Loading...
2000 01 06 HPC0j O� � C �.awti5 4a�� Ey OF TK�� HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION The Special Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California January 6,2000 3:00 P.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2000-001 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 November 17, 1999 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for Environmental Assessment 99-389 for General Plan Amendment 99-064, Zone Change 99-092, Specific Plan 99-040, and Tentative Tract 29323 located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. Applicant: Mr. Wade Ellis Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Associates B. Phase II 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 0 C. Phase III Archaeological Assessment of Site CA-RIV 2936 in Specific Plan 99-036; located northwest of the intersection of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road and the north side of Highway 111, 350 feet east of Adams Street. Applicant: Troll-Woodpark Company (Scott Gayner) Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech (Bruce Love) D. Phase I Historic/Archaeological Assessment for Future Commercial Development located at the northwest corner of Highway I I I and Washington Street. Applicant: Madison Development (Mr. Ed Alderson) Archaeological Consultant: CRM Tech (Bruce Lowe) VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT 00 HPC/AGENDA MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 17, 1999 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3:00 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. 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 October 21, 1999. Commissioner Irwin asked that reference to "The Tradition" be changed to "Tradition"under Commissioner Items Item #C There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Irwiri to approve the Minutes of October 21, 1999, as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report for Tentative Tract 28964• located on the north side of 50 Avenue and Jefferson Street. Applicant: Affiliated Construction. Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPCl 1-17-99.wpd 003 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 17. 1999 2. Commissioner Mitchell asked how the burial cremation remains would be handled. Mr. Bruce Love stated they would contact the Indian Tribes to see what they wanted. They had been in contact with Mark Benitiz regarding the remains, but at this point they are not sure the Coroner's Office had any of the remains. It needs to be clarified and once it is they will make arrangements to have them interned and prepare a final report: for the Commission. 3. Commissioner Irwin asked if this was the same property as reviewed before and if the boundaries were the same. The previous concerns were the "human- like" remains and whether they had been sent to Riverside for analysis. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was a requirement that they be sent to a Zooarchaeologist. Mr. Love stated that at this point they have not been sent to UCLA for analysis, but they have done an extensive survey. Mr. Oliphant stated the previous archaeologist on the project had stated the remains were so fine they were assumed to be human. Commissioner Irwin stated they were reported as being "human -like" and the Commission was very concerned about the disposition of the bones. She was pleased with the report and her only concern is the disposition of the remains. 4. Commissioner Puente stated the area where the remains were found was very large and should be taken seriously. The City needs to know what has happened with the bones that were collected. Mr. Love stated that everything collected by L&L Archaeology had been turned over to them and they had cataloged all the material. The bones will be sent to UCLA and analyzed. Staff stated the analysis would be a part of the final report as the project is conditioned to do so before the first building permit can be issued. 5. Chairman Wright stated this appears to be a very rich artifact area and he is confident with Mr. Love's work. He asked if Mr. Love believed any area should have additional studies. Mr. Love stated that all the areas had been surveyed and material collected, but more artifacts will be found during the grading. 6. Commissioner Puente asked what the Native American's preference has been. Mr. Love stated they traditionally wanted the artifacts collected and analyzed and any remains turned over to them for teburial. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mitchell/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 99-027 accepting the Interim Archaeological Testing and Mitigation Report for Tentative Tract 28964, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. C:AMy Documents\WPD0CS\11PC11-17-99.wpd -2- 004 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 17, 1999 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. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated staff was recommending this report be continued to the next meeting. 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to continue this to the next meeting. Unanimously approved. C. Recommend to the City Council Participation with the Historical Society in the Design and Cost of a Plaque Recognizing Tradition/Hacienda del Gato as .I Historic Resource located at the south terminus of Washington Street and 52id Avenue. Applicant: La Quinta Historical Society. Commissioner Irwin withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 99-028 recommending to the City Council financial and other participation in the Tradition plaque, with the dollar amount not to exceed $500.00. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Irwin rejoined the Commission. D. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed, Palm Oasis Trailhead Project: located at the south end of the La Quints Cove area. Applicant: City of La Quinta. Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock) Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Mitchell stated, based on the report, this project would not have any impact on cultural resources. Commissioner Irwin agreed and stated the area had been subjected to so many floods over the years that the likelihood of anything being found was unlikely. uQJ C:\My Documcuts\WPDOCS\HPC71-17-99.wpd -3- •.. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 17, 1999 4. Chairman Wright stated this was a good project and he supported it. He agreed that a lot of excavation work has been done in this area and the probability of anything being found was minimal. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mitchell/Puente to adopt Minute Motion 99-029 accepting the Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed Palm Oasis Trailhead project. E. Review and Comment on the possible acouisition. use. location and expansion of the Historical Society Museum; located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Mendoza. Applicant: City of U Quinta. 1. Commissioner Irwin withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Mr. Joe Irwin, representing the La Quinta Historical Society, stated the Society has planned a public meeting on December T' to seek input. As of now the Society has no position regarding the issues mentioned as they had not had time to formulate any ideas. There current vision has been to pay off the mortgage, but have come to realize the City has both the financial and human resources to bring more things to pass than they would be able to. After the public meeting the Board will meet and make a decision. 4. Commissioner Mitchell stated one of the biggest issues has been what to do with the artifacts collected from of the surveys being required. Is the Society going to be a curation facility? Mr. Irwiq stated it is part of their vision. Should the plans with the City go forth, they would want to transfer title of the Museum to the City and lease it back from the City. Commissioner Mitchell asked if they would want to work with College of the Desert or the new four year college. Mr. Irwin stated they had given no thought to the matter. Commissioner Mitchell stated he was looking for partners to help out financially. 5. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked the Commission to review the staff report and go over each issue. a. Publically owned facility - Commissiorter Mitchell stated the Museum should be governed by a government facility as there are State and Federal guidelines to follow in regard to curation. He C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\HPC I 1-17-99.wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 17, 1999 would want to get away from private individuals having any control over the artifacts. Mr. Irwin stated the Boatd had been talking with the City about an operating agreement to set out guidelines. Commissioner Mitchell suggested a Memorandum of Understanding. Commissioner Puente stated she agrees with Commissioner Mitchell as it is a good idea. Chairman Wright stated the Historical Society has been a great asset to the City. Every fund raiser they have had has been to pay the mortgage and in his opinion it would be better to have a lease back agreement with the City so the Society could concentrate on more important things. b. Moving the Building - Commissioner Puente stated it would require a different and larger building and she would not agree to moving the existing building. Mr. Irwin stated that he recognizes that if the building was moved it would put it at risk. Chairman Wright stated that as to moving the building he would be against it. He suggested that if the Museum were left in its current location the City should consider closing the street. Mr. Irwin stated they are not in favor of moving the building, but if they were to expand the current building, parking becomes a big issue. If the street were closed off and the City could acquire the property next door, it would be of a help. C. Paleontological and Archaeological Finds - Commissioner Mitchell stated he had no comment or concerns. His only concern is in regard to the curation so that the artifacts could be left in the Valley. 6. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated an analysis had been done regarding the parking that would be needed. The City requirement would be one space per 300 square feet. Mrs. Barbara Irwin stated the building was built in 1934 and does not predate the La Quinta Hotel. It had been the administration building for the housing development for the Cove. The two story building next door was the lumber yard for that project. Commissioner Irwin rejoined the Commission. C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPCI1-17-99.wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 17. 1999 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on December 16, 1999. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 3:44 p.m. November 17, 1999. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Betty J. Sawyer Executive Secretary 008 CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\HPC11-17-99.wpd -6- HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 6, 2000 ITEM: PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-389 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-064, ZONE CHANGE 99-092, SPECIFIC PLAN 99-040, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 29323 LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE APPLICANT: MR. WADE ELLIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND: An Initial Study for a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for a proposed general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan, and tentative tract on 117 acres to allow 379 residential single family lots and a large common/retention area. As a part of the Environmental Assessment, an archaeological assessment report has been submitted. The study were prepared by Archaeological Associates at the request of Warner Engineering. DISCUSSION: The Phase I cultural resource or archaeological assessment report includes a records search at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside and field survey of the property. The records search found one prehistoric site (RIV-1303) and a portion of a second (RIV-1638) to lie.within the eastern margin of the project area. A portion of a third site (RIV-1769) was tentatively identified along the southern boundary (Fred Waring Drive.) The field survey resulted in the discovery of a previously unknown prehistoric site, RIV-6349, and three isolates. Artifacts from these sites and isolates primarily included potsherds, shell, shell beads, bone, lithics, ground and chipped stone, and fire -affected rock. 000 C:hpc rpt sp 99-040.wpd The report states there is no indication of a subsurface deposit or additional surface artifacts (pottery, ground stone, or chipped stone) on Sites RIV-1303 and RIIV-1638. No evidence of Site RIV-1769 extending from the property was found during the field survey. The three isolates consisted of one or two pottery sherds per isolate. There was no evidence of other archaeological material or subsurface deposit. The new Site RIV-6349, is located in the southwest corner of the study area atop a high dune. The site is best described as a discrete scatter of hundreds of small mammal bones, the majority of which are fragmented and burgled. The site: appears to be a cooking area possibly associated with RIV-1303 or RIV-1638, based on the types of bone and bone fragments, and the size of the scatter. They do not believe any of the bones are human, but it cannot be ruled out until the bones are analyzed. The report concludes that a Phase II test program be conducted on the site. Under Section VI Discussion and Management Considerations C.RIV-6349, reference is made to Appendix K of CEQA. CEQA has since been updated and Appendix K is no longer a part of the document. Therefore, staff is recommending the text be amended accordingly. Secondly, Section 21083.2 is not part of CEQA, but the Public Resources Code. Therefore, this also shall be incorporated into the report. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , accepting : The archaeological assessment report titled, "An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323. a 117± acre parcel, located immediately northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. La Quinta, Riverside County", as prepared and recommended by Archaeological Associates, for Environmental Assessment 99-389, in partial compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Phase II test program for the site RIV-6349 shall include the following: a. Conducting a Shovel Test Pit program to delineate the boundaries of the feature. b. Excavate the entire feature using standard hand techniques and utilizing 1 x 1 meter test units or fractions thereof. C. Sending collected bone to a Zooarchaeological Lab for analysis. d. Complete a narrative report complete with statements of significance and recommendation for further work (if appropriate.) Qhpc rpt sp 99-040.wpd - 1 O 2. Revise Section VI Discussion and Management Considerations C.RIV- 6349 deleting reference to Appendix K and replacing with Section 15126.4(b)(a) of CEQA and specifying Section 21083.2 is from the Public Resources Code. 3. A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all grubbing and grading activities. 4. A final report shall be submitted and approved by the HPC prior to issuance of the first building permit. Attachment: Confidential archaeological assessment report titled, "An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 29323 a 1 17 + Acre Parcel Located Immediately Northwest of the Intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. La Quinta, Riverside County" (Commissioners only) Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Czhpc rpt sp 99-040.wpd "Iorio, Manager oil AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT 29323, A 117+ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WIRING DRIVI's, LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY by Robert S. White Laurie S. White Archaeological Associates P.O. Box 180 Sun City, CA 92586 (909)244-1783 FAX 244-0084 for Mr. Wade Ellis Wade G. Ellis Trustee 41865 Boardwalk, Suite 212 Palm Desert, CA 92211 August 31, 1999 Study Area USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle: La Quinta Study Area Acreage: 117+acres KEYWORDS: Survey, Coachella Valley, La Quinta, Myoma Dunes, Riverside County The undersigned certifies that the attached report is a true and accurate description of the results of an ARCHAEOLOGICAL survey described herei - -- R©bert S. White S- ) 7 Principal Investigator I P J A 012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Management Summary ui I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SETTING 1 A. Study Area Location and Environment 1 B. Cultural Setting 6 III. RESEARCH DESIGN 10 A. Previous Research . 10 B. Research Goals 11 IV. METHODS 11 A. Literature/Archival Research 11 B. Field Survey 19 V. FINDINGS 20 A. Previously Recorded Sites . 20 B. New Resources 23 VI. DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 25 A.RIV-1303 & RIV-1638 25 B. RIV-1769 25 C. RIV-6349 26 D. Isolates 1,2, & 3 26 E. Archaeological Monitoring 27 REFERENCES CITED 30 APPENDIX A: Personnel Qualifications APPENDIX B: Records Search Results -i- 013 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Regional location of the project area as indicated . 2 on a portion of the USGS Santa Ana 1:250,000 scale Topographic Map Sheet. Figure 2. Study area plotted on a portion of the USGS. 5 La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. Figure 3. Locations of archaeological resources as 21 illustrated on Tentative Tract Map 29323. This map is confidential and not for public distribution. Figure 4. Locations of archaeological resources indicated 22 on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. This map is confidential and not for public distribution. LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of 16 the study area. LIST OF PLATES Page Plate I. Top: Looking south from south central portion 28 of property. Bottom: Looking west from midway along northern boundary. Plate H. Top: Looking west along Fred Waring Drive 29 from Jefferson Street. Bottom: Close-up of bone scatter at RIV-6349. U1� MANAGEMENT SUMMARY At the request of Warner Engineering and on behalf of Mr. Wade Ellis (Project Sponsor), Archaeological Associates has undertaken a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of I I7+acres of vacant land identified as Tentative Tract 29323. The study area is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in La Quinta, Riverside County. Presently, project proponents desire to annex the property to the City of La Quinta and develop it into three subdivisions totaling approximately 380 residential parcels. The purpose of this study was to identify all potentially significant cultural resources situated within the boundaries of the study area. This information is needed since adoption of the plan could result in adverse effects upon locations of archaeological or historical importance. Assessment constraints comprised a fixed budget and schedule. The results of the records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside indicated that the subject property is situated in an area sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. One previously recorded prehistoric site (RIV-1303) and a portion of a second (RIV-1638) were shown to lie within the eastern margin of the study area. A portion of a third site (RIV-1769) was tentatively identified along the southern boundary (Fred Waring Drive). The field survey resulted in the discovery of a previously unknown prehistoric site, RIV-6349, and three isolates. Subsequent research has indicated that RIV-1303 and RIV-1638 have been adequately addressed and no further work is recommended at these sites. Furthermore, no evidence of RIV-1769 intruding into the southern margin of the property was found. Recommendations for the recently discovered resources call for a Phase II significance evaluation at RIV-•6349. All three isolate finds have been collected and mapped, consequently no further work is recommended for them. 015 However, since the property is situated in an area sensitive for prehistoric resources and subject to seasonal windstorms, it is recommended that a professional archaeologist monitor the grubbing and rough grading element of any future development that may take place. This will insure that in the unlikely event a buried archaeological deposit is unearthed, the archaeologist has the opportunity to examine the finds and determine their importance. If buried archaeological resources are discovered, the Project Archaeologist or designated monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect the earthwork until the significance of the find(s) can be established. Human remains, if eticountered, must be addressed in the manner prescribed by law. -rv- 016 I. INTRODUCTION At the request of Warner Engineering, the following report was written for Mr. Wade Ellis (Project Sponsor) by Archaeological Associates. It describes the results of an archaeological assessment of 117+acres as depicted on Tentative Tract Map 29323. The study area is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive.in La Quinta, Riverside County. Presently, project proponents wish to develop the subject property into three subdivisions totaling approximately 380 residential parcels with remainder land for open space/retention areas. The purpose of this study was to identify all potentially significant cultural resources situated within the study area. This information is needed since adoption of the plan could result in adverse effects upon locations of archaeological or historical importance. Our assessment consisted of (1) a records search conducted to determine whether any previously recorded historic or prehistoric material is present within the subject property, (2) literature and historic map research, and (3) a field reconnaissance intended to identify any previously unrecorded cultural resources. The study was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it pertains to the management of cultural resources. Furthermore, it is understood that the City of La Quinta is acting as the Lead Agency for the project and therefore the document format complies with the City's requirements for cultural resources. Consequently, this report was prepared according to the Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format contained within the State's Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a) (California Department of Parkas and Recreation 1989). II. SETTING A Study Area Location and Environment Regionally, the study area lies midway along the length of the Coachella Valley, north of the Santa Rosa Mountains and south of the Indio Hills, Riverside County (fig. 1). Palm Springs lies approximately 20 miles to the northwest as does the core of La Quinta some 4 -1- 01 l sa C { Fli •Wat Rancn 'Ranch ��,�:. f ��'�- u:ary(b Psi `(s c L•✓ J �i � � � ` O pii r . anc , 5 �. }y ~- � •Rancls� v � r-J,1 l ` � v � - ✓,v A � Berm pia Dune 1s _ PROJECT AREA owar l - i i ■ m7 4 ti a e1 flQa �R�'E i1�5 10 r INO lRE RaOo to �,. r✓ r ach I10 - nV° ems, ',\ � cf. n__ /l r-�E-' \I r L. Ir eM �❑ hsla I. ki OR � �T I al CAB ✓� '�`—�.� 1( L° C IG 'CemARTINE21, T RRES\� J NDIAN ESERV ION °b; nil R u _7 Figure 1 Regional location of the project area as indicated on a portion of the USGS Santar Ana 1:250,000 scale Topographic Map Sheet (1959, revised 1979). -2- miles to the south/southwest. More specifically, the project area lies immediately northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in a portion of the County to be annexed to the City of La Quinta. Legally, the project area comprises portions of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17 and the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base Meridian. Figure 2 illustrates the study area on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. The subject property is relatively rectangular in shape and is bounded on the south by Fred Waring Drive. The northern and western boundaries adjoin existing residential development (Bermuda Dunes Country Club). The southern portion of the eastern boundary abuts Jefferson Street while the northern leg adjoins, vacant, undeveloped land. Geographically, the Coachella Valley comprises the northwestern corner of the Colorado Desert or "low desert" province. The southern part of the valley forms the northern half of the Salton Basin --the province's largest low area. The basin is currently occupied by the Salton Sea, a man-made lake. However, the major drainage from the Colorado Desert is into the Salton Basin (Norris and Webb 1976:149). Thus, the current body of water was preceded by a series of natural prehistoric lakes, the most recent of which is known as "Lake Cahuilla." The Salton Basin is underlain by thick Cenozoic sedimentary materials of primarily terrestrial (i.e. non -marine) origin. The sediments west of the Salton Sea comprise, soft, easily eroded fine-grained material known as the Palm Springs Formation. The sediments deposited by the former natural lakes comprise similar soft beds of weakly consolidated siltstones and clays (ibid. 153). Topographically, our study area comprises an undulating dune field which represents a portion of the Myoma Dunes (Pl. I & II). These mounded dunes once bordered the edge of Lake Cahuilla at its highest stand. They acquired their sand from the Whitewater River drainage and were apparently formed by mesquite thickets: Mounded dunes lacking slip faces apparently were formed by deposition among mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) thickets that grew in response to the high water table during the recent stands of Lake Cahuilla. The mesquite continued to crown out the tops of the dunes as they gradually rose to heights of up to 35 or 40 feet. Many of the -3- 01 9 mesquite thickets that crown these dunes have ring -shaped growth patterns many yards across. They are probably clones, arisen from a single plant, and if so, are not less than 500 years old. There are also interdune basins with elevations of less than +42 feet, the level of the last stand of Lake Cahuilla. (Wilke 1978:63). Elevations within the study area range from a maximum of 94-feet abave sea level atop the highest dune midway along the northern property boundary to a minimum of approximately 35- feet in the swale situated in the southeast comer. Soils consist entirely of loosely compacted, fine-grained sands and silts. No natural surface water or bedrock outcrops were discovered anywhere within the study area. However, a few underlying exposures of tule-baked mud were encountered adjacent to some of the deflated sections of off -road trail located along the eastern margin of the property in the vicinity of RIV-1638. Tule-baked mud is interesting since it represents the shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla (aka Lake LeConte). It has been described as follows: Hubbs has identified charcoal from charred tules which, he said, was derived from "...one of the extensive tule fires of the shoreline, which appear to have been set in game drives around Lake LeConte..." (His [sic] interpretation of such fires suggests that they were intense enough to bake the underlying clay sediments). (Hubbs et al. in McWilliams 1971:10). Study area vegetation is best described as a scatter of Creosote Bush Scrub accompanied by remnants of what had once comprised fairly large thickets of mesquite. Some of the more readily identifiable plants and trees observed included creosote bush, mesquite, desert willow (one), beavertail cactus as well as opportunistic weeds and grasses. Fauna observed comprised quail, a pair of road runners, cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits and numerous lizards. Although the snakes themselves were not seen, the unmistakable tracks of the sidewinder rattlesnake were observed throughout the property. Disturbance within the project area is quite widespread but not sufficient enough in scale or intensity to compromise the performance of the field investigation. The most readily recognizable disturbance comprises a network of off -road vehicle trails and roads that meander ME 020 Figure 2 Study area plotted on a portion of the USGS La Quinia 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle (1959, photorevised 1980). -5- 021 through the property. Not as easily discernible but equally as widespread are scatters of illicitly dumped debris. These are composed of green waste, construction debris, tires, appliances and automobile parts. Lastly, an underground utility (GTE) lies along the southern project boundary adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. B. Cultural Settine No early prehistoric aboriginal activity has ever been documented in the Coachella Valley. However, by late prehistoric times (say after about 1,000 A.D.), human activity ;seems to have abounded. During this late prehistoric period, the valley was the home of the Desert Cahuilla Indians, a hunting and gathering people who spoke a Shoshonean dialect. The reader may find full ethnographic accounts of the Cahuilla in a number of works including Barrows (1900), Kroeber (1908; 1925), Strong (1929) and Bean (1978). The primary published source of information on the prehistoric archaeology of the region is P.J. Wilke's Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California (1978). 1. Prehistoric Occupation of the Lake Cahuilla Shoreline Archaeological evidence clearly indicates that the northern shoreline of Lake Cahuilla was fairly heavily populated during the last high stand of the lake some 400-600 years ago. Today the area consists of sandy washes, hillocks, and dunes bearing numerous small prehistoric sites. Typically, these consist of scatters of Tizon Brown and Colorado Buff Ware potsherds mixed with fire -cracked rock, occasional ground stone milling implements, and chipped stone tools (arrow points, scrapers, etc.). These represent mesquite gathering; sites, camps of various sizes, and in a few cases, village sites. Although no one knows what the human population of the shoreline was, it seems reasonable to assume that it was quite substantial by local prehistoric standards. Wilke has investigated the ecology of Lake Cahuilla's shoreline inhabitants in a study based partly upon the contents of coprolites (dried human fecal matter) collected from surfaces of sites in the Myoma Dunes area. He summarized his conclusions as follows: 02' Investigation of 109 coprolites and faunal and floral remains, mostly from the Myoma Dunes in Coachella Valley, reveals the nature of aboriginal subsistence practices. Identified food residues indicate that subsistence was oriented primarily to the open waters and marshes, with heavy reliance on the adjacent low desert flora. Seeds of bulrush of several species, cattail, witchgrass, cattail, pollen, fish, and aquatic birds were all derived from the aquatic setting. Screwbean pods, seeds of lowland purslande ... and a variety of the desert floor and lower mountain slopes... The restricted seasonal availability of certain plant foods and aquatic birds suggest that the Myoma Dunes locality was occupied the year round. (Wilke 1978:128). Thus it appears that the Cahuilla Indians who resided next to the lake Were well -adapted to both the lacustrine and desert environments. In all probability, the latter adaptation had developed prior to the appearance of the lake. In any event, it has been estimated that within a period of some 25 years, the lake evaporated to the extent that it would no longer support most of its dependent aquatic life and that within 55 years, it had disappeared altogether due to evaporation (ibid. 129). 2. The Desert Cahuilla The Cahuilla themselves seem to have believed that their ancestors followed the lakeshore southward as it retreated into the basin. This belief is reflected in the first ethnographically recorded Cahuilla legend as told to William Blake in 1853: When questioned about the shore -line and water marks of the ancient lake, the chief gave an account of a tradition they have of a great water (agua grande) which covered the whole valley and was filled with fine fish. There was also plenty of geese and ducks. Their fathers lived in the mountains and used to come down to the lake to fish and hunt. The water gradually subsided "poco," "poco" (little by little,) and their villages were moved down from the mountains, into the valley it had left. They also said that the waters once returned very suddenly and overwhelmed many of their people and drove the rest back to the mountains. (Blake 1856:98). -7- 023 The "mountains" probably refer to the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south of the study area from whence most of the Cahuilla clans were supposed to have emanated (Strong 1929:Tables 3 & 4, pp. 41f.). Thus, it would appear that these informants were either unaware of, or discounted, the archaeologically documented lakeshore occupation discussed above. In any event, the legend seems to indicate that villages were built on the playa as the lake receded. Also, some of the lakeside inhabitants may have returned to upland areas with the concomitant reduction in pressure on rapidly depleting water resources. Since potable water was no longer available from the lake (which would have become very brackish), the Cahuilla turned to drawing water from springs, artesian wells, and, in some cases, excavated walk-in wells. These are somewhat romantically described by Barrows: For generations they [the Cahuillas] have been well diggers. Their very occupation of the desert was dependent upon their discovery of this art. The whole valley of the Cabeson is dotted with wells, most of then marking sites of homes long ago abandoned... These wells are usually great pits with terraced sides leading down to the narrow hole at the bottom where the water sparkles, built in such a way that a woman with an olla on her head can walk to the ver water's edge and dip her painted vessel full. (Barrows 1900:27). By historic times there is evidence that the Cahuilla practiced limited irrigation and agriculture. However, we may assume that the traditional food sources were the most important during the final days of the prehistoric era. These would have included mesquite and screwbean pods in addition to rabbits and other small game. Testimony to the success of the adjusted lifestyle may be found in the fact that when the U.S. Land Office surveyors entered the Coachella Valley in the mid-19th century, they found and recorded some twenty-two villages, many of which may have had as many as 100 or more occupants (Wilke 1978:120). 3. Ethnographically Recorded Cahuilla In 1929, William Duncan Strong published his classic Aboriginal Society in Southern California, a work which includes a detailed study of the villages in the southern end. of the 10 024 Coachella Valley. Strong's informants were elderly Cahuilla whose recollection extended back into the mid- 19th century. They were able to provide our best details regarding the character of the local villages. Strong's comments with regard to the subsistence patterns of the villages are particularly enlightening: The essential thing to any community, especially to one living in the desolate environment of the desert, is water, and it is around the natural water holes and artificial wells that the Desert Cahuilla were grouped. It appears to have been possible for several clans to use one water hole or well, and yet to be almost independent of each other in every other regard. Where there was more than enough water for domestic purposes a little farming was carried on, each clan having its allotted area for this purpose. Within the memory of all informants questioned, both corn and wheat were raised in these small patches, and doubtless other vegetables, such as melons, beans, and squash. Francisco [Hombre, b. 1849 or thereabouts] was told by his grandfather that before the Mexicans came the Desert Cahuilla had only corn; this they did not raise but traded for with the Yuma Indians of the Colorado River area. The staple foods, however, appear to have been the beans of the various mesquite trees, a great variety of cactus, and similar native plants of the desert. Excepting such irrigable areas as were owned by the individual clans, the territory in the immediate vicinity of the village was common ground, but beyond this each clan had certain clusters of mesquite trees and small districts in the mountains which they owned and jealously guarded. Within the clan these food -gathering territories were communally utilized, but in the case of uninvited incursions of any alien people, the owners were prepared to fight ... (Strong 1929:39f.). A typical village was located in an area of dense mesquite tree thickets near a spring or well. Individual houses contained one or more families but always of the same clan. If members of two clans occupied a village, each had its own separate irrigated garden (in historic time). In 025 4. The Cahuilla After European Contact The Spanish first passed through Cahuilla territory in 1774 during the Juan Batista de Anza Expedition but Bean believes that they were aware of the existence of Europeans at an earlier date (Bean 1978:583). In any case, the Spanish found them to be hostile. It was not until 1819 when the Spanish established several asistencias near Cahuilla territory that they came into much contact with Europeans. From that point, the Cahuilla began to adopt certain Spanish cultural elements including the language, religion, and agriculture. Nonetheless„ the Cahuilla still maintained their economy up through the American Invasion of California. However, a severe smallpox epidemic in 1863 greatly reduced their numbers and left them relatively defenseless against the constantly increasing number of Americans. III. RESEARCH DESIGN A. Previous Research The primary published source of information on the prehistoric archaeology of the region is P.A. Wilke's Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuillp, Coachella Palley, California (1978). Also of interest in this regard are two unpublished papers by McWilliams (1970, 1971). These works relate to the archaeology of Lake Cahuilla at its highest stand; a time when the northern two-thirds of the alignment lay along the shoreline of the lake. There are some good sources on the ethnographically known villages which sprang up around the various wells and springs after Lake Cahuilla dried up. The primary source is William Duncan Strong's Aboriginal Society in Southern California (1929); most of the later works comprising rehashes of Strong's study (see Bean [1978] for the latest work and additional references). Much of the published history of La Quinta and Indio have appeated in the Periscope, an annual magazine published by the Coachella Valley Historical Society, Another invaluable source of local history is the Coachella Valley County Water District's Coachella Valley's Golden Years (Nordland 1978). Several other more focused volumes include Cecilia Foulkes' Mecca, a California Desert History (1985) and Francis J. Johnston's The Bradshaw Trail (1987). Collectively, these works provide a reasonably thorough background history of the -10- 026 region although it is necessary to assemble the various pieces for oneself. In-depth individual histories of the local cities are notably lacking. B. Research Goals The goals of our research were to identify known locations of potential significance situated within the study area. Our hypotheses were as follows: (1) Prehistoric sites may be clustered within dune fields regardless of elevation. Typically, prehistoric sites in the central Coachella Valley comprise scatters of potsherds, fire - affected rock, chipped stone implements, and at times, human cremations. Pottery sherds, of both the Tizon Brown and Colorado Buff Ware varieties are perhaps the most abundant indicator of prehistoric activity in the region. (2) Historic sites in the region are connected with early fanning, ranching, date palm or citrus activities. Lacking standing structures, remains of these homesteads and farmsteads typically comprises concrete, cobble or adobe structure foundations, irrigation systems and trash scatters. However, not all debris scatters (e.g. tin can, glass, crockery) can be connected to a particular home or farmstead. In many instances, isolated scatters of dumped historic debris represent nothing more that illicitly discarded rubbish. IV. METHODS A. Literature/Archival Research 1. Archaeological Records Search A records search of the study area was conducted by Ms. Laurie White at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside on June 21, 1999. The search entailed a review of all previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites located on or within a one -mile radius of the study area. Additionally, the National Register of Historic Places, California Historic Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory were reviewed for the purpose of identifying any historic properties. -11- 027 a Previous Surveys In 1982, Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. conducted a systematiC survey of the entire subject property in conjunction with a slightly larger investigation of 130 acres known as Tentative Tract 16789. As a result of their survey, two archaeological sites were identified (RIV-1303 and RIV-1638; Gasser -Henriksen 1982). RIV-1303 was delineated as lying wholly within the subject property while only a portion of RIV-1638 was found to lie witEn the boundaries of the study area (see discussion below). b Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within the Study Area The results of the records search indicated that one prehistoric archaeological site (IV- 1303) and portions of two other sites (RIV-1638 and RIV-1769) have been previously recorded within the boundaries of the study area. Each of these sites is briefly described in the following paragraphs. RIV-1303 RIV-1303 was recorded by Mark Desautels of Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) in 1982. It hes approximately 500 feet north of Fred Waring Drive along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Jefferson Street. The site was discovered during a survey of 130-acres incorporating the entire subject property (Gasser -Henriksen 1982). It was characterized as a seasonal procurement campsite that was purely surficial in nature. Artifacts observed included a scatter of manos, metate fragments, ceramic sherds, one core, one scraper, flaking waste, and shell. It was suggested that the site may have been connected with the main village at Indian Wells. Therefore, it was recommended that prior to any grading or construction, a thorough surface collection and mapping of the site be conducted (ibid.:9). The recommended surface collection program was conducted in 1989 by Archaeological Associates under contract to SRS. The artifact scatter at RIV-1303 measured approximately 60 meters (N-S) x 55 meters (E-W). Material recovered from the site included 45 waste flakes (73% chert), 1 retouched flake, 1 jasper Cottonwood triangular arrowhead -12- 028 base, 8 mano fragments (mostly bifacial), 1 metate fragment, 1 hammerstone fragment (quartzite), 8 pottery sherds, three olivella shells, and a pottery feature. The pottery sherd feature was discovered in the northeastern portion of the site and measured 50 cm. in diameter. It contained 352 sherds, all of which had been heavily weathered and sandblasted. Furthermore, many specimens exhibited evidence of post -manufacturing burning. The feature yielded three types of ceramic ware (Lower Colorado River Buff, Tizon Brown, and Salton Buff). Of the ten rim sherds recovered, nine were sufficiently well- preserved to suggest the shape of the original vessel. Most appeared to represent large open shapes such as bowls. In addition to the sherds, the only other find from the feature included a fragment of turtle carapace (SRS 1989). RIV-1638 RIV-1638 was recorded by Steve McWilliams and Dan McCarthy in the 1970's and described as an occupation site containing a midden deposit, potsherds, lithic scatter, and some stone and bone items. The site was reported to lie both east and west of Jefferson Street. The western portion of RIV-1638 was reinspected by SRS in 1982 during a survey of 130 acres (Tentative Tract 16789; Gasser -Henriksen 1982). SRS relocated the site in the northeast comer of their project area approximately 100 meters west of the roadway. Similarly to RIV- 1303, RIV-1638 was also surficial in nature. Artifacts observed included potsherds, lithics, groundstone, bone, and shell. However, no developed midden was found as previously described by McWilliams and McCarthy. Furthermore, SRS had found the area of the scatter to be heavily disturbed by motorcycle traffic. Mitigation recommendations for the western portion ofRIV-1638 (west of Jefferson Street) included surface collection and mapping. In 1989, Archaeological Associates, under contract to SRS, conducted a controlled surface collection program within that portion of RIV-1638 that lay west of Jefferson Street (SRS 1989). The property designation had also changed from TT 16789 to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 23317. The site was found to measure approximately 100 meters (N-S) x 100 meters (E-W). Artifacts collected from the site included 27 waste flakes (mostly quartzite and quartz), 9 mano fragments (mostly bifacial), 5 metate fragments, 76 pottery sherds (no rims), -13- 029 and 3 unidentifiable groundstone fragments. Fire -altered rock, 3 mussel fragments (Anodanta dejecta), and 1 olivella shell were also recovered. Additionally, seven discrete concentrations of ecofacts and fire -altered rock, each measuring less than 5 meters in diameter, were located within the eastern portion of this scatter (outside the subject property). Each of the concentrations were sampled during the surface collection and mapping program. Reconfiguration of TT 16789/TPM 23317 to TT 29323 resulted in the gross acreage dropping from 130 to 117 acres. The loss of acreage was restricted to the northeast corner of TT 16789/TPM 23317. This has resulted in realignment of the eastern property boundary. Consequently, the western portion of RIV-1638 is now bisected by our study area's (TT 29323) eastern boundary. With regard to the eastern extension of RIV-1638 (east of Jefferson Street) as reported by McWilliams and McCarthy, this part of the site was not relocated during CRM TECH's field reconnaissance of the 383-acre U.S. Home -Heritage Palm property (Love et al. 1994). RIV-1769 In 1979, Mary Brown recorded RN-1769 off -site on the south side of Avenue 44 (Fred Waring Drive). The site was described as a habitation site comprising potsherds, projectile points, flaking waste, one olivella shell bead, fire -affected rock, shell, and a human cremation. The site was revisited by Steven and Rebecca Apple in 1980. Although they were unable to locate the cremation site, they did find three discrete locations (or loci) of prehistoric material comprising concentrations of pottery sherds, lithics, shell, and bone. In 1982, Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS) inspected the northernmost boundary of RIV-1769 (area of Locus 2 located south of Fred Waring Drive) as reported by Steven and Rebecca Apple. Having encountered only a few pottery sherds and little shell, SRS concluded that this portion of RIV-1769 had been destroyed. Despite a thorough examination of the north side of Fred Waring Drive (our study area), SRS found no evidence that RIV-1769 extended across the roadway (Gasser -Henriksen 1982). Seven years later, Dan McCarthy of the Archaeological Research Unit at UC Riverside conducted a reconnaissance/evaluation of RIV-1769. He observed various exposed -14- 030 concentrations of pottery, fire -affected rock, and possible fire pits south of Fred Waring Drive. Furthermore, as a result of a cursory inspection, McCarthy observed pottery fragments and a mano fragment on the north side of Fred Waring Drive within the out current study area (McCarthy 1989). Subsequent test excavations at RIV-1769 were conducted in November of 1989 by Brooke Arkush of the Archaeological Research at UC Riverside. The Site was tested along with two other sites situated within an 80-acre parcel south of Fred Waring Drive (Tentative Tract 24197). Fieldwork consisted of mapping, surface collection, exavation of eleven 1 x 1 .5 meter test units and one 5 x 5 meter surface scrape. RIV-1769 was characterized as a single component site with a maximum depth of 50 cm. The surface collection and test excavations yielded a total of 135 artifacts. Ceramic sherds represented 114 of these items (mostly Tizon Brown Ware). The only feature encountered at the site included an ill-defined hearth area on top of a dune that had been exposed by deflation. The feature contained pottery sherds, an awl tip, an olivella shell bead, lithics, shell fragments (Anodonta) and bone fragments (fish, bird, and small mammal). Arkush concluded that RIV-1769 was a short term seasonal camp. Like so man), other lakeshore sites, RIV-1769 had an abundance of pottery sherds and very few flaked stone items. Furthermore, an abundance of fish remains indicated the importance of fishing for subsistence. Radiocarbon samples recovered from the aforementioned hearth suggest that occupation of the site occurred sometime between A.D. 1350 and 1500. As a result of the test program., RIV- 1769 was found not to contain a significant deposit and all research potential had been exhausted (Arkush 1990:48). c. Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a One Mile Radius This portion of the Coachella Valley (Bermuda Dunes/La Quinta area) with its mesquite covered dunes is highly sensitive for archaeological resources. In fact, in addition to the aforementioned sites recorded within the study area, a total of 43 other sites have been previously recorded within a mile radius of the project area. The majority of these comprise camps and habitation sites (16) which typically include combinations of pottery, lithics, ground -15- 031 stone, fire -altered rock, and bone. Possible human cremations are reported from at least two of these sites. All sites located within a one -mile radius are briefly characterized in Table 1. Table 1. Archaeological Sites within a one -mile Radius of the Study Area. Site Number Site Description RIV-1637 Artifact scatter RIV-1970 Habitation site with possible cremations RIV-1971 Artifact scatter (not relocated in 1994) RIV-1972 Artifact scatter RIV-1973 Habitation site RIV-1974 Habitation site with possible cremations RIV-2200 Artifact scatter RIV-2789 Ceramic scatter and one flake(obsidian) RIV-3667 Ceramic scatter RIV-3668 Ceramic scatter RIV-3795 Artifact scatter RIV-3866 Campsite RIV-5330 Ceramic scatter RIV-5331 Campsite RIV-5332 Ceramic and lithic scatter with possible clay quarry. RIV-5333 Campsite RIV-5334 Ceramic and lithic scatter. RIV-5335 Ceramic scatter and one core RIV-5336H Historic trash scatter associated with possible early 20' century homestead RIV-5337 Campsite RIV-5338 4 ceramic sherds and one flake RIV-5339 Artifact scatter RIV-5340 Campsite -16- 032- RIV-5341 Campsite RIV-5342 Artifact scatter RIV-5343 possible habitation site RIV-5344 Campsite RIV-5345 Lithic and bone scatter RIV-5346 Habitation site RIV-5347 Artifact scatter RIV-5348 3 ceramic sherds RIV-5349 3 ceramic sherds RIV-5350 Ceramic and fire -affected rock scatter RIV-5351 Habitation site RIV-5352 Groundstone and fire -affected rock scatter RIV-5353 Ceramic and lithic scatter RIV-5354H Historic agricultural complex (well, fields, and irrigation system) RIV-5840 Campsite RIV-5841 Ceramic and fire -affected rock scatter RIV-5842 Campsite RIV-5843 Ceramic scatter RIV-5844 Ceramic scatter RIV-6220 Habitation site d Heritage Properties No National Register sites, California Historical Landmarks, of California Points of Historical Interest have been identified within a one -mile radius of the study area. Furthermore, the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) failed to identify any historic buildings in the vicinity of the study area. -17- ®072� 2. Historic Map Research In addition to the records search, several historic maps were examined in the map room of the Physical Science Library, University of California at Riverside and at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office in Riverside. The 1856 U.S. General Land Office (GLO) Plat Map for Township 5 South, Range 7 East (surveyed by Washington and La Croze) was reviewed as well as several early USGS topographic quadrangles. These included the 1904Indio 30' USGS Topographic Quadrangle (surveyed 1901), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak 15' Topographic Quadrangle, the Army Corps of Engineers (War Department) 1944 Toro Peak 15' Quadrangle, the 1959 Palm Desert 15' USGS Topographic Quadrangle, and the 1959 La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle. a 1856 U.S. General Land Office (GLO) Plat Map for Township 5 South, Ranee 7 East Examination of the 1856 GLO Plat Map for Township 5 South, Range 7 East shows a limited amount of activity in the region. No man-made features are indicated within the study area (portions of Sections 16 and 17). The closest feature delineated includes an east -west oriented dirt (wagon) road that traversed the northern half of Sections 29 and 28 two miles to the south. It appears that this road paralleled a portion of the Whitewater River. An Indian village and well site are indicated some three miles to the southeast withitr the present town of Indio. b 1904 Indio 30' USGS Topographic Ouadrangle (surveyed 1901) The 1904Indio 30' quadrangle (surveyed 1901) shows the Southern Pacific Railroad paralleling the Coachella Valley (then known as the Conchilla Valley). Major stops along the route included Myoma, Indio and Coachella. The primary east -west roadway through this portion of the valley followed the Whitewater River (much of which later became Highway 74/111). No features are delineated within the study area. _18 039 c U S AM CoMs of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak 15' Topographic Quadrangle Improvements noted on the Army Corps of Engineers 1941 Toro Peak 15' Topographic Quadrangle include Highways 60, 70, and 99 adjacent to the railroad alignment to the north of the study area and Highway 74/111 to the south. The only feature shown within the study area is a small portion of a meandering dirt road in the extreme northeast corner. d Armv Corps of Engineers (War Dept 1944 Toro Peak 15' Topographic Quadrangle The aforementioned section of dirt road is still visible. No new features are shown within the vicinity of the study area. e 1959 Palm Desert 15' USGS Topographic Quadrangle This map shows the Bermuda Dunes Country Club already established to the north of the study area. However, Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive (Avenue 44) have yet to be extended to the project vicinity. No features are indicated within the study area as the aforementioned dirt road no longer exists. f 1959 La Ouinta 7 5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle No new improvements noted on this map. In fact, aside from the small section of dirt road, none of the aforementioned maps indicate the presence of any man-made features within the study area. The property appears to have always been vacant, undeveloped land (dune field). B. Field Reconnaissance A field reconnaissance of the study area was conducted by Laurie S. White, M.A. (surveyor, SOPA/RPA certified) and Robert S. White (surveyor & Principal Investigator) on June 24-25 and July 20-21, 1999. As previously discussed, the intent of the survey was to identify all potentially significant cultural resources situated within the boundaries of the study area. Historic resources include places and structures relating to significant historic events or -19- ... 035 having historical or special aesthetic qualities in and of themselves. Prehistoric resources include Indian sites of all types. The pedestrian survey began in the southwest corner of the property and proceeded in a northerly direction. Where terrain allowed, the field study was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced at 5-10 meters across the subject property. Where irregular terrain rendered parallel transects impractical, the survey was conducted by walking meandering transects across and down the various steep -sided dunes. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the region, an extra effort was made during the field reconnaissance to identify any evidence of prehistoric occupation on the property throughout the project area. V. FINDINGS A Previously Recorded Sites Surface visibility was excellent, approaching 100% All previously recorded sites within the study area were thoroughly inspected during the course of our field investigation. Each site is discussed below: 1. RIV-1303 RIV-1303 is situated 500+feet north of Fred Waring Drive along the eastern property boundary and wholly within the study area (figs. 3 & 4). The results of our field survey at RIV- 1303 support SRS's observation that the site comprised a scatter of surface artifacts which were subsequently mapped and collected by Archaeological Associates (AA) in 1989. Specifically, no indications of a subsurface deposit or additional surface artifacts (pottery, ground stone or chipped stone) were observed during the walk -over of the site location. 2. RIV-1638 RIV-1638 is located in the extreme northeast comer of the subject property. Only half of that portion of the site mapped west of Jefferson Street lies within the current study area (figs. 3 & 4). The results of our field survey at RIV-1638 also support SRS's supposition that the site consisted entirely of a scatter of surficial artifacts which were mapped and collected by -20- MMKO .' y, Figure 4 Locations of archaeological resources indicated on a portion of the USGS La Quinta 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle (1959, photorevised 1980). This map is confidential and not for public distribution. _22_ 038 AA in 1989. Similarly to RIV-1303, no indications of a subsurface deposit or additional surface artifacts (pottery, ground stone or chipped stone) were observed during the walk -over of the site location. However, as expected, a few pieces of fire -cracked rock (FCR) were encountered. Although FCR was inventoried and mapped during the collection of surface artifacts at the site in 1989, only a sample was collected since random pieces of FCR are of little scientific value. 3. RIV-1769 The field survey of the area north of Fred Waring Drive purported to represent the northerly extension ofRIV-1769 failed to yield any evidence supporting the claim that the site may extend onto the subject property. This portion of the study area has been disturbed by construction of Fred Waring Drive, off -road vehicle trails and underground utilities. No archaeological material of any kind was encountered in this area. B. New Resources The balance of the field study resulted in the discovery of one new prehistoric archaeological site and three isolates. Each of the new resources are discussed below: 1. RIV-6349 RIV-6349 is located in the southwest corner of the study area atop a high dune (figs. 3 & 4). The site is best described as a discrete scatter of hundreds of small mammal bones, the vast majority of which are highly fragmented and burned. Based on surface observations, the site measures 4 meters N-S by 3 meters E-W. No artifacts or fire -cracked rock were observed at the location. The mesquite atop the dune has been burned off leavin$ behind charred root fragments. This is a recent manifestation and not connected with the archaeological feature. Based upon our cursory examination of the feature, we believe that it represents a cooking area and not a human cremation. This is based in part on the types of bone and bone fragments present at the site and the size of the scatter. However unlikely, the presence of -23- U3q human bone within the feature cannot be totally ruled out until the bone has been thoroughly analyzed. 2. Isolate #1 (Primary # 33-8944) 'Isolate #1 (Primary # 33-8944) comprises two pottery sherds discovered midway along the western property boundary (figs. 3 & 4). Both sherds are of the Tizon Brown Ware variety and were found within a meter of one another. They were subsequently collected and their location mapped. One sherd is from the body of a vessel (7.4 x 6.0 x 0.6 cm.), the other a portion of a rim (6.8 x 5.0 x 0.4 cm.). Neither appears to have been subjected to post - manufacture burning. A careful search of the area surrounding the finds failed to yield any other archaeological material or evidence of a subsurface deposit. 3. Isolate #2 (Primary # 33-8945) Isolate #2 (Primary # 33-8945) comprises two pottery sherds discovered in a swale in the northwest quarter of the property (figs. 3 & 4). Both sherds are of the Tizon Brown Ware variety and were found within a meter of one another. Close examination of the joining sherds indicated that they were subjected to post -manufacture burning. Joined, they measure 10.0 x 5.4 x 0.6 cm. Each was subsequently collected and their location mapped. A careful search of the area surrounding the finds failed to yield any other archaeological material or evidence of a subsurface deposit. 4. Isolate #3 (Primary # 33-8946) Isolate #3 (Primary # 33-8946) comprises a single pottery sherd discovered on a hummock in the southeast corner of the property (figs. 3 & 4). The body sherd is of the Colorado Buff Ware variety and was collected and mapped. It measures 7.0 x 3.5 x 0.6 cm. and has not been subjected to post -manufacture burning. A careful search of the area surrounding the find failed to yield any other archaeological material or evidence of a subsurface deposit. -24- VI. DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS A. RIV-1303 & RIV-1638 RIV-1303 and RIV-1638 (portion within study area) comprised small, lakeshore campsites that contained relatively low -density scatters of surface artifacts. There have never been any indications that either site contained a subsurface deposit and none is thought to have ever existed. With regard to the two sites, SRS concluded the following: We believe that the restricted array of tools in the two scatters [RIV-1303 and RIV-1638] precludes the possibility that either location represents a habitation site. This conclusion finds support in the absence of midden at both locations .... (SRS 1989:21). Consequently, neither site is regarded as a significant resource within the meaning of CEQA. Furthermore, adverse impacts to RIV-1303 and RIV-1638 have been addressed through the aforementioned mapping and surface collection program conducted by Archaeological Associates for SRS in 1989. No further specific mitigation measures in conjunction with cultural resources are recommended at these sites with the exception of archaeological monitoring during the grubbing and rough grading program. B. RIV-1769 Despite comments made by previous researchers working off -site to the south of Fred Waring Drive, no evidence of RIV-1769 could be found within the southern margin of the study area. As previously mentioned, this area has been disrupted by various activities that may have obliterated any peripheral scatter connected with RIV-1769. Consequently, no further specific mitigation measures in conjunction with cultural resources are recommended along the southern margin of the property with the exception of archaeological monitoring during the grubbing and rough grading program. -25- 04t C. RIV-6349 RIV-6349 is thought to represent a cooking feature that may have been associated with RIV-1303 or RIV-1638. However, there are currently insufficient data available to make an accurate assessment of the character and relationship of this site,to any other. Only further investigations will provide data necessary to answer these important questions. According to the provisions Section 21083.2 and Appendix K of the California , Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), preservation of archaeological sites is always the preferred mitigative option. Barring preservation, a data recovery program presents the only means for mitigating adverse impacts to archaeological sites. However, there are currently insufficient data pertaining to the significance, or lack thereof, regarding RIV-6349. Therefore, the following Phase II test program intended to establish the significatce of RIV-6349 is recommended: (1) Conduct a Shovel Test Pit (STP) program designed to delineate the boundaries of the feature. All backdirt recovered from the STP's should be passed thtough 1/8-inch mesh. (2) Excavate the entire feature using standard hand techniques and utilizing 1 x 1 meter test units or fractions thereof. All units should be dug in 10 cm. levels and all backdirt passed through 1/8-inch mesh. (3) All bone collected should be submitted to a Zooarchaeological Lab for analysis. (4) Compile the results of the Phase II Test program into a narrative report complete with statements of significance and recommendation for further work (if appropriate). D. Isolates 1. 2. & 3 All isolated finds have been collected and their locations mapped. Furthermore, they have been recorded with the Eastern Information Center and UC Riverside. None of the pottery sherds are regarded as significant within the meaning of CEQA since: 1) they are -26- common throughout the Coachella Valley, and 2) have little research value since they represent only small fragments of the host vessel(s). E. Archaeological Monitorine The subject property lies in an area that is highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. Furthermore, it lies in a section of the Coachella Valley that is known for seasonal windstorms that significantly contribute to sand field and dune migration. This phenomenon regularly buries and exposes archaeological sites. Therefore, it is recommended that a professional archaeologist monitor the grubbing and rough grading element of any future development that may take place within the boundaries of the subject property. This will insure that in the unlikely event a buried archaeological deposit is unearthed, the archaeologist has the opportunity to examine the finds and determine their importance. If buried archaeological resources are discovered, the Project Archaeologist or designated monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect the earthwork until the significance of the find(s) can be established. Human remains, if encountered, must be addressed in the manner prescribed by law. _27_ 043 Plate I Top: Looking south from south central portion of property. Bottom; Looking west from midway along northern boundary. WE I- 0 4 NJ {y �' � one .....�`.y� f � � `•.-� '�.. �\_. F iF1p.�v�',�=w�iay'<<ik•�..�^ »yi.�,,,y�r •. 'a' "h m•y .,,#+:t1 � Y�i Y w+ {fir s h 'R. t _ ST f• 4w Plate II Top: Looking west along Fred Waring Drive from Jefferson Street. Bottom: Close-up of bone scatter at RIV-6349. -29- CITED ARKUSH, BROOKE S. 1990 Archaeological Investigations at CA-RIV-1769, CA-RIV-3667, and CA-RIV- 3795, Tentative Tract 24197, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Archaeological Research Unit. Unpublished manuscript on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, BARROWS, DAVID PRESCOTT 1900 The Ethno-bolwV of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of Chicago Press. BEAN, LOWELL J. 1978 Cahuilla. IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed., pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. BLAKE, WILLIAM PHIPPS 1856 Geological Report. IN: Reports of Explorations in California for Railroad Routes near the 35' and 32"" Parallels of North Latitude (by Lt. R.S. Williamson). Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economic Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, Vol. 5. Beverly Tucker, Printer. Washington, D.C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1989 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. California Office of Historic Preservation. Sacramento. FOULKES, CECILIA 1985 Mecca: A California Desert History. Privately printed. GASSER-HENRIKSEN, KAREN 1982 Archaeological Survey Report on: TT 16789 Located Near the City of Indio, Riverside County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Unpublished report on file with the Eastern Information Center at University of California at Riverside. JOHNSTON, FRANCIS J. 1987 The Bradshaw Trail. Historical Commission Press. Riverside. KROEBER, ALFRED L. 1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2):29-68. Berkeley. -30- 046 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin no. 78, pp. 1-995. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. LOVE, BRUCE, STEVEN MOFFIT, and BAI "TOM" TANG 1994 Cultural Resources Report: U.S. Home Project, Indio, Riverside County. Unpublished report on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside. McCARTHY, DANIEL F. 1989 Updated archaeological site form for RIV-1769 on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, McWILLIAMS, STEVEN 1970 The Occupation of the Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla (Paper #1). Unpublished paper on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside. 1971 The Occupation of the Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla (Paper #2). Unpublished paper on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside. NORDLAND, OLE J. 1978 Coachella Valley's Golden Years. Coachella Valley County Water District. Coachella. NORRIS, R.M. AND R.W. WEBB 1976 Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS, INC. 1989 Archaeological Surface Collection at Two Locations on Ttact 23317, Bermuda Dunes, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file with the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside. STRONG, WILLIAM D. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1-358. Berkeley. WILKE, PHILIP J. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla Coachella Valley, California. University of California Archaeological Research Facility Contribution No. 38. Berkeley. -31 0 4 APPENDIX A: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION$ 2 LAURA S. WHITE, SURVEYOR/RESEARCHER * 1989 M.A. in Anthropology with emphasis in Archaeology, San Diego State University, San Diego. * 1981 B.A. in Anthropology, University of San Diego, Son Diego. * SOPA/RPA Certified Archaeologist * Riverside County Certified Archaeologist * Orange County Certified Archaeologist * San Diego County Certified Archaeologist * Holds a "blanket" Cultural Resource Use Permit on the supervisory level with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Ridgectest, Barstow, :Palm Springs, El Centro, and Needles desert resources areas. * 14 years of full-time experience conducting cultural resource management projects in southern California. ROBERT S. WHITE, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR * 1987 B.A. in Liberal Studies with emphasis in Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. * 1977 A.A. Degree in Liberal Arts, Los Angeles Harbot College. * Riverside County Certified Archaeologist * Orange County Certified Archaeologist * Holds a "blanket" Cultural Resource Use Permit on the supervisory level with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Ridgecrest, Barstow, Palm Springs, El Centro, and Needles desert resources areas. * 15 years of full-time experience conducting cultural resource management projects in southern California. 04� APPENDIX B: RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH An in -person archaeological records search was conducted by Laurie S. White at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside on June 21, 1999. Consequently, there is no official letter from the clearinghouse to attach here. The in -person search included a review of all previously recotded prehistoric; and historic archaeological sites situated within a one -mile radius of the study area (see Table 1). Additionally, the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest were reviewed for the purpose of identifying any historic properties. Copies of site record forms were obtained for those resources situated within a one -mile radius of the project area. Pertinent survey and excavation reports were also reviewed and all relevant information was incorporated into the present study. 05I 0. DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 6, 2000 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 property is located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive (where it runs east - west), west and south of the Laguna de La Paz. An Initial Study for a Negative Declaration is being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for a proposed 169 single family lot subdivision on 190 gross acres. As a part of the Environmental Assessment, a Phase II archaeological testing and site evaluation report has been prepared and submitted by CRM TECH. The Phase I report identified nine potentially significant historic prehistoric sites. Seven of the sites were tested. Site 33-8761 was considered to be a significant historic resource without requiring additional investigations, and archaeological mitigation on CA-RIV-4168 was previously completed. DISCUSSION: With regard to the content of the report under the Research Design section on Page 9 (first paragraph), it is stated, "Here the research design is simply a matter of determining presence or absence of buried materials". This is not an appropriate section as it does not address important research issues, but is a method from which questions can be answered. Rather than this statement regarding determining the presence or absence of buried materials being located in the Research Design section, staff is recommending that it be relocated to the Methodology section on Page 10 of the report. Czhpc rpt tt 29436 ph ILwpd 0 G During Phase II a unit was excavated in the Rock Shelter. Excavation was stopped before reaching sterile soil. The report discussed the merits of continuing excavation within the Rock Shelter. Therefore, under the Conclusion (Page 54) it is recommended for partial excavation while leaving the balance for preservation in -situ. However, it is unclear whether the excavation is within the existing unit or more of the Rock Shelter floor will be excavated, staff is recommending a mitigation measure of Phase III with a Data Recovery Plan that defines the area and process for further investigation. Lastly, under the Conclusion "limited" archaeological monitoring is recommended. Staff is recommending that the archaeologist review the grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit and specify the areas required to be monitored. Furthermore, it could be recommended monitoring shall be required during grading if a certain depth is proposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , accepting: 1 . The archaeological testing and site evaluation report titled, "Tentative Tract 29436", as prepared and recommended for Phase III testing by CRIVI TECH, subject to the following conditions: Revisions to Phase II report (dated October 14. 1999) to bg completed and submitted with Data Recovery Program: a. Provide resumes for all field crew members. b. Remove the sentence, "Here the research design is simply a matter of determining presence or absence of buried materials" from Page 9 and incorporate the intent into the section on Research Methods on Page 10. C. Expand on Research Design (Page 9) used for prehistoric testing program based on City adopted Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR) Recommended Content and Format. d. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, specify the areas on the grading plan that shall require monitoring. Define the depth; of grading that shall require a monitor (Page 54). e. Prior to commencing of Phase III work, a Data Recovery Program shall be submitted and approved by the HPC, specifying the area and process of excavation within the Rock Shelter. C:hpc rpt tt 29436 ph Il.wpd C; J Attachment: Confidential Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation Report (Commissioners only) Prepared by: Q� lO� Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted By: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager 054 C:hpc rpt tt 29436 ph II.wpd ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND SITE EVALUATION REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29436 City of La Quinta Riverside County, California Submitted to: Marvin Roos, Director of Planning Services Mainiero, Smith & Associates, Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon, Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Tom Tang, Historian Harry Quinn, Geologist/Archaeologist Kathryn Bouscaren, Archaeologist/Lab Director Darcy Wiewall, Archaeologist CRM TECH 2411 Sunset Drive Riverside, CA 92506 In Association with Richard H. Norwood, Historical Archaeologist RT Factfinders 43416 16th Street West, #13 Lancaster, CA 93534 October 14,1999 CRM TECH Job #421 La Quinta, California, 7.5 Quadrangle Sections 25, 30, and 36, T5S R6E, San Bernardino Base Meridian Sites CA-RIV-3678, -4168, -5512, -6241 to -6245, and 33-8761 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between July and October, 1999, CRM TECH performed a testing and evaluation program on seven archaeological sites in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The seven sites under evaluation, CA-RIV-3678, -5512, and -624:1 to -6245, were among a total of nine sites recorded during a recently completed Phase I cultural resources survey of an approximately 220-acre tract of vacant land known as Tentative Tract No. 29436, which is designated for a residential development project proposed by U.S. Home Corporation. The project area consists of a portion of the southeast quarter of Section 25, a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 30, and a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 36, T5S R6E, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. Two of the nine sites in the project area, CA-RIV-4168 and 33-8761, were not tested during this study. 33-8761 was determined to be a significant historical resource without requiring additional investigations, and archaeological mitigation on CA-RIV-4168 was previously completed. The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, which is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and with Title 7 of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code (Historic Preservation). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the significance of the seven sites in the project area, and determining whether these sites constitute "historical resources," as defined by the California Public Resources Code, particularly CEQA. During the course of the study, CRM TECH, with the assistance of RT Factfinders as a subcontractor, completed archaeological field testing on all seven sites, laboratory analysis and interpretation of artifacts collected during the field work, historical research on. Site CA-RIV-6243/H, and Native American consultation. Based on the results of these various research procedures, 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. Sites CA-RIV-3678, -5512, -6241, -6242, -6244, and -6245 do not qualify as historical resources, and therefore no further cultural resources investigation is necessary on these sites. Locus 3 of Site CA-RIV-6243H, a rock shelter, and Site 33-8761, an Indian trail, require mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project's impacts on these features to a level less than significant. • The rock shelter locus shall be partially (10%) excavated to obtain significant stratigraphic data, and 90% preserved and protected in place as an important archaeological resource. • The trail site may be protected by as yet undetermined methods, to be based on discussions and proposals such as landscaping, allowing or not allowing greater access, encouraging neighborhood wardens or Caretakers to Hutch over it, or other creative suggestions. Limited monitoring during grading is in order, the extent of which is to be determined by initial cuts, trenches, or other exposures of buried strata and the presence or absence of cultural materials in them. The potential for buried archaeological deposits is thought to be low, but limited monitoring is needed to confirm or refute that determination. MANAGEMENTSUMMARY....................................................................................................i INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 SETTING..........................................................................................................................................3 CurrentNatural Setting...................................................................................................3 CulturalSetting..................................................................................................................5 Prehistory.................................................................................................................5 Ethnohistory...........................................................................................................5 EarlyExplorations..................................................................................................6 Settlementand Growth........................................................................................6 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................7 RESEARCHDESIGN.....................................................................................................................9 RESEARCHMETHODS................................................................................................................10 SURFACECOLLECTION.................................................................................................10 TESTUNITS.......................................................................................................................10 Sites CA-RIV-3678, -5512, -6241, -6244, and-6245.............................................11 SiteCA-RIV-6243/H..............................................................................................11 OTHERFIELD PROCEDURES.........................................................................................12 MetalDetector Sweep............................................................................................13 Probe.........................................................................................................................13 LABORATORYANALYSIS............................................................................................13 LithicAnalysis........................................................................................................14 CeramicAnalysis...................................................................................................14 FaunalAnalysis......................................................................................................15 HistoricArtifact Analysis.....................................................................................15 RadiocarbonDating...............................................................................................16 HISTORICALRESEARCH...............................................................................................16 RESULTSAND FINDINGS.........................................................................................................18 SITECA-RIV-3678..............................................................................................................18 SiteDescription......................................................................................................18 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................18 TestUnits.................................................................................................................18 ArtifactAnalysis.....................................................................................................18 Ceramics.......................................................................................................18 Fauna............................................................................................................18 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................19 SITECA-RIV-5512..............................................................................................................19 SiteDescription......................................................................................................19 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................19 TestUnits.................................................................................................................19 ArtifactAnalysis.....................................................................................................19 Groundstone...............................................................................................19 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................19 ii 057 SITECA-RIV-6241.................................................................................................I............20 SiteDescription......................................................................................................20 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................20 TestUnits.................................................................................................................20 ArtifactAnalysis.....................................................................................................20 Ceramics.......................................................................................................20 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................21 SITECA-RIV-6242..............................................................................................................21 SiteDescription......................................................................................................21 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................21 TestUnits.................................................................................................................21 ArtifactAnalysis.....................................................................................................21 Lithics...........................................................................................................21 Ceramics.......................................................................................................21 Fauna............................................................................................................22 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................22 SITECA-RIV-6243/H........................................................................................................22 SiteDescription......................................................................................................22 Locus1..........................................................................................................22 Locus2..........................................................................................................27 Locus3..........................................................................................................27 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................30 TestUnits.................................................................................................................30 Locus 1, Adobe House Feature................................................................30 Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature..................................................................32 Locus2..........................................................................................................33 Locus3..........................................................................................................33 Prehistoric Artifact Analysis................................................................................34 Lithics...........................................................................................................34 Ceramics.......................................................................................................36 Groundstone...............................................................................................37 Fauna............................................................................................................37 RadiocarbonDating...................................................................................39 Historic Artifact Analysis.....................................................................................39 Locus 1, Adobe House Feature................................................................39 Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature..................................................................42 Locus3..........................................................................................................43 HistoricalResearch................................................................................................44 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................45 Locus 1, Adobe House Feature................................................................45 Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature..................................................................47 Locus3..........................................................................................................47 SITECA-RIV-6244..............................................................................................................47 SiteDescription......................................................................................................47 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................47 TestUnits.................................................................................................................47 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................48 SITECA-RIV-6245..............................................................................................................48 SiteDescription......................................................................................................48 SurfaceCollection..................................................................................................48 TestUnits.................................................................................................................48 ArtifactAnalysis.....................................................................................................48 Lithics...........................................................................................................48 Ceramics.......................................................................................................48 Fauna............................................................................................................49 SiteInterpretation..................................................................................................49 ISOLATES............................................................................................................................49 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................49 SIGNIFICANCECRITERIA.............................................................................................50 SITEEVALUATION.........................................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-3678...................................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-5512...................................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-6241...................................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-6242...................................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-6243/H..............................................................................................51 SiteCA-RIV-6244...................................................................................................52 SiteCA-RIV-6245...................................................................................................52 Summary....................................52 PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT................................................................................53 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................53 NATIVE AMERICAN RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................54 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................54 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................55 TABLE 1. Functional Domains of Historic Artifacts.............................................................17 TABLE 2. Distribution of Lithic Material Type by Level......................................................35 TABLE 3. Debitage Type and Material......................................................................................35 TABLE 4. Distribution of Debitage Type by Level..................................................................36 TABLE5. Distribution of Ceramic Type by Level..................................................................36 TABLE6. Distribution of Faunal Taxa by Level.....................................................................37 TABLE 7. Distribution of Lithic, Ceramic, and Faunal Artifacts by Level........................39 FIGURE 1. Project vicinity ••••.•...................•••••.•.••••1 FIGURE2. Project area.................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 3. Overview of the project area..................................................................................3 FIGURE 4. Birds -eye view of the project area.........................................................................4 FIGURE 5. Locations of archaeological sites............................................................................8 FIGURE6. Excavation in the rock shelter...............................................................................13 FIGURE 7. Milling station at CA-RIV-5512.............................................................................20 FIGURE8. Pottery sherd from CA-RIV-6242..........................................................................23 iv FIGURE 9. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6243/H.....................................................................24 FIGURE 10. Low berm of the adobe ruins at CA-RIV-6243H..............................................25 FIGURE 11. Sketch map of Loci 1 and 3, CA-RIV-6243/H....................................................26 FIGURE12. Standard adobe bricks............................................................................................27 FIGURE 13. Sketch map of Locus 2, CA-RIV-6243/H............................................................28 FIGURE 14. Detailed drawing of Locus 3, CA-RIV-6243/H..................................................29 FIGURE15. Unit 1, CA-RIV-6243/H.........................................................................................31 FIGURE16. Vertical profile of Unit 3.......................................................................................33 FIGURE 17. The adobe building as seen in a 1941 map........................................................45 FIGURE 18. The adobe building as seen in a 1950s map.......................................................46 APPENDIX 1. Personnel Qualifications...................................................................................57 APPENDIX 2. Catalogue of Lithic, Ceramic, and Faunal Artifacts.....................................66 060 INTRODUCTION At the request of Mainiero, Smith & Associates, CRM TECH petforriied between July and October, 1999, a testing and evaluation program on seven archaeological sites in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The seven sites under evaluation, CA-RIV-3678, -5512, and -6241 to -6245, were among a total of nine sites recorded during a recently completed Phase I cultural resources survey of an approximately 220-acre tract of vacant land known as Tentative Tract No. 29436, which is designated for a residential development project proposed by U.S. Home Corporation. The project area consists of a portion of the southeast quarter of Section 25, a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 30, and a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 36, T5S R6E, 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, which is required by the City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and with Title 7 of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code (Historic Preservation). The purpose of the study is to assist the City in assessing the significance of the seven sites in the project area, and determining whether these sites constitute "historical resources," as defined by the California Public Resources Code, particularly CEQA. During the course of the study, CRM TECH, with the assistance of RT Factfinders as a subcontractor, completed archaeological :field 1 1, { f i�i{I'C11Q Si11;4m0 'V "r, 4,`i. 1 > >I Y � of �gY`"yd�w � b � � p _ ✓ � � �\ i Project area,`. t C iNO R aMm ghltls 1 �BAttr+ , A0q OLI A Nir M�i. Cud+illa i e r <�' ^ti �'` - � � ; s i• � � Y } �' c� u rqd > � er o =a tm 1 •. ii 4 _ � a 1 _ �,,,. t1 r� 1t ��� r� �;pp � � � „t� � kan h' rua�{ rit�c t • � e: , r! 4 4 5 tOmflen vswt.ca 1 _ •ras � + cnx zoa :�m Y6KK�K F1 �C` C Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979]) 061, Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle [USGS 19801) 2 1.. O 6 testing on all seven sites, laboratory analysis and interpretation of artifacts collected during the field work, historical research on Site CA-RIV-6243/H, and Native American consultation. The scope of archaeological field work included surface collection of artifacts and excavation of test units in order to determine site boundaries and the presence or absence of subsurface archaeological deposits. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusions of the study. SETTING Current Natural Setting The project area is situated along the western edge of the Coachella Valley, against and including rocky hills and escarpments of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Elevations in the project area range from 80 to 280 ft above sea level. Temperatures in the area climb to over 120 degrees in the summer and dip to near freezing in the winter. Average annual precipitation is less than 5 in. Winds blow over the property, redepositing the sands found there, and water washes over the cove floor during rare heavy rainstorms (Fig. 3). Most of the project area is a "cove" formed by hills arching around it to the west, north, and east. The ground is level and consists of silts, silty clays, sands, decomposing Figure 3. Overview of the project area (view to the northeast). 3 063 Figure 4. Birds -eye view of the project area. The more rocky terrace with native vegetation is visible at the bottom of the photograph. gravels, and rocks. The area is within the Creosote Bush Scrub Plant Community, plants of which are still found on the property. Also present are a few small mesquite groves on the east side of the cove and on the eastern side of the ridge that forms the cove's east wall. Along the western -facing slopes of the ridge, extending west into the cove, there is a low (2- to 3-ft-high) terrace that is composed of fine sands, gravels, and rocks (Fig. 4). There is a more consistent plant community in that area than in the rest of the project area. A less defined sandy gravel terrace, or bench, is present along the base of hills surrounding most of the cove. During the early part of this century, at least part of the cove area was used for agriculture. More recently, housing developments have been built in areas around and immediately to the south. The project area itself may have been slated for development at one time as there is a deteriorating asphalt road on the property and what appear to be pads in the southern portion of it (Fig. 4). People now use the area for recreational activities such as jogging, walking their dogs, dirt bike riding, and even family picnicking. Additionally, some dumping of trash and construction rubble has occurred. Native lifeways in centuries past was greatly influenced by the comings and goings of ancient Lake Cahuilla, whose last drying up period began around AD 1650. The project area lies less than two miles from the highest shoreline of the lake, which ran roughly along today's 42-ft elevation contour line. Due to its proximity of this now -vanished 4 1.. 0 6�{ fresh -water lake, results of previous archaeological studies have discovered ample evidence of exploitation of fish and other food resources from the lake by Native peoples in the vicinity. 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. 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 that were in turn grouped within the two main divisions of the people. Members of clans in one division, or moiety, had to marry into clans from the other division. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most 5 065 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, Jose 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 penetrate into the unforgiving 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 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 present-day City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter 6 06u resort town, 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. BACKGROUND In April and May, 1999, CRM TECH conducted a Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey on the subject property (Love et al. 1999). As the result of that study, four previously recorded archaeological sites and five new sites were identified within or partially within the project area, along with seven isolated finds consisting of single potsherds. Eight of the nine archaeological sites are prehistoric—i.e., Native American --in nature, while the remaining site contains the remnants of a historic -period adobe structure and other associated features, including a shallow rock shelter. Of the eight prehistoric sites, three consist of bedrock milling features, four ate primarily pottery sherd scatters, and the other one represents the remains of an ancient Native American trail. These resources have been recorded on appropriate forms and submitted into the California Historical Resource Information System. The locations of the nine archaeological sites are illustrated in Figure 5. Since isolated finds —fewer than three artifacts together —provide little information on prehistoric or historic human activities, no further research was deemed necessary for them. Archaeological sites, however, can provide valuable information regarding various aspects of the prehistory and history of the area and region. After the identification of the nine sites within the project area, each of them was evaluated against CEQA criteria for significance at the conclusion of the earlier study. Based on the results of the evaluation, Love et al. (1999:25) recommended the follow specific research procedures for each of the nine sites: • Site CA-RIV-3678 (milling station): Limited testing to confirm non -significance. • Site CA-RIV-4168 (potsherd scatter): Mitigation previously completed. No further work necessary. • Site CA-RIV-5512 (milling station): Limited testing to confirm non -significance. • Site CA-RIV-6241 (potsherd scatter): Limited testing to confirm non -significance. • Site CA-RIV-6242 (potsherd and debitage scatter): Limited testing to confirm non - significance. • Site CA-RIV-6243H (adobe remains): Extensive testing and historical research to determine information potential. • Site CA-RIV-6244 (milling station): Limited testing to confirm non -significance. • Site CA-RIV-6245 (potsherd scatter): Deep testing in search of buried sites. • Site 33-8761 (Indian trail): Provide protection of significant site off -property through as yet undetermined means such as blocking trail, fencing site, etc. Of the nine sites recorded, further historical and/or archaeological investigations were recommended on seven. 33-8761 was determined to qualify as a significant historical 7 I fentla! - \ radian WIn ells xo x V 14* 92 - -�j GA-RlV-4168 RIV \ CA RIV G2a1 / eA-RIV-6245 �Ctr CARIV3678 — CA RIV 6242I weir_ CA-RIV-62431H boundary .•Water l�i) O SCALE 1:24,000 0 112 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 foot _., .. \... , is p , Il� Win Figure 5. Locations of archaeological sites within the project area. 8 068 resource without requiring additional testing and evaluation, and any potential impact of the proposed project on CA-RIV-4168 has been previously mitigated. The City of La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission concurred with CRM TECH's conclusions, and mandated that the testing phase proceed as recommended. RESEARCH DESIGN There are two primary targets of information for the La Quinta Cove testing program, one is prehistoric, the other is historic. For the so-called prehistoric, or Native American occupation, deep testing is recommended at the sand dune build-up on the east side, or Washington Street side, of the project area. Here the research design is simply a matter of determining presence or absence of buried materials. Buried sites in the La Quinta area have shown up within the past five years of archaeology as sometimes containing pre -ceramic or Archaic Period components dating to greater than 1,000 years. Such sites have been found at Heritage Palms in Indio, and Rancho La Quinta, Troll/Woodpark, and Lapis Energy project sites in La Quinta. The historic component of the project is the main focus of the testing and evaluation, since remains of old adobe homesteads are rare. The recommendations stemming from the Phase I survey include archaeological testing and historical research to determine the site's information potential. Information potential, against which a site's significance is judged, consists of a number of research domains, including age, ethnicity, lifestyle of occupants, construction design and/or materials, and association with important people or events, i.e., place in local history. The age of the adobe is important because the early days of La Quinta and surroundings are poorly preserved in the archaeological record, and any residence or farmstead dating to the early 1920s or earlier qualifies as a pioneering endeavor. However, from the late 1920s to the 1940s, adobe residences were not so unique and were found throughout the Coachella Valley, especially in the earlier established communities like nearby Indio. Ethnicity is an interesting question, because of the numerous ethnic groups present in the Coachella Valley in pre -World War II days, including Latino and Japanese groups. If the adobe turns out to be the work of someone from a group other than the Anglo homesteaders who are best represented in the local histories, it would add an important dimension to the Valley's history. Lifestyle of the occupants is an important research domain. Were the occupants of the adobe wealthy farmers, dirt -poor hard scrabblers, or somewhere in between? How hard was it to "prove -up" a piece of land in those day before the Coachella Canal water supply, air conditioning, Interstate automobile routes, and other changes that altered lifestyles forever in this otherwise difficult place to live? Construction design and materials is one category of significance listed as a criterion of evaluation for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the testing phase at the adobe were to reveal unusual, innovative, and historically significant construction methods such as the first of its kind, or a prime example of its kind, then further work at the adobe would add to our collective knowledge of historical architecture or building history in the Coachella Valley. Association with important people or events in California history, or even local history, is another category of significance for the California Register. Was the builder of the adobe an important pioneer, the founder of institutions pr commercial enterprises significant in history? Does the adobe itself represent or mark art important period in local history? These are the kinds of questions that archaeological and historical research have set out to answer. The way these questions were approached during the course of the study is outlined in the sections below on research methods. RESEARCH METHODS The following sections outline the methods and procedures used during this study. Project design and research methods were determined by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love (see App. 1 for qualifications). Based on the research completed for the Phase I report, field work was concentrated mostly at CA-RIV-6243/H, with CA-RIV-3678 and -6245 also receiving higher levels of work effort. SURFACE COLLECTION The collection of surface artifacts was completed by CRM TECH's archaeological field crew under the supervision of Bruce Love, Richard Norwood, Harry Quinn, and/or Natasha Johnson (see App. 1 for qualifications). Two members of the field crew, Adrian Duro and Gary Resvaloso, are members of the nearby Torres Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians. In the case of the five prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-3678, -5512, -6241, -6244, and-6245), which appear to have minimal potential of being significant, the crew members would first relocate the site, then systematically walk back -and -forth over the site collecting all artifacts from the surface. The same was done for the sand dune site on the Washington Street side of the point. The adobe site, CA-RIV-6243/H, required clearing of large tamarisk overgrowth and raking of tamarisk duff to expose the surface prior to collecting. Due to the heavy overgrowth and duff layer, surface collecting at this site was limited to the surfaces of the test units, and was recorded as part of the first levels during unit recovery'. TEST UNITS As suggested in the research design, different methods were appropriate for the prehistoric sites as opposed to the historic adobe site. The prehistoric sites required standard testing of randomly place excavation units, while the historic site had distinct loci requiring specific approaches. 10 0-70 Sites CA-RIV-3678, -5512, -6241, -6244, and-6245 (Prehistoric Sites) Test excavations at these prehistoric sites were conducted under the supervision of Harry Quinn, and were performed by Natasha Johnson, Gary Resvaloso, George Auclair, and Adrian Duro, CRM TECH archaeologists. Test units were excavated at all but one of the sites addressed during this study. Each unit was hand -dug in 10-cm (4-in) levels, with all material 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. The depths of the units were determined by a number of factors, including soil conditions, geological interpretations, and artifact recovery rates. In some cases the soil became too ]hard to dig, even with an iron digging bar. If the excavation levels were negative prior to that point, the unit was abandoned, sometimes being as shallow as 30 or 40 cm. In other cases units were not particularly hard to dig and were continued to 80 to 100 cm even when no artifacts were being recovered. In other cases, when sterile clays or silts were reached a quarter of the excavation unit was dug to determine the thickness of the lens. If the silt or clay layer continued past 30 to 40 cm, the unit was abandoned. Two lxl-m test units were excavated at CA-RIV-3678. Unit 1, located next to the milling feature at this site, was dug to 60 cm below the surface. Unit 2, located over the denser concentration of potsherds, was dug to 80 cm below the surface. At CA-RIV-5512 one excavation unit was dug to a depth of 40 cm next to the milling feature. One test excavation unit was dug in each of the sites CA-RIV-6241 and -6242. The unit at CA- RIV-6241 consisted of sand down to 5 to 8 cm below the surface, at which point silty clay was encountered. Only the northeast quarter of the unit was excavated from 20 to 40 cm below the surface. Since the silty clay sediments were still present at this depth, the unit was abandoned. During the field survey for the original study, CA-RIV-6242, located on the edge of a terrace of sands, gravels, and rocks slightly above the floor of the cove, was found to consist of potsherds and worked quartz. During testing the terrace was found to consist of compacted fill dirt that was very difficult to dig, even using a dig bar. Hence, the test unit at this site was dug to a depth of 20 cm. The ground around CA-RIV-6244 was too rocky to permit excavation, so no units were dug at that site. Two test excavation units were dug at CA-RIV-6245. One was dug to a depth of 100 cm, and the other to 80 cm, below the surface. In total, 13 lxl-m excavation units were hand -dug for this project. Site CA-RIV-6243/H (Adobe Site) Test excavations at this site were conducted under the supervision of historical archaeologist Richard Norwood, and performed by Natasha Johnson, Gary Resvaloso, George Auclair, and Adrian Duro. At the main feature of this site, the adobe ruins, the focal point of interest was the structure's architectural makeup. Initially, two test units were placed at this feature to examine walls, foundation, and interior structure. Unit 1 (a lx2-m unit) was placed over the east central adobe wall to reveal both sides and expose the floor and foundation construction. It was placed to expose both an outer and an interior dividing wall. Unit 2 (lx1 m) was placed outside but against the northern wall. Its purpose was to examine another segment of foundation and expose soils beneath the foundation level to detect the potential presence of a prehistoric component. Upper portions of these units, consisting primarily of fallen wall adobe, roofing tiles, and burned beams, were not screened, nor were they excavated in 10-cm levels. Soils within 10 cm of the buried floor were screened using 1/4-in mesh. In Unit 2, the soil beneath wall/roof debris was screened. The objective was to discover datable artifacts that were present in the structure prior to its destruction and collapse due to a fire. After the completion of Units 1 and 2, two more units were excavated at or near the adobe remains. Unit 5 was placed adjacent to Unit 1 on the northeast, in order to further confirm the findings from that unit. Unit 6 was placed within the grove of tamarisk trees, to the northeast of the adobe house feature. This location was chosen because it lies between the adobe feature and the rock shelter at Locus 3, and thus provided a good testing point to determine whether subsurface cultural deposits extended between the two loci. At the remains of an outbuilding near the adobe, Unit 4 (1xl m) was placed inside the structure to reveal the thickness of the footing, examine floor construction and recover a sample of artifacts. In this case there had been no fire at the structure and there was very little depth. The unit encompassed a single 8-10 cm level before reaching a sterile hard clay floor. In this case soil was screened in 1/4-in mesh, and all residue was saved and later water screened in order to recover small items. At the rock shelter, a single lx1-m test unit, Unit 3, was placed and excavated near the center back wall (Fig. 6). The purpose of this unit was to assess the nature, extent and content of buried deposits and attempt to detect a prehistoric component. The unit was excavated in 10-cm contour levels and screened using 1/8-in mesh screen. It was excavated to a depth of 120 cm and terminated while still yielding a small quantity of cultural material. Adobe brick, roof tile fragments, burned beam chunks, and other definitely non - diagnostic items were noted but not collected. Other non -diagnostic items--i.e., cement chunks, bottle sidewall fragments --identified during cataloging were recorded and then discarded. In some cases a sample of a non -diagnostic material was retained for illustrative purposes. OTHER FIELD PROCEDURES In addition to hand -excavated test units, other techniques that are particularly useful at historic -period sites were employed at Site CA-RIV-6243/H. 12 072 Figure 6. Excavation in the rock shelter, Locus 3 of Site CA-RIV-6243/H. Metal Detector Sweep A metal detector sweep was conducted at all loci at CA-RIV-6243/H to locate any buried concentrations of metal that could reflect a household refuse deposit. Time diagnostic artifacts such as coins, cartridges, or other metallic items marked with patent dates were also sought. A Tesoro Sidewinder U-Max was used in the sweep. The sweep was made within 30 ft of the adobe structure foundation, in the tamarisk grove to the east of the adobe, in a 10-ft wide swath around the outbuilding footing, and within and below the opening of the rock shelter. Probe A steel probe was also used at all loci. This tool is a simple steel rod with a sharpened tip that is pushed into the soil until it meets resistance. It is useful in assessing soil variation and depth of soil to claypan, as well as detecting subsurface cultural deposits and buried floors, slabs, or footings. LABORATORY ANALYSIS All artifacts collected from every phase of field work were brought to the CRM TECH laboratory for cleaning, sorting, counting, and cataloguing. Each piece was sorted into 13 %3 the basic categories of chipped stone, ground stone, animal bone, ceramics, historic artifacts, and specialized items such as projectile points (arrowheads). Initial laboratory procedures were carried out by Kathryn Wright Bouscaren, Daniel Ballester, and Natasha Johnson (see App. 1 for qualifications). After being sorted and catalogued, each category of the artifacts was forwarded to the appropriate specialist for further analysis. For this study, lithic and ceramic analysis was conducted by Harry Quinn, faunal analysis was conducted by Darcy Wiewall, and historic artifact analysis was conducted by Richard Norwood (see App. 1 for qualifications). Charcoal samples collected during the field work were prepared and delivered to Beta Analytic, a radiocarbon laboratory specializing in C14 dating for archaeologists. The complete lists of lithic, ceramic, and faunal artifacts recovered during the study are attached to the report as Appendix 2. Lithic Analysis The analysis of chipped stone debitage, projectile points, and groundstone included identification of material type, e.g., chert, jasper, and wonderstone. Material classification can yield information about geographical sources for stone used by Native Americans, as well as trading and travel behavior. Chipped stone was also classified on the basis of production stage and technology, i.e., whether the flake was produced by percussion or pressure technology and at what stage of reduction the flake was produced. Larger flakes with original cortex usually represent earlier stages of reduction while much smaller flakes are generally produced in tool production or retouching and resharpening of used tools. Complete or diagnostic fragments of projectile points can be used as temporal and sometimes geographical markers based on type. Ceramic Analysis For the purpose of ceramic analysis, all pottery sherds in the artifact assemblage were categorized into one of several clay types. Two of these types commonly found are brownware, made of mountain (residual) clays, and buffware, made of sedimentary clays. The sherds were also typed into functional classes such as water jar, storage vessel, cooking pot, and small bowl. These classifications are based on sherd thickness, shape, and temper. Cooking pots are distinguishable by having the thickest walls, and have the coarsest paste and largest pieces of temper. Large temper combined with thickness helped prevent breakage during heating over cooking fires. Storage vessels have medium thickness and midsized temper. These vessels frequently have wide bodies and narrow mouths, something like a modern day "cookie jar." Water vessels are thin with very fine temper. The principal reason for the thinness of the vessel walls is to reduce weight for carrying purposes. After classification of individual sherds, the resulting data were tabulated and used for comparisons in the interpretive analysis. 14 074 Faunal Analysis Faunal remains were processed by initial sorting into identifiable and unidentifiable categories. The former consisting of bones with attributes that could be assigned to both skeletal element and taxon. The unidentifiable fragments were those bones too fragmented to have clear diagnostic attributes. All bones were examined by the author, under a dissecting microscope when necessary. Specific identifications were accomplished with the aid of the comparative skeletal collection housed at University of California, Riverside, and supplemented by the comparative faunal collection housed at CRM TECH from a previous faunal analysis in the same area (Wake 1999). Taxonomic nomenclature and any bio-ecological information follows Barone (1976), Burt and Grossenheider (1976), Olsen (1968,1980), and Schmid (1972). After the initial sort, the unidentifiable fragments were then examined for modifications, such as burning and butchering, and catalogued to taxonomic affinity based on size. Specimens were identified to species or genus level whenever it was possible; however, it was often necessary to segregate them into generalized taxonomic categories such as order, family, or class. Often extreme fragmentation of faunal remains occurs and it is necessary to place specimens into broad categories. Specimens that could not be identified to order or family were first segregated by class (mammal, bird, fish) then assigned a size qualifier (Lyman 1979). The size qualifiers are separated into "small mammal," composed of rodent -sized forms up to jackrabbit; "medium mammal," composed of animals larger than a jackrabbit up to domestic sheep or pig; and 'large mammal," representing animals of larger than sheep, such as deer or cow. The entire assemblage was inspected for potential indications of human modifications, such as burning and butchering. If possible, the faunal analyst must measure the abundance of each taxon, count the numbers of different skeletal elements by which each taxon is represented, estimate the proportionate representation of individuals of each sex and age, and attempt to determine mean individual size and variability in size. Unfortunately, due to the small and fragmented nature of this faunal assemblage all quantifications were base on raw specimen counts and weights rather than minimum number of individuals (Grayson 1984; Lyman 1994). After the initial sort it was clear that each unit would produce no more than one individual of any given species. Techniques for the aging and sexing of species were applied, but with few results. Historic Artifact Analysis Analysis of historic -period artifacts was performed at the laboratory of RT Factfinders in Lancaster, California. Items were washed in clear water, bagged, and then marked using a 3 numeral sequence (X-Y-n). The first numeral is the unit number, the second is the level number (e.g., 20-30 cm = Level 3), and the third is a unique number assig ned to an artifact recovered in the specified level (1-n). A "0" indicates that there is no level provenience. 15 075 Artifacts were measured as appropriate. Historic -period artifacts were measured in inches, in base 16. In this system 3 3/4 in is expanded to 3 12/16 in and is expressed 3.12. They were classed according to a number of "functional domains" which associate groups of artifacts of related material, similar technology, and realms of behavior. A list of functional domains for historic -period artifacts is presented in Table 1. Radiocarbon Dating A small charcoal sample was taken from Unit 3 of Site CA-RIV-6243/H, located underneath the rock shelter. The sample was collected from a depth of approximately 118 cm, in association with possible pre -ceramic deposits of chipped stone. This sample was chosen for radiocarbon dating on the basis that a single piece of charcoal will yield a more accurate date than several pieces analyzed together as a single sample. The date that this piece of charcoal would yield was to be crucial in determining the potential for future research in this particular rock shelter. The charcoal was Sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., in Miami, Florida, and analyzed using the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique. HISTORICAL RESEARCH In conjunction with the archaeological testing procedures, CRM TECH Historian Bai "Tom" Tang (see App. 1 for qualifications) pursued historical research on CA-RIV- 6234/H in order to reconstruct the historic background of the site and establish the identity of its owners and/or occupants during the historic period. Sources consulted during the research include existing literature on local and regional history, archival records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Riverside County Assessor's Office, and materials on file at the Local History Collection of the Riverside Public Library, Central Branch. In addition, Tang conducted oral historical interviews with a number of informants who are knowledgeable in the history of the La Quinta area. Among those interviewed are Art Lalonde of the Coachella Valley Historical Society, Barbara Irwin of the La Quinta Historical Society, La Quinta City Councilman Stanley Sniff, and long-time La Quinta residents Jack Burkett and Harold Cousins, whose family owned and developed properties near the project area. Findings from these sources are discussed in the sections to follow. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION Representatives from two nearby Tribes were consulted regarding treatment,, protection and disposition of archaeological finds on and near the subject property. On September 28, 1999, Bruce Love met with Ernest Morreo, elder from the Torres Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians, and on October 8 he met with Marc Benitez, Second Vice Chairman of Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. In both cases, Love showed the Tribal representatives the rock shelter and the trail site at the north end of the property. Love explained what had been found there and elicited comments and recommendations to 16 0 7 6P be included in the current report. The Tribal representatives' remarks are surnmarized and presented in the "Recommendations" section below. Table 1. 51. Domestic Expendable 51A. Canned Food/Products/Retail 51B. Glassed Food/Products/Retail 51C. Other Packaging/Food/Products 51D. Produce/Fresh 51E. Meat/Fresh 51F. Caps/Lids for Glass/Metal Containers 52. Domestic Non -Expendable, Kitchen 52A. Ceramics 52B. Glassware 52C. Canning Jars/Equipment 52D. Flatware/Cutlery 52E. Enamelware/Tinware 52F. Cookware 52G. Kitchen Appliances 52H. Other Food Prep./Service Tools 52I. Child/Special Food Prep. Tools 53. Domestic, General 53A. Electrical Systems 53B. Plumbing Systems 53C. Temperature Control 53D. Pest Control 53E. Entertainment 53F. Security 53G. Furnishings 53H. Architectural 53I. Decoration 53J. Child Rearing/Toys and Equipment 53K. Pet Supplies and Equipment 53L. Miscellaneous Household Maintenance 54. Domestic, Construction/Maintenance 54A. Tools 54B. Hardware/Fasteners 54C. Hardware/Fixtures 54D. Materials 55. Personal 55A. Grooming 55B. Clothing 55C. Adornment 55D. Personal Kit (Keys, Wallet, Watch, etc.) 55E. Habits/Addictions Historic Artifacts 56. Recreation 56A. Arms/Munitions/Hunting Gear 56B. Fishing Gear 56C. Sporting Equipment 56D. Hobbies/Games 57. Transportation 57A. Horse/Tack/Wagon 57B. Autos/Auto Parts 57C. Railroad 58. Farming/Ranching 58A. Fencing 58B. Irrigation Systems 58C. Farm Manual Equipment 58D. Farm Mechanical Equipment 58E. Livestock Equipment 59. Mining 59A. Blasting Systems 59B. Drilling 59C. Assay 59D. Lighting 59E. Claim Form 59F. Ore Samples 59G. Ore Processing Items 60. Military 60A. Uniforms/Decorations 60B. Military Arms 60C. Field Kit 61. Industrial 61A. Heavy Machined Parts 61B. Institutional Items 61C. Other Commercial/Industrial Items 62. Miscellaneous, Historic XX Non-Artifactual Items ?? Unidentified Items 17 077 RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following sections discuss the results and findings of the vatious research procedures detailed above. SITE CA-RIV-3678 Site Description The site consists of one milling feature and a small pottery scatter on the surface. It is located on the west side of the project area, adjacent to the east face of a granitic mountain front. It is situated on a natural bench feature elevated roughly 1 rn above the cove floor. The surface of the site is very rocky. Beneath this rocky layer are a layer of mesquite material and ponded sediments of silty clay and clayey silt that indicate an earlier presence of water. Unit 2 also revealed a mesquite dune complex beneath the surface zone. The lowest layers consist of rocky, gravelly, sand. This material appears to be talus and sheet -wash originating from the adjacent mountain front. Surface Collection Eight pottery sherds were collected from a 1x1-m area of the surface of this site. Test Units Unit 1 yielded a charcoal sample from 10-20 cm, bone fragments from 30-60 cm, and nothing from 60-80 cm. Unit 2 produced bone from levels 0-60 cm, and nothing from 60-80 cm. The unit was terminated at 80 cm. Artifact Analysis Ceramics All eight sherds recovered from this site are brownware and fit together to form one larger sherd. No rim sherds were present, but the size, temper, and shape is indicative of a storage vessel. Fauna Site CA-RIV-3678 produced a limited faunal assemblage. A total of 10 bone specimens (4.7 g) recovered from two units have been identified and analyzed. Six taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). One vertebrate genera and two species are identified. No fish, birds, amphibians, or reptiles were identified from this site. Mammals represent the entire vertebrate faunal assemblage from site CA-RIV-3678. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by two genera and species (Lepus californicus , black -tailed desert hare; and Sylvilagus audubonii, Audubon s Cottontail). Mammal remains classifiable only to relative size (N=6, 3.1 g) are the most numerous, with large mammals (N=3, 3.1 g) dominating by both weight and count. $$mall and medium 18 0-7 0 mammals are represented by one bone fragment each. None of the specimens had evidence of modification. Site Interpretation This site contains a single flat-topped boulder with a grinding slick on its top surface. A cluster of eight pottery sherds was present in close proximity to the boulder. The two units excavated at this site encountered the remains of an old mesquite thicket, but no artifacts. The grinding rock indicates that food procurement and processing probably took place here; the single "pot drop" without other kinds of artifacts suggest very light usage of the area; and lack of burning on the animal bones --which came from excavation levels otherwise devoid of artifacts --suggest that the animal bones are natural deposits and not left by human activities. SITE CA-RIV-5512 Site Description The site consists of one milling feature. It is located on a bench feature to the south of the mountain. The bench consists of rocky, gravelly sand and ruins along the base of the mountain front, standing about one meter above the floor of the cove. The depth of the milling feature indicates a moderate level of use, perhaps over repeated visits. Surface Collection One large wedge-shaped pestle was recovered from the surface of this site. Test Units The single test unit, excavated to 80 cm, yielded no artifacts. Artifact Analysis Groundstone A large pestle -shaped rock ground on one end was recovered from a rock crevice near the bedrock grinding feature (Fig. 7). The bedrock feature is a slick, a feature which normally is associated with a mano rather than a pestle, but no bedrock mortar has been found in the area. The pestle is wedge-shaped, and was perhaps used in a grinding rather than a pounding motion. It is composed of coarse -grained quartz diorite, matching the composition of the adjacent mountain. Site Interpretation Because of the presence of a single milling feature and the dearth of artifacts at this site, CA-RIV-5512 can be characterized as a food -processing site unrelated to other living activities, probably some distance from a home base or camp area. 19 d7q Figure 7. Milling station at CA-RIV-5512 (trowel is pointing north). Arrow indicates pestle. SITE CA-RIV-6241 Site Description This site contains no milling features, and is comprised of a wide surface scatter of pottery sherds. It is located on the floor of the cove to the northeast of Site CA-RIV- 3678 . The surface of the site is coarse to very coarse gravelly sand and ponded silty clay sediments. Beneath the surface the soil was a very hard silty clay, indicative of an earlier presence of water. The pottery scatter measures approximately 20x12 rn, situated in an open, flat area. Surface Collection Surface collection at this site yielded 22 pottery sherds. Test Units The single test unit at this site yielded no artifacts. The unit was terminated at 20 cm, except for the northeast quarter of the unit which was excavated to 40 cm. Artifact Analysis Ceramics The surface collection of 22 sherds contains 16 brownware sherds and six buffware sherds. Of the 16 brownware sherds, only one is a rim sherd. This sherd is 20 0evv indicative of a small bowl. Based on the temper, these brownware sherds represent at least two different vessels. All six of the buffware sherds are body sherds. Based on the temper, all of these sherds may be from the same vessel. The buffware sherds are small, but based on their curvature are probably from a water jar or small storage vessel. Site Interpretation This ceramic scatter is located between site CA-RIV-3678 and a rocky point that juts into the cove area. The presence of the sherds may be a result of vessels broken along a trail linking food procurement/processing areas to living areas. An absence of other kinds of artifacts suggests this was not a living area. SITE CA-RIV-6242 Site Description This site is comprised of widely scattered pottery sherds on the surface and a few pieces of chipped stone. It is located on the eastern side of the cove, to the north of Site CA- RIV-6243/H. The site is located on a wide bench feature that extends from the mountain front for ca. 60 m before dropping rapidly to the cove floor. The site has a very rocky surface covering deposits of very hard silty sand. The bench appears to be man-made from imported soil that was then compacted. Surface Collection Surface collection at this site yielded 32 pottery sherds, two pieces of chipped stone, and very small amounts of shell and rock. Test Units Archaeological testing procedures employed during this study revealed that the terrace was composed of compacted fill dirt that was very difficult to dig, even using a dig bar. Consequently, the test unit at this site was dug to a depth of 20 cm, with only one potsherd recovered from the first level. Artifact Analysis Lithics The surface collection from CA-RIV-6242 contained two lithic samples. One is a piece of wonderstone and the other a yellow -brown jasper. Ceramics The surface collection of 34 sherds contains 16 brownware sherds and 18 buffware sherds. The brownware sherds appear to be from the same vessel, which was probably a storage vessel. All but one of the buffware sherds are body sherds. 21 - 0 61 Based on the temper, there are three different vessels represented. The single rim sherd appears to be from a storage vessel. The sherds representilig the other two vessels are not large enough to categorize. One of the buffware varieties is very unusual, as it contains scattered snail shell fragments (Fig. 8). The snails appear to be the same species as those found in ancient Lake Cahuilla sediments. The presence of these shell fragments in vessel sherds indicates that lake bed clays were used in local ceramic manufacturing. One sherd was found near the surface in Unit 1. It is a small body sherd, so cannot be typed to vessel form. Based on the temper, this sherd came from one of the unclassified vessels represented in the surface collection. Fauna Site CA-RIV-6242 produced no vertebrate fauna. Eggshell was collected from the surface of one excavation unit. It is more than likely modern and does not represent dietary refuse. It could easily represent a natural occurrence. Little more can be said. Site Interpretation This pottery sherd scatter with a minor presence of chipped stone is located atop what appears to be recent fill dirt. This association indicates that this cultural material was brought in from another location and does not truly represent a Native American "site." SITE CA-RIV-6243/H During the course of this study, a significant prehistoric component was discovered at this site, which was initially recorded as the remains of a possible historic -period homestead. As a result, the site designation has been changed to CA-RIV-6243/H from the original CA-RIV-6243H. Site Description Site CA-RIV-6243/H is made up of three distinctive loci. Locus 1 consists of the remains of the adobe structure and an outbuilding, possibly a garage. Locus 2 consists of a well and four concrete piers, located some 250 ft west of Locus 1• Locus 3 consists of the rock shelter, or shallow cave, in the cliff behind the adobe (Fig. 9). These loci are discussed in further detail below. Locus 1 (Adobe and Outbuilding) The main feature at this locus is an adobe residential structure that is completely collapsed and melted, with only a rernnant of the chimney still partly standing. Wall stubs are buried beneath blow sand leaving a subtle berm. The structure was destroyed by fire, and surface evidence is meager (Fig. 10). 22 0 8a 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 cm Figure 8. Pottery sherd from CA-RIV-6242, unusual in the use of snail shell fragments among temper materials. 23 083 Im Rock smelter Outbuilding d Site boundary foundation Well pus 2J ae' P Melted adobe wall 0 'to ft 0 '12 m Figure 9. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6243/H, consisting of adobe remains, well, and rock shelter (cf. Fig. 5) 24 U 8j Figure 10. Low berm of the adobe ruins at CA-RIV-6243H. Note the partially standing chimney (arrow). After clearing vegetation, probing, and uncovering portions of the walls, measurements were made. The house was basically rectangular in ground plan, measuring 35 ft north/south and 30 ft east/west (Fig. 11). There appears to have been an add -on west of the northwest corner. The add -on is also built of adobe, and measures 12 ft east/west and 6 ft north/south making the structure's footprint somewhat L-shaped. It is possible that south of, and adjacent to the add -on, there was a cement pier -supported deck or porch that ran along the west side of the house. One cement pier still remains in this area. The southeast corner of the structure is 62 1/2 ft north of a block wall which serves as a boundary for a development to the south. The adobe is oriented at 15 degrees east of magnetic north. The chimney remnant is situated in the central interior portion of the house. It measures 2 ft 8 in north/south and 5 ft east/west. It is 12 ft 3 in west of the east interior wall and is linked to it by an interior adobe wall. The stuccoed walls are approximately 1 ft thick. There is no reinforcing wire in the stucco. The structure was built of straw - tempered adobe bricks measuring 15-17 in long, 11 1/2 in wide, and 3 3/4-4 1/2 in thick (Fig. 12). Adobe mortar was used in laying the bricks. Alternate tows were offset approximately 3-5 in. The structure has a red -colored, well -finished cement floor including southwest -style cornices at wall junctures. The foundation was laid on a bed of large cobbles. The roof was made of interlocking red tile placed over wood framing covered with tar paper. Standard tiles measure 14.10 in long and 11.02 in wide. 25 Hill Rock shelter Unit 3 Modern trash scatter Outbuilding II•Pj b Unit 4 250 ft to Tamarisk Locus 2� trees Unit 2 °Unit 6 �. Unit 5 Adobe at�� remains Unit 1 es , titm 0 Block wall 0 40 ft 0 12 m Figure 11. Sketch map of Loci 1 and 3, CA-RIV-6243/H. 26 d 3 Figure 12. Standard adobe bricks used in the house at CA-RIV-6243/H, measuring ca. 16x11.5x4 in. The foundation of a second building was identified less than 60 ft west of the main adobe residence (Fig. 11). The foundation is 11 ft 4 in wide and 14 ft 1 in long, consisting of a cement footing 12 in wide. The footing is approximately 3 1/2 in thick. It has abundant cracks and is in poor condition. A portion of the footing in the southeast corner is missing. The building is oriented 25 degrees east of magnetic north. The interior floor is light tan hard clay. There is a scatter of refuse at this location, consisting mostly of nails, hardware, construction materials, and broken clear and brown glass bottles. There is a scar on the surface of the footing near the northeast corner, which suggests that a 4x12-in upright support beam was located here. The western, and a portion of the eastern, footing were uncovered sufficiently to photograph and obtain measurements. The northern footing lies buried beneath approximately 20-25 cm of blow sand but was traced using a steel probe. Locus 2 (Well and Piers) The area of the well contains the original 6-in steel well casing surrounded by a low concrete wall, and four concrete piers that presumably supported a water tank in historic times (Fig. 13). Locus 3 (Rock Shelter) The rock shelter is approximately 19 ft wide and 8 ft in maximum depth from back wall to drip line (Fig. 14). There is some fire -blackening on the ceiling. The soil surface appears rocky, gravelly, and shallow. The soil is littered with recent debris, primarily bottle glass. It is probable that much of the glass is either due to party activities or shooters who set up bottles for targets in the rock shelter. The shelter is about 10 ft higher than the base of the ridge line. The rock forming the shelter 27 08 Concrete block (rough finish) Well footing Rocks 6° well casing visible inside Rock -lined hole pipe I J' �- Dirt r berm -� r J- Concrete pads with metal bars J ! r / 1 A Datum paint J p a 5 ft Figure 13. Sketch map of Locus 2, CA-RIV-6243/H. 28 089 G y-c:� Q 0 0 p /d d /1 Q 06 I S, j 4 o is Z> do o l a4 f b C7 fAN Rocky slope to base of ridge I+ rII O Cleft Back line of rock shelter 0 �4ft 0 1.2 m Figure 14. Detailed drawing of Locus 3, CA-RIV-6243/1-1, the rock shelter. 29 0 8 e is a granitic rock with intrusive quartz and feldspar -rich dikes. The rock shelter has a cleft on its north end due to weathering along a major crack or fault. Rock and alluvium washes down from above the cleft at this end of the shelter. There is a 36 ft wide fan of rocky alluvial fill between the shelter drip line and the base of the ridge below. Surface Collection Systematic surface collection was not practical at this site due to heavy vegetation and tamarisk duff obstruction. As a result, no artifacts were recovered from the surface as part of a separate collection method, but rather were included in the test unit recovery. Test Units Since the earlier study had concluded that CA-RIV-6243/H has high potential for historic significance (Love et al. 1999:24), a total of six test units were excavated within the boundaries of this site. Locus 1, Adobe House Feature Four test units, Units 1, 2, 5 and 6, were excavated at this feature (Fig. 11). The first two, Units 1 and 2, were placed to examine both architectural details and artifact content. As mentioned above, in both of these units the upper levels consisted of roof and wall fall, basically fallen adobe brick, stucco, roof tile, and charred lumber (Fig. 15). This fill was excavated without screening or level control. Soil was screened when fill was removed to within 10 cm of the interior floor, as determined by steel probe, and when the original surface was reached on areas exterior to the structure. A total of 121 historic -period artifacts were collected from Units I and 2, as discussed in further detail below. The portion of Unit 1 outside the structure yielded prehistoric - period artifacts at and below the base of the stucco wall finish. These artifacts may have been collected by the historic occupants of the adobe and left when the house was abandoned. However, it is equally possible that the artifacts were deposited in prehistoric times, and the adobe happened to be built over a prehistoric site. Unit 2 was excavated on the exterior wall partially to assess this possibility, but no prehistoric artifacts were recovered in Unit 2. Unit 5, excavated just northeast of Unit 1, also abutted the adobe wall and was dug to a depth of 100 cm. Modern/historic materials were recovered at all levels down to 90 cm, including large amounts of glass and metal. Other historic artifacts recovered were mostly building and appliance materials. Historic and prehistoric artifacts occurred concomitantly at 30 cm and below. Prehistoric artifacts were only recovered from 30 to 80 cm. A total of 30 pottery sherds and 21 pieces of chipped stone of various :materials were recovered in this unit, and no formed stone tools were found. Unit 6, located in the grove of tamarisk trees, was excavated to a depth of 90 cm. This unit contained smaller amounts of the same types of historic materials recovered from 30 0 R0 Figure 15. Unit 1, CA-RIV-6243/H, exposing interior wall of the house. Note adobe bricks, stucco coating, and red painted plaster floor. Surrounding the unit are remnants of roof tiles and collapsed walls. the other three units located around the adobe feature. Overall, the types and ratios of artifacts found in this unit are consistent with other findings at this locus, but on a smaller scale. Very little prehistoric material was found. Modern/historic artifacts were recovered to a depth of 50 cm, while prehistoric materials were recovered from 30- 50 cm, as is consistent with the prehistoric findings of the other units. Due to relatively high volumes of artifacts recovered, detailed findings from the four units excavated near the adobe feature are summarized below. Unit 1 (One 10-cm Level beneath Wall/Roof Debris): 5 pottery sherds; 2 chipped stone pieces; 2 chipped stone tools; 1 pestle fragment; 13 pieces of glass, including both window and bottle; 2 stucco; 25 pieces of metal, including nails, screws, bolts, roofing, cans and lids, and 1 hinge; 1 adobe brick; 1 piece of tar paper; 1 piece of cement flooring. Unit 2 (One 10-cm Level beneath Wall/Roof Debris): 28 pieces of metal, including shell casings, nails, appliance parts, 1 bottle cap, and barrel hoop; 12 pieces of glass, including both window and bottle; 1 piece of stucco; 1 tar paper; 1 earthenware cup fragment. 091 61 Unit 5: 0-10 cm: 14 pieces of glass; 1 nail fragment; 1 soda can pull tab; 1 carpeting strand; 2 terra-cotta fragments. 10-20 cm: 62 pieces of glass; 6 pieces of metal, including alurninum foil; 5 terra-cotta fragments; 1 piece of plaster; fiberglass; 9 pieces of eggshell. 20-30 cm: 70+ pieces of glass; 19 pieces of ceramic insulator for electric stoves; 10 pieces of tar paper; 1 piece of plaster; 16 pieces of metal, including copper screen, nails, springs and shell casings; 30+ terra-cotta roof tile fragments; 1 ceramic fragment. 30-40 cm: 1 pottery sherd; 7 pieces of glass; 10 nails; 5 pieces of ceramic insulator for electric stoves; 22 terra-cotta roof tile fragments; charcoal with embedded nails. 40-50 cm: 8 pottery sherds; 9 pieces of chipped stone; 1 piece of groundstone; 42 pieces of glass; 35 pieces of metal; 6 terra-cotta roof tile fragments; 1 piece of tar paper; 1 small grinding wheel fragment; 10 ceramic fragments. 50-60 cm: 14 pottery sherds; 1 prehistoric ceramic pipe stem fragment; 10 pieces of chipped stone; 3 bone fragments; 1 piece of groundstone; 31 pieces of glass, including 2 pieces of stained window glass; 5 pieces of metal; 2 terra-cotta fragments. 60-70 cm: 5 pottery sherds; 2 pieces of chipped stone; 23 pieces of metal; 1 piece of fire -affected clay. 70-80 cm: 2 pottery sherds; 2 pieces of chipped stone; 1 piece of glass; 10 pieces of metal. 80-90 cm: 1 piece of glass; 2 pieces of metal; 1 piece of fire -affected Clay. Unit 6: 0-10 cm: 5 pieces of glass; 1 piece of metal. 10-20 cm: 5 pieces of glass; 3 pieces of metal; 1 piece of wood. 20-30 cm: 3 pieces of glass; 16 pieces of metal; 2 pieces of tar; 4 bone fragments. 30-40 cm: 1 pottery sherd; 1 piece of glass; 30+ pieces of metal; 1 piece of tar. 40-50 cm: 2 pottery sherds; 5 pieces of metal. Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature A single unit, Unit 4, was excavated within the foundation of the outbuilding (Fig. 11) to gain a better understanding of construction methods and the function of the structure. The unit was placed adjacent to the southern footing near the southwest corner. The soil surface at this location indicated a high frequency of nails and other hardware. Since this was the Case the entire assemblage of residue and artifacts, after screening with 1/8-in mesh, was saved. This material was water screened in the lab and given a detailed examination. The method usually results in the recovery of a number of artifacts that otherwise might not have been identified. Only one level (0-10 cm) was completed before encountering the hard - packed clay floor and terminating excavation. A single prehistoric period artifact, a broken projectile point, was recovered during the water screening process. This late prehistoric period artifact may have been collected by 32 (3 g a the historic occupants of the site and then left in the building when it was abandoned. On the other hand, the point may also have been deposited here in prehistoric times, long before the construction of the building. A complete list of artifacts collected from Unit 4 is presented below: 0-10 cm: 1 projectile point base; 6 pieces of glass, including 1 window fragment; 343 pieces of metal, including nails, tacks, washers, wire, screen, a hacksaw blade, and many unidentifiable pieces; 5 pieces of rubber hose and gaskets; 1 plastic electrical plug cover; 2 pieces of fabric; 1 earthenware fragment. Locus 2 (Well and Piers) No archaeological testing procedures were undertaken at this locus because there appeared small likelihood of uncovering artifacts or features that would add to our understanding of the historical background of the site. Locus 3 (Rock Shelter) At this locus, Unit 3 was placed near the central portion of the rock shelter. The unit was oriented parallel to and about 1 1/2 ft out from the interior rock face. The unit was excavated in 10-cm contour levels and all soil was screened through 1/8-in mesh screen. A loosely compact, coarse -grained, gravelly, rocky soil was encountered throughout all levels (Fig. 16). Screening was tirne- consuming due to large grain size. The unit yielded both prehistoric and historic cultural material. A depth of 110 cm was achieved without a sterile level occurring and the unit was terminated at that point because it was demonstrated that a deep cultural deposit exists. The soil contains charcoal throughout all levels. Charcoal is more noticeable and abundant in the 50-80 Silt stringers 0cm 2 50 cm 2 3 3 4 4 100 cm 110 cm North wall East wall South wall West wall Horizon 1: Gravelly sand with ponded silt stringers near the east wall. Probably recent material, as it has a sharp contrast with Horizon 2. Horizon 2: Gravelly sand with minor sand lenses. Horizon 3: Gravelly sand with scattered charcoal. Horizon 4: Gravelly sand with common cobble -sized clasts and scattered charcoal. Horizon 5: Charcoal, ash, and fire -affected sand, probably fire hearth. Horizon 6: Gravelly sand with minor scattered charcoal. Figure 16. Vertical profile of Unit 3, CA-RIV-6243/H. 33 093 cm depth range, and some charcoal lenses are discernible in unit sidewalls. There is an abundance of datable charcoal, some occurring as large chunks that could provide detailed information relating to the chronology of rock shelter use. No evidence of rodent burrowing, root growth, or other disturbance was noted at depths greater than 50 cm, further enhancing the shelter's research potential. Fire -affected rocks were noted throughout the unit, at an occurrence of 2-5 per level. At around a 100 cm depth a fire hearth feature was exposed in the east wall, containing fire -affected rocks, charcoal, and ash. A datable charcoal sample was later collected by digging through the floor of the last excavated level, exposing a deposit of charcoal pieces at 120 Cm below the surface in the north sidewall. The implication of the deep deposit is that the living floor area may have been much more extensive in the past than is evident today. There may be cultural deposits beneath the fan outside the shelter's drip line. While the yield of artifacts is riot large in Unit 3, it is possible that perishables and diagnostic artifacts may be present at depth within the shelter. Additionally, the prehistoric artifacts recovered from the rock shelter are significantly more abundant than at any other unit of the site, and may be more indicative of original deposition. Artifacts collected from Unit 3 include the following items: 0-10 cm: 5 pottery sherds; 1 piece of chipped stone; 45 pieces of bottle glass; 8 pieces of metal including nails, shell casings, a bottle cap and a penny; 5 pieces of ceramic tile; 1 piece of stucco; a possible toilet fragment. 10-20 cm: 4 pottery sherds; 9 pieces of chipped stone; 1 stone tool; 4 bones including 1 fish vertebra; 6 pieces of bottle glass; 9 pieces of metal including nails, a thumb tack, and 1 shell casing; 2 pieces of ceramic tile; 1 piece of stucco; 1 plastic target disk. 20-30 cm: 9 pottery sherds; 13 pieces of chipped stone; 3 small mammal bone fragments; 5 pieces of bottle glass; 8 pieces of metal including nails and bullet casings; 2 pieces of ceramic tile. 30-40 cm: 3 pottery sherds; 6 pieces of chipped stone; 4 small mammal bones; 4 nails 2 pieces of bottle glass. 40-50 cm: 5 pieces of chipped stone; 1 small bone fragment. 50-60 cm: 6 pieces of chipped stone; 7 small bone fragments; 1 piece of ceramic tile. 60-70 cm: 1 pottery sherd; 9 pieces of chipped stone; 15 small bone fragments; 1 charcoal sample. 70-80 cm: 6 pieces of chipped stone; 7 small bone fragments; 2 pieces of charcoal. 80-90 cm: 9 pieces of chipped stone; 9 small bone fragments. 90-100 cm: 20 pieces of chipped stone; 11 small bone fragments; 1 piece of bottle glass; 1 piece of fire -affected clay. 100-110 cm: 10 pieces of chipped stone; 1 small bone fragment. Prehistoric Artifact Analysis Lithics Three pieces of lithic material were found in Unit 1, all of which are wonderstone. Two of these are shatter, and one is an early stage percussion flake. 34 Oqq Unit 3 produced the highest number of pieces of debitage for the site, a total of 43 pieces. This total includes 23 pieces of quartz (18 milky quartz), 13 wonderstone, 1 slate, 1 porphyritic rhyolite and 5 quartzite pieces (Table 2). Of the 18 milky quartz pieces, 11 are shatter and 7 are flakes, including two thinning flakes. Of the 13 wonderstone pieces, 9 are flakes, including 3 thinning flakes, while only 3 are shatter. The remaining materials are represented entirely in the form of flakes (Table 3). The presence of debitage types remained relatively consistent throughout the unit from top to bottom (Table 4). Unit 4 contained only one lithic example. This is a wonderstone projectile point fragment, of the Cottonwood triangular type, with the tip missing. Unit 5 produced a total of 21 lithic artifacts from between 40 and 80 cm, with most of them coming from 40-60 cm. Of these, 13 are wonderstone, two are chalcedony, two are milky quartz, and there are one each of slate, chert, quartzite, and yellow -brown jasper. The wonderstone debitage is made up of only 4 pieces of shatter and 9 flakes, including 3 thinning flakes. Both of the chalcedony pieces are thinning flakes, while the two milky quartz pieces are shatter. Of the remaining material types, two are shatter and two are flakes, including one thinning flake. It must be emphasized that the prehistoric Table 2. Distribution of Lithic Material Type by Level Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243/H Level (cm) Quartz Quartzite Rhyolite Porphyry Slate Wonderstone Total 0-10 1 0 0 0 0 1 10-20 4 0 0 0 1 5 20-30 5 0 0 0 3 8 30-40 2 0 0 0 0 2 40-50 1 0 0 0 0 1 50-60 2 2 0 0 1 5 60-70 2 3 0 0 1 6 70-80 0 0 0 0 2 2 80-90 2 0 0 0 2 4 90-100 2 0 0 1 2 5 100-110 2 0 1 0 1 4 Total 1 23 1 5 1 1 1 13 43 Table 3. Debitage Type and Material Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243/H Material Flake Shatter Thinning Flake Total % Quartz 8 12 3 23 53.49% Quartzite 5 0 0 5 11.63% Rh olite Porphyry 1 0 0 1 2.33 0 Slate 0 0 1 1 2.33% Wonderstone 7 3 3 13 30.23% Total 21 15 7 43 100.00% % 48.84% 34.88% 16.28% 100.00% - 35 r�d� Table 4. Distribution of Debitage Type by Level Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243/H Level (cm) Flake Shatter Thinning Flake Grand Total 0-10 0 1 0 1 10-20 1 4 0 5 20-30 3 4 1 8 30-40 1 1 0 2 40-50 0 0 1 1 50-60 2 2 1 5 60-70 4 1 1 6 70-80 1 0 1 2 80-90 3 1 0 4 90-100 3 0 2 5 100-110 3 1 0 4 Total 21 15 7 43 artifacts from Unit 5 are mixed with historic and modern refuse and do not represent an intact archaeological deposit. Ceramics Five ceramic sherds were found in Unit 1, in addition to one sherd found in the backdirt. Of these six sherds, three are brownware and three are buffware. The three brownware sherds are all body sherds and appear to be from the saute vessel, which was probably a storage vessel. The three buffware sherds are all rim sherds. Two of them appear to be from cooking vessels, and the other from a storage vessel. One of these cooking vessel sherds has an incised design on the rim. As mentioned, the ceramics are mixed with historic and recent refuse. Unit 3, located in the rock shelter, recovered a total of 22 ceramic sherds. All of these were found at 70 cm depth or less (Table 5). Of these sherds, 13 were brownware and nine buffware. All but one of the brownware sherds were indicative of storage vessels, and that one appears to be a bowl fragment. Most of the buffware sherds are also indicative of storage vessels, with one appearing to be a water jat. Table 5. Distribution of Ceramic Type by Level Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243111 Level (cm) Brownware Buffware Total 0-10 2 3 5 10-20 2 2 4 20-30 7 2 9 30-40 1 2 3 40-50 0 0 0 50-60 0 0 0 60-70 1 0 1 70-80 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 100-110 0 0 0 Total 13 9 22 36 00f Unit 5 found prehistoric ceramics mixed with historic artifacts from 20 to 80 cm, with the bulk coming from 50-60 cm. A total of 31 sherds and one pipe fragment were found in this unit. A total of ten brownware sherds were recovered. Three of these are rim sherds, one of which has an incised decoration on the lip, while another has a hole drilled just below the rim bend. All of the rim sherds are characteristic of storage vessels. Two of the body sherds have incised decorations, as well. Among the 21 buffware sherds, only five are rim sherds. These rim sherds are characteristic of three different vessel types, including two bowls, two storage vessels, and one water jar. The pipe fragment appears to be the lateral half of a pipe stem and has a small stern hole extending lengthwise along the broken face. The clay has very little temper in it. The stem hole appears to have been punched through while the clay was wet or molded around an object, such as a small stick, that was then pulled out. Unit 6 produced three sherds between 30 and 50 cm. Of this total, one is a brownware rim sherd and two are buffware body sherds. The brownware ritn sherd is characteristic of a storage vessel. Groundstone Three pieces of groundstone were recovered from Site C:A-RIV- 6243/H. These include two mano fragments found in Unit 5 and a schist pestle fragment from Unit 1. These two units were excavated adjacent to each other at the adobe feature, as mentioned above. One of the mano fragments is bifacially ground, with the two ground surfaces nearly parallel to each other, while the other fragment is unifacially ground, although it is possible that it once bore another ground face which has since been exfoliated. The pestle fragment bears signs of having been burned. Fauna Site CA-RIV-6243/H produced the largest faunal assemblage from all seven sites. A total of 85 bone specimens (14.72 g) recovered from three units have been identified and analyzed. Unit 3 produced the largest quantity of recovered fauna (75%) and the most diverse taxonomic categories (Table 6). Eight taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). Three vertebrate genera, and three species are identified. No amphibian or reptile remains were identified from this site. Table 6. Distribution of Faunal Taxa by Level Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243/H Level (cm) Birds Fish Large mammal Medium mammal Small mammal Total 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-20 0 1 1 0 2 4 20-30 0 0 0 0 3 3 30-40 0 0 0 0 5 5 40-50 0 0 0 4 0 4 50-60 0 0 0 3 3 6 60-70 0 0 0 0 18 IS 70-80 1 0 0 1 4 6 80-90 0 0 0 0 9 9 90-100 1 0 0 3 8 12 100-110 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 1 1 11 53 68 37 097 Fish: One vertebra was recovered and identified only as bony fish (Osteichthyes) remains. It is somewhat surprising that only one fish element was recovered from Unit 3. Fish remains have been reported from a number of sites associated near the northern shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla (Follett 1988; Moffitt and Moffitt 1996; Wilke 1978). Birds: Twelve specimens of bird bone was identified from site CA-RIV-6W/H. Two bones were recovered from Unit 3, one with evidence of being fire -affected. The remaining ten fragments are eggshell. The fragmentary specimens can only be referred to as bird, since the shaft fragment has no diagnostic feature other than the characteristic supporting struts of cancellous tissue on the interior table. The eggshell is more than likely modern or from the late historic period (ca. 1920s) and may or may not represent dietary refuse. It could easily represent a natural occurrence. Mammals: Mammals represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from site CA- RIV-6243/H. A total of three mammal genera and three species are identified. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by one specie (Sylvilagus audubonii, Audubon s cottontail) and four other specimens identified to the genera Sylvilagus sp. (probably Audubon's cottontail). The Cahuilla are known to have exploited rabbits for food and other purposes such as blanket manufacture (Bean 1978). The dominance of cottontails at sites near to the ancient shoreline of Lake Cahuilla is not surprising. Cottontails prefer brushy areas with a good amount of closed cover for them to hide in, as opposed to jackrabbits who prefer more open areas (Burt and Grossenheider 1976). Rodents are represented by two specimens identified as unidentified wood rat (Neotoma sp.) and one other specimen identified to the order of Rodentia. The domestic species Bos taurus (domestic cow) is identified by one element. Mammals classifiable only to relative size classes (N=62, 19.82g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=43, 3.7 g) dominating by count and weight. Rodent remalins are often recovered from archaeological sites. Due to their burrowing nature they occur naturally in the ground and therefore are commonly disregarded by many archaeologists. However, according to the ethnographic literature, many native groups in the region consumed rodents (Bean 1978; Shipek 1991). They commonly would roast the animal directly on the coals or pound the animals on a rock and then stew the entire animal. This caused the bone to be fragmented and even burned when exposed to the direct flame (Shipek 1991; Sparkman 1908). A total of 15 (24%) small bones and one medium bone have evidence of being fire - affected. While none of the large bones have evidence of being fire -affected there is evidence of butchering on one element from Unit 5 identified as Bos taurus (domestic cow). Cow is also represented from this unit by one other element. All of the large 38 098 mammal remains come from these two units, with the exception of one element recovered from Unit 3. This element (distal phalange) has not been identified to genus. Radiocarbon Dating The charcoal sample sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., yielded 2.2 mg of datable carbon. Results of the AMS analysis indicate that the deposits from the rock shelter are of significant age. A date of 1,640 ± 40 years of age was obtained for the charcoal sample, placing it between 340 and 530 AD. This date has a two sigma error margin, or a 95% probability of accuracy. The implications for Coachella Valley archaeology and our understanding of prehistoric periods and stages of cultural development are significant. The lithics, fauna, and ceramics data combined with the age date of more than 1600 years reflect a more -or -less continuous occupation of the rock shelter site from pre -ceramic years to modern times (Table 7). Table 7. Distribution of Lithic, Ceramic, and Faunal Artifacts by Level Unit 3, Site CA-RIV-6243/H Level (cm) Lithics % Ceramics % Fauna % 0-10 1 2.33% 5 22.73% 0 0.00% 10-20 5 11.63% 4 18.18% 4 5.88% 20-30 8 18.60% 9 40.91% 3 4.41% 30-40 2 4.65% 3 13.64% 5 7.35% 40-50 1 2.33% 0 0.00% 4 5.88% 50-60 5 11.63% 0 0.00% 6 8.82% 60-70 6 13.95% 1 4.55% 18 26.47% 70-80 2 4.65% 0 0.00% 6 8.82% 80-90 4 9.30% 0 0.00% 9 13.24% 90-100 5 11.63% 0 0.00% 12 17.65% 100-110 4 9.30% 0 0.00% 1 1.47% Total 1 43 1 100.00% 1 22 100.00% 68 100.00% Historic Artifact Analysis Locus 1, Adobe House Feature The historic artifact assemblage from this feature is represented by a total of 648 items or item lots, including 61 from Unit 1, 48 from Unit 2, 459 from Unit 5, and 80 from Unit 6. In addition to these, numerous roof tile fragments collected from Units 1 and 5 were also entered into the artifact catalogue. Preliminary examination of these artifacts suggests that the findings from Units 5 and 6, which were excavated later, echo the same pattern of distribution as that observed in Units 1 and 2. For this reason, the 109 items from Units 1 and 2 were recognized as representative of the assemblage, and subjected to more intensive analysis. As a result, each of these artifacts was identified in terms of possible origin, and assigned into one of the previously established functional domains, as discussed below. Domestic Expendable (Functional Domain 51): Canned Food/Products/Retail (51A): A twist -key shoe polish can was found in Unit 1 near the floor. An old style (1958-1960s) aluminum pop -top was found, and a 39 (II9 t sanitary can lid was also noted. A number of rusted fragments of sheet metal were noted that could have been cans, however they were badly rusted and deteriorated. Glassed Food/Products/Retail (51B): The glass assemblage is represented primarily by broken clear and brown bottle glass. Much of the brown glass is recent vintage (1960+) beer bottle glass. Clear glass bottle glass represents soda (e.g., Dr. Pepper), cosmetics, and medicine. A good many specimens have the stippled surface treatment common after 1939. Light green classic 6-oz Coke bottle fragments were also noted. The entire assemblage postdates 1945. A number of specimens with maker's marks were noted, as listed below*: Clear base: "23 O-I 50/3H/ /5762-W". Clear base: "OWENS/O-I". Clear base: "20 O-I 5", stippled texture, Oakland, California, post 1945. Clear base: "23I-IN-OVAL 2/5-B//1136-EP", Post 1954. Brown base fragment: "NW" logo, ..... 656... /33", Northwestern Glass Co., since 1931 (Toulouse 1971:390). Clear base: "P1418/... 58". Clear base: "WEB", textured. Clear base: "MAX...", stippled. Other Packaging/Food/Products (51C): Small bits of aluminum foil were noted indicating post WWII deposition. Caps/Lids for Cans/Bottles: Badly rusted specimens of crown caps were noted.. Some of these have cork inserts. A jar screw top lid was also found. Domestic Non -Expendable, Kitchen (Functional Domain 52): Ceramics (52A): Very few ceramics were found. Unit 2 yielded a white glazed earthenware cup fragment with a gilt rim. It is non -diagnostic. Kitchen Appliances (52G): Unit 2 yielded a large white enameled metal panel and metal trim, which could be part of a refrigerator freezer door. The specimen is very badly rusted and deteriorated. It lay just beneath fallen roof and wall rubble. Domestic, General (Functional Domain 53): Electrical Systems (53A): The occupants of the site definitely had electricity. In Unit 2 two bar -shaped electrical fixtures were recovered. These are marked "NO/P/P/INC./334". A ceramic bulb socket marked "250V/660W/LEVITRON" was recovered in Unit 1. Neither could be identified in the on-line U.S. patent records. * "O-I" indicates Owens-Illinois Logo No. 2, ca. 1929-1954 (Toulouse 1971:403). "23" indicates the Los Angeles Plant, post-1945. 40 100 Temperature Control (53C): Unit 1 yielded fragments of a ceramic insulator framework and coiled wire indicating an electrical heater or hot plate. The remains appear to represent an old-fashioned wall heater. Entertainment/Educational (53E): Fragments of newspaper and magazines were recovered in Unit 1 beneath the roof/wall fall. One fragment is in Spanish. Another advertises cars for sale. One ad notes that "1983/MITSUBISHIS/ AVAILABLE NOW". Furnishings (53G): Unit 1 yielded a small pulley and a small ring that were probably used for controlling/mounting drapery. Many fragments of a heavy glass mirror were also recovered from the interior of Unit 1. There was probably a heavy glass wall mirror mounted in this vicinity. Unit 1 also produced a panel fragment of green/white stained glass. It may have been part of a lamp shade. Child Rearing/Toys and Equipment (53J): The only toy found is a white ceramic marble. It has three red stripes around it and was probably made circa 1900-1920. This toy was found at the base of the exterior wall in Unit 1. It is not only the sole toy found but also the oldest historic -period artifact recovered from the site. Domestic, Construction/Maintenance (Functional Domain 54): Hardware/Fasteners (54B): A large barrel hoop was found in Unit 2. It was lying just under the fill on the original ground surface. A substantial assortment of nails was found, as expected in a burned home. Most are badly rusted and deteriorated common wire nails, 1.09, 1.10, 2.00 (galvanized), 2.06, 2.10, 4.00, or 4.04 in in length. Nails were probably part of the house itself, and a good many are probably, from the roof. Besides nails, a few other types of fasteners were identified, including a bolt and washer and a 1.01-in wood screw. Hardware/Fixtures (54C): Two fixtures were recovered, a hinge and an unidentified fragment, both badly rusted. Rust on some specimens is so advanced that the artifacts are literally exploded. Materials, Building/Exterior (54D): By and large most of the material in the units consists of construction debris. This includes a substantial amount of adobe brick, broken red roof tile, burned milled lumber, sheet metal roof flashing, window glazing, broken window glass, fragments of cement wall stucco, fragments of red cement floor, and fragments of wood window trim. It appears that the trim was originally painted white, and later painted dark blue. An interesting find was a quart can of paint with residue of a bright "taxi' yellow still inside, discovered in Unit 1 lying against the exterior wall at the base of the stucco wall finish. Personal (Functional Domain 55): Grooming (55A): A safety razor blade was found in Unit 1. The blade was found rusted or baked onto the cement floor, and was not recovered. 41 101 Recreation (Functional Domain 56): Arms/Munitions (56A): A large number of badly corroded .22-caliber cartridges were recovered in Unit 2 under the roof and wall fall. Headstamps are "U" or "H". Over two dozen were noted. This amount of shooting next to the house suggests that the house was abandoned prior to the time when it burned and collapsed. Hobbies/Games (56D): Several metallic ore specimens were recovered in Unit 1 on the original exterior ground surface, consisting of white quartz with what looks like veins of green copper oxides, perhaps malachite, running through them. These attractive specimens could have been part of a rock collection. It is interesting that they were found in the same area as the prehistoric artifacts. However, they could have been used as ornamental garden rock, or alternatively could indicate that occupants had been prospecting. Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature The assemblage from this location is represented by 372 items or item lots. Domestic Expendable (Functional Domain 51): Glassed Food/Products/Retail (51B): One brown glass bottle base was found. It is embossed "2/MG". It is a product of the Maywood Glass Company, Compton, California. The logo indicates manufacture between 1958-1961 (Toulouse 1971:357). One clear glass screw top jar neck was found. Almost 29 ounces of broken bottle sidewall were recovered. Bottle glass is about 55% clear and 45% brown. Frequencies in this range suggest a post-1940 retail glass assemblage. Other Packaging/Food/Products (51C): A small bit of aluminum foil was found. This product was not introduced into the household until the post WWII period. Domestic Non -Expendable, Kitchen (Functional Domain 52): Ceramics (52A): A very small chip of earthenware was recovered. It has a plain dark blue glaze. It is reminiscent of "Baurware" or other solid -color glazed ceramics of the 1930s-1940s period. No other kitchen -related items were recovered. Domestic, General (Functional Domain 53): Electrical Systems (53A): A complete white glazed spool -type insulator (2.01 in in diameter and 3.00 in tall) was recovered, along with a brown plastic four-way plug outlet cover, an asbestos and copper regulator switch, a complex small ceramic electrical fixture (embossed "E"), and copper electrical wire. Maker's marks appear on the plastic outlet plate and the asbestos switch. The outlet cover is embossed "BEAVER/CAT NO T-2" on the exterior and "BEAVER/2203" on the interior. The asbestos switch is embossed with a "G" inside a shield. Neither could be identified in the on-line U.S. patent records. 42 1 t' Plumbing Systems (53B): The assemblage contains what appear to be bathroom related parts representing a sink, a toilet and toilet seat. Parts include a chrome -plated petcock, ornate and plated three-way hinges and hinge bars, thick white ceramic fragments, gaskets, and small hoses. A set of ornamental covers for faucet stems were also recovered. Domestic, Construction/Maintenance (Functional Domain 54): Tools (54A): Two tools were recovered, a fragmented hacksaw blade and a paintbrush. The paintbrush is represented only by a clumped mass of bristles. The metal and wood parts are missing. Hardware/Fasteners (54B): Over 300 nails of various types were recovered. Many are in badly rusted condition, and a 2 lb 4.8 oz assortment of nail fragments could not be assessed due to poor condition. A large portion of the nails and tacks that survived are galvanized. Nearly two-thirds of those measurable are galvanized 1.09-in nails, which would have been ideal for tile roof maintenance. The tacks probably would have been used to apply tar paper or composition roofing. Besides the nails, few other types of fasteners were identified. A portion of the assemblage consists of small steel glazing triangles used for installing glass in wooden window frames. A lock washer was also found. Hardware/Fixtures (54C): A threaded brass ring was found that may have been part of a curtain mounting fixture. A heavy circular steel plate 3 1/2 in in diameter with 4 bolt holes was found that would have served well for mounting a clothes rod in a closet. Another fixture is a copper pull -chain pull and a segment of bead chain of the type once used on electric light fixtures. Materials, Building/Exterior (54D): The soil contains a fairly high frequency of mortar chunks. This material appears to have been cement mortar that hardened while in the bag. Large -diameter ceramic sewer pipe fragments, tar paper, green composition roofing, and small milled lumber fragments also occur. A deteriorated roll of tar paper was exposed in the western wall of the unit. Small fragments of copper window screen were recovered. At least 5.8 oz of broken window glass was found, suggesting that the structure had windows. Personal (Functional Domain 55): Clothing (55B): One small clothing snap was recovered, with no identifiable maker's mark. Fragments of a rough blue cloth and a white canvas -like cloth were found, possibly representing clothing or rags. Personal items are very rare and problematical. Locus 3 (Rock Shelter) Historic -period materials from this locus, 103 items or item lots in total, occur predominantly (98% by count) in the uppermost 40 cm. A total of 61 historic -period items, or about 60% of the historic assemblage, was recovered in 43 1 0- the first level, with a decrease noted in each successively deeper level. A chip of tile was found at the 50-60 cm level and a small fragment of brown bottle glass was found in the 90-100 cm level. This could represent disturbance but could also represent unit sidewall erosion or screen contamination. The historic period is represented primarily by very late debris including recent beer and soda bottle glass. A 1973-D penny was recovered in the first level. There are also items taken from the nearby adobe ruin, such as roofing tile and fragments of a toilet, all probably set up as shooting targets. A few fragments of aqua -colored glass were found that could pre -date WWII, however no definite early historic -period (pre-1940) rock shelter use was detected. Historical Research Historical sources consulted for this study indicate that settlement and land claim activities began in the southwest quarter of Section 30, in which Site CA-RIV-6243/H is located, as early as 1908 (BLM n.d.:3). Between that year and 1922, a total of seven homestead or desert land claims were filed with the U.S. General Land Office on various tracts of land that included the site (ibid.:3-6). All of these claims, however, ended in failure (ibid.). As a result, the site area remained public land until 1928, when it became part of a 120-acre homestead patented to Charles Hohman, formerly a cigar parlor and billiards owner in Elsinore, who filed the claim four years earlier (GLO 1924- 1928; Riverside Directory Company 1917:320). In or around 1933, Hohman deeded a 40-acre parcel, including the site area, to Ellwood Cable (County Assessor 1933-1938:19a). Two years later, the County of Riverside began to assess $150 worth of improvements on the property (ibid.). Since Hohman acquired the land from the U.S. government under the Homestead Act, which requires the claimant to establish residency on the claim, it is entirely possible that the presence of the building, or buildings, represented by the assessed value in fact predates 1935. Although Riverside County records offer no indication as to the exact location of the improvement, a 1941 maps shows a lone building at the location of CA-RIV-6243/H, apparently the adobe structure whose remains are recorded at the site (USGS 1941 [Fig. 17]). Beginning in the early 1930s, Ellwood Cable owned the 40-acre parcel for some 30 years until 1962-1963 (County Assessor 1933-1944:19a; 1945-1964:19). Interestingly, none of the people interviewed during this study has any recollection of Cable and his family, or about any development on the property during his tenure. On the contrary, Sniff (1999) states that the adobe was built by a Hispanic man with visions of farming at that location, and was abandoned two or three years later. But Riverside County records do not show a decline in the assessed value of improvements on the property, as would be consistent with an abandoned building (County Assessor 1933-1944:19a; 1945-1964:19). Instead, the value increased steadily from the initial $150 to $300 by 940, then to $850 by 1944, and finally to $1,040 by 1949 (County Assessor 1933-1944:19a; 1945-1950:19). In addition, between 1940 and 1944 Cable was also taxed on $20 worth of personal property associated with the parcel (County Assessor 1939-1944:19a), which suggest that the parcel, and probably the adobe, may have been occupied at least during that period. 44 1G_� Figure 17. The adobe building as seen in a 1941 map (USGS 1941). However, since none of the people interviewed is familiar with Ellwood Cable's name, it is quite clear that he did not reside in the area personally, and had little, if any, involvement in the development on the property. The adobe apparently survived at least into the 1960s (USGS 1959 [Fig. 181; County Assessor 1960-1964:19). It burned down at some time since then, but the inability to access Riverside County Fire Department's records prevented this study froin determining the exact date of the incident. In any event, the adobe was no longer in existence by 1978 (USGS 1980 [Fig. 2]). Site Interpretation In view of the research results presented above, it is now possible to interpret the meaning of the archaeological remains at Site CA-RIV-6243/H in terms of age, function, and/or other related issues. Conclusions on the three primary features at the site, the adobe ruins, the outbuilding, and the rock shelter, are discussed below. Locus 1, Adobe House Feature This well-built adobe home was substantial, with over 900 ftz of living space. It was essentially a modern home and had nicely, finished floors and walls. Its features included a centrally situated fireplace, running water, and probably a flush toilet. A water line was noted between the outbuilding and the adobe. Most probably the line is tied into the well at Locus 2. The roof was covered with well - made red tile. A large pier -supported front deck may have been part of the 45� Figure 18. The adobe building as seen in a 1950s map. (USGS 1959) front facade. It is likely that the deck and entry faced west, toward the garage and driveway. The adobe is oriented at 15 degrees east of magnetic north, and placed against a sharply rising ridge line to the east, so it has long-term morning shade. Tamarisk trees were planted between the ridge and the adobe. There were no specifically datable items found to determine the construction date of the adobe. It appears on a 1941 map for the first time, and there is no evidence to indicate that it was built and occupied any earlier than the 19309, although there remains the possibility that the house was related to Charles Hohman's 1920s homestead claim. Artifacts in the assemblage are predominantly lade in time, most of them post-dating WWII and ranging into the 1980s. A metal detector sweep around the structure and in the grove of tamarisk trees yielded no early -period finds. Basic finds include aluminum and sanitary cans and 1960s-1970s era pop -tops, nails, and roof flashing. Two coins were found, a 1970-D nickel and 1983-D quarter, indicating very recent use. The substantial amount of late -period materials observed indicates occupation into the 1970s or early 1980s, as suggested by a 1983 newspaper found under the roof fall. The poor state of preservation seen today indicates how rapidly an adobe structure can deteriorate and lose structural integrity following a fire and destruction of its roof. While performing the metal detector sweep, a few sherds of prehistoric ceramics, flakes, and burned small mammal bone were seen, perhaps indicating, minor prehistoric use or occupation of the adobe location. 46 Locus 1, Outbuilding Feature The structure appears to be the appropriate size and configuration for a garage. It was probably a wood -frame structure supported by 4x12-in beams, one at each corner. The wood must have been removed or salvaged at some point in time. There is no evidence that the structure burned. It is likely that the door faced east, toward the main house. The structure may have functioned more as a shop or storage shed than as a car shelter. No auto parts were recovered as would be expected in a "functional" garage. Very few specifically datable items were recovered. There is no definite date assigned to the structure, but lack of items such as SAAME glass, and the presence of the characteristically late (post-1930) clear/brown glass assemblage suggests a 1935 or later construction date. The assemblage itself is generally very late and estimated to reflect 1950s-early 1960s use and deposition. Locus 3 (Rock Shelter) The rock shelter's prehistoric content is its most significant component. The depth of the deposits suggests that the shelter was once much more extensive than it is today with additional, deeper deposits below 120 cm. These may also extend beneath the rocky fan outside the shelter entrance. It is possible that deposition has been fairly rapid. There is a small wash above the shelter where a considerable amount of rocks and silt could be washed down during major storm events. In any case, Unit 3 yielded a substantial amount of prehistoric materials, and the combination of datable charcoal, variable lithic materials, faunal remains, and variation in the depth of occurrence in ceramics is notable. The prehistoric component of the rock shelter may be assumed to be an undisturbed deposition since the deposits were unaccompanied by historic artifacts after the 40-cm depth, and there were no observable disturbances at these levels. The radiocarbon date received for the charcoal sample taken from the bottom of the unit reflects an early date of roughly 1,640 years of age. The early date, coupled with the consistent presence of ceramics at higher levels and the absence thereof in the lower ones, suggests that the rock shelter was occupied over a very long span of time, beginning at least as long ago as the pre -ceramic period. Further excavation would be required to determine more accurately when the occupation of the rock shelter first began. SITE CA-RIV-6244 Site Description This site consists of a single milling feature with no associated artifacts. It is located in a rocky active wash originating from the mountain front to the north and west of it. The feature is surrounded by only rock, with no soil or sediment buildup around it. Surface Collection No artifacts were recovered from the surface of this site. Test Units No units were excavated at this site because the ground was too rocky to dig. 47 1,9�� Site Interpretation This milling site consists of a boulder with a grinding slick on its top surface. Its presence indicates that food procurement and processing took place here, but there are no indications of living activities suggesting that people actually Stayed at the site for any length of time. SITE CA-RIV-6245 Site Description This site is comprised of a wide surface scatter of pottery sherds, and contains no milling features. It is located on the east side of the ridge forming the east flank of the cove, next to a mesquite dune. Analysis of the unit stratigraphy indicates that: the upper sediments in this area are a mixture of micaceous dune sand and gravelly fluvial sands shed from the ridge as sheet -wash. At the depths of 75-90 Cm in Unit 1 and 35-40 cm in Unit 2, a zone of lag gravel was encountered. This represents an older, exposed surface. In Unit 2, a layer of hard silty clay lay atop the lag gravel zone, indicating that ponded water had once been present in the area. Surface Collection Surface collection at this site yielded 45 pottery sherds, a very small amount of bone, and fire -affected clay. Test Units Two test excavation units were dug at Site CA-RIV-6245, one to a depth of "L00 cm, and the other to 80 cm. Only one cultural item was recovered from these two units, a piece of chipped stone from 80-90 cm in Unit 1. In addition, Unit 1 yielded small amounts of bone, clay, and rock intermittently from 0-100 cm. Unit 2 produced only bone and a small amount of fire -affected clay from 0-80 cm. Artifact Analysis Lithics Only one lithic artifact was discovered at this site, a piece of milky quartz found in Unit 1 between 80 and 90 cm. No lithic material was found in Unit 2 or in the surface collection. Ceramics The surface collection of 44 sherds contained eight brownware and 36 buffware sherds. The brownware sherds appear to represent three different vessels. Only one of the sherds is a rim sherd and it is characteristic of a small bowl. Based on the temper, the buffware sherds are from at least two different vessels. One of the buffware sherds is a rim sherd, which is incised around the lip and is characteristic of a water jar. 10A Fauna Site CA-RIV-6245 produced a limited faunal assemblage. A total of 11 bone specimens (2.3 g) recovered from two units have been identified and analyzed. Four taxonomic categories are represented (including size class categories). One vertebrate genera, and one species is identified. No fish, amphibian, or reptile remains were identified from this site. Birds: Only one bird bone specimen is identified from site CA-RIV-6245. The fragmentary specimen can only be referred to as bird, since the shaft fragment, has no diagnostic feature other than the characteristic supporting struts of cancellous tissue on the interior table. Mammals: Mammals represent the majority of the vertebrate faunal assemblage from site CA- RIV-6245. Only one specimen was identified to species. Lagomorphs (rabbits) are represented by one genera (Lepus sp., probably the black -tailed desert hare). Mammals classifiable only to relative size classes (N=9, 0.9 g) are the most numerous, with small mammals (N=8, 0.9g) dominating by count and weight. Two lotigbone fragments have evidence of being fire -affected. None has evidence of butchering. Site Interpretation This site consists of a pottery scatter not associated with any nearby bedrockk grinding feature. Because of the lack of cooking vessels represented in the pottery sherds, the scatter is most likely a result of vessels broken during food procurement activities, and was not a campsite. The modern presence of mesquite at the site could indicate an earlier presence and exploitation of this resource. ISOLATES Seven sherds were found along the southeast side of the dirt road running between Sites CA-RIV-3678 and CA-RIV-6241. Of these, three are brownware and three are buffware. They probably represent fragments of what were originally two larger sherds. All of the buffware sherds are body sherds and are too small to categorize. Two of the brownware sherds are rim sherds and are characteristic of a medium size bowl. DISCUSSION Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM TECH's conclusion on whether the archaeological resources encountered within the project area meets the official definitions of a "historical resource;' as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. Also presented is CRM TECH's conclusion regarding the level of impact to historical resources. 49 + gip 1,1e SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 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 oilr 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 Quin.ta 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 1 50 00 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) Pursuant to these statutory and regulatory guidelines, the seven sites investigated upon during this study are evaluated for their scientific and archaeological importance. Results of the evaluation are discussed in the section below. SITE EVALUATION Site CA-RIV-3678 This site represents a minimally used area with a single boulder with a grinding slick and sherds from a single "pot drop." CA-RIV-3678 does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Site CA-RIV-5512 This site represents a minimally used area with a single boulder with a grinding slick, a crude hand stone for grinding, and no other artifacts. CA-RIV-5512 does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Site CA-RIV-6241 This site consists of a small scatter of pottery sherds with no other artifact types or grinding features. CA-RIV-6241 does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Site CA-RIV-6242 This site contains 32 sherds and 2 flakes on the surface, but indications are that the resources observed on the surface were brought to this location with imported fill -dirt. As such, this site does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Site CA-RIV-6243/H Part of this site, the rock shelter at Locus 3, warrants protection and treatment under CEQA and City guidelines. Loci 1 and 2, the adobe ruins and other remnants, from the 1930s farmstead, do not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Dating possibly to the late 1920s but most likely to the 1930s, the adobe house was not particularly early in the history of the Coachella Valley or the City of La Quinta, and the various research procedures used during this study have yielded no evidence that the farmstead was associated with any persons or events of recognized importance in history. 51 ..,.'. - -J;;& / I! Furthermore, the archaeological deposits at these two loci demonstrate little further information potential beyond the limited data gathered during this study. The rock shelter locus, however, presents a rare and valuable opportunity to learn by excavation and at the same time achieve preservation of an important resource. The rock shelter meets Criterion 4 for California Register and Criterion D for the City of La Quinta's historic resources inventory. Unit 3, excavated into the sands and gravels on the bottom of the rock shelter, yielded a date 1600 years old associated with Native American artifacts; but more important is the preserved stratigraphy, the levels and layers that are intact, not disturbed by wind, rain, or flood, and significantly, not mixed by rodent burrows (Fig. 16). The layers are clear and cleanly defined, allowing for precision in dating and artifact analysis not found elsewhere in La Quinta archaeological sites. Site CA-RIV-6244 This site consists of a single boulder with a grinding surface, but no artifacts suggesting even short-term habitation. CA-RIV-6244 does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Site CA-RIV-6245 This site consist of a pottery scatter high on the sand dune on the east side (Washington Street side) of the rocky point at the eastern edge of the property. The testing determined that the site was a surface scatter only, and did not contain midden or other evidence of Indian habitation. CA-RIV-6245 does not meet CEQA or City criteria for significance. Summary For easy reference, the results of site significance evaluation presented above are summarized below. Site Number: CA-RIV-3678 CA-RIV-5512 CA-RIV-6241 CA-RIV-6242 CA-RIV-6243/H CA-RIV-6244 CA-RIV-6245 Calif. Reg. Eligibility: Does not meet any criterion Does not meet any criterion Does not meet any criterion Does not meet any criterion Locus 3 meets Criterion 4 Does not meet any criterion Does not meet any criterion CEQA Status: Not a Historical Resource Not a Historical Resource Not a Historical Resource Not a Historical Resource Historical Resource Not a Historical Resource Not a Historical Resource It should be remembered that Site 33-8761, the Indian trail recorded during the earlier survey, lies mostly outside of the project area, and was not tested during this study. However, the site does meet CEQA and City criteria for significance, as stated in the Phase I survey report (Love et al. 1999:24-25), and could be subject to project impacts. 52 /' Therefore, although it was not a subject of this study per se, 33-8761 must be included in the following discussions of project impact assessment and treatment recommendations. PROJECT IMPACT 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." The residential development proposed at this location could cause substantial adverse changes to two important archaeological sites: Locus 3 of CA-RN-6243/H, the rock shelter; and Site 33-8761, the Indian trail. • Locus 3 of CA-RIV-6243/H: Direct project impacts from construction activities could cause damage to a stratified cultural deposit with invaluable archaeological information. Indirect impacts, caused by increase in population and access to rock shelter, are also possible. • Site 33-8761: Indirect impacts could occur due to increased population and access to the trail. RECOMMENDATIONS Following the identification and recordation of nine archaeological sites within or partially within the project area in April and May, 1999, the present study completed a testing and evaluation program on seven sites on which such procedures were deemed necessary. The results of the study indicate that of these seven sites, only Locus 3 of CA- RIV-6243H meets CEQA and City criteria for significance. On the other six sites, this study has confirmed the preliminary evaluation presented in the Phase I survey report (Love et al. 1999:23-25), namely that they do not demonstrate sufficient information potential to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the City of La Quinta's historic resources inventory. One of the two sites that were not tested during this study, 33-8761, mostly off -property, was previously determined to be a historical resource. In accordance with these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of La Quinta the following conclusions regarding the proposed project: • Potential historical resources within and adjacent to the project area have been properly identified and evaluated. • Sites CA-RIV-3678, -5512, -6241, -6242, -6244, and -6245 do not qualify as historical resources, and therefore no further cultural resources investigation is necessary on these sites. 53� r • Locus 3 of Site CA-RIV-6243H, the rock shelter, and Site 33-8761, the Indian trail, require mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project's impacts on these features to a level less than significant. • The rock shelter locus shall be partially (10%) excavated to obtain significant stratigraphic data, and 90% preserved and protected in place as an important archaeological resource. • The trail site may be protected by as yet undetermined methods, to be based on discussions and proposals such as landscaping, allowing or not allowing greater access, encouraging neighborhood wardens or caretakers to watch over it, or other creative suggestions. • Limited monitoring during grading is in order, the extent of which is to be determined by initial cuts, trenches, or other exposures of buried strata and the presence or absence of cultural materials in them. The potential for buried archaeological deposits is thought to be low, but limited monitoring is needed to confirm or refute that determination. NATIVE AMERICAN RECOMMENDATIONS Tribal consultants from the Torres Martinez and Cabazon Bands agreed on future treatment of the rock shelter. Marc Benitez and Ernest Morreo state that the site should be partially excavated to gain knowledge but mainly preserved in place because of its importance to future generations. The trail site should be protected by as yet unspecified means. CONCLUSION The foregoing report has summarized the methods, results, and conclusions of research procedures completed to date. The results of a 100% surface collection, subsurface testing, historical background research, Native American consultation, and artifact analysis have determined that of the nine sites originally recorded on the subject property, two meet CEQA definition of historical resources: CA-RIV-6243/H, more specifically Locus 3 of the site, the rock shelter; and 33-8761, the Indian trail. The proposed project has the potential to cause adverse effects to these significant archaeological resources, thus requiring mitigation measures to offset such effects. The rock shelter site should be partially excavated to extract valuable scientific and cultural data while leaving the balance to be preserved in perpetuity. The trail site should be protected by as yet undetermined means. Limited archaeological monitoring is recommended to determine the presence or absence of deep archaeological deposits. If the foregoing measures are adopted by the project applicant, project effects to these historical resources will be reduced to levels less than significant. 54 I�y REFERENCES Barone, R. 1976 Anatomic Comparee des Mammiferes Domestiques. Rue de d'Ecole de Medecine, Vigot Freres, France. Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians; Vol. 8, California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. Historical Index, Land Status Records, T5S R7E, SBBM. Microfiches on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider 1976 A Field Guide to the Mammals: Field Marks for all North American Species Found North of Mexico; 3rd edition. Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. County Assessor, Riverside 1933-1954 Real property tax assessment records, Book 25. Microfiches on. file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. 1955-1959 Real property tax assessment records, Book 25B. Microfiches on file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. 1960-1964 Real property tax assessment records, Book 25F. Microfiches on file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. Follett, William I. 1988 Analysis of Fish Remains from Archaeological Sites CA-RIV-1179 and CA- RIV-2827, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Archives of California Prehistory 20:143-155. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1924-1928 Serial Register, No. LA 040364. Microfilm on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Fauna. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Love, Bruce, Bai "Tom" Tang, and Michael Hogan 1999 Cultural Resources Report: La Quinta Cove Project, City of La (i inta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Lyman, R. L. 1979 Faunal Analysis: An Outline of Method and Theory with Some Suggestions. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13:22-35. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, U.K. Moffitt, Steven, and Linda Moffitt 1996 Fish Remains Analysis Results. In Bruce Love (ed.): Archaeology on the North Shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla: Final Results from Survey, Testing, and Mitigation -Monitoring; pp. 99-111. Manuscript Report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 55 135. c Olsen, S. J. 1968 Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites; Part 1, Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Papers for the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 51, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge. 1980 Mammal Remains From Archaeological Site, Part I. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 56, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Riverside Directory Company 1917 Riverside City and County Directory. Riverside Directory Company, Los Angeles. Schmid, E. 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists, and Quarternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Shipek, Florence C. 1991 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero: A Diegueno Indian. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. Sniff, Stanley 1999 Personal communication. Interviewed via telephone on May 11 and August 24, 1999. Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 20. University of California, Berkeley. Toulouse, Julian Harrison 1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc., New York. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1941 Map: Toro Peak,.Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 19,11. 1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1954, field - checked in 1957 and 1959. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (75, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photo -revised in 1978. Wake, Thomas A. 1999 Faunal Analysis Results. In Bruce Love (ed.): Final Report: Archaeological Testing and Mitigation, Rancho La Quinta Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California; pp. 23-66. Manuscript Report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Wilke, Philip J. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coalchella Valley, California. Contributions of the university of California Archaeological Research Faculty 38. University of California, Berkeley. 56 /Y APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 57 �- / PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce 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. 58 / / b PROJECT HISTORIAN Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Van, China. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno,. Professional Experience 1993- Project Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Van Foreign Languages Institute, Van, China. Honors and Awards 1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980,1981 President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Van, China. Cultural Resources Management Reports Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventory System (With Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990. Approximately 200 cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. Membership California Preservation Foundation. 59$� GEOLOGIST/ARCHAEOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn, M.S. BLM Cultural Resources Use Permit 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., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington. 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet. 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs. 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert. 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. / I -� 0 60�- HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Richard H. Norwood, M.A. RT Factfinders 43416 16th Street West, #13 Lancaster, CA 93534 Education 1980 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University. 1973 B.A., Anthropology/Geology, San Diego State University. 1967-1970 San Diego Community College. 1961-1963 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Geology Major. Professional Experience 1989- Owner and principal investigator, RT Factfinders, Lancaster. 1984- Historic Preservation Officer and Archaeologist, United States Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base. 1988-1990 Instructor of Physical Science, Antelope Valley College, Lancaster. 1982-1984 Staff Cartographer and Consultant, Dames & Moore, Inc./Wirth Environmental Services, Fort Irwin Archaeological Project, Barstow. 1981-1982 Staff Archaeologist, Cornerstone Research, San Diego. 1977-1981 Staff Archaeologist, Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON), San Diego. 1974-1978 Instructor of Anthropology, San Diego Community College District and San Diego Mesa College, San Diego. Cultural Resources Management Reports Over 500 cultural resource reports of various types. A list of reports, excluding negative survey reports, is available upon request. Research Interests Historic archaeology. Great Basin archaeology/anthropology. Cataloging and curation methods. Evolution of technology. Early milling horizon, Southern California. Obsidian trace element and hydration analysis. Lithic technology and functional analysis. Paleontology/paleoenvironmental change. Prehistoric trade systems. 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, ands 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. 62 / dc)- 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. 63 �� 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 Cabal 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; Caltrans. Archaeological Field Schools 1996 Surveys and excavations in Quintana Roo, Mexico. 1994 Surveys and excavations in Mono County. L/ 64. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Darcy Lynn Wiewall, B.S. Education 2003 (expected) Ph.D., Anthropology (specializing in Archaeology), University of California, Riverside. 1996 B.S. (High Honors in Anthropology/Archaeology), U. C. Riverside. 1998 Intensive Spanish Language and Mexican Society Program, Universidad San Nicholas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico. Professional Experience 1999- Project Archaeologist; CRM TECH, Riverside. 1999, 1996 Crew Member, Yalahua Regional Human Ecology Project II; University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Field School, Quintana Roo, Mexico. 1998,1996 Faunal Analyst, Hart Gold Mining Town and the'reels Marsh (Chinese component) Projects; Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1997 Archaeological and Environmental Monitor, Pacific Pipeline Project; Centennial Archaeology/L. W. Reed & Assoc., Fort Collins, Colorado. 1995- Laboratory Director/Crew Member; Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1995-1996 Crew Member, Rose Canyon Project; RMW Falco Associates, Mission Viejo, Calif. 1994-1995 Crew Member, Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve Project; San Diego Community College Archaeological Field School, San Diego, Calif. 1994 Crew Member, San Diego Mission and Presidio Project; Center for Spanish Colonial Studies, San Diego, Calif. Memberships American Anthropological Association, San Diego County; Archaeological Society (SDCAC); Society for American Archaeology (SAA); Society for California Archaeology (SCA); Society for Ethnobiology; Society for Historical Archaeology. Professional Activities Co -Vice -President of Graduate Student Anthropology Association, 1998-1999. Chairperson, 18th Annual James C. Young Colloquium. Undergraduate Treasurer, Associated Anthropology Students, 1995-1996. Honors and Grants Senior Student Research Grant Award, University of California, Riverside, April 1996. j� 65 ... �� APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF LITHIC, CERAMIC, AND FAUNAL ARTIFACTS Sites CA-RIV-3678, -6241, -6142,-6143/1-1, and »6245 J I II I m m I C � 0 E Eca N U m N N N N N m N c m a a C1 O O a O a O n U -p n a, N NIN., N N N N N R N ro N R N N N R J U R O U ml N c�a m J J U U U T J D• N J J J J JI J J J J m C m �_ m Z` Ol C1. C G C C C C C C C E > N R m m C m C m m C > G E C > 5 Lam. > > >> > > > > > N (Eq > C 0 000"00Ii'o'o0!�-o00UU Ja NIN _ m - :°- .ror m _ m - a' L `` .« `` �° .- m - m m - - m m -_ L m : - . m t° L m r `.tea Y >> J J c` J J J J IN N C N E 'y E E 0 0 'w E m m E 'in 'ti "w E E .N "y 0 E E Ew E E E i> E E 2 E p V E "y 0 E E E E o c 0 c V 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 C�c 0 0 C 0 C 0 C- co 0 0 o C 0 c 0 c 0 C 0 C 0 c 0 c 0 o c c O C O O' c c 0 c 0 c 0 0 0- c c G O, o C O , O O C C O C C O C O C O C O C. oda� d E A my gp_ EE da�`a p-o,E EEO EgE 0E0 �IEmEda n Ea, m n E O _4''I n E o oa 5oEE=°E o 00-00 o O1 o 00 0 . 00_000. 0 0 0 $oa 0 o as o oo_ c c o 0 c c c o o c c c c c o .N 0 0 fi� of o� o 'y 'm O O 0 0 0 N N N m m m m m m m m m p y C. �•m0d� J N m m m J E` N m J J N 0 m J N a) J m N m E N m E N N i m J N N N m m E m N i N m E mmm m N m J NC ap 'I J m a. J N m V '.n J J i' E O m na J E mm n� J y d J fp o.na m OImmm m m ml n p m amm m00- m�m m m ma aM m m i amm mo.,a mm�ml m�D7 G7u I nnn m mlm W O? mE o�` � mi rn m, rn mm ml mm r N m 0 N m N m V) — T N m N m m �� m m mmm � is T.. � m mmm Co 0 0 m m m m ml m m m 1 0 a ami ami d 0 0 E _ - YYYY Ym� YY mmmm m mas mm cl C C C C C m Y f6 m Y Y Y m C Y m Y C C f6 m Y C C m to la Y m to l6 m Y t6 m Y (6 Y Y d l6 to m � m m a m m Y c G mLLmmmLt mL mLLLL mss LLL m�"-'LLL a N V7 mLF w N m' LmmL w N NNN�« .L..Lw�L — w m m m n � '� G m C N N m C m C m C m c m c m C m C C 3 m m C C m C N m C m C m C T mmm C C m C C N r r m N C TI Y N N r� m mom G C N (p r 0 N N V _L_ N N N r N r 10 3 pY 00 C@ y0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O r m J 0 E 0 Oi �'.p Cp o d 0 i 0 o y m J m o J m m m J� J o ��j( m C o m U J m m J J m J m J m J ro J a E m J "O m J m m N 30 N C Y C C G C C C C m«_ cT"0 C C C Y' C C C Y G m Y ,,,yy r C 0 m 0- 3 E L- 0 E 000 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 L 0 m m 0 O 3 3 0- 3 E O 3 O 3 O 3 L 0 J 0 v;3 0 313 0 0== 3 E O E 3 m E E E 3 3 3 E.E E E E E E u u o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N O7 6 0 M 6 0 N 6 0 N 0 6 �I1 6 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 M N 0 (O 0 tD 0 (O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O O O O O O p O C J C J O O C J O[ J O N M N N N O N N (O N h f� 0 0 � � � � — ISM-.m.=r._. I y m m NONNNNNNNNNON' YNYNNyNN« C', Mul M MIM M MM C a 00! C C C c C C C C C C C C G C C G C C G C C G '�7��»7�P C r4C C C C C C C C C C cc C .. C GI C C C C C C = 2 2I= 2 2= 2 S= 2 S= 2 S�2 S S 2 2 S 2 S S S�,S S 2 2 2 2 S 2= 2 2 S 2 2 S 2 m (7 (`') (+] CJ c7 M (7 M M CJ (`') fv] 07 M (t (7 cD ('� (7 0') M () �`7 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N'N N N N N N NN N N N N N O N O10 N N O N N LIO OICo 00000 MO ON OOOOOOON OOOOON 00000000(O�aJ000J< CI - a N OIr � W N �N'� N N N N �'�,N I M'- N Z ' (V N N �- t0 N (O M O a O N O N O r O a0 O I- m V7 n N m N N w M N m N M N m N m N,N m M Co, a a] M a rn s rn �- N N N N N N O N C M N M M M a V M M'M C FO +�7 M O a u'1 O O u) N u) M N M N (O Q 000000000000000000000000� n n r n n n O O O O O O O O O O OO �'-� O O O � O r' O `-� r'°" O O 0 0 r 0 0 ��� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 00 co O O O O co Cl) V O) N 0 Z m H CZ C ui OI R E a� m N Q U Q U_ L J Y O N J O a C N U! � � c y O c 0 > E r r r r of y a c U > >>> f6 3 > `p ucRicRi�- o N R R 0 R O N .R- 10 « C C C W — — Ol C EL c c o c 0 c 0 c 2 U 2 U 5 N o C J E U CE oli�r, c N c NUl c c f/1 c fp 0 G c c N 41 t.E O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O O O O O O O O @'IO V cEEEEaa._— "x. 'xoEE n r6 N f0 N EEE-- R N E« R N O 'x O 'x O EE o o x O N O O E O IL o 0 0 0 `o 0 0 0._ o._ o -o a o C O a C O C O 0 O 0 C O 0 O c O c 0 cl 0 C O C O �N G 0 c 0 C 0 C 0 c 0 �N N O N N N N R N R N �N N U R N N N N J J N N 0 J N J N N O N 0 J N J N J `` o J N J C J W J w J N J o m J N :N as o nn n.a� a� a nay na ana a J o 0 0 0 0 o a oI of mo 0-R rnrn o R ol n o aolo o m 0 010 m of mmm .R• «« R OYi R� .R. R � r R R .R. �� :� I2 TNT T > TT`ITN R R R R R R O ro co `O-' R R R R 'O-' R R R R R 0.2 o Y Y Y Y Y R R R R w F- N R N C C N N N N d o N '-' N C N R .2 N N c c R o Ul N R Y R Y R .«- R L c R L Y R Y R Y R Y R C L l0 L Y R C L Y R Y R R L Y R Y R C L C L Y R Y R Y R Y R Y R R L -- L N A .` C N N C N r N d c c c c N L� N c c N r= N Q (6 O L 0- o C O R d d m N o O N L R R N N N` O R R«««« O N` O O O R J R«« J 0 N 0 I R J R J U a "' U '2 IV U1 J Q J Q N R J Q�� J, Q N N N R Q' Q N R O" Q ai' .O_. R .0 N N N R R C Y Y R R R C Y E Y E C C C C Y Y C C« Y Y T Li C 0 Y E o-io-3EEo-QQ3EE3333EE33yEEE 3E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 � m co rn rn rn rn d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca 0 co 0 n 0 n 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 co 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn 0 rn 0 r. 0 0 0 a > of ci ai ri ri of of ri ri of ri ri ri ri c� ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri vi c�i y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2= 2 2 2 2 2 T 2 2 S 2 2= 2 2= 2 2= « M t7 M yvaavaalvaaaaNNNNNNaavvvaavd' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tp t0 (O t0 t0 (O (O cD f0,� O Z N N M N N 10 • N�tOh t0 �D f0 (O CO (p l�nnnnnnnw NC 7 mCl)It W NNO)O W OpMrnrnmMo)O)mN NN fO I-N0 V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 7 rn N U Z m O c c m H ai m R .0 E 0 N Q U R tf Q U E co O U a , y � N NN O U �� C N U t N R E N C N 'o $ C C N o E E a O> Ni a O O a O ro v O O O M N O N w N O'O N w N N 'ovc N N y'V N a'o yy- w� N y'oa N N -0 N 'a�vv `m N N v a�yv-�a y v �-pv U Lp >.' m'-0 E `m m LLL-OL 0 d a O -o a� L-p E N 0 L aL R a O-pL O 'O O "O UL N a c OL 0 LLL d d m L �y R LLL-p MOO N N d L N ,� iD d OL 0 N N O OL O N N w N p N== N O N N O N= O N== N= L w M N N N O O i- = a o L E E a a o 0 a 0 a o E a o 0 E 0 E a O.E.- O a o E a o N E E a o N E N E a o N E N E a o a 0 a 0 a o Y o t a o c t a o a o E Y 0 L a o %1 ,_ N 3n a 0 a'c..nnan'cn.c'cncn.cn''ccnc'cnnnn...n« r nan.c..a"� d ad T _ NI �da� N N C. N m0 N �0 N �0 N 0 d N aim N N d N a�dma0000 N N N c N N N 0w N N d N d N f w OI N O N O 0 O N O N O w O N O N O N 0 N 0 N O 0 O w O N O N O N N N O N O N 0 N 0 N O N O O N > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 is > p cV R N > N > N > O > O > O > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 S > > 0 > 0 > N R > O !B O R O p N !6 D R O R O D R O N i6 R O R O N i6 N O R O N R_ p 3 R O N i6 N i6 N !0 R O R O 3 t`6 0 N iV N i0 (0 0 l` 0 t` 0 A 0 A- 0 0 ro 0 N is 3 022 In p O C. p R O N N n 3 N N N 3 N N 3 N N 3 p n N i i i l� N p n N 3 3 41 N 'Cr) U) 4; 4! N 3 n N w n 0-0 i f/1 3 N O O O N N O 0 0 N N 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 O y R O R O E R O R O R O E R 0 t6 O R O E N O R O E E R 0 R 0 R O R O E J R O E J E J R O R O R O E J R 0 R 0 R 0 E J R O E J O O' D U J ._ a U U U J ._ a U O U O U O J ._ a U O U O J> .- a .- a U 0 U 0 U O U O ._ a U O ._ a ._ a O O 2�y V O U O .- a O U 0 U 0 U 0 ._ D O U O ._ a O O « O ... O E 0 « 0 0 E O E E E O E O E E E E E O E « E O E O E « E �i « E « E .. E « E « E E « E E d f' E J E J O E E J E J O O E J E J E J 'O O J J 0 0 J J �_ °' J O J O O J J O J J J O= 0 'O O -0 O O c "O 0 0 0 O In O -0 O 0 c 0 O O O c O C a O a O 0 C 0 C 0 C O 0 0 O O C O C c O O c O C C O C O E O E!5 C O E O E O E:-S C O E- C EiE:� EiE E;c C 0 E: E E: = E E==: E E: E: = 0 E;c E:. = E: o a m a c 0 c 0 n n E N L N L N U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U �'IE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E am `m `m m m `R `ro `m `m _ `m _ `m `m _ m _ m _ `m _- `ro m `m `m m `m m `m `m `R m m `m `m `m m `R `m R R y N -o N N N N N Ow N R N N N R N N N a N N N R N N R N N N N N N N R N N N N N N N N F g-Oa-ovavvaaaaaaa W?ww E °3w E.2w 2w �' N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t NN L N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N t N N t R N t R N t R N t R N t co N t R �Ny L R R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R R J R J R J R J R J R P R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J R J O ❑ J J J J J J J N o.i N R N R 3 N `m O R 3 d N m N R 3 d N m N R 3 it R 3 N m N R d R 3 N (0 3 d R d R N `m N 3 d R 3 d R O R 3 O R O R O f0 3 `l R 3 d R 3 O R O R 3 c O R O cV 3 c d R d R 3 2 R 3 c d R 3 c O c0 3 c d R 3 c d R R d R T c o c o R c o R 3 c 0 I. 3 c 0 c 0 3 c 3 c 3 c 3 c 3 c 3 c 3 c 3 C 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 J J J J J 7 J J o 0 J J J 0 0 J 0 J J 0 0 0 J J 0 J n.on�nnn 0 J J J a annan a n n n nn n n a a n a n a n`aanaanaa�ann ni C CO (O cp �IaJ aJ00.- I� �aJO�RN�.-Nam.-MNMNN N ICON 7 O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 OONNM 0 0 0 R S o a Q� o n c0 o Ma�n�ncoou?coco�rcoYv�n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 0 0 p o 0 E.00 O N M V aNN�O 0 0 �O Nu7OrnMQ 00��-NNNM aJ O O O O O O >_7 0 U 00 U0 O U O U O U O U UNNNNNNNNL NN iO-66—��MMMMMM MM MM U R U R U R U R U R U R O a«• C R 'C R t = C R 'c R •C R 'C R 'C R ,C �• C •• C = C •- C = C r G r C = C !_ C = C r C ._ C ._ C ._ C ._ C .0 C C C C C C c c J J J J J J J] J ] J]] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ini. W«NNNNNNmMmMMMMMmMmMMmmmmMmMM a a v .It o v a c a a _ v a v a a v a c a a a a c v a v v a mm v a —Cl) M a a v MN�O v a v tON v �O v N iO N N (O M a N aJ N aJ N N N aJ (O aJ N aJ N (OOO N N N a- N I, N N N N aJ N V)N N N V7OOaJ000aJ N N N N N N N N V7OOV7O N N N N N aJ N fp N [0 N V) _OO N N N V7O N N N aJO V7 O ZI Q a0 'Q m U Q [L Q 0] U Q 07 00 Q Q1 Q CO aJ Q N IN N U N N Q n O Q O n] U O O � Cl) W m O lL « O 16 V 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O coon O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0-- O O O O « O O O O O O O O O O C1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 D_ M O) N O Z U 1 m C N C7 ro a) m 'E m c 7 Il i �L _ 'I� m i �I o� O C C G L �N �Ol 30 O �O,ONIC, r7 ��M� OV OV �OOOOV M �M VIN N V 'nC\! � �o NI�N OV M 000V OV OOV 0V 10O O �O O 000V OOV 00000V 00 Q'00000 O O C 7 O U N R N E R R (p E C N C N C R N E C N C O C R l0 E CAI CIµ C N. N N E E x R C R N _ E,� E N EE= C N C N E ' x R ,� L N v N L v O L E R .� r L R c R E E« .`. R U R N 'O L R L N L t/1 N _ L y N "ONE L — ro N 'O a E N w E F t` w E'« rn, t` w m R O. x O O.. E l6 - L N E N w E R w 'x L N 0. EI— m« t`6 f` w E d �Ed R R RE m R oC JE c — c c c c N O C E£ C C E C E c L^ C cE EdE EW mc N L« �C L j j -R L C N N m j R C CPC... CO t` U) R C l6 R C R C R NL N R C R R C,. C c N' R V CO N C'O N CO— OO O N O J_ U E' o o• >'c O — E o,o._—._.-- R 0 R p — II— RI m �clm� ci o n c c O' o oa°—`vEm J,p R mmmm a mmEl E EE mmmmm- Oo mENm mm EE xJEoJEEa w E'er N E£ af°iE L E E E E E `" EERN £ E E (n my£mm'm E rn £ E E w aE m m E!EEE� mm m m'� ;Em Ey'�R R E•. m R R E m m m J R R J E R E rn J r.E ro R E R E ro E R E R ro E E E J E J R E E E J E E£ E E E J J m m,E E Ern J J E E E'er rn E" m °�£ EEE0EER>,°i R R O R R a > R ERR>,�EEEEE�>�+E0 'O '- > O R R R R R .- y- "O R > R > E '- .> > O R EE�> ro V R N >.�R (n J (n E y rn >�' ¢ Oro N N N Z N wI E (n E Cn w E E cn Z N t5 N N N in ¢ U) N E m vi <n E�¢ 41 N ¢ — — — ' EEEEEEcEi E d E E £ E E E E E E E E E E EEE £ E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E£ 0 0 E E E E E, E 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� ci c> c� 0 U U 0 y o J O o O E O 007CO E U o O 0 O o O W R U RNNNMMva� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 000000 a W o W 0 W 0 N .000 W 0 W 0 connn 0 0 0 0 n 0 nnn WIN N000N001) M 0 0 µ 0 0 0 0 µ µ 0 µ 0 µ O 0 N d' O W O µ µ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 M MsT O.O N 0 M 0 N0 0 0 W.0 0 0 W 0 W 0 aO 0 W 0 W 0 CO O10 W 06 O b O nInn n NmOIOmO)R O O O O OIOO O µ MNOOM W N N µ µ N N 7 µ N N N N N ¢ Z M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) MM M M M M M N C N N O N O O N O M O 0 N 0 M 0 a 0 W 0 W 0 0 N 0 M 0 a 0 N 0 W 0 n 0 N 0 06 M 0 0 C� O O O O O O O ? M V O O O O N M M V a N N O W o W C A W m W C n W f P W O) W C n W i 1] n N n N n LIS[ n 1 n N n N (A n C n n n n O f n n n I I V N T K 0) a V Ol W 7 0) T O W V l6 o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N aavaavaava_avvavaItva�vavad'�raavaaaavavvaaaavavv 2 1E=TMMTM 2 2 2 2 2 2 212 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :ll 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 N W W N W W N W NMMM(h Mc`]M T:cm:T:c '�c' M(M�C�MMMr�mi+�mr� 0 MMCNO W N W W (O W W W W W W W�(NOtN0�fN0tN0cND�tNO INDNtNO(ND CNOFC (NO CN0 fN0 tN0 tN0 CW`7 (`W7MM W W W W W (O Cl) V cn N 0 Z U co F U1 ca C R r ai CT R 9 E m N N Q U w r Q C J 11 a c — d— v m m J J J 3M V Im' V v �(M M('�O c o V —C�O0 �00 V O V 00 OO C r � i ENCE =c LR l6 NLL NL 0 w wN wECE E 'C. 6 R6 dC WaaO R C R C 2 wmEIE _E o,aJ C R E aorE J EOmOOrnc J �E �ERV U C U U I C 0 0 C R R m E E E E E E m E E ~ E m m m m m E m m,OyYEEEr�yEEEJEE 2 2 a m N N N J R RR -O R R E m m N Q J lEp N N E 9 N d E E E E E E E E E �Ei E > O O O O U oo o E o 0 o 0 0 0 J O O O CO O CO O M O C+I D U V O 0 0 0 0 0 O to O NNNN O O O J w J N 6 0 O — O N_ 6666 N (`') (A M C 7 N ONNOZZ� Q Q Z0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 III O N O M 'w M NCO M M OOmm M N NCO G] N NNNN M N.M I R U 000,000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v v a v a a v a a v a v v v 2 S 2 S S VJ M(O C7 CO (�NNO OJN�to avN N N N N N N N w N C N 0 N w HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 6, 2000 ITEM: PHASE III ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SITE CA- RIV 2936 IN SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036 LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD AND THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 350 FEET EAST OF ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: TROLL-WOODPARK COMPANY (SCOTT GAYNER) ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: CRM TECH (BRUCE LOVE, PRINCIPAL) BACKGROUND: A Negative Declaration was adopted on September 7, 1999, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for Specific Plan 99-036 on 36 acres of land on the north side of Highway 111, east of the One -Eleven La Qulnta Shopping Center. The Specific Plan consists of a mixed commercial/light industrial development. As a part of the Environmental Assessment, a Phase I cultural resources report was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on June 17, 1999. The HPC recommended a Phase II testing and site evaluation be conducted on the significant two archaeological sites found. On August 19, 1999, the HPC reviewed a Phase II archaeological testing and site evaluation of Site CA-RIV-2936 on the western part of the project site and Site CA- RIV-6190 on the eastern part of the site. The report concluded and the HPC concurred that Site CA-RIV-2936 required a Phase III excavation because it contains a buried component that constitutes a "historic resource". On September 1' , 1999, the HPC approved the applicants data recovery program for the site. CRM TECH has submitted an interim Phase III report on the data recovery at the buried locus of Site CA-RIV-2936 for review by the HPC so that grading can proceed. DISCUSSION: CRM TECH has conducted an archaeological data recovery program on a portion of Site CA-RIV-2936 on the westerly portion of the property. This includes all necessary field procedures of the data recovery program. C:hpc rpt sp 99-036 tt 29351 ph Ill.wpd 1i�oz. 14+ The site was prepared by removing the top one-half to two meters of overburden, mainly recent sand dune material. Test pits were dug to make Sure the grading was not going too deep. 65 2x2 meter excavation units were hand dug to evaluate and recover materials from the site. All of the artifacts collected have been sorted according to type, and are being catalogued by CRM TECH. Four separate_ cultural layers were found. Charcoal was obtained from each of the layers and will be sent out for radiocarbon dating. Materials recovered include groundstone, chipped stone debitage, bone (faunal), beads, pieces of fire -affected clay, fire -affected rock, charcoal, and shell (shell beads). Questions of subsistence, settlement patterns, external trade, materials procurement, and the role of ancient Lake Cahuilla vs. the Whitewater River are addressed in the report as a result of the data recovery. ANALYSIS: The report states project goals have been met and that adverse effects to the buried component of Site CA-RIV-2936 have been mitigated to a less than significant level by the data recovery. Therefore, grading can proceed, provided monitoring is done during grading and other earth moving activities as recommended by the report. Additionally, results of the laboratory analysis must be submitted for review by the HPC. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , accepting the interim cultural resources report titled, "Data Recovery at the buried Locus of CA-RIV-2936", as prepared by CRM TECH, with a final report including the results of artifact laboratory analysis be submitted to and be approved by the HPC prior to issuance of the first building permit. Attachment: 1. Confidential Interim Cultural Resource Report titled "Data Recovery at the Buried Locus of CA-RIV-2936" (Commissioners only) Prepared by: Submitted By: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner n Christine di lorio, Planning Manager C:hpc rpt sp 99-036 tt 29351 ph Ill.wpd Interim Cultural Resources Report DATA RECOVERY AT THE BURIED LOCUS OF CA-RIV-2936 La Quinta Corporate Centre Project La Quinta, Riverside County, California Submitted to: Scott Gayner, President Troll-Woodpark Development Company 2323 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite F Santa Ana, CA 92705 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Harry M. Quinn, Field Director CRM TECH 2411 Sunset Drive Riverside, CA 92506 December 7, 1999 CRM TECH Contract #444 APN 049-020-016 La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In October, 1999, CRM TECH was contracted by Troll-Woodpark Development Company to perform an archaeological data recovery program on a portion of Site CA-RIV-2936, a prehistoric--i.e., Native American —archaeological site located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The subject of the study, a buried component of CA- RIV-2936, occurs on the westerly portion of the project area of the proposed La Quinta Corporate Centre, known as the Horn property, lying on the north side of Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The data recovery program is part of the environmental review process for the project, as required by the Lead Agency, namely the City of La Quinta, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is designed to mitigate the project effects on this portion of CA-RIV-2936, which was previously determined to meet CEQA's definition of a "historical resource," to a level less than significant, and thereby assist the Lead Agency in satisfying the mandate of CEQA on cultural resources. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all necessary field procedures recommended in the data recovery plan, as adopted by the Lead Agency on September 15, 1999. While artifact analysis and other laboratory procedures remain in process at this time, this interim report is submitted to present the methods and results of research procedures that have been completed to date, and the preliminary conclusions of this study. Based on the archaeological field findings, CRM TECH recommends that the Lead Agency may reach the following determinations regarding the proposed project: • Project impacts on the buried component of CA-RIV-2936 have been mitigated through data recovery. • Project impacts have been reduced to levels less than significant. • Due to the high sensitivity of the project area for other buried cultural resources, archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be required during grading and other earth -moving activities. i TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENTSUMMARY.................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS..................................................................................................................................... 3 SitePreparation................................................................................................................3 TestPits..............................................................................................................................4 ExcavationUnits..............................................................................................................4 Sorting and Cataloguing of Artifacts...........................................................................5 RESULTSAND FINDINGS.......................................................................................................9 General Overview of Findings.....................................................................................9 Beadsand Ornaments.....................................................................................................11 Lithics.................................................................................................................................11 Fire -Affected Clay.............................................................................................................11 RESEARCHQUESTIONS..........................................................................................................12 Subsistence........................................................................................................................12 SettlementPattern...........................................................................................................12 ExternalTrade...................................................................................................................12 MaterialsProcurement...................................................................................................12 The Role of Lake Cahuilla vs. the Whitewater River.............................................13 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................13 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................14 APPENDIX 1. EXCAVATION UNIT SUMMARY...............................................................15 APPENDIX 2. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Project vicinity............................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Location of the buried component of CA-RIV-2936...........................................2 Figure 3. Unit and test pit locations and topography of the graded surface...................5 Figure 4. Overview of field excavation..................................................................................6 Figure 5. Excavation unit layout..............................................................................................6 Figure 6. Charcoal concentrations...........................................................................................7 Figure7. A 1650-year-old mano...............................................................................................7 Figure8. Hand -dug 2x2-m units..............................................................................................8 Figure 9. Wet screening..........................................................................................8 Figure 10. Artifacts recovered during wet screening...........................................................9 Figure 11. Exposed surface of the eastern portion of the buried locus ............................10 ii .... �- INTRODUCTION In October, 1999, CRM TECH was contracted by Troll-Woodpark Development Company to perform an archaeological data recovery program on a portion of Site CA- RIV-2936, a prehistoric—i.e., Native American —archaeological site located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject of the study, a, buried component of CA-RIV-2936, occurs on the westerly portion of the project area of the proposed La Quinta Corporate Centre, known as the Horn property, lying on the north side of Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 29, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2). The data recovery program is a part of the environmental review process for the project, as required by the Lead Agency, namely the City of La Quinta, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000 et seq.). It is designed to mitigate project effects on this portion of CA-RIV-2936, which was previously determined to meet CEQA's definition of a "historical resource," to a level less than significant, and thereby assist the Lead Agency in satisfying the mandate of CEQA on cultural resources. Since the commencement of the study, CRM TECH has completed all necessary field procedures recommended in the data recovery plan, as adopted by the Lead Agency on September 15, 1999. While artifact analysis and other laboratory procedures remain in process at this time, this interim report is submitted to present the methods and results of research procedures that have been completed to date, and the preliminary conclusions of the study. x Zy location a �d O i.41 Y +�iYcww ix� w * r CoachOfio wtir;u$rfaci S� SCALE 1:260,000 GAM ION Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition) 137 < MILES N PP .. ... 0 La Quint Corporate "", a Quint ZIP, Centre project area 7' in N 8,M 72 -:h!t OM tI )v w P.k .1 NVE Will Weil It! J ,J' 31 Ai 32 - SC ALE 1:24,000 0 1/2 1 mile 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet Figure 2. Location of the buried component of CA-RIV-2936 in the project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle, 1980 edition) )59 2 BACKGROUND In November and December, 1998, CRM TECH completed a cultural resources survey of the project area (Love et al. 1998). During the survey, an extension of a previously recorded archaeological site, CA-RIV-2936, was discovered on the Ham property. In the report resulting from that survey, it is noted that the portion of CA-RIV-2936 within the project area contains 31 loci, or artifact concentrations, which for the most part are scatters of burned clay and rock with some pottery fragments, small animal bone, pieces of mussel shell, chipped stone flakes, cores, a single shell bead, and two intact fire pits (ibid.:11). Between June and August, 1999, CRM TECH carried out an archaeological testing and evaluation program, known commonly as a Phase II study, in the project area (Love et al. 1999). At CA-RIV-2936, a buried component of the site was discovered during the field testing procedures, and subsequently determined to constitute a "historical resource," as defined by CEQA (ibid.:30). Accordingly, CRM TECH recommended data recovery excavation as mitigation to project impacts on this locus (ibid.:32). The recommendation was approved by the City of La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission on August 19, 1999, and the data recovery plan submitted by CRM TECH and the project proponent was adopted by the Commission on September 15, 1999. METHODS The following sections outline the methods and procedures completed to date during this study. Site Preparation The locus under investigation was buried beneath one half to two meters of overburden, mainly recent sand dune material. In order to prepare the site for excavation, a Caterpillar 613 paddle scraper was employed to remove the overburden and place it in a stockpile area north of the locus. Since the scraper could not operate in the soft dry sand, sprinklers had to be placed over the site prior to overburden removal. The preliminary investigation revealed that the locus consisted of a single layer lying approximately 70 to 100 cm below the established datum. Based on this finding, it was originally proposed that all overburden be removed down to approximately 50 cm below the datum before the commencement of hand excavation. Just before' the overburden removal was to begin, a three -person crew dug two more test units. The first of these, a 2x2-m unit with the southwest corner 9 m directly east of the datum stake, yielded a few scattered flakes above the originally defined cultural layer, but found the cultural layer to be present almost as mapped. A second test unit was placed with the southwest comer at the datum stake. This was a north -south trending 1x2-m unit. The northern portion of this unit encountered cultural material some 25 cm above the originally defined cultural layer, suggesting the presence of a second and shallower cultural layer. 3 1 3 61 During the actual grading to remove the overburden, it was discovered that the site had either a sloping surface or several cultural layers present. Since no in -place cultural material was found in the upper dune sands during the initial investigation or the early part of grading, this sand was removed down to the top of the mesquite dune sands. However, the mesquite dune sands commonly contained charcoal from burned mesquites, so the exposed mesquite dune sands had to be carefully monitored. for any signs of actual cultural material. The final grading exposed an area extending to 24 m to the east of the datum, 16 m to the south, 16 m to the west, and 26 m to the north. The exposed surface was 80 cm below datum at the easternmost point, 100 cm below datum at the southernmost point, 70 cm below datum at the westernmost point, and 30 cm above datum at the northernmost point. Overburden removal was about 2 m in the eastern, southern, and western portions and nearly 50 cm in the northern portion. Removal at the datum point was 30 cm. The original datum stake was left in place throughout the grading so that all surfaces and surface locations could be tied back to a single point. The topography of the final graded surface is illustrated in Figure 3. Test Pits In addition to monitoring, four test pits were employed to make sure the grading was not going too deep. The soil from each of the grading test pits was screened through a 1/4 in screen. The location of these test pits is also illustrated in Figure 3. Test Pit 1 was an east -west trending 1x2-m pit placed 24 m northeast of the datum to evaluate some fire -affected clay and charcoal exposed by the scraper. This test pit found the materials to be a concentrated lag deposit right at the contact between the dune sand and the mesquite dune sand, but found nothing in the upper 20 cm of the mesquite dune itself. Approximately 20 cm below and 2 m to the south of this test pit, the scraper exposed a small fire hearth, so grading was halted in this area. A second 50x50-cm test pit was placed about 15 m north-northeast of the datum. This test pit was dug to 80 cm without encountering any cultural material. The third test pit was placed five meters north-northeast. This test pit was halted at about 15 cm, where it encountered debitage and fire -affected rock. Grading was halted here as a result. The fourth and final test pit was placed roughly half way between Test Pits 2 and 3, or about 9.5 m out, to see if any cultural edge line could be found. This test pit yielded a single piece of debitage at 40 cm and excavation was halted at this point. Excavation Units Units dug during the data recovery phase were all 2x2 m in size. In all, 65 units were excavated to evaluate and recover materials from this site (Figs. 3, 4). String lines were put in place extending north -south and east -west from the original datum stake in order to incorporate all existing site data into a final report (Fig. 5). The excavations extended along the string line for 24 m to the east, 10 m to the south, 12 m to the west, 4 11N� � u `.LL_x_�OJJ +10- j ,/ 0- 10- -,,'O� 2 -20- -30- 6N q 5N so 4N-60-^-42 3N 3 \ 1, 2 1 Y� i4W 3' 2W 1W 3E \1ii 5EE 10 2�+ 7E 8E E 2S -50 -60 1E A Datum point 0 4 6m Conlours in mnamerers from onglnaf surface of datum Figure 3. Unit and test pit locations and topography of the graded surface prior to hand excavation. and 14 in to the north. One additional unit was placed along the string line 22 m to the north. Overburden was hand -scraped by square -nose shovels until the top of the buried locus was exposed (Figs. 6, 7), after which hand -dug units and screening completed the artifact recovery process (Fig. 8) The unit depths ranged from 10 to 60 cm, depending on the amount of overburden still present and the thickness of cultural materials encountered. Because the sand was wet from the grading and would not pass through 1/8-inch screen by shaking, almost all of the screening Was carried out by wet screening in order to get the material through the screens (Figs. 9, 10). Sorting and Cataloguing of Artifacts All of the artifacts collected during the field work were taken to the CRM TECH laboratory in Riverside for sorting according to type—e.g., groundstone, chipped stone 5 14�9, ( Li 1 Figure 4. Overview of field excavation. Figure 5. Excavation unit layout. View to the west along string line. Clayey surface of the buried locus is exposed in the foreground. Note original land surface in the background (indicated by arrows). Figure 6. Charcoal concentrations, exposed by hand scraping, mark the top of the buried locus. Figure 7. A 1650-year-old mano, one of the few groundstone artifacts recovered during this study. I LD Figure 8. Hand -dug 2x2-m units accomplish artifact recovery. Figure 9. Wet screening was used to pass sand through 1/8-inch screen. Figure 10. Artifacts recovered during wet screening (among natural gravels). debitage, animal bone (fauna), beads, and shell. The number and type of artifacts from each level of each excavation unit are being entered into the final artifact catalogue. If nothing was collected from a particular level, that information will also be noted. RESULTS AND FINDINGS Materials recovered during this study include chipped stone debitage, shell beads, stone beads, groundstone, pieces of fire -affected clay (FAC), fire -affected rock (FAR)„ bone, shell, and charcoal. The excavation recovered a large number of artifacts, especially chipped stone debitage and shell beads. During the excavation, a running tab was kept on lithic debitage, beads, and unusual items, such as a pendant fragment and groundstone, as a way of positioning new units. While incomplete, the results of this running tab are presented in Appendix 1. General Overview of Findings Based on the preliminary evaluation of the recovered materials, the buried component of CA-RIV-2936 contains four separate cultural layers. It appears that the second and third layers may blend together in some areas. Charcoal has been obtained from each of the four layers and will be sent out for radiocarbon dating. The lowest cultural layer appears to be on the east side at a depth of 75 to 95 cm below datum (Fig. 11), and consist mainly of FAC, FAR, scattered charcoal, and a fire hearth. 9 I11S 159E 1N9E C 2N9E R C C j �r Unit 39 (fasting Phase) C C C C C 1N10E C C C 2N.10E C.. 1S11E C G C G C I CC C C C C C C � CCC C C � G C C C C C C f1E C 2Nt1E .— C G CC C C C C' C C G cc C C CG C - -* C C C C Extent of cultural R�, materials G Fire -affected day R R Fire•afPected rock q Ash in fire hearth C H Dated fire hearth 0 1m Cantorm in centimeters bom origi,at sulace of datum Figure 11. Exposed surface of the eastem portion of the buried locus. 10 y4! JAI The second layer appears to be at a depth of 55 to 70 cm below datum, and contributed a fire hearth, a mano, chipped stone debitage, and beads. The third layer appears to be at a depth of 35 to 50 cm below datum, and contributed a fire hearth, FAC, FAR, chipped stone debitage, and beads. The upper layer is found only in the northern portion of the locus and at a depth of 10 cm below datum to 25 cm above datum. It contributed mainly FAC, scattered charcoal, some chipped stone debitage, two fire hearths, and a mano. All layers contain faunal materials, including a small number of fish vertebrae, a few fragments of large mammal bone, some rodent bone, and what appears to be bird bone. A few units recovered Anadonta sp. shell fragments and a couple of units had local concentrations of fresh water snail shells. Beads and Ornaments Field examination of the beads found most of them to be Olivella dama Spire - Removed beads. The collection also contained some Olivella dama Spire- and Base - Ground beads, as well as some Olivella sp. Spire -Removed and Wall Disc beads. At least three stone beads were also recovered. Also present were some large drilled Haliotis sp. ornaments and Haliotis sp. shell fragments. A few fragments of limpet shell and one high -spired marine gastropod were found, but they have yet to be typed to genus. One large drilled stone pendant fragment was recovered during the excavation. It is made from a green -colored chlorite schist. Lithics A large amount of chipped stone was recovered, but field analysis found only two biface fragments. Both of these biface fragments were made of obsidian, but neither looked to be Obsidian Buttes -type obsidian. The most common chipped stone debitage was that of wonderstone and a gray chert. This gray chert is most likely a type of wonderstone as well. A few obsidian flakes were found, but they also appear not to be Obsidian Buttes - type obsidian. Groundstone was not a common part of the material recovered during this excavation. Two complete biface manos were found along with some mano fragments and only a couple of metate fragments. Fire -Affected Clay The FAC was present in two types, mainly the thin bedded, platy type and to a lesser extent the massive, blocky type. None of the irregular, vuggy type was observed. In addition, a number of pieces of unfired clay were encountered during excavation. Since the screening was done by wet screening; this unfired clay just washed through the screen. Most of the thin bedded, platy type clay came apart in the screens from the water pressure used to wash out the sand, so only small pieces of FAC were recovered during screening. RESEARCH QUESTIONS In the data recovery plan for this project, it was stated that questions of subsistence, settlement patterns, external trade, materials procurement, the role of ancient: Lake Cahuilla vs. the Whitewater River, and other research domains could and would be addressed by data recovery. These aspirations are now being realized. Subsistence Animal bone was recovered in some abundance. Surprisingly flew fish bone vertebrae were found but larger than usual numbers of bird bone appeared. It will be interesting to find if the birds are aquatic or terrestrial. This will help determine if the site is associated with Lake Cahuilla or if the territory was occupied independent of high or low lake stands. Comparisons of the faunal assemblage with those of known lakeshore sites will shed light on this question. Settlement Pattern Preliminary findings suggest that the site went through many occupation episodes, or may even have seen continuous habitation. Excavations have exposed no less than four different levels of artifacts, all during the pre -ceramic or greater-than-1000-years time period. Charcoal samples have been collected from a number of features and promise to yield important chronological information. Indications from the artifact assemblage, which includes numerous beads and examples of worked shell, suggest a relatively permanent living area as opposed to temporary camp sites. However, a sparsity of ground stone and whole stone tools suggests otherwise. The chipped stone findings are almost entirely late stage debitage. The question of settlement pattern remains unclear, but a better picture will emerge as the artifact analysis and the radiocarbon dates come back. External Trade Most of the chipped stone, or lithic debitage, is from the nearby wonderstone source in Imperial County. The obsidian, however, appears to come from the Coso source, more than 200 miles to the north in the Owens Valley. This could relate to occupations during Lake Cahuilla's high stands because it is during those tithes that the closer Obsidian Buttes source is cut off from human use. Extensive use of imported shell during the Archaic Period suggests a sophisticated trade network with both the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of California. Materials Procurement As mentioned, the majority of the chipped stone comes from the wonderstone source, but more detailed analysis will certainly find samples of lithics from other sources as 12 (��� well. Obsidian samples will be sent to a special sourcing lab to identify the volcanic sources from which they came. In addition to determining the source of these materials, the kinds of chipping or flaking —be they early stage, middle stage, late stage, etc. —will tell us about how people worked stone to produce the tools they depended on for daily activities. The Role of Lake Cahuilla vs. the Whitewater River It could be that settlement along the banks of the Whitewater River was independent of the comings and goings of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Good radiocarbon dates, animal bone analysis, carefully exposed layers or stratigraphy at the excavation site, and many other lines of evidence may begin to answer this question. When the lake was high, the Highway 111 area was a marshy slough or estuary. When the lake was dry, it would have been a seasonal river only, still able to support life but not with the richness or abundance of marshlands. In summary, the project has been successful in recovering sufficient data to address a number of research questions, and has made new unexpected discoveries in the presence of multiple occupation layers within a single site. Future studies based on the materials collected here promise to move the field ahead, expanding our comprehension of life during the early years of the first millennium of the present era. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Project goals have been met. Adverse effects to an important archaeological resource have been mitigated to a level less than significant by data recovery, and grading should be allowed to commence providing there is adequate monitoring during earth -moving activities. The following recommendations summarize CRM TECH's conclusions: • Project impacts on the buried component of CA-RIV-2936 hive been mitigated through data recovery. • Project impacts have been reduced to levels less than significant. • Due to the high sensitivity of the project area for other buried cultural resources, archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be required during grading and other earth -moving activities. 13 REFERENCES Love, Bruce, Bai "Tom" Tang, and Harry M. Quinn 1998 Cultural Resources Report, La Quinta Corporate Centre, Located at Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Love, Bruce, Michael Hogan, Harry M. Quinn, and Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren 1999 Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation at La Quinta Corporate Centre Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Manuscript report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 14 APPENDIX 1. EXCAVATION UNIT SUMMARY Unit 1N1E Unit 1N2E 0-10 cm 4 flakes No data 10-20 cm 4 flakes 20-30 cm 32 flakes Unit 2N2E Unit 2N1E 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm 1 flake 1-10 cm 9 flakes 20-30 cm 21 flakes, 1 bead 10-20 cm 68 flakes, 1 bead 30-40cm*2 No recovery3 20-30 cm 12 flakes, 2 beads 40-50cm* No recovery 50-60cm* No recovery Unit 3N1E 30-40 cm 81 flakes 40-50 cm 12 flakes 0-10 cm 4 flakes 10-20 cm 2 flakes Unit 3N2E 20-30 cm No datal 0-10 crn 20 flakes, 2 beads Unit 4NIE 10- 20 cm 25 flakes 20-30 cm 62 flakes 0-10 cm 6 flakes 10-20 cm 11 flakes Unit 4N2E 20-30 cm 7 flakes, 2 beads 0-10 cm 9 flake, 1 bead Unit 5N1E 10-20 cm 12 flakes, 1 bead 20-30 cm 25 flakes Overburden 1 flake 0-10 cm 2 flakes Unit 5N2E 10-20 cm 28 flakes, 1 bead 30-30 cm 27 flakes, 2 beads 0-10 cm 3 flakes Unit 6N1E Unit 6N2E 0-10 cm 1 flake 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm 5 flakes 10-20 cm 1 flake 20-30 cm 4 flakes 30-40 cm 15 flakes, 2 beads Unit 1N3E Unit 7N1E 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 1 flake Unit 2N3E Unit 11N1E 0-10 cm 8 flakes No data 1. Material was taken directly to the lab without being field -checked. 15 2. Denotes a 50x50 cin test pit dug within the unit. 3. Refers only to chipped stone debitage and beads. Lgm&I 4 Unit 3N3E Unit IN6E 0-10 cm 1 flake 0-10 cm 2 flakes 10-20 cm 5 flakes, 1 pendant fragment 10-20 cm No recovery Unit 4N3E Unit IN7E 0-10 cm 6 flake, 3 beads 0-10 cm 1 Flake 10-15 cm No recovery 10-20 cm 5 flakes Unit 5N3E Unit 1NSE 0-10 cm 6 flakes 0-10 cm 3 flakes 10-20 cm 9 flakes, 1 bead Unit 1N4E Unit 2N8E 0-10 cm 2 flakes 0-10 cm 7 flakes Unit 2N4E 10-20 cm 9 flakes 0-10 cm 1 flake Unit 3N8E 10-20 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 2 flakes Unit 3N4E 10-20 cm 2 flakes 0-10 cm No recovery Unit 11N8E 10-20 cm No recovery 0-10 cm No recovery Unit 4N4E 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm No recovery No data 30-40 cm" No recovery 40-50 cm" No recovery Unit 5N4E Unit 1N9E No data No data Unit 6N4E Unit 2N9E 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 2 flakes 20-30 cm No recovery Unit 1N10E Unit 1N5E No data No data Unit 2N1OE Unit 1ON5E 0-10 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm 1 flake Unit 1N11E 20-30 cm No recovery 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm 2 flakes 16 Unit 2N11E Unit 1S2E 0-10 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm No recovery Unit 1N12E Unit 154E 0-10 cm 1 flake 0-10 cm 1 flake Unit 2N12E 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm 2 fakes, 2 beads 0-10 cm No recovery Unit 2S4E Unit 3N12E 0-10 cm No recovery 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm No recovery Unit 1S1E Unit 1S7E Overburden 3 flakes, 1 bead 0-10 cm 2 flakes No data 10-20 cm 7 flakes 20-30 cm 20 flakes Unit 158E 30-40 cm 8 flakes, 1 rock cairn(?) 0-10 cm 3 flakes, 2 beads Unit 251E 10-20 cm 9 flakes, 1 bead 0-10 cm 1 flake Unit 258E 10-20 cm 7 flakes 0-10 cm 2 flakes Unit 351E Unit 159E 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery 0-10 cm No data 20-30 cm 2 flakes, 1 bead 30-40 cm 7 flakes Unit 1511E 40-50 cm 10 flakes 0-10 cm FAC Unit 4S1E 10-20 cm* No mcovery 20-30 cm* No recovery 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery Unit 1512E 20-30 cm 2 flakes, 1 bead 30-40 cm 5 flakes 0-10 cm No recovery 40-50 cm 1 flake 50-60 cm* 6 flakes Unit 1N1W 60-70 cm* No recovery 0-10 cm 4 flakes Unit 5S1E 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm No recovery 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery Unit 2N1W 20-30 cm No recovery 30-40 cm No recovery 0-10 cm 3 f4ikes 40-50 cm Pestle fragment 10-20 cm 16 flakes, 1 bead 17 �- !1J- Unit 3N1W 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm Unit 4N1W 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm4 40-50 cm4 50-60 cm4 Unit 5N1W 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm No recovery 6 flakes 5 flakes 4 flakes, 1 bead 8 flakes 9 flakes 9 flakes, 1 bead No recovery 1 flake 5 flakes 7 flakes 52 flakes, 1 bead 2 flakes Unit 1N4W 0-10 cm 10-20 cin 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm No reCovery No reCovery No recovery No reCovery No recovery No reCovery No recovery 8 flakes The 60-70 cm level in this unit contains a silty clay interval that is now covered by a white coating. Unit 1N5W 0-10 cm No recovery 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm No recovery 30-40 cm 1 flake 40-50 cm 6 flakes. Unit 6N1W Unit 1N6W 0-10 cm 1 flake 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm 2 flakes 20-30 cm 14 flakes 20-30 cm 1 flake 30-40 cm 4 flakes, 1 bead 30-40 cm 2 flakes 40-50 cm 1 flake. Unit 1N2W 0-10 cm 2 flakes 10-20 cm 2 flakes Unit 1N3W 0-10 cm 1 flake 10-20 cm No recovery 20-30 cm 1 flake 30-40 cm 1 flake 40-50 cm 4 flakes Unit 11N3W 0-10 cm 13 flakes, 1 mano, 1 fire hearth 10-20 cm 5 flakes 20-30 cm 4 flakes 30-40 cm 4 flakes 4. Only the west half was dug to these levels The 40-50 cm level in this unit contains a silty clay interval that is now covered by a while coating. APPENDIX 2: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 19 / 55.M ` 14 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce 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 Laws" 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. 20 EXCAVATION CREW CHIEF Harry M. Quinn, M.S. BLM Cultural Resources Use Permit No. CA 99-01-0113 Education 1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach. 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington. 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet. 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs. 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert. 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. �e.7 21 5 10 EXCAVATION CREW CHIEF 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 Air and Ground Combat Center, 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; Caltrans. Archaeological Field Schools 1996 Surveys and excavations in Quintana Roo, Mexico. 1994 Surveys and excavations in Mono County. 22 ' S—b BI #D DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 6, 2000 PHASE I HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET MADISON DEVELOPMENT (MR. ED ALDERSON) CRM TECH In anticipation of future commercial development, a Phase I historic/archaeological cultural resources study has been submitted for approximately 10 acres at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. This study will become part of the Initial Study for an anticipated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. DISCUSSION: The Phase I historic and archaeological study includes a records search at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside and a field survey of the property. The records search found two recorded archaeological sites (CA-RIV-3659 and CA-RIV-4076) within the study area. No historic resources were found within the study area during the records search. The field survey found Site CA-RIV-3659/H, consisting of potsherds, lithic debitage, and burned clay, the same as observed in the original survey. Additionally, early 20`h century fragments of sun colored amethyst glass were observed during the present study. Therefore, the "H" has been added to the site number. Site CA-RIV-4076 could not be re -located and is therefore, no longer considered in existence. No historic features (at least 50 years old) were noted during the survey. Site CA-RIV-6385 is a new site that was found during the survey and recorded east of the main site, consisting of a sparse scatter of potsherds and burned clay. C:hpc rpt madison dev.wpd I As the ARMR format specifies that research designs should be included in almost every type of archaeological report, staff is recommending that this Phase I report include a research design section. This section should include justification of the potential significance of CAL-RIV-3659 namely, heritage value under Criterion "A", or scientific research value under Criterion, "D", i.e. address questions of prehistoric technology and resource utilization and/or the question of settlement and subsistence intensity along the Lake Cahuilla shoreline. Staff does not recommend backhoe trenching of CA-RIV-6385 as the report states, it does not meet CEQA criteria for a historic resource and the potential is low for buried deposits. Archaeological monitoring' of the entire site is recommended during grubbing and grading. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , accepting : Phase I: The historic/archaeological resources report titled, "Assessor's Parcel Nos 604-052-002 and -035 Northwest Corner of W$shington Street and Highway 111, City of La Quinta Riverside County. California", as prepared and recommended by CRM TECH with the following conditions: a. Prior to commencing with Phase II, submit a research design addressing the important research design questions that may be answered through the testing program of CAL-RIV-3659/H. b. Backhoe trenching shall not be required for CAL-RIV-6385. C. A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the project site during grubbing and grading. d. A final report shall be submitted and approved by the HPC prior to issuance of the first building permit. Attachment: 1. Confidential historic/archaeological resources report titled, "Assessor's Parcel Nos 604-052-002 and -035 Northwest Corner of W12shington Street and Highway 1 1 1 Cif of La Quinta Riverside County. California" (Commiissioners only) Prepared by: 2 ��C- Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted By: Christine di lorio, Pla ping Manager —kT7 C:hpc rpt madison dev.wpd / �� HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL Nos. 604-050-002 AND -035 Northwest Corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California Submitted to: Ed Alderson, Construction Project Manager Madison Development 938 North Mountain Avenue Ontario, CA 91762 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Bai "Tom" Tang, Historian Michael Hogan, Archaeologist CRM TECH 2411 Sunset Drive Riverside, CA 92506 December 21, 1999 CRM TECH Contract #459 Approximately 10 Acres La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle Section 19, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian q r/ 6-1 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In November and December, 1999, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 10 acres of undeveloped land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study, APNs 604-050-002 and -035, consists of a portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 19, T5S R713, San Bernardino Base Meridian, located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111, as depicted in the USGS La Quinta, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle. The study is necessitated by the proposed development of the property for commercial retail establishments. The purpose of the study is to provide the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the project, with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed development would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During the course of the study, two archaeological sites were encountered within the project area. One of the sites, CA-RIV-3659/H has the potential to meet CEQA criteria for historical resources, while the other, CA-RIV- 6385, can be evaluated as not meeting these criteria. It is recommended that a testing and evaluation program be carried out on Site CA-RIV- 3659/H to determine if this site meets the statutory definition of "historical resource." At the conclusion of test excavations, barring unexpectedly rare and significant finds, an interim report may be produced allowing grading permits to be issued. Archaeological monitoring shall be required during grubbing and grading. /6j� TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1 SETTING........................................................................................................................................ 3 Current Natural Setting.................................................................................................3 CulturalSetting................................................................................................................3 Prehistory...............................................................................................................3 Ethnohistory.........................................................................................................4 EarlyExplorations................................................................................................4 Settlementand Growth......................................................................................5 METHODS..................................................................................................................................... 5 RecordsSearch..................................................................................................................6 HistoricalResearch..........................................................................................................6 FieldSurvey......................................................................................................................6 FieldRecording................................................................................................................6 RESULTS AND FINDINGS.......................................................................................................7 RecordsSearch Results...................................................................................................7 Historical Research Results...........................................................................................8 FieldWork Results..........................................................................................................10 CA-RIV-3659/H....................................................................................................10 CA-RIV-6385.........................................................................................................10 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................12 Definition..........................................................................................................................12 SiteEvaluation.................................................................................................................13 CA-RIV -3659 / H....................................................................................................13 CA-RIV-6385.........................................................................................................14 PROJECT EFFECT ASSESSMENT............................................................................................14 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................14 Recommendations for CA-RIV-3659/H.....................................................................14 Recommendations for CA-RIV-6385...........................................................................15 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................16 /G,3 FIGURE 1. Project vicinity.......................................................... FIGURE 2. Project area................................................................. FIGURE 3. Overview of the project area ................................... FIGURE 4. Previous cultural resources surveys .................... FIGURE 5. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.......... FIGURE 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901................... FIGURE 7. The project area and vicinity in 1941................... FIGURE 8. The project area and vicinity in 1954-1959.......... FIGURE 9. Locations of archaeological sites ............................ FIGURE 10. Pottery, burned bone, and fired clay ................... FIGURE 11. Fire -cracked rock ..................................................... ............................................1 ............................................ 2 ...........................................3 ............................................ 7 ............................................ 9 ............................................ 9 ................................ I...........10 ............................................10 ...........................................11 ............................................11 ............................................12 TABLE 1. Known Archaeological Sites within or near the Project Area .......................8 TABLE 2. Recorded Historic Buildings near the Project Area..........................................8 APPENDIX 1. Personnel Qualifications.................................................................................17 iii INTRODUCTION In November and December, 1999, at the request of Madison Development, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 10 acres of undeveloped land on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study consists of two adjoining parcels, APNs 604-050-002 and -035, located in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 19, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Fig. 2). The study is a part of the environmental review process for the proposed commercial development of the property, as required by the City of La Quinta, Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with 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 provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed development would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search and pursued additional research, including a historical background review and an intensive field survey of the project area. The following report is a complete account of the methods and results of the various avenues of research, and the final conclusion of this study. R +ri. aarm ia3..1. CYp-r @gimp M Project iwia,A �'}+s.. Gad il�:p. HF�1 l 1Ft s NL1 Hy. s A ,11iKtt1 c �,PJ N^fit � � . ,x � g C.1;4ch6[Ip P L = i k 4 �q[ ySf f � Le e�„ � a � - �• �r r 2Y �jh� ,iv6kt$rjtti �7 �'`�t � g i t 4 xi y. 'SCkLE1:250,000 Q 5 r Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 19791) Water I 18 ✓F j } DARB V Iz r ROAA . Y + wi i ... A �J ? Yy KIP •Y' to 2n..I ..�. ! y \\ •✓ sF v dndisni'e1Tg 74, k n...� FrOiject area �} aT � rnd �� i ,krvv)t `29 Il 1 rn 30 `• r t r I tt 4i,W SCALE 1:24,000 wsl_ rs - 0 1/2 1 mile Q11 _ 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle [USGS 19801) SETTING Current Natural Setting Situated in the Coachella Valley, a part of the Colorado Desert, the project area and its environs are marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the area top 120 degrees in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches. Elevation of the project area is approximately 70 feet above mean sea level. Typical desert creosote bush scrub plants grow on the sandy soils and dunes of the study parcels (Fig. 3). The project area is bounded by Highway 111 on the south, Washington Street: on the east, Point Happy to the west, and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River) to the north. This location would have been subjected to flooding in the past from the Whitewater River. The parcels have been impacted by the construction of the bordering roads and the channel. Additionally, unimproved dirt tracks and extensive leveling are evident. Cultural Setting Prehistory The "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 Figure 3. Overview of the project area, (foreground), showing landform, soils, and plants. 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 Archaic and the Late Prehistoric 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 borrowed 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 as a possible impetus for cultural changes. It should be noted that the Cahuilla Indians, the people generally acknowledged as the last Native American group to occupy this area, have their own history, recorded and recited in their Bird Songs, which also include tales of long migrations. 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 Agua Caliente, Torres Martinez, Augustine, Cabazon, and Morongo. 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 4 _16+ Europeans in 1821, but attracted little attention. Prior to that, since 1815, the western portion of the trail had been used from time to time by salt miners from the San Gabriel Mission on their way to the Salton Sink. In 1823-1825, Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco led an expedition along the some 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 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 Highway 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 arid 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 present-day City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort town, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. 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. METHODS The following sections outline the methods and procedures used during this study. 5 " 4-r,t}— % (v q Records Search On November 30, 1999, CRM TECH historian Bai "Tom" Tang (see App. 1 for qualifications) conducted the historical/archaeological resources records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), located at the University of California, Riverside. During the records search, Tang examined maps and records on file at the EIC: for previously identified cultural resources in or near the project area and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resource Information System. Historical Research Historical background research for this study was conducted by Bai "Tom" Tang on the basis of published literature in local and regional history, historic maps depicting the project vicinity, and the archival records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office's (GLO) township plat maps dated 1856 and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904, 1941, and 1959. These maps are collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside; and/or the Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Field Survey On November 29, 1999, Natasha Johnson, CRM TECH archaeologist (see App. 1 for qualifications), carried out the on -foot field survey of the project area. Johnson walked north -south parallel transects at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals, inspecting the ground surface for any evidence of human activities greater than 50 years old. When historic or prehistoric resources were encountered, they were marked with pin flags. A more intensive survey strategy was used in areas where sites were previously recorded. Using these survey methods, the entire project area was thoroughly surveyed for any evidence of human activities greater than 50 years old. Field Recording On December 6, 1999, Natasha Johnson returned to the project area to record the cultural resources that had been identified during the field survey. At that time, a more intensive scrutiny of areas where artifacts had been observed was conducted, resulting in more artifacts being located. Site boundaries were then determined, based on the locations of the pinflags and the distances between them. A hand-held compass and measured pacing were employed to plot the location of individual artifacts and artifact concentrations on the survey map supplied by Madison Development. Site sketch maps were created in the field, which were later used to complete archaeological site records. 6 � 7� RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following sections discuss the results and findings of the various research procedures outlined above. Records Search Results The record search was conducted on the basis of a half -mile radius of the project area. According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center, the subject property had been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study. In addition, much of the area included in the scope of the records search has also been previouly surveyed (Fig. 4). As a result of these studies, fourteen archaeological sites and three historic building sites have been recorded within the half -mile radius. Tables 1 and 2 list these resources by number and provide a brief description of each. Two of the fourteen recorded archaeological sites are located within the project area. Site CA-RIV-3659 was recorded in 1989. The site is described as consisting of sparse scatters of pottery sherds, sparse quartzite and "felsite" flakes and shatter, with scattered fire -affected rock, burned clay fragments, and charcoal (Toenjes 1989). Site CA-RIV-4076 was recorded in 1990. This site is described as a scatter of four Tizon Brownware pottery sherds in two loci (Swope and Thaler 1990). < Scope ll[s\ ,�. u7V� a 1, ro ler J' f p �� ` to- .t records >� 5 to `° - � H„� search ,r,)It du'tn Wells r r y �� �:� l� •� , i� bo Project area eat 72, Areas previously -`-�y { (i f�• �'.29 surveyed r ir'� t j30 SCALE 124,000 1000 0 1000 2000 feet i._ Figure 4. Previous cultural resources surveys in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC manuscript file number. Locations of archaeological remains are not shown as a protective measure. Table 1. Known Archaeological Sites within or near the Project Area* Site Number Description CA-RIV-64 Bedrock milling feature; ceramic scatter; hearth/pit CA-RIV-151 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter CA-RIV-2200/H Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; hearth/pit; habitation debris CA-RIV-3005 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; habitation debris CA-RIV-36591 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; FAR; burned clay CA-RIV-3679/H Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; habitation debris; trash scatter CA-RIV-3680 Ceramic scatter; hearth/pit CA-RIV-3681 Ceramic scatter; hearth/pit CA-RIV-3683 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; hearth/pit; habitation debris CA-RIV-3866 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; hearth/pit; habitation debris CA-RIV-40761 Ceramic scatter CA-RIV-5876 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; hearth/pit CA-RIV-6275 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; habitation debris CA-RIV-6276 Ceramic scatter CA-RIV-6277 Lithic scatter; ceramic scatter; habitation debris * Information on the exact location of these archaeological resources is kept confidential for their protection. Sites located in the project area. Table 2. Recorded Historic Buildings near the Project Area Property Number Property Name Location Ptoperty Type Year Built 33-7262 Point Hap Ranch 46-135 Washington Farm/ranch 1930s 33-7263 Point Happy Ranch 46-135 Washington Ancillary building 930s 33-7264 None 46-370 Cameo Palms Sin le-famil dwelling 1933 To summarize, the records search has indicated that much of the area around the project area, including the subject parcels themselves, have been surveyed for cultural resources. Fourteen archaeological sites and three historic resources have been recorded within a half -mile radius of the project area, including two within the project boundaries. These sites are typical of surface manifestations of sites in the area, consisting mostly of scatters of debitage and pot sherds. Historical Research Results As Figures 5-8 show, evidence of human activities has been recorded in the vicinity of the project area throughout the 150 years since the mid-1850s, when the earliest maps with sufficient details were compiled. At that time and again around the turn of the century, sources indicate a road, evidently a part of the historic Cocomaricopa- Bradshaw Trail, traversing through or in close proximity to the project area (Figs. 5, 6). Also noted in the 1850s near the project area, approximately one mile to the northwest, were an Indian rancheria, identified by modern ethnographers as the Cahuilla village of Kavinic (Strong 1929:101) or Kavinish (Bean et al. 1991:45), and a well-known Indian well named Palma Seca (Fig. 5). By the end of the 19th century, the village had been abandoned (Barrows 1900:33), but the Palma Seca well, better known to non -:Indians 8 ! 7�— ^y I Indian .rerr s.�o rancherla A Palma Seca Well 4 Project o area rrri Road 040 � � I .-. 4 +.0 mlie YLC _-a C Project area_] .k u 0 key I - e SCALE 7:725,000 t 0 1 2 miles Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856. Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: GLO 1856a;1856b) (Source: USGS 1904) simply as Indian Well (Fig. 6), continued to be a major desert landmark in the 20th century, and ultimately bestowed its name on today's City of Indian Wells. Despite the presence these early historic features nearby, there i9 little evidence of human activities within the project area itself except for the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail as observed in 1901 (Fig. 6). Records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management indicate that the entire Section 19 was included in a land grant to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1905 (BLM n.d.). Around the same period, Norman "Lucky" Lundbeck established his Point Happy Ranch, one of the first non -Indian settlements in what is now the City of La Quinta, just to the south of the project area in Section 30 (City of La Quinta 1997:27). The project area, however, has apparently remained undeveloped to the present time (Figs. 2, 7, 8). The oldest man-made feature now in existence within or adjacent to the project area is present-day Highway 111, which was constructed as a Riverside County highway in the 1910s along the course of the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail (Hamilton 1988:7.1-16). Between 1941 and 1959, Marshall Street, the main access road to La Quinta, was extended to the north of Highway 111 to become today's Washington Street (Fig. 8). Defining the southern and eastern boundaries of the project area, these two highways are the only man-made features identified within or adjacent to the project area from historical sources that may be over 50 years old. However, as major thoroughfares that are still in active use, neither Highway 111 nor Washington Street retains any historic characteristics near the project area, and thus neither can be considered a historic feature. 9 17.3-�'-- i 19 is 17 4t .9!.- i - -Y i Z Project; itVella f _area R16^( 2s 30 `�.. 61 40 � k� SCALE 1:62,500 ' 3i � 7 0 1 mile v Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: USGS 1941) Field Work Results a tea. Wa1s t � Project M Z area wve Mu , )i cq Indian weligi i i < ¢ SCALE 1:62,500 ' 0 1 mile Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1954-1959. (Source: USGS 1959) During the survey and site recording activities, two prehistoric sites were encountered and delineated (Fig. 9). One had been previously noted in prior studies (see 'Records Search Results," above), while the other was a new site, not previously recorded. In addition, Site CA-RIV-4076, which was on record at the EIC as being in the project area, could not be re -located and must be considered as no longer in existence. CA-RIV-3659/H The main site on the project area is CA-RIV-3659/H, which was recorded in 1989 near Washington Street. In addition to the potsherds, lithic debitage, and burned clay that were observed in the site in 1989 and again during this investigation, fragments of sun -colored amethyst glass were also observed during the present study, indicating a historic component perhaps from the early 20th century (thus, the "/H" added to the site number). A site -update record has been completed. The site is large, covering virtually the entire dune surface, being 110 meters (365 feet) long and 70 meters (230 feet) wide. Hundreds of pieces of broken pottery, d02,ens of chipped stone flakes, fired clay fragments, and burned animal bone attest to Indian activities in the prehistoric past (Fig. 10). Concentrations of fire -cracked rock mark old roasting pits (Fig. 11). CA-RIV-6385 A new site was recorded east of the main site. This site consists of a sparse scatter of potsherds and burned clay found in a graded and leveled area, 10 1 Tom— / 7�/ Confidential Traile r VENUE 2�11 L L Project 74 boundary.,' �ncliaa W 11 CA-6385 CA ji SCALE 1:24,000 "Mr - 1000 0 1000 --- feet JU Figure 9. Locations of archaeological sites in the project area. Figure 10. Pottery, burned bone, and fired clay at Site CA-RIV-3659/H. 1 -7 gL 11 Figure 11. Fire -cracked rock resulting from Indian roasting pits or heating stones. completely disturbed by heavy equipment sometime in the not -to -distant past. A few burned large mammal bones were also observed. A site record has been completed for this site and turned into the EIC for formal recordation. DISCUSSION Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present CRM TECH's conclusions on whether the archaeological sites encountered within the project area meet the official definitions of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. 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, of 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 contributidn 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 of 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 yielduig 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) Pursuant to these statutory and regulatory guidelines, the two archaeological sites in the project area are evaluated under both the criteria for the California Register and those for the City of La Quinta's historic resources inventory. The results of the evaluation are discussed below. Site Evaluation CA-RIV-3659/H This site appears to mark an Indian campsite or living area next to the Whitewater River course. It lies very close to the village of Kavinish in Indian Wells and follows a pattern of archaeological sites all along the north side of Highway 13 1, ��-7 , 111, some of which have yielded very significant finds. While the surface manifestation appears to be rather typical, there is sufficient sand dune depth to hide earlier occupation layers that could be much older, and hence very important. There is insufficient information at the present time to determine whether or not CA-RIV-3659 constitutes a historical resource under CEQA. Subsurface testing is necessary to make such a judgment. CA-RIV-6385 This site represents only remnants from a once intact archaeological site that has been leveled and graded sometime in the past. A scatteting of pot sherds and a few animal bone fragments are scattered on a surface that has been completely altered by heavy equipment activities. Based on experience in similar environments farther to the east, the likelihood is low for buried deposits here, Therefore, this site appears not to meet CEQA criteria for significance, although a backhoe trench could be put through the site to make a judgment concerning buried deposits. PROJECT EFFECT 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." This study has concluded that one of the two sites in the project area, CA-RIV-3659/1-1, needs to be further evaluated through archaeological testing procedures to determine whether it meets the statutory definition of a "historical resource," in which case the impacts on the sites by the proposed project would constitute a Significant effect on the environment. However, even if the site is determined to be significant, it is expected that the information collected during the testing phase will serve as mitigation of adverse effects. The proposed project in all likelihood will be allowed to proceed because CEQA states that further mitigation is not required if the completed testing phase has recovered the "scientifically consequential information" about the resource (PRC §21083.2(d)). The information gathered during the testing phase would serve as mitigation of adverse effects to the resource. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for CA-RIV-3659/1-1 Because CA-RIV-3659 has the potential to meet CEQA criteria for importance, CRM TECH recommends to the project proponent and the Lead Agency that an archaeological testing program be completed consisting of the following elements: • Preparation of research design; 17� 14 1 .7-7— • Surface collection of all visible artifacts; • Excavation of archaeological test units, surface scrapes, and backhoe trenches to determine the depth and subsurface content of the sites; • Laboratory analysis of artifacts recovered from the field procedures, including ceramics, lithics, fauna, groundstone, fire -affected rock, and hardened clay; • Consultation with Cahuilla cultural advisors regarding site significance; • Historical research to determine origin of • Preparation of a final report to summariz above, and interpret such findings within Recommendations for CA-RIV-6385 early 20th century glass at the site; e the findings of the procedures outlined the context of a regional research design. Site CA-RIV-6385 does not meet CEQA criteria for a historical resource because of the extensive disturbance that has occurred at that location. However, it may be worth backhoe trenching to determine the presence or absence of deeply buried deposits. • Surface collection of visible artifacts; • Limited backhoe trenching to determine presence or absence of buried deposits. Barring unforeseen findings of rare importance, it is fully expected that if the prescribed recommendations are implemented, mitigation measures will be complete and grading permits may be issued at the close of field work and submission of an interims report of findings. Archaeological monitoring will be required during grading. CONCLUSION The foregoing report has provided background information on the project area, outlined the methods used in the current study, and presented the results of the various avenues of research. During the course of the study, two archaeological sites were encountered within the project area. One of the sites, CA-RIV-3659/H has the potential to meet CEQA criteria for historical resources, while the other, CA-RIV-6385, can be evaluated as not meeting these criteria. It is recommended that a testing and evaluation program be carried out on Site CA-RIV-3659/H to determine if this site meets the statutory definition of "historical resource." At the conclusion of test excavations, barring unexpectedly rare and significant finds, an interim report may be produced allowing grading permits to be issued. Archaeological monitoring shall be required during grubbing and grading. 1761 15 REFERENCES Barrows, David Prescott 1900 The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bean, Lowell John, Sylvia Brakke Vane, and Jackson Young 1991 The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. Historical Index, Land Status Records, T5S R7E, SBBM, Microfiches on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. City of La Quinta 1997 City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft). On file, City of La Quinta. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856a Plat Map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 1856b Plat Map: Township No. 5 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Hamilton, Ted J. 1988 Highway 111: A History. Unpublished manuscripts. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. Swope, K. and M. Thaler 1990 Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-4076. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Toenjes, James H. 1989 Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-3659. On file, Eastern Informatiion Center, University of California, Riverside. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Toro Peak, Calif. (15, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1.954, field - checked in 1957 and 1959. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1959 edition photo -revised in 1978. ,0 16 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS i gi 17 U, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce Love, Ph.D., ROPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists) Education 1986 Ph. D., Anthropology, University of California, Lo$ 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. 18a 18 14f- PROJECT HISTORIAN Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Van, China. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 1993- Project Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Van Foreign Languages Institute, Xl'an, China. Honors and Awards 1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980, 1981 President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China. Cultural Resources Management Reports Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventory System (With Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990. Approximately 200 cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. Membership California Preservation Foundation. 183 19 "'r PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D. Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll. Professional Experience 1999- Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. • Duties: supervision of all aspects of projects including communicating with clients and/or public agencies to determine appropriate scope of work and scheduling of tasks; arranging logistics, including transportation, food, and lodging; organizing crew people into appropriate tasks and directing field work; overseeing laboratory analysis of findings, including sending samples to outside researchers for analysis and cataloguing/organizing all data recovered by the fieldwork; producing final reports, including background research, description of fieldwork, discussion of study results, preparation of site records, and formulation of final recommendations. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1984-1998 Part-time technician for various cultural resources management: firms, including CRM TECH; Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside; Cultural Resource Facility, California State University, Bakersfield; Greenwood and Associateg; RMW Falco Associates; and WESTEC Services, Inc. Publications Author, co-author, and contributor to more than 35 archaeological publications and CRM reports, including "Yuma Area Office Sediment Project: Contact with Native Americans" (1998), "Early Hunter -Gathers and Historic Settlers along San Sevaine Creek: Data Recovery Efforts at the Hunter's Ridge Community Development Project" (1998), "Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore" (1997), and "Historic Properties Management Report for the Whittier Narrows Flood Control Basin" (1997). 20 s3 i� 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 Air and Ground Combat Center, 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; Caltrans. Archaeological Field Schools 1996 Surveys and excavations in Quintana Roo, Mexico. 1994 Surveys and excavations in Mono County. 21 1TE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOUR( Govemor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. Box 942696 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 (916)653.6624 Fax:(916)653-9624 mishpo@ohp.parks.u.gov November 24, 1999 Certified Local Governments Enclosed please find ten copies of the latest CLG contact list. The extra copies are for distribution to your commissioners and staff. Feel free to contact us for additional copies if they are needed. We support and promote communication and networking among our CI -Gs as a means of gaining greater insights and differing perspectives. Please look over the information for your local government and ensure that it is current and correct. If there are any changes to be made, you may contact any one of us by phone, fax or email with the corrections. Additionally, if you have an email address and it is not listed, please let us know. We look forward to someday facilitating communication by being able to contact all of our CI -Gs by email. Finally, we would like to add information on local government websites to this list. If your local historic preservation program has a web presence (be it on your city or county's website or on some other homepage; e.g., historical society, local museum, etc.), please contact us with the URL so that we may include it in future mailings of the contact list and so that we may create a link between OHP's site and yours. Thank you for your continued participation in the CLG program. Sincerely, Local Government Unit Jenan Saunders Lucinda Woodward Jan Wooley e STATE OF RESOURCESAGENCY GRAY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENT0, CA 94296-0001 (916)653-6624 Fax.(916)653-9824 C ISnpo@onp.paMS.oa.gov CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF CALIFORNIA /s r"'7 ' � v 11/24/99 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name Cityof Alameda Staff Contact Judith Altschuler Department Planning Department Department2 Street 2263 Santa Clara Ave. City Alameda State CA Phone 510-748-4554 Fax 510-748-4548 CLG Name City of Burbank Staff Contact Jennifer Paige Department Planning Department Department2 Street 275 E. Olive Ave. City Burbank State CA Phone 818 238-5275 Fax 818 238-5150 County: Alameda Contact Title Plannerlll Date Certified: 12-19-86 Suite/Rut Rm 120 PO Box Zip 94501 email jaltschu@ci.alameda.ca.us OHPAdmin Jan Wooley County: Los Angeles Contact Title Assistant Planner Date Certified: 09-23-96 SuitelRm PO Box PO Box 6459 Zip 91510-6459 email jpaige@ci.burbank.ea.us OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLGName City of Colton County: San Bernardino Staff Contact Kathy A. Kiveiy Contact Title Assistant to the City Manager Department Office of the City Manager Departmen¢ Historic Preservation Commission Street 650 N. La Cadena Drive Suite/Rtn City Colton State CA Zip 92324 Phone 909-370-5053 email Fax 909-370-5183 Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Date Certified: 10-27-99 PO Box OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward Page l of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Colusa County: Colusa Staff Contact Lanell Hoover Contact Title Deputy Clerk Department Heritage Preservation Committee Department2 Date Certified: 10-24-96 Street SuiteiRm PO Box PO Box 1063 City Colusa State CA Zip 95932 Phone 530-458-4740 email Fax 530-458-8674 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLGName Town of Danville Staff Contact Christine McCann Department Planning Department Department2 Engineering Department Street 510 La Gonda Way City Danville State CA Phone 925-314-3342 Fax 925-838-0360 County: Contra Costa Contact Title Senior Planner Date Certified: 10-23-91 SuitelRm PO Box Zip 94526-1740 email cmccann@danville.ca.us OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name City of Davis County: Yolo Staff Contact Esther Polito Contact Title Cultural Services Manager Department Historical Resources Management Commission Department2 City of Davis Parks and Communi Dale Certified: 05-30-95 Street 23 Russell Blvd SuitelRm PO Box City Davis State CA Zip 95616 Phone 530 757-5626 email epolito@dcn.davis.ca.us Fax 530 758-0204 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Pape 2 of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Escondido Staff Contact Abdul Farrah, AICP Department Planning Division Department) Street 201 North Broadway City Escondido State CA Phone 760 432-4537 Fax 760 738-4313 CLG Name City of Eureka Staff Contact Sidnie Olson Department Planning Department Department) Street 531 K Street City Eureka State CA Phone 707-441-4265 Fax 707-441-4202 County: San Diego Contact Title Associate Planner Date Certified: 11-30-89 Suite/Rm PO Box Zip 92025-2798 email OHPAdmin Jan Wooley County: Humbolt Contact Title Senior Planner Date Certified: 08-03-99 Suite/Rm PO Box Zip 95501-1165 email solson@eurekawebs.com OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLG Name City of Fresno County: Fresno Staff Contact Dolores Mellon Contact Title Historic Preservation Specialist Department Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Department) Date Certified: 09-23-96 Street 2600 Fresno Street Suite/Rm Rm. 3076 PO Box City Fresno State CA Zip 93721 Phone 559 498-2639 email dolores@fresno.gov Fay 559 488-1078 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page .i of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Glendale County: Los Angeles Staff Contact t Gerald Wasser Contact Title Planner Department City of Glendale Planning Division Department2 Dane Certified: 02-12-88 Street 633 East Broadway Suite/Rm Rm 103 PO Box City Glendale State CA Zip 91206-4386 Phone 818 548-2140 email gwasser@ei.gendale.ca.us Fax 818240-0392 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLG Name City of Highland Staff Contact Kim Stater Department Planning Department Department2 Street 27215 Base Line City Highland State CA Phone 909 864-8732, ext. 204 Fax 909 862-3180 County: San Bernardino Contact Title Redevelopment Assistant Date Certified: 04-17-95 Suitell?m PO Box Zip 92346 email OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name City of La Quinta County: Riverside Staff Contact Christine di loro Contact Title Planning Manager Department Community Development Department Department2 Date Certified: 04-20-95 Street 78-495 Calle Tampico Suite/Rm PO Box PO Box 1504 City La Quinta State CA Zip 92253 Phone 760 777-7125 or 760-777-7068 email cdioro@la-quinta.org Fax 760 777-1233 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page 4 of 15 A%\ 1-� CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Long Beach County: Los Angeles Staff Contact Ruthann Lehrer Contact Title Nbad. & His. Pres. Officer Department Department of Planning and Building Department2 Date Certified: 05-19-92 Street 333 West Ocean Blvd Suhe1Rm 5th floor PO Box City Long Beach State CA Zip 90802 Phone 562 570-6864 email rulehre@ci.long-beach.ca.us Fax 562 570-6068 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLGName City of Los Altos Staff Contact Madelyn Crawford Department Department2 Street One North San Antonio Rd City Los Altos State CA Phone 650-948-9427 Fax 650-941-7419 CLG Name Town of Los Gatos Staff Contact Sandy Bally Department Planning Department Department2 Street 110 East Main St. City Los Gatos State CA Phone 408 354-6873 Fav 408 354-7593 Wednesday, November 24, 1999 County: Santa Clara Contact Title Museum Director of History House Date Certified: 12-04-90 Suite/Rm PO Box Zip 94022 email OHPAdmin Jan Wooley County: Santa Clara Contact Title Associate Planner Date Certified: 07-25-90 Suile/Rm PO Box PO Box 949 Zip 95032, PO-95031 email OHPAdmin Jan Wooley Pages ofl5 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Marysville Staff Contact Jeri Schneider (temp) Department Planning Department Department) Street 526 "C" Street City Marysville State CA Phone 530-741-6607 Fax 530-741-7160 County: Yuba Contact Title Public Works Secretary Date Certified: 04-28-97 Suire/Rm PO Box PO Box 150 Zip 95901 email 011PAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name City of Monterey County: Monterey Staff Contact Bruce Kibby Contact Title Senior Planner Department Planning & Community Development Department Department2 Dale Certified: 02-06-97 Street City Hall Suite/Rtn PO Box City Monterey Stare CA Zip 93940 Phone 831-646-3759 email kbby@ci.monterey.ca.us Fax 831-646-3917 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name County of Monterey County: Monterey Staff Contact Meg Weldon Contact Title Historian Department Monterey County Parks Depar1ment2 Planning & Building Inspection De Dale Certified: 03-14-94 Street 240 Church Street Suite/Rm Room 116 PO Box PO Box 1208 City Salinas State CA Zip 93902 Phone 831-755-5310 email townera@co.monterey.ca.us Fax 831-755-5487 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Wednesday, November 24, 1999 I T3 Page 6ofI5 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Napa Staff Contact Marcia J. Maleske Department Cultural Heritage Commission Department2 Street 1600 First Street City Napa State CA Phone 707-257-9530 Fax 707-257-9522 County: Naps Contact Title Principal Planner Date Certified. 02-18-86 SuirelRm PO Box PO Box 660 Zip 94559-0660 email mmaleske@cityofnapa.org OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name City of Oakland County: Alameda Staff Contact Betty Marvin Contact Title Planner 1 Department Community and Economic Development Agency Department2 Planning Division Date(errified: 12-19-86 Street 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza SuhelRm Ste. 3330 PO Box City Oakland State CA Zip 94612-2021 Phone 510-238-6879 email bmarvin@oaklandnet.com Fax 510-238-6538 OHPAdutin Jan Wooley CLG Name City of Oceanside County: San Diego Staff Contact Rita Baker Contact Title Senior Planner Department City of Oceanside Planning Department Department2 Dale Certified: 03.08-91 Street 300 N. Coast Hwy, Civic Center Suile/Rm PO Box City Oceanside State CA Zip 92054-2885 Phone 760-966-4770 Fax 760-966-4164 Wednesday, November 14, 1999 email rbaker@ci.oceanside.ca.us OHPAdmin Jan Wooley LIq Page 7' of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Palo Alto County: Santa Clara Staff Contact George White Contact Title Planning Manager Department Planning & Community Environment Department2 Dare Certified: 02-11-92 Street 250 Hamilton Avenue Suite/Rm PO Box PO Box 10250 City Palo Alto State CA Zip 94303-0862 Phone 650-329-2541 email georgewhite@city.palo-alto.ca.us Fax 415-329-2240 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLG Name City of Pasadena County: Los Angeles Staff Contact Mary Jo Winder Contact Title Senior Planner Department Design & Historic Preservation Section Department2 Date Certified: 09-30-86 Street 175 North Garfield Suite/Rm PO Box City Pasadena State CA Zip 91109-7215 Phone 626-744-4228 email mwinder@ci.pasadena.ca.us Fax 626-793-5937 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name City of Redondo Beach County: Los Angeles Staff Contact Teresa Gianos Contact Title Associate Planner Department City of Redondo Beach Planning Department Department2 Date Certified. 12-04-90 Street 415 Diamond Street SuitelRm PO Box PO Box 270 City Redondo Beach State CA Zip 90277-0270 Phone 310-318-0637 email teresa.gianos@redondo.org Fax 310-372-8021 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page 8 of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of Redwood City county: San Mateo Staff Contact Charles Jany Contact Title Secretary Department Redwood City Historic Resources Department2 Advisory Committee Date Certified: 11-20-92 Street 1017 Middlefield Road Suire/Rm PO Box PC Box 391 City Redwood City ,State CA Zip 94064-0391 Phone 415-780-7239 email cjany@redwoodcity.org Fax 415-780-0128 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name City of Riverside County: Riverside Staff Contact Janet Tearnen Contact Title Cultural Resources Specialist Department City of Riverside Planning Department Department2 Date Certified: 12-01-98 Street 3900 Main Street Suite/Rm PO Box City Riverside State CA Zip 92522 Phone 909-782-5463 email Fax 909-782-5622 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name City of Sacramento County: Sacramento Staff Contact Vincent Marsh Contact Title Preservation Director Department City of Sacramento Department2 Neighborhoods, Planning & Devel Date Certified: 10-21-96 Street 1231 "1" Street Suite/Rm Suite 200 PO Box City Sacramento State CA Zip 95814 Phone 916-264-5607 email vmarsh@gw.sacto.org Fax 916-264-7046 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page 9 of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of San Clemente County: orange Staff Contact James B. Hare Contact Title City Planner Department San Clemente Planning Division Department2 Date Certified: 03-03-93 Street 910 Calle Negocio SuitelRm Ste. 100 PO Box City San Clemente State CA Zip 92673 Phone 949-361-6185 email Fax 949-361-8281 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name Cityof San Diego Staff Contact Angeles Leira Department City of San Diego Department2 Historical Site Board Street 202 "C" Street City San Diego State CA Phone 619-235-5213 Fax 619-533-5951 CLGName County of San Diego Staff Contact Dr. Glenn S. Russell Department County of San Diego Department2 Landmark Site Board Street 5201 Ruffin Road City San Diego State CA Phone 619-694-2981 Fax 619-694-3373 Wednesday, November 24, 1999 County: San Diego Contact Title Staff to the Historical Site Board Date Certified: 09-30-86 Suite/Rm M.S.4A PO Box Zip 92101 email ala@sdcity.sannet.gov OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders County: San Diego Contact Title EMS II Date Certified: 01-05-89 Suite/Rm Ste. B PO Box Zip 92123-1666 email grussell@co.san.diego.ca.us OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Page 10of15 M 6 CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City/County of San Francisco County: San Francisco Staff Contact Neil Hart Contact Title Preservation Coordinator Department Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Departmen12 Date Certified: 05-31-95 Street 1660 Mission Street Suite/Rm 5th Floor PO Box City San Francisco State CA Zip 94103-2414 Phone 415-558-6338 email neilhart@ci.sf.ca.us Fax 415-558-6409 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name City of San Jose County: Santa Clara Staff Contact Susan Queirolo Contact Title Historic Preservation Officer Department Historic Landmarks Commission Department2 Department of Planning, Building Dare Certified: 08-18-97 Street 801 North First Street Suite/Rm Room 400 PO Box City San Jose State CA Zip 95110-1795 Phone 408-277-8572 email susan.queirolo@ci.sj.ca.us Fax 408-277-3250 OHPAdmin Jenan Sunders CLG Name City of Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Staff Contact Arthur Henriques Contact Title City Planner Department City of Santa Clara Panning Department Department2 Date Certified: 11-14-86 Street 1500 Warburton Ave Suite/Rm PO Box City Santa Clara State CA Zip 95050 Phone 408-261-5260 email ghenriques@ci.santa.clara.ca.us Fax 408-241-3823 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward Wednesday, November 24, 1999 M Page I I of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLGName City of Santa Cruz County: Santa Cruz Staff Contact Don Lauritson Contact Title Associate Planner Department Planning and Community Development Department) Historic Preservation Commission Date Certified., 11-15-95 Street 809 Center Street Suite/Rm Room 206 PO Box City Santa Cruz State CA Zip 95060 Phone 831-420-6257 email dlauritson@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us Fax 831-420-6458 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLGName County of Santa Cruz County: Santa Cruz Staff Contact Cherry McCormick Contact Title Planner Department Historic Resources Commission Department2 County Building Dale Certified: 11-14-86 Street 701 Ocean Street Suite/Rm Room 413 PO Box City Santa Cruz State CA Zip 95060 Phone 831-454-3132 email pin315@co.santa-eruz.ea.us Fax 831-454-2131 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders CLGName City of Santa Monica Staff Contact Donna Jerex Department Planning and Zoning Division Department2 Street 1685 Main Street City Santa Monica State CA Phone 310-458-8341 Fax 310-458-3380 Wednesday, November 24, 1999 County: Los Angeles Contact Title Associate Planner Date Ccrtifed. 06-09-92 Sutte/Rm Room 212 PO Box PO Box 2200 Zip 90407-2200 email donna-jerex@ci.santa-monica.ca.us OHPAdmin Jan Wooley Page 12of15 tM a CLG CONTACT LIST CLGName City of Saratoga Staff Contact Heather Bradley Department City of Saratoga Department2 Street 13777 Fruitvale Ave. City Saratoga State CA Phone 408-868-1230 Fax 408-868-1280 County: Santa Clara Contact Title Secretary Dane Certified: 10-06-88 Suite/Rm PO Box Zip 95070 email OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name City of Sunnyvale County: Santa Clara Staff Contact Gerri Caruso Contact Title Associate Planner Department City of Sunnyvale Planning Department Department2 Community Development Dare Certified: 01-07-93 Street 456 West Olive Ave. Suite/Rm PO Box PO Box 3707 City Sunnyvale State CA Zip 94088-3707 Phone 408-730-7591 email gcaruso@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us Fax 408-730-7715 OHPAdmtn Jan Wooley CLG Name County of Tuolumne County: Tuolumne Staff Contact Robin Wood Contact Title Senior Planner Department Tuolumne County Historic Preservation Review Commission Department2 County of Tuolumne Planning Divi Date certified: 11-12-91 Street 2 South Green Street Sufte/Rm PO Box City Sonora State CA Zip 95370 Phone 209-533-5633 email Fax 209-533-5616 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Wednesday, November24, 1999 Page ]3 of 15 CLG CONTACT LIST CLGName City of Tustin County: Orange Staff Contact Scott Reekstin Contact Title Associate Planner Department Community Development Department Department) Date Certified: 07-31-91 Street 300 Centennial Way Suhe/Rm PO Box City Tustin State CA Zip 92780 Prone 714-573-3016 email Fax 714-573-3113 OHPAdmin Lucinda Wooddward CLG Name City of Vallejo County: Solano Staff Contact Christine Sinnette Contact Title Staff Liaison Department Architectural Heritage & Landmarks Commission Department2 Dnte Certified: 05-19-92 Street 555 Santa Clara Street SuiteiRm PO Box PO Box 3068 City Vallejo State CA Zip 94590 Phone 707-648-4506 email Fax 707-552-0163 OHPAdmin Lucinda Woodward CLG Name County of Ventura County: Ventura Staff Contact Mr. Kim Hocking Contact Title Senior Planner Department Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Department2 Date Certified. 11-12-91 Street 800 South Victoria Ave. SuitelRm L #1740 PO Box City Ventura State CA Zip 93009 Phone 805-654-2414 email kim.hocking@mail.co.ventura.ca.us Fax 805-654-2509 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page 14 of 15 1 s CLG CONTACT LIST CLG Name City of West Hollywood County: Los Angeles Staff Contact Lisa Heep Contact Title Planning Manager Department Department of Community Development Department2 Dale Certified: 10-23-91 Street 8300 Santa Monica Blvd. Suile/Rm PO Box City West Hollywood State CA Zip 90069-4313 Phone 323-848-6476 email Iheep@ci.west-hollywood.aa.us Fax 323-848-6569 OHPAdmin Jan Wooley CLG Name County of Yolo County: Yolo Staff Contact John Siden Contact Title Acting Manager Department Parks and Facilities Department.' Date Certified: 01-30-89 Street 625 Court Street, Room #203 Suite/Rm PO Box City Woodland State CA Zip 95695 Phone 530-666-8115 email Fax 530-666-8117 OHPAdmin Jenan Saunders Wednesday, November 24, 1999 Page 15 of 15 DEC.23,1999 3:56PM CF NO. 548 P. 1/1 OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P,O, PDX S42P06 SACRAMENTO, CA 94206-0001 (915) 6"-9402 Fax: (916) 65s-ae24 lsaun®ohp,paft ca.Gov i /, To: Cl-G Coordinators From: ,lenan Saunders Facer. phone; Date: R*: National Trust conference in 2000 4C, I am putting together a proposal for an educational session at the National Trust conference, which will take place October 31-November 5, 2000, in I-os Angeles. Because OHP is Currently working on producing a manual dealing with the creation and revision of local historic preservation ordinances and it is due to be distributed In time for the conference, we thought a session on local ordinances would be a way to showcase our new publication and provide an interesting issue for discussion at the conference, I am writing to you today to see if any of you CLG coordinators or members of your commissions would be interested in serving on a panel during the session. I am seeking one panel member to represent a focal government in California, preferably one that recently went through an ordinance revision or creation, Additionally, someone from California OHP will bring the state's perspective to the panel. And then I plan to have the third panelist represent a local government or SHPO office outside of California. I envision that the session will be targeted to an audience above the introductory level, i.e„ will deal with issues beyond the beginner preservationist level, such as dealing with property rights opposition, providing for strong incentives and penalties (parrots and sticks), integrating local ordinance permit review with-CEQA, etc. Each panelist will speak for approximately 20 minutes and then the panel will take questions from the audience. The entire session would be 90 minutes long. Further refinement of the session will occur after the panelists have been chosen and the session approved by the National Trust, There is a small budget for sessions ($500) that could cover some per diem and travel costs, and all panel speakers receive a discounted registration of $100 for the conference. Please forward this message to any staff members or commissioners you think may be interested in participating. I apologize for the short deadline, but I would need to hear back from interested panelists by next Thursday, December 30, as the proposal is due by December 31. Thank you for your consideration of this request. And feel free to get in touch with me (by email or phone) with any questions, (P,S, Sorry I couldn't email this message, but our system is down today, and I'm off tomorrow. Hope your holidays are wonderful and you have a happy and safe New Year!) a3 12-23-99 16:56 RECEIVED FROM: P.01 CLG News an occasional bulletin for California's certified local governments This news bulletin is intended to serve as a source of information useful to CLGs. It is the hope of the Office of Historic Preservation's Local Government Unit that you will pursue further those issues that interest you. Please share this bulletin with any in- terested staff person, commission member, elected official, or member of the public in your local com- munity. We plan to publish CLG News several times each year, as news that you should know comes to our attention. Please feel free to contact your CLG coordinator at OHP with any questions or items for future bulletins. Preservation Spotlight Critical CLG Training Needs Identified Whether you are a new CLG desperately in need of "Preservation 101" basic training, or a seasoned veteran tackling specific preservation issues, training is a critical need for all CLGs across the board. Training is required of all CLG commissioners and staff and must be reported in the CLG Annual Report. Perhaps of even greater importance, yearly attendance at preservation workshops and seminars provides an opportunity to meet and network with other preservation professionals who can share ideas, concerns, common goals and workable solutions. We asked our CLGs to identify specific training needs in their 1998 annual reports, to provide us with a focus for future CLG workshops. The answers we received are as varied as the CLGs themselves, however, a closer review revealed several common threads identified below: ♦ Design review (Burbank, Oakland, Vallejo) ♦ Practical application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Highland, Long Beach, San Francisco, Vallejo) Bulletin #2 December 1999 ♦ State and National designation processes and criteria (Burbank, Long Beach, Oakland, Sacramento) ♦ Historic resource survey issues (Escondido, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco) ♦ Mills Act and Federal tax credits (Oakland, Sacramento) ♦ Preservation funding sources (Highland, San Francisco) ♦ CEQA guidelines (Sacramento, Santa Cruz County) Other suggested training topics include: Heritage tourism, post -World War II properties (Oceanside); community outreach and involvement (Glendale); ordinance revisions (Long Beach); California Register integrity guidelines (Oakland); and Section 106 review (San Francisco). Although OHP is working on addressing the training needs of CLGs, training opportunities still abound. Mark your calendars for the California Preservation Foundation's annual conference, which will take place April 13-15, 2000, in Monterey. The National Alliance for Preservation Commissions will hold their annual forum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 4-6, 2000. And the California Council for the Promotion of History will hold its annual conference in Truckee/Lake Tahoe September 21-23, 2000. In Brief Contact Information As the Local Government Unit strives to improve ser- vice to our CLGs, we desperately need current contact information for your local government's CLG staff con- tact. Please let us know when changes are made to staff, mailing addresses, phone and fax numbers, and email ad- dresses. We will be trying more and more to correspond with you by email, so if you have an on-line address, let us know. We find it makes communications a breeze! Also, as OHP begins working on our website, we'd love to know if your historic preservation program has a web presence. If so, send us the URL (web address) so we can create a link from our site to yours. oZ fl� -2 61- Page 2 December 1999 CLG News Latest News Training & Networking Opportunities CHIP Proud to Welcome New CLGs: Cities of Eureka and Colton The City of Eureka became California's 43rd CLG over the summer, and is now our northernmost CLG. Eureka's large stock of historic resources is well served by a committed commission who, we trust, will be aided in its work by the city's new CLG status. Sidnie Olson serves as staff to the commission. She can be reached at (707) 442-4265, email: solson@eurekawebs.com. With only three day's notice, Betty Cook, a member of Colton's City Council, attended the State Historic Resources Commission meeting in Nevada City November 51" to accept the Commission's resolution recognizing the city's status as California's 441 CLG. Colton is a city of about 50,000 in California's Inland Empire. The community's web site boasts a small-town, friendly atmosphere. Kathy Kivley, Assistant to the City Manager, serves as the staff liaison to the 7-member Historic Preservation Commission. She can be reached at (909) 370-5053. Publications of Interest Local Historic Preservation Ordinance Manual The Office of Historic Preservation is about to undertake the creation of a much needed manual on the creation and revision of local historic preservation ordinances. In lieu of a "model ordinance" (which we see as inadequate to address the broader issues surrounding local ordi- nances) we are opting for a manual that both discusses the items that should be included in an ordinance and the greater land use planning issues that surround ordinance creation and revision. We envision a manual that would be useful to the general public and local commissioners as well as having the case law and state code citations needed by planning staff and legal counsel. Look for the production of this publication in the Fall of 2000! This publication will be part of our ongoing Technical Assistance series, which has received widespread distri- bution. We now have 12 publications in the series and it continues to grow. If you haven't received information on the series or would like to request a complete set, just send us an email or give us a call. Scenic America is a national nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting America's natural beauty and preserving communities' distinctive local character. They provide technical assistance and produce publications on scenic byways, place -sensitive road design, cell tower location, transportation policies, sign control, and other scenic conservation issues. While they are not a historic preservation organization in the narrow sense, they are in the broader sense by their advocacy for preserving community character. Of interest to CLGs is &- --` their Guide to On - WNW AMtTjW Premise Sign Ordinances for Rural and Small Communities available for $3.00 to cover shipping and handling. Deborah L. Myerson, Program Manager, can be reached at 801 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-6200 x 14 phone, (202) 543-9130 fax, email: myerson@scenic.org, website: www.scenic.org. Websites of Interest California Office of Historic Preservation http://ohp.cal-parks.ca.gov Okay, here's a little harmless self -promotion. OHP is currently working on expanding our website to provide as much information to the California public as we possibly can. So keep an eye on our site as it develops and improves over the next six months. And give us the URL to your local historic preservation information so we can create a link! Electronic Rehab using theSecretary's Standards . http://www2.cr.nps.gov/e-rehab/ This on-line class walks you through the ten standards for rehabilitation and quizes you on your understanding of them. It's a wonderful resource for commissioners and staff who are trying to gain an understanding of the standards. You might also want to check out ... Caring for Historical Resources hftp://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/care/ goodguides.htm This site is absolutely chock full of publications and on- line information regarding the care of historic buildings. You will definitely want to b o ark this one! ans CLG News December 1999 Page 3 Who's Doing What.) Surveys The County of Tuolumne successfully completed the third and final phase of its cultural resource survey in the historic townsite of Tuolumne. Final results include 120 identified and evaluated historic resources, including two historic districts, and the development of contextual histories addressing pre -historic and historic Me-Wuk villages and food -gathering sites; gold rush era properties; agricultural and lumbering industry resources, and ethnic properties, primarily those of a strong Italian community which established itself within the townsite. Aided by two grants from the Office of Historic Preservation, the City of Sunnyvale recently completed its first historic resource survey of post -World War II suburban properties. The City's efforts included a multi - phased survey effort and the development of local and regional context statements, addressing early subdivisions built from 1948 to 1950 by housing developer Joseph Eichler, whose initial developments were moderately priced, with the intent of bringing modern, high quality, uncluttered designs within reach of ordinary families. His signature homes, designed to reflect the "casual" California lifestyle, characteristically featured open plan living areas with floor to ceiling glass on the rear fagades. The existence of three of Eichler's earliest single family subdivisions were confirmed by the Sunnyvale survey efforts, including Sunnyvale Manor (1948-49), Sunnymount Gardens (1948-49), and Sunnyvale Manor Addition (1949-50). Designations Our CLGs have had a very good showing in National Register designations during the past few months. The following properties have recently been listed: American Bag Co./Union Hide Co. Oakland 2nd and Howard Streets District San Francisco Theophilus Allen House Palo Alto 465 loth Street San Francisco Montgomery Ward Building Oakland Sacramento Hall of Justice Sacramento Sunnyslope Lodge San Diego Marysville Historic Commercial Dist. Marysville William Childs House Riverside Additionally, the City of Oceanside has become the first CLG with a California Register nominated property: the Oceanside Athletic Club. It seems the ships have taken the lead when it comes to State Historical Landmark designations in our CLGs. The Star ojlndia and the Ferryboat Berkeley, both located in the City of San Diego, recently became landmarks 41030 and #1031. And the U.S.S. Hornet (also a National Historic Landmark and now converted to a museum) in the City of Alameda is landmark #1029. Grant News 1999-2000 Grant Projects We received 19 CLG grant applications for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, totalling over $230,000. From these were chosen the following projects to receive funding this year: City of Danville Revise ordinance and prepare design guidelines City of Glendale Archeological research design City of Highland National Register district nomination County of Monterey Reconnaisance level survey City of Pasadena National Register nominations City of San Diego Presidio archeological project City of Santa Cruz Context statement City of Sunnyvale Oral histories training program County of Tuolumne Reconnaisance level survey City of Vallejo Intensive level survey Congratulations to these CLGs. And remember, it's not too late to be thinking about what projects you want to undertake next year that would be aided by a CLG grant. National Register district nominations (especially for commercial areas where property owners can take ad- vantage of rehabilitation tax incentives) may be of par- ticular use in your community. Or a revision of your local historic preservation ordinance may be desperately needed. Does your city or county have areas of high growth that are particularly vulnerable? Then a survey of just such an area may be in order. So put on those thinking caps and be looking for the 2000-2001 CLG grants manual in early spring. Page 4 December 1999 CLG News Legislative Alert State Legislation Urban Initiatives Act (AB 601) This bill would have generally encouraged the reuse of under-utilized existing urban buildings through designation of urban adaptive reuse zones by the Trade and Commerce Agency and local agency designation of eligible qualified adaptive reuse buildings. This bill was vetoed by Governor Davis. Villaraigosa-Keeley Bond Act (AB 18) This $2.1 billion general obligation bond initiative will be placed on the March ballot. The bond measure specifically delegates $10 million to the California Heritage Fund, to be administered by OHP. The funds will be available as statewide competitive grants to cities, counties, districts, local agencies formed for park purposes, and non- profit organizations for the, acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration and interpretation of historical and archeological resources. Federal Legislation Historic Homeownership Tax Credit (HR 1172, S 664) Unfortunately this legislation, which would have extended rehabilitation tax credits to non -income producing residential properties was vetoed by President Clinton as part of the tax package sent to him by Congress. But look for this much needed legislation to resurface again next year. Historic Route 66 Preservation Bill (HR 66) This bill, which authorizes up to $10 million over nine years for a program designed to conserve and protect the cultural heritage of Route 66, was passed by Congress and approved by President Clinton. The program will be administered by the National Park Service, so be watching for more information about grants in the coming months. Historic Preservation Fund (HR 701, HR 798) This week, Congress took its first concrete step toward fulfilling its promise of a permanently funded Historic Preservation Fund. The House Committee on Resources considered and approved by a 37 to 12 vote Committee Chair Don Young's (AK) "Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute" to his Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, H.R. 701, including in the amendment a permanent appropriation of $100 million to the HPF, which could mean a dramatic increase in California's funding. The bill, having now passed out of committee, will go before the two houses of Congress. Lanham Act Amendment On November 29, President Bill Clinton signed into law an amendment to the Lanham Act of 1996 exempting all National Register listed and eligible resources, as well as structures protected by state and local historic preservation ordinances, from the act's provisions regarding trademarks. The Lanham Act established the concept of trademark "dilution" —the idea that _41 lift, a company's trademark could be -- aweakened if used by another, even if in a different business. Under the act, signature features of historic buildings were potential targets of ., --lawsuits brought to force their removal. This problem arose most notably in Miami Beach's Art Deco Historic District. The Tiffany Hotel retained its integrity, but the Fairmont Hotel was not so lucky and was forced to rename itself. A delegation of Florida preservationists took their concerns directly to Congress in October during the National Preservation Conference. Representatives E. Clay Shaw (FL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) responded quickly and by October 26 had introduced correcting legislation. The legislation protects all architectural elements which feature the name of the building including spires, pylons, horizontal signs, and inlay terrazzo floors. Legislative Websites For the text of, and information about, state and federal legislation, consult the following websites: Federal Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov State Legislation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html An_ From: Cindy Stankowski <cski@cts.com> To: <cski@cts.com> Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999 4:13 PM Subject: Curation Symposium Dear SCA Member - I find myself with an embarrassment of riches regarding material for the SCA symposium on curation. I would like to know from you which of the following topics would be of interest and if you have related material or experiences that you would like to present. The curation symposium will be on Thursday morning and we have the opportunity to have a lunch-time workshop or panel discussion. What are your ideas? Curation is a hot topic in the nation as we come to terms with the millions of artifacts recovered from archaeological sites. California, in particular, with so much development driven excavation, is faced with the enormous task of returning a valuable cultural resource (excavated artifacts) back into a cultural resource which can be used for continuing scientific investigation, cultural use and public education. At the San Diego Archaeological Center, we define curation as the care, management and use of collections. Which of the following curation subtopics would be important to you; OR, would you like to make a presentation on a particular topic? CARE Conservation -Is professional curation always required? Pest Control -What bugs you? Anoxic microenvironments-A new technology for sensitive objects Preventative conservation -Preventing deterioration Archival curation materials, e.g., boxes, paper, labels, etc. Facility planning -Size, features, NIPS standards, etc. Storage environments -Humidity, temperature, light, etc. Archival packaging --Getting your collection ready for curation Disaster planning -A disaster is an emergency out of control MANAGEMENT Database development -KISS or complicated? Bar codes -Checking it out. Inventory systems -Counting, checking, reporting. Understanding 36 CFR Part 79-What does this reg mean? NAGPRA-Inventory, Summary and repatriation. Writing a collections management policy. Preserving confidentiality USE Cultural use of collections -Native American considerations Working with culturally -affiliated groups Getting archaeologists to use curated collections Public education programs Exhibits Getting press coverage Volunteer programs Internship programs Publications GENERAL L