Coral Mtn Paleontological Report_CRM TechPALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of La Quinta
Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
Department of Design and Development, Planning Division
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tempico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared for:
CM Wave Development, LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
Prepared by:
Harry M. Quinn, Geologist/Paleontologist
Ben Kerridge, Report Writer
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
October 29, 2019
CRM TECH Contract #3511P
Approximately 385 acres
USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles
Sections 27 and 28, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between June and October 2019, at the request of CM Wave Development, LLC, CRM
TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on an approximately 385-acre
tract of rural land in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The study is
part of the environmental review process for the proposed Coral Mountain Specific
Plan, which proposes the development of an artificial wave facility, a hotel, residential
units, open space for golf, farm, outdoor recreational amenities, and an open-air
amphitheater as well as the eventual development of four separately planned
communities. The subject property of the study encompasses the entire area designated
for the project, located on the west side of Madison Street, between Avenue 58 and
Avenue 60, within Sections 27 and 28 of T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and
Meridian.
The City of La Quinta, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of
the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine whether the proposed project would adversely affect any significant,
nonrenewable paleontological resources, as required by CEQA, and to design a
paleontological mitigation program, if necessary.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the
project area and to assess the probability for such resources to be encountered during
the project, CRM TECH initiated records searches at the appropriate repositories,
conducted a literature review, and carried out a systematic field survey of the project
area. Findings from these research procedures indicate that the project’s potential to
impact significant paleontological resources appears to be low in the igneous rock
formation in the southwestern corner of the project area, namely on the slopes of Coral
Mountain, and in the previously disturbed surface soils in the rest of project area.
However, the undisturbed subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla
are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends that a mitigation program be
developed and implemented for the proposed project to prevent potential impact on
paleontological resources or reduce such impact to a level less than significant. As the
primary component of the mitigation program, all earth-moving operations reaching
beyond the depth of two feet should be monitored periodically by a qualified
paleontological monitor, and continuous monitoring will become necessary if
undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. Under this
condition, CRM TECH further recommends that the proposed project may be cleared
to proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on paleontological resources.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4
Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 4
Paleontological Sensitivity................................................................................................................ 5
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Regional Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................ 6
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 6
METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 8
Records Searches .............................................................................................................................. 8
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 8
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Searches .............................................................................................................................. 8
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 9
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 11
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 11
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 14
APPENDIX 2: Records Search Results .............................................................................................. 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 7
Figure 5. Geologic map of the project vicinity .................................................................................. 10
1
INTRODUCTION
Between June and October 2019, at the request of CM Wave Development, LLC, CRM TECH
performed a paleontological resource assessment on an approximately 385-acre tract of rural land in
the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The study is part of the environmental
review process for the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan, which proposes the development of
an artificial wave facility, a hotel, residential units, open space for golf, farm, outdoor recreational
amenities, and an open-air amphitheater as well as the eventual development of four separately
planned communities. The subject property of the study encompasses the entire area designated for
the project, located on the west side of Madison Street, between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, within
Sections 27 and 28 of T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).
The City of La Quinta, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to
provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed
project would adversely affect any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as required
by CEQA, and to design a paleontological mitigation program, if necessary.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area
and to assess the probability for such resources to be encountered during the project, CRM TECH
initiated records searches at the appropriate repositories, conducted a literature review, and carried
out a systematic field survey of the project area. The following report is a complete account of the
methods, results, and final conclusion of this study. Personnel who participated in the study are
named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 30’x60’ quadrangle)
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles)
3
Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area.
4
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DEFINITION
Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains,
and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary rock formations in
which they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age,
which is typically regarded as older than approximately 12,000 years, the generally accepted
temporal boundary marking the end of the last late Pleistocene (circa 2.6 million to 12,000 years
B.P.) glaciation and the beginning of the current Holocene epoch (circa 12,000 years B.P. to the
present).
Common fossil remains include marine shells; the bones and teeth of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals; leaf assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces, another type of paleontological
resource, include internal and external molds (impressions) and casts created by these organisms.
These items can serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and sediments in which they are
contained and may prove useful in determining the temporal relationships between rock deposits
from one area and those from another as well as the timing of geologic events. They can also
provide information regarding evolutionary relationships, development trends, and environmental
conditions.
Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone,
mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils,
particularly vertebrate fossils, are considered nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally
fossils may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or because of human
disturbances; however, they generally lay buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of
fossils on the surface does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface
deposits, while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains
may be found in the subsurface.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer (2003) of the San Bernardino
County Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant scientific interest
if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends
exhibited among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of
geologic events therein;
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions
between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;
4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or
5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
5
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The fossil record is unpredictable, and the preservation of organic remains is rare, requiring a
particular sequence of events involving physical and biological factors. Skeletal tissue with a high
percentage of mineral matter is the most readily preserved within the fossil record; soft tissues not
intimately connected with the skeletal parts, however, are the least likely to be preserved (Raup and
Stanley 1978). For this reason, the fossil record contains a biased selection not only of the types of
organisms preserved but also of certain parts of the organisms themselves. As a consequence,
paleontologists are unable to know with certainty, the quantity of fossils or the quality of their
preservation that might be present within any given geologic unit.
Sedimentary units that are paleontologically sensitive are those geologic units (mappable rock
formations) with a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
More specifically, these are geologic units within which vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate
fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or are likely to be present. These
units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant paleontological
resources anywhere within their geographical extent as well as sedimentary rock units temporally or
lithologically amenable to the preservation of fossils.
A geologic formation is defined as a stratigraphic unit identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g.,
grain size, texture, color, and mineral content) and stratigraphic position. There is a direct
relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are enclosed and, with
sufficient knowledge of the geology and stratigraphy of a particular area, it is possible for
paleontologists to reasonably determine the formation’s potential to contain significant
nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossil remains.
The paleontological sensitivity for a geologic formation is determined by the potential for that
formation to produce significant nonrenewable fossils. This determination is based on what fossil
resources the particular geologic formation has produced in the past at other nearby locations.
Determinations of paleontologic sensitivity must consider not only the potential for yielding
vertebrate fossils but also the potential of yielding a few significant fossils that may provide new and
significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, and/or stratigraphic data.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology issued a set of standard guidelines intended to assist
paleontologists to assess and mitigate any adverse effects/impacts to nonrenewable paleontological
resources. The guidelines defined four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units
that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed below (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010:1-2):
High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace
fossils have been recovered.
Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their
paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.
Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional
collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources,
such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
6
SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project area is situated in the Coachella Valley, which occupies the northwestern portion of the
Colorado Desert geomorphic province (Jenkins 1980:40-41; Harms 1996:iii; Harden 2004:63-64).
To the southeast from the Coachella Valley, the Colorado Desert province widens through the
Imperial Valley and into Mexico, where it becomes the Gulf of California. A major feature in the
Coachella Valley is the San Andreas Fault Zone, which runs along the northeastern edge of the
valley. The project location lies on the opposite side of the valley and in the eastern foothills of the
Santa Rosa Mountains, between the San Andreas Fault Zone and the roughly parallel San Jacinto
Fault Zone to the west, which extends along the southwestern side of the mountain range.
Another major feature found in the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a 180-mile-long
structural depression containing the present-day Salton Sea. This depression extends from the San
Gorgonio Pass area southward into Mexico. During the late Miocene and early Pliocene, this trough
was a northward extension of the Gulf of California (Powell 1995). By late Pleistocene and
Holocene times, the northwestern portion of this trough was filled with over 4,000 feet of sediments
Proctor 1968). While the term “Salton Trough” refers to the entire structural depression from the
San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California, the term “Salton Basin” is used to describe the portion
of the area that drains directly into present-day Salton Sea (Harms 1996:117).
Elevations within the Colorado Desert geomorphic province tend to be low, while those of the
surrounding provinces can be quite high. This configuration has made for local to regional rapid
filling of the basin, especially along its margins, with coarse clastic sediments. Such coarse
sediments afford only local environments for the preservation of vertebrate remains. However, some
scattered vertebrate fossils have been found in these fluvial derived clastic sediments.
At elevations ranging approximately from 50 feet above to 60 feet below mean sea level, the project
area would have been on the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, a series of freshwater lakes that
once filled portions of the Salton Trough, including parts of the Coachella Valley. The lake formed
when water from the Colorado River flowed into the basin and then through Baja California to the
Gulf of California (Rogers 1965; Waters 1983). The shoreline of the last ancient lake to fill the
basin, at its high stand prior to desiccation around 1700 A.D., reached the elevation of approximately
42 feet above mean sea level (Wilke 1978; Waters 1983). This elevation places most of the project
area well within the lakebed sediments.
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The project area is located on the southcentral outskirts of the City of La Quinta and includes a
portion of a rocky knoll known as Coral Mountain (Fig. 4). The surrounding land uses feature
primarily existing residential development associated with golf courses to the north and the east and
vacant land to the south and the west (Fig. 3). Much of the land within project boundaries has been
farmed in the past, with the exceptions of the northeastern corner, the southernmost portion, and the
far western edge near Coral Mountain (Fig. 3).
7
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on August 9, 2019; view to the
east)
A partially collapsed adobe house is located near the center of the project area, along with concrete
pads and footings left by demolished residential and agricultural buildings. Several unpaved roads
traverse throughout the project area. A large stockpile of soil sits in the southernmost portion,
apparently removed from a retention basin located to the south of the property, across an earthen
levee.
The terrain in most of the project area is relatively level due to the past agricultural operations, with
the exception of the portion in and around Coral Mountain (Fig. 4). The northeastern portion does
not appear to have been farmed but has also been cleared of vegetation. The terrain in this area is
somewhat uneven. On the western edge, the land remains in a native creosote bush scrub state. A
large amount of tufa has formed on the boulders and rocks at the base of Coral Mountain during the
various stands of ancient Lake Cahuilla.
Soils in the former agricultural fields consists of fine- to medium-grained sands mixed with silt, clay,
and freshwater shells. Beyond the agricultural fields, soils in the westernmost portion of the project
area feature fine- to coarse-grained sands with rocks, boulders, and some freshwater shells. Fine-
grained clay is exposed in some areas, especially near the former shoreline of Holocene Lake
Cahuilla. Vegetation on the property includes creosote bush, mesquite, palo verde, brittlebush,
saltbush, tumbleweed, and other small desert shrubs and grasses. Introduced landscaping trees such
as tamarisk, eucalyptus, cottonwood, and palm are found near the former residences.
8
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
RECORDS SEARCHES
On July 3, 2019, CRM TECH sent written requests for records searches to the San Bernardino
County Museum (SBCM) in Redlands and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
NHMLAC) in Los Angeles. These institutions maintain files of regional paleontological localities
as well as supporting maps and documents. The NHMLAC replied on July 17, but to date the
SBCM has not been able to provide the data. As a result, past records search results from the SBCM
on other properties nearby were consulted for pertinent information. The purpose of the records
searches is to identify previously completed paleontological resource studies as well as known
paleontological localities within a one-mile radius of the project area. In addition, the Riverside
County Land Information System was also consulted for information on the County’s overall
paleontological sensitivity assessment of the project location.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In conjunction with the records searches, CRM TECH report writer Ben Kerridge pursued a
literature review on the project area and vicinity, under the direction of project geologist/
paleontologist Harry M. Quinn, California Professional Geologist #3477. Sources consulted during
the review include primarily topographic, geologic, and soil maps of the Coachella Valley region,
published geologic literature pertaining to the project location, and other materials in the CRM
TECH library, including unpublished reports produced during similar surveys in the vicinity.
FIELD SURVEY
On August 6-9, 2019, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and paleontological surveyors Sal
Boites, Sabrina Fajardo, Nina Gallardo, Ben Kerridge, Hunter O’Donnell, Michael Richards, and
Damien Tietjen carried out the field survey of the project area. The survey was completed on foot
by walking a series of parallel transects oriented north-south or east-west and spaced 15 meters
approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the entire project area was systematically examined for
any indications of paleontological remains and to verify the geological formations and the soil types.
Ground visibility ranged from poor (5-10%) in areas of dense vegetation, such as in the northeast
corner of the property, to excellent (90%) in most of the other areas.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCHES
The records search by the NHMLAC identified no previously discovered paleontological localities
within the project area but did identify nearby localities from sediment lithologies similar to those
present both on the surface and at depth in the project area (McLeod 2019; see App. 2). Past records
searches from the SBCM (Scott 2008a; Scott 2008b; Gilbert 2018) reported similar findings, stating
that the geological units within the project area had produced fossil localities in the surrounding
region.
9
According the NHMLAC, the southwestern portion of the project area is situated on bedrock
exposures of intrusive igneous rocks that would not contain recognizable fossil remains (McLeod
2019). The rest of the project area is situated upon late Pleistocene or Holocene fluvial and
lacustrine deposits known as Lake Cahuilla beds (ibid.). These deposits have produced fossils of
diatoms, snails, crustaceans, land plants, and clams as well as terrestrial and freshwater vertebrate
fossils nearby the project area (ibid.). Past records searches by the SBCM for nearby projects also
reported fossil localities from the Lake Cahuilla beds that included fossil remains of, in addition to
the types listed by the NHMLAC, sponges, ostracods, mollusks, fish, mastodons, ground sloths, and
other large mammals (Scott 2008a; Scott 2008b; Gilbert 2018).
The NHMLAC states that excavations into the igneous rock outcrops in the southwestern portion of
the project area will not need to be monitored (McLeod 2019). Regarding the remainder of the
project area, the NHMLAC maintains that any shallow excavations in the uppermost layers of
surface soils are unlikely to uncover significant vertebrate fossils, but deeper excavations extending
into the Lake Cahuilla bed deposits may well encounter significant fossil vertebrate remains (ibid.).
Past records searches by the SBCM mirror this assessment of the former lakebed deposits in that
excavations in these soils have a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable paleontological
resources (Scott 2008a; Scott 2008b; Gilbert 2018).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Rogers (1965) maps the surface geology in the project area as mainly Ql and Qal, or lakebed
deposits and alluvium of Recent age, with some Gr, or Mesozoic granitic rocks, in the vicinity of
Coral Mountain. Lancaster (2012) shows the surface geology to be composed of gr (granitic and
other intrusive rocks), Qyf (young alluvial fan deposits, slightly to moderately consolidated,
moderately dissected boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt deposits from valleys or canyons), Qw
alluvial wash deposits, unconsolidated sandy and gravelly sediments deposited in recently active
channels of streams and rivers, sometimes containing loose silt and sand), and Qya (young alluvial
valley deposits, unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, undissected to slightly dissected clay, silt,
sand, and gravel along stream valleys and alluvial flats of larger rivers). Dibblee (2008) identifies
the surface geology as mostly Qa (alluvial sand and clay of valley areas and of Holocene age) with a
small area of qdi (light gray, massive to gneissoid quartz diorite of cretaceous age) in the
southwestern corner (Fig. 5).
The Riverside County paleontological sensitivity map classifies the project location as High
Potential (High Sensitivity A) in the northeastern half, Undetermined Potential in much of the
southwestern half, and Low Potential in the exposed igneous outcrops in the southwestern corner
RCIT n.d.). High Sensitivity A is defined as “sedimentary rock units with high potential for
containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources…based on geologic formations or
mapped rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to
contain significant paleontological resources. These include rocks of Silurian or Devonian age and
younger that have potential to contain remains of fossil fish, and Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks that
contain fossilized body elements and trace fossils such as tracks, nests and eggs” (County of
Riverside 2015:4.9-4.11). Undetermined Potential is defined as areas underlain by sedimentary
units for which insufficient literature is available to make a determination of paleontological
sensitivity (ibid.). Low Potential is defined as “lands for which previous field surveys and
10
Figure 5. Geologic map of the project vicinity. (Source: Dibblee 2008)
11
documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological
resources subject to adverse impacts” (ibid.). According to the County, “surface geology, such as
soils, are not always indicative of subsurface geology or the potential for paleontological resources.
For instance, an area mapped as soil type ‘Qal’ may actually be a thin surficial layer of non-
fossiliferous sediments which covers fossil-rich Pleistocene sediments” (ibid.).
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey of the project area encountered no surface manifestation of any vertebrate fossil
remains. As mentioned above, the surface soils contained freshwater shells, especially in the former
agricultural fields. The presence of these molluscan remains provides additional evidence that the
sediments in the project area can be attributed to the Lake Cahuilla lakebed sequence. Fine-grained
clay was observed in some areas, especially near the former lakeshore. Much of the surface soils
have been impacted by past agricultural and construction activities, with dirt roads, earthen levees,
residential debris, discarded refuse, and other evidence of human activities observed over most of the
property.
DISCUSSION
The results of the record searches, the literature research, and the pedestrian field survey indicate
that the project area contains Mesozoic intrusive igneous outcrops at Coral Mountain in the
southwestern corner and sediments deposited within the lakebed of Holocene Lake Cahuilla over the
remainder of the property (Rogers 1965; Dibblee 2008; Lancaster 2012; RCIT n.d.). The records
search results identified fossil localities from these lakebed lithological units in the vicinity of the
project area that contained species ranging from diatoms to terrestrial mammals such as mastodon
and ground sloth (Scott 2008a; Scott 2008b; Gilbert 2018; McLeod 2019).
The NHMLAC’s final conclusion regarding the paleontological sensitivity of the project area is that
excavations in the igneous rocks will not encounter fossil remains, but that substantial excavations in
the sedimentary deposits in the project area “should be monitored closely to quickly and
professionally recover any fossil remains discovered” (McLeod 2019). Field observations did not
encounter any surface manifestations of vertebrate fossil remains but did encounter significant
concentrations of freshwater shells in the surface soils, which showed evidence of agricultural and
other disturbances.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA guidelines (Title 14 CCR App. G, Sec. V(c)) require that public agencies in the State of
California determine whether a proposed project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource” during the environmental review process. The present study, conducted in
compliance with this provision, is designed to identify any significant, non-renewable
paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area, and to assess the
possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities.
12
The results of the study indicate that the potential for the proposed project to impact significant
paleontological resources appears to be low in the igneous rock formation in the southwestern corner
of the project area, namely on the slopes of Coral Mountain, and in the previously disturbed surface
soils in the rest of project area. However, the undisturbed subsurface lakebed sediments from
Holocene Lake Cahuilla are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity.
Therefore, CRM TECH recommends that a mitigation program be developed and implemented for
the proposed project to prevent potential impact on paleontological resources or reduce such impact
to a level less than significant. The mitigation program should be developed in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010), and should include but not be limited to the following:
All earth-moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet should be monitored
periodically by a qualified paleontological monitor, and continuous monitoring will become
necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The
monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid
construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction
equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens.
Samples of sediments should be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains.
Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable
storage that would allow for further research in the future.
A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of
their significance when appropriate, should be prepared upon completion of the research
procedures outlined above. The approval of the report and the inventory by the City of La
Quinta would signify completion of the mitigation program.
Under this condition, CRM TECH further recommends that the proposed project may be cleared to
proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on paleontological resources.
REFERENCES
County of Riverside
2015 County of Riverside General Plan. https://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/
GeneralPlan.aspx.
Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr.
2008 Geologic Map of the Palm Desert/Coachella, 15 Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County,
California. Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-373. Santa Barbara, California.
Gilbert, Ian
2018 Paleontology Literature/Records Review, Proposed Vista Santa Rosa Gateway Village
Project; APNs 764-070-001, -002, -003, -004, 760-080-002, -004, -005, -006, and -011.
Prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.
Harden, Deborah R.
2004 California Geology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Harms, Nancy S.
1996 A Precollegiate Teachers Guide to California Geomorphic/Physiographic Provinces.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Far West Section, Concord, California.
13
Jenkins, Olaf P.
1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41.
Lancaster, Jeremy T., C.A. Hayhurst, and T.L. Bedrossian
2012 Preliminary Geologic Map of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California, Palm
Springs 30’x60’ Quadrangle (1:100,000). In Trinda L. Bedrossian, Peter Roffers, Cheryl A.
Hayhurst, Jeremy T. Lancaster, and William R. Short (eds.): Geologic Compilation of
Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California; Plate 24. California Geological Survey
Special Report 217. State of California Department of Conservation, Sacramento.
McLeod, Samuel A.
2019 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project, CRM
TECH No. 3311P, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. Prepared by the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles. (See App. 2)
Powell, Charles L., II
1995 Paleontology and Significance of the Imperial Formation at Garnet Hill, Riverside
County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-489. Washington, D.C.
Proctor, Richard J.
1968 Geology of the Desert Hot Springs-Upper Coachella Valley Area, California, with a
Selected Bibliography of the Coachella Valley, Salton Sea, and Vicinity. California Division of
Mines and Geology Special Report 94. Sacramento.
Raup, David M., and Steven M. Stanley
1978 Principle of Paleontology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
RCIT (Riverside County Information Technology)
n.d. Map My County. https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public.
Rogers, Thomas H.
1965 Geological Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet (1:250,000). California Division of
Mines and Geology, Sacramento.
Scott, Eric
2008a Paleontological Records Review, Madison Levee, APN #764-280-004, City of La Quinta,
Riverside County, California. Prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands,
California.
2008b Paleontological Records Review, 100-Acre Tentative Tract, La Quinta Region, Riverside
County, California. Prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.
Scott, Eric, and Kathleen Springer
2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10.
Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources. http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Resources/SVP_
Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
Waters, Michael R.
1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla.
Quaternary Research 19:373-387.
Wilke, Philip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University of
California, Berkeley.
14
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
15
PROJECT GEOLOGIST/PALEONTOLOGIST
Harry M. Quinn, M.S., California Professional Geologist #3477
Education
1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
1964 B.S, Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach.
1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington, California.
Graduate work oriented toward invertebrate paleontology; M.S. thesis completed as a stratigraphic
paleontology project on the Precambrian and Lower Cambrian rocks of Eastern California.
Professional Experience
2000- Project Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1998- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1992-1998 Independent Geological/Geoarchaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines,
California.
1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C E.S., Inc, Redlands, California.
1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE, San Bernardino, California.
1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco, California.
1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, LOCO Exploration, Inc. Aurora, Colorado.
1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil E & P, Englewood, Colorado.
1965-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
Previous Work Experience in Paleontology
1969-1973 Attended Texaco company-wide seminars designed to acquaint all paleontological
laboratories with the capability of one another and the procedures of mutual assistance in solving
correlation and paleo-environmental reconstruction problems.
1967-1968 Attended Texaco seminars on Carboniferous coral zonation techniques and Carboniferous
smaller foraminifera zonation techniques for Alaska and Nevada.
1966-1972, 1974, 1975 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological
identification in Alaska for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the
paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic and Mesozoic
rocks and some Tertiary rocks, including both megafossil and microfossil identification, as well as fossil
plant identification.
1965 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Nevada
for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory to
establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic rocks and some Mesozoic and Tertiary
rocks. The Tertiary work included identification of ostracods from the Humboldt and Sheep Pass
Formations and vertebrate and plant remains from Miocene alluvial sediments.
Memberships
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; American Association of Petroleum Geologists; Association of
Environmental Professionals; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Pacific Section; Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists; San Bernardino County Museum.
Publications in Geology
Five publications in Geology concerning an oil field study, a ground water and earthquake study, a report on
the geology of the Santa Rosa Mountain area, and papers on vertebrate and invertebrate Holocene Lake
Cahuilla faunas.
16
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Cross-trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM
TECH Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Paleontologist/Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/REPORT WRITER
Ben Kerridge, M.A.
Education
2014 Geoarchaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece.
2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
2009 Project Management Training, Project Management Institute/CH2M HILL, Santa
Ana, California.
2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Professional Experience
2015- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2015 Teaching Assistant, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece.
2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2010- Naturalist, Newport Bay Conservancy, Newport Beach, California.
2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2002-2006 English Composition/College Preparation Tutor, various locations, California.
17
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Salvadore Z. Boites, M.A.
Education
2013 M.A., Applied Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach.
2003 B.A., Anthropology/Sociology, University of California, Riverside.
1996-1998 Archaeological Field School, Fullerton Community College, Fullerton, California.
Professional Experience
2014- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2010-2011 Adjunct Instructor, Anthropology, Everest College, Anaheim, California.
2003-2008 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2001-2002 Teaching Assistant, Moreno Elementary School, Moreno Valley, California.
1999-2003 Research Assistant, Anthropology Department, University of California, Riverside.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Applied Archaeology/Anthropology, Indigenous Cultural Identity,
Poly-culturalism.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Hunter C. O’Donnell, B.A.
Education
2020 M.A. (anticipated), Applied Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
2015 B.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
2012 A.A., Social and Behavioral Sciences, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California.
2011 A.A., Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut,
California.
Professional Experience
2016- Graduate Research Assistant, Applied Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
2016-2017 Cultural Intern, Cultural Department, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Temecula,
California.
2015 Archaeological Intern, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California.
2015 Peer Research Consultant: African Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
18
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Cross-trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM
TECH Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Co-author of and contributor to numerous cultural resources management reports since 2004.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Damien Tietjen, B.A.
Education
2002 GIS Certification, University of California, Riverside.
1996 B.A., Archaeology, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio.
2014 HAZWOPER Training (40 hours).
2012 NFPA 70E Electrical Safety Training (8 hours).
2004 10th Annual GI/GIS Workshop, Warsaw, Poland.
Professional Experience
2014- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2008-2014 Archaeologist/Environmental Compliance Monitor/GIS Specialist, Environmental
Science Associates (ESA), Palms Springs, California.
19
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Michael D. Richards, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist
Education
2002 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Northridge (CSUN).
1986 B.A., Anthropology: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
1982 A.A., Los Angeles Valley College, Los Angeles, California.
2015 Section 106 workshop.
2000 CSUN “Olmec” field excavation and lab analysis; La Venta, Mexico.
1999 Rock art recording, UCLA Extension; Little Lake, California.
1998 Rock art symposium, UCLA Extension.
Professional Experience
2016-2018 Co-Principal Investigator/Archaeologist, LSA Associates Inc.
2012-2016 Co-Principal Investigator/Archaeologist, ICF International (Jones & Stokes).
2010-2012 Co-Principal Investigator/Archaeologist, various CRM firms (on call).
2007-2010 Principal Investigator/Field Director/Crew Chief, ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2004-2007 Project Manager/Co-Principal Investigator, ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc.
2003-2004 Staff Archaeologist/Crew Chief, SRI, Inc.
2000-2003 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, Ancient Enterprises (Clewlow, Jr.).
1999-2000 Staff Archaeologist/Lab Crew Chief, CSC/Edwards Air Force Base.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Archaeological Institute of
America; Conejo Open Space Trails Advisory Committee; Conejo Valley Historical Society.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Sabrina Fajardo, B.S.
Education
2019 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
2018 Sanisera Archaeological Institute for International Field Schools, Menorca, Balearic
Islands
Professional Experience
2019- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2017- Information Officer, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
2015-2017 AVID Tutor, Palm Middle School, Moreno Valley, California.
20
APPENDIX 2
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS