundaries or within one -quarter mile of the project area. Reviews of geologic mapping (Rogers, 1965) indicate that the project is located within the high shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and that the sediments in the project area are composed of lake sediments and near shore alluvium. The RPLI indicates that paleontological resources have been recovered from siimdar sediments, six miles north of the project area. There were no paleontological resources observed during the field survey. Ground visibility averaged 50 percent due to paving and vegetation. Although paleontological remains were not observed, recent bones from a cow, a jack rabbit, a domestic cat, and possibly a pig were noted in the proposed staging area to the northeast of the existing bridge. Many of the cow bones, and the possible pig bones, were burned, and several had saw -cut butcher marks, indi- cating they are fairly recent (less than 50 years old). CONCLUSIONS Because no paleontological resources were identified during either the records search or the field survey of the project area, and because there will be: only limited excavations into native material, paleontological monitoring is not recommended. However, if any paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with the project, the SBCM and LSA recommends that a paleontological resources mitigation program that conforms to the guidelines of the County of Riverside and the Society of'Verte- brate Paleontology be initiated This program must include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A trained paleontological monitor should be present during all ground disturbing activities within the project area in sediments that are likely to contain paleontological resources. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoid- ance of adverse impact to paleontological resources. 827/98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\PAUO.RPD> .. 254 LSA Associate; Inc. • During monitoring, samples will be collected and processed for microvertebrates. Processing will include, but not be limited to, screen- ing and microscopic examination of the residual materials to identify ' small vertebrate remains. If small fossils of this type are encountered, a standard, 6,000 pound bulk matrix sample will be collected frotn each locality. These sediments will be processed to allow collection of small fossils. • All fossils collected during the project will be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Itemized catalogues of all material collected will be provided to the museum repository with the specimens. • In the event a large deposit of bone in encountered, salvage of all bone in the area shall be conducted in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. • Preparation of a report documenting the results of the monitoring activities. • All fossils collected during this work, along with copies of all rel',evant field notes, reports, and the itemized inventory of all specimens from the project shall be donated to the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) for permanent curation and storage. SBCM currently charges a one time curation fee of $75 per cubic foot for all paleontological mate- rials. Compliance with these recommendations will ensure that impacts to the paleontological resources are below a level of significance. 8/27i98«P:\I V 830\CULTURAL\PALEO.PJI P> 255 LSA Associates, Inc. REFERENCES CITED Norris, Robert M., Robert W. Webb 1976 Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons. New York Proctor, R. J. 1968 Geology of the Desert Hot Springs - Upper Coachella Valley Area, Cali- fornia. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 94. Rogers, T. H. 1965 Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:250,000. 827P98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\RALEO.RPI 25 G 10 L9AAssociates, Inc. APPENDIX A RECORDS SEARCH LETTER 827N8«P:\iNA830\CULTUPAL\PAUO.RP1» �,� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM 2024 Orange Tree Lane • Redlands, CA July 31, 1998 92374 • (909) 798.8570 Fax (909) 798-8585 LSA One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Attention: Brooks Smith RECEIVED AUG 0.3 1998 I..7._--�. _. Subject: Washington Street, La Quinta, Riverside County, California (LSA Project HNA830) Gentlemen: At your request, I have conducted a paleontologic resources records search through the Regional Paleontological Locality Inventory (RPLI) in the Earth Sciences Division at the San Bernardino County Museum. The records search is for the proposed widening) of a portion of Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. (LSA Project HNA830). This portion of Washington Street is south of Avenue 50, and north of Calle Durango. Specifically, it is in the northern '/z of the north Yz of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, SBBM, as shown on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS quadrangle map. BACKGROUND Summaries of geologic mapping (Rogers1965) indicate that the proposed project lies within the high shoreline of ancient Lake Coahuilla, and that the project is located on lake sediments and near shore alluvium. Review of the RPLI at San Bernardino County Museum indicates that no previous paleontologic resource assessments have been conducted for this site and thus no paleontologic assessment localities are recorded . along this portion of Washington Street. Review of the RPLI does indicate that paleontologic resources do occur six miles north of the site in similar sediments. Review of the RPLI indicates that the sediments at the site have high potential for significant non-renewable paleontological resources. RECOMMENDATIONS The project proponent must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to conduct a field assessment and to develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation program that conforms to the guidelines of Riverside County and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists. This program must include but not be limited to: l E S J. H L AV;-n I Ccj:ity ..dm n,sc e ..c-:r n - rl'f A G Io---.... s ( 1, Y B . _i olio Services Group � LSA July 31, 998 Page 2 1. Conduct a pre -construction field assessment to locate fossils at surface exposures. Salvage of fossils from known localities, including processing standard sample of matrix for recovery of small vertebrates, and trackway replication. 2. Monitoring of excavation in areas likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified vertebrate paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. 3. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small fossil vertebrates. 4. Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with retrievable storage. 5. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, signifies the completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. Sincerely, px-� Rey -/ww Robert E. Relds, Curator Earth Sciences RER:ma REFERENCES Rogers, T.H, 1965. Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:250,000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 90 DATE: JANUARY 21, 1999 ITEM: NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT, CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA - CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 98-09 LOCATION: WASHINGTON STREET AT 50TH AVENUE, FROM APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET SOUTH OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE OVER THE LA QUINTA EVACUATION CHANNEL TO APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF 50 AVENUE. CONSULTANT: LSA - DEBORAH MCLEAN DEVELOPER: CITY OF LA QUINTA In August 1998, a Phase I cultural resources field survey was conducted on the linear project area for the proposed bridge widening project (See Project Location Map in report). The proposed project is sponsored by the City of La Quinta as a Capitol Improvement Project to widen the existing bridge to accommodate existing and future traffic needs. The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is why the cultural resources study was performed. This project will be considered by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1999, and by the City Council on January 19, 1999. The Phase I survey did not result in archaeological or significant historical resources being observed and that there were no previously recorded cultural resources within the project boundaries. There have been 12 cultural resources studies completed within a one -quarter mile radius of the project boundaries, with three archaeological sites recorded within this radius. One of these sites (RIV-1180) is within the La Quinta Evacuation Channel Archaeological District. The report concludes that no archaeological resources or significant historical resources were observed within the project area, although 50% of the ground was obscured due to vegetation or paving. No significant historic resources were observed. In addition, the report proposes no further investigation or specific mitigation measures, beyond the State policy regarding buried resources uncovered during grading requiring the contractor to halt work in that area and call a qualified archaeologist to assess the discovery. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the report and has two comments. 1. The City has not accepted letter reports for several years. All archaeology reports must follow the ARMR format. The report should be revised to follow the ARMR format. 2. There is no discussion about the project being within the boundaries of historic Lake Marshall, or that Washington Street, formerly Marshall Road, is a historic roadway and part of the early infrastructure of La Quinta. The street should be recorded as a historic roadway and a stratigraphic profile be done in the same manner that the City required 52"d Avenue to be recorded for the Tradition Club project, and to be done for Jefferson Street, for the Jefferson Street widening project. Staff has been in communication with the project archaeologist and the report will be revised to meet City requirements, prior to beginning construction in April or May. If the HPC has additional comments or recommendations they can be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The recommended revisions can either be made by the consulting archaeologist and submitted to staff for review, or this itern can be continued to the February HPC meeting for review of the revised report. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report title," Negative Archaeological Assessment for the Washington Street Bridge Widening Project, City of La Quinta...... in partial compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subject to the condition that the report be revised to address staff's comments in this staff report regarding following the ARMR format, and addressing the historical nature of Washington Street. Attachment: 1. Archaeological Survey Report (Commissioners only) C:\Mydata\HPCrptCIP98-09bridge. wpd Prepared by: Le,glie Mouriqud, As iate Planner C:\Mydata\H PCrptC I P98-09 bridge. wpd Submitted by: OL- J J_ Christine di lorio, PI ing Manager 262 LSA .-'n,otiates, Inc. Principals Rob Balen Sheila Brady Les Card David Clo,e Ross Dobberreen Ste,, Granbolm Richard Harlacber Roger Hanis Art Ho>nrigba:,sen Larry Kennings Laura Lafler Ca,oll)n Lob,11 Bdl Ma... Rob Mcconn Anthony P,rros Rob Schonholtz 1lalrolmJ. Sproal A, s o ci a t cs James Ba:,m Connie Calia, Steen @: ConkGng Gary DoLL Richard Erickson Kevin Fincher Frank Has'lton Clint Kellner Benson Lee Judith H. Mal m.<rt Sabina Nichol[, 11. W 'Bill" O'Connell Deborab Praclio Lynette Stanchin:, Jill Wilson Lloyd B. Zola LSA August 20, 1998 Mr. Pat Somerville Holmes and Narver 999 Town and Country Road Orange, California 92868 Ere(ronmenul Analrci, Transpona:ion Eng:e_ecnq Biologva,d l6'edands Habit :t Restora:ion Re,ource L/anagement Cornnu,nity and Land Planning Land,:ape A,chiteaxre Archaeology and Paleontology Subject: Negative Archaeological Assessment for the Washington Street Bridge Widening Project, City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, California (LSA Project: HNA830) Dear Mr. Somerville: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to provide an archaeological assess- ment for the Washington Street Bridge Widening project located within th e City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, California (Figure 1). The project involves the widening of the Washington Street Bridge over the La Quinta Evacuation Channel (Channel) and improvements to Washington Street from approxi- mately 450 feet south of the bridge to approximately 150 feet north of Avenue 50. The assessment was conducted to identify cultural resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, the project is located on Washington Street between stations 35+50 to 51+35, with the majority of the work occurring on the west side of the roadway. In addition, Avenue 50 will widened from its intersection with Washington Street (Avenue 50 station 50+65) to Avenue 50 station 54+05, The widening of Avenue 50 will be a maximum of 30 feet on each side of the street at station 50+65 and will taper to no widening at station 54+05. Geo- graphically, the project is located on the USGS La Quinta 7.5' topographic map (1959, photorevised 1980) within the northern half of the northern half of Section 61 Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Me- ridian. Methods A records search was conducted through the Eastern Information Center, located at the University of California, Riverside, to identify all previous archae- ological survey areas, prehistoric sites, and all historic sites over 45 years old that are within one -quarter mile of the project area. 8/19/98«P:\HNA830\CULIURALW RCHAEO. LT'R» One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Irvine, California 92614 Facsimile 714 553-8,76 E-mail iraine.6a(�G.,-nssoecom Other offices located in Berkeley Pt. Richmond, Rirerside and Saoamento - 2fi3 8/23/98(iLVA830) Fijure 1 N LSA Scale u Feet 0 1000 2000 264 Project Location LSA Associates, Gec. On August 11, 1998, a pedestrian field survey of the project area was performed by LSA archaeologist Brooks Smith. The survey included all areas that will be impacted by the widening of the bridge and the road. The entire project area was surveyed using systematic transects spaced approximately three meters apart. This included a 75 foot wide strip of land on the east side of Washington Street from Avenue 50 to the Channel, which will be used to gain access to the staging area and the Channel. The staging area will be in the northeast comer of the Channel and Washington Street and could be as large as 200 feel[ north and 200 feet east from the comer. This area was also surveyed. Results The results of the records search (Attachment A) indicated that there are no previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the pro- ject boundaries. However, there are three known archaeological sites (CA-RIV- 1180, RIV-1980, and RIV-6074) within one -quarter mile of the project area. There is one property listed on the National Register of Historic Places within one -quarter mile of the project. It is the archaeological site CA-RIV-1180, and is listed as part of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel Archaeological District. There are no properties listed on the California Historical Landmarks (1990), or California Points of Historical Interest (1992), within one -quarter mile of the project. A review of the USGS Palm Desert 15 topographic map (1959), and the Gen- eral Land Office Plat map for Township 5 South, Range 7 East (1904), indicated that there were no historic buildings, structures, or features present in 1904 or 1959. There have been 12 studies completed within one -quarter mile of the project area: Berryman (1977), Craib (1980), Jeriberg and Farrell (1980a, and b), Swenson (1980), Chace (1994a, b, and c), Drover (1994), Chace and Reeves (1995), Chace and Reeves (1996a and b). Berryman (1977), Craib (1.980), Jertberg and Farrell (1980a, and b), and Swenson (1980) include the project area (see Attachment B for report titles). No cultural resources were observed during the field survey. Ground visibility averaged 50 percent due to paving and vegetation. Artificial fill was present along most of the western portion of Washington Street, the eastern 30 feet along Washington Street, and the north and south sides of Avenue 50. The fill was delineated by artificial slopes and the presence of concrete, asphalt and other modem debris mixed into the desert soil. The southwest corner area of Washington Street and Avenue 50 has been landscaped with grass, and the soil is not visible. Although prehistoric cultural remains were not observed, recent bones from a cow, a jack rabbit, and a domestic cat were noted in the pro- posed staging area. Many of the cow bones were burned, and some had butcher marks from a saw. 8/19/98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\ARCHAEO. LIR» 3 L.S.{ A;waares, 1n, Impacts Analysis Because the records search and field survey did not identify any culvaral re- sources within the project area, it is LSA's opinion that this project will not affect any prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or any properties that are listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing in the California State Historic Resources Inventory. If human remains are encountered during any construction activities associated with this project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determi- nation of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified for a determination of Most Likely Descendent (..NlLD). The MLD will be given the opportunity to become involved with final disposition of the remains following scientific analy- sis. In the event that any other cultural material is encountered, work in the imme- diate vicinity of the find should be diverted, and a qualified archaeologist noti- fied. The archaeologist will assess the find and provide mitigation recommenda- tions. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If LSA can be of further assistance, or if you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (949) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 � Deborah McLean Project Manager, Archaeologist Attachments: A - Records Search Letter B - References 8/19/98«P:�HNA830\CULTURAL\ARCHAEO.LTR» 4 'GG LS i A socia:es, Lrsc. ATTACHMENT A RECORDS SEARCH LETTER 8/19/98«P:\BNA830\CULiURAL\1RCFLIEO.LTR» f .--t7CLIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Deborah McLean LSA Associates, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614-5981 Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 July 30, 1998 RS #1971 Re: Cultural Resources Records Search for the Washington Street Bridge Project (LSA job number HNA830) Dear Ms. McLean: We received your request on July 30, 1998 for a cultural resources records search for the project designated Washington Street Bridge Project located in Section 6, T.SS, R.7E, SBBM, near the city of La Quinta in Riverside County. We have reviewed our site records, maps, and manuscripts against the location map you provided. Our records indicate that three cultural resources surveys have been conducted on portions of the subject property and three cultural resources surveys have been conducted that are adjacent to or within a one -quarter mile radius of the subject property. These reports are listed on the attachment entitled "Archeological Reports" and are available upon request at $0.15/page plus $7.50 per 1/2 hour. The KEYWORD section of each citation lists the geographic area, quad name, listing of trinomials (when identified), report number in our manuscript files (MF #), and the number of pages per report. No archaeological sites are known within the project boundaries; however, our records indicate that three archaeological sites (CA-RIV-6074, CA-RIV-1980, and CA-RIV-1180) have been recorded within a one -quarter mile radius of the project area. The above information is reflected on the enclosed map. Areas that are shaded in yellow indicate areas that have been surveyed. Numbers in pencil indicate the report number in our manuscript files (MF #). Areas in red show the location of cultural resources, and their corresponding numbers in black represent the state trinomial. In addition to the California Historical Resources Information System, the following were reviewed: The National Register of Historic Places Index (07/31/96): Site CA-RIV-1180 is listed as part of La Quinta Evacuation Channel Archaeological District. 263 Ms. McLean July 30, 1998 Page 2 Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (listed through 01/ 1.5/97): None of the properties or sites have been evaluated for eligibility. Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (dated 01; 14/97): None. A review of USGS Palm Desert 15' (1959) topographic map, and the General Land Office plat map for T.SS, R.7E (1904), indicated no historic structures or features are present. This statement does not constitute a negative declaration of impact. This statement reports only known archaeological materials on or in the vicinity of the property in question. The presence of cultural resources on the property cannot be ruled out until a systematic survey is conducted and on the entire property. Federal and State law requires that if any cultural resources are found during construction, work is to stop and the lead agency and a qualified archaeologist be consulted to detennine the importance of the find. As the Information Center for Riverside County, it is necessary that we receive a copy of all archaeological reports and site information pertaining to this county in order to maintain our map and manuscript files. Site location data provided with this records search are not to be used for reports unless the information is within the project boundaries. This information is confidential. Sincerely, Victoria Avalos Information Officer Enclosures 269 LSA Asson tes, Inc. ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES Berryman , Stanley R. 1977 Archaeological Investigations of the Evacuation Channel for the Coachella Valley. Toups Corporation. Submitted to Coachella Valley Water District. Ms on file at the Eastern Infor- mation Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 0204, Document No. 1080271). Chace, Paul G. 1994a A Cultural Resources Survey for La Quinta Village Shopping Center, City of La Quinta. The Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center refer- ence number MF# 4158, Document No. 1084662). Chace, Paul G. 1994b Report of an Archaeological Monitoring Program for La Quinta Village Shopping Center, City of La Quinta. Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 4158, Document No. 1084681). Chace, Paul G. 1994c Report of An Archaeological Monitoring Program for the Sea- sons Residential Project, Tract 2801, City of La Quinta. Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 4199, Document No. 1084731). Chace, Paul G. 1995 A Cultural Resources Survey for La Quinta Elementary School No. 2, Desert Sands Unified Schools District. Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 4245, Document No. 1084792). Chace, Paul G. 1996a A Cultural Resources Survey for the Terracina Apartments Tract, City of La Quinta. The Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center refer- ence number MF# 4417, Document No. 1085052). Chace, Paul G. 1996b Report of an Archaeological Monitoring Program for the Terracina Apartments Tract, City of La Quinta. The Keith Companies. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 4417, Document No. 1085050). 8/19i98«P:\HNA830\CULTURAL\ARCHAEO. LTR» 270 LSA Associates, tic. Craib, John L 1980 Archaeological Test Sampling of Sites within the La Quinta Flood Control Channel Easement. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. Submitted to U. S. Corps of Engi- neers. Ms on file at the Easter Information Center, UCR (Infor- mation Center reference number MF# 0204, Document No. 1040695). Drover, Christopher E. 1994 Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assess- ment of the Williams Development Corporation Specific Plan Parce13 of Parcel Map No. 19730, La Quinta California. Ms on file at the Easter Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 4199, Document No.1084736 ). Jertberg, Patricia and Nancy Farrel 1980a A Study of Late Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement Patterns Along the Northwestern Shoreline of Lake Cahuilla: An Archae- ological Salvage Project of Sites CA-RIV--119, 158, 1180, 1838. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. Submitted to Coachella Valley Water District. Ms on file at the Easter Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 0204, Document No. 1080270). Jertberg, Patricia and Nancy Farrel 1980b A Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Salvage Project: La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Archaeological Resource Manage- ment Corporation. Ms on file at the Easter Information Cen- ter, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 0204, Document No. 1083205).Swenson, James D. 1980 An Archaeological Assessment of an Unnumbered Parcel East of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Archaeological Re- search Unit. Ms on file at the Eastern Information Center, UCR (Information Center reference number MF# 0858, Document No. 1080996). 8/19/984,P:\HNA830\CULTU&LL4IRCHAEO.LIR» ii 271 Friday, January 15, 1999 On the record B2 Communities B3 Across the valley B4,6 Editorials B5 La Quinta fragments latest uncovered by construction BY MATT FITZSIMONS "[HE UESERISUN IA QUINTA — Authorities sus- pect bone fragments unearthed at a construction site this week may be remnants of a long - forgotten American Indian fu- neral pyre, adding to an ever- growing list of artifacts to be recovered as the push to develop the Coachella Valley yields ev- idence of its ancient past. In what has become an in- creasingly common occurrence, the pieces of bone were dis- coveredas dirt was pushed aside to make way for a second golf course and some new homes at the Rancho La Quinta devel- opment. Officials said a few ar- rowheads were found at another spot nearby. While the fords may not prove remarkable in and of them- selves, they appear to fit into a larger mosaic of antiquities dis- covered in recent years. BECOMING MORE COMMON: "We're probably getting "them on the average of once a month," Paul Trujillo, a su- pervising' deputy coroner for Riverside County, said of the ancient human remains. Such bones and artifacts have been hidden in the earth for untold generations, of course, and there's no question Indian remains have been disturbed countless times over the course of this century. Only in the last few years, however, have cities, counties and developers recognized the historical and cultural value of these relics. When approving new construction, it is now DEVELOPMENT commonplace for local officials to require that developers hire archaeologists. These experts not only survey construction areas before work begins, but provide on -site iden- tification of any antiquities the bulldozers might turn up, as happened in this latest case. Whenever ancient Indian re- mains are identified, the state Native American Heritage Commission passes them along to the tribe most likely to in- clude descendants of the long - dead individual. Tribes often have remains reburied on or near the construction site, in an area where they are unlikely to be disturbed again. "It goes to the question of why they were there in the first place," said Richard Mi- lanovich, tribal chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. "That's the place that was chosen by the original peo- ple." A CLOSER LOOK: Forensic an- thropologist Deborah Gray is scheduled today to examine the bones, believed to be remains of an Indian who lived here Into dreds of years ago, perhaps on the edge of the ancient Lake Cahuilla. The lake repeatedly formed, receded and formed again over millennia, each time becoming a center of life for the desert's earliest inhabitants. Archaeologists say the lake's most recent incarnation was in the 17th century, and that its surface reached 42 feet above sea level, putting some of its shoreline in this rapidly growing city. Because ancient Cahuilla In- dians cremated their dead on funeral pyres, their remains usu- ally consist of just a few small pieces of bone. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ao DATE: JANUARY 21, 1999 ITEM: INTERIM CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT - ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND EVALUATION OF CA-RIV-2936- HOTEL 111 PROJECT SITE, HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET, CITY' OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET' CONSULTANT: CRM TECH - BRUCE LOVE, PH.D., AND HARRY M. QUINN DEVELOPER: TROLL-WOODPARK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BACKGROUND: In November 1998, a Phase II testing and evaluation program was conducted by CRM TECH on CA-RIV-2936, a previously recorded archaeological site located on a vacant parcel located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Adams Street. The location of this study area is shown on Page 2 of the attached report. The report presents the interim results of the site testing prepared to accompany a development application to the City for review of a proposed hotel project. The archaeological site extends across the seven acre parcel eastward onto the adjacent vacant parcels, and did extend westward from Adams Street, and northward to the southern bank of the Whitewater River channel. In 1990, the portion of the site west of Adams Street was tested as part of the environmental review and mitigation program for the 111 Center project, where there were several archaeological sites. That study interpreted the site as being a seasonal fishing camp with some exploitation of desert faunal resources. Previously, the current project parcel had been surveyed by The Keith Companies (TKC) - Paul G. Chace, Ph.D., and Charles Reeves, in October 1996, as part of a larger survey effort. This investigation consisted of a total of 12 acres, consisting of a 4 acre parcel adjacent to the southern bank of the river channel and the seven acre parcel that is the subject of the current investigation. The HPC reviewed the report for this survey on November 21, 1996. The survey located one large archaeological . 273 site recorded as CA-RIV-2936, and recommended testing to determine the nature and significance of the site. The La Quinta Self Storage facility was subsequently constructed on the 4 acre parcel. The CRM TECH field investigation, conducted two years after the TKC survey, consisted of resurveying the project area to reestablish site location and boundaries, site mapping, surface collection of the artifacts, testing the sites with hand -excavated units and surface scrapes, leaf -blower, and trenching the dunes for additional buried deposits and profiles. Lab analysis of the recovered artifacts, including radiocarbon dating of charcoal samples, is proceeding with the results to be included in the final report. Artifact types recovered included ceramics, lithics, faunal, groundstone, burned clay, and fire -affected rock. The field work consisted of recording and surface collecting each artifact, excavating test units by hand, surface scrapes, backhoe trenching, and use of a leaf blower to clear away sand from a feature. The twenty hand excavated test units uncovered clay, bone, rocks, lithic flakes, charcoal, pottery sherds, and shell. Most units were excavated to 100 cm in depth, some to 70 cm and one unit to 150 cm. The four backhoe trenches dug to roughly 2 meters (6.5 feet), did not uncover any cultural material. A suspected cremation area was located and inspected by forensic anthropologist Debbie Gray, but the bone material could not be identified as human or animal, but were of the proper size to be declared as large mammal. The area was excavated and screened, but no cultural material was found in association with the bone material. All bone material is undergoing osteological analysis at the UCLA bone lab. The most important find during the testing were the buried features. Feature 1 consisted of a large scatter of large pieces of partially fired silty clay with burned rocks (groundstone) and charcoal. Feature 2, a multi -use pit, consisted of charcoal and burned clay. Both features were originally dug into a native dune, reused many times, then finally used as trash pits. Features 1 and 2 (the fire pits) of CA-RIV-2936 can be determined to meet CEQA Criteria B through E in the discussion on Page 22 of the report. However, all of RIV- 2936 does not meet the state significance criteria, therefore, no further mitigation is recommended, other than archaeological monitoring of the grading and other earth - moving activities. The report explains that data recovery has been accomplished for the two features through the testing excavation, in which both of the entire feature areas were excavated. Archaeological monitoring is recommended for the entire project area due to the potential for additional buried cultural deposits that were not encountered during the testing phase. C:\Mydata\HPCrptHote 1111 Jan 21-1999.wpd 274 DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the interim report and concurs with the results and conclusions. Staff recommends monitoring of the earth disturbing activities as a condition of project approval and as a condition of issuance of any grading permits. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to accept the report titled, "Interim Cultural Resources Report- Testing and Evaluation of CA-RIV-2936, Hotel 111 Project Site, Highway 111 and Adams Street, City of La Quinta,..° in partial compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and subject to the condition that all earth disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and that the final report be submitted prior to issuance of any grading permits, and that a report of the monitoring activities be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of the first building permit. Attachment: 1. Archaeological Testing Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: L,�epiie Mouriqua d, Ass 01ate Planner C:\Mydata\HPCrptHote1111Jan21-1999.wpd Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager 2 71) Interim Cultural Resources Report TESTING AND EVALUATION OF CA-RIV-2936 Hotel 111 Project Site, Highway 111 and Adams Street City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California Submitted to: Scott Gayner, President Troll-Woodpark Development Company 2323 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite F Santa Ana, CA 92705 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Harry M. Quinn, Archaeologist CRM TECH 126 Barrett RoadCGDEPARTMENT --- - -- - - - Riverside, CA 92507 .. . _. _ December 21, 1998 CRM TECH Contract #353 Approximately 7 Acres La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle Section 31, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian 27G MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Since November, 1998, CRM TECH has been engaged in a cultural resources study on approximately seven acres of currently undeveloped land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study is located on the northeastern corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street, encompassing a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study consists of a systematic cultural resources survey of the subject property and an archaeological testing and mitigation program on a portion of Site CA- RIV-2936 that occurs on the property. It is a part of the environmental impact review process for the proposed construction of Hotel 111 on the subject property, which is required by the: City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the significance of Site CA-RIV-2936, and to mitigate adverse project effects on the site if it is determined to constitute a "historical resource" or an "important archaeological resource," as defined by CEQA. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all archaeological field work required for the study, including resurvey of the project area, site mapping, surface collection of artifacts, excavation of test units and surface scrapes, exposure of an important feature, and backhoe trenching. Preliminary findings from these procedures indicate that a portion of Site CA-RIV-2936 meets the official definitions of a historical resource and an important archaeological resource, as provided by CEQA. However, while artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going at this time, it can be reported that adequate mitigation efforts, through excavation and data recovery, have reduced potential effects of the proposed project on that portion of the site to a level less than significant. Based on the results of research procedures completed to date, the -City-of La Quinta may reach a finding that all reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate project effects on Site CA-RIV-2936, and the proposed project therefore will have no effect on known historical resources/important archaeological resources. Accordingly, CRM TECH recommends that project development may proceed on the condition that archaeological monitoring be required during grading and other earth -moving activities, due to the potential for subsurface archaeological resources in the project area. 2-7-1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.................................................................................................i INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 SETTING.......................................................................................................................................3 NaturalSetting................................................................................................................3 CulturalSetting...............................................................................................................3 METHODS....................................................................................................................................4 Reviewof Previous Studies.........................................................................................4 SiteSurvey.......................................................................................................................5 SiteMapping....................................................................................................................5 SurfaceCollection...........................................................................................................5 TestUnits..........................................................................................................................5 SurfaceScrapes................................................................................................................6 BackhoeTrenches...........................................................................................................6 SuspectedCremation Area...........................................................................................6 Native American Consultation...................................................................................6 FeatureExposure.............................................................................................................6 RESULTSAND FINDINGS......................................................................................................8 Review of Previous Study Results..............................................................................8 FieldSurvey.....................................................................................................................8 SiteMapping....................................................................................................................9 SurfaceCollection...........................................................................................................9 TestUnits..........................................................................................................................9 SurfaceScrapes.................................................................................................................12 BackhoeTrenches...........................................................................................................12 Suspected Cremation Area...........................................................................................13 Native American Consultation...................................................................................14 FeatureExposure............................................................................................................:14 Feature1.............................................................................:..................................14 Feature2................................................................................................................18 Summary of Features 1 and 2...........................................................................18 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................21 Definitions....................................................:...................................................................21 SiteEvaluation................................................................................................................21 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................22 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................23 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................25 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 1 Figure 15 Figure 1 LIST OF FIGURES 4. Projectvicinity..........................................................................................................1 Projectarea........................................................................................... Exposing clay pieces by leaf blower .................................................. Large clay pieces exposed by leaf blower ......................................... Sketch map of CA-RIV-2936............................................................. Feature3 in Trench 2......................................................................... Large pieces of fired clay eroding out of dune .............................. Clay pieces found at the suspected cremation area ...................... Sketchof Feature 1...................................................................................................._- Main fire pit at Feature 1................................................................ Vertical profile of Feature 1........................................................... Large clay pieces from fire pit ......................................................... Sketchof Feature 2........................................................................... Vertical profile of Feature 2........................................................... 6. Northern ire pit at eature..............................................................................._. Dune profile near Features 1 and 2.....................................................................20 iii 2.7 9 M INTRODUCTION At the request of Troll-Woodpark Development Company, CRM TECH commenced in November, 1998, a cultural resources study on approximately seven acres of currently undeveloped land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study is located on the northeastern corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street, encompassing a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2). The study consists of a systematic cultural resources survey of the subject property and an archaeological testing and mitigation program on a portion of Site CA-RIV-2936 that occurs on the property. It is a part of the environmental impact review process for the proposed construction of Hotel 111 on the subject property, which is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et seq.). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the significance of the portion of Site CA-RIV-2936 that lies on the property, and to mitigate adverse project effects on those parts of the site that are determined to constitute a "historical resource" or an "important archaeological resource," as defined by CEQA. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all archaeological field work required for the study, including resurvey of the project area, site mapping, f project location 1,Y to � � NO >�s Wdultlz M1 J$ + hp atr burin n, s_g f 1P, tY f� �'�• '�+;��' ,� ii � ,• ��� 4a Vv �,� � bits to � _ s �' �;- t V, f �t' Rar ry AUGii VSNE ' i t v ..� k i� �i'4 ",'i�c5`Y"�' Yususevnl LUfa.i-... r r �-cnM zoH Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition) 280 0"N � 1 .� '0 10 1\ �, To of (C�� 1 t lJ C _� ( NI 'l MILES 9 LE5 .. VENUE \ 7 �tLaPP I project ry z r area f 10 ... h axd 72 '. S, `'_: V ••`_ 30 t TWO .+I a�� .. IF• —;Pal rt .. so n Trailer Park WTI ON a o 31 \. 32 ` r SCALE 1:24,000- 0 1/2 1 mile •' \ (�, `.. 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet it " r `✓ .: 'a it �l•"n. �.� % na Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle, 1980 edition) surface collection of artifacts, excavation of test units and surface scrapes, exposure of an important subsurface feature, and backhoe trenching. While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going at this time, the initial results of the testing phase and site evaluation can now be presented. In order to facilitate the project proponent's development applications, CRM TECH is submitting the following interim report to present the methods, results, and conclusions of the archaeological field procedures that have been completed to date. SETTING Natural Setting The project area is bounded by a recently constructed self -storage facility on the north, Adams Street on the west, and Highway 111 on the south. The seven -acre area consists of a series of rolling mesquite dunes supporting creosote bushes and other desert flora, for the most part undisturbed and lying in its natural state. Situated in the western Coachella Valley, the project area and its environs are marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the area top 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches. Elevations in the project area are in general just below 60 feet above sea level. Native lifeways in the Coachella Valley was greatly influenced in centuries past by the comings and goings of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, whose last drying up period began around AD 1650. The project area lies some 20 feet higher in elevation than the highest shoreline of the lake, which ran along today's 42-foot contour line, approximately 1.5 miles to the east and southeast of the project area. Its proximity to this now -vanished fresh -water lake, and to the seasonal flow of the Whitewater River, renders the project area a favorable setting for prehistoric Native American habitation. Cultural Setting The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where a large number of Indian villages and rancherfas, occupied by the Desert Cahuilla people, were observed in the mid -nineteenth century. The basic written sources on Desert Cahuilla culture are Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnographic discussion of the Cahuilla people is based on these sources. The Cahuilla people are generally divided, by anthropologists, into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the Banning -Beaumont area, the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans that were in turn grouped within the two main divisions of the people. Members of clans in one division, or moiety, had to marry into clans from the other division. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in the Coachella Valley, including Cabazon, Torres Martinez, Agua Caliente, Morongo, and Augustine. Members of these reservations are highly conscious of the archaeological remains of their past, and have great concern when earth -moving activities disturb cultural remains. Although only a few elders can remember the old ways or, speak the Cahuilla language, there appears to be a revitalization trend among many tribal members. Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1880s, after the public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws. But due to the lack of an adequate and reliable water supply, agricultural development in the and region was greatly handicapped until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949. The main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of "the Arabia of America." Starting in the 1920s, a new industry, featuring resort hotels and golf courses, gradually spread throughout the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into Southern California's leading winter retreat. In present-day City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort town, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. Starting in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the cove area of La Quinta and the marketing of "weekend homes' further emphasized this new direction of development. On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the nineteenth city in Riverside County. METHODS The following sections detail the methods and procedures used during the present study. Review of Previous Studies Upon commencement of this study, CRM TECH Principal Investigator Bruce Love (see App. 1 for qualifications) and other staff members reviewed existing site records on CA- RIV-1936 and previous cultural resources reports pertaining to the site and/or the 4 .. 233 project area. Among documents consulted during this process were site records compiled in 1984 and 1992, and three earlier reports dated 1984, 1990, and 1996, all of which are available at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside, the official cultural resource records repository for Riverside County. Information gathered from these sources are presented in the sections to follow. Site Survey Prior to beginning the testing program required for significance evaluation, the project area was inspected for surface artifacts. An intensive field survey was carried out by Bruce Love, Field Director Harry Quinn, and a three -member crew consisting of George Auclair, Tony Lavato, and Joe Loya (see App. 1 for qualifications). During the survey, Love, Quinn, and the crew walked the project area systematically in north -south transects spaced at 5-meter (16-foot) intervals. The survey team marked artifacts with pin flags as the survey proceeded, and then returned to the areas with flags for a more intensive surface inspection. Site Mapping At the conclusion of the walk -over survey, Harry Quinn proceeded to map each of the artifacts and artifact concentrations on a field map, using a hand-held compass and Bushnell rangefinder to locate and plot their locations. The field sketch map was later converted, at the CRM TECH office, to an official site sketch map to be included in a site record update prepared for submission to the Eastern Information Center. Surface Collection Surface collection of artifacts was accomplished simultaneously with site mapping. As each artifact was mapped, it was assigned a field number, collected, and bagged. In this way, later artifact analysis could be informed by the provenience, or original location, of each piece. Test Units Excavation units, one -meter square and one -meter deep, were hand -dug by five members of CRM TECH's archaeological field crew under the direct supervision of the field director and/or the principal investigator. Crew members included George Auclair, Sheldom Auclair, Tony Lavato, Joe Loya, and Tonetta Torro, all of whom are Native Americans of Desert Cahuilla heritage, affiliated to the Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians. Each unit was dug in 10-cm (4-inch) levels, with all material screened through 1/8-inch hardware mesh. Artifacts and other cultural materials from each level were bagged and labeled prior to proceeding to the next level. As a general rule, units were dug to 100 cm, whether or not artifacts were encountered. In all, a total of 20 units were excavated, the findings from which are discussed below. 5 284 Surface Scrapes In areas where multiple findings were scattered on the surface but there appeared to be no depth, surface scrapes were employed to gather data. These entailed screening all the sand from broad horizontal areas to a depth of 10 cm (4 inches). The results from these surface scrapes have not been sorted and counted as of this writing. Backhoe Trenches Four backhoe trenches were dug in search of deeply buried deposits. They were spaced over the seven -acre property, generally put in areas of the highest topography, and dug to roughly 2 meters (6.5 feet). Backhoe operations were closely monitored by the field director or the principal investigator, in search for any signs of cultural materials that might be exposed during excavations. After the trenches were opened, Harry Quinn made stratigraphic drawings of the trench walls in order to interpret past site formation processes. Suspected Cremation Area When the surface survey found an area that was suspected of hav? human cremation remains, Riverside County forensic anthropologist Debbie Gray was called to the site to determine whether the remains were human or animal. She inspected a number of bone fragments that were in the size range of being human and issued her opinion and recommendations. Native American Consultation Based on the possibility that certain large fragments of burned bone might be cremation remains, it was decided to invite a tribal consultant from Torres Martinez Indian Reservation to visit the site and make recommendations for dealing with the remains. Elder Ernest Morreo came to the project area and consulted with the principal investigator and the crew. His actions and recommendations are discussed under "Results and Findings" below. Feature Exposure Near the suspected cremation area, feature exposure uncovered a wide area that showed very large pieces of partially fired silty clay on the surface. A strategy of 100% exposure was adopted, entailing a large-scale screening operation consisting of more than 60 square meters of sand to depths ranging from 20 to 60 cm (8 to 24 inches). Clay pieces were first exposed by troweling, but this was found to catch and move some of the clay pieces. Next, whisk brooms and brooms were employed to sweep away the sand, but this too disturbed the clay pieces. The features were finally exposed with the help of a leaf blower, which removed the sand from the features without distorting them (Figs. 3, 4). Once the features were exposed horizontally, hand excavation by 6 285 Figure 3. Exposing clay pieces by leaf blower. y4 v� r` '?x j r� A ♦ x Vq v .e'eF2 MIt L 2 Figure 4. Large clay pieces exposed by leaf blower. 286 trowel was used to dig into the sides of the features, creating vertical profiles for recording and interpretation purposes. RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following sections discuss the results and findings of the various research procedures detailed above. Review of Previous Study Results Records on file at the Eastern Information Center reveal that Site CA-RIV-2198 was first recorded in 1984, during an archaeological survey that covered the eastern portion of the present project area (McCarthy 1984a:4). It was described at the time as an "extensive area in sand dunes with habitation material," including numerous groundstone fragments, pot sherds, bone fragments, and burned clay that may be remains of house. floors (ibid.; McCarthy 1984b). During later cultural resources studies in the vicinity, fire -affected rock and occasional debitage were also observed at the site (Everson 1992). When recorded in 1984, Site CA-RIV-2936 was located mostly in the present project area, but extended further west into the adjacent Section 30 (McCarthy 1984b). In 1990, the. western portion of the site, situated to the west of Adams Street, was tested and interpreted to be the remains of what was probably "a seasonal fishing camp with some exploitation of desert faunal resources" (Yoke 1990:93). It was noted at the time that the western portion of CA-RIV-2936 had been significantly disturbed, in comparison to the larger portion to the east, and yielded only a small sample of cultural material during the testing program (ibid.:70-71, 93). No additional investigations were recommended on that portion of the site upon completion of the testing program (ibid.:94), and it was subsequently leveled during commercial development (Everson 1992). During more recent years, the project area was again surveyed for cultural resources in 1996, and the presence of the eastern portion of Site CA-RIV-2936, as originally recorded, was noted (Chace and Reeves 1996:19). In the report generated from that survey, Chace and Reeves (ibid.) propose the hypothesis that the site is a part of what' remains of the Cahuilla village of Kavinic, which was observed in nearby Section 24, _ T5S R6E, in the mid-1850s (GLO 1856; Strong 1929:101; Bean et al. 1991:45). Apparently based on this hypothesis, Chace and Reeves (1996:21) conclude that CA-RIV-2936 "appears to represent an important heritage site and to warrant further testing and investigation," a conclusion that echoes the recommendations made by McCarthy (1984:4) 12 years earlier. Field Survey The field survey resulted in artifact discoveries over virtually the entire seven -acre parcel, with varying concentrations. At the completion of the survey, pin flags dotted the landscape, making it clear that the archaeological site was larger than the property. 8 287 z`�� The site boundaries artificially terminated on the north, west and south sides at the modern contractions of the self -storage facility, Adams Street and Highway 111, respectively. On the east side, where there is open land, the site. continued indefinitely onto the adjacent parcel (Fig. 5). Site Mapping Seventeen artifact concentrations, or loci, were mapped, as well as several discreet areas of partially fire silty clay. In addition to the artifact mapping, excavation units, surface scrapes, backhoe trenches, and the feature exposure were mapped. The results are shown in Figure 5. Surface Collection Each artifact or cluster of artifacts was numbered as it was collected. As of this writing the results have not been tabulated, but a general summary can be presented. Roughly 800 collection bags were gathered in total, the large majority of which consisted of fire - affected rock and burned clay. In all, probably 100 sherds were collected, which were concentrated in two areas, at the northwest corner of the property and on the north face of the large dune in the southern area. Surprisingly, no formed artifacts --such as arrowheads, beads, bifacially chipped stone tools, etc. --were found during the collection phase. The fourth category --after clay, rock, and sherds --was burned animal bone, presumably from cooking fires and food consumption. Test Units The results of test unit excavations indicate that the portion of CA-RIV-2936 lying within the project area exists almost exclusively on the surface. Findings from the 20 test units dug during this study are summarized below. Unit 1, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone, rocks 10-20 Clay 20-100 No items Unit 2, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone, rocks 10-20 Clay, bone, rocks 20-30 Bone 30-60 No items 60-70 Bone 70-80 No items 80-90 Sherd, flake, bone, rock 90-100 No items Unit 3, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone, charcoal, rocks 10-20 Clay, charcoal, rocks 20-30 Bone, charcoal 30-40 Clay, bone, charcoal 40-50 Charcoal 50-60 Clay, charcoal, rock 60-70 No items 70-80 Charcoal, rock 80-90 Charcoal 90-100 Bone, charcoal Unit 4, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay 10-20 Clay, rock Existing sett -storage facility Property j boundary Unit 10 0 "�`._-/ ` Unit i -+° B C a p RF• U1rTrench 1 C V B Unit 13`0 ETM oUnit 11 C C �(Creosoti"°s Trench s a c C c, m. T TCeG C v nrt4 14 C F C C RC R C C oC o C Unit 15 Lo C: ''; T it aUnit 9 OUNt16 r SS-4 Unit 7 a Feature 1 DatUin--. point , w Unit 5 Und 18 Feature 2 + Fire pit excavation S o� SS-3 area. unit 19.'.untt6 c e nch4 ' Unit 17 Trench 3 B Sherd Bone C F Clay Flake o R Fire -affected rock Shoutcier of Nt9hway SSSuface scrape pe ill Artifact concentration Clay scatter Disturbed area p 40 80 m Figure 5. Sketch map of CA-RIV-2936. --? 289 IN 20-30 Clay 30-100 No items Unit 5, 0-100:: 0-10 Sherds, clay 10-100 No items Unit 6, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, rock, bone 10-20 Flake, clay, bone 20-30 Clay, bone 30-40 Clay 40-50 Clay, bone 50-60 Clay 60-70 Clay 70-80 Clay 80-90 Clay, bone 90-100 Bone Unit 7, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay 10-20 Clay 20-30 No items 30-40 Shell 40-100 No items Unit 8, 0-100 cm: 0-10 No items 10-20 Clay 20-100 No items 10-20 Clay, flake 20-30 Clay 30-40 Clay 40-50 Clay 50-60 Clay, bone 60-100 No items Unit 11, 0-80 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone, rock 10-20 Bone 20-30 Clay, bone 30-80 No items Unit 12, 0-120 cm: 0-10 Bone, rock 10-20 Bone 20-70 No items 70-80 Clay 80-90 Clay, rock 90-100 Clay, rock, bone 100-120 No items Unit 13, 0-90 cm: 0-40 No items 40-50 Clay 50-60 Clay 60-70 Clay, bone, rock 70-80 No items 80-90 Clay Unit 9, 0-110: 0-10 Clay, bone, charcoal 10-20 Bone 20-30 Bone, charcoal 30-40 Bone, charcoal 40-50 Bone, charcoal 50-60 Charcoal 60-70 Bone, charcoal 70-80 Charcoal 80-90 Charcoal 90-100 Bone, charcoal 100-110 Charcoal Unit 10, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Rock Unit 14, 0-70. cm: 0-10 Clay 10-20 No items 20-30 Clay 30-40 Clay, bone, rocks 40-50 Clay,rocks 50-60 Bone, rocks 60-70 Clay Unit 15, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay 10-20 Clay 20-30 Clay 30-40 No items 40-50 Charcoal 50-60 Charcoal 11 2040 60-70 Charcoal 70-80 Charcoal 80-90 Charcoal 90-100 No items Unit 16, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Sherds, clay, bone 10-20 Sherds, clay 20-100 No items Unit 17, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone 10-20 Clay, bone 20-30 Clay, bone, shell 30-40 Bone, shell 40-50 Charcoal 50-60 No items 60-70 Clay, charcoal 70-80 Bone, charcoal 80-90 Charcoal, shell 90-100 Clay, charcoal Unit 18, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone 10-20 Clay 20-100 No items Unit 19, 0-100 cm: 0-10 Clay 10-20 Clay 20-30 Clay 30-40 Clay 40-100 No items Unit 20, 0-150 cm: 0-10 Clay, bone, charcoal, rock 10-20 Sherds, bone, charcoal, rock 20-30 Sherds, charcoal 30-40 Bone, charcoal, rock 40-50 Clay, charcoal 50-60 Clay, bone, charcoal 60-70 Clay, charcoal 70-80 Clay, bone, charcoal, rock 80-150 No items To summarize, the vast majority of finds below the first levels are small pieces of clay, charcoal, and bone. These are items that tend to blow with the sand during dune formation processes and do not represent cultural layers or occupation sites. Unit 2, in the northeast quadrant of the property, did report a sherd and a flake at 80 cm, which merits special attention during the monitoring phase, but as a whole, it can be reported that the archaeological remains on the subject property are surface manifestations only. Surface Scrapes Of the four surface scrapes, three produced rather typical findings of sherds, clay, rock and animal bone. Surface scrape No. 4, however, produced a surprisingly high number of flakes, or lithic debitage. The final counts and analysis are not yet completed, but the preliminary findings show there was at least one place on the subject property where stone tool making occurred. Surface scrape No. 1 produced a shell bead. Backhoe Trenches The four backhoe trenches found no evidence of buried cultural deposits, but an unusual concentration of charcoal was exposed at about 80 cm in Trench 2. For recording and discussion purposes, -this is referred to as Feature 3. It consisted of a U- shaped area filled with burned sand and charcoal (Fig. 6). The contents consisted of about half reddish -brown burned sand and half charcoal. It exhibited some fluvial structures, suggesting that it had been washed in or that it was part of an old drainage, 12 2 T _ Figure 6. Feature 3 in Trench 2, a charcoal concentration with no evidence of cultural remains. but the feature was found to be elliptical in shape and not elongate as would be expected if it had been in a drainage. It ranged in size from about one meter across in a north - south direction to over a meter in the east -west direction, and was about 25 cm in the thickest portion. Most of the charcoal contained identifiable plant parts, indicating that they had not been burned in a hot fire. The charcoal consisted of burned small limbs, all being less than 1.5 cm in diameter. The top of the feature was a marked unconformity, indicating that some erosion had taken place prior to the overlying sand dune being deposited. No cultural material was found associated with Feature 3 or in the sands surrounding it. All indications are that it was created by natural forces, probably from a heavy rain storm washing over a burn area and depositing charcoal and lightly burned sand into some kind of cavity, perhaps an old animal burrow. Suspected Cremation Area Forensic anthropologist Debbie Gray of the Riverside County Coroner's Office could not identify the bone fragments she inspected as being human or animal. Her opinion was that the specimens did not contain diagnostic characteristics of human osteology, but that they were in the proper size range to be declared as large mammal. Only further excavations would confirm of refute the suspicions that the remains were part of an ancient Indian cremation ceremony. 292 13 The suspected cremation area was then thoroughly excavated and screened, covering an area 43 square meters, 20 cm deep. The results were negative, producing no cremation remains. Based on this, it can be stated that the two or three bone fragments on the surface were probably not cremation remains, but rather burned animal bone remains from roasting or cooking activities. Native American Consultation When Cahuilla elder Ernest Morreo came to the site, it was explained to him that the identification of human remains was only tentative. His recommendation was that for the spiritual safety of the crew members, the remains should be treated as if they were human. Accordingly, Morreo performed a traditional blessing, cleansing the site as well as the archaeologists, giving permission to proceed with excavations and recovery. Feature Exposure The most important finds of the entire study were buried features on the southwest edge of the project area. Large pieces of fired clay were discovered eroding from the side of a small dune near Adams Street (Fig. 7). Nearby lay an area thought perhaps to be a cremation site (see "Suspected Cremation Area," above). As excavations began on the suspected cremation area, crew members found more large pieces of fired clay, very similar in shape and size to the ones on the nearby surface (Fig. 8). As it turned out, there was no cremation at that location, but the clay features proved to be very important discoveries. Feature 1 Through methods previously described, a horizontal exposure revealed an extensive and densely packed scatter of large pieces of partially fired silty clay. At the point of highest concentration, a few heavily burned rocks --including groundstone fragments --and large pieces of charcoal clustered in and around the clay, formed a roughly circular burn area (Fig. 9). Vertical bisection of the feature revealed a complex history of fire -related events (Fig. 10). As of this writing, the age of the feature is unknown, although several samples of charcoal have been collected for radiocarbon dates. Sometime in the past, probably within the last few centuries, one or more residents of a Cahuilla village along the banks of the Whitewater River excavated a pit in an existing sand dune (Fig. 11). Somehow, this pit became partially filled with burned sand and charcoal, with a lining of large charcoal pieces at its base. There is no evidence that fire was ever built within this pit, only that sand and charcoal line the bottom. The pit was left open and unused for some time, as a rare desert rain storm washed in clean sand to cover the ashy bottom. Then, unexplainably, another charcoal deposit entered the pit, this time building up along one wall forming a "bank" of charcoal along the north side of the feature. 2a3 J 14 Figure 7. Large pieces of fired clay eroding out of dune near Adams Street. Figure S. Clay pieces found during excavation of the suspected cremation area. (Cf. Figure 9) 294 15 Finally the main fire pit came into being and with it the first appearance of burned clay. This wide pit, more than a meter wide and almost two meters long, was in effect a trench or trough in which a large fire or fires were built. In the trench, mixed with charcoal and sand, were found occasional large chunks of clay. Directly below this level was reddish burned sand, showing the heat effects of the ancient fire. Above the charcoal, sand, and clay of this fire pit was another layer of reddish sand, and then evidence of the last and final fire that created this feature. This upper fire pit, placed on top of the lower one, appears to have been lined with large clay chunks, the same pieces that were first exposed during excavations (Fig. 12). Finally, as the fire pits were no longer needed, or they were abandoned for some unknown reason, the Native inhabitants Figure 10. Main fire pit at Feature 1. 16 op O 0 Q D oD D-n O pOP Q '\�/✓� o oQo 0 a 00 ova P 0 o m o co 0 O O clay 8 O rock fire pit area 0 tm O O D pDatum point % o o 0 Figure 9. Sketch of Feature 1. _1295 concentration of burned clay and fire -affected rock .. burned sand .... charcoal deposit a burned clay mica cm Figure 11. Vertical profile of Feature 1. 1. Charcoal- and sand -filled basin with burned sand along the base at the south end, containing concentration of burned clay and fire -affected rock. 2. Charcoal- and sand -filled basin with burned sand along the base at the south end, some burned clay present. 3. Charcoal with minor sand and no burned clay showing. 4. Light gray fluvial sand with some scattered charcoal. 5. Disturbed soil zone with scattered charcoal, dense charcoal layer at the base, no burned clay noted, dug into sand dune. 6. Gray micaceous dune sand, filling an old blow-out. 7. Gray to brown gray micaceous dune sand, mica beds show steep dip (ca. 300) to the southeast, truncated by Horizon 6. Figure 12. Large clay pieces from fire pit, naturally flat on one side and rough on the other. 296 filled the main pit with broken, burned rocks and fired chunks of clay, filling the pit to its upper levels, in effect turning an ancient fire pit into a trash pit. Feature 2 Feature 2, discovered during excavations south of Feature 1, revealed a history very similar to its neighbor (Figs. 13, 14). This multi -use pit, or series of pits over time, was also originally dug into a natural sand dune, where charcoal and sand, but no clay, are now recorded as the first and oldest sign of activity. Above this level, a dense concentration of charcoal and various pieces of burned clay mark a fire pit (Fig. 15), with a lining of sand turned red from the heat, which finally became a trash pit. A similar occurrence lies just to the south creating a complex sequence of deposits difficult to discern. Summary of Features 1 and 2 Both Features 1 and 2 were first dug into Excavated surface '^' A D concentration of burned clay and fire -affected rock - burned sand o burned clay mica 0 1m Figure 14. Vertical profile of Feature 2. Datum pO point\p_o D b° dA` 09 00 . a, g .aoo � a� •: o nC)°0 a a D ea a dJ° to O a O c 0 w O o o oae o^ o a V O ctay Q O rock fire pit area 0 tm Figure 13. Sketch of Feature 2. A. Charcoal- and sand -filled basin with burned sand along the base, some burned clay present. B. Charcoal- and sand -filled basin with burned sand along the base, containing _ concentration of burned- clay _ and fire -affected rock. C. Disturbed soil zone with scattered charcoal, no burned clay noted, dug into sand dune. D. Gray to brown gray micaceous dune sand, mica beds show steep dip (ca. 30°) to the southeast. 297 M Figure 15. Northern fire pit at Feature 2. native, undisturbed sand dunes, and then were reused over successive periods of time, until at the end they were used as trash pits for pieces of burned clay and, in the case of Feature 1, for burned and broken rock including groundstone. David Largo, Cahuilla potter and consultant for the project, examined the burned clay and the features. He suggests that the pieces of burned clay were brought in as bulk samples collected from some natural source. Clay chunks removed from old lake beds or ponds tend to be flat on the top and rough on -the bottom; very -similar to the pieces found here. They had not been altered or shaped, but used in their natural state, perhaps as liners for the fire pits. In his own experience firing pots, Largo reports that he uses rocks at the bottom of his pits to keep his vessel up off the ground and he spaces the rocks to allow air, and thus oxygen, to circulate under the pots as they are being fired. Large clay pieces could be used the same way, to keep whatever was being cooked up off the sand, allowing it to heat evenly. In the end, as the village or campsite was abandoned, odd pieces of clay and rock were tossed into the pits in a kind of farewell, at least for a season. Encroaching sand dunes covered the pits (Fig. 16), hid them from view, and prevented their reuse by returning groups, only to be rediscovered centuries later by archaeologists. 298 19. 2-v J •.•• charcoal deposit p t 2m 1. Gray micaceous dune sand, some scattered roots, loose, recent. 2. Gray micaceous dune sand, some scattered roots, roots common at the south end. 3. Light gray clean sand with scattered charcoal, appears to be fluvial in origin. 4. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds. 5. Light gray clean sand with minor scattered charcoal, appears to be fluvial in origin. 6. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds, dark mica band at the base. 7. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds. 8. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds, dark mica band at the top truncated by Horizon 7. 9. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds, dark mica band at the top truncated by Horizon 8. 10. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds. 11. Gray micaceous dune sand, thin crossbeds. 12. Light gray clean sand with scattered charcoal, common charcoal at north end, fluvial in origin. 13. Tan, very micaceous dune sand, appears to be the top of the habitation zone containing the burned clay. Figure 16. Dune profile near Features 1 and 2, showing accumulation of more recent layers since the fire pit features were abandoned. The top of Feature 2 (Horizon A in Fig. 14) corresponds to Horizon 13 in dune profile. �139 20 2� DISCUSSION Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM TECH's conclusion on whether Site CA-RIV-2936 meets the official definition of a "historical resource" or an "important archaeological resource," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, particularly CEQA. Definitions According to PRC §5202.1(j), "'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." CEQA further specifies that "a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources" (PRC §21084.1). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. (OPR 1994:4) For the evaluation of archaeological sites, Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines further provides the specific definition of an "important archaeological resource." According to this definition, an "important archaeological resource" is one which: A. Is associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American history, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory; B. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. (CEQA Guidelines App. K, §III) Site Evaluation Site CA-RIV-2936 is a huge site covering the entire seven -acre project area and stretching well beyond to the east and west. It is difficult, therefore to place a blanket evaluation over the entire site, where most portions contain only surface scatters of artifacts, but within specific locales there are buried and highly significant remains. As 300 21 - in the case with the current project, the test units and backhoe trenches for the most part found only typical, and therefore not particularly significant finds. But Features 1 and 2 mark an area that could easily be said to meet CEQA Appendix K Criteria B through E. The question of fired clay and its use by Cahuilla peoples has long been a primary research question in Coachella Valley archaeology, and the findings here are going a long way toward shedding light on this issue (Criterion B, and California Register Criterion 4). These fire pit features have a special quality because of their rarity in the archaeological record, being some of the only --if not the only --such features ever fully recorded in this region (Criterion C). They are almost certainly more than 100 years old (although radiocarbon dating is not yet completed) and they retain remarkable stratigraphic integrity, marking a sequence of events over time (Criterion D). And finally, the question of ancient use of fired clay can only be answered through archaeological methods, since no living Cahuilla can remember or explain their use or purpose (Criterion E). Based on the above, it can be concluded that all of CA-RIV-2936 does not meet CEQA criteria for importance, but the fire pit features do. RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired." This study has concluded that the fire pit features at CA-RIV-2936, lying in the southwest quadrant of the project area, meet CEQA criteria for importance, but that mitigation in the form of data recovery has already been completed. In the course of excavating and recording the features, the features themselves were disassembled piece by piece and essentially removed from the site in which they originally lay. In order to give up their scientific and cultural meaning, they have in a sense been sacrificed. The information gleaned from their removal has become the facts and figures of this and future written reports and presentations at professional meetings. They no longer exist in the ground. This interim report has presented the preliminary results and findings of the feature excavations in order to demonstrate to the Lead Agency that full data recovery has been achieved during this study, and thus neither preservation nor avoidance of the features is needed. The final report on this project will expand on the current findings, in particular on the basis of more detailed analysis of the clay and radiocarbon dating of the charcoal. The surface finds from the remainder of the project area have also been completely collected, and the study results on all artifacts, such as ceramic typology and clay and rock analysis, and other conclusions will be presented in the final report. 301 22 Based on the results of research procedures completed to date, CRM TECH recommends the following findings to the City of La Quinta: • Potential historical resources/important archaeological resources within and adjacent to the project area have been properly identified and evaluated; • One portion of Site CA-RIV-2936, Features 1 and 2, meets CEQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources; • Mitigation of adverse effects on Features 1 and 2 has been completed through 100% excavation and data recovery; • The proposed project, therefore, will have no effect on known historical resources/important archaeological resources; • Due to the high sensitivity of sand dunes for buried cultural resources, archaeological monitoring should be required during grading and other earth - moving activities in the project area. CONCLUSION The foregoing interim report has provided background information on the project area, outlined the methods used in the current study, and presented the results of research procedures completed to date. While Site CA-RIV-2936 covers almost the entire project area, only one portion of the site was found to meet CEQA criteria for historical resources/important archaeological resources. That portion, consisting of Features 1 and 2, has been thoroughly recorded and excavated. Therefore, mitigation of adverse effects to that portion of the site has been accomplished by data recovery, and the proposed project will have no effect on known historical resources/important archaeological resources. Accordingly, CRM TECH recommends that project development may proceed on the condition that archaeological monitoring be required during grading and other earth -moving activities, due to the potential for subsurface archaeological resources in the project area . 3!02 23 REFERENCES Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John, Sylvia Brakke Vane, and Jackson Young 1991 The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. Chace, Paul G., and Charles E. Reeves 1996 An Archaeological Survey of Two Parcels at Highway 111 and Adams Street, City of La Quinta. Unpublished report on file (MF #4420), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Everson, Dicken 1992 Archaeological site record update, CA-RIV-2936. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) - - 1856 Plat Map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. McCarthy, Daniel F. 1984a Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of Approximately 6 Acres of Land near Washington Street and Highway 111 in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file (MF #2021), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1984b Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-2936. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California) 1994 CEQA and Historical Resources. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26. -Reprinted by Malki - Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. Yohe, Robert M., II 1990 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites Located at One Eleven La Quinta Center in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file (MF #2821), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. `zI APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 304 25 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists) Professional history 1993- Owner and Principal, CRM TECH, Riverside 1990-1993 Director, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside; Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UC Riverside 1989-1990 Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UCLA 1987-1990 Owner and Principal, Pyramid Archaeology, Palmdale, California 1986-1987 Junior Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre -Columbian Research, Washington, D.C. 1981-1986 Part-time cultural resources management consultant; doctoral student at UCLA Education 1986 Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, UCLA 1981 Master of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA 1976 Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA 1996 "CEQA 101," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1995 "CEQA Workshop," presented by Association of Environmental Professionals. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "CEQA 1994: Issues, Trends, and Advanced Topics," presented by UCLA Extension. 1990 "Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law," presented by U.S. General Services Administration Training Center. Memberships Society of Professional Archaeologists (certified in field research, teaching, and archaeological administration) - - Association of Environmental Professionals American Planning Association Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Society for Historic Archaeology American Society for Ethnohistory Coachella Valley Archaeological Society 305 M-0 0 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn Education 1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert Professional Experience 1992- Independent Geological/Archaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C.E.S., Inc., Redlands 1991-1992 Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates, Inc., San Bernardino 1988-1991 Director of Environmental Services, Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., San Bernardino 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, JIRSA Environmental Services, Norco 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, Loco Exploration, Inc., Aurora, Colorado 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil Exploration and Production, Englewood, Colorado 1966-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles Memberships Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (President, 1993-1994; Vice President, 1992, 1995-1997; Basic Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1997) Coachella Valley Historical Society Southwest Museum Malki Museum Publications in Archaeology and History Forty-five articles in the publications of the Southwest Museum, the American Rock Art Research Association, the Colorado Archaeological Society, the Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and the Coachella Valley Historical Society, 1978-1997. 306 27 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD CREW Five members of CRM TECH's field crew, George Auclair, Sheldom Auclair, Joe Loya, Tony Lavato, and Tonetta Torro, participated in the present study. All five are Native Americans of Desert Cahuilla heritage, affiliated to the Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians. Field Experience (Survey) • Indian Palms Country Club: field survey of ca. 400 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at six prehistoric sites. • Coral Mountain Development Project: field survey of ca. 1,251 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 32 prehistoric sites, some with historic components. • State Route 86 Extension: field survey of ca. 30 acres; no sites found. • Palm Hills Specific Plan: field survey of ca. 1,200 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at three historic sites. • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: field survey of ca. 350 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 30 prehistoric loci. • Cabazon Resource Recovery Park: field survey of ca. 160 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 13 prehistoric loci. • Tract 26595, Indian Wells: field survey of ca. 20 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 12 prehistoric loci. • St. Francis of Assisi Church Parking Lot Site: field survey of ca. 29 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 3 prehistoric sites. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052: field survey of 50 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 8 prehistoric sites. Field Experience (Excavation) Rancho La Quinta Country Club: test excavation and screening at 30 prehistoric loci; completing 123 lxl-m test units, 4 1x2-m test units, 4 4x8-m surface scrapes, and a 9-m vertical wall profile. Tract 26595, Indian Wells: test excavation and screening at 12 prehistoric loci; completing 24 lxl-m test units and 4 vertical dune profiles. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29052 (Parcels 1-7): test excavation and screening at 3 prehistoric sites; completing 10 lxl-m test units. Laboratory Experience (Artifact Cataloguing) Rancho La Quinta Country Club: sorting, counting, and re -bagging level bags from test excavation. Classroom Training The crew attended classes at Torres Martinez presented by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love, Ph.D., for a total of eight hours. Subjects included the following: anthropology as a sub -field of archaeology, pre -historic vs. historic archaeology, overview of pre -history of desert Southern California, overview of major historical events in early Spanish contact with Native Southern California. In classroom workshops, the crew was trained in reading USGS topographic maps, using an engineering scale, compass reading, and scaled feature drawing a feature using metric tape, scale, compass, and gridded note paper. 3171 28 - W HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 20, 1999 ITEM: DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCES GUIDELINES - QUALIFICATIONS LOCATION: CITYWIIDE f3I�(HL�I�LI�B As part of private development and public project environmental reviews, cultural resource surveys and assessments are often required to be conducted for compliance with the requirements of CEQA and/or NEPA. In order to provide for consistent, professional -quality archaeological and historical investigations, staff is developing a set of guidelines and procedures for cultural resource management issues. The proposed guidelines are being drafted in compliance with Section 7.04.030 of Title 7 - Historic Preservation Ordinance and the National Historic Preservation Act. The various components of these guidelines will be presented to the HPC for consideration as they are completed, and finally to the City Council for adoption. The first component consists of the qualifications requirements for various levels of participants in archaeological investigations. This component is formatted as an appendix which will be a part of the completed manual. The City of La Quinta is certified by the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, which is a program created by the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and administered by the United States Department of the Interior- National Park Service, and the State of California Office of Historic Preservation- Department of Parks and Recreation. As a CLG, the City of La Quinta is invested with all of the responsibilities of certification, including upholding the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards are regulatory for States, local historic preservation programs, and participating tribes through 36 CFR part 61. The professional qualifications are designed to be a tool to help recognize the minimum expertise generally necessary for performing professionally credible historic preservation work. They outline the minimum education and experience and products that together provide an assurance that: the applicant, employee, consultant, or advisor will be able to perform competently on the job and be respected within the larger historic preservation community. 308 4�� The proposed professional qualifications requirements for Principal Investigators are taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards which are part of the larger "Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation." The descriptions for other archaeology crew members are taken from the State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) requirements for qualified crew member positions, as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards do not address these position levels. In order to have a complete complement of participants in archaeological investigations, staff is recommending that the City of San Diego's requirements for Archaeological Monitors and Traditional Cultural Property Expertise be added to address these particular roles. The City of San Diego is also a CLG and has a very active program of cultural resource management. A provision allowing students of archaeology and trained public volunteers is also proposed to encourage their participation in the CRM process. DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed qualifications requirements from federal, state, and local entities, and has recommended a set of criteria to best fill the observed needs of the City of La Quinta. By having a set of criteria for qualifications of archaeological practitioners, a method of quality control will be in place. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Minute Motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the document titled, "Cultural Resource Guidelines - Appendix B: Cultural Resources Consultant Qualifications." Attachment: 1. Appendix B: Cultural Resources Consultant Qualifications Prepared by: 4f1slie Mouri uand, ssociate Planner G C:\Mydata\HPCrptCu1t ResGuidelines.wpd Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planni g Manager M 309 City of la Quints CULTURAL APPENDIX R: CULTURAL QUALIFICATIONS lanuary 1999 City of La Quinta Cultural Resources Guidelines For CEQA and/or NEPA compliance, the City is committed to ensuring that cultural resource studies are conducted by qualified professionals. To accomplish this goal, the City requires that individuals working in the discipline of archaeology meetcertain minimum professional standards in education, training, and experience as described below. These standards, for the most part, follow the professional qualification standards found in the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation" (Federal Register, Vol. 62 No. 119, pp.33708 - 33723, June 20, 1997). In addition, it is required that individuals conducting cultural resource studies and serving as Principal Investigator, be certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) or the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA). For the purposes of these criteria, "professional" is defined as beyond the training level, whether paid or not. Crew Member The crew member is authorized to participate in surveys and excavations under the direction of a lead archaeological surveyor or excavation crew chief. Minimum qualifications are as follows: Minimum of six weeks of supervised field training (including at least three weeks each of excavation and field survey) in time blocks of at least one week duration (field school or equivalent); and, A minimum of two upper division college course (accredited) in archaeology. Lead Archaeological Surveyor The lead archaeological surveyor is authorized to sign archaeological survey reports. Minimum qualifications are as follows: B.A. in anthropology with emphasis in archaeology (a minimum of four upper division archaeology courses required to satisfy this "emphasis") or B.P.. in anthropology or closely related discipline with subsequent course work in archaeology (a minimum of four upper division or graduate courses in archaeology required); and, At least six months of professional archaeological experience in California, including at least 12 weeks of California field survey experience; and, Page 2 of 6 .. 311• �� City of La Quinta Cultural Resources Guidelines Demonstrated ability to organize and conduct archaeological surveys, complete site record forms, and report on survey findings. Excavation Crew Chief, Extended Surveyor The excavation crew chief is authorized to lead excavation field crews and direct extended survey projects. Minimum qualifications are as follows: Qualifications as a lead archaeological surveyor for the City of La Quinta; and, A total of at least 12 months of professional archaeological experience or specialized training, including: 1) at least 10 weeks of California excavation experience under the supervision of a professional archaeologist; 2) at least four weeks of excavation experience in a supervisory capacity; and 3) at least four weeks of supervised laboratory experience on collections from California sites; and, Familiarity with the City of La Quinta cultural resources policies, procedures, and goals as demonstrated in research designs and past performance. Principal Investigator, Evaluation/Data Recovery Excavations Minimum qualifications are as follows: Educational requirements Advanced degree (such as an M.A., M.S., PH.D., or D.Sc.) from an accredited institution in archaeology, anthropology, art history, classics, history, or other germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology; and, Execution of an Archaeological Study; and, Designed and executed an archaeological study and have report on that research in the form of a master's thesis, Ph.D., dissertation or report (or several reports that together are) equivalent in scope and quality to a master's thesis or Ph.D., dissertation. A purely descriptive report, however long, is not considered equivalent. The thesis, dissertation, or report must show a substantive data analysis by the applicant directed toward an explicit Page 3 of 6 312 City of La Quinta Cultural Resources Guidelines archaeological research problem; and, Certification by the Society for Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) or Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA). M.A. in anthropology (or related discipline) with an emphasis in archaeology. This requirement includes completion of a thesis or dissertation consisting of the design and execution of an archaeological study. A total of at least 16 months of professional archaeological experience, including, at a minimum, one year of field experience. This must include: 1) at least 24 weeks of field work under the supervision of a professional archaeologist, of which at least 12 weeks must be excavation work; 2) at least 20 weeks of fieldwork in a supervisory capacity, at least eight weeks of which must be on California sites; and 3) at least eight weeks of supervised laboratory experience on collections from California sites; and, For prehistoric archaeological investigations, at least one year of the required 16 months of experience must concern prehistoric archaeological resources; and, For historical archaeological investigations, at least one year of the required 16 months of experience must concern historical archaeological resources; and, Demonstrated ability to carry archaeological research to completion; as evidenced by the timely completion of excavation proposals and reports; and, Familiarity with the City of La Quinta resource policies, procedures and goals, as demonstrated in research designs and past performance. Archaeological Monitors The minimum qualifications for archaeological field/laboratory supervisors and monitors are: A bachelor's degree in Archaeology, Anthropology or closely related field (e.g., Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology); and, At least two years of demonstrable experience (or equivalent specialized Page 4 of 6 313 City of La Quinta Cultural Resources Guidelines training) with prehistoric archaeological resources of the United States; arid, At least one year of full-time demonstrable experience at a supervisory level with prehistoric archaeological resources of southern California. Demonstrable experience includes, but is not limited to: Administrative, project review or supervisory experience in a historic preservation program or office (academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, cultural resources management consulting firm or similar professional institution) with an emphasis on and related to prehistoric material culture, prehistoric archaeological resources of the prehistoric built environment of southern California; or, Field work that emphasizes the identification, evaluation, treatment. or documentation of prehistoric material culture, prehistoric archaeological resources or the prehistoric built environment of southern California. Traditional Cultural Property Expertise The minimum qualifications for traditional cultural property expertise (i.e., Native American advisor/observer) are: A community -recognized traditional cultural authority who can speak on behalf of the community with regard to historic or prehistoric resources; or, Community -recognized permission to consult with a traditional cultural authority and to speak on behalf of that authority; and, At least one year of demonstrable experience in applying information concerning traditional cultural properties in the historic preservation arena. Demonstrable experience includes, but is not limited to: Study with traditional cultural authorities concerning community traditions associated with traditional cultural properties of southern California; or, Teaching or passing on community traditions that relate to traditional cultural Page 5 of 6 314 City of La Quinta Cultural Resources Guidelines properties of southern California; or, Administering or working in a program on behalf of a traditional community that identifies, evaluated, documents and protects traditional cultural properties in southern California; or, Fieldwork on behalf of the community to identify, evaluate, document ,and protect traditional cultural properties in southern California. Students and Volunteers In order to encourage educational and community service participation, students majoring/minoring in anthropology or a closely related college or university degree program fulfilling course requirements or additional training/internship requirements, or volunteers with archaeological field training certified by a university/college certification program or archaeological society certification program are permitted to participate in all aspects of archaeological investigations with 100% supervision by a qualified Crew Chief or higher level personnel. Student and/or volunteers are not to replace or serve in lieu of duly qualified crew members, but rather to supplement a crew. Page 6 of 6 315 CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MA TERIAL Nal Ella I T1st faf Hlst.fe Pest, ad,cn Fax: n2E9661139 Voice: 20aSZ254 To: Leslie Mouciqunnd et NAPC Page 1 of 2 SaWrzlay, Apnl pa, 19991: 19 M AM lJ National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusett, Avenue, NW rn Washington, DC 20036-2117 (202) 588-6000 / FAX (202) 588-6038 / Inremetvl ilw,nallonatnust org HOUSE AND SENATE PASS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BILLS!! DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF ISTEA RENEWAL TO BE RESOLVED BY CONFERENCE COMMITTEE VITAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONCERNS IN QUESTION Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have now approved sit -year renewals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the national surface transportation law. The two bills contain numerous differences which must be ironed out in a conference committee before a measure can be sent to President Clinton - To be resolved are differences in overall spending levels for the six years, the mix of spending for highways and public transit, specific projects added by House members, transportation policy priorities, and how the nearly 40% more spending for transportation will affect all the other spending priorities. The Surface Transportation Policy Project reports that of the 25 core recormnendations contained in its Blueprint for ISTF-4 Reauthorization, 22 are either entirely or significantly addressed in one of the two bills. Planning and public participation requirements, a policy emphasis on system preservation versus new construction, a scenic byways program, and more decision -making power for local governments are among the progressive elements preserved in both bills. There are four items of very specific concern to the historic preservation community which we must work hard to have included in the conference agreement. In each case we are supporting the 1. The Senate enhancements provisions are superior to the House's, because the Senate version does not provide for partial transferability of enhancements funds to other activities, like road building. The enhancements ethic is not yet fully supported in all of the states, and historic preservation needs six more years of a dedicated minimum allocation for the enhancements program. 2. The Senate bill makes changes in the Historic Bridge Program that will promote much greater preservation and adaptive reuse of historic bridges by permitting historic bridge funds to be supplemented by enhancements funds. It's a common sense change that should be in the final version. 3. The Senate bill contains a new program that will assist states in preserving the Nation's historic covered bridges. The Nalional TYus1 for Hisstoric Presen miart pmnides kadership, educmion, will advacoq to rme,Lneriralr di.erse historic places mui revitalise oil communities. 3 1 92: 18 RECEIVED FROM: F.01 04 -83-98 <.,7 s National Trust for HuA.nc Preserveoon F.:2024N8 8 Voice: 202bSSb26{ To: Leslie Mauriquend e. NAPC Pege2o/2 Se rdw.ApnlU,19SS 111:26AM 4. The Senate's planning provisions dealing with local government consultation clearly state that it should take place with local elected officials. The House leaves out the word "elected," and we strongly feel that elected officials at the local level are the best ones to represent the views of the citizenry, including the historic preservation community. ACTION NEEDED The ISTEA conferees will be the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the 18 members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (see rosters below). Please contact these Representatives and Senators and urge them to support our priority items for the conference agreement. You may want to ask your legislators who do not serve on these committees to help out by urging their colleagues who do to support progressive surface transportation legislation and the priorities of the historic preservation community. Congress will not be back in session in Washington until April2lst. This presents an excellent opportunity to find your Representative and Senators at home in their district offices. 'Those offices and their numbers are listed in your area phone books under U. S. Government. We have been working together or ISTEA for nearly 18 months, and we have been very successful to date. We are really trying to cement our progress with this last round of contacts. Thank your legislators for all the help they have given you or transportation issues in the past and ask for their support on the above points. ISTEA CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS House Transportation and Infrastructure Conunittee Bud Shuster (R-PA) - Chairman; Don Young (R-AK); Thomas Petri (R-WI); Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY); Jay Kim (R-CA); Steve Horn (R-CA); Tillie Fowler (R-FL). Richard Baker (R-LA); Robert Ney (R-OH); Jack Metcalf (R-WA); James Oberstar (D-MN), Ranking Mbr.; Nick Rahall (D-WV). Robert Borski (D-PA); William Lipinski (D-IL); Bob Wise (D-WV); James Clyburn (D-SC); Bob Filner (D-CA); and Jim McGovern (D-MA). Senate Environment and Public Works Committee John H. Chafee (R-RI) - Chairman, John W. Warner (R-VA); Robert C. Smith (R-NH); Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID); James M. Inhofe (R-OK) Craig Thomas (R-WY): Christopher S. Bond (R-MO); Tim Hutchinson (R-AR); Wayne Allard (R-CO); Jeff Sessions (R-AL); Max BaUOUs (D-MT) - Ranking Mbr.; Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Harry Reid (D-NV); Bob Graham (D-FL); Joe Lieberman (D-CT); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Ron Wyden (D-OR). -April:i, 1998 The NrRioml D'u rffm Hsloric PrerervrJion provides k.derrhip, edacntion, and advocary to sue Anrenca's averse hirtoric poxes and rewiahze our commumix, 04-03-98 22:20 RECEIVED FROM: P.02 504 N. Tercero Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-322-2150 January 8, 1999 John Pena Mayor City of LaQuinta P.O. Box 1504 LaQuinta, CA 92253 Dear John, It is with deep regret that I must tender my resignation to the Historic Preservation Convnission effective on Friday, January 22, 1999. 1 have named the Executive Director of the Hayward Area Historical Society in Hayward, CA and begin my work there on February 1. It has been a distinct honor and privilege to serve the Council and the citizens of LaQuinta these past three years -including serving as the Vice Chair for the last two years. As a historian and historic preservationist, it is refreshing to see a City Council take such an active interest in preserving the valuable past of our communities while balancing it with the needs of modern development. The City of LaQuinta is doing an outstanding job at this and should be a model for other cities throughout the region. The rest of the state is watching us - as evidenced in the President's Award from the California Preservation Foundation. Please continue to be vigilant and respectful to those precious and non-renewable historical resources. I also wanted Council to know what an incredible staff they have in the Community Development Department, but especially in Christine Di Iorio and Leslie Moriquand. As a Commission member, our jobs were so much easier because of the completeness of our board packets, including staff reports and the information provided to us. I always approached. Commission meetings with an air of expectancy rather than one of dread. If any Commission meeting ever could be, these meetings were usually fun. I look forward to seeing you and all of the Council members at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the California Preservation Foundation being held in Palm Springs/LaQuinta in mid -May. That was one Co -chairmanship that I couldn't resign because of moving north. Sincerely, Ji Mersman pc:d" Herman, Comm. Develop. Director Christine DiIorio, Planning Manager 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 1 of 14 The California Environmental Quality Act 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: What Every CEQA Practitioner Needs to Know Prepared by Maureen F. Gorsen General Counsel, California Resources Agency October 1998 October 26, 1998 marks the conclusion of a five year effort by the Governor Wilsons's Office of Planning and Research and the California Resources Agency to update the CEQA Guidelines to reflect statutory and case law revisions and to provide guidance on some of the more knotty issues presented to decisionmakers in following the CEQA process.' Such issues include the following: • what point in time to choose for the baseline for measuring the significance of environmental effects • whether there are effects that could be considered "de minimis" in a cumulatively impacted environment • at what point a project's incremental impacts are "cumulatively considerable" • when to rely on prior EIR's analysis of cumulative impacts • whether the re -permitting of a facility falls within the existing facilities exemption or is a new project • what are the role of regulatory standards in detemining significance • how to analyze impacts on historical resources. They are designed to assist lead agencies in making these and other difficult discretionary determinations required by the CEQA process. And with one exception, they are due to be effective at the end of October 1998.1 The latest revisions are the third set to be proposed and adopted by the Resources Agency since 1993. Over the past five years, over 120 sections to the CEQA Guidelines have been revised and updated. This latest set revises approximately 320 sixty (60) sections. This article highlights the twenty (20) or so of those revisions which have received the most attention during the public comment period and http://ceres. ca. gov/cega/cega_article_1098. html 12/ 1 /98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 2 of 14 which are likely to be of most immediate interest to CEQA practitioners. They are grouped by topic: determining significance, determining the scope of priate analysis in an FIR, exempting environmentally beneficial activities, and improving CEQA's roadmap. DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE No subject addressed in the CEQA Guidelines over the past few years has been more controversial than the revisions assisting lead agencies in the job of determining the significance of effects which may be caused by projects they are reviewing. Arguably, the two most important discretionary determinations that a lead agency must make in the CEQA process are whether the environmental consequences of the project are "potentially significant" and whether the environmental consequences of the project are, in fact, "significant" on the basis of the information in the environmental impact report ["EIR"]. And, it is easy to see why these two issues are so debated and so controversial. Both decisions affect the timing and cost of projects and the amount of environmental protection, either by requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report ["EIR" ] and/or by requiring the project to avoid or mitigate those effects found significant. Guidance to lead agencies in making these critical determinations is found in several sections of the Guidelines. Section 15064 provides the basic guidance to lead agencies in determining the significance of a project's effects. Section 15065 provides the conditions for which lead agencies are mandated to determine significance and thus, require preparation of an FIR or require mitigation to reduce the effect to less than significant in order to prepare a mitigated negative declaration. Appendices G and I provide optional tools to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of particular effects. In current form, these sections have been criticized for "insufficient guidance on how to determine when an environmental effect is significant" and the "[c]onfusion, delay and uncertainty," that result when different and conflicting approaches to the same issues are taken by the lead agency in the FIR and other agencies under their regulatory programs."' The State Bar Environmental Law Section recommended that "[t]o increase certainty in significance determinations, the Guidelines should be amended to provide clearer guidance on impact significance. "a The UC Berkeley California Policy Seminar similarly called for the development and adoption of standardized thresholds of significance.` The CEQA Workgroup of the Bay Area Economic Forum also recommended the inclusion of state and federal significance criteria.' Responding to this criticism and in a modest attempt to fulfill the recommendations of these expert commentators, the latest revisions: (1) clarify the role of regulatory standards in determining significance; (2) add a section to encourage lead agencies to develop and publish cognizable thresholds of significance; (3) assist lead agencies in the threshold determination of whether a project's impact is cumulatively considerable; (4) merge and enhance Appendices G and I to provide a better tool to lead agencies in determining the level at which an effect is significant; and (5) add a section to address impacts to historical and archeological resources. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa—article—IO98.html 12/ 1 /98 321 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 3 of 14 Clarifying ing the Role of Re ug latoly Standards in Determining Significance (New 15064 i )7- Effective August 24, 1998, subsection (i) of 15064 is revised to guide lead agencies to rely on the vast body of regulatory standards have been adopted over the past few decades establishing levels at which impacts to a particular resource is a substantial or potentially substantial adverse effect on a particular environmental resource. The change to § 15064(i) is intended only to direct lead agencies to consistently and predictably refer to standards in their significance determination under CEQA. It is important to note that subsection (i) only applies to the extent that there exists a standard for a particular effect being examined by the lead agency and that standard has undergone rigorous public review and otherwise meets the conditions of the subsection. Encouraging Thresholds of Significance (New § 15064.7) In addition to encouraging more predictable reliance on existing regulatory standards, new section 15064.7 attempts to stimulate more certainty and consistency by encouraging lead agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. Lead agencies, under current statute and guidelines, are required to determine whether a project may cause a significant effect on the environments The addition of this section merely encourages lead agencies to identify the criteria they use to make this determination and to develop such criteria though a public review process supported by substantial evidence. In so doing, all interested and expert persons would be able to present scientific data and standards, the validity of which would be openly debated by conflicting experts. This revision opens up this secretive decision to the public where a lead agency's decision can be subjected to and compared with the best scientific data and standards.9 Additionally, once a threshold of significance has been published, any interested party may be able to ascertain the standard of significance for a particular resource in a certain community. By knowing the standard in advance, thresholds may likely encourage increased use of alternative designs and locations to substantially lessen the potential significant environmental impact of projects. At a minimum, it provides public agencies with a method of putting in place a degree of predictability in their significance determination process. Determining when a Project's Incremental Impact is Cumulatively Considerable (New 15064(j)"715130 New subsection 1560640), together with additions to section 15130, make clear the difference between the cumulative impacts analysis required in an initial study and that required in an EIR. Current section 15064 does not provide any guidance to lead agencies in determining at what level a project's incremental impact, although individually insignificant, may be "cumulatively considerable".I The additions to http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_article_I098.html 322 12/1/98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 4 of 14 15064 make clear that the question of whether a project's effects are "cumulatively considerable" is different than the question of whether a project has "significant cumulative effects." The former is governed by Guidelines sections 15064 and 15065 while the latter is governed by section 15130 and 15355. The focus in the initial study is on the project's incremental impact. An agency considers the effects of other projects only as a context for determining whether the incremental effects of the project under review are "considerable."12 This revision makes clear, consistent with CEQA's statutory scheme, that the need for an EIR turns on the impacts of the project under review, not the impacts of other past, present or future projects. This subsection also provides a definition of a "de minimis" impact as an incremental contribution where the environmental conditions would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented and explains that such minimal impacts do not trigger the need to prepare an EIR. It also permits lead agencies, similar to section 15064(i) for individual significance, to determine that an incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable where the project complies with the requirements of a previously approved plan or program that will avoid or mitigate the cumulative problem. Enhanced/ Integrated Appendix G - a tool for assistinglead ead agencies in determining just when an environmental effect is significant Existing Appendix G lists a broad range of project consequences that serve as examples of "potentially significant" effects on the environment. The current Appendix G was drafted 25 years ago at a time when CEQA was a new law and the question of what is a "significant effect on the environment" was unknown and unclear. Twenty-five years later, lead agencies have a better idea of what consequences are generally considered a significant environmental effect and the Appendix has outlived its usefulness. More importantly, as many commentators have noted, the current Appendix G offers no specific direction on how to determine the level at which an environmental effect is "significant." 13 The proposed new Appendix G (consolidated with Appendix I) is designed to remedy this deficiency by replacing the current vague list with an enhanced initial study checklist, organized by resource topic and referencing federal, state and local laws and regulations containing precise qualitative and quantitative standards that are commonly used thresholds in practice. In addition to providing more clear criteria to lead agencies in determining the significance of particular impacts, the new checklist integrates references to the numerous statutes dealing with specific environmental impacts (e.g. California Endangered Species Act) and standards developed by numerous regulatory bodies focused on particular environmental problems (e.g. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District) in dealing with environmental impacts to certain important resources. In so doing, the Guidelines achieve the important statutory goal of integrating the requirements of CEQA with the environmental requirements of other laws. 14 Several new and notable questions are added to the new Appendix G. Lead agencies are asked to consider impacts to candidate, sensitive and species of special concern http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_article_1098.htm1 12/1/98 323 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 5 of 14 under the biological resources heading. Questions regarding effects to water efficient or fire resistent landscaping, and other drought and flood impacted areas are added to the checklist. A new heading is added grouping questions related to impacts to agricultural resources. Lead agencies are asked to consider a broader array of impacts on agricultural resources and the existing requirement to consider "prime" farmland is expanded to include "unique" farmland and "farmland of statewide importance." Lastly, as required by a recent revision to the statute, the new Appendix G incorporates the Land Evaluation Site Assessment model prepared by the Department of Conservation as an optional model for determining when conversions of farmland are significant. I, Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources, JI[\ Mitigating for Those Impacts and Protecting Those Resources (New S§ 15064.5/15126.4/15331) The addition of these sections was made necessary by revisions to the statute made in the early 1990s and the woefully inadequate and outdated guidance provided in existing Appendix K.'-` Appendix K has been deleted and the still relevant guidance it contained was moved into the body of the Guidelines in new sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. In order to resolve the conflict between the narrow and limiting statutory provision for mitigation of archeological resources and the broadly protective statutory provision for determining the significance of historical resources, section 15064.5(c) provides that to the extent an archeological resource is also an historical resource, the provisions regarding historical resources apply. These revisions are precedent -setting in their endorsement of the first set of standardized mitigation measures for historic resources. The new sections provide that projects following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant. Among other provisions, they put lead agencies on notice that, in many circumstances, the very popular method of mitigating impacts on historical resources by way of documentation (e.g. historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings) will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. Additionally, a new categorical ' exemption, section 15331, is added for projects limited to restoration or rehabilitation of historical resources consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS IN AN EIR CEQA sets out a process by which public agencies inform themselves of the environmental consequences of their actions or the actions over which they have decision -making authority. Unfortunately, over the past two decades, the terms and concepts of CEQA's information requirements have grown, more to stave off threats of litigation than to foster informed decision -making. In its 1995 report, the California Policy Seminar found that "[a]lthough the idea of analyzing alternatives, cumulative impacts and growth -inducing impacts may be good in theory, in practice such analyses are usually incomplete, poorly done, and confusing to the http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa—article-1098.html 12/ 1 /98 32�1 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 6 of 14 decisionmaking process ... Rather than focusing on how best to mitigate the adverse impacts of realistic alternatives, the DEIR commenting process then becomes one of choosing among nonexistent and unfeasible alternatives."�(' The Legislative Analyst's report identified as CEQA's weakness the "complexity and unpredictability of the CEQA process, the costs of compliance, and the ease for legal challenges... " and observed that this growing open-endedness was leading to analyses which "contribute little to the decision -making of public agencies."17 Several revisions in Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines, entitled "Contents of EIRs," are an effort to restore CEQA and the EIR as an information document that can lead to better decisions and decisions which more accurately reflect the environmental consequences of projects over which the public agency has decision -making authority. These revisions provide a clear description of the environmental setting, a definition of the baseline, and provide guidance on how to discuss the no project alternative, on the scope of cumulative impact analysis and the focus of a responsible agency's review of a draft EIR. Determining the Environmental Setting and the Baseline The Guidelines require a description of the environmental setting "before the commencement of the project" in order to examine and analyze the effects of the physical change in the environment after the project is commenced and completed. "Before the commencement of the project" has been one of those unfortunate terms which has been subjected to much debate and a near infinite variety of interpretations over the past twenty years. Many have interpreted this to require an EIR to reconstruct a past setting (e.g. pre-CEQA) or a future setting (e.g. post -traffic or infrastructure improvements). Efforts spent on EIRs describing and predicting historical or future conditions may be interesting and intellectually -challenging to the preparer, but they are costly, time-consuming and, more importantly, they don't describe the environment which actually exists "before the commencement of the project." In 1994, the Legislature amended the statute to make clear that CEQA review is required for activities which may cause a physical change in the environment. IICEQA review is therefore required to focus on changes in the physical environment and therefore an EIR need describe the environmental setting so that the changes can be seen in context. The revisions to section 15125 make clear that the existing environmental setting is the baseline physical conditions that exist "before the commencement of the project," meaning right before the commencement of the project, or as the guideline will now read, "at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced." They also make clear the purpose of providing a description of the existing setting in an EIR, that is, to provide meaningful context to examine the physical changes from the project, by explicitly defining it as the "baseline" for measuring the significance of a project's effects. Determining the Difference Between the Baseline and the No Project Alternative Whereas the existing environmental setting or baseline is the physical conditions before a project commences, the no project alternative is the physical conditions http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa—article-1098.htmi 12/1/98 3 �r L .) 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 7 of 14 likely to occur if the project is not approved. It may be the same as the baseline or status quo, but more often it is not. New section 15126.6 expands on the guidance previously found in 15126(d)(4) and discusses the different methods for analyzing the no project alternative." Importantly, this revision urges lead agencies and EIR preparers to identify the practical result of a project's non -approval and not create or analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. Determining the Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis Section 15130 has been amended to include much of the same criteria found in new subsection 150640) for determining the significance of a cumulative impact. Guidance has been added to assist lead agencies in determining the scope of analysis. Subsection (b)(1)(B)3 encourages lead agencies to adopt a standardized approach regarding the geographic range for analyses. Subsection (b)(1)(B)2 defines the scope of probable future projects by providing a list of projects that are reasonable to anticipate, such as projects for which an application has been received, projects included in adopted capital improvement programs or public projects for which money has been budgeted. The California Policy Seminar reported: If there is one thing upon which everyone who has studied CEQA agrees, it is that effective large-scale impact mitigation cannot be undertaken on a piecemeal or project -by -project basis. Although the CEQA Guidelines have been broadened to require the identification of cumulative impacts, none of the communities we examined has been able effectively to mitigate cumulative impacts. The difficulties inherent in cumulative impact assessment are not just analytical. Mitigations that represent the best practice at the project level may actually be counterproductive at the community or regional level. CEQA's emphasis on project -by project reviews, and its resulting inability to promote cumulative impact mitigation and environmental enhancement, is its single biggestfailure. Acknowledging, as the California Policy Seminar report found that "project by project review of impacts is not adequate for identifying and mitigating cumulative development impacts," and "[elven when cumulative impacts are properly identified, there is usually very little that can be done at the (specific) project approval stage to ameliorate them," subsections (d) and (e) of 15130 encourage broader regional planning to avoid and/or mitigate cumulative impacts. Here and elsewhere, the revisions encourage an expanded use of tiering from specific, area, redevelopment and general plans for identification, analysis and mitigation of localized cumulative environmental impacts. See sections 15152, 15183 and Appendix J - the new graphic guide to tiering. Determining the Focus of Review in an EIR Revisions to section 15204 emphasize that CEQA requires a good faith disclosure http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_article_1098.html 3 9 6 12/1/98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 8 of 14 but not an exhaustive, bulletproofing exercise where every research or study or information requested or suggested is required. It asks reviewers to base their comments on facts and opinions supported by facts. It requires responsible and trustee agencies to base their comments on information germane to its expertise and to provide as much detailed information as it can about how the lead agency can mitigate significant effects identified by them. These revisions, with others in Article 9, aspire to restore the EIR as an information tool to assist public agencies in understanding the actual environmental consequences of activities they undertake or approve. EXEMPTING ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL ACTIVITIES Public Resources Code §21084 authorizes the Secretary of the Resources Agency to prepare lists of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and hence be exempt from CEQA. As with all the current categorical exemptions, for example, new construction of small structures (15303) or minor additions to schools (15314), the Secretary defines a subset of projects with conditions that as a class do not have a significant effect on the environment. These revisions create three new categorical exemptions for activities which are environmentally beneficial (15330, 15331, 15332), clarify and update three existing categorical exemptions (15301, 15316, 15325), and make complete the list of exceptions to use of a categorical exemption (15300.2). Facilitating Clean Up of Hazardous Waste Of the new categorical exemptions, only two received much public comment. The third, section 15331, for projects restoring or rehabilitating historic structures, was previously addressed in this article.20 Section 15330 creates an exemption for minor clean up actions to minimize or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances. The request for this addition came from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Currently, negative declarations are prepared for these minor clean up actions which delays these important and environmentally beneficial actions for three months. While many public commentors had concern that some waste removal actions could have significant environmental effects, the Agency dealt with each concern by adding a restriction to eliminate the possibility raised by the commentor. The restrictions included are very clear and limit the application of this section (i.e. exemption cannot be relied upon if the action requires on -site use of a hazardous waste incinerator, involves the relocation of persons or business or potential release of volatile organic compounds) so that the potential for the occurrence of a significant effect is eliminated. Further, any actions relying on this exemption must be consistent with state and local environmental permitting requirements. Delineated examples, such as construction of temporary surface caps, are included. Preserving Agricultural Land and Preventing Urban Sprawl The other notable new exemption creates an incentive to prevent urban sprawl and preserve agricultural land by exempting a narrow class of infill development http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_artrcle_1098.htm1 327 12/1/98 .. 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 9 of 14 projects without some of the restrictions that have made the statutory ill exemptions unworkable. According to practitioners and others involved in CEQA practice, the comparable statutory exemptions are of little practical value given the plethora of restrictions attached to their use. The result is that developers look elsewhere other than urban, previously developed areas to develop. Those areas usually happen to be agricultural lands, open space, etc. at the fringe of the urban limits where land is plentiful and cheap. Proposed section 15333 attempts to prevent that from occurring by encouraging development in previously developed areas, with restrictions to ensure that the Secretary can make the requisite finding of no significant effect, but not as many restrictions as contained in statute to ensure practical application. Promote Preservation of Habitat Open Space Parks and Historic Resources �t Two existing categorical exemptions are expanded to promote local efforts to preserve and expand habitat areas and open space and provide incentives to create ownership interests in land for open space and habitat. Sections 15325 expands the existing exemption for transfers of land to preserve open space to "habitat" and "historic resources." It also expands the methods for such transfers from acquisition to "acquisition, sale or other transfer" to give proper recognition of the fact that public agencies may not only acquire but transfer rights to another agency, non- profit entity, land trust, or individual for purposes of preservation or restoration. Section 15316 has similarly been expanded to permit innovative transactions in order to establish a park. Clarify and Update Existing Categorical Exemption While the above two expansions were well -received, the clarification to the existing facilities exemption, which more properly belongs in the "improving the roadmap" section below, met with some opposition. The revisions make clear that "permitting, leasing, and licensing" of a project which will involve negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, are included in the term 'operation" consistent with case law interpreting this issue.21- This is declaratory of existing law and does not exempt any projects that are currently subject to CEQA. An activity which involves no physical change in the environment does not meet the definition of "project" under CEQA.22 The definition of "project" includes permitting, leasing and licensing activities to the extent that they have the potential to result in a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.'' Public Resources Code §21068 defines "significant effect on the environment" as substantial adverse change. The emphasis in the statute is on change and the requirements for analysis are for physical change. This revision adds language to clarify that the focus on the applicability of this exemption shall be the measure of "negligible or no expansion of use" of an existing facility. http://ceres.ca.govicega/cega_article_1098.htm1 S `� 12/1/98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 10 of 14 IMPROVING THE ROADMAP The primary mandate that these revisions fulfill is to provide objectives, criteria and guidelines for the orderly evaluation of projects and the preparation of EIRs and negative declarations consistent with CEQA.2" In short, these revisions seek to improve the roadmap for lead agencies to follow. In addition to all the improvements discussed above, some of the other important roadmap improvements are outlined below. Sections 15073.5 and 15088.5 advise lead agencies how to handle public comments when recirculation is required, especially where there are duplicative comments or comments as to a portion of the first EIR which has been made obsolete after recirculation. Section 15004(b)(3)(A - C) advises lead agencies on the appropriate timing of environmental review. As recommended in the State Bar, Environmental Law Section report, the revisions instruct lead agencies not to take actions (such as committing funding or entering land acquisition agreements) that would foreclose meaningful choice of alternatives or mitigation measures. Section 15124(d) is intended to better integrate CEQA's requirements with related federal, state and local environmental requirements. Sections 15041 and 15126.4 provide standards for good mitigation measures and new Appendix G encourages upfront identification of mitigation measures. Section 15097 provides guidance on what is an adequate mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that prior measures adopted to minimize environmental effects are enforced and completed to provide the intended environmental protection. Lastly, many revisions recognize that public input and access is a hallmark of CEQA and a vital component of its effectiveness as a force for environmental protection. The revisions encourage public agencies to use the Internet for all of their notice and posting requirements and direct public agencies to submit environmental documents in electronic form, where available, to the Office of Planning and Research. (Sections 15062, 15075, 15085, 15202 and sections 15205, 15206, respectively.) CONCLUSION This third, most comprehensive, and ambitious revision to the CEQA Guidelines during the Wilson Administration reflects the thinking that has developed since the 1991 Ueberoth report and in subsequent reports of the Little Hoover Commission, the Legislative Analyst Office, the Bay Area Economic Forum, the State Bar and 12/1/98 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa article-1098.htmi 3 2 J 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 11 of 14 Associations of Planners and Environmental Professionals on the problem areas in CEQA. It reflects the thoughtful comments received by the public in over seven (7) solicitations for written comments and oral comments made at over ten (10) public hearings in the past five years. In addition, it reflects upon other natural resources policy goals that have marked Doug Wheeler's tenure as Secretary of the Resources Agency, such as agricultural land conservation, historical resource protection, ecosystem habitat planning and the creative and innovative ways his Agency has pursued these goals. These revisions restore a degree of certainty, predictability and rationality to the regulations that are the roadmap to public agencies in implementing CEQA. They more accurately reflect the complex and interrelated universe of environmental laws and regulations that has matured with the CEQA process in addition to resolving the problems identified and studied since the last revision of the Guidelines in 1986. The revisions bring definition and clarity to the many vague and subjective standards such as "significant effect," "substantial evidence," "probable future projects", and the scope and requirements of alternatives analysis and cumulative effects analysis. These revisions also provide a much needed update to the Guidelines to bring greater comprehension to reflect recent statutory changes and case law. And, it is hoped that in so doing, these regulatory accomplishments will have helped restore CEQA to its primary purpose of informing decision -makers of the environmental consequences of their actions and, more importantly, will have increased the ability of public agencies to make on -the -ground, substantive environmental protection. Maureen F. Gorsen is the General Counsel for the California Resources Agency. Her responsibilities include review of all significant legal matters relating to the laws and programs of the Resources Agency. Among other duties, she is responsible for reform and revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act and issues relating to the California Endangered Species Act. For questions regarding this article or related issues, she can be reached at maureen@resources.ca.gov or 916-653-5656. 1 Acknowledgement must be given to many for this accomplishment. To Governor Pete Wilson, for his leadership. To Secretary Douglas P. Wheeler, for his vision. To my predecessor, James T. Burroughs, for commencing and designing the blueprint of the five year effort. To Antero Rivasplata, Chief Planner for the Governor's Office of Planning & Research, for drafting the text and contributing to it his scrupulous, encyclopedic knowledge of the law and practice of CEQA. To the Resources Agency's two Assistant General Counsels, Steve Greene and Matthew Francois, and many law clerks, for the long hours, hard work, commitment to and enthusiasm for the subject. To all the editorial advisors, for the expert advice and experience they generously lent to the effort. 2 The addition of 15064(i) clarifying the role of regulatory standards in the http://ceres.ca.govi cega/cega_article_1098.htmi 12/1/98 330 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 12 of 14 significance determination was proposed and adopted separately in its own rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. It became effective August 24, 1998. It can be viewed at the CEQA homepage [ http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa]. 3 Streamlining CEQA: An Action Agenda, CEQA Task Force, California Chapter, APA/AEP, pp. ES-5, 5-1 (March 12, 1993). Task Force on the Relationship of Government Operations and Regulations to Economic Competitiveness, Report of the CEQA Work Group, Bay Area Economic Forum, p. 7 (November 1995). 4 The California Environmental Quality Act Assessment and Recommendations, State Bar of California, Environmental Law Section, p. 30 (January 21, 1995). 5 Landis, et al., Fixing CEQA Options and Opportunities for Reforming CEQA, California Policy Seminar (1995). 6 Task Force on the Relationship of Government Operations and Regulations to Economic Competitiveness, Report of the CEQA Work Group, Bay Area Economic Forum, p. 5-2, 7 (November 1995). 7 This subsection will be relettered (h) upon approval by the Office of Administrative Law of the deletion of subsection (e). Proposed subsection 0) will be relettered (i ). Approval is expected in late October 1998. 8 Public Resources Code §21080. Public Resources Code §21082 requires all public agencies to adopt objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations." 9 In Fixing CEQA, the authors state that "the fundamental problem with CEQA is that it fails to encourage fairness and consistency in the review process or in required impact mitigations". (p.180). They note a "tremendous variation in the types, quantity, and quality of environmental impact mitigation." (Id.) This "significance surprise" - where significance of impacts is determined behind closed doors by a few persons on a project -by -project basis - is the cause for the lack of certainty and predictability that plagues the CEQA process. Interestingly, the authors note that it is the same stakeholders who decry lack of fairness and consistency that often support maximum flexibility in the CEQA process. "Although many actors in the local CEQA review process decry its lack of fairness and consistency, the same players who complain about unpredictable reviews also often support maximum flexibility in the development approval process. Developers often benefit from local flexibility, because in most case local governments do not require them to complete EIRs.... Local decisionmakers value flexibility because they like to make decisions based on immediate political concerns, including re-election. Planning staff value flexibility because it often allows them to dispense with procedural requirements they consider unnecessary and sometimes grants them bargaining power within the http://ceres.ca.gov,/cega/cega_artrcle_1098.html 331 12/1/98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 13 of 14 development process that they would otherwise lack." (p.180) The State Bar, Environmental Law Section report echoed that "project proponents and the public are not aware of what level of CEQA review will occur until an Initial Study is prepared, or even later ..." and attributed it to the fact that "project proponents have no reliable standards to use in planning their projects in advance to avoid significant effects." (State Bar, p.27) To escape this chaos and subversion of the CEQA process, the authors of FixingCEOA recommend that local governments be required to develop and adopt standardized thresholds of significance and that state and regional agencies play a predictable role in local reviews. 10 To be relettered (i), if approval by CAL to delete subsection (e) is granted. 11 Public Resources Code §21083(b). "Cumulatively considerable" means that incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects." 12 Public Resources Code §21083(b); San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 32 Cal.AppAth 608. 13 The California Environmental Quality Act: Assessment and Recommendations, State Bar of California, Environmental Law Section, p. 30 (January 21, 1995). 14 public Resources Code §21003. 15 Public Resources Code §21084.1. [Added.Chapter 1375, Statutes of 1992]; Public Resources Code §21083.2. [Amended. Chapter 375, Statutes of 1993]. 16 UC Berkeley California Policy Seminar Report at page 179. It should be noted that revisions to the CEQA Guidelines proposed in 1993 and effective in 1994 established the "rule of reason" and "feasibility" as key factors in alternatives analysis, incorporating the reasoning in the Laurel Heights and Goleta cases. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112; Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553. 17 CEQA: Making It Work Better, Legislative Analyst Office, page 10, (March 20, 1997). 18 Public Resources Code §21065. [Amended, Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1994]. 19 As section 15126, entitled "Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts had become unwieldy, it was been divided into four sections, an overview section outlining the requirements for the content of an EIR (new §15126), and then breaking out the rest of old 15126 into three sections, providing guidance on the requirements for consideration and discussion of significant environmental impacts http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_article_1098.html 332 12/1/98 1998 CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Page 14 of 14 (15126.2), mitigation measure proposed to minimize significant effects (15126.4), and alternatives to the proposed project (15126.6). 20 See discussion under heading entitled Determiningthe he Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources Mitigating for Those Impacts and Protecting Those Resources (New §§15064.5/15126 4/15331) on page 6. 21 Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal. App.4th 1307. 22 Public Resources Code §21065. 23 14 California Code of Regulations § 15378. 24 Public Resources Code §21083. CERES 1 CEQA Home I Environmental Law I LUPIN I Wetlands This file last modified on: Thursday, November 12, 1998. Document URL• http://Ceres.ca.govlcegalcegq_article_1098.htmi Copyright O 1998 California Resources Agency. All rights reserved http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/cega_article_1098.htm1 333 12/1/98 From. DB#8950 To: Leslie Mounquand Date: 115199 Time: 1,21,36 PM Page 1 of 5 January 1999, Vol. 1 Preservation Advocate 111.gym News NATIONAL TRUST [',HISTORIC PREsrxvartors Department of Law and Public Policy THE YEAR AHEAD IN PRESERVATION The first session of 106th Congress will convene on January 6th to a host of preservation policy issues remaining from the 105th Congress. Legislation that died at the end of the previous Congress must now be reintroduced, and cosponsors for preservation -related bills (i.e., homeownership tax credit, postal relocation, and HPF reauthorization bills) need to be recruited again to support our legislative policy goals. Below is a summary of the legislative activities expected in the year ahead. in this edition ... THE YEAR AHEAD IN PRESERVATION Historic Homeownership Tax Credit Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Reauthorization Budget and Appropriations Outlook -- FY2000 Postal Relocation Bill Religious Liberty Protection Act Takings Announcements • Congress Elects Leadership for 106th Congress • Congressional Committee Assignments Update • National Trust 1999 Annual Conference Marks 50th Anniversary • National Trust Advisors to Visit Washington in May • E-mail and Global Fax Network Upgrades Coming Soon! Historic Homeownership Assistance Act Congress failed to pass a sizeable election -year tax cut during the last session and settled for a modest 10-year tax package whose primary focus was to extend popular expiring tax breaks, such as the research and development credit for business. The narrow scope of the smaller tax bill prevented the historic homeownership tax credit proposal from being included in the package. The GOP is eager to make good on its promise to pass a very large tax cut in the 106th Congress, which could provide a legislative vehicle for passage of the homeownership credit. Fortunately, the November elections did little to erode the homeownership credit's base of support: 123 of the original 129 cosponsors in the House and 22 of 26 cosponsors in the Senate return to serve in the 106th Congress. Efforts to recruit the original cosponsors must begin even before the homeownership tax credit Dill is reintroduced. Having a strong base of cosponsor support, which includes members of the tax - writing committees, will help ensure that the homeownership credit is included in any larger tax bill. The Joint Committee on Taxation has issued a new score for the homeownership credit -- $678 million over five years -- which is still too high. Preservationists are working on changes to the bill that will lower its costs and prepare it for reintroduction, Action Needed Below is a list of the original cosponsors of the homeownership tax credit bill returning in the 106th Congress (an asterisk indicates a member of the House Ways and Means or Senate Finance Committee). Twenty-eight of the cosponsors from the 105th Congress have already pledged to support the homeownership credit again (names in bold). Contact the remaiining members on the list NOW and ask them to cosponsor the homeownership tax credit bill when it is reintroduced. Returning House Cosponsors Sponsor E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)' Cosponsors: 123 Baker, Richard H. (R-LA) Bartlett, Roscoe (R-MD) Barton ,Joe (R-TX) Bentsen, Ken (D-TX Bereuter, Doug (R- E) 334 01-06-99 1115 RECEIVED FROM: P.01 From. D8#895D To: Leslie Mounquand Date: 1/6/99 Time 1:21 36 PM Page 2 of 5 Preservation Advocate News, January 1999, Vol. 1 Page 2 Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) Blagojevich, Rod R. (D-IL) Bliley, Thomas J., Jr. (R-VA) Boll David (D-MI) Borski, Robert A. (D-PA) Bunning, Jim (R-KY) - elected to U.S. Senate Burton, Dan (R-IN) Calvert, Ken (R-CA) Camp, Dave (R-MI) * Cardin, Benjamin L. (D-MD) Christian -Green, Donna (D-VI) Clay, William (D-MC) Cis ton, Eva (D-NC) Clyburn, James (D-SC) Costello, Jerry F (D-IL) Coyne, William J (D-PA) Crapc, Michael (R-ID) - elected to U.S. Senate Danner, Pat (D-MO) Davis, Danny (D-IL) Davis,_ Thomas M. III (R-VA) DeFazio, Peter A. (f Delahunt, William DeLauro, Rosa (D. Deutsch, Peter (D-F Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Duncan, John J. (R Ehrlich, Robert, Ji English, Philip S. (R Etheridge, Bob (D Fatter, Chaka (D-P, Fowler, Tillie (R-FL) Frost, Martin (D-TX) Gejdenson, Sam (D- Gephardt, Richard A. Gflchrest, Wayne (R- Goode, Virgil H., Jr. Greenwood, Jim (R-P Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY) Houghton, Amo (R-NY) * Jackson, Jesse, Jr. (D-IL) Jefferson, William J ((D-LA)' Jenkins, William L (12-TN) John, Chris (D-LA) Johnson, Eddie B. (D-TX) Johnson, Nancy (R-CT)* Kaptur, Marcy P-OH) Kelly Sue W. (R-NY) Kennedy, Patrick J. (D-RI) Kildee, Dale (D-MI) Kilpatrick, Carolyn C.(D-MI) Kingston, Jack (R-GA) Lazio, Rick (R-NY1 Lewis, John (D-G ) Lewis, Ron (R KY Livingston, Bob (R-LA) Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) Lowey, Nita M. (D-NY) Lucas, Frank (R-OK) Markey, Edward (D-MA) Matsui, Robert T (D-CA McCarthy, Karen (D-MO) McCollum, Bill (R-FL) McCrary, Jim (R-LA) * McDermott, Jim (DWA McGovern, James P (1 MA) Meek, Carrie (il Mica, John (R-FL) Moakley, Joe (D-MA) Mollohan, Alan B. (D-WV) Murtha, John P. (D-PA) Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) Neal, Richard E. (D-MA)' Olver, John W. (D-MA) Owens Me or R. SD -NY) Pascrell, t/Villiam RNJ) Payne, Donald M. (D-NJ) Pease, Ed (R-IN) Peterson, Collin C. (D-MN) Peterson, Jahn E. (R-PA Pickering, Charles (R-MS) Pitts,Josech R. (R-PA) Rush, Bobby (D-IL) Sabo, Martin Olav (D-MN) Sanders, Bernard (I -VT) Sandlin, Max A. (l Shays, Christopher(R-CT) Slaughter, Louise M. (D-NY) Smith, Christopher H. (R-NJ) Stark, Fortney H. (D-CA) * Tauzin, W.J. 'Billy" (R-LA) Thompson, Bennie G. (D4 Weygand, Robert A. (D-RI) Wolf, Frank R. (R-VA) Returning Senate Cosponsors Sponsor John Chafes (R-RI) ' Cosponsors.22 Allard, Wayne (R-CO) Baucus, Max (D-MT) Breaux, John (D-LA) Bryan, Richard (D-NV)' Cochran, Thad(R-MS) Hutchinson, 335 61-96-99 11:16 RECEIVED FROM: P.92 from: DB#8950 To: Leslie Mouriquand Date: 1l6l99 Time: 1.21.36 PM Page 3 of 5 Preservation Advocate News, January 1999, Vol. 1 Jeffords, James (R-v'T Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Kerrey, J. Robert (D-NE) Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Leahy, Patrick J (D-VT) Lott, Trent (R-MS) * Moynihan, Daniel P.(D-NY) Reed, Jack (D-RI) Rockefeller, John D. (D-WV)* Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Torricelli, Robert G. (D-NJ) Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Reauthorization The 105th Congress adjourned last October without passing a reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) The HPF provides funding for the national preservation program, including the work of the state historic preservation offices, Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and historically black colleges and universities. The HPF authorization expired on September 30, 1997 and no deposits have been made into the Fund since that time. The House and Senate approved different versions of an HPF reauthorization bill (H.R. 1522/S. 2257) in the 105th Congress, but were unable to reconcile the two bills by the close of the session. Passing a reauthorization of the HPF is essential to maintaining the integrity of the budget process and ensuring a stable source of funding for the national preservation program. Codification of Executive Order 13006, which was included as a provision in the House - passed version of the HPF reauthorization bill (H.R.1522) last year, is also a to priority of the National Trust's. Executive Order 13006 was signed by President Clinton in 1996 and calls on the General Services Administration and other federal agencies to first consider historic districts and historic buildings in downtown areas when selecting sites for new federal facilities. Codifying the Clinton executive order will improve federal land managing agencies' responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act by holding them accountable to law in the stewardship of historic resources. Preservationists will press Congress for passage of a new reauthorization bill to settle these urgent policy concerns as quickly as possible. Budget and Appropriations Outlook - FY 2000 The 105th Congress concluded on an up note for historic preservation funding. The overall FY99 appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) were higher than they have been for several years and included an extra $30 million for Millennium program grants. The states ($31.394 million ), tribes ($2.596 million), historically black colleges and universities were increased from FY 998 levllion), and the els end Cunci(fundi g was n) provided for the preservation of historic structures on Ellis Island ($2 million) for the first time. New Initiatives for FY 2000 Budget Partnership for America's Resources PAR The FY2000 budget is the first budget of the new millennium and therefore provides an opportunity and a justification for establishing new programmatic priorities for the conservation, environmental and hisl:oric preservation programs of the federal government. Pressure is building both inside and outside of the Administration to support a large budget request that fully utilizes the existing funding sources available to the federal government to save our natural and cultural heritage. For example, the National Trust recently joined with more than 110 regional, national and international organizations in signing a letter to Vice President Gore, urging the Administration to submit a budget to Congress that provides full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, and to provide for significant increases for the Department of Agriculture's Forest Legacy program. Pressure from within the Administration for a new budget commitment is coming from the Interior Department, which is formulating a new program called PAR -- the "Partnership for America's Resources Our Legacy for the 21st Century.'' PAR proposes to do the following in historic preservation: • remodel and fully fund the HPF grant program at $150 million, • provide two thirds of the grant funding as discretionary, categorical and competnive grants which target key categories such as national landmarks, battlefields, historically black colleges, and tribes, • initiate a Federal Lands Historic Preservation Program funded at $150 million, and, • provide historical restoration financing for four land management agencies. The budget request necessary to implement PAR would total $3 billion, and include full funding for the Historic Preservation Fund ($300 million), the Land and Water Conservation ($900 million), the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Grant Fund ($150 million), the Farmland Wildlife Protection Fund ($100 million), the Federal Lands Good Neighbors Fund ($428'� million), the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund ($277 million), and the Habitat and Coastal Restoration Fund ($800 million). The success of carrying out the PAR init ative will rest on the willingness of the Congress and the Administration to use a Portion of the projected budget surplus to these ends. The submission of the President's FY2000 budget to Congress in February should provide a clue as to the priority the Administration will give to the PAR proposal. Advocates should anticipate being called upon to advocate for PAR at some point during the year. Postal Relocation Bill to be Reintroduced The "Community and Postal Participation Act of 1998" (S. 2035) failed to pass as an amendment to the FY99 Treasury -Postal Appropriations bill during the 105th Congress, but broad support remains for its companion bill (H. R. 1231, the "Post Office Relocation Act") n the House. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sponsored H.R. 1231 and will reintroduce the postal bill in the House, while Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jim 336 01-96-99 11:17 RECEIVED FROM: P•03 From: DB1i8950 To. Leslie Mounquand Date: 116/99 Time: 1:21:36 PM Page 4 of 5 Preserwation Advocate News, January 1999, Vol. 1 Jeffords (R-VT) are expected to reintroduce the bill in the Senate. The postal relocation legislative proposal would help to preserve local control over downtowns and prevent sprawl by giving communities a voice in Postal Service decisions to close, relocate, or consolidate their local past offices. Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) The "Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998" (H R. 40191S. 2149) ) was on the legislative fast track to passage before being derailed last fall by the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Clinton. RLPA legislation may be reintroduced in the 106th Congress and remains a threat to historic preservation and local land use regulation. The National Trust vigorously opposes RLPA because it limits the ability of local governments to implement land use regulations that affect religious institutions, including local landmarks and zoning laws, by establishing a leasf restrictive means" test. The National Trust will monitor all new RLPA legislative proposals as they are introduced in the new Congress and keep you informed of advocacy efforts needed to oppose these bills. Takings The 106th Congress presents another opportunity for takings proponents to push for legislation that undermines the primacy of state and local land use laws -- including historic preservation. Historic preservation advocates declared victory last July on the takings issue when the "Citizens Access to Justice Act" (S. 2271) failed to receive the necessary number of votes to tiring up the bill for consideration on the Senate floor. If enacted, S. 2271 would have allowed developers to bypass local zoning appeals and state courts by fling Fifth Amendment takings claims against local governments directly in federal court. The victory in the Senate capped a long and arduous struggle for preservation advocates, who lobbied against the proposed takings legislation throughout the legislative process. Advocates will have to be just as vigilant in opposing similar takings measures in the Alth Congress The broad coalition which opposed the takings bill last year, including the National Governors Association, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 38 Attorneys General, the American Planning Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and host of environmental organizations, will be needed again to oppose any takings challenges which may arise. ANNOUNCEMENTS • The Democratic and Republican leadership conferences met in November and December to select the leadership for the 106th Congress The most notable change in the House will be the Speaker's job which likely be filled by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in the wake of the sudden withdrawal and resignation of Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), the Speaker -elect, from his congressional seat. Below is a summary of the leadership positions selected by the leadership conferences in the House and Senate: HOUSE LEADERSHIP Speaker. Vacant Majority Leader. Rep Dick Armey (R-TX) Majority Whip: Rep Tom De Lay (R-TX) Republican Policy Committee Chairman: REP. Christopher Cox (R-CA) Republican Conference Chairman: Rep. J.C. Watts (R- OK National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) Minority Leader Rep Richard Gephardt (D MO) Minority Whip. Rep David Bonior (D-MI) House Democratic Caucus Chairman: Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX) Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Di SENATE LEADERSHIP President of the Senate: Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. President Pro Tempore: Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) Senate Majority Leader: Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) Senate Majont Whip/Assistant Majority Leader: Sen. Don Nickles (OK) Senate Reppublican Conference Chairman: Sen. Connie Mack (R-FL) National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Senate Minority Leader: Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) Senate Minority Whip: Sen. Harry Reid (D-IVVV) Senate Democratic Conference Chairman: Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: Seri. J. Robert Kerrey (D-NE) • Key committee assignments and party ratios are still being determined for the 106th Congress. Below is a partial listing of the new committee assignments that have been made public to date: HOUSE COMMITTEES - new members Committee on Apppropriations, Democrats - Patrick Kennedy (RI), Jim Clyburn (SC), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Sam Farr (CA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick: (M I), Allen Boyd (FL) Committee on Ways and Means. Democrats - Lloyd Doggett (TX) SENATE COMMITTEES- new members Committee on Appropriations: Republicans -.Ion Kyl (AZ); Democrats - Richard Durbin (IL), Dianne Feinstein (CA). Committee on Finance: Republicans - Fred Thompson (TN), Democrats - Charles S- Robb (VA). Environment and Public Works: Republicans - Bob Bennett (UT), George Voinovich (OH), Michael Cl 3d! 91-06-99 11:18 RECEIVED FROM: P-04 From. DB#5950 To: Leslie Mouriquand Date: 1099 Time: 1:21:35 PM Page 5 of 5 Preservation Advocate News, January 1999, Vol. 1 oaee 5 (ID); Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX). Energy and Natural Resources Republicans - Jim Bunning (KY), Peter Fitzgerald (IL); Democrats - Evan Bayh (IN), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR). National Trust Turns 50! The National Trust for Historic Preservation celebrates in 50th Anniversary in 1999 and this year's National Preservation Conference will be at the heart of this milestone celebration. The 1999 National Preservation Conference is anticipated to be one of the largest gatherings of preservationists ever and will take place in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., from October 19-24, 1999. The conference theme, Saving America's Treasures, will focus on successful strategies and models to preserve America's diverse historic places and revitalize communities. This year's conference will offer more than 50 educational sessions and 40 field sessions to choose from, and include a 50th Anniversary Gala, planned for Thursday, October 21, at the National Building Museum. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has been invited as the guest of honor for the Gala event. Mark you calendar.; now and plan to join us in October for this landmark conference and celebration! Advisors To Visit Washington in Spring The National Trust's Board of Advisors arrive in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, May 15th for their bi- annual meeting to focus on historic preservation and public policy. The.Advisors' stay In Washington culminates with visits to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, May 18th, to advocate for the historic homeownership tax credit and other items on the Trust's preservation policy agenda with their Members of Congress. E-MAIL AND GLOBAL FAX NETWORK UPGRADES IN THE WORKS! System upgrades to our e-mail software applications and global fax capability are coming soon and will allow us to deliver the Preservation Advocate News and our action alerts to you even faster than before! Our faxboard capacity will be upgraded to include more outgoing fax lines and we will be starting a global e- mail network to give you the option of receiving the Preservation Advocate News by electronic mall. These upgrades will improve our delivery and turnaround time dramatically and improve the faxboard network's overall effectiveness. We will send you a notice when our e-mail network comes on-line and give you the option of switching over from facsimile delivery. PRESERVAT/ON AOVOGTE NEWS IS PUBLISHED ON A MONTHLY BASS BY THE NATIONAL TRUSTS DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY AND DISTRIBUTED VL> FACSIMILE TO RS GRASSROOTS FPXBOARD NETYVORN. FOR SIGNUP INFORMATION CONTACT: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF LAW 3 PUBLIC POLICY 1 785 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. WASHIN5TON, DC 2003ID 202-5866254 (PHONE) 202-568 E 039 (.) E-MAIL: POLICY/ NTHP. COG TAMAR L. OSTERMAN DIRECTOR OF GOVEPN14ENT AFFAIRS EDITOR STAFF WRITERS: CARL WOLF, DAN COSTELLD, LAURA SNAvGS I�) I QQQ, PRESERVATION ADVOCATE NEJ 338 01-06-99 1.1:19 RECEIVED FROM: P.05 o-, co CO M T O U C `o 3 � 0 ._ � c ❑ U J ro a y ro O. Y y ti m o� o oo N N u v b m m _ a a •• A o 0 N v m +a [ � N O G. bo °y .� E csi m �, E s u a o 3� o a" op o L o � �, � Z• x ii y 3 No a 3 s .5 E AJ •^ L a c rro a 0� C N ti � O U C CO m 0 p O O ri 7 ,L' 0 ou m �•1 'C c tii v p cp E `° w° w 41ii v m w° 0. ,� c ro w al u m E o O s ti w 0 tx ap o a'"i e ro o o ro E V ro '=' E 3 v a v� h 3 .� .= ►�i R y a � � � � .� � b u s o U •� e= :° .0 3 '� W v := Y m ro Ricl E ep ro° ro o o o a x U pp ry d u.� y m= p aci °o .fl u `t .��. ❑ '� � m� o U z 3 = ro F c 3 w U m a W U ro vc, a axi U a ri F °? cci a O C p '.-'. a Y P ;, o �" a C •LJ y N 7 N O> U C v C R o.p Q$ ro 9 4 E o 0 rs c a c° 3 ro a c `ti 0 o s Y ro ro nu a O c°i 'C C �� V O .G � `� 'm � �0ro V u u c �.' O ._ ro o O O F �� W 0. �. ro .�; 0 0 4 C $ OC s coo c? o. ,�. a E A 'C o u u y a .? o y, a Se to ° c U Q 9aey "aD 8oasro �E °oc �o�� uc0 °Tu 4[ b y a ❑ o= ro 3 �i 2 0 �w T g -' ro o ,o °Cp = °' �, $ ,> p e E °E o a o£ o h y3 C . E E �> a E Ei U c o£ c °�, ❑ �� U y ..� C7 C F O '" 5 72 O r Community Heritage Projects DISCOVER COMMUNITY HERITAGE A NEW APPROACH THROUGH COMMUNITY CULTURAL EDUCATION Every community has a unique story, people and places that are culturally or historically significant, and a diverse combination of cultures and traditions. Standard research methods may overlook non-traditional resources because they have not been previously documented, may not appear to meet criteria for historical significance, or may be retained only as traditions that are valued within specific cultural groups. Discover the diverse cultural legacy of your region in a new way. The Community Heritage Partner applies an integrated approach, which we call Community Cultural Education ©. We incorporate various disciplines to retrieve information from cultural traditions, oral history and traditional research sources. We facilitate partnerships with diverse interests to create a community -oriented project. You can involve community members in research, create public awareness through educational presentations and bring the products of tour research back to the community in unique programs. Our community heritage projects have four major components: • Phase I Project Planning: This involves an initial meeting between The Community Heritage Partner and the local sponsors of the project to identify community needs, project components and establish a draft budget. The project is introduced to the community through at least one "Community Roundtable," where all participating organizations review and refine the plan. Grant funding research and development may be included as needed. • Phase II Initial Project Education: We build community awareness and support for the project by introducing them to existing research and resources through diverse public programs. These may include a scholar speaker series, a film and speaker series, reading and discussion groups, or living history Chautauqua programs. • Phase III Research Component: Interested communin, members are trained and involved in the project in various areas. This might include collection and copying of historic and personal photo collections, doing oral history interviews, comprehensive historical research on specific topics or sites, surveying historical resources. Community meetings are used to identify resources of cultural significance to various segments of the communin'. v • Phase IV Follow-up Project Education: We use a similar approach to re -interpret our findings to the community, including publications, exhibits, radio and television documentaries, community art projects such as murals, maps and guides, living history characters and dramatic presentations, walking tours or maps of historical and cultural landmarks, or community cultural events. The Community Heritage Partner O 341 Communitv Heritage Projects After an initial project, it is not unusual to see more programs developed for specific audiences, such as elementary and secondary schools, or to focus on areas not previously investigated. The research materials themselves become a rich source of inspiration for other personal or community -wide projects. As part of every project we encourage the creation of permanent repositories or collections which can be made available for public research. This approach also has applications for community based economic development and heritage tourism. The Community Heritage Partner provides individual sen-ices, workshops and training in these areas, as well as overall project planning, development, and implementation of community heritage projects. As your project partner, we also offer grant funding research and development to assure a reasonable level of financial support to cam' the project to completion. Interested in providing this exciting program to your community? Contact The Community Heritage Partner with a letter of interest. Include the name of a contact person and lead organization, a brief description of your community history project, and potential organizational partners if available. Fax your letter to 510-849-3112, or mail to: THE COMMUNITY HERITAGE PARTNER 1719 Oregon Street Berkelev, Ca. 94703 The Cmununity Hentage Partner is a non-proat organization; under the sponsorship of Community Parnrer Inc Our goal is to develop local broad -based otznutnruty heritage project; parvrring local org..00ra an funders. 77m Canntnrnty Hentage Parrot o6Ers mnpto61 spornorship of local projects and tchibm, achrocal assistant¢, as weB as packaged htmtanitics pmgramaung and wa mling exhibiuons. Co-DGt nr Margo McBarte & Suzanne Guerra Community Cultural Education C Guerra and MCBane Historical Associates LLC, 1719 Oregon Street, Berkeley, Ca. 94703 The Communitv heritage Partner 3/1;' Humanities Programs v You are walking across the country to a landyou have never seen, leaving ever}'oneyou have ever known know behind. v ,Ii the head of the family, providing for its survival has been your major concern, but strange new laws threaten to take awa}'your home and land BRING THESE VOICES FROM CALIFORNINS HISTORY TO LIFE IN YOUR COMMUNITY The Community Heritage Partner, a non-profit educational organization, is offering a package of Sesquicentennial programming to select communities in California from November 1998 to June 1999. The Community Heritage Partner is offering a package of programs by three performers, each of which offers a day and a half residency. A residency consists of three performances, typically scheduled to offer an opportunity for diverse audiences to experience this unique performance art: • An hour and a half evening presentation for adults and families. • A 40 minute to one hour presentation to a school group. • A 40 minute presentation to a community organization. These "Living History" or "Chautauqua" characters have been developed by the California Council for the Humanities (CCH) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the California Gold Rush to Statehood period (1998 to 2000). Chautauqua was created in the 19�h Centun, to bring education and entertainment to largely rural American communities. The modem Chautauqua provides a unique glimpse into the past through the lives of those who were there. The Community Heritage Partner is coordinating with the CCH to bring these programs to a number of communities. Select any three characters from the following: • Juana Briones-a successful rancher, astute business woman and traditional healer, born in the Presidio of San Francisco to a military family of Califomios. • Dr. Yee Fung Cheung-came to California from China to seek his fortune as a young man and found greater success in the family business of medicine • Antonio Garra-an educated California Indian of the Cupeno tribe who fought for Indian rights and led the 1851 Indian Tax Revolt against "taxation without representation." • Jose Jesus -a Siakumne Indian of the Central Valley Yokuts, who served as leader of the native peoples at Mission San Jose, fought in the U.S. Mexican War and worked the southern mines. • Biddy Mason -arrived in Southern California as a slave, won her freedom and became a nurse, a midwife, and -through successful business investments -a philanthropist. • Pio Pico -a Californio whose grandparents arrived in the Anza expedition of 1774, he rose to become the last Governor of Mexican California and a wealthy man. • Mary Ellen Pleasant* -although born into slavery she became a civil rights activist and philanthropist, an associate of the wealthy and influential in Gold Rush San Francisco. • Sarah Royce -arrived on the Overland Trail. She was the mother of philosopher Josiah Royce and was herself noted for contributions to educational and religious institutions in California. • Dame Shirlev-the pen name of Louis Amelia Smith Clappe, the first literary figure in California. She wrote colorful accounts of life in the Sierra mining camps with her doctor husband. • John Sutter -a Swiss emigre who built a thriving outpost on his land grant until the discovery of gold at his trill launched the "Gold Rush" that ruined him financially. The Comtnunity Heritage Partner Dame Shirley -the pen name of Louis Amelia Smith Clappe, the first literary figure in California, she wrote colorful accounts of life in the Sierra mining camps with her doctor husband. John Sutter -a Swiss emigre who built a thriving outpost on his land grant in inland California, until the discovery of gold at his mill launched the "Gold Rush" that mined him financially. Camillo Ynitia-born into the traditional Miwok Indian tribe and last chief of the village of Olompali, he was a compadre of Californio Mariano Vallejo and survived the Bear Flag Revolt.. IiIGI I SCHOOL AND OLDER ALDIENCES ONLY The Community Heritage Partner can help bring these programs to sites in your community at very low cost because we seek additional support from other community -oriented sponsors. The following services are included in this program package. • Facilitate partnerships and arrangements between local organization hosts. • Obtain grant funding for the project. • Collect information on your local history, making the life of each character relevant to your community's history. • Transportation and meals for each performer. • Identify local scholars to add to the program. • Provide program evaluation forms. • Compile a publicity notebook on the entire program. Your community agrees to provide the following: • Lodging for each performer. • Local publicity and advertising. • Performance space and an audience at each venue -schools, museums, libraries, community or cultural centers, or local civic organizations. Communities lacking in financial resources may often obtain services in -kind through a .-donation of lodging, newspaper advertising space, radio or television public service announcements, printing of advertising flyers or programs. Interested in providing this exciting program to your community? Contact The Community Heritage Partner immediately with a letter of interest. Include the name of the contact person and lead organization and a list of potential host venues. Fax your letter to 510-849- 3112, or mail to: THE COMMUNITY HERITAGE PARTNER 1719 Oregon Street Berkeley, Ca. 94703 The Community Heritage Partner is a non profit organization, under the sponsorship of Community Partner Inc. Our goal is to develop local broad -based community heritage projects, partnering local organisations and funders. The Community Heritage Partner offers nonprofit sponsorship of local projects and exhibits, technical assistancg as well as packaged humanities programming and traveling exhibitions. Co -Directors: Margo McBane 0- Suzanne Guerra KE] Oral history Projects Discovering The Many Voices of California Oral Liston- has become a popular research method for studying genealogy and family history. Larger projects require careful planning and coordination as well as trained project staff to reach successful completion. The Community Heritage Partner can provide the resources for communities to develop their own oral history programs. Oral history projects can be incorporated into historic preservation, historic interpretation and cultural arts programs as sell as heritage tourism and community -based economic development. Whv not include an oral history component in your historic site inventor-, survey update, or context study? Previously undocumented resources and sites associated with particular ethnic or cultural groups may not be included in standard archives. Often this type of history is preserved within the community by individuals, families and cultural organizations. Poster public awareness and support for your project by training interested community members to collect their local history. Oral history has many applications for historic interpretation and community arts. Oral history projects sometimes incorporate active collection of photographic images. Together with audio and videotapes, these resources create a rich archive for additional projects by scholars and the public. These projects may include slide shows, radio presentations or one - person performances as well as exhibitions and publications. Community murals may reflect the history that is retrieved by oral interviews. Tourism and econunric derclulnnent are a concern to many wminuaitics. The heritage tourist values authenticit' as well as entertainment. Oral history, can provide another perspective on a region, by identifying aspects of culture and history that may have left few physical remains. These elements mac be used in creating community events, cultural activities, and a unique idcntit for that particular locale. Thorough planning and monitoring are necessary to assure the consistencv and quality of the research products, and is espcciallv important when interpretive projects such as video and radio productions arc involved. The Community Heritage Partner works with your community through either of two models. The Project Management Model provides a full range of services, including project planning, selection of components, staff training, program implementation and management, and evaluation. Consider professional protect management if your goals include major interpretive projects. The lechnical .Assistance Model provides core services such as project planning, staff training and regularly scheduled technical assistance. This model may be appropriate when updating or revising previous oral histon- projects, or conducting projects of a ven limited scale Contact The Community- Heritage Partner for a prelhminam assessment of .our project needs, or select from the following services • Development and Planning: Pull planning services and funding development for oral histon programs or components, including publications and interpretive projects as well as identifying archival repositories. We work with your organization to idcntifv potential local sponsors and alternative sources of funding. The Community heritage Pawner '4) Oral History Projects • Workshops and Training: We will design and present workshops and training programs on oral history methods and interviewing techniques for Mouth and adults. • Oral llistory Collection and Transcription: Management of oral histon- projects or oral history components of major projects, including staff training and project monitoring. "These may be combined with other projects such as historic site surveys, cognitive mapping or photo collection projects. • Oral History Publications: Create booklets, (naps and guides on local history, or combine text with images to create photo-documentary books. • Interpretive Projects Based on Oral Histories: Create exhibitions, historic re- enactments, dramatic interpretations and radio or video productions, from your research materials and transcriptions. The Community Heritage Partner provides individual services, workshops and training, as well as overall planning, development, and implementation of community heritage projects. As your project partner, we also offer grant funding research and development to assure a reasonable level of financial support to tarn the project to completion. Contact The Conununit, Heritage Partner with a letter of interest, including a contact person and a brief description of your proposed oral history project. Fax your letter to 510- 849-3113, or mail to: THIS CObI\IUNFIA' FIh.A RITGL PARTNER 1719 Oregon Street Bcrkelcv, Ca. 94703 The Conmiunity Heritage Partner is a nou-profit organization, under the sponsorship of Co.aiunity Partner Dec. Our goad is to develop local broad -based community heritage projects, partnering local organizations and fuuders. The Community Heritage Partner offers non-profit sponsorship of local projects and erbibits, tecbuical assistauce, as well as packaged humanities programming and traveling erbibitions. Co -Directors: Margo MCBaue C— Suzanne Guerra !'he Community Heritage Partner J 346