The URL can be used to link to this page

04 Cultural Resouces Report (1998)CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT CORAL Zir'IOUNTAIN PROJECT Coachella Valley Riverside County, California Submitted to: Ric Stephens AEI-CASC 937 South Via Lata Colton, CA 92324 Submitted by: Bruce Love, Principal Bai "Tom" Tang, Historian Harry M. Quinn, Archaeologist Richard H. Norwood, Historic Archaeologist CRM TECH 126 Barrett Road Riverside, CA 92507 September 1, 1998 CRM TECH Contract #305 Approximately 1,279 Acres near the City of La Quinta La Qusnta, Indio, Martinez Mtn„ & Valerie 7.5' Quadranggles Sections 26, 27, 28, 34, & 35, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base ;5eridian Sites CA -RN -37, -193, -273, -1340, -1343, -1715 to -1717, -5158, -5211/H to -5214, and -6098 to -6122H MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between March and August, 1998, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 1,279 acres of land in an unincorporated area in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study, located near the southern edge of the City of La Quinta, consists of portions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 34, and 35, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles. The study is necessitated by a proposed development project, known as the Coral Mountain Project, to be undertaken on the property. The purpose of the study, therefore, is to provide the Lead Agency for the project, namely the County of Riverside, with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed land development would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/ archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, in compliance with Riverside County approval conditions stemming from an existing certified EIR prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH completed a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research, and an intensive field survey of the project area. During the course of the study, a total of 34 archaeological sites and 51 isolates, both historic and prehistoric, were recorded within the project area. A late 1940s ranch house complex was evaluated, found not to be significant, and consequently not recorded. Of the 34 recorded archaeological sites, 14 meet one or more criteria for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources, or CEQA Appendix K criteria for an important archaeological resource. Mitigation measures are recommended for these 14 significant sites, the completion of which would allow the Lead Agency to reach a finding of No Impact on cultural resources, with the condition that archaeological monitoring will likely be required during grading of some portions of the project area. TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENTSUMMARY .................................................................................................i INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1 SETTING........................................................................,....................................,......., 3 ExistingEnvironmental Setting ................. ..................................................................................3 CulturalSetting ............................... ................................................................................ 3 METHODS.....................................................................................................,..................,.....,.....5 RecordsSearch.................................................................................................................5 HistoricalResearch .........................................................................................................5 FieldSurvey.....................................................................................................................5 Native American Consultation...................................................................................6 RESULTSAND FINDINGS ......................................................................................................7 ArchaeologicalOverview .............................................................................................7 PreviousStudies.............................................................................................................8 HistoricalOverview................................................................................,......................10 Cultural Resources in the Project Area......................................................................14 CA-RIV-37............................................................................................................14 CA-RIV-193 North..............................................................................................20 CA-RIV-193 South..............................................................................................22 CA-RIV-273..........................................................................................................24 CA-RIV-1340........................................................... .............................................24 CA-RIV-1343........................................................................................................24 CA-RIV-1715........................................................................................................26 CA-RIV-1716........................................................................................................26 CA-RIV-1717/H ............................................................ ...................................26 CA-RIV-5158........................................................................................................26 CA-RIV-5211 / H...................................................................................................26 CA-RIV-5212 ........................................................................................................26 CA-RIV-5213........................................................................................................31 CA-RIV-5214........................................................................................................31 CA-RIV-609 8..................................,.....................................................................33 CA-RIV-6099........................................................................................................33 CA-RIV-6100........................................................................................................34 CA-RIV-6101 ........................................................................................................34 CA-RIV-6102 ......................................................................,.................................34 CA-RIV-6103H ..........................................................................,..........................34 CA-RIV-6104 .................................................,...............,.,......................,.............36 CA-RIV-6105................................................................................ ........................36 CA-RIV-6106........................................................................................................37 CA-RIV-6107 / H ................................. .................................................................. 37 CA-RIV-6108........................................................................................................37 CA-RIV-6109........................................................................................................37 CA-RIV-6110 ................................................................................. ii CA-RIV-6111/H...................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6112 / H...................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6113........................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6114........................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6115........................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6116........................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6117........................................................................................................39 CA-RIV-6118 / H...................................................................................................41 CA-RIV-6119........................................................................................................41 CA-RIV-6120........................................................................................................41 CA-RIV-6122H.....................................................................................................41 81600 Avenue 62..........................................................................._.....................44 IsolatedFinds.......................................................................................................46 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................46 Definitionsand Criteria.................................................................................................46 SiteEvaluation................................................................................................................47 CA-RIV-37............................................................................................................47 CA-RIV-193 North..............................................................................................47 CA-RIV-193 South..............................................................................................47 CA-RIV-1340................. .............................................................................. .........48 CA-RIV-1343........................................................................................................48 CA-RIV-1717 / H.................................................................................................. •48 CA-RIV-5158........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-5211 / H.................................. .... ....._.......................................................49 CA-RIV-5212............................._.......,.....,......,.....................................................49 CA-RIV-5214........................................................................,...............................49 CA-RIV-6098........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6099............................................................................................:...........49 CA-RIV-6100........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6101........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6102........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6103H.....................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6104........................................................................................................49 CA-RIV-6105........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6106........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-610 7 / H...................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6108........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6109....................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6110........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6111/H...................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6112/H....................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6113........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6114........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6115........................................................................,...............................50 CA-RIV-6116........................................................................................................50 CA-RIV-6117.....,....,.............................................................................................51 iii CA-RIV-6118 / H...................................................................................................51 CA-RIV-6119........................................................................................................51 CA-RIV-6120........................................................................................................51 CA-RIV-6122H.....................................................................................................51 81600 Avenue 62.................................................................................................51 IsolatedFinds .......... ................ ,............................................................................ 51 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................51 CA-RIV-37............................................................................................................52 CA-RIV-193 North........................................,.....................................................53 CA-RIV-193 South..............................................................................................53 CA-RIV-1340........................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-1343........................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-5158........................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-5211/H...................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-5212.........................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-6100........................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-6103H.....................................................................................................53 CA-RIV-6105........................................................................................................54 CA-RIV-6109........................................................................................................54 CA-RIV-6110........................................................................................................54 CA-RIV-6122H.....................................................................................................54 Native American Consultation.......................................................................54 SurfaceCollections.............................................................................................55 Monitoringduring Grading.............................................................................55 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................55 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................56 TABLE 1. EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................48 TABLE 2. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................51 APPENDIX 1. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS................................................................59 e 1V LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Project location..........................................................................................................1 Figure2. Project area.................................................................................................................2 Figure 3. Previous cultural resources surveys.....................................................................9 Figure 4. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856..........................................................11 Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1901....................................................................11 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1903-1904..........................................................12 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1939....................................................................13 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941....................................................................13 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1949....................................................................14 Figure 10. The project area and vicinity in 1955..................................................................15 Figure 11. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959........................................................15 Figure 12. The project area and vicinity in 1973..................................................................16 Figure 13. The project area and vicinity in 1994..................................................................16 Figure 14. Locations of identified cultural resources.........................................................17 Figure 15. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-37.............................................................................18 Figure 16. Rock art Panel No. 2, CA-RIV-37.........................................................................19 Figure 17. Rock art Panel No. 9, CA-RIV-37.........................................................................21 Figure 18. Rock art Panel No. 1, CA-RIV-193 North..........................................................21 Figure 19. Rock art Panel No. 4, CA-RIV-193 South..........................................................23 Figure 20. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-1340.........................................................................25 Figure 21. Arrow point from CA-RIV-1340...........................................................................26 Figure 22. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-1343.........................................................................27 Figure 23. Rock alignment at CA-RIV-1343.........................................................................28 Figure 24. Sketch drawing of the rock alignment...............................................................28 Figure 25. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5158.........................................................................29 Figure 26. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5211/H....................................................................30 Figure 27. Arrow points from CA-RIV-5211/H...................................................................31 Figure 28. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5212.........................................................................32 Figure 29. Arrow point from CA-RIV-5212..........................................................................33 Figure 30. Mano from CA-RIV-5212..................._...............................................................33 Figure 31. Fire -hardened clay at CA-RIV-6100.....................................................................34 Figure 32. Concrete pipe with mortared joints at CA-RIV-6103H...................................35 Figure 33. Remains of open concrete flume........................................................................35 Figure 34. Concrete weir and steel water pipe with riveted seams.................................36 Figure 35. Schist pestle fragment from CA-RIV-6105........................................................37 Figure 36. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6109.........................................................................38 Figure 37. Quartz ball found at CA-RIV-6110.....................................................................39 Figure 38. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6110..........................................................................40 Figure 39. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6122H......................................................................41 Figure 40. Adobe house remains at CA-RIV-6122H...........................................................42 Figure 41. Ranch house complex at 86100 Avenue 62 .......................................................45 v INTRODUCTION At the request of AEI-CASC, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study between March and August, 1998, on approximately 1,279 acres of land known as the Coral Mountain Project in an unincorporated area in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, located near the southern edge of the City of La Quinta, consists of portions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 34, and 35, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles (Fig. 2). The study was initiated by the project proponent in response to conditions of approval stemming from an existing certified EIR prepared for the County of Riverside, Lead Agency for the project, in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). CRM TECH performed the present study to provide the County of Riverside with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed land development would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/ archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as mandated by CEQA. During the course of the study, CRM TECH completed a historical/ archaeological resources records search, historical background research, and an intensive field survey, in order to identify and evaluate potential cultural resources in and around the project area, Figure 1. Project location. (Based on USGS Salton Sea, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979]) I{ Y I' - I! f 1 y =r kYE'NL/C 4 - IAVCMUE e � � sr --i- 28 La Qirlrrerg7eadnnpA ! 27 fndio qI-R 6 nyk rSil�rtllill Y7{I. Q{spdrillQ►ry - - - - Valero QUJ61A lgirt °�Ct , 9 a project 3 rr . area {ID[/t�7'7lCT . .t. 1Y -- - f I 12 8 { r SIC 6 9 l C s: J ` `, S ITi}tr11t1g r•-.u1O 35 33-•_— .: 34 ` t F ` ..i._ �. - V I F iLZ' SCALE 1:24,000 1 '� 0 1P2 1 mile ` T O R R E S -, 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet" 3 _7.2 Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1972a; 1972b; 1980; 1988]) 2 and to formulate recommendations for subsequent courses of action. 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. SETTING Existing Natural Setting The subject property is located along the west side of the lower Coachella Valley. It includes the granitic bedrock outcrops at Coral Mountain along its western edge. Most of the property consists of fluvial deposits shed easterly off the Sheep Mountain area to the west and lacustrine deposits left behind by a series of old fresh water lake stands that have filled the lower Coachella Valley, or the Salton Basin, during the past. The last of these lakes is today referred to as Ancient Lake Cahuilla, which dried up in the late 1600s. The high water mark for Ancient Lake Cahuilla can be seen along the east flank of Coral Mountain. The granite rocks that were below the water line are covered with tufa, a calcium carbonate material deposited from the water. The tufa coating was mistaken by some to be coral, and it was from this identification error that certain natural features became known as Coral Mountain, Coral Reef, and Coral Island. The high water mark, or old shoreline, can be seen as a gray horizontal line separating the brownish tufa-covered rocks below from the dark gray to black desert varnish -covered rocks above. Alluvial runoff of sands and gravels from the mountains on the west side of the property have mixed with silts and clays of the old lake bottom, or lacustrine sediments, to the east, forming a loam type soil that was good for agricultural purposes. Because of the old lake, the land was level, adapting it well for agriculture. Roughly 72 percent of the property has been under agriculture at some time, leaving behind mostly barren dry fields today; but some areas have been re -vegetated by desert saltbush scrub. The non-agricultural lands support mainly desert saltbush scrub, with lesser amounts of creosote bush scrub, and, in one 40 acre piece, a dense stand of mesquite. The climate of the Coachella Valley is extreme in terms of temperature and aridity, with summer highs topping 120 degrees and rainfall being less than 3 inches per year. Project elevations run from roughly 100 feet above sea level on the slope of Coral Mountain to 85 feet below sea level on the eastern edge of the property. Cultural Setting The project area is located in the Coachella Valley, a historical center of Native American settlement, where a large number of Indian villages and rancherfas, occupied 3 by the Desert Cahuilla people, were observed in the mid -19th century. The basic written sources on Desert Cahuilla culture are Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnographic discussion of the Cahuilla people is based on these sources. The Cahuilla are generally divided --by anthropologists --into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla in the Banning -Beaumont area, the Mountain Cahuilla in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans that were in turn grouped within the two main divisions of the people. Members of clans in one division, or moiety, had to marry into clans from the other division. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own. These were lands they considered theirs for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans in the forms of trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. The nearest Desert Cahuilla group in the vicinity at present is the Torres Martinez Band, a portion of whose reservation is adjacent to the project area. Members of these groups are highly conscious of the archaeological remains of their past, and have great concern when earth -moving activities disturb cultural remains. A number of elders still speak the Cahuilla language and remember the old ways, and there is a growing cultural revitalization trend among many of the younger tribal members. Through the Coachella Valley ran an ancient Indian trading route, the Cocomaricopa Trail, connecting the coastal region of California to areas along the Colorado River. In 1862, in the aftermath of the La Paz gold rush on the Colorado River, the Cocomaricopa Trail was "rediscovered" by explorer 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. 60170199). Today, this role is served by Interstate Freeway 10, one of the busiest transportation arteries in the nation. Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s -1880s, after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other 4 federal land laws. But due to the lack of an adequate and reliable water supply, agricultural development in the arid region was greatly handicapped until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949. The main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of "the Arabia of America." Starting in the 1920s, a new industry, featuring resort hotels and golf courses, gradually spread throughout the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into Southern California's leading winter retreat. METHODS The following sections detail the methods and procedures used during the present study. Records Search Bai "Tom" Tang, CRM TECH historian (see App. 1 for qualifications), conducted the historical/ archaeological records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC). The EIC, located at the University of California, Riverside, is the State of California's official cultural resource records repository for the County of Riverside, and a part of the California Historical Resource Information System established and maintained under the auspices of the California Office of Historic Preservation. During the records search, Tang examined maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources within or adjacent to 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 Historical 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, the archival records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Riverside County Assessor's Office, and historic maps and aerial photographs depicting the project area. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office's (GLC]) township plat maps dating to 1856, 1903, and 1905, and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic maps dating to 1904, 1941, 1956, and 1959. Field Survey During the field survey, CRM TECH principal Bruce Love walked the property with a crew of five, six, or seven (depending on the day) members (see App. 1 for 5 qualifications). The survey team spread out in a line, generally at 15 meter (50 feet) intervals --sometimes closer depending on the area sensitivity, but never farther apart than 15 meters. The entire 'line of people crossed back and forth over the property, usually in east -west transects, moving ahead to the next unsurveyed portion at the end of each crossing. Crew members carried bundles of pin flags with which they marked the locations of artifacts --usually pottery sherds, but also lithic debitage, burned clay, groundstone, and historic -period artifacts such as sun -colored glass. Only one area had vegetation too dense to inspect, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 26. For the most part, surface visibility was excellent and vegetation was minimal. Two areas required special consideration outside the range of standard survey techniques. For the adobe house and its surrounding features in Section 28, historic archaeologist Richard Norwood of RT Factfinders (see App. 1 for qualifications) was retained as a sub -consultant to record the features and complete a site record form. At the base of Coral Mountain on the west edge of the property, carved petroglyphs at previously recorded sites were inspected and recorded by rock art specialist Harry Quinn (see App. 1 for qualifications). At the conclusion of the field survey, Love revisited each of the areas with pin flags, and determined whether the findings constituted archaeological sites or isolates (less than three artifacts together). Archaeological sites and isolates were then plotted on a project map, which in turn were plotted on USGS quad sheets in preparation for completion of site record forms and isolate records to be turned in to the Eastern Information Center at University of California, Riverside. A site sketch map was created in the field, using a hand-held compass and range finder or tape measure, for each site, including pin -point mapping of each flagged artifact, and placement of prominent landmarks such as roads, trees, irrigation standpipes, etc. The field maps were later turned into official site sketch maps to be included in the site record forms. A temporary datum stake of wooden lath was placed at each site, and, at the conclusion of mapping, all pin flags were collected. The artifacts were left in place for future collection during a proposed Phase H. The only artifacts that were collected were arrowheads, or projectile points as archaeologist call them, because of their importance and the threat of losing them if not collected. Native American Consultation Native American consultation was accomplished de facto by having Torres Martinez tribal members on the survey crew. Informal communications occurred between the crew members and tribal elders on the nearby reservation, but no site visits have yet been arranged for elders to visit the property. Neither has CRM TECH made any formal presentation of findings to the Tribe. RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following sections discuss the results and findings of the various research procedures detailed above. Archaeological Overview The archaeology of the Coachella Valley is important for at least two principle reasons; on-going research by scientists, and the cultural ties to the living Native American groups in the vicinity. The Coral Mountain project in particular, because of its large acreage and densely packed archaeological sites situated adjacent to the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation, contains important data for the scientists and findings of local historical importance for the Indians. Key to understanding this region are the comings and goings of ancient Lake Cahuilla, a huge freshwater lake formed from time to time over past millennia by the diversion of the Colorado River into what is today called the Salton Basin. The most recent complete infilling (not counting the formation of the current Salton Sea that began in 1906), was in the 1600s, rising to an elevation of 42 feet above sea level, a mark clearly visible at the base of Coral Mountain on the west side of the project. Remains of Indian settlements on the project property, which is below the 42 foot elevation, are manifested today as archaeological sites that must therefore be younger than the 350 or so years that have elapsed since the lake last began to dry up. This places the archaeological findings in a direct historical line with the Cahuilla Indians now inhabiting the valley floor. Archaeologists studying the prehistory of Coachella Valley have produced numerous articles published in scientific journals, and presented many papers at professional meetings over the last several decades, addressing a large number of research topics. Analysis of artifacts --including ceramics, chipped stone, ground stone, clay, fire -affected rock, food remains, rock art, and cremation remains, among others --lead archaeologists into discussions of the larger questions of antiquity, settlement patterns, population movements, hunting and gathering practices, trade, ideology, religious practices and more. Historically, the Coral Mountain Project contains evidence of some very early farming and ranching activities, which have the potential to shed light on yet another scope of research, the sub -field known as historic archaeology. When Anglo settlement occurred prior to the living memory of local long -timers, there is often information left behind in the rusted hardware and discarded bottles that can provide information on pioneer families that can be obtained in no other way than the collection and analysis of the artifacts themselves. In sum, artifactual remains on the Coral Mountain Project have a potential to increase by no small margin current concepts of local and regional history, Indian. and non - Indian alike. By the time the Coral Mountain Project is built out, there will be nothing } left of the archaeological sites on the ground, and sites dating hundreds of years will be 7 gone forever. It is therefore the responsibility of the project archaeologist to carefully document and retain all information that could prove valuable to on-going and future research, and to make that information available to the local Native American groups to incorporate into their own understanding of their own history. The first step in such a process of information gathering is the records search and surface survey; the first, to locate previous studies on the project area and vicinity, and the second, to provide an up-to-date inventory of artifacts, features, and sites that lie within the project boundaries. Previous Studies Prior to the commencement of this study, most of the acreage within the project area had been surveyed twice for cultural resources. The first of these two surveys occurred in 1979, covering an 893 -acre portion of the project area in Sections 27, 28, and 34, T6S R7E (SRS 1979; Fig. 3). The second survey took place in 1987, which focused on the acreage of the current project that was not covered by the 1979 survey (Gallegos et al. 1987). As part of the approval process for the current Coral Mountain Project, a subsequent level of study was initiated by the project proponent, consisting of a resurvey of the entire project area, as well as site recording and significance evaluation of all archaeological sites on the property. In addition to the 1979 and 1987 surveys of the project area, a large number of other cultural resources studies have been conducted on various parcels nearby, including several that are adjacent to the project area (Fig. 3). As a result of these earlier studies, several dozen archaeological sites, predominantly prehistoric--i.e., Native American -- in nature, had been identified and recorded in the vicinity of the project area prior to this study. Thirteen of these sites were found within the current project boundaries, as listed below': • CA-RIV-37: First recorded in 1947, this site consists of a number of panels of petroglyphs, Indian designs carved into tufa-coated boulders, with several pottery sherds recorded nearby. • CA-RIV-193: Records on this site at EIC appear to represent two separate locations, both featuring petroglyphs. One was recorded in 1973 and interpreted as "an old family or clan area," where house rings, fire pits, remains of a well, and a cremation area were also reported, along with a small scatter of pottery and lithic artifacts. The other was recorded in 1987, where no other features or artifacts were observed. For purposes of the current report, these two sites are distinguished as CA-RIV-193 north and 193 south. • CA-RIV-273: Once described as a possible village site, it was recorded in 1972 as two cremations with scattered sherds and beads, and what might be burned structures (Wilke 1972). The two cremations, according to Wilke (1980), were later removed for reburial by Native Americans. 1. Information on these 13 sites is based on existing site records on file at the EIC, unless otherwise noted. 0 Figure 3. Previous cultural resources surveys in the vicinity of the project area, listed by Eastern Information Center manuscript file (MF) number. MF No. 2470, the 1987 survey of the project area, covered the same area as the present study. MF 632 is the 1979 SRS survey. E • CA-RIV-1340: Also recorded in 1972, this site is a light -to -moderate scatter of pottery sherds, flaking waste, and a broken slab metate. • CA-RIV-1343: Existing records, dated 1972 and 1980, describe this site as an open campsite with a rather heavy sherd scatter. • CA-RIV-1715: Discovered during the 1979 survey of the project area, this site is a pottery sherd scatter of very light to moderate density. It is shown in existing site records as lying in the same general vicinity as CA-RIV-37, and partially overlapping the latter site. • CA-RIV-1716: A small scatter of sherds, possibly from a single vessel; it was noted in 1979, but not relocated in 1987 (Gallegos et al. 1987:7). • CA-RIV-1717: Recorded in 1979 as a small sherd scatter with a possible cremation, it was revisited in 1987, at which time no evidence of a cremation was observed (ibid.:9). The sherds at this site were collected during the 1987 survey (ibid.). • CA-RIV-5158: This site was recorded during the 1987 survey as a light sherd scatter, and subsequently collected (ibid.:10). • CA-RIV-5211: Also identified in 1987, it was described as a temporary campsite dominated by pottery sherds, and collected during that survey (ibid.). • CA-RIV-5212: The 1987 survey reported this site as a widely distributed scatter of sherd concentrations, and recommended archaeological testing to determine its significance. • CA-RIV-5213: Consisting of a widely distributed scatter of ceramic concentrations with occasional sherds in between, it was recorded in 1987, and collected (ibid.). • CA-RIV-5214: A small scatter of pottery sherds, this site was also discovered and collected in 1987 (ibid,). Aside from the 13 archaeological sites listed above, the 1987 survey noted 11 isolated artifacts or "small artifact clusters," each with five or fewer artifacts, in the project area (Gallegos et al. 1987:11). With the exception of a bifacial mano, these artifacts were all ceramic sherds, and all of them were collected during that survey (ibid.). Historical Overview Historic maps dating to the mid -19th and early 20th centuries indicate that the project area, though uninhabited at the time, lay in close proximity to an important Desert Cahuilla settlement, and was traversed by one of the best-known desert trails in southern California (Figs. 4-6). As Figure 4 shows, the project area was less than a mile northwest of the Indian village of Torros, which in the 1850s was located in Section 2, T7S R7E (GLO 1856b). Named mauulmii by the Desert Cahuilla people (Strong 1929:39, 41, 102), the village was more commonly known to non -Natives as Toro or Torres, the site of which is now designated as a California Point of Historical Interest and a Riverside County Historical Landmark (Jennings et al. 1993:68). Within the project boundary, a road was noted running a northwest -southeast course between today's location of Indian Wells and Toro at least by 1901, and was evidently in existence much earlier (Figs. 4-6). Judging from its course, this road is clearly a part of the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail (Johnston 1987:115). 10 Prior to the turn of the century, no permanent settlement, either Native or non -Native, was found within the project area. However, the first land development attempt was recorded as early as 1877, when a desert land claim was filed, albeit unsuccessfully, on the entire Section 34, T6S R7E (BLM n.d.:l). Beginning in 1900, while Sections 27 and 35 were included in a railroad land grant to the Southern Pacific, the different parcels in the rest of the project area became the subjects of repeated, and in some cases continuous, claims under the Homestead Act or the Desert Land Act (ibid.:1-6). As elsewhere in southern California's desert country, most of these claims ended in failure (ibid.). Nonetheless, between 1904 and 1918 most of the land in the project area was eventually patented to the various claimants, although the last parcel of public land, comprised of the western half of the northwest quarter of Section 34, was not patented until 1961 (ibid.:1-7). A small part of this fervor of land claiming and development activities in the early 20th century is to 2 ��"�a n.� �I•., kti* •..11 \�� 2 � w - = R project a area 10 .141511.,111.5'\'� 1555 51{t'.111 51i•1�1. ��•\ 17 S' 1. o _ s 2c ': rq•�Iz. v1 a }:. „ r�z �. �� is =•'1t�� i i z aT+= 1r c� - 7SC R7E L \y road ,7 77S R7E w J� R.f/n ./�C� 7�/ 47 ♦ A4� .I Indian village ' 2 w� `I*�� . _F ;II/r _ of Torros �¢ a 01 2 miles Figure 4. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856. (Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b) Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: USGS 1904) 11 reflected in Figure 6, which shows a patch of cultivated field in the southeast quarter of Section 34 in 1903, presumably associated with a desert land claim on that quarter section that was in effect between 1900 and 1903 (BLM n.d.:1). By the late 1930s, two large tracts of land in Section 28 and the easterly portion of Section 34 had been fully developed for agricultural use (Fig. 7). In 1941, several buildings were observed to be scattered in the project area, one near ` road from Indian Wells to Torres .fir+ project' area RJ S't2.9 1 ? -LA INV kk Q i 2 mlles • Y ' J0�127 °� 1 q.H CI'6 the center of Section 34, one at the northwest Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1903-1904. The course of the corner of Section 35, and a road from Indian Wells to Torres is misrepresented in this map, cluster in the northeast apparently due to the confusion of two separate roads. (Source: GLO quarter of Section 28 (Fig1903,,1905; cf. Fig. 5). Vote field in Sp quarter of Section 34. . 8). Throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, the amount of acreage of farm land continued to grow in the project area, gradually expanding into Sections 27 and 35, and a sizable portion of the fields in Section 28 were planted in fruit orchard by the 1950s (Figs. 9-11). Among the buildings observed in 1940, the two in Sections 34 and 35 had disappeared by the 1930s, but those in Section 28 remained, though reduced in number, and were now joined by a new cluster in the southeast quarter of Section 34 (Fig. 11). Both of these two clusters of buildings were inspected during this study, and are discussed in further detail in the sections to follow. The intensive agricultural land use in the project area over the last 50 years has affected the results of previous archaeological studies to the extent that the number of recorded sites has almost tripled from what was reported only 11 years ago. Today the fields are dry and barren with exposed artifact concentrations where once vegetation obscured archaeological remains. When SRS did their 1979 study, almost the entire project area was in active agriculture (Fig. 12), explaining why the archaeologists at that time reported only three sites on almost 900 acres of land. The three sites were all, not surprisingly, located on undisturbed land at the west end of the property. The problem of obscured findings was compounded during the WESTEC survey of 1987 for what was then called the Rancho La Quinta Project. The project area had expanded by that time to 1,279 acres, but WESTEC only did an on -foot inspection of the "previously 12 N Figure T The project area and vicinity in 1939. (Source: aerial photo 1939) 1 32 SCALE 1:52,500 a 1 0 1 mile ...... 22 a �.'.+ 23" } 24 project ..- area .�... I 7 ^6 25 I A P• I 36 . aw .eo .,.s,w..c • 32 Figure B. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: USGS 1941a; 1941b) 13 20 3 21 �� t /...�-? F� , �. ;,%• ,i.� '\` {.��' �. �� err. xY 1 32 SCALE 1:52,500 a 1 0 1 mile ...... 22 a �.'.+ 23" } 24 project ..- area .�... I 7 ^6 25 I A P• I 36 . aw .eo .,.s,w..c • 32 Figure B. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: USGS 1941a; 1941b) 13 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1949. (Source: aerial photo 1949) unsurveyed areas" (Gallegos et al. 1987:6). Therefore, sites that were missed in 1979 due to agriculture were again missed, even though some of the fields had been abandoned by that time and could have been inspected (aerial photo 1985; 1987). Continued abandonment of fields since then has led to the present condition (Fig. 13), where almost all the project area is accessible for on -foot survey, and artifacts once hidden in the beds and furrows of irrigated fields are now visible on the empty landscape. Cultural Resources in the Project Area Through the records search and the field survey, a total of 38 archaeological sites were initially identified within the project area, both historic and prehistoric, including two that were found to be no longer in existence, and two others that were subsequently incorporated into adjacent sites. Also encountered in the project area were 51 isolates, mostly prehistoric, and a potentially historic building complex. The locations of these cultural resources are illustrated in Figure 14. CA-RIV-37 This site was described by Safford (1947), Shepard (1973), and McCarthy (1987a), however, none of the designs shown by Safford were found, only two (possibly three) of the designs shown by Shepard were found, and all of the ones 14 Figure 10. The project area and vicinity in 1955. (Source: aerial photo 1955) orchards in the project area 1 SCALE 1:62,500 0 1 mile _ y r.: projec area described by McCarthy were located. Several additional designs were located during the current study that were not previously shown. At least three of the designs shown by Shepard were not found during this survey. It is interesting to note that none of the designs shown by Safford for his original site CA- RIV-37 are shown by Shepard or C< E 5' do - ty a: G �• i 4 Y 1 L z • CNvC S J - l � i Bbd•: A'eC.U.' E2 11 Figure 11. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959. (Source: USGS 1956; 1959) 15 tr • E �Ilf1;A1 \R�TY.: �Tif N: 11 Figure 11. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959. (Source: USGS 1956; 1959) 15 r .��. -.�� may„ -_r.-„-• ; � �+-•� j � "• '�ti� � �: project . r ij AIM s � i1 �l � • rr 404 r�. •�� • �,��'�y..i _*•r ��M -y- ,�! i project wi ,�J MAY � � .� � t.. m= �' S�-"`".�'^,y ,�,j •,�� r , i + �� ^, - may..'. e .� 1 iw .10 ,.fix"",.. !• ;.' E �' '�"� ��/' ,,tet,, ter.,.,(,.. 1 t � ,aYla <•^.%•".w�;• � y, � �t. � � 4 UL ,�. y`I.n,E• `t+�• r Figure 14. Locations of identified cultural resources in the project area. 17 � %\P rIQ\ ' 2 3 palo verde a tree '\ tempdatum stake 4�standpipe • pottery sherd t rock art, panel 8 + 2 rock art, panel 7 + 3 rock art, panels 4, 5, and 6 + 4 mano 9 • 5 rock art, panel 9 • 6 metate fragment • 7 rock art, panels 2 and 3 • 8 rock art, panel 1 • 9 mano 0 40 80 m Figure 15. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-37. by McCarthy in his update, but is not shown by Safford or Shepard. This element exhibits recent carving, or re -carving, and may not be Native American. The rock surface trends 305° and dips 65• to the east. W-1 Figure 16. Rock art Panel No. 2, CA-RIV-37. Panel No. 2: This panel is a multi -element design consisting of a cross and three initials (Fig. 16) and is located northwest of No. 1. This design is shown by Shepard (No. 4) and McCarthy (No. 4) but not by Safford. These elements exhibit recent carving, or re - carving, and may not be old, but it is intriguing to consider it may be religious symbolism from the mission days. The rock surface trends 305° and dips 70° to the east. Panel No. 3: This panel is on the same rock and only a few meters northwest of No. 2. Based on the location and drawing , this panel is shown by McCarthy (No. 3) but not by Safford, and may be shown by Shepard. The element does not exhibit any recent carving and is actually rather well repatinated. This design appears to be Native American. The rock surface trends 80° and dips 45° to the north. Panel No. 4: This panel is on the south side of a small alcove several meters northwest of No. 3. The design is not shown by Safford, Shepard, or McCarthy. It consists of a single element made up of three tangent circles, each decreasing in size from the bottom to the top. The element does not exhibit any recent carving and is well repatinated. This design appears to be Native American. The rock surface trends 300° and dips 50° to the east. Panel No. 5: This panel is on the back wall of the alcove and to the right of No. 4. The design is unusual and has been altered by a lot of recent graffiti. It is a multi -element 19 design in three groups that may have originally formed one larger single pattern. This design is not shown by Safford, Shepard, or McCarthy. It exhibits more repatination than the recent initials carved in the same surface, but may not be Native American. The rock surface trends 355° and dips 85° east. Panel No. 6: This panel in on the left side of the alcove just to the right of No. 5. The design consists of a series of lines that may have once formed a single rectangular panel. This design is not shown by Safford, Shepard, or McCarthy. The elements do not exhibit any recent carving and are actually rather well repatinated. This design appears to be Native American. The rock surface trends 350° and dips 80° to the east. Panel No. 7: This panel is a few meters north of the alcove area. It consists of a single design made up of intersecting curved lines. This design is not shown by Safford, Shepard, or McCarthy. The elements do not exhibit any recent carving and are actually rather well repatinated. This design appears to be Native American. The rock surface trends 350° and dips 70° to 80° to the east. Panel No. 8: This panel is located several meters north-northwest of No. 7. It is figured by Shepard, described by McCarthy, but is not shown by Safford. It has suffered from weathering and is hard to describe, but it does basically resemble the drawing by Shepard. The elements do not exhibit any recent carving and are rather well repatinated. This design appears to be Native American. The rock surface trends 310° and dips 65° to the east. Panel No. 6 may have originally been a similar rectangular pattern like that seen here. Panel No. 9: This panel is the most elaborate one found at the site (Fig. 17). It is on the south face of a boulder some meters away from the base of Coral Mountain. The panel is maze -like, but does not appear to be a true maze. It does not exhibit heavy repatination, so may not be Native American. This design is not shown by Safford, Shepard, or McCarthy. The rock surface trends 20° and dips 50° overturned to the north. In addition to the rock art panels, there are artifactual remains on the ground surface to the east, including some 90 ceramic sherds, 4 manos or mano fragments, and a metate (grinding slab) fragment, all of which were later recorded as a separate site by SRS in 1979 (see "CA-RIV-1715," below). CA-RIV-193 North This site was described by McCarthy (1987b) in a site record update, but is actually north of the original site CA-RIV-193 recorded by Shepard (1973) and should be designated by a new number. It lies about half way between Shepard's CA-RIV-193 and site CA-RIV-37 (Fig. 14). Panel No. 1: This panel is a multi -element design on one face of a single boulder consisting of circles, a set of concentric circles, and a possible bird -like design. This } panel is shown by McCarthy in his 1987 site record update. The rock surface trends 335° to 340' and dips 75° to 90° to the east (Fig. 18). 20 ri. t1,31fliyvti'` 4! ti'frrT'�.r'�s �`.r 3 -tea fr-�vEy,r'T�x+ •tf♦T.L;`.'� a-•arl MIMI' , yr: S, •w y♦ r � r r ,a,� •,. ! j :eL ra i j a f Y��'-]'41� �• ��' �r �f a� �y rryX�, Sri ° � r ` _ . ,ar,etx�a` ;-.ter ':.L�;i - �"'S :.; u'- �� a i _ •- _ _ w, Figure 17. Rock art Panel No. y. �:yr„�, � ...• �� 4 h.., tl^.i: 40 is 5�d• r Atr,, Panel No. 2: This panel is on a separate boulder to the north of No. 1. It is a multi - element design that may have formed two main designs in the past, one anthropomorphic design and one rectangular design. This panel was not shown by McCarthy in his update. The rock surface trends 285° and dips 50° to the south. Panel No. 3: This panel is on a separate boulder to the east of No. 2. It is located just above ground level, so is easily accessible. What is remaining appears to be a two element pattern, one rake -like design that opens downward and the other a circle. This panel was not shown by McCarthy in his update. The rock surface trends 335° and dips 65" to the east. Panel No. 4: This panel is southeast of No. 1 and consists of a two element design, one a circle and the other a possible anthropomorphic figure. The possible anthropomorphic figure is shown by McCarthy in his update. The rock surface trends 25° and dips 40° to the east. Panel No. 5: This panel is a single element design consisting of a circle. It is on a separate boulder opposite and facing No. 4. This panel is not shown by McCarthy in his update. The surface trends 320° and dips 65° to the north. Panel No. 6: This panel is in the main wall above, behind and to the northwest of No. 1. It is a single element design, consisting of three concentric circles. This panel is not shown by McCarthy in his update. All of the above panels appear to be Native American. However, because of the large amount of recent graffiti, many other original panels may have been destroyed and some of the older forms redone. Lighting plays an important part in being able to see many of these designs. Some can be seen easily by morning light and others by afternoon light. CA-RIV-193 South This is the site shown by Shepard on his Archaeological Site Survey Record of 1978. Shepard produce eight drawings, all of which were found during the current survey. Panels 1 through 7 are located in a small alcove. Once located, they can all be seen from a single location. Panel No. 1: This panel is the southern -most design found at the site and correlates to the first design of Shepard. It is located in a small alcove on the east-southeast face of Coral Island. It consists of a single element. The rock surface trends 20° and dips 80° east. Panel No. 2: This panel is located on the wall to the northwest of No. 1. It correlates to the third design shown by Shepard, 1978. It consists of a single element and the rock surface trends 105° and dips 70° to the east. 22 Figure 19. Rock art Panel No. 4, CA-RIV-193 South. Panel No. 3: This panel is located below and to the right of No. 2 and is on the same rock face. It correlates to the fourth design shown by Shepard. It consists of a single element and the rock surface trends 115° and dips 60° to the east. Panel No. 4: This panel is located on a separate portion of the wall to the northwest of Nos. 2 and 3. It correlates with the fifth design shown by Shepard. It consists of a double element design (Fig. 19). The surface trends 350° and dips 80° to 85° to the east. Panel No. 5: This panel is located on a separate boulder east-northeast of No. 4. It correlates to the second design shown by Shepard. It consists of a multi -element design that forms a single panel. The rock surface trends 60° and dips 85° east. Panel No. 6: This panel is located on the same boulder as No. 5, but is below and to the right of it. It correlates to the sixth design shown by Shepard. It consists of a multi - element design that forms a single panel. The rock surface trends 60° and dips 65° to 85° to the east. Panel No. 7: This panel is on a large boulder above and behind nos. 5 and 6. It correlates somewhat to the eighth design shown by Shepard. It consists of a single element and the rock trends 95° and dips 85° to 90° east. 23 Panel No. 8: This panel is on a small boulder north-northeast of the alcove area. It correlates to the seventh design shown by Shepard. It consists if a single element and the rocks trends 350° and dips 45° to the east. Panel No. 9: This panel is on the northeast corner of Coral Island, well north of the area described by Shepard. It is a rectangular design and is not shown in Shepard. The rock surface trends 250° and dips 70° to the east. All of the above panels appear to be Native American, and only one panel, No. 3, was found to have been damaged by recent graffiti. However, because of the large amount of graffiti, many other original panels may have been destroyed and some of the older forms may have been redone. CA-RIV-273 The location of this site was re-found during the current survey, at least based on site descriptions from earlier records. There is a heavy charcoal concentration near a rocky rise with at least one bone that is consistent with human cremation remains. However, the original location of this site is not at all certain due to the lack of mapping information in the site records. Since no other cremation - looking site was found anywhere near this spot, CRM TECH is assuming it to be found. As such, it is now located within the re -drawn boundaries of Site CA-RIV-1343 (see below). Wilke, in a 1980 site record update, states that two cremations were removed for reburial elsewhere by Native Americans. Further investigation is required to document the circumstances of the reburial event. CA-RIV-1340 The boundaries of this site are now greatly expanded, reaching all the way from the house lot fence at the north to the quarter section boundary on the south, and from the dirt road along the dike on the west to the dirt road a quarter mile to the east (Fig. 20). Most important is a very dense (more than 200) scatter of sherds at the northern end of the site mixed with chipped stone debitage and two biface fragments (broken tools) of chalcedony and jasper, both imported rock from some distance, marking a site of intense Indian activity, perhaps a group living site. Two arrow points were found at the site, including one beautifully executed cottonwood triangular made of a meta -volcanic material (Fig. 21). CA-RIV-1343 As with other previously recorded sites at Coral Mountain, this one has been greatly expanded based on extensive artifact remains found during the current survey. Its northern boundary now includes the old location of CA-RIV-273, the cremation site previously recorded (Fig. 22). Other intriguing features found during the current survey include a rock alignment of unknown meaning (Figs. 23; 24); a tight cluster of burned rocks, perhaps the remains of a roasting pit, with a mano (hand-held grinding stone) and numerous pieces of milky quartz debitage; and another scatter of quartz debitage. The location of the original cremations may be assumed to be where a dense scatter of charcoal accompanies at least one bone that appears to be a cremation bone. Generally, the ceramic sherds are widely scattered, with about 120 pieces recorded in all. 24 bushes 2i, 1 . •^'�;�• • 7 ter: earthen + reservoir low dunes • sherd • 1 flake, jasper • 2 flake, chalcedony • 3 bHace tip, chalcedony • 4 biface fragment. jasper • 5 scraper, rtryolite • 6 arrowpoint• cottonwood (collected) • 7 cobble tool, split quartzite • 6 shatter, chert • 9 flake, unknown material • 10 arrowpoint, cottonwood, jasper (collected) • 11 shatter, quartz A temporary datum stakes 0 100 200 mesquite • power pole M }standpipe "® I W 111111 .+• 10 —_ C, CD `�tLzt1tr V — \�' ' s ••� —1111 II ' ��ra 111��•i' ��ti /i ;;rttit• Figure 20. Sketch map of Site CA -RN -1340. 25 CA-RIV-1715 This site, recorded by SRS in 1979, has now been incorporated within the site boundaries of CA- RIV-37. CA-RIV-1716 This site, also recorded by SRS in 1979, could not be located during the 1987 survey (Gallegos et al. 1987:7) or during the current study. As recorded, the site consisted of only six ceramic sherds near a large mesquite stand. In the rather dense salt bush scrub covering this part of the project area, it is not surprising that CA-RIV-1716 could not be found. Figure 21. Arrow point from GA- CA-RIV-1717/H Originally recorded as six sherds, RIV-1340. this site has now been expanded to include some 23 widely scattered sherds and a quartz flake. One piece of surf -colored glass dates from the early 20th century, giving the site a slight "historic" component. CA-RIV-5158 This site was recorded by Gallegos et al. in 1987 as only thirteen sherds, all of which were collected at that time. During the current survey, some 170 sherds were mapped, as well as 4 flakes of jasper, obsidian, chalcedony, and quartz, a pestle (a long cylindrical stone for grinding in mortars), and a quartz core from which flakes were struck during tool making. The site, as now recorded, is a quarter mile long from east to west and reaches almost a quarter mile north of Avenue 60 (Fig. 25). In fact, it probably at one time connected with site CA-RIV-5211/H to the south, with only the paved street and graded shoulders creating a break in the site. This was once a very large occupation area indeed. CA-RIV-5211/H Located south of Avenue 60 and east of Monroe Street, this site was also recorded by Gallegos et al. in 1987. At that time, 31 sherds, a mano fragment, and a fire -affected rock were recorded and collected. During the current study, extensive findings resulted in a site covering some 30 acres (Fig. 26), including close to 500 ceramic sherds, multiple examples of chipped stone debitage and cores including quartz, quartzite, chalcedony, and basalt, several manos and mano fragments, 2 hammerstones (used to chip flakes from cores), a pumice abrader or rubbing stone, and 3 arrow points of quartzite (?), obsidian, and chalcedony (Fig. 27). One area in particular, near the center of the site, represents a living area where a multitude of activities were taking place represented by manos, flakes, hammerstones, cores, and a point. CA-RIV-5212 This site has the highest concentration of artifacts and widest variety of types of artifacts of any site in the project area. Once recorded as "several ceramic concentrations" totaling some 200 pieces, the current study recorded 1000 sherds and numerous classes of other artifacts including metates, manos, pestles, chipped stone debitage, fire -affected rock, burned clay, and an arrow point (Figs. 28, 29). Of particular importance is an area just northeast of a thick tamarisk grove, which contains a very dense concentration of sherds along with grinding stones and debitage associated with an area of fire -affected rock and burned clay. This was clearly a living 26 previously designated GA -R IV -273 earthen f;ti•\ • reservior I 2\" II • : 2 II wooden posts o • • I I (modem) --im—o II • Q it + + + • + II Ave. 62 pottery sherd 4 1 scatter of quartz debitage •2 quartz debitage �t�3 charcoal concentration i;=4 burned rock feature , (5 rock alignment + power pole Figure 22. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-1343. 27 0 50 100 m Figure 23. Rock alignment at CA-RIV-1343. Meaning of the feature is unknown. (See Fig. 22 for location.) D --_._.- fl �qo0oaoo0og O C O oDoab°o�O°o o O o ° o 0 1 2m Figure 24. Sketch drawing of the rock alignment. edge of pavement (Monroe Street) fence line • sherd % 1 • 1 flake, quartz C/ 1 • 2 Rake, obsidian , • 3 (take.uaicedony qr ) • 4 core, quartz (/J r • J • 5 flake, jasper • 6 pestle . 3 b r� .� take temp. datum a CD y ar � Qti p v 2 CD a. 3 5• • 0 4 a fence Me CD Ca transmission to er pomegranite trees © 60 120 m Figure 25. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5158. 29 Figure 26. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5211/H. 30 edge of pavement (Avenue 60) o standpipe • pottery sherd & 8 2 hammerstones 1 core, quartz e2 mano fragment . 9 2 flakes, quartzite, basaR • 10 mano fragment YI• I .3 hake, quarts .11 abrader, tufa I l •y e4 hake, quartz . 5 point, chalcedony .12 point, obsidian • 13 sun -colored amethyst glass 11 1) J • 6 flake, chalcedony .14 quartz dabhaga • 7 mano, whole, biracial 915 point, quartzite (?) II ' �•. 11 Y• Il thick stand ' •• r of brush • II a } .f :•2 . • .. f:, 1 ••3.4 E o 6;.5••'x 7 $ • •`la a?r ti 12 L c� 13. I tamp datum 11 stake l . 14 II ' J II •1.5 J II • J 0 60 120 m Figure 26. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5211/H. 30 Figure 27. Arrow points from CA-RIV-5211/H. From left to right: quartzite (?), obsidian, chalcedony. (See Fig. 26 for locations.) and working area of some duration, leaving behind a multitude of remains for the archaeologist to interpret. Along the southern boundary of the site, Coachella Valley Water District installed a large diameter water line underground, leaving the top soil very loose and silty. Interestingly, there is a concentration of artifacts along this line, suggesting that perhaps the pipeline trenching dug up a buried site and distributed the artifacts on the surface. Among the sherds found along this line was a well -shaped double -sided mano (Fig. 30). CA-RIV-5213 This site could not be found during the current survey, although there is coftsiderable question about its original size and location. The 1987 study (Gallegos et al. 1987) recorded approximately 5 ceramic concentrations near "Coral Island" on the southwestern -most point of the project area. The current study discovered three sites east of this area, but no sherds were found within the site area as plotted by the Eastern Information Center. This could very likely be due to the fact that the 1987 team collected all that they saw, although other sites that they collected turned out to have many artifacts left on the ground (see above). Whatever the case, the current study no longer lists CA-RIV-5213 as a site existing in the project area. CA-RIV-5214 Like the previous site, this one was recorded in 1987, and lack of } good mapping detail makes it difficult to say whether it matches sites found during the current survey. The current study found three sites within this roughly square 40- 31 fence L s• comer posts 1 _ S'r'i.,, ,•;�..,� — ll may'' Tom.-. irri ationI! �'1`2r�� dense scrub _ valve could not be surveyed = 4 • ,• � .rte 3 .., . *�. 12 •. J CD � .t.•• �•::— s CO •�tq " • y 11 •• @ — r I 13 t -� r--�. ;r2 — square `1$ " • — water 20. " ~. •� _ tower ' t' r. 4. «119—; ' ;. r • • 17 :1 . ■/4 = Standpipe 13 • pottery sherd I 1 metate(?) fragment, schist 2 rock, dire affected 3 flake, chalcedony 4 flake, basalt 10 point, quartzite(?) 5 flake, quartz (collected) 6 flake, quartzite 11 mano, unifacial, granite 7 shatter, basalt 12 pestle, schist 8 flake, chert 13 metals fragment, schist 9 metate, whole, granite 14 metate fragment, granite 0 100 200 m Mr - Figure 28. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-5212. 32 15 core, quartzite cobble II 16 shatter, quartz 17 mann, bifacial, granite 18 flake, rhyolite 19 shatter, basalt 20 flake, chert 21 biface fragment, material unknown t tamarisk tree m mesquite tree high concentration of bumed clay, with some burned rock A temporary datum stake NMI te40 garden 0<3 f`. S ► � -� r " •�y'i "'.-'�� .�' '' � � ��(` "4' r•A • to iT'�y� +�r.,,�'"ti'" "� -2T aye~ !ss ti *� j Lt 1. y ay�+�a �* y�►l�� a �� t{1 4+ �v �' r j�;'.. ''•,�T. 111 ti�' �.';�+f`r t '!moi � �•+, �j�•�• y 4-w. .s w ••.'1 ' t'i'p• �{�'i � r!'� �'•� +►+�� f• ` •r �•' -� �''rrcw• . �•G. ,r4 h� .i ('L i�l j, {v 4, t�'' �' "_�%`! i,�'�� r''�+ �'' { �� a + �'�; r 5 •�� 'elf tai, t , .e tin �'_ of '+ {fa ++, 4x1 ~3.•;' -y1sr 6ri � • S� ;,` i v r �',+ r 1 t��a K, .r: +{•'1rr+� i�{ �� }r+� It � � � r R � a �, N� v%{� �,'• }Ifr�4 �y/ S� f v i�E•,y �'Y+S��"' �r+. t.�.,lL,l rSy��e��s�� ,� 'r �^ � 'r:� �.�� i �Xf�� r�.r t �,t�},. Jtif �i "a j' ' a� * +�k ate. r i1� • • rS r fiJ. ��:•• .1`�1- ' � �. � 4 ,�^�l1�wr.� ,Ilr �lSra �° 'f� SJ�..n�� ,yt 1 fir a.k Ali d �.t'1 r 'j j ..L'r,�� '+�-• ��}+'tyt,v �;.M i# r��'+ ;.•'� rr ' '� fay ... ,' r F -J i r• .F' r!'•t' ,}'fiT' � r r•yr •°`4� � : `' . � , • /r �� err! d,aT�'0'r t t J5 t. �.y � � .{.1 f � r s c... ! 3a. a � r..R •+l' 1 �`+�s ''k�' p r�4T `,,� L s. •+„s.,7� x 7 -"� � _ 5+•�`''4f`''� � 4� S{�fir �^�1�� y,:�i�'� `r ., • �S`�i, +x` grT L w k fa attAi r1. �«K } s,, ;. •�%� . +; i 'r � rK1' qqr r � �a � '.'�y�f, '�"' .��i"��r�'"'�4��.y��'S " x�I .'SRI° r t1 ire J rJ a6• .t J S•� y 'r. �? P i. J. rt �� L� a : S �} .\ r - d Yr' iw '� .i• ..w ...t= !'i "'/ T �!n}' N 'i_ t � R.�i; M As `� f} ,�,r�a f 3• /� ',� � ��, � �YH%�' rel' �•}�,at�: � ':. �.'"Y r,��r> ti � �. a:i r �• i � r 1' i i� = # �• . ti + !! � : .r �� F. Y#'':s�. �'' V,J r«' •rC +F a �.fm'� �t '+i ' xE � F. ,s 1,` r ��. a • t � +;e � � •F_ �.. i I '' � '! + # �+�, � h" �L a �� *rli' ,`•, r r�.r -'i� +y� �1� •:� y„ � � r f 1. � At r �i e, t * f■■ lY��rf�-,y+-'�� . I 3'ti� u+.• y �s'3�' S {c '�Ii'�� rl�;�•' .�. 11{4��) ��f�` ^.i ki-4� �•f� }�yr �y. ftg. x,51 r. ti• } J .i,N! .nf. f.a.!�fxxi t- '.',r• ,rL.r+ } .4:•1s 24 r"rotia 1 .• y.r ,r�t`r} •i +_.h ;d. y; }•��5 �"Cr*�if��'I C.:3t'� .n F •:, . 7'y►.�.'i•..• ',i, _ it ..:. • a ''' •.� Figure 31. Fire -hardened clay at CA-RIV-6100. Its use and function are unknown. CA-RIV-6100 This site is unique and important, containing hundreds of pieces of partially fired chunks of clay that appear to be flattened on one side, although it is difficult to say at this early stage of investigation. The larger pieces are 7-8 cm long and 3-4 cm thick (Fig. 31). There is also a small area of charcoal and ashy sand associated with the clay. No artifacts per se appear on the ground, but the clay, having been imported from some distance and altered by fire, has the potential to answer a number of on-going research questions into the nature of hardened clay that is found throughout the Coachella Valley at archaeological sites. CA-RIV-6101 This minor site contains a widely dispersed, very light scatter of ceramic sherds, only five recorded. No other artifact types noted. CA-RIV-6102 This site has a medium density scatter of ceramic sherds over a small area, 27 recorded. No other artifact types noted. CA-RIV-6103H This site consists of an old irrigation system including concrete pipe with mortared joints (Fig. 32), two concrete open flumes (Fig. 33), concrete weirs (Fig. 34), a rock and concrete water tank, steel water pipe with riveted seams, and remains of a broken concrete pad. It apparently represents the remains of an early farming operation, although the exact age of these features remain unclear. Archival sources indicate that the land on which the site is situated was included in a series of five desert land claims that covered the entire period from 1900 to 1916, when 34 _ t _ •'C" .F, / S'• .+F •.i�1•� _..Th S� •'-+sem }r .✓ �. < Y' ...r��. � •'4_ • x ! •x': h 'k'. �?Ay. i'G -• a .z� y ,�., r`' .�. terra,, � 'r.-�^�'^� .. - f. ^y .�/ •f• vrit„� � .� &>�+jYf �+� y i' Y... { •'q0. � k }=.�” S..'Y Y'• a�jr s' ter"--`-"�'� "j „� -� ' r +: r wx �. Mme' "'`.•••'C i- / ('.w• a _ 7w -w.� - +�w'!',C+�•..x.R•wykcJ'h.'�`�- „ K _ P (.,, !w r . } •� ;�+�q ��.r j'' r,,C� W�L',�ya .A � i{ .. A ..w'N _ �i�.t`,•'.'.T}-ry L"'� �' ! '- , ••a' - ..`^y,,. ry�,1"-:. .. g..,�-�r�+'{,..,,.,{,, _ �.. t.n ..'� c. 1, J J�,,,,f.0 rix. C Y M"� �,'Zl�i � A ��'� `.,NTr"i��f �'• ,«l.,�. 4,-k"s * ♦^.�-g-a'�` [^.•' . � w�� w ... �X F � / - _ - '��if� � '7 :, a �3�•E•y�,•4,,;r. H� ,�li'-sA q, `x„x t''� �� r � r • w� ftie.'^ 4 t �.is w+r - •rte �..�% } � � -et r. ,/ i .aFil�'f Y�"'�il ,. � k r '*�. �""4` _��• : F � ff� 'yn'+a -NT- . - _ � .'�„_•:�,1. ,. •,` moi,,, r •.J?, • ... , tom"",, - ;, • � � �-;��,,1. � ..; t„Y.r.L�r',xry.F4 �. t` ..+''. ,�, n,,.R_t-t�,�,rE-- 1 -•�C ' p. .a.+�• - a . it � •Iw•�"""' 3`�+- 'F..',!? , '"f�r7j&. • yi.,._ '•"`•�i,s,�OBE �4.`t Y,n."�: f {t}w�. �F.v� � Iss ��yl��- � R 3`•4^`7 `. ^Ca Figure 34. Concrete weir and steel water pipe with riveted seams at CA-RIV-6103H. it was finally patented to George Thomas Beach of Coachella, formerly of Santa Barbara (BLM n•d.:1-5; GLO 1913-1916). But the layout of the irrigation system on a 25 -acre parcel, comprising the northerly portion of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 34, suggests that it was probably constructed after that parcel was carved out from the surrounding land. Riverside County records revealed that this took place in 1920-1921, when Arthur Winton acquired the 25 acres out of a larger, 50 -acre parcel (County Assessor 1920-1926:23). Subsequent owners of these 25 acres in the 1920s and 1930s included John Beek, Ronald B. and Doris I. Gates, Charles A. and Mabel Pope, and Alfred Johnson (County Assessor 1920-1926:23; 1926-1932:33; 1933-1938:33; 1939-1944:33). While none of the sources consulted for this study yields a definitive answer as to the construction date of the irrigation system, an aerial photograph taken in 1939 offers clear evidence of its existence, and shows that a portion of the 25 -acre parcel had been cleared, perhaps cultivated, but abandoned by then (Fig. 7). The old irrigation features at this site, therefore, most likely date to sometime between 1920 and 1939. CA-RIV-6104 This site is a widely dispersed, light scatter of ceramic sherds, 29 recorded. No other artifact types were noted. The site wraps around two sides of an earthen reservoir, suggesting that the site was once much larger, and if fact, may have n once been conected to CA-RIV-1343 to the southwest of the reservoir (Fig. 14). CA-RIV-6105 This site has a widely dispersed light scatter of ceramic sherds, 37 recorded, but includes numerous other classes of artifacts, including a quartzite 36 Figure 35. Schist pestle fragment from CA-RIV-6105. The Iona cylindrical style is typical of Desert Cahuilla pestles used in deep wooden mortars for pounding mesquite beans. core/scraper, pestle (Fig. 35), bifacial core, a smooth milky quartz pebble, a small quartzite scraper, obsidian flake, and a granite mano. CA-RIV-6106 This very minor site is a small, very light scatter of ceramic sherds, only three recorded, with one piece of lithic debitage of unknown material. CA-RIV-6107/H This site is also quite minor, being a widely dispersed, very light scatter of ceramic sherds, only five recorded, and a small core of unknown material (silicate?). Two pieces of sun -colored amethyst glass give site a minimal historic component. CA-RIV-6108 This site is a widely dispersed light scatter of ceramic sherds, 38 recorded. No other artifact types were visible. CA-RIV-6109 This large site consists of a widely dispersed scatter of ceramic sherds, ca. 135 recorded, with a high density locus at the center (Fig. 36). A granite metate fragment and a piece of chert (?) shatter were also found (Fig. 36). CA-RIV-6110 This site, just to the north of CA-RIV-6109 is a fairly dense scatter of ceramics, ca. 70 recorded. An unusual rounded quartz ball was also found (Fig. 37), as was a granitic pestle fragment reused as a mann {Fig. 38). 37 r-�� ~� . • low dunes fit {. '' temp. datum • stake . pottery sherd • I debitage (shatter. schist?) • 2 granite matate fragment 0 30 60 m 71 Figure 36. Sketch map of Site CA -RN -6109. C11 r Figure 37. Quartz ball of unknown meaning and function, found at CA-RIV-6110. CA-RIV-6111/H This minor site consists of a light scatter of sun -colored amethyst glass, five recorded. One ceramic sherd gives the site a minimal prehistoric component. The glass comes from the early decades of this century, but no features, such as foundations or footings, were found in this area. CA-RIV-6112/H This minor site consists of a widely dispersed, very light scatter of ceramic sherds, only six recorded. One piece of sun -colored amethyst glass gives the site a very modest historical component. CA-RIV-6113 Yet another minor site, this one is a widely dispersed scatter of ceramic sherds, only five recorded. No other artifact types were noted. CA-RIV-6114 Slightly larger than the previous, this site is also a light scatter of ceramic sherds. Eighteen were recorded along with one quartzite flake. CA-RIV-6115 This is as small as a site can get without being called an isolate. It consists of only three visible ceramic sherds CA-RIV-6116 This site consists of a widely dispersed light scatter of pottery sherds, 26 recorded. No other artifact types were visible. CA-RIV-6117 This site contains 15 visible ceramic sherds and one jasper core. 09 • • �tStle atom a concrete standpipe pottery sherd • 1 quartz rounded ball • 2pestle fragment, granitic ] (reused as manoj )J so 60 m J Figure 38. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6110. 40 CA-RIV-6118/H This large site covers some 25 acres south of Avenue 60, and is a widely dispersed scatter of ceramic sherds, ca. 110 recorded, with a piece of rhyolite shatter and a jasper flake. Two pieces of sun -colored amethyst glass give the site a minimal historic component CA-RIV-6119 This minor site is a very small scatter of ceramic sherds, three recorded, lying is a dense salt bush stand that has recently undergone deep furrowing for agricultural purposes. CA-RIV-6120 This site, discussed above (see "CA-RIV-5214") is a light scatter of ceramic sherds, 19 recorded, on a gently sloping alluvial plane in creosote bush scrub. CA-RIV-6122H This site is an extensive historic period farm site with six loci (concentrations of features or artifacts) and widespread but intermittent refuse deposits (Fig. 39). Locus 1 is a standing adobe residential structure, locus 2 is a foundation and well or cistern, locus 3 is a residential foundation, locus 4 is a pole barn foundation and well, locus 5 is a well, cistern and two structure foundations and locus 6 is a scatter of artifacts with pre -1920 artifacts. Locus 5 Locus 4 f } Locus 1 T ! a Locus 6 �• Locus '� �I lM J TJ I t---' 0 100 200 ft f Figure 39. Sketch map of Site CA-RIV-6122H. 41 Figure 40. Adobe house remains at CA-RIV-6122H, Locus 1. Locus 1 is an abandoned but standing, T-shaped and fairly sophisticated adobe residence (Fig. 40). The home has been burned. It is partially roofless, and has been seriously vandalized. From appearances, it may date to the 1930s, but further historical research should be able to clarify this. The structure measures 41 feet east -west and about 42 1/2 feet north -south. 'There is a stone masonry fireplace on the south central wall, the floor is a textured cement slab with red coloring, and the roof is multi -layered composition sheeting, There is a small low -walled patio on the west central side and a stone masonry slab outside the northwest door. Locus 2 has two features: (1) a rectangularly shaped, subterranean cement building foundation measuring 26 feet east -west and 15 feet north -south, and (2) a circular cement bl6ck-lined well, cistern or cesspool measuring about 5 feet inside diameter. This locus, again based on appearance, possibly dates to the 1930s or 1940s. The foundation looks like it has been graded and is filled in with rubble. The northern wall is partially within a roadbed. The foundation footing is 6 inches wide. There are refuse deposits throughout the locus 2 area, and a large dead cottonwood tree stump to the south. Locus 3 is an apparent residential foundation possibly dating to the 1920s or earlier. It is partially obscured by brush and -plant debris. It is at least 24 1/2 feet east -west and 15 feet north -south. The footing is 6 inches wide. There is a 3 foot diameter pit just south of the foundation, and there are very large eucalyptus trees just west of the foundation and an extensive stand of very large tamarisk trees to the east. WA Locus 4 is a well andpole barn foundation probably dating to the 1940s -1950s. The pole barn is a simple cement slab partially buried in blow -sand precluding accurate measurements. It is estimated to be at least 26 feet east -west by 55 feet north -south. There is a V-shaped furrow plow lying adjacent to the southeast corner of the pole barn. To the west is a 3 foot x 3 foot x 9 inch high cement slab encasing an 8 inch well upon which is mounted an electric motor. The slab is embossed with the initials "FG" on its north edge and "FG 1959 - 1 2" on its southwestern edge. There is a standing dead tree stump about 10 feet north of the well, and a stand of very large tamarisk trees to the east of the pole barn. Locus 5 has five features, including at least one and perhaps two structure foundations, a well, an octagonally -shaped cistern, and associated pipes and equipment. It probably dates to a long period between 1920-1960+. Feature 1 is a wellhead consisting of a 10 foot x 10 foot square cement slab set no more than 5 inches above soil surface. There is a 7 foot diameter shaft within the slab with an access ladder bolted to the southern wall. The shaft is over 25 feet deep. Several railroad ties cover the east side of the shaft and serve as a pump motor mount. The motor is partially intact and a pipe extends vertically into the shaft below it. The pump has a logo on its base "PEERLESS PUMP" in an oval and a maker's nameplate with abundant text and the serial number 44477. The well may have begun its life as a hand dug well and later been modified. Feature 2 is a pipe extending westward and horizontally from the pump. The approximately 45 foot long pipe is supported by 3 concrete pipe mounts. There is a regulator valve near its central portion. The valve is embossed "17" and "12/CRANE/125". At its western terminus the pipe goes underground and a conduit emerges into a double cement standpipe (now broken and fallen). The standpipe is about 6 feet away from the pipe terminus. The standpipe has one pipe of 9 inches inside diameter and another with a 36 inches inside diameter. The standpipe is about 6 feet long and approximately 4 feet wide. Feature 3 is a structural foundation with a poured slab floor and 6 inch wide outer footing. Inside there are protruding cement motor and generator mounts; four altogether. The building measured at least 25 inches north -south and about 12 1/2 feet east -west. The south and west walls are mostly buried or not completely intact. It is 25 feet from the north edge of the wellhead slab to the south end of the nearest mount within the structure. Feature 4 lies west (about 5 feet) of this structure and there is a north -south trending segment of 6 inch wide foundation footing and a series of at least seven cement foundation mounting piers. Piers are about 5 feet apart. It is probable that a building was once present. It is estimated to be at least 25 feet north -south and 20 feet east -west. 43 • Feature 5 is an octagonally shaped poured concrete cistern. It has an inside diameter of 84 inches and is 59 inches deep. It is mostly above ground with perhaps 2 feet extending below ground surface. Each of eight outer facets measure 41 inches wide. Locus 6 is a scatter of domestic debris with early period (pre-1920) artifacts overlain by later period artifacts. Artifacts noted include early to recent period fragments of sun- altered amethyst glass and brown glass. According to archival sources consulted for this study, the land on which CA-RIV- 6122H is located was acquired by Hartman P. Travis, a Los Angeles physician, from the U.S. government in 1918 through a desert land claim (GLO 1914-1918; Tyler 1998). Since then, Travis retained much of the land for some forty years, until he sold the last of his holdings in Section 28 to Norman L. White in 1957-1958 (County Assessor 1913-1919:23; 1920-1926:23; 1926-1932:32;1933-1938:32;1939-1944:33;1945-1950:32;1951-1954:32;1955- 1959:33). For a few years between 1920 and 1927, Travis owned the property jointly with his associate Lawton Clary, who managed the land in Travis' absence (County Assessor 1920-1926:23; 1926-1932:32; Tyler 1998). From the late 1910s to the 1950s, Clary and his family developed the property into a flourishing ranch, as is evident from aerial photographs dating to that period (Figs. 7, 9, 10). Riverside County records reveal that a building or buildings of unknown nature, with a moderate value of $250, was assessed on the Travis property in 1919, the same year when it entered county tax rolls (County Assessor 1913-1919:23). Over the next five years, that value increased to $500 in 1920, $800 in 1921, and $1,060 in 1924, indicating a period of steady construction. The adobe residence at Locus 1 was reportedly built by a member of the Clary family, Ben Clary, during the 1920s or 1930s (Tyler 1998). In 1941, at least four buildings were recorded to be standing at the center of the Travis-Clary ranch (Fig. 8). By the 1950s, at least two of the four buildings were no longer in existence (Fig. 11). Due to the scale of the historic maps, it is difficult to pin-point the exact locations of these early buildings in relation to features at Site CA-RIV-6122H today. However, it appears quite likely that the two foundations at Locus 5, Feature 3 and 4, represent the remains of the two buildings observed in 1941 but not in the 1950s. The adobe residence, which has survived to the present time, is probably the only building that was depicted in both the 1941 and the 1950s maps (Figs. 8, 11). 81600 Avenue 62 Located in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 34, on the northern side of Avenue 62, this is a ranch house complex consisting of a total of seven buildings: a main residence, a garage, a trailer, .and four secondary residential units (Fig. 14). The main residence, which is evidently the oldest among these buildings, is a one-story wood-frame structure with a low-pitched, front-facing gable roof (Fig. 41). The floor plan of the house was originally rectangular, but has been altered by the addition of a shed-roofed extension that is wrapped around the southern and eastern sides. As a result of this partial remodeling, different parts of the house now feature different building materials. The front gable end, which is divided evenly by a stuccoed brick chimney, is covered with horizontal wooden boards, which probably represent what are left of the original wall cladding. The lower portion of the house, in 44 Figure 41. Ranch house complex at 86100 Avenue 62. contrast, is covered with stucco, as is the more recent addition. Interestingly, the newer addition sports a row of five wood -framed double -hung windows across the facade, while the fenestrae in the original structure have been replaced with aluminum - framed sliding windows. In 1987, the addition was described as a wrap-around porch (Gallegos et al. 1987:14), which suggests that it was enclosed at some time since then. The main residence is accompanied by the garage on its eastern side, the trailer further to the east, and the four secondary residential units arranged in a row directly behind the garage. With the exception of the metal -clad trailer, all of these auxiliary buildings are of wood -frame construction and stucco wall cladding. It is worth noting that Gallegos et al. (1987:14) reported in 1987 the presence of a metal -clad garage and a long rectangular structure housing a row of apartments, together with the main residence, instead of the auxiliary buildings observed during this study. It appears, therefore, that these auxiliary buildings were constructed after 1987 to replace the earlier structures, perhaps at the same time when the porch in the main residence was enclosed. Archival sources indicate that the first building, or buildings, at this location was erected in 1946-1947, around the time when the eastern half of the southeast quarter was acquired by E. W. and Mary R. Kief (County Assessor 1945-1950:33). Prior to that, no building was recorded anywhere within the southeast quarter of Section 34 (County Assessor 1939-1944:33; 1945-1950:33; USGS 1941b [Fig. 81). Between 1947 and 1950, the assessed value of buildings on the property grew steadily from $600 to $2,000, offering evidence of continued construction activities throughout the late 1940s (County 45 Assessor 1945-1950:33). By the mid-1950s, at least four buildings were observed at this location (USGS 1956 [Fig. 11]). The Kiefs held the 80 -acre lot for just a few years. In the early 1950s, they deeded it to Silvie and David D. Branson (County Assessor 1951-1954:33). Before the end of the decade, the property changed hands two more times, from the Bransons to Edward W. and Rosamond G. Kief in 1954-1955, and then to Frances I. LeFevre in 1957-1958 (County Assessor 1955-1959:33). Consequently, each of these early owners --and possible occupants --of the ranch house at 86100 Avenue 62 was associated with the property only for a brief period. Due to the apparent lack of historical significance and integrity, this ranch house complex was not recorded into the California Historical Resource Information System during this study. Isolated Finds Isolates are defined as individual artifacts, too few to constitute an official site. Generally this means less than three items. However, in the case of pottery two or three pieces sometimes come from the breakage of one large piece. Therefore the definition is not clear-cut and is open to interpretation; for example, one isolate in this study is recorded as "four brownware sherds, three from the same pot." In the case of the current project, 51 isolates were discovered (Fig. 14). All but four are pottery sherds. One is a mano, one is an arrow point (collected), and two are pieces of sun - colored amethyst glass. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area, and to assist the County of Riverside in determining whether these resources meet the official definition of "historical resources" and "important archaeological resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular the California Environmental Quality Act. Definitions and 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." CEQA further specifies that "a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources" (PRC §21084.1). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: I. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. (QPR 1994:4) For the evaluation of archaeological sites, Appendix K of CEQA Guidelines further provides the specific definition of an "important archaeological resource." According to this definition, an "important archaeological resource" is one which: b A. Is associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in California or American history, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory; B. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. (CEQA Guidelines App. K, §111) Site Evaluation Based on the definitions and criteria outlined above, all cultural resources encountered in the project area are evaluated below as to their qualifications as "historical resources" or important archaeological resources." A brief summary of the evaluation is presented in Table 1. CA-RIV-37 Meets California Register criteria 3 and 4, and Appendix K criteria B, C, and E. Rock art, in this case petroglyphs carved in tufa, are rare and important cultural resources, reflecting Native ideological expression. The rock art at Site CA- RIV-37 has a special quality and presents some of the last surviving examples of their kind. Produced beyond the living memory of local Native Americans, they provide information that only archaeological recording can retain and preserve. CA-RIV-193 North Same as CA-RIV-37. CA-RIV-193 South Same as CA-RIV-37. This site is particularly important, as rock art studies go, because the style of the petroglyphs is unusual and unique. Further comparative studies are required to interpret this style and place it within the larger context of California rock art studies. 47 Table 1. Evaluation of Cultural Resources within or Adjacent -to the Project Area Resource ID Significant* Not Si nificant* Resource I ID Si nificant* Si N o t nificant* CA-RIV-37 CA-RIV-6106 CA-RIV-193 North CA-RIV-6107/H CA-RIV-193 South CA-RIV-6108 CA-RIV-1340 CA-RIV-6109 CA-RIV-1343 CA-RIV-6110 CA-RIV-1717/H CA-RIV-6111/H .1 CA-RIV-5158 CA-RIV-6112/H CA-RIV-5211 /H I CA-RIV-6113 CA-RIV-5212 �lFCA-RIV-6114 CA-RIV-5214 CA-RIV-6115 f .� CA-RIV-6098EEE�� CA-RIV-6116 ,J CA-RIV-6099 CA-RIV-6117 CA-RIV-6100 i CA-RIV-6118/H CA-RIV-6101 J CA-RIV-6119 .1 CA-RIV-6102 -6120 CA-RIV-6103H CA-RIV-6122H CA-RIV-6104 j 81600 Avenue 62 CA-RIV-6105 13 A 1. . lIsolates ,J ase one agibi]ity far nshng in the Calitomia Register of Historical Resources, and/or qualification as an "important archaeological resource." CA-RIV-1340 Meets California Register criterion 4, and Appendix K criteria B and E. While numerous archaeological investigations have studied and continue to study sites along the old Lake Cahuilla shoreline, sites below the shoreline, such as this one, have their own story to tell. Settled by the Cahuilla people after the lake had disappeared, a number of research issues can be addressed by comparing dry sites to lake shore sites. Issues such as size of settlements, permanence of occupation, food resources, the nature of Cahuilla villages, external trade, and more can be addressed by further research into large sites, such as CA-RIV-1340, which are rarely recorded in these lower elevations. CA-RIV-1343 Because of the lower artifact density, this site is of marginal significance when compared to some of the larger sites within the project boundaries; however, some specific features within the site bear further work. The spot where cremations were removed in 1980 appears to contain at least one bone fragment that was missed in the original excavations. An unusual rock alignment feature, not previously recorded, needs further investigation, as does the burned rock locus. The presence of a cremation location suggests that this site meets Appendix K criterion B in the sense that there is "demonstrable public interest" among the nearby Torres Martinez members, who hold cremation sites to be very important indeed, and require that all human remains be reinterred in a safe location. CA-RIV-1717/H Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-5158 This site has no features or concentrations of artifacts, however a number of chipped stone flakes and a core provide potential data for investigations of Cahuilla stone tool production and valuable information regarding rock types and sources from where material was imported for tool manufacture. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-5211/H This very large site could fit the definition of a "village" site, a place of extended residence where multiple activities took place. The density and variety of artifacts, especially in the main locus or concentration, provides generous research potential into numerous aspects of centuries old culture. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-5212 This site is probably the most significant site on the property, aside from the petroglyph panels on the rock face of Coral Mountain. Not only does it contain a density and variety of artifact types, the main locus is accompanied by burned rock and partially fired clay. Among Coachella Valley archaeologists, there is on-going research into these cultural remains that can be enhanced by further investigations here. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-5214 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6098 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6099 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6100 This site is very important because it has the potential to answer questions about Cahuilla use of clay for things other than making pottery. This dense concentration of very large chunks of partially fire clay is unique to archaeological sites in the region. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-6101 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6102 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-61.03H A uniquely well-preserved example of farming technology from some 60 or 70 years ago, beyond the memory of living old-timers, these irrigation features provide useful knowledge of pioneer practices. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-6104 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. I • CA-RIV-6105 Although this site does not have a great number of artifacts (37 sherds were recorded), there is an intriguing variety of types --scrapers, cores, pestle, mano, obsidian flake, smooth quartz pebble --that suggest this was a living area, perhaps a household unit, with enough information potential to make this site eligible for the California Register under criterion 4 and Appendix K under criteria B and E. CA-RIV-6106 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6107/H Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6108 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6109 This site has a very dense ceramic concentration at its center, accompanied by a granite metate, usually a sign of a household location. Ceramic analysis here could add to ongoing research questions about the nature of the Cahuilla house site. There is a potential for subsurface finds hidden below very low dunes of blow sand that are probably covering additional artifacts. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-6110 A difficult call, this site, just north of CA-RIV-6109, has fewer artifacts than its neighbor to the south, but probably represents another residential area, marked by a pestle/mano fragment, and an unusual white quartz ball or unknown meaning. Marginally meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. CA-RIV-6111/H Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6112/H Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6113 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6114 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6115 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6116 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. 50 CA-RIV-6117 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6118/H This site has a moderate number of sherds scattered over a very large area, with no particular concentration and only two pieces of chipped stone debitage. Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. . CA-RIV-6119 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6120 Meets no criteria for eligibility to the California Register nor for importance under Appendix K. CA-RIV-6122H This site, representing the remains of an extensive ranching operation that began in the mid -1910s, has the potential to add important information about the early pioneer days of this part of the Coachella Valley, and has association with living members of the Coachella Valley Historical Society. Thus the Appendix K criteria of 'demonstrable public interest" applies, as well as the archaeological information potential criteria. Meets California Register criterion 4 and Appendix K criteria B and E. 81600 Avenue 62 As a post -WWII ranch house complex without substantiated association with any historic figures or events, the buildings at 86100 Avenue 62 do not meet the requirements of California Register Criteria 1 or 2. Moreover, as the result of extensive and conspicuous alterations during the more recent years, the complex and its primary historical component, the main residence, have lost their historic integrity to relate to their period of construction, and no longer demonstrate the characteristics of any architectural design, period, or method of construction. Therefore, this complex is not eligible for listing in the California Register, nor is any of the individual buildings within the complex. Isolated Finds Isolated. artifacts, by definition, do not constitute archaeological sites. As such, they are not regarded as potential historical resources or important archaeological resources, and require no further consideration in the cultural resources management process. RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC 55020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired." 51 Table 2. Recommended Miti ation Measures Site Number I Recommendations CA-RIV-37I Recordation of petroglyphs. Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, re orted, and curated. CA-RIV-193 North j Recordation of 12etroglyphs. CA-RIV-193 South I Recordation of petroglyphs. CA-RIV-1340 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-1343 Surface collection, surface scrape at cremation site, excavation at burned rock area, exposure of rock alignment feature, all artifacts catalogued, analyzed, repo ted, and curated. CA-RIV-5158 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-5211/H Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, re orted, and curated. CA-RIV-5212 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6100 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. Specialized clay analysis. All artifacts catalogued, anal zed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6103H Detailed recordation of features, oral and archival historical research. CA-RIV-6105 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA- UV -6109 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6110 Surface collection, surface scrapes, and excavation units. All artifacts catalo ed, analyzed, re orted, and curated. CA-RIV-6122H Detailed recordation of features, search for additional features, excavation units, oral and archival historical research. Project area in Native American consultation, surface collection, and possible on-site monitoring general by archaeologists and Native Americans during grading. Of the cultural resources encountered during this study, 14 archaeological sites are determined to meet California Register and CEQA Appendix K criteria for "historical resources" and "important archaeological resources," and therefore require mitigation to preserve important scientific information prior to loss of the sites through the proposed development of the Coral Mountain Project. The recommended mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2, and discussed in further detail below. CA-RIV-37 The petroglyphs at this site should be carefully recorded during the next phase. Because of the graffiti such a task will be tedious, as many of what might have been original petroglyphs have been masked by recent activity. A more complete evaluation of the initials, names, and dates needs to be done to see if any of them exceed fifty years, therefore becoming eligible for recordation in their own right. Surface artifacts should be collected and excavation units and surface scrapes completed. All artifacts should be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-193 North Recordation of rock art as with CA-RIV-37. No excavations recommended. 52 CA-RIV-193 South Recordation of rock art as with CA-RIV-37. No excavations recommended. CA-RIV-1340 This site requires a 100 percent surface collection of visible artifacts and a series of excavation units and surface scrapes in the area of high density artifacts. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-1343 Besides a 100 percent surface collection, special studies need to be carried out at three spots: the cremation area needs to be sifted for any fragments of human remains or artifacts that were missed during the removals done in 1980; the burned rock area needs to be collected and excavation units dug to try to understand the nature and function of the feature; the rock alignment feature needs to be cleared and exposed for proper measurement and recordation prior to excavating one or more units at the site to try to determine the nature and function of the feature. CA-RIV-5158 This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the southern part of the site where the artifact concentration is greatest. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-5211/H This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the high concentration area near the center of the site. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-5212 This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the high concentration area near the center of the site. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6100 This site poses a unique opportunity to answer research questions regarding Native use of clay. Analysis of the clay itself should be done by scientific means, such as thin sectioning, testing for trace elements, etc., as well as analyzed by Native experts in pottery production and clay preparation for ceramic work. Excavations should be carried out to help determine the nature and function of the clay at this site. CA-RIV-6103H This site needs to have its individual features more accurately measured, drawn, and photographed in order to preserve information about 1920s - 1930s farming technology. A section of the open concrete flume should be cleared and exposed for proper measurement and photography. More detailed historical research needs to be done to search for possible ties to important pioneer families. The results of this work shall be turned over to the Coachella Valley Historical Society for permanent curation. CA-RIV-6105 This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the southern part of the site where the artifact 53 concentration is greatest. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6109 This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the central part of the site where the artifact concentration is greatest. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6110 This site requires 100 percent surface collection and excavation of a series of test units and surface scrapes in the central part of the site where the artifact concentration is greatest. Collections shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated. CA-RIV-6122H This site requires more detailed recordation of pre -World War II features, as well as more extensive historical research, including oral interviews with living members of families with ties to its past. The adobe house at this site may be too far gone for any attempts at restoration to be feasible, however, the project proponent may decide that rehabilitation of this rather unique adobe structure would be of benefit to the overall project concept. In any event, detailed drawings and measurements are required to presen,,e the information about this building lest it be lost during future development. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. Special attention should be paid to Locus 3, which, on appearances, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from the 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this locus should be cleared and measured, and attempts made to locate the original trash pits or privies which would contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in this harsh environment at such an early date. Locus 6 has the greatest number of pre -1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun -colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain and ceramics, and more. There may well be the remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak now growing wild. Search for these elusive remains is strongly recommended to ensure the most complete recovery possible of early 20th century artifacts and features. Photographs, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum. Native American Consultation Up to this point there has been no formal consultation with members of Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. Since the project area abuts the reservation, lies less than 1/2 mile from the 19th century Cahuilla village of Toro, was part of the Torres Martinez traditional homeland, contains numerous archaeological sites representing village or family living areas, and is known to have had at least two Indian cremations on the property, there is ample reason to consider the concerns and needs of Torres Martinez members in future project plans. Many years of, experience in working with a number of Tribal groups in the Coachella Valley has led CRM TECH to conclude that early and thorough consultation provides tangible benefits to the developer, mainly in the realm of avoiding last 54 minute controversies that can mire a project down in political fighting. Lack of communication is the greatest cause of Native American concerns, concerns that can surface at the last minute causing delays when they are most expensive. CRM TECH recommends that Tribal elders and council members be given a tour of the project area and the archaeological sites that exist there; and that the project proponent ask to meet at the Torres Martinez Tribal hall to make a presentation of the project and discuss procedures to assure proper treatment of archaeological sites, especially known cremation remains, and other remains that may be discovered during the development phase. Surface Collections It is recommended, though not required, that sites determined "not significant" be surface collected. Even though mitigation is not technically required, the pottery sherds from these sites are nonetheless useful data, and as remnants of past centuries of Indian activities, they should be collected and preserved if feasible. Monitoring during Grading At the conclusion of the mitigation collections and excavations, it may be determined that there is a likelihood that buried artifacts or features may still remain in the ground that could not be collected during the mitigation phase. If such is the case, CRM TECH would recommend that one or more archaeologists and Native American monitors be present during grading to retrieve new finds as they are exposed. 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. Thirty-four archaeological sites, historic and prehistoric, are now recorded on the subject property. Of that number, 14 meet one or more criteria for eligibility to the California Register of Historic Places or CEQA Appendix K criteria for an important archaeological resource. Mitigation measures are recommended for the 14 significant sites, the completion of which would allow the Lead Agency to reach a finding of No Effect on cultural resources, with the condition that archaeological monitoring will likely be required during grading of some portions of project area. 55 REFERENCES Aerial photo 1939 Whitewater River and Tributaries, California; aerial photograph taken on November 27, 1939. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1949 Aerial photograph taken on February 15, 1949. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1955 Whitewater River and Tributaries, California; aerial photograph taken in December, 1955. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1973 Aerial photograph taken on April 27, 1973. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1985 Aerial photograph taken on January 4, 1985. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1987 Aerial photograph taken on January 17, 1987. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. 1994 Aerial photograph taken on June 1, 1994. On file, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella. Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. Historical Index, Land Status Records, T6S R7E, SBBM. Microfiches on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. County Assessor, Riverside 1913-1926 Riverside County real property tax assessment records, Book 22. Microfiches on file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. 1926-1938 Riverside County real property tax assessment records, Book 25. Microfiches on file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. 1939-1959 Riverside County real property tax assessment records, Book 25A. Microfiches on file, Riverside County Assessor's Office, Riverside. Gallegos, Dennis, Carolyn Kyle, and Roxana Phillips 1987 Cultural Resources Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Report prepared by WESTEC Services, .Inc., of San Diego, for Landmark Land Company. On file (MF No. 2470), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856a Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 1856b Plat Map: Township No. 7 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 56 1903 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian, California; surveyed in 1903. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 1905 Plat Map: Township No. 7 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian, California; surveyed in 1904. Microfiche on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 1913-1916 Serial register, File No. LA 018667. Microfilm on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. 1914-1918 Serial register, File No. EC 01946. Microfilm on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside. Jennings, Bill, Ron Baker, Tom Patterson, and Diana Seider (ed.) 1993 Guide to the Historic Landmarks of Riverside County, California. Riverside County Historical Commission Press, Riverside. Johnston, Francis J. 1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. McCarthy, Daniel 1987a Archaeological site record update, CA-RIV-37. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1987b Archaeological site record update, CA-RIV-193. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California) 1994 CEQA and Historical Resources. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento. Safford, ? 1947 Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-37. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Shepard, C. 1973 Archaeological Site Record, CA-RIV-37. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1978 Archaeological Site Record, CA-RIV-193. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. SRS 1979 Archaeological Survey Report on the O'Neal Property, Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Report prepared by Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc., 57 of Santa Aria, Calif., for PRC Toups Engineering Corporation of Orange, Calif. On file (MF No. 632), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 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. Tyler, Bob 1998 Personal communication with the authors. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941a Map: Coachella, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1941. 1941b Map: Toro Peak, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1941. 1956 Map: Coachella, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1952-1953, field - checked in 1955-1956. 1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photos taken in 1954, field - checked in 1957 and 1959. 1972a Map: Indio, Calif. (75, 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised. 1972b Map: Valerie, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (75, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised. 1988 Map: Martinez Mtn., Calif. (75, 1:24,000); 1981 edition photorevised. Wilke, Philip J. 1972 Archaeological site record, CA-RIV-273. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1980 Archaeological site record update, CA-RIV-273. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. W APPENDIX 1 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 59 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Bruce Love, Ph.D., SOPA (Society of Professional Archaeologists) Professional history 1993- Owner and Principal, CRM TECH, Riverside 1990-1993 Director, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside; Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UC Riverside 1989-1990 Coordinator, Archaeological Information Center, UCLA 1987-1990 Owner and Principal, Pyramid Archaeology, Palmdale, California 1986-1987 Junior Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre-Columbian Research, Washington, D.C. 1981-1986 Part-time cultural resources management consultant; doctoral student at UCLA Education 1986 Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, UCLA 1981 Master of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA 1976 Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, UCLA 1996 "CEQA 101," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1995 "CEQA Workshop," presented by Association of Environmental Professionals. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "CEQA 1994: Issues, Trends, and Advanced Topics," presented by UCLA Extension. 1990 "Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law," presented by U.S. General Services Administration Training Center. Memberships Society of Professional Archaeologists (certified in field research, teaching, and archaeological administration) Association of Environmental Professionals American Planning Association Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Society for Historic Archaeology American Society for Ethnohistory Coachella Valley Archaeological Society . 11 HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGIST Richard H. Norwood 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 61 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn Education 1978 Certificate in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles 1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 1964 B.S., Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington 1996 "Cultural Resources and CEQA: Your Responsibility," presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals, Hemet 1991 "Ceramic Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer, Palm Springs 1990 "Introduction to Coachella Valley Archaeology," presented by Anne Duffield, Palm Desert Professional Experience 1992- Independent Geological/Archaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C.E.S., Inc., Redlands 1991-1992 Director of Environmental Services, STE Associates, Inc., San Bernardino 1988-1991 Director of Environmental Services, Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., San Bernardino 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, JIRSA Environmental Services, Norco 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, Loco Exploration, Inc., Aurora, Colorado 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil Exploration and Production, Englewood, Colorado 1966-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles Memberships Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (President, 1993-1994; Vice President, 1992, 1995-1997; Basic Archaeology Training Course Instructor, 1996-1997) Coachella Valley Historical Society Southwest Museum Malki Museum Publications in Archaeology and History Forty-five articles in the publications of the Southwest Museum, the American Rock Art Research Association, the Colorado Archaeological Society, the Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, and the Coachella Valley Historical Society, 1978-1997. 62 PROJECT HISTORIAN Bai Tom Tang 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, Xi'an, 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, Xi'an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'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 Hor.or 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 150 cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, October 1991 -August 1998. 63 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD CREW The crew consists of three members of the Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians, Joe Loya, Landon Duro, and Gary Resvaloso; two Native Americans with economic affiliation to Torres Martinez, Adrian Duro and Tony Lavato; and a non-Cahuilla with economic affiliation, Antonio Gonzalez. Field Experience (Survey) • Indian Palms Country Club: field survey of ca. 400 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at six prehistoric sites. • Coral Mountain Development Project: field survey of ca. 1,251 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 32 prehistoric sites, some with historic components. • State Route 86 Extension: field survey of ca. 30 acres; no sites found. • Palm Hills Specific Plan: field survey of ca. 1,200 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts and features at three historic sites. • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: field survey of ca. 400 acres; identification and flagging of artifacts at 28 prehistoric sites. Field Experience (Excavation) Rancho La Quinta Country Club: test excavation and screening at 28 prehistoric sites; completing 96 1x1 -m test units, 4 1x2 -m test units, 4 4x8 -m surface scrapes, and a 9-m vertical wall profile. Laboratory Experience (Artifact Cataloguing) • Rancho La Quinta Country Club: sorting, counting, and re -bagging level bags from test excavation. Classroom Training The crew attended classes presented by CRM TECH principal Bruce Love, Ph.D., for a total of eight hours. Subjects included the following: anthropology as a sub -field of archaeology, pre -historic vs. historic archaeology, overview of pre -history of desert Southern California, overview of major historical events in early Spanish contact with Native Southern California. In classroom workshops, the crew was trained in reading USGS topographic maps, using an engineering scale, compass reading, and scaled feature drawing using metric tape, scale, compass, and gridded note paper. 64