1999 11 17 HPC/ T
U - D
FyOf
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
The Special Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
November 17, 1999
3:00 P.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 99-027
I. 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 the site(s)
for their protection.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Approval of the regular Minutes for the meeting of October 26, 1999
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Interim Archaeological Testier and Mitigation Report for Ten'
located on the north side of 5W Avenue, west of Jefferson Street.
Applicant: Affiliated Construction (Wes and Richard Oliphant)
Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech (Bruce Love)
B. Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation Report for Tentative Tract 29436; located
on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, east of Coachella Drive.
Applicant: US Home Corporation
Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech (Bruce Love)
HPC/AGENDA
C. Recommend to the City Council Participation icipatiowith the Historical So iet in the Design
Resource located at the south terminus of Washington Street and 5Td Avenue.
Applicant: La Quinta Historical Society
D. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Palm Oasis Tra'ilhead Project:
located at the south end of the La Quinta Cove area.
Applicant: City of La Quinta
Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock)
E. Review and Comment on the possible acquisition use location and expansion of the
Historical Society Museum; located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and
Avenida Mendoza.
Applicant: City of La Quinta
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
HPC/AGENDA 002
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 21. 1999
This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert
Wright at 3:17 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call.
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance.
B. Roll Call.
Present: Commissioners Barbara Irwin, Mike Mitchell, Maria Puente, and Chairman
Robert Wright.
Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Wright asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of September
15, 1999. Commissioner Mitchell asked that the Minutes be amended on Page 2, Item
6, to read, "...they usually go two ten centimeters below the archaeological midden."
There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Irwin/Puente to approve the Minutes of September 15, 1999, as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Interim Report on Phase II Archaeological Survey for the 18 Acre Westward Ho Park
Site; located at the northeast corner of Westward Ho Drive and Adams Street.
Applicant: Century -Crowell Communities. Archaeological Consultant:
Archaeological* Advisory Group, James Brock.
1. Chairman Wright asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Mitchell
asked if there would be a final report submitted at a later date. Staff stated
there would be. Commissioner Mitchell stated he would hold his comments
until the final report was received.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPCIo-21-99.wpd -1- - 003
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 21, 1999
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Puente/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 99-026 accepting
the Interim Report on a Phase II Archaeological Survey for the 18 Acre
Westward Ho Park Site. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIL COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Staff informed the Commission that as soon as the information was received about
the next Historic Preservation Conference to be held in 2000, staff would forward
that information on to them.
B. Staff distributed a publication on the Burning Dune Site by the Archaeological
Advisory Group.
C. Commissioner Irwin informed the Commission that the Historical Society is
preparing a plaque to be presented to The Tradition similar to the one prepared for
the La Quinta Hotel. She was hoping this Commission would like to participate in
the purchasing and presenting of the plaque. Staff stated this was part of
responsibility of the Commission and needed to be defined further. Commissioner
Irwin asked that this item be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to
adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on November 18, 1999. This meeting of the
Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:27 p.m. October 21, 1999. Unanimously
approved.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Sawyer
Executive Secretary
0 014
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\tIPC10-2i-99.wpd -2-
BI #A
DATE:
ITEM:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT:
BACKGROUND:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 17, 1999
INTERIM ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND MITIGATION
REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 28964
NORTH SIDE OF 50TH AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1,600
FEET WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET
AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION (WNS AND RICHARD
OLIPHANT)
CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL)
Tentative Tract 28964, known as Rancho Fortunado, consists of 78 single family lots
on 39 net acres on the north side of 50TH Avenue, 1600 feet west of Jefferson Street,
adjacent to Rancho La Quinta. The City Council granted approval of the Tentative
Tract on February 2, 1999.
The Phase I Archaeological Assessment Report recommended a Phase II Assessment.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a Phase II Archaeological
Assessment Report on November 19, 1998. A Phase III report wes deemed necessary
for the property. On December 17, 1998, the HPC approved the Phase III recovery
plan for the property.
DISCUSSION:
An interim Phase III testing and mitigation report has been submitted by C:RM TECH.
The report presents the results of the archaeological field work, including field mapping
and surface collection. The work assessed the significance of two prehistoric
archaeological sites, CA-RIV-3013 and -6140, determined to be "historic resources",
as defined by CEQA. This is because both sites are associated with events of
scientific importance in prehistory including the issues of exploltation of the former
Lake Cahuilla shoreline by humans and the effects of its desiccation on settlement and
subsistence strategies among the late prehistoric period Cahuillal.
The testing found five features or concentrations within Site CA-RIV-3013, designated
as Lithic Concentration (Locus 5), Cremation Feature (Locus 6), Bead Concentration,
Shell Midden, and Fish Bone Feature, that meet the official definition of "historic
resources", as outlined in CEQA, and require proper mitigation of project impacts.
C:hnc rpt tt 28964 ph Ill.wpd
These five features or concentrations have been excavated and collected to the point
where total recovery is considered . The report recommends that due to the high
sensitivity of sand dunes for buried cultural deposits, archaeological monitoring should
be required during grading and other earth -moving activities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 99- , accepting :
1.) The interim cultural resources report titled, "Archaeological Testing and
mitigation - Rancho Fortunado Property", as prepared by CRM TECH, subject to
the following conditions:
A.) Archaeological monitoring shall be done during grading and other earth -
moving activities, with the names of the monitor(s) given to the City prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
B.) The final cultural resources report titled, "Archaeological Testing and
mitigation - Rancho Fortunado Property" shall be submitted ro the HPC
for review prior to issuance of first building permit.
Attachment:
1. Confidential Cultural Resource Report (Commissioners only)
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted By:
(\Lk
Christine di lorio, PI nning Manager
006
C:hpc rpt tt 28964 ph III.wpd
:INTERIM CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND MITIGATION
RANCHO FORTUNADO PROPERTY
Tentative Tract 28964, City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
Submitted to:
Wes Oliphant
Affiliated Construction
77-900 Avenue of the States
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Submitted by:
Bruce Love, Principal
R:athryn J. W. Bouscaren, Project Archaeologist
Natasha L. Johnson, Project Archaeologist
CRM TECH
2411 Sunset Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
November 5, 1999
CRM TECH lob #423
APN 649-100-015
Approximately 42 Acres
La Quinta, Catifomia, 7.5' Quadrangle
Sections 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian
Sites CA-RIV-3013 and -6140
007
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In July, 1999, CRM TECH was contracted by Wes and Richard Oliphant, Affiliated
Construction, to perform an archaeology testing and mitigation program on Tentative Tract
28964 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Located on the northern side
of Avenue 50 between Washington and Jefferson Streets, Tentative Tract 28964 is the site of
a proposed residential development project known as Rancho Fortunado. The project area,
measuring approximately 42 acres in total, consists of a portion of the southeast quarter of
Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS La Quinta,
Calif., 7.5' quadrangle. The study is a part of the environmental review process for the
proposed project, as required by the City of La Quinta pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. The
purpose of the study is to assist the City, as Lead Agency for the project, in assessing the
significance of two prehistoric archaeological sites that occur in the project area, CA-RIV-
3013 and -6140, and to evaluate project impacts on any site or locus that constitutes a
"historical resource," as defined by CEQA.
While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going at this time, to date
CRM TECH has completed all necessary archaeological field work in the project area,
including field mapping, surface collection of artifacts, and the excavation of test units,
surface scrapes, and backhoe trenches. Preliminary results of the study indicate that five
features or artifact concentrations within Site CA-RIV-3013, designated as Lithic
Concentration (Locus 5), Cremation Feature (Locus 6), Bead Concentration, Shell Midden,
and Fish Bone Feature, meet the official definition of "historical resources," as outlined in
CEQA, and as such require proper mitigation of project impacts. Such mitigation has been
achieved by nearly 100% data recovery at these five locations, which was accomplished as
part of the field work for the current study. Therefore the proposed project will have no
foreseeable adverse effects to "historical resources."
Based on these considerations, CRM TECH recommends that the City of La Quinta may
reach the following conclusions regarding the proposed project:
• Potential historical resources within and adjacent to the project area have been properly
identified and evaluated.
• While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going, all necessary
archaeological field procedures associated with mitigation of project impacts at five
locations within Site CA-RIV-3013 have been completed.
• The City of La Quinta may reach a finding of "no effect" on historical resources.
No part of the project area need be set aside or preserved based on archaeological
resources as known at this time.
• Due to high sensitivity for buried cultural deposits, archaeological monitoring should be
required during grading and other earth -moving activities in the project area.
The final report of the study, including discussions of site interpretation and the sites'
significance in the context of archaeological research questions, will be submitted as soon as
the laboratory analysis of various classes of artifacts recovered during the field investigation
is completed.
000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENTSUMMARY
.................................................................................................i
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
PROJECTBACKGROUND........................................................................................................3
SETTING.......................................................................................................................................4
NATURALSETTING....................................................................................................4
CULTURALSETTING...................................................................................................4
Prehistory.............................................................................................
..................
4
Ethnohistory................................................. .................5
.......................................
EarlyExplorations...............................................................................................5
Settlementand Growth.....................................................................................6
RESEARCHDESIGN..................................................................................................................6
CHRONOLOGY...............................................................................................................7
SUBSISTENCE.................................................................................................................7
SETTLEMENT' PATTERNS..........................................................................................8
TRADE..............................................................................................................................8
ETHNICITY......................................................................................................................8
OTHER RESEARCH QUESTIONS..............................................................................9
Clay.........................................................................................................................9
Rock.......................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY......................................................................................................................9
RESEARCHMETHODS.............................................................................................................10
PROCEDURES CONDUCTED BY CRM TECH.........................................................10
FieldMapping......................................................................................................10
SurfaceCollection...............................................................................................10
TestUnits..............................................................................................................11
SurfaceScrapes....................................................................................................11
ShovelTest Pits...................................................................................................11
BackhoeTrenches...............................................................................................11
Laboratory Procedures........................................................................................11
PROCEDURES CONDUCTED BY L&L ENVIRONMENTAL...............................12
RESULTSAND FINDINGS......................................................................................................12
FIELD TESTING RESULTS SUMMARY...................................................................12
SiteCA-RIV-3013................................................................................................12
Locus1.......................................................................................................12
Locus2.......................................................................................................14
Locus3.......................................................................................................14
Locus4.......................................................................................................14
Locus5.......................................................................................................14
Locus6.......................................................................................................16
Locus7.......................................................................................................16
Locus8.......................................................................................................16
Locus9.......................................................................................................16
Locus10.....................................................................................................16
Locus11.....................................................................................................17
Locus12.....................................................................................................17
Locus13.....................................................................................................18
Locus14.....................................................................................................20
Locus15.....................................................................................................20
Bead Concentration................................................................................20
ShellMidden...........................................................................................22
FishBone Feature...................................................................................24
SiteCA-RIV-6140................................................................................................25
FIVE ARTIFACT CONCENTRATIONS....................................................................25
LithicConcentration..........................................................................................25
CremationFeature..............................................................................................26
BeadConcentration............................................................................................26
ShellMidden.......................................................................................................27
FishBorne Feature...............................................................................................27
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................29
DEFINITION....................................................................................................................30
SITEEVALUATIONS....................................................................................................31
SiteCA-RIV-3013................................................................................................31
LithicC'oncentration..........................................................................................33
CremationFeature..............................................................................................33
BeadConcentration............................................................................................34
ShellMidden.......................................................................................................34
FishBone Feature...............................................................................................34
SiteCA-RIV-6140................................................................................................34
PROJECT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................35
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................35
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................36
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................37
FIGURE1. Project vicinity.......................................................................................................1
FIGURE2. The project area......................................................................................................2
FIGURE 3. Locations of archaeological loci and excavation units..................................13
FIGURE 4. Lithic concentration (Locus 5) and cremation feature (Locus 6) .................15
FIGURE5. Bead concentration, Locus 11..............................................................................21
FIGURE6. Shell midden, Locus 13........................................................................................23
FIGURE7. Fish bone feature, Locus 13..................................................................................24
FIGURE 8. Wall of Unit 47 in the fish bone feature...........................................................28
FIGURE 9. Ceramic scoop or small bowl..............................................................................29
FIGURE 10. Ceramic artifact distribution by level..............................................................31
FIGURE 11. Faunal artifact distribution by level................................................................32
FIGURE 12. Lithic artifact distribution by level...................................................................32
TABLE 1. Artifact Distribution by Level .....
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications...........
.......................................................33
....................................................38
iii
010
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Oliphant & Williams Associates, Inc., CRM TECH commenced in July,
1999, an archaeology testing and mitigation program on Tentative Tract 28964 in the
City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). Located on the northern side of
Avenue 50 between Washington and Jefferson Streets, Tentative Tract 28964 is the site
of a proposed residential development project known as Rancho Fortunado. The
project area, measuring approximately 42 acres in total, consists of a portion of the
southeast quarter of Section 32, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in
the USGS La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle (Fig. 2). The study is a part of the
environmental review process for the proposed project, as required by the City of La
Quinta pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et
seq.) and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal
Code).
CRM TECH performed the present study to assist the City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency
for the project, in assessing the significance of two prehistoric archaeological sites that
occur in the project area, CA-RIV-3013 and -6140, and to evaluate project impacts on
any site or locus that constitutes a "historical resource," as defined by CEQA. Since the
commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all necessary archaeological
field work in the project area, including field mapping, surface collection
f v
project
location L 4.
N6 R
�.
t t o
SCALE 1:250000
0 5 10mUea
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition)
N
sO. %
7
ar
M
Well
Y.m..
SCALE 1:24,000
0 1/2 1 mile
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet
28
dTfArlAr PArk�rJ� Ie
e
.n
ITraiW _Pik_
rw
n
33
Figure 2. The project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle, 1980 Edition)
of artifacts, and the excavation of test units, surface scrapes, and backhoe trenches.
While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going, an interim report
is submitted at this time to present the methods, results, and conclusions of research
procedures that have been completed to date.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In August, 1998, L&L Environmental, Inc., of Corona, California, performed an
archaeological survey of the current project area. As a result of that survey, four
prehistoric archaeological sites were recorded within the project boundaries, including
the previously identified Site CA-RIV-3013 and three new sites that were subsequently
designated CA-RIV-6234, -6235, and -6236. All of these sites were described as scatters of
pottery sherds and faunal remains, including bone and shell fragments, while lithic
artifacts and charcoal were also observed at CA-RIV-3013 and -6234.
After the conclusion of the survey and the recording of the four sites, L&L.
Environmental pursued further research on the Rancho Fortunado property "to
recover surficial deposits, to test for subsurface deposits and to determine significance of
the sites under CEQA" (Hall and Irish 1998:iv). In September and October, 1998, L&L
Environmental performed what was reported as a Phase II Testing and Data Recovery
Program, consisting of "systematic 100% collection of surface materials (except where
impeded by vegetation or illicitly thrown trash) plotted on a 3-m grid, auger testing,
lxl-m test excavations, and backhoe trenching" (ibid.:iv, 1).
Based on the results of the Phase II study, L&L Environmental concluded that Site CA-
RIV-3013 and -6234 met CEQA's criteria for important archaeological resources because
"both are associated with the events of scientific importance in prehistory [including]
the issues of the exploitation of the former Lake Cahuilla shoreline by humans and the
effects of its desiccation on settlement and subsistence strategies among the late
prehistoric period Cahuilla" (Hall and Irish 1998:25). Consequently, L&L
Environmental recommended that the areas of significant deposits at both sites,
covering approximately 40% of each site as recorded, be mitigated through 100%
collection, and that archaeological monitoring be required during the clearing/grubbing
and the rough grading phases of the proposed development (ibid.:26-27).
On February 2, 1999, La Quinta city council passed resolution 99-27 containing;
conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 28964 of which items 85 and 86 deal
with archaeological resources and the work required to be completed prior to issuance
of grading permits.
In June, 1999, Wes and Richard Oliphant contracted with CRM TECH to complete the
work required by the City in their conditions of approval. To this end, CR.M TECH
submitted a Data Recovery Plan and a Research Design to the City. Upon review and
approval of these items, field work commenced in July, 1999 and was completed in
September of the same year.
3 . 013
SETTING
100411I1MIM-46-11►CI9
The Rancho Fortunado project area is located in the Coachella Valley, on the western
edge of the Colorado Desert that encompasses the eastern portion of Riverside County.
Dictated by this geographic setting, the project area and its environs are marked by
extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120
degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is
less than five inches.
Specific to the project area, a rather dramatic topography of some 40 ft in elevation
mark this piece of property, with a massive ridge of sand dunes crossing the southwest
quadrant bordered by low-lying swales to the east. Extensive stands of mesquite give
the sand dunes stability and account for their increasing height and size over the
centuries. The lower elevations mark the old shorelines of ancient Lake Cahuilla,
whose last high stand is thought to be at around AD 1650.
Native lifeways in the Coachella Valley was greatly influenced in centuries past by the
comings and goings of this once massive body of water. During its peak years, the
northern shore of the lake reached the present-day 42-foot elevation contour line,
which runs across the project area. Located thus directly on the ancient lake shore, the
project area undoubtedly presented an ideal location for early occupants of the
Coachella Valley to exploit fish and other food resources from this now -vanished fresh-
water lake.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The so-called "prehistoric period" refers to a time prior to the arrival of non -Indians,
when Native lifeways and traditions remained intact and viable. In the vicinity of
present-day La Quinta, foreign influences brought profound changes to Indian lifeways
commencing around the late 1700s, the beginning of the "historic period."
In the Coachella Valley, the prehistoric period is generally divided into the Late
Prehistoric and the Archaic Periods. The transition between these two periods is
thought to be around AD 1000, marked by the introduction of pottery to the region, an
innovation undoubtedly from peoples of the Colorado River cultures. For this reason,
the Archaic Period is sometimes also referred to as the "pre -ceramic" period. Other
important cultural changes in prehistoric times were the introduction of the bow -and -
arrow, probably around AD 500, and the change from burial practices to cremations,
perhaps around 500 BC. Students of historical linguistics propose a migration of Takic
speakers sometime between 1000 BC and AD 500 from the Great Basin region of
Nevada, Utah, and eastern California into southern California. It should be noted that
the Cahuilla people have their own history, recorded and recited in their Bird Songs,
which also include tales of long migrations.
4
01 L1
Ethnohistory
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where a
large number of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Cahuilla people, were
observed in the mid-19th century. The Cahuilla,. a Takic-speaking people of hunters
and gatherers, are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to
their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the San Gorgonio Pass -Palm Springs area,
the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla
Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the eastern 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. Each lineage or clan
belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of
clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans
had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of
hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted
with other clans through 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 and Pass Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more
of the Indian reservations in the Coachella Valley, including Torres Martinez,
Augustine, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, and Morongo, most of which are located in close
proximity to the City of La Quinta.
Early Explorations
Through the Coachella Valley ran an ancient Indian trading route, the Cocomaricopa
Trail, which connected the coastal region of California to areas along the Colorado
River. The trail was first revealed by the Maricopa Indians to the Europeans in 1821,
but attracted little attention. Prior to that, the western portion of the trail had been
used, since 1815, from time to time by salt miners from the San Gabriel Mission on
their way to the Salton Sink. In 1823-1825, Jose Romero, Josh Maria Estudillo, and
Romualdo Pacheco led an expedition along the same route through the Coachella
Valley in search of a road to Yuma, thus becoming the first noted European explorers to
travel through the desert around today's La Quinta area.
In 1862, in the aftermath of the La Paz gold rush on the Colorado River, the entire route
of the Cocomaricopa Trail was "rediscovered" by William David Bradshaw, and became
known as the Bradshaw Trail. For the next decade and a half, it served as the main
thoroughfare between the Los Angeles area and the gold fields near present-day
Ehrenberg, Arizona. By the late 1870s, however, the depletion of the La Paz gold mines
and the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad's Coachella Valley line in 1876-
1877 brought an end to the heyday of this historic wagon road. In the early 20th
5 015
century, with the coming of the automobile age, the role of the Bradshaw Trail was
revived in the form of the Ocean -to -Ocean Highway (U.S. Route 60). Today, this role is
served by Interstate 10, one of the busiest transportation arteries in the nation, although
the course of the old wagon road is followed more closely by State Route 111.
Settlement and Growth
Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s, with the
establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific line, and spread further in
the 1880s, after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert
Land Act, and other federal land laws. Farming became the dominant economic
activity in the valley, thanks to the development of underground water sources, often
in the form of artesian wells. But it was not until the completion of the Coachella
Canal in 1948-1949 that farmers in the and region obtained an adequate and reliable
water supply. 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 equestrian camps,
resort hotels, and eventually country clubs, gradually spread throughout the Coachella
Valley, and since then transformed it into southern California's leading winter retreat.
In the 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, typical of
the desert communities along Highway 111. Beginning in the early 1930s, the
subdivision of the larger 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 19th city in Riverside County.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A research design is intended to guide archaeological explorations, directing
investigators to focus on those questions that have the best potential to fill in gaps in
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 that 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 is a set of research questions that can
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
6 - 014
nature of site occupation, be it temporary or permanent, large scale or small; (4) trade or
external contacts, the evidence for materials exchange with outside groups based on the
presence or absence of exotic items in the archaeological record; and (5) ethnicity or
culture, the tribal or linguistic affiliation of the people who occupied the land at the
time. These five general questions, which are common to site investigation
everywhere, generate more specific inquiries and focused lines of research when
applied to the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla.
The Rancho Fortunado project area is bordered on the north and west sides by the
Rancho La Quinta property, of which some 330 acres have recently been explored and
chronicled. Archaeological sites in the current project area are is essence extensions of
those sites already tested and evaluated to the north and west. Important results
pertaining to research questions were obtained there, in particular regarding the
question of chronology and subsistence. Work on the Rancho Fortunado property had
the potential of confirming or refuting these findings, and taking research in new
directions.
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, 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 on the Rancho Fortunado property 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 more than 2,000 years
old (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 Wilke'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 the
La Quinta area, 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 lake's
7 - 017
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 animals
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 (Schaefer 1994:68 et 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 features
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
(Love 1996). A recent re -analysis of Wilke's original data, using statistical modeling,
also supports the temporary camp hypothesis (Sutton 1998). The Rancho Fortunado
property (approximately 42 acres), when combined with Rancho La Quinta (350 acres)
and the Lundin Development to the east (50 acres), provides a textbook opportunity to
discuss evidence of settlement over a large area, resulting in data which can 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 for the present study, 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 such as hunting, collecting, and food preparing. The simple mano, or hand-
held grinding stone, would not reveal the ethnic identity of its owner, unless perhaps it
showed artistic elaboration 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
8
01$
centuries prior to that also represent Cahuilla cultures. What of sites 2,000 years old?
The present-day Cahuilla traditions say that 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 2,000-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 2,000 to
2,500 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.
OTHER RESEARCH iQUESTIONS
Clay
In addition to the generalized research questions, archaeology in specific locales tends to
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,
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 were completed; and baking foods, wrapping small animals, especially
fish, before baking in a fire. A detailed analysis of multiple clay samples is needed 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?
SUMMARY
The foregoing research design is not unique to the current project area, but applies to
ancient shoreline sites all across the City of La Quinta and into Indio and beyond. The
ages of the sites and their basic character continue to be elucidated as research domains
are fine-tuned by the latest excavations. Sites that have the ability to throw light on
these questions are deemed significant by CEQA, as they "yield... information
important in prehistory" (PRC §5024.1(c)). The Rancho Fortunado property may or may
not contain "significant" sites. The present study is designed to address these issues,
allowing the consultant and the City to best manage the archaeological resources under
their purview.
9 Oil
RESEARCH METHODS
The following sections outline the research procedures completed to date on the
Rancho Fortunado property, both by CRM TECH during this study and by L&L
Environmental, Inc., during the earlier study.
PROCEDURES CONDUCTED BY CRM TECH
The general research approach and specific methods for the current study were
determined by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love (see App. 1 for qualifications).
Archaeological field work was conducted under the direct supervision of Brice Love
and/or excavation crew chiefs Harry Quinn and Natasha Johnson (see App. 1 for
qualifications). Geologic analysis, including trench profiles and unit sidewall drawings,
were completed by Harry Quinn. Laboratory procedures were conducted by CRM TECH
archaeologists Kathryn Wright Bouscaren, Natasha Johnson, and Daniel Ballester (see
App. 1 for qualifications). Crew members included George Auclair, Gary Resvaloso,
and Adrian Duro, members of Torres Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians.
Surface Survey
At the commencement of fieldwork, CRM TECH crew members performed a 100%
intensive survey of the project area walking east -west parallel lines at 10-m intervals.
Archaeologists pin flagged artifacts and clusters of artifacts as they walked, flagging
bushes to mark their locations. At the conclusion of the field survey, the property was
revisited in an effort to establish lines and boundaries between loci or concentrations.
After the field survey, was completed, with the pin flags still in place, artifact locations
were mapped.
Field Mapping
Site and locus boundaries were mapped on a 50-scale topographic map provided by the
applicant. Detailed contour information, natural features such as mesquite stands, and
man-made objects such as fences and walls, all of which are found on the project
topographic map, allowed for pinpoint plotting of artifacts, features, concentrations and
site/locus boundaries. After the mapping exercise was completed, locus boundaries and
identifying numbers were assigned, resulting in 15 loci.
Surface Collection
Artifacts were collected and their bags labeled by locus, for example, all the artifacts in
Locus 12 were collected in bags labeled Locus 12. Finer, pinpoint accuracy was not
obtained except for several instances in which small surface collections were conducted
in 2- or 8-m diameters surrounding test units. These were done in an effort to preserve
surface artifacts in danger of displacement or damage in cases where test units were dug
prior to completion of the surface collection in that area. These smaller surface
collections were later consolidated into the larger assemblages of the loci to which they
belonged.
10
020
Test Units
A total of 52 1x1-m excavation units were hand -dug during the archaeological field
investigation. Each unit was hand -dug in 10-cm (ca. 4-in) levels, with all material dry -
screened through 1/8-in hardware mesh. Artifacts and other cultural materials
recovered from each level were bagged and labeled prior to proceeding with the next
level. All units were excavated to 100 cm where permissible, unless digging conditions
or lack of artifact recovery made further excavating impractical.
Surface Scrapes
A total of 26 surface scrapes were excavated in an effort to collect larger numbers of
artifacts. Once it was determined that in most locations the artifact density was greatest
in the top 20 cm (8 in) it was determined that horizontal excavation would be more
effective in collecting data that vertical excavation. All surface scrapes but one were in
1x2-m dimensions, and were either dug as a single unit or broken into two lx1-m
sections. Surface Scrape 15 was dug as a 2x3-m unit. Each surface scrape -vas hand -dug
by 10-cm levels, stopping at 10 cm if recovery was poor, or continuing to 20 cm. All
material was dry screened through 1/8-in hardware mesh and bagged and labeled
immediately. Several 1x1-m surface scrapes were excavated as extensions of adjacent
units. Units 11, 45, and 46 each had 3 surface scrapes excavated abutting three of their
sides, forming a 2x2-m area of excavation. All of these were dug to single 20 cm levels,
except for Unit 11 surface scrape 3, which was dug to 20 cm.
Shovel Test Pits
Two shovel test pits were excavated near the shell midden feature in an attempt to
quickly determine presence or absence of midden as part of the overall excavation and
mitigation recovery at that locus. Shovel test pits are simple shovel holes which are
not dug in controlled levels. In both cases they went to approximately 50 cm.
Backhoe Trenches
Backhoe trenches were placed in attempts to search for buried sites that rnight be out of
reach of hand -dug units. In all, six backhoe trenches explored for deep sites, generally
reaching 2 m in depth (6 1/2 ft) and 2 m in length.
Laboratory Procedures
All artifacts recovered from each phase of field work were brought to CRM TECH's
laboratory for cleaning, sorting, counting, and cataloguing. In some cases, where bulk
samples were collected, further screening and sorting was necessary at the lab. Artifacts
were sorted into categories of lithics (chipped stone), ceramics (pottery sherds), faunal
(animal bone), groundstone (fragments of grinding rocks), and other (e.g., charcoal,
11 U2t
shell, fire -affected rock, etc.) and special items such as beads, shell pendant, arrow
points, and ceramic scoop.
In addition to the artifacts collected as part of the current project, all materials
previously collected by L&L Environmental were delivered to CRM TECH at the
request of the project applicant. These also were sorted and bagged according to CRM
TECH's standard nomenclature and procedures.
PROCEDURES CONDUCTED BY L&L ENVIRONMENTAL
L&L procedures are outline in their report of November 12, 1998 (Hall and Irish
1998:13-16). A Phase I survey was performed walking north -south transects at 5-10 m
intervals. Testing was done with four IxI-m test units, one 3x3-m unit, and 10 backhoe
trenches, and surface collections were made.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The following sections discuss the results and findings of the various research
procedures detailed above.
FIELD TESTING RESULTS SUMMARY
Site CA-RIV-3013
During the course of this study, it was clearly demonstrated that Sites CA-RIV-3013,
-6234, -6235, and -6236, as recently recorded, in fact form a continuous archaeological
deposit within the project boundaries and beyond. As a result, CA-RIV-6234, -6235, and
-6236 are now determined to be parts of CA-RIV-3013, and site record updates reflecting
this determination are being prepared for submission to the Eastern Information
Center at the University of California, Riverside.
Based on field mapping conducted during this study, this extensive site includes a total
of 15 archaeological loci within the project area, covering much of the property except
the sand dunes and the northeast and southwest corners (Fig. 3). In addition, three
artifact concentrations, including a bead concentration, a shell midden, and a fish bone
feature, were discovered within Loci 11 and 13. During the field testing in the project
area, all but one of the test units, and all of the surface scrapes, trenches, Find shovel test
pits were excavated within these newly enlarge site boundaries. Findings from these
field procedures are summarized below. Wherever possible, the locations of the L&L
finds were placed within the CRM TECH locus designations, and summarized
accordingly.
Locus 1
Surface collection: 15 ceramic, 1 lithic, 90+ faunal, 5 shell, 6 rock, and burned clay.
12 022
n l
dr.°
4
�$yT 5 x ,}
I" �'t x� ..�` 1 �
mow. d
XI
Archaeological
locus
Artifact
concentration
A: Shell midden
L°Q e B: Bead coocenbabon
C: Fish bone teazure
Oatumstake
t mCy`��. '4;✓''ISt C i-Hr x 'l ..t of i+. 'l)t
�." Test unit
oSS1
Surface scrape
V lg��,.t^'+Fgv°"✓ if +1�`�i�,��� ��\�t e...a xy t oPt
L ,,, �t' ,_ Shovel test pit
-Ti
s+ ;r �r � +tl'}6 x french
,1k2,A •ut
Test unit
k`^ -F•" dug by L&L
Trench dug
by L&L
x
Previously
disturbed area
Project
boundary
r 200 feet
Vy
1100
-
t
sF F" M, a'e4 v€'ss �x''.�'»" F ecr '�'`.k"",evi^r rari"P' ✓'�Y��t*•_;,{` �+� f
r
0
a
Figure 3. Locations of archaeological loci and excavation units within the project area. (See Figs. 4-7 for
details on Loci 5, 6 and the three artifact concentrations.)
13
023
Locus 2
Surface collection: 35 ceramic, 24 faunal, 13 rock, and burned clay.
Locus 3
Surface collection: 6 ceramic, 9 rock, and burned clay.
Trench 6: No recovery.
Locus 4
Surface collection: 98 ceramic, 15 faunal, 14 rock,. 19 shell, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 7: 3 ceramic, 3 lithic, 2 faunal, 2 rock.
Unit 19:
0-50 cm: 3 ceramic, 5 faunal, 45 shell, 1 rock, and burned clay. Of these artifacts, 83%
were found between 0-10 cm, and no ceramic was recovered from lower levels.
50-100 cm: No recovery.
Trench 5: 1 lithic, 3 shell, and burned clay.
Locus 5 (Lithic Concentration)
Locus 5, a lithic artifact concentration, and Locus 6, a cremation site, are encompassed
entirely within Locus 12, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. Due to the unique qualities of
these two concentrations of artifacts, one of chipped stone and the other of human
remains, they were each given individual locus designations.
Surface collection: 171 ceramic, 154 lithic, 60+ faunal, 27 rock, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 1: 33 ceramic, 27 lithic, 3 shell, 95 faunal, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 9: 15 lithic, 1 shell bead, 2 shell, 74 faunal.
Surface Scrape 10: 1 ceramic, 17 lithic, 1 shell bead, 74 faunal, 1 rock.
Surface Scrape 11: 1 ceramic, 17 lithic, 3 shell bead, 3 shell, 59 faunal, 1 rock.
Surface Scrape 12: 2 ceramic, 8 lithic, 134 faunal, 5 shell, 1 rock.
Unit 45 Surface Scrapes: 1 ceramic, 18 lithic, 74 faunal, 2 shell, 2 rock.
Unit 27:
0-40 cm: 16 ceramic, 6 lithic, 26 faunal, 2 shell, 10 rock, and burned clay. Of these,
77% were found between 0-10 cm, and no ceramic or lithics were recovered from
lower levels.
40-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 45:
0-60: 1 ceramic, 16 lithic, 43 faunal, 6 shell, 1 rock. Of these, 72% were :found between
0-10 cm; only 2 lithics were found below 1.0 cm.
60-100 cm: No recovery.
L&L Trench 8: 29 ceramic, 7 lithic, 12 shell, 98 faunal, 3 rock.
L&L Trench 9: 60 ceramic, 5 lithic, 83 faunal.
L&L Trench 10: 9 ceramic, 13 faunal.
14 � - OVA
Figure 4. Lithic Concentration (Locus 5) and Cremation Feature (Locus 6), Site CA-RIV-30113.
15 02,5
Locus 6 (Cremation Feature)
Surface collection: 152+ ceramic (includes tiny pieces), 2 lithic, 160+ faunal, 17 rock, and
burned clay.
Surface Scrape 4: 13 ceramic, 1 lithic, 49 faunal, 3 shell, 2 rock, 1 floral.
Surface Scrape 5: 12 ceramic, 1 lithic, 39 faunal, 3 shell, 1 rock, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 8: 22 ceramic, 3 lithic, 11 faunal, 7 shell, 1 rock.
Unit 18:
0-60 and 80-90 cm: 32 ceramic, 3 lithic, 160 faunal, 1 shell, 4 rock, and burned clay. Of
these artifacts, 59% were found between 0-20 cm, while 15 ceramics and 2 lithics
were found below that level.
60-80 and 90-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 46:
0-20 cm: 25 faunal.
L&L Trench 6: 134 ceramic, 8 lithic, 1 shell bead, 550+ faunal, 8 rock.
Locus 7
Surface collection: 32 ceramic, 1 lithic, 10 faunal, 1 rock, and burned clay.
Locus 8
Surface collection: 73 ceramic, 37 faunal, 1 shell, 4 rock, and burned clay.
Locus 9
Surface collection: 7 ceramic, 3 rock.
Locus 10
Surface collection: 470+ ceramic, 7 lithic, 15 faunal, 2 shell, 43 rock, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 2: 34 ceramic, 11 lithic, 29 faunal, 3 shell, 1 rock.
Unit 12:
60-80 cm: 1 lithic, 1 faunal, 1 rock.
0-60 and 80-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 14:
0-100 cm: 17 ceramic, 6 lithic, including one projectile point, 1 faunal, 5 shell, 1
metal, 2 rock, and burned clay. Of these, 70% were found between 0-10 cm. Only
two ceramics and two lithics were recovered below 20 cm.
Unit 15:
0-90 cm: 4 ceramic, 13 lithic, 1 groundstone, 2 shell, 67 faunal, 1 rock, and burned
clay. All ceramic was recovered above 10 cm, while lithics were found down to
80 cm.
90-100 cm: No recovery.
16 - 029
Locus 11
Within Locus 11 lies one of the artifact concentrations, the bead concentration (Fig. 3).
Findings at this concentration are listed separately from the rest of the locus (see below).
Surface collection: 459+ ceramic, 4 lithic, 3 shell bead, 24 faunal, 5 shell, 14 rock, 4 metal,
and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 19: 61 ceramic, 3 shell, 2 clay.
Surface Scrape 22: 4 ceramic, 81 faunal.
Surface Scrape 23: 5 ceramic, 2 faunal.
Surface Scrape 26: 2 ceramic, 4 shell, and burned clay.
Unit 13:
0-100 cm: 235 ceramic, 2 faunal, 14 rock, and burned clay. Of these artifacts, 77% were
recovered between the surface and 10 cm, but ceramics were found down to 100
cm.
Unit 50:
0-10 cm: this level was originally the south half of Surface Scrape 23.
10-30 cm: 14 ceramic, 3 rock, and burned clay. No artifacts were recovered after 30
cm.
Because different methods were used by L&L and CRM TECH, it is not practical to
attempt division of the surface finds into the areas defined by CRM TECH; L&L's
collection for all of Locus 11, including the bead concentration, is listed below.
L&L Surface collection: 1,782 ceramic, 3 lithic, 1 groundstone, 3 shell bead, ca. 2,200
shell, 1980+ faunal, 72 rock, 1 mineral pigment, and burned clay.
L&L Trench 3: 185 ceramic, 1 groundstone, 20 faunal, 38 rock, and burned clay.
L&L Trench 4: 348 ceramic, 62 shell beads, 1 groundstone, 96 faunal, 1 shell, 19 rock, and
burned clay. The western 1/3 of this trench overlaps the bead concentration
identified by CRM TECH.
L&L Trench 5: 53 ceramic, 44 faunal, 7 rock.
Locus 12
As mentioned above, two other loci, Locus 5 and Locus 6, are encompassed entirely
within this locus (Figs. 3, 4). Findings at these two loci are listed separately (see above).
Surface collection: 869 ceramic, 18 lithic, 210 faunal, 22 shell, 114 rock, 1 metal, and
burned clay.
Surface Scrape 6: 2 shell, 4 rock, and burned clay.
Unit 16:
0-100 cm: 9 ceramic, 16 shell, 130 faunal, 1 rock, 1 metal, and burned clay. While one
piece of ceramic was found at 80-90 cm, 89% of the ceramics were recovered from
0-20 cm.
17
�. �� V �q
Unit 17:
0-20 cm: 11 ceramic, 1 lithic, 11 faunal, 1 shell, 6 rock, and burned clay. All of the
lithics and ceramics were recovered above 10 cm.
20-100 cm: No recovery.
The collection for all of Locus 12, including Loci 5 and 6, is listed below.
L&L Surface collection: 1,342 ceramic, 103 lithic, 3 groundstone, 3 shell bead, 11 shell,
1,250+ faunal, 69 rock, 4 metal, and burned clay.
L&L Trench 7: 66 ceramic, 1 lithic, 1 faunal, 3 rock.
Locus 13
Two of the artifact concentrations, the shell midden and the fish bone feature,, are
located within this locus (Fig. 3). Findings at these two locations are listed separately
from the rest of the locus (see below).
Surface collection: 664 ceramic, 7 lithic, 2 shell bead, 185 faunal, 305+ shell, 141 rock, 1
metal, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 13: 19 lithic.
Unit 11 surface scrapes: 10 ceramic, 2 lithic, 3 shell, 139 faunal, charcoal, and burned
clay.
Trench 1: 9 ceramic, 1 lithic, 10 rock.
Trench 2: 10 ceramic, 5 shell, charcoal, and burned clay.
Trench 3: 4 ceramic, charcoal.
Trench 4: 1 rock.
Unit 1:
0-100 and 110-120 cm: 12 ceramic, 87+ faunal, 17 shell, charcoal, and burned clay.
Only one piece of ceramic was recovered below 60 cm, while 59% of the ceramics
found between 0-20 cm.
100-110 cm: No recovery.
Unit 1 south:
0-50 cm: 5 ceramic, 65 faunal, 9 shell, 1 rock, and burned clay. All ceramics were
recovered above 30 cm.
Unit 2:
0-70: 8 ceramic, 1 lithic, 80 shell, 63 faunal, 16 rock, charcoal, and burned clay. 75% of
the ceramics, and the single lithic were recovered from between 0-20 cm.
70-120: No recovery.
Unit 2 north:
0-40 cm: 3 ceramic, 55 faunal, 36 shell, charcoal, and burned clay
40-50 cm: No recovery.
Unit 3:
0-140 cm: 1 lithic, 27 shell, 94 faunal, 2 rock, 1 metal, charcoal, and burned clay. The
single lithic was found at 110-120 cm.
140-150 cm: No recovery.
PWA
18
Unit 3 north:
0-50 cm: 27 faunal, 6 shell.
Unit 4:
0-90 cm: 1 ceramic, 2 lithic, 56+ shell, 101+ faunal, 5 rock, 1 metal, and burned clay.
No lithics or ceramic were found below 50 cm.
90-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 4 south:
0-10 cm: 1 ceramic, 35 clay, 30 shell.
Unit 5:
0-50 cm: 1 ceramic, 12 shell, 9 faunal, 6 rock, charcoal, and burned clay. The ceramic
sherd was found at 10-20 cm.
Unit 5 south:
0-30 cm: 4 ceramic, 5 shell, 2 faunal, and burned clay.
40-90 cm: No recovery.
90-100 cm: 1 faunal.
Unit 6:
0-80 cm: 2 ceramic, 1 shell bead, 41 shell, 39 faunal, 1 rock, charcoal, and burned clay.
One of the ceramics and the shell bead were found above 30 cm.
80-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 7:
0-100 cm: 10 shell, 117 faunal, and burned clay.
Unit 8:
0-100 cm: 3 ceramic, 5 lithic, 18 shell, 133 faunal, and burned clay. Four of the five
lithics and two of the three ceramics were recovered above 10 cm. Only one
lithic was found below 30 cm.
Unit 9:
0-70 cm: 9 ceramic, 257 shell, 139 faunal, 7 rock, charcoal, and burned clay. None of
the ceramic was found below 50 cm.
70-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 10:
0-90 cm: 38 ceramic, 6 shell, 60 faunal, 30 rock. Of the ceramic, 79% was recovered
between 0-10 cm. Two ceramic sherds were found below 30 cm, but were thought
to have been deposited by a wall collapse.
90-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 11:
0-70 cm: 5 ceramic, 1 lithic, 2 shell, 51 faunal, charcoal, and burned clay. Three of the
ceramic sherds and the lithic were found above 20 cm.
70-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 22:
0-70 cm: 9 ceramic, 1 lithic, 69 shell, 60 faunal, 7 rock, and burned clay. Ceramics
were found to depths of 70 cm, thought to be a product of wall collapse. The
single lithic, a projectile point, was recovered at 20-30 cm.
70-100 cm: No recovery.
19 DrAq
Unit 25:
0-100 cm: 5 ceramic, 9 lithic, 188+ shell, 8 faunal, and burned clay. No ceramics were
found below 30 cm. Seven of the lithics were recovered at 0-10 cm. While lithics
were found as deep as 80 cm, this was thought to be a product of wall collapse.
Unit 31:
0-60 cm: 22 ceramic, 1 shell bead, 11 shell, 185+ faunal, 9 rock, 1 glass, and burned
clay. Ceramics were not found below 50 cm, and the shell bead was recovered at
30-40 cm.
Unit 35:
0-80: No recovery.
80-100 cm: 28+ faunal.
Shovel Test Pit 1: 1 ceramic.
The collection for L&L's work in Locus 13, including the shell midden and the fish
bone concentration, is listed below.
L&L Surface collection: 164 ceramic, 1 shell bead, 56 shell, 800+ faunal, 90 rock, 1 metal,
1 glass, and burned clay.
L&L Trench 1: 119 ceramic, 2 lithic, 1 shell bead, 271+ shell, 345+ faunal, 28 rock, burned
clay, and charcoal.
L&L Test Unit l:
0-70 cm: 13 ceramic, 2 shell beads, 250+ shell, 270+ faunal, and burned clay.
L&L Test Unit 2:
0-50 cm: 10 ceramic, 122+ shell (200 not collected), 150+ faunal.
L&L 3x3-m test unit (C):
0-70 cm: 78 ceramic, 6 lithic, 1 shell bead, 95+ shell, 307+ faunal, 1 mineral pigment,
12 rock, charcoal, and burned clay.
Locus 14
Surface collection: 22 ceramic, 2 lithic, 1 shell, 5 rock, and burned clay.
Locus 15
Surface collection: 11 historic ceramic.
Surface Scrape 14: No recovery..
Surface Scrape 15: 16 historic ceramic, 1 metal.
Bead Concentration
Located within Locus 11, this artifact concentration is illustrated in further detail in
Figure 5.
Surface Scrape 16: 28 ceramic, 10 faunal, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 17: 62 ceramic, 2 shell bead, 9 shell, 14 faunal, and burned clay.
Surface Scrape 18: 35 ceramic, 24 faunal, 6 metal, 1 rock, and burned clay.
20
1 I t b si l l I ly`�'^ ' �.0 dds 1 V
-v
• �c �, i a t i � 9 1 l t$ ,,, � � \ �� ` � 5
v l S $
V 1 ;
357 5 i}34 �}d3
�t t.
+ p .tee n.8 §�
\ SSI
�� y %� �k,�tA'4 �• a ''l ¢"° y. , ✓„�'•,. �'.-„�
sss d assJ@
,EU4 \ i '; �, . 4 U49
333Ar
® Locus boundary \�
Artifact eomentration e� `,
A jj oatum stake Y ti j
AAA 1 r
BUJ TestunR
r3SSJ Surface scrape
®uJ Test unit dug by L&L s dq
9x3-m unit by L&L � `� .L :+`�,�
1 ti -
'_'j'"' Trench dug by L&L .
0 50faei
Figure 5. Bead Concentration, Locus 11, Site CA-RIV-3013.
Surface Scrape 20: 30 ceramic, 1 lithic, 3 shell bead, 10 shell, 6 faunal, 6 metal.
Surface Scrape 21: 9 ceramic, 1 shell bead, 14 shell, 43 faunal.
Surface Scrape 24: 5 ceramic, 20 faunal, 4 shell.
Surface Scrape 25: 9 ceramic, 55+ faunal.
Unit 21:
0-60 cm: 38 ceramic, 5 shell bead, 84+ shell, 3 rock, and burned clay. All of the shell
beads and 82% of the ceramic were found above 30 cm. No ceramic was found
beneath 60 cm.
60-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 48:
0-50 cm: 34 ceramic, 16 shell bead, 1 lithic, 36 faunal, including four worked bones, 7
shell, including fish hook/gorge, and charcoal. Of these artifacts, 6;5% of the
ceramic and 69% of the shell beads were recovered above 30 cm.
50-60 cm: No recovery.
Unit 49:
0-20 cm: This level was originally the south half of Surface Scrape 16.
20-50 cm: 18 ceramic, 5 shell bead, 54 faunal, 14 shell, and burned clay. Including the
surface scrape level, 89% of the ceramic and 80% of the shell beads were found
above 40 cm.
50-60 cm: No recovery.
Unit 51:
0-20 cm: This level was originally the north half of Surface Scrape 25.
21
03t,
20-60 cm: 29 ceramic, 12 shell bead, 1 groundstone, 6 shell, 53 faunal, 6 rock, charcoal,
and burned clay. Including the surface scrape level, 92% of the ceramic_ and 33%
of the shell beads were found above 30 cm. Only two shell beads were recovered
below 50 cm.
60-70 cm: No recovery.
Unit 52:
0-60 cm: 32 ceramic, 1 lithic, 3 shell bead, 58 faunal, 32+ shell, 6 rock, and burned
clay. Of these artifacts, 72% of the ceramic and all of the shell beads were found
above 40 cm.
L&L 1x1-m test unit (A):
0-60 cm: ceramic 33, shell 28, faunal 45, rock 3.
L&L lx1-m test unit (B):
0-60 cm:26 ceramic, 1 shell bead, 57 shell, 117 faunal.
Shell Midden
Located within Locus 13, this artifact concentration is illustrated in further detail in
Figure 6.
Unit 23:
0-90 cm: 1 shell bead, 358+ shell, 96 faunal, 12 rock, 1 metal, and burned clay. Of the
shell found, 63% was recovered above 30 cm.
90-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 24:
0-80 cm: 10 ceramic, 5 lithic, 49 shell, 56 faunal, 4 rock, charcoal, and burned clay. Of
these, 70% of the ceramic and 80% of the lithics were found above 40 cm. Unit
walls began collapsing after 30 cm.
80-100 cm: No recovery.
Unit 26:
0-100 cm: 4 ceramic, 1 lithic, 101 shell, 218+ faunal, 2 rock, charcoal, and burned clay.
Only faunal, clay, and shell were recovered below 80 cm.
Unit 34:
0-130 cm: 7 ceramic, 1 lithic, 95+ shell, 140+ faunal, 2 rock, charcoal, and burned clay.
No ceramics or lithics were recovered below 110 cm, and 57% of the ceramic was
found above 80 cm. Unit walls began collapsing at 70 cm.
Unit 36:
0-90 cm: 11 ceramic, 240+ shell, 155+ faunal, 4 rock, charcoal and burned clay. Of the
ceramic, 55% was found above 40 cm. Due to wall collapse, the provenience of
artifacts recovered after 50 cm may not be accurate.
Unit 37:
0-70 cm: 3 ceramic, 2 lithic, 200+ shell, 160+ faunal, 13 rock, 2 floral, and burned clay.
All of the ceramic was found above 20 cm, and no lithics were found below 50
CM.
Unit 38:
0-30 cm: 1 ceramic, 2 lithic, 60+ shell, 90+ faunal, 2 rock, charcoal, and burned clay.
All ceramic and lithics were recovered above 20 cm.
22 - 0 3�.
f t \• i i
U80 t `f((l i` i
n
ssa irk 1F {� u
A )
U$v
56t1d 41 P1 \�
® Locus boundary -"�-. 9a 43 Ss ae ' 55 B ` F •1 `i?.�'•
;= Artifact concentration T2 ) \ U6 x BU4
U42
A#1 Datum stake 55.71_
®U1 Test unit US
oP1 Shovel test pit
-T1 Trench a sa-7 (� j.e 54,
®U1 Test unit dug by L&Ll'�
#Sg 5a s
3x3-m unit by L&L �- „ a -' 4.5
Trench dug by L&L - - ` L-- — —Mr '-..
feet
Figure 6. Shell Midden, Locus 13, Site CA-RIV-3013.
Unit 39:
0-60 cm: 8 ceramic, 300+ shell, 293+ faunal, 3 rock, and burned clay. Of these, 75% of
the ceramics were found above 40 cm.
Unit 40:
0-50 cm: 7 ceramic, 40+ shell, 123+ faunal, 14 rock, and burned clay. Of the ceramic,
86% was found above 20 cm.
Unit 41:
0-50 cm: 1 ceramic, 1 lithic, 86+ shell, 15 faunal, 5 rock. Both the ceramic and the
lithic pieces were found between 20-30 cm.
Unit 42:
0-50 cm: 11 ceramic, 75+ shell, 68+ faunal, 10 rock, and burned clay. All of the
ceramic was recovered above 30 cm.
Unit 43:
0-50 cm: 8 ceramic, 60+ shell, 45 faunal, 13 rock, and burned clay. Of the ceramic,
88% was found above 30 cm.
Unit 44:
0-50 cm: 72+ shell, 65 faunal, 2 rock, and burned clay.
Shovel Test Pit 2: 4 ceramic, and burned clay.
L&L Trench 2: 144 ceramic, including one complete scoop/bowl, 36 lithic, 7 worked
bone awl or hairpin fragments, 2 groundstone, 204+ shell, 937+ faunal, 89 rock,
burned clay, and charcoal.
23 033
i
"Lbc `if
IX
. )z
®■ Locus boundary
Artifact concentration„t---
 Datum stake _ : !}� t \ ✓�
MU1 Test unit
MU47 2x2-m test unit Isz. `
>' C_! 1
,f x r
-T1 Trench �a r , r,fR(� '` !4 � k� �� ?-",,,-..ti--,� 1
feet
Figure 7. Fish Bone Feature, Locus 13, Site CA-RIV-3013.
Fish Bone Feature
Also located within Locus 13, this artifact concentration is illustrated in further detail in
Figure 7.
Unit 28:
0-100 cm: 16 ceramic, 1 groundstone, 9 shell, 615+ faunal, 11 rock, 8 glass, and burned
clay. Of the ceramic, 81% was found above 30 cm.
Unit 29:
0-100 cm: 20 ceramic, 1 lithic, 1 groundstone, 3 worked bone fragments, 310+ shell,
300+ faunal, 11 rock, and burned clay. Of these artifacts, 60% of the ceramics and
all of the worked bone and the lithic were found above 50 cm.
Unit 30:
0-70 cm: 13 ceramic, 1 lithic, 15 shell, 200+ faunal, 7 rock, and burned clay. Of these,
62% of the ceramics and the single lithic were recovered above 30 cm.
70-80 cm: No recovery.
Unit 32:
0-100 cm: 19 ceramic, 3 lithic, 11 shell, 1150+ faunal, 6 rock, and burned clay. All of
the lithics and 48% of the ceramic were found above 30 cm. No ceramics were
recovered below 70 cm.
Unit 33:
0-80 cm: 18 ceramic, 7 shell, 300+ faunal, 11 rock, and burned clay. Of the ceramics,
67% were found above 40 cm.
24 O `; q
Unit 47:
0-130 cm: 177 ceramic, 45 lithic, 2 shell beads, 1 tortoise shell pendant, 405+ shell, ca.
28,450 faunal (mostly fish bone), 13 floral, 40 rock, 1 glass, charcoal, burned clay,
and burned sand. All of the shell beads and the tortoise shell pendant, as well as
64% of the ceramic were found above 60 cm. The majority of the lithics were
found between 80-100 cm, which is unusual. This unit is anomalous for the site.
Unit 47 surface collection: 7 ceramic, 65 faunal.
Site CA-RIV-6140
Site CA-RIV-6140 was originally recorded in 1998 just to the north of the current project
area, on the adjacent Rancho La Quinta property, and described at the time as "a light
scatter of 20 ceramic sherds, 5 pieces of partially fired clay, and about a dozen pieces of
fire -affected rock covering an area 90 m x 85 m" (Love et al. 1999:17; Love and Tang
1999). Archaeological testing conducted on that portion of the site demonstrated that it
was a surface manifestation only, with no cultural materials below 10 cm (Love et al.
1999:21; Love and Tang 1999).
During this study, an extension of that site was discovered in the northeastern corner of
the project area (Fig. 3). A single test unit, Unit 20, was excavated at this location, and
the site area was surface -collected. Findings from these procedures are summarized
below.
Surface collection: 88 ceramic, i lithic, 70+ faunal, 20 rock, and burned clay.
Unit 20:
0-30 and 80-90 cm: 1 ceramic, 27 faunal. The single ceramic sherd was found on the
surface of the unit:.
30-80 and 90-100 cm: No recovery.
FIVE ARTIFACT CONCENTRATIONS
Five major concentrations of artifacts were identified within the project boundaries.
Three of these are contained within previously defined loci, while two were ;given
designations as separate loci.
Lithic Concentration (Locus 5)
This concentration, as mentioned above is encompassed by Locus 12 (Fig. 4), but was
given the designation of Locus 5. It consists primarily of a surface scatter of chipped
stone artifacts, and contains nearly half of all the lithic artifacts found at this site.
Ceramic and shell beads were also recovered from this area, but not in significant
numbers. The concentration measures roughly 60 m by 70 m, with its longest: axis
running east -west. It is located in a low open area at an elevation of 43 ft, and. is
surrounded by creosote and mesquite growth.
25
035
Because of its classification as a distinct locus, surface collection of this area was
conducted separately from that of Locus 12. The boundaries of the concentration were
defined during surface collection, and two units and three surface scrapes were placed
in the northeast portion of the concentration, where the highest number of lithics were
recovered. The excavation of Units 27 and 45, and Surface Scrapes 1, 9, and 1:1 was
undertaken to discern the depth of the lithic deposits. None of the units revealed any
great depth of the lithic concentration, as 30-40 cm was the deepest level bearing
cultural materials The discovery of artifacts at these levels were thought to be the
product of unit wall collapse. Three trenches dug by L&L, Numbers 8, 9, and 10, were
also located in this concentration, and bore very low amounts of lithics.
Cremation Feature (Locus 6)
This concentration is also located entirely within Locus 12 (Fig. 4), but was given its
own designation as Locus 6. The feature is comprised of shallow, scattered deposits of
cremation remains ca. 27 m in diameter. It is located in a low open area at an elevation
of 42 ft, and is bordered on its northern and eastern boundaries by creosote and
mesquite stands. The land rises three to 4 ft in elevation to the north and west of the
feature. The feature was originally encountered by L&L during the excavation of their
Trench 6.
Since this feature was defined as a discrete area of Locus 12, it was surface collected as
such, and the boundaries of the concentration were determined during this procedure.
Three surface scrapes and two units were excavated in this concentration. During
surface collection and excavation of Unit 18, it became apparent that a significant
amount of bone remained, resulting in the excavation of Surface Scrapes 4, 5, 8, and
three 1xl-m surface scrapes placed adjacent to Unit 46. These were employed in an
effort to discover the source of the bone deposits. No dense concentration or source
was found, and it was concluded that the surface deposits were a product of trench
disturbance, and that subsurface deposits were shallow and scattered. In support of this
assessment, much lower numbers of bone were recovered below 10 cm depth. In Unit
18, bones were recovered at depths of up to 90 cm, but these were thought to be the
product of wall collapse, a problem throughout most of its excavation.
Bead Concentration
This feature (Fig. 5) consists of a surface and subsurface concentration of shell beads,
and is located within Locus 11. Up to 109 shell beads were recovered from this area,
which constitute 79% of all shell beads found for the entire site. The concentration is
located in a relatively level area at an elevation of 33 ft. It lies between two dunes; the
large western dune runs along its west border, and a smaller dune rises to the east.
South and north of the concentration, the land continues on a low plane, with creosote
growth and trash covering the area. Trash was also found on the surface and down to
50 cm within units excavated within the concentration. The concentration is 12 m by
25 m, with its longest axis running northwest -southeast.
26 036
Due to heavy machinery activity and disturbance in the area, the beads were
presumably not found in their original deposition. Trenches excavated by L&L
facilitated the definition of the concentration boundaries, as two of them,. Trenches 4
and 5, closely border the feature. The west half of L&L's Trench 4 is located within the
boundary of the concentration, and recovered a high number of shell beads. Eastern
and southern boundaries of the concentration were determined by the absence of beads
in Units 48 and 50. Eleven surface scrapes, Numbers 16-26, and five units, Numbers 48-
52, were excavated in this concentration. Surface collection of this concentration was
included in the collection for Locus 11, and two shell beads were recovered from this
area. Several unique shell beads were recovered from the concentration, including a
small abalone disk with two holes, and several beads of a different species type than
normally found in this area. These unusual bead types were particularly prevalent in
Units 48 and 51.
Contaminated soil was encountered in the northern portion of the concentration in
Surface Scrape 26 by both L&L and CRM TECH. The contamination was encountered at
a depth of 10 cm by CRM TECH. Excavation of this area was suspended by both
companies due to health risks, which made definition of the concentration's northern
boundary uncertain.
Shell Midden
This concentration (Fig. 6) is located within Locus 13, and is defined by the heavy
concentration of shell in a roughly 8x30-m area, with its long axis running east -west.
The midden feature is located at an elevation of 55 ft, in a low flat area of the large
western dune. Directly north of the feature, the dune rises to an elevation of 67 ft, and
is covered in mesquite growth. The level area occupied by the feature continues
another 30 m to the south, where it rises again to a mesquite -topped slope. This area
continues only 7 m to the west, and culminates in a downward, rather than rising,
slope. East of the feature, the land rises slightly until it reaches the property boundary
70 m away. The shell midden was first identified by L&L during the excavation of their
Trench 2. This area contains 14 units, Numbers 23, 24, 26, and 34-44, as well as two
shovel test pits.
The cultural material found here consisted of ceramics and abundant anadonta shell.
High amounts of rodent and fish bone were also recovered. One projectile point was
found on the surface. L&L recovered a complete ceramic scoop/bowl and one biface
during trenching.
Units 24, 26, 34, 41, and 42 mark the perimeter of the feature, with each containing a
narrow lens of materials. Unit 26 marks the north border of the feature, Unit 24 the
west, 42 the south, 41 the southeast, and 34 the east.
Fish Bone Feature
This feature (Fig. 7) is located within Locus 13, and appears to be the remains of a fish
roasting pit, 7 m long north to south, and 8 m wide. It is comprised mainly of large
27
037
amounts of fish bone and charcoal, and was first identified during surface collection as
a 4x4-m concentration of these two items. The feature is located on the eastern slope of
the highest dune at the site, at an elevation of about 50 ft on the west side of Site CA-
RIV-3013, just a few feet above the ancient lake shore at 42 ft. The dune runs along a
northwest -southeast axis, and the eastern slope culminates 7 m east of the feature,
where a jeep track parallels the crest of the dune. Seven units were excavated at this
feature.
Unit 47 was placed in the center of the surface concentration, with 2x2-m dimensions.
The unit was originally dug as a surface scrape, but was continued to a depth of 130 cm
due to the large quantity of artifacts recovered (Fig. 8). A concentration of 23 fire -
affected rocks in no discernible pattern was found scattered between 30 and 70 cm. It is
possible that the rocks once constituted the lining of the roasting pit, but were moved
either after roasting took place or have since been disturbed. The great majority of the
artifacts recovered from this unit were charcoal and fish bone. Other artifacts included
a tortoise shell pendant found at 30-40 cm in the northeastern half of the unit, two shell
beads recovered at 40-50 cm, a scattering of bird bone, and several pieces of chipped
stone. A total of 40 flakes were found from 60 to 100 cm, in numbers generally
increasing with depth. The unit yielded no artifacts after 130 cm.
Figure 8. Wall of Unit 47 in the Fish Bone Feature. 28,450 fish bones were collected from this unit. Note
heavy concentration of charcoal.
28 030
Figure 9. Ceramic scoop or small bowl as found, intact, in Unit 29 at the Fish Bone Feature.
Units 28-33 were excavated to determine the boundaries of the feature. Nearly all six of
the units contained some portion of feature material. Unit 31 was the only unit bearing
a lack of any distinct cultural zone. Feature materials were found consistently between
30 to 80 cm in the remaining five units, and usually tapered to a narrow horizontal
band of 5 to 20 cm in the sidewall furthest from the feature. Unit 33 abutted the eastern
wall of Unit 47, and bore feature materials to a depth of 90 cm that tapered to a 10 cm
lens at 30 to 40 cm in the eastern sidewall.
Unit 29 was extended 1/2 m to the east to recover an intact ceramic bowl/scoop that was
found in the east wall at 40-50 cm (Fig. 9). Three fragments of a bone awl or hairpin
were found at this level as well. This unit also produced a high amount of anadonta
shell between 70-80 cm. Over 500 pieces were counted, and a sample of 310 was
collected.
DISCUSSION
Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM
TECH's preliminary conclusion on whether any of the archaeological sites, loci, and
features recorded on the Rancho Fortunado property meets the official definitions of a
"historical resource," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular
CEQA.
29 _ 0)1
DEFINITION
According to PRC §5020.1(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." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "historical
resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of
historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency
(Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)).
Regarding the proper criteria of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that
"a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources"
(Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it
meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) 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 values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
A local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC §5020.1(k), "means a list of
properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local
government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." For properties within the
City of La Quinta, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta
Municipal Code) provides for the establishment of a historic resources inventory as the
official local register. A historic resource may be considered for inclusion in the historic
resources inventory based on one of more of the following:
A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic,
political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or
B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or
C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of
construction, is a valuable example of the use of the indigenous materials or
craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer
or architect; or
D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical,
ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of
scientific value; or
E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings,
structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective
value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual
improvement. (LQMC §7.06.020)
30 _ 010
Pursuant to these statutory and regulatory guidelines, the two archaeological sites
recorded in the project area, CA-RIV-3013 and -9140, are evaluated under the criteria for
both the California Register and for the City of La Quinta's historic resources inventory.
The results of the evaluation are discussed below.
SITE EVALUATIONS
Site CA-RIV-3013
Site CA-RIV-3013, now consisting of 15 loci, is almost completely a surface site. From
all the units placed across this very large site (discounting the fish bone feature, which
is unique and is discussed below), the vast majority of the artifacts come from the top 20
cm or 8 in (Figs. 10-12). Counting only the units, disregarding the surface collections,
85% of the ceramics and 67% of the lithics came from 0-20 cm (Table 1). The animal
bone is distributed a little more deeply, but that is probably due to natural rodent bone
found in dunes that was not left by humans.
The pattern of artifact distribution repeats what was found at the adjacent Rancho La
Quinta sites (Love et al. 1999). Scatters of ceramics, lithics, fire -affected rock, burned clay
and charcoal are found across the surface but almost never is there a deep underlying
component.
Ceramic Artifact Distribution by Level
All Units except Fish Bone Feature
1800 —
tsoo 1538
1400-
1200
Total 1000 --::::::::
Count 800 —
600 —
400 180
200 191 b1---0
0
000-020 020-040 040-060 060-080 080-100 100-120 120-140
Level
Figure 10. Ceramic artifact distribution by level.
041
31
Faunal Artifact Distribution by Level
All Units except Fish Bone Feature
1600 1402
1400 -
1200
1000 —
Total
Count $00 " 608
soo 431
400 — 202
200 45
10
0 .
000-020 020-040 040-060 060-080 080-100 100-120 120-140
Level
Figure 11. Faunal artifact distribution by level.
-
Lithic Artifact Distribution
All Units except Fish Bone
76
by Level
Feature
80
70
—
60
50
Total
Count 40
30 --:�i:�
20
1 0—
-
--
-
�4
—':`':
11
8
3
0
000-020 020-040 040-060 060-080
Level
080-100 100-120
120-140
Figure 12. Lithic artifact distribution by level.
32 vatwa
,a
Table 1. Artifact Distribution by Level
(All Units exce t Fish Bone Feature)
Level
Ceramic
%
Faunal
%
Lithic
%
600-020 cm
1538
84.88%
1402
37.48%
76
67.26%
020-040 cm
880
9.93%
1043
27.88%
14
12.39%
040 060 cm
59
3.26%
608
16.25 /
8
7.68%
060-080cm
19
1.05%
431
11.52%
11
9.73%
080 100 cm
15
0.83%
202
5.40%
3
2.65%
100-120 cm
1
0.06%
45
1.20%
1
0.88%
120-140 cm
0
0.00%
10
0.27%
0
0.00%
1812
100.00%
3741
100.00% 1
113
100.00%
All artifacts have importance, to both scientific and Native American communities, but
the redundancy of the vast majority of the loci recorded here preclude the site from a
general evaluation as a significant "historical resource" as defined by CEQA. However,
within the overall site boundaries, five concentrations or features do meet CEQA
criteria for importance. They are discussed in the following sections.
Lithic Concentration (Locus 5)
Over half the total number of chipped stone pieces from the entire site was collected at
this locus. Some 290 items present the researcher with a invaluable opportunity to
expand our understanding of Cahuilla tool-making technology. Careful analysis of
these items will lead to a better understanding of Native strategies for living. The flake
and debitage attributes inform us regarding technology; and the material type (e.g.,
quartz, jasper, wonderstone, etc.) tells us where the material was originally quarried
and how far it has come to arrive at this site. With the potential for answering research
questions, and generating new ones, Locus 5 meets California Register Criterion 4 and
should therefore be considered to be a "historical resource."
Cremation Feature (Locus 6)
Numerous bone fragments were recovered that have the general size and shape of
human cremation remains, but that await detailed analysis by a qualified
zooarchaeolgist. The research potential in cremation features lies in their reflection of
religious beliefs and funerary customs. Personal items were often burned and buried
with the dead, sometimes cremations were moved and reinterred after original
burying, and sometimes more than one person was buried together. Careful analysis of
remains may tell us the age and sex of the individual(s).
But more important than the scientific data, of course, is the cultural and spiritual
values put on ancient interments by the living descendants, the local. Cahuilla people
of today, who greatly revere their ancestors and expect human remains to be treated
with proper dignity and respect. Taking the scientific and the cultural values together,
Locus 6 qualifies as a "historical resource."
33 ;1J
Bead Concentration
The bead concentration is highly unusual, puzzling, and enigmatic. Between L & L's
Trench 4 and CRM TECH's numerous units at this spot, more than 100 shell beads of
varying designs and styles were recovered. But the site seems to be highly disturbed
and it occurs below the old shoreline, at 33 feet elevation in a low trough between sand
dunes. They are probably not in their original location, but how they were deposited is
a mystery.
Nevertheless, even without good provenience, the range of shell ornament types,
including drilled abalone shell, speaks to long distance trade and to chronology. Are
the shells from the Pacific Coast or the Gulf of Mexico? Were they imported whole, or
manufactured locally? Are the bead styles from the Late Prehistoric Period or the
Archaic? These and other questions, at least partially answerable through careful study,
make the Bead Concentration eligible for the California Register under Criterion 4 and
therefore a "historical resource."
Shell Midden
Anadonta, or mussel shell, is ubiquitous to La Quinta shoreline sites, but finding real
midden, where thousands of mussels were baked or roasted or processed in some way
is rare. Like the fish remains mentioned above, there is great potential here to further
understand food procurement and diet. Finding a specialist to interpret these remains
will add to the present body of knowledge regarding shell fish consumption among the
ancient Cahuilla. Therefore, like the previously discussed concentrations or features,
the Shell Midden also qualifies as a "historical resource."
Fish Bone Feature
The fish bone feature is a remarkable find, with over 28,000 specimens preserved,
packaged, and ready to send to the zooarchaeology lab at UCLA for careful study. This
feature clearly speaks to subsistence, in particular, fishing practices, diet, seasonality of
occupation, and other questions regarding ancient lifeways. While abundant fish bone
have been found at numerous sites in the region, a collection of this magnitude is rare
and special. The Fish Bone Feature has great research potential and therefore, under
Criterion 4, meets California Register criteria for a "historical resource."
Site CA-RIV-6140
Being a surface manifestation only, with a limited number of artifacts and artifact types,
and being somewhat redundant when compared to neighboring sites, CA-RIV-6140
does not meet any criteria for eligibility to the California Register and does not qualify
as a "historical resource."
34 1. .1 0 ; J lq
PROJECT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
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."
Results of the archaeological field investigation indicate that five features or artifact
concentrations within Site CA-RIV-3013, including the Lithic Concentration,
Cremation Feature, Bead Concentration, Fish Feature and Shell Midden, appear eligible
for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and thus qualify as
"historical resources," as defined in CEQA. The proposed project's impacts on these
features or artifact concentrations, therefore, would constitute a significant effect on the
environment. Pursuant to PRC §21083.2, such effect to archaeological resources, when
it cannot be prevented by avoiding, capping, or designating the sites as conservation
easements, needs to be mitigated to a level less than significant, most commonly
through excavation.
CEQA also provides that mitigation by excavation is not to be required if testing or
studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential
information from and about the site (PRC §21083.2(d)). In this case, all five features
or concentrations have been excavated and collected. The scientific and cultural
values that make these features significant have been removed from the ground
and now reside in the upcoming laboratory analysis and report preparation.
Therefore, the proposed construction project will have no foreseeable effect at these
locations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing considerations, CRM TECH recommends that the City of La
Quinta may reach the following conclusions regarding the proposed project:
• Potential historicaa resources within and adjacent to the project area have been
properly identified and evaluated.
• While artifact analysis and final report preparation are still on -going, all necessary
archaeological field procedures associated with mitigation of project impacts at five
locations within Site CA-RIV-3013 have been completed.
• The City of La Quinta may reach a finding of "no effect" on historical resources.
• No part of the project area need be set aside or preserved based on archaeological
resources as known at this time.
• Due to the high sensitivity of sand dunes for buried cultural deposits, archaeological
monitoring should be required during grading and other earth -moving activities in
the project area.
35
CONCLUSION
The foregoing report has summarized the methods, results, and conclusions of research
procedures completed to date. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has
completed all necessary archaeological field work in the project area, including field
mapping, surface collection of artifacts, and the excavation of test units, surface scrapes,
and backhoe trenches. Preliminary results of the study indicate that five features or
artifact concentrations within Site CA-RIV-3013, designated Lithic Concentration,
Cremation Feature, Bead Concentration, Fish Feature and Shell Midden, meet the
official definition of "historical resources," as outlined in CEQA, and as such require
proper mitigation of project impacts. Such mitigation has been achieved by nearly
100% data recovery at these five locations, which was accomplished as part of the field
work for the current study. Therefore the proposed project will have no foreseeable
adverse effects to "historical resources." However, due to the high sensitivity for
buried cultural deposits, archaeological monitoring should be required during grading
and other earth -moving activities in the project area.
36 o + 6
REFERENCES
Hall, Barbara, and Leslie Nay Irish
1998 An Interim Report on the Phase II Archaeological Resources Assessment of
the 40± Acre Site, APN 649-100-015, City of La Quinta, County of Riverside,
California. Manuscript report prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc., for Oliphant &
Williams Associates, Inc., Palm Desert.
Laylander, Don
1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 3:3(1/2):1-138.
Love, Bruce
1996 Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Final 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.
Love, Bruce, Harry M. Quinn, Thomas A. Wake, Leslie Quintero, and David Largo
1999 Final Report: Archaeological Testing and Mitigation, Rancho La Quinta
Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file,
Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Love, Bruce, and Bai "Tom" Tang
1999 Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-614.0. On file, Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Rockwell, Thomas K
1995 Unpublished lecture given at the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
1997 Personal communication with the authors.
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., 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.
Wilke, Philip J.
1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley,
California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Riverside.
37 0 4%
APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
38 ft "
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Brace Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists)
Education
1986 Ph. D., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1981 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1976 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
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.
Professional Experience
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.
Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists.
Association of Environmental Professionals.
American Planning Association.
Society for American Archaeology.
Society for California Archaeology.
Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
39
GEOLOGIST/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Harry M. Quinn, M.S.
BLM Cultural Resources Use Perinit No. CA 99-01-013
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., Las 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.
1989 'Prehistoric Rock Art and Archaeology of the Southern California
Deserts," presented by Anne Duffield, UC Riverside Extension (Course No.
ANT X434.15), Palm Springs.
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.
1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates/Soil
and Testing Engineers, 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,
1995-1999; Basic Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1998; Environmental
Assessment Committee Chair, 1997-1999); Coachella Valley Historical Society; Malki
Museum; Southwest Museum; El Paso Archaeological Society; Ohio Archaeological
Society; Museum of Fur Trade.
Publications in Archaeology and History
Approximately fifty 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.
0-5
e
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Natasha L. Johnson, B.S.
Education
1996 B.S., Anthropology (with emphasis in archaeology), University of
California, Riverside.
Archaeological Field Experience
1999- Archaeological surveys, excavations, and monitoring; CRM TECH,
Riverside.
1998-1999 Excavations on the Vandenburg Air Force Base and the Metropolitan
Water District's Inland Feeder Project; Applied Earthworks.
1998 Excavation in the Lake Elsinore area; Chambers Group, Inc.
1997-1999 Archaeological surveys and excavations at Hart, the Anza-Borrego State
Park, the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base, and the Death Valley
National Park; Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.
1997-1998 Independent contractor for L. W. Reed & Associates, Pacific Pipeline
Project; :Duties included environmental training sessions for the
contractor's employees, archaeological monitoring, and inspection of the
contractor's adherence to C.P.U.C.-approved mitigation plans.
1997 Field assistant for archaeological field school; U.C. Riverside.
1996-1997 Roadside surveys on all Inyo and Mono County highways; Caltrans.
Archaeological Lab Experience
1996 Replication of bifacial tools, including techniques of production, analysis
of debitage, and heat treatment of materials; taught by Dr. Phil Wilke.
1995 Laboratory methods and theory, focusing in historical artifact
identification; taught by Dr. Scott Fedick.
1994 Lab analysis and floatation ON soil samples taken from Cahal Pech, Belize;
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Scott Fedick.
1994 Lab technician participating in the curation of historic and prehistoric
artifacts from the Bishop area; Caltr•ans.
Archaeological Field Schools
1996 Surveys and excavations in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
1994 Surveys and excavations in Mono County.
051
41
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren, B.S.
Education
1999 B.S., Anthropology with emphasis in Archaeology, University of
California, Riverside.
1998 Archaeological Field School, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire.
1996 A.A., Liberal Arts (including two intensive classes in field and laboratory
archaeology), San Diego City College.
Professional Experience
1999- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside.
Duties include surveying, sketch mapping, excavation, and supervision of
artifact cataloguing.
1998-1999 Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Research Unit, University of
California, Riverside.
Jobs included surveys and mapping; of Death Valley and Anza Borrego
State Parks, several excavation projects in MCAGGC Marine Base at
Twentynine Palms, California, and two months of cataloguing artifacts
from MCAGGC projects.
Laboratory and Field Experience
1998 Field Survey and Documentation course under direction of Phil Wilke.
Surveyed and mapped numerous prehistoric and historic sites in the
Mojave Desert and Riverside County.
1998 Archaeological Field School, Plymouth State College, New Hampshire
Excavated significant Paleoindian site, catalogued artifacts and analyzed a
sampling; of debitage and formed tools, helped with reorganization of lab.
1994-1995 San Diego City College courses under direction of Stephen Bouscaren.
Excavated Penasquitos Canyon site with prehistoric and historic
components, catalogued artifacts, co-authored analysis and report of
debitage assemblage.
42 0 5 4'�
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Daniel Ballester, B.A.
Education
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of
California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico (August to
December).
Professional Experience
1999- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A Environmental, San Diego.
• Two and a half months of excavations on Topomai village site, Camp
Pendleton.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas.
• Two weeks of excavations on a site on Red Beach, Camp :Pendleton,
and two weeks of survey in Camp Pendleton, Otey Mesa, and Encinitas.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California,
Riverside.
• Two weeks of survey in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Eureka
Valley, Death Valley National Park.
43
05,13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
ITEM:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT:
RECOMMENDATION::
NOVEMBER 17, 1999
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND SITE EVALUATION
REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 29436
NORTH SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, EAST OF
COACHELLA DRIVE
US HOME CORPORATION
CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL)
The Community Development Department recommends that this item be continued
to the next meeting on December 16, 1999.
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
C:hpc rpt tt 29436 ph Il.wpd
Submitted By:
cl, "-k- - / d' )L
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
054
BI #C
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1999
ITEM: CITY COUNCIL PARTICIPATION WITH THE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY IN THE DESIGN AND COST OF A PLAQUE
RECOGNIZING THE TRADITION/HACIENDA DEL. GATO AS
A HISTORIC RESOURCE
LOCATION: SOUTH TERMINUS OF WASHINGTON STREET AND 52ND
AVENUE
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
BACKGROUND:
At the last Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting on October 21, 1999,
Commissioner Irwin stated the La Quinta Historical Society is preparing a plaque for
the Traditions' preservation and incorporation of Hacienda Del Gato into their project.
She hoped the HPC would participate in the purchase and presentation of the plaque.
DISCUSSION:
In order to financially participate in the plaque purchase, the HPC must request the
City Council allocate funds. The HPC can recommend to the City Council that they
be the body to work jointly with the La Quinta Historical Society in the purchase,
design, and presentation of the plaque, with the amount not to exceed $500.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 99- , recommending to the City Council financial and other
participation in the Traditions plaque, with the dollar amount not to exceed $500.00.
Prepared by:
b . �5 a>-�
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
i
c� -
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
05
C:hpc rpt tradition plaque.wpd
BI #D
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1999
ITEM: PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED PALM OASIS TRAILHEAD PROJECT
LOCATION: THE SOUTH END OF THE LA QUINTA COVE
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
BACKGROUND:
This report presents the findings of a Phase I (survey -level) cultural resources study of a
less than one acre property located in an open field to the south of the La Ouinta Cove
area, termed the "Palm Oasis" which is proposed for use as a trailhead facility.
The records search conducted for this project indicated that the property had not been
previously surveyed for cultural resources and that no cultural resource; had been
identified on or near it in the past. A field reconnaissance further indicated that no
archaeological/historical sites were present on the property and that the property had been
severely impacted by previous earthmoving activities.
No known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project. It is extremely
unlikely that any intact buried resources are present. No further archaeological work is
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 99-__ accept the Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the proposed
Oasis Trailhead project.
Attachment:
1. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the proposed Oasis Trailhead Report.
Prepared by:
vX�
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
05a
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC Rpt-Plm Oasis.wpd
BI #D — ATTACHMENT
Phase I Archaeological Assessment
for the Proposed Palms Oasis
Trailhead Project,
La Quinta, California
PreF ared for:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared by:
James Brock, MA, RPA
Novem der 1999
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: La Quinta
Acreage: <1.0
Key Words: La Quinta, Negative Archaeological Survey
AAG Job A o: 991122
P.O. BOX 491, PIONEERTOWN, CA 92268-0491
Tel: (760) 228-1142 o Fax: (760) 339-4002
E-mail: archadvgrpA'-.ol.com
. - - 1R's-I
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a Phase I archaeological survey of a small (less
than one acre) property located at the south end of the La Quinta Cove area, in the
City of La Quinta, California. This property, termed the "Palms Oasis," is
proposed for use as a trailhead facility.
The records search conducted for this project indicated that the property had not
been previously surveyed for cultural resources and that no cultural resources had
been identified on or near it in the past. A field reconnaissance further indicated
that no archaeological/historical sites were present on the property and fiat the
property had been severely impacted by previous earthmoving activities.
No known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project. It is
extremely unlikely that any intact buried resources are present. No further
archaeological work is recommended.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the: findings of a Phase I (survey -level) cultural resources study of a less than
one acre property located in an open field to the south of the La Quinta Cove area. in the City of
La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4).
An archaeological records search, archival research, and a field reconnaissance were conducted
for the project. Fieldwork entailed a systematic, intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project
area. The project was conducted by Archaeological Advisory Group for the City of La Quinta
and was undertaken in compliance with the City's own cultural resource requirements for
development projects. These requirements are intended to fulfill those aspects of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended) which pertain to the management of cultural
resources that may be impacted by development projects sponsored by state or local government
agencies, or by private developments requiring a discretionary permit or license. Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act may also be applicable.
Ar
.�ce�ae'r V o s nd Pal
r�
•RanEh.
Myo a
a
O
? _ ✓ )1
'. L •ry -�. iN'
loi
I❑
a E. ..
�`'—
i
!
❑
l -
itt lei siir¶s l
OUeI ')N � �
�t ater�
�
INn RE.
\ Raffia to
..�TAC
�✓
� o
6M
STUDY AREA
V 1G V ^vEm
p a
'-S w R
Ran
°�
RE
11
>
k Tfterm
1 A
6
hS��
r
rr
i
ch,
V T
m
Nrgtrting
�•L
TONR sm nR
e� MW1�i Li� �� i
4 4�
\�Cem
i L �N IAN FS T
nk f
r5
ta
i n ,✓ 1�. e� -L...- -.. ...'(�`
.,.tea-,_
0 MILES
10 `~4as
I AO
0 KILOMETERS
15
Figure 1. General location of the project area plotted on a portion of the USGS 1 250,000
Western United States Series Santa Ana, California map (1959, revised 1979).
2 ®5q
0 Feet 2500 La Quints
�Ilnn
0 Meters 1000ITT
33B 11
E I
K `�
\u STUDY AREA'
� / I
,<81
I
` !n
�925�
I
Figure 2. Specific location of the project area plotted on portion of the USGS 7.5' La Quinta,
California topographic quadrangle (1959, photorevised I980).
3
Q��
Wo
4
This report was prepared in accordance with the recommended contents and format described in
the California State Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a) (California Department of Parks
and Recreation 1989).
The Principal Investigator and sole researcher for this study was James Brock. Mr. Brock's
qualifications are presented in Appendix 1.
Field notes and other materials pertaining to this study are on file with Archaeological Advisory
Group (AAG Job No. 991122). No artifacts were observed or collected during the study.
SETTING
NATURAL SETTING
The study area is a small rectangular -shaped parcel located on the Beat Creek flood plain, south
of "The Cove" area, within the City of La Quinta in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County,
California (Figures 1 and 2). The property measures approximately 70 by 30 meters.
The study area falls within the southwest quarter of Section 13 of Township 6 South, Range 6
East, SBBM, as shown on the USGS 7.5' La Quinta, California topographic quadrangle sheet
(Figure 2). The study area elevation is 400 feet above mean sea level,(amsl). Most prehistoric
habitation sites in La Quinta are associated with the ancient Lake Cahuilla and fall at an
elevation of under 100 feet amsl. This area would not have had strong associations with the lake,
which had a highwater stand of 42 feet amsl.
The boundaries of the property are not distinct in the field. The recent planting of a grove of
palm trees in a rectangular configuration defines the extent. With the exception of a dirt track
along the western border, there is no delineation of the borders at present.
The project area lies within the rock and boulder strewn alluvial floodplain of the Bear Creek
drainage. Soil of this area comprises a gritty gray -tan sand with gravel, rocks, and boulders.
Bear Creek was channelized in the mid-1980s with the creation of a major flood control channel
250 meters to the west of the study area. The water control project heavily impacted most of the
Bear Creek alluvial plain, including the study area. Bear Creek would be the closest natural
water source, although it only flows intermittantly.
Prior to impaction by the flood control project, native vegetation in the vicinity of the study area
would have comprised a Creosote Scrub community. Plants typical of this community are
creosote (Larrea tridentata), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), burrobush (Ambrosia dumosa),
and dicoria (Dicoria caneseens). Animal species of the area include cottontail (Syvilagus
audubonii), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), woodrat (Neotoma spp.), pocket mouse
(Perognathus spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), scorpion (Hadrurus spp,), Western Shovel -nosed
Snake (Chionactic occipitalis), Sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), Desert Iguana (Dipsosaurus
5
06A
dorsalis), Side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Say's
Phoebe (Sayornis saya), Gambel's Quail (Callipepla gambehi), Common Raven (Corvus corax),
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Lesser Nighthawk
(Chordeiles acutipennis), and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius).
The study area falls within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone, as does approximately 60% of
Cahuilla territory (Bean and Saubel 1972:12). This zone extends from the desert floor (below
sea level) to the pinyon juniper belt (about 3500 feet amsl). The Coachella Valley, due to its
placement on the eastern side of the Peninsular ranges (San Jacintos and Santa Rosas), is blocked
from receiving moisture moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean. This blockade results in low
rainfall of generally less than 5 inches of precipitation annually. f'ut only does this region have
little rainfall, but it also is one of the hottest deserts on the conti., nt, having a mean maximum
temperature in July that easily exceeds 100' (Bailey 1966:42).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Period
Research on the occupation and use of the region by humans thri,ubhout what is referred to as
the Prehistoric Period (;time preceding contact with Europeans) o `Native American history has
been ongoing. Currently, the chronological sequence presented by Warren (1984) and Warren
and Crabtree (1986) is thought to be the most accurate and inclusive for the region. This
sequence includes the Lake Mojave, Pinto, Gypsum, Saratoga Springs, and Shoshoean cultural
periods.
Proto-Historic Period
Desert Cahuilla have inhabited the Coachella Valley region for at least the last 1000 years. They
are a Takic speaking people who are more closely culturally tied with coastal and Colorado
River groups than with most other Mojave desert peoples. First known contact with the Cahuilla
by a European was during the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition in 1774-1776. They were
largely ignored by the Spanish until the establishment of the Asistencias San Ant6nio de Pala
(1816), Santa Ysabel (1818), and San Bernardino (1830). Through these mission outposts the
Spanish managed to indirectly influence Cahuilla religious beliefs and culture.. During the
Mexican occupation of California, the Cahuilla were largely left alone by intruders. It was not
until 1853, when the Southern Pacific Railroad began surveying the Coachella Valley for a
possible railroad route that, the Cahuilla were again bothered. By this point the lands inhabited
by the Cahuilla had become desired by Americans. In response to this, President Ulysses S.
Grant began allotting Cahuilla lands in 1875 to give to American settlers. It was (luring this
period when the removal of the Cahuilla to government reservations began. Ten reservations
were created that affected the Cahuilla; of these, four are in the Coachella Valley.
6
063
RECORDS AND LITERATURE RESULTS
Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological site records search for the project was conducted by the Eastern Information
Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at the University of California,
Riverside (see Appendix 2). The records search indicated that the study area had not been
previously surveyed for cultural resources. Only two previous archaeological surveys, both
pertaining to flood control projects, had been conducted within a one -mile radius of the study
area (Lando 1979, Swenson 1979). Both of these surveys were negative.
Three prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within a one -mile radius of the study
area. These consist of a trail (CA-RIV-4099) and two cairn fields (CA-RIV-5525 and CA-RIV-
5801) that are believed to be associated with the hunting of bighorn sheep. These three: resources
are located at the base of the mountains over one half mile from the study area.
The record search indicated that the area in the vicinity of the subject property is a region of
moderate archaeological sensitivity.
Archival Research
A brief check of archival sources on file at Archaeological Advisory Group was conducted for
this project.
The US General Land Office plat map for 1905 (compiled 1855-1903) shows no cultural
development in the vicinity of the study area. The USGS 1904 1:125,000 Indio map also shows
no human activity in the area under consideration. The US Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro
Peak 1:62,500 quadrangle furthermore shows no cultural activity on the study area, although the
La Quinta Cove subdivision has been laid out in portions of the northern half of Section 13
(Figure 5).
As a further step in the research, the following "heritage property" registers were checked
for this tract: The National Register of Historic Places (American Association for State and
Local History 1991), California Historical Landmarks (California Department: of Parks and
Recreation 1990), and California Inventory of Historic Places (California Department of
Parks and Recreation 1976). Additional registers were checked during the records search at
UC Riverside. No historical resources listed in these publications were found to be specific to
the study area environs.
The records search and background research indicated that the study area is in a location that
is highly sensitivity for prehistoric resources and moderately sensitive for historical resources.
7 �;y
Figure 5. A portion of the 1941 US Army Corps of Engineers 15' Toro Peak map with the study
area indicated by the arrow.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Due to the limited size and scope of this study and the fact that the findings were negative, a
formal research design was not prepared.
METHODS
FIELDWORK TECHNIQUES
A systematic pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted by the author on November 1,
1999. The property was walked in 3 to 5 meter interval transects, beginning at the northeast
corner of the study area and ending at the southeast. No adverse conditions restricted the survey.
In accordance with State Historic Preservation Office guidelines, all cultural materials over 45
years in age were considered for potential cultural resource value.
FINDINGS
No prehistoric, historical, or ethnographic sites, features, isolated artifacts, or cultural landscapes
were located on the study area in the course of this research.
DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATION
Two primary factors account for the paucity of sites in the vicinity of the study area. First,
prehistoric use of the La Quinta area generally focused on the exploitation of resources
associated with the ancient Lake Cahuilla. This lake had a high water stand of about 42 feet
amsL The present study area is located at 400 feet amsl and would have been over two miles
south of the shoreline of the lake. Second, the study area is in a flood plain. The Cahuilla and
earlier Native Americans might have inhabited this area due to its proximity to the Bear Creek
water source but ground disturbance by centuries of flooding activity could have easily destroyed
any traces of pre-ious occupation.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SITE EVALUATION
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an archaeological resource is
significant if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) it is associated with an event or person of
recognized significance in California or American history, or recognized scientific importance in
0
0a'�7
prehistory; (b) it can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and
useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research
questions; it has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last
surviving example of its kind; it is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic
integrity; or (e) it involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be
answered only with archaeological methods.
Additional criteria of significance is found in eligibility for the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHP), which is based upon the criteria used for Federal undertakings whereby
resources are evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution. to the broad
patterns of history.
B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
D. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory.
No potentially significant archaeological or historical resources have been identified on the study
area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
No cultural resources have been identified on the study area. It is very unlikely that buried
cultural resources are present because of previous ground disturbing activity on the property. In
this researcher's opinion, archaeological monitoring of earthmoving activities for the: proposed
project is not necessary.
In the unlikely event that cultural resources are located during grading or trenching, construction
activities must be halted in the vicinity of the find and an archaeologist qualified as a Principal
Investigator by the City of La Quinta must be consulted. Similarly, if human remains of any
kind are unearthed, construction must stop immediately and the proper authorities, including the
County Coroner and a professional archaeologist, should be notified. Construction should not
continue in the vicinity of the findings until these authorities have given a notice to proceed.
10
REFERENCES CITED
American Association for State and Local History
1991 The National Register of Historic Places. American Association for State and
Local History, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bailey, Harry P.
1966 Weather of Southern California. California Natural History Guides 17.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum,
Banning, California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Places. California Office of Historic
Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1989 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents
and Format. California Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1990 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento.
Lando, Richard
1979 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance (Stage II) of Flood Contrail Alternatives
Proposed for the Whitewater River Basin, Riverside County, California. Ms. on
file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Swenson, James D.
1979 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Areas of the Proposed La Quinta
Flood Control Project, Riverside County, California. Ms. on file, Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339-
430. Academic Press, New York.
Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.
D'Azevedo, pp. 183-193. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11,
William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
James Brock (Principal Investigator)
• BA (Anthropology) UC Santa Barbara
• MA (Archaeology) University of Durham, Durham, England
• Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), i.e. listed on Registry of Professional
Archaeologists, formerly the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA). SOPA
certifications in field research, theoretical/archival research, and historical archaeology.
• 19 years of experience as a Principal Investigator on cultural resource management projects
throughout southern California
®�9
12
APPENDIX 2: RESULTS OF RECORDS SEARCH
13
D-70
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Jim Brock
Archaeological Advisory Group
P.O. Box 491
Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
November 4, 1999
12S #2133
Re: Cultural Resources Records Search for the Palm Oasis Trailhead Project
Dear Mr. Brock:
We received your request on November 3, 1999 for a cultural resources records search for
the project designated the Palm Oasis Trailhead located in Section 13, T.6S, R.6E, 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 not been conducted on the
subject property. Two cultural resources surveys have been conducted that are adjacent to
or within a one -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 have been recorded within a one -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. A red dot associated with a
primary number (green) indicates an isolated artifact or an incomplete archaeological site
record, or an historical resource.
Mr. Brock
November 4, 1999
Page 2
In addition to the California Historical Resources Information System, the following were
reviewed:
The National Register of Historic Places Index (03/30/99): None of the
properties or sites are listed.
Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
(listed through 3/1/99): 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 2/26/99): None.
A review of 1941 USGS Toro Peak 15' topographic map, indicated no historic
structures/features present. The General Land Office plat maps are 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
BI #E
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1999
ITEM: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE POSSIBLE ACQUISITION, USE,
LOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
MUSEUM
LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA AND
AVENIDA MENDOZA
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
BACKGROUND:
The City Council requested the Historic Preservation Commission review and comment on the
possible acquisition, use, location, and expansion of the Historical Society Museum located at the
southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Mendoza. Regarding the first two issues,
acquisition and use, does the Commission recognize any advantages in the Museum being a publicly -
owned facility? If so, should its use be expanded to include paleontological and archaeological
finds; agricultural and homestead history; arts, entertainment and cultural heritage; golf history and
other uses?
Comments should also be given as to possibly moving the Historical Society Museum building, to
either the Civic Center Campus, or the parcel located at the northeast corner of Avenida La Fonda
and Avenida Buena Ventura, immediately west of the Senior Center. Consideration of the relocation
by the Commission is due to the museum buildings' listing on the City's Historic Survey with a
National Register of Historic Places status code "5S1". This designation means that the building is
not eligible for the National Register, but is eligible for local designation.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that a resource eligible for, or included in, a local
register of historical resources shall be presumed historically and\or culturally significant.
Relocation may be considered an adverse change in the significance. The building is historically
significant because the building provided real estate office space for sale of Cove properties.
Located immediately to the east is another historic building that served as the lumber yard for the
houses in the Cove. Together these buildings maintain an historic context.
As stated in the U.S. Department of the Interior document titled "Moving Historic Buildings"
"Moving a historic building is sometimes the only way to save it from demolition, but such an action
should be undertaken only as a last resort when all other preservation options have been exhausted.
When a historic building has been moved, it loses its integrity of setting and its `sense of place and
time' - important aspects of the historic character of a building and its environment."
A third issue for Commission consideration: even if the building is moved or retained in its present
location, is there a need for additional square footage beyond the buildings 819 square feet.
Consideration shall be given to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation if new
buildings, or if additions to the existing building are proposed. These standards will ;help to ensure
preservation of the distinctive character of the historic building and its site, while allowing for
reasonable change to meet new needs. The Standards encompass not only modifications to the
building exterior, but also related landscape features and the building's site and environment.
Additionally, new construction shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide comments to the City Council regarding the possible acquisition, use, relocation and
expansion of the Historical Society Museum.
Prepared and Submitted by:
Christine diIorio, Planning Manager
074