The URL can be used to link to this page

ACBCI CONSULTATION COMMENTS LTR 2020-03-10 March 10, 2020 Mr. Garrett Simon CM Wave Development LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 SUBJECT: TRIBAL CONSULTATION RESULTS, AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002 ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004 SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003 (AMENDMENT 5 TO SP 03-067) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005 (TTM 37815) MASTER PROJECT 2019-0004 Dear Mr. Simon, As we discussed in prior meetings, the City has undertaken Tribal Consultation, pursuant to the requirements of State law under SB 18 and AB 52. The City received a consultation request from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), and met with the Tribe last month, to initiate the consultation process. ACBCI indicated in that meeting that they had concerns regarding sensitive resources in and adjacent to the project site. The Tribe has provided their comments in writing (attached). The comments include both letters and an annotated copy of the cultural resources study prepared by CRM Tech on your behalf. The City will require that mitigation measures for exploratory trenching and adequate curation be included in your environmental document, as requested in the fourth paragraph of the Tribe’s letter. In order to address the other concerns identified in the letter, and to continue with the consultation process, the City requires that you provide the following: 1. Corrections to the cultural resources study as annotated in the attached PDF. 2. Copies of the GIS data associated with the records search and cultural survey results, as well as copies of all site records, reports and archival information and maps associated used for or cited in the cultural resources report. We will forward this data to the Tribe for their use. 3. GIS data of the build out plans for the project, from the Specific Plan land use plan and Tentative Tract Map. 4. CRM Tech should define and map the area required for preservation of the resources and cultural landscape, and overlay that area on your project plan. This mapping will assist the City and the Tribe in identifying the extent of modification and/or preservation that will be required for the project plans. When these materials have been provided to us and we have forwarded them to the ACBCI, we would recommend that we facilitate a meeting with City, ACBCI and your team’s participation to determine how the impacts to Tribal cultural resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures will then be incorporated into your environmental document. If you have any questions please contact me at consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov, or at (760) 777-7132 or 760-341-4800. Sincerely, Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner Cc: Cheri Flores, Planning Manager Danny Castro, Design and Development Director 03-003-2019-001 Dear Ms. Nicole Criste, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Wave at Coral Mountain project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments: [VIA EMAIL TO:ncriste@terranovaplanning.com] Terra Nova Ms. Nicole Criste 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 February 21, 2020 Re: The Wave Cultural Report Comments Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6907. You may also email me at ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net. Cordially, Pattie Garcia-Plotkin Director Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS #The THPO has included comments in the attached cultural report. Please contact our office to follow up on our comments and requests. 03-003-2019-001 Dear Ms. Nicole Criste, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Wave at Coral Mountain project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments: [VIA EMAIL TO:ncriste@terranovaplanning.com] Terra Nova Ms. Nicole Criste 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 February 21, 2020 Re: AB 52 Consultation for the Wave at La Quinta Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6907. You may also email me at ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net. Cordially, #The Agua Caliente THPO has identified Tribal Cultural Resources and Cultural Landscape within the proposed project boundary. We request redesign of the project to avoid the identified Tribal Cultural Resources, and prefer "preservation in place". These resources are eligible for the Californian Register Historic Properties and may also be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as Traditional Cultural Properties. #Due to the complexity of the resources we need more information for assessing impacts. Please provide GIS data for the project plans, the record search, and the cultural survey results. We also request copies of all site records, reports, archival information, and maps associated with the project area. #Additionally, we request continued consultation on defining an adequate preservation area. In consultation with the THPO, we request development of an exploratory trenching program for the areas of the project outside of the future preservation area. We also want a commitment from the City to condition the project with adequate curation measures. 03-003-2019-001 Pattie Garcia-Plotkin Director Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT THE WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN 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: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator October 31, 2019 CRM TECH Contract No. 3511A Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Wave at Coral Mountain, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400 Date: October 31, 2019 For Submittal to: Department of Design and Development, Planning Division City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tempico La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 777-7125 Prepared for: Garrett Simon CM Wave Development, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 (970) 596-6642 USGS Quadrangle: Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles (Sections 27 and 28, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) Project Size: Approximately 385 acres Keywords: Coachella Valley, Colorado Desert region; Phase I historical/ archaeological resources survey; Sites 33-000193, 33-001715 to 33- 001717, 33-005213, 33-005214, 33-008386, 33-008388, 33-009545, 33- 011625, 33-028909; Isolates 33-009000 to 33-009005, 33-028907, 33- 028908, and 33-028910 to 33-028912; prehistoric petroglyphs, milling features, surface scatters of ceramic artifacts; historic-period farmstead, graffiti, and refuse i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Between June and October 2019, at the request of CM Wave Development, LLC, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study 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 Wave at Coral Mountain project, which entails 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 cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. The results of the records search indicate that 16 cultural resources were previously recorded within or partially within the project area, including eight prehistoric sites, six prehistoric isolates, and two historic-period sites. During the field survey, two of the prehistoric sites, one of the historic-period sites, and four of the isolates could not be found at their recorded locations and are presumed to be no longer extant. In the meantime, six previously unknown cultural resources were identified and recorded in the project area, including one prehistoric site, three prehistoric isolates, and two historic- period isolates. The eight sites and seven isolates extant within the project area today are listed below: Site 33-000193 rock art panels with petroglyphs and Japanese kanji Site 33-001715 rock art panels with petroglyphs, artifact scatter, milling features, Japanese kanji, and historic-period graffiti Site 33-001716 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-001717 ceramic sherds, flake, and sun-colored amethyst glass Site 33-008386 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-008388 remains of Coral Reef Ranch with partially collapsed adobe house Site 33-009545 rock art panels Site 33-028909 ceramic sherd scatter Isolate 33-009001 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-009003 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-028907 one sun-colored amethyst glass shard Isolate 33-028908 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-028910 one sun-colored amethyst glass shard Isolate 33-028911 two ceramic sherds Isolate 33-028912 one ceramic sherd ii Among these, Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, collectively comprising the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex, and Site 33-008388 appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and thus meet the definition of “historical resources.” Under CEQA provisions, the impact on these sites from the proposed project that would compromise their integrity would constitute “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” (PRC §21084.1). In order to prevent or mitigate potential project impact to the four sites that constitute “historical resources,” CRM TECH recommends that the rock art panels and bedrock milling features at Sites 33- 000193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, be avoided and protected in situ during the project through the establishment of an Environmentally Sensitive Area. If any disturbance to the balance of these three sites cannot be avoided, especially to the portion of the larger 33-001715 lying on the level valley floor, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation should be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. For Site 33-008388, CRM TECH recommends a comprehensive recordation program to reduce project impact to a level less than significant. None of the other sites or isolates present within the project area appears eligible for the California Register. Therefore, they do not qualify as “historical resources” and require no further consideration in the CEQA-compliance process. However, given the rich archaeological discoveries in and near the project area documented in the current and previous studies, the possibility of encountering buried prehistoric cultural remains during the project cannot be overlooked. Therefore, CRM TECH further recommends that archaeological monitoring be implemented during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project. The monitoring program should be coordinated with the pertinent local Native American groups, who may wish to participate. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 6 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8 Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 9 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 9 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 9 Previous Studies in the Vicinity ........................................................................................................ 9 Historical Overview ........................................................................................................................ 11 Native American Input .................................................................................................................... 13 Potential Historical Resources in the Project Area ......................................................................... 14 Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex ............................................................................................ 14 Ceramic Sherd Scatters ............................................................................................................... 17 Historic-period Site ..................................................................................................................... 18 Prehistoric Isolates ...................................................................................................................... 18 Newly Recorded Site and Isolates .............................................................................................. 18 Previously Recorded Sites and Isolates Not Re-located ............................................................. 19 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Guidelines ........................................................................... 20 Resource Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 20 Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex (33-000193, 33-001715, and 33-009545) ......................... 20 Ceramic Sherd Scatters (33-001716, 33-001717, 33-008386, and 33-028909) ......................... 21 Historic-period Site (33-008388) ................................................................................................ 21 Isolates (33-009001, 33-009003, 33-028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33-028912) ......... 22 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 22 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 27 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 34 APPENDIX 3: Cultural Resources within or Partially within the Project Area (Confidential) ......... 47 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area ............................................................................................. 3 Figure 4. Typical landscapes in the project area .................................................................................. 4 Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 11 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 12 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903 ................................................................................. 12 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 12 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959 ........................................................................ 12 Figure 10. Prehistoric and historic cultural remains in the project area ............................................ 15 1 INTRODUCTION Between June and October 2019, at the request of CM Wave Development, LLC, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study 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 Wave at Coral Mountain project, which entails 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 cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the 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 [USGS 1959a]) 2 Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mtn., and Valerie, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1972a; 1972b; 1980; 1996]) 3 Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area. 4 SETTING CURRENT NATURAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is situated in the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of southern California’s desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet. The project area is located on the southcentral outskirts of the City of La Quinta and in the eastern foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and includes a portion of a rocky knoll known as Coral Mountain. 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. 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 (Figs. 3, 4). A partially collapsed adobe house (Fig. 4) 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. Figure 4. Typical landscapes in the project area. Clockwise from upper left: view to the west along the southern project boundary (former shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla visible on Coral Mountain); abandoned adobe residence; dirt road across former farmland; overview to the south. (Photographs taken on August 6-9, 2019) 5 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. 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 (Fig. 4). Introduced landscaping trees such as tamarisk, eucalyptus, cottonwood, and palm are found near the former residences. During the past centuries, Native lifeways in the Coachella Valley were greatly influenced by the inundation and desiccation of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which began to recede for the last time around A.D. 1680. Elevations in the project area range approximately from 60 feet below mean sea level to 50 feet above, placing it along but mostly below the highest shoreline of the lake, which ran along today’s 42-foot contour line and is visible along the eastern side of Coral Mountain (Fig. 4). As a result, the level valley floor in and around the project area would have provided a favorable setting for Native American habitation during the final desiccation of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, after the lakeshore began to recede to the east. CULTURAL SETTING Prehistoric Context Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” relying primarily on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence populated the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes” (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, “cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.). The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and supplemented vegetal foods with hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period. 6 The most recent period in Schaefer’s scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied on the availability of seasonal “wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66). It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region. The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement activities. In times of the lake’s desiccation and absence, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to the last high stand of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, roughly between 900 and 1700 A.D., have been identified along its former shoreline. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremation remains. Ethnohistoric Context The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías occupied by the Cahuilla people in the mid- 19th century. The origin of the name “Cahuilla” is unclear, but it may have originated from their own word káwiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel. The following ethnohistoric discussion is derived primarily from these sources. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties, which were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum, and the Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own for purposes of hunting game and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains. When the lake was full or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they relied on the available terrestrial resources. Walk-in wells were dug by hand to utilize groundwater. The cooler temperatures and resources available at higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of. 7 The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.). As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert (Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics of palms from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005). Cahuilla oral tradition tells of a time before there were palms in the area, and how the people, birds, and animals enjoyed the palm fruit once it had arrived (Bean and Saubel 1972). The planting of palms by the Cahuilla is well-documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands through the practice of controlled burning (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005). Burning palm stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle, date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). Firing palm stands prevented out-of-control wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant stalks for basketry (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005). Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Torres Martinez, Augustine, Cabazon, Agua Caliente, and Morongo. There has been a resurgence of traditional ceremonies, and the language, songs, and stories are now being taught to the younger generations. Historic Context In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella 8 Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111. During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185). Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat. In today’s City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century (BLM n.d.). In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. Beginning in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the La Quinta Cove area and the marketing of “weekend homes” further emphasized this new direction of development (City of La Quinta 1997:43). On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the 19th city in Riverside County. RESEARCH METHODS RECORDS SEARCH CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo completed the records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside, on July 11 and 15, 2019. During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/ historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local and regional history, the U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856 and 1903, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1996, and aerial photographs taken in 1939-2018. The historic maps are collected at the Science Library of the 9 University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, located in Moreno Valley. The aerial photographs are available from the Engineering Department of the Coachella Valley Water District, the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website, and the Google Earth software. NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION On July 2, 2019, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. In the meantime, CRM TECH notified the nearby Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological fieldwork and invited tribal participation. Following the NAHC’s recommendations and previously established consultation protocol, CRM TECH further contacted a total of 11 Native American representatives in the region in writing on July 26 for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. Correspondence between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives is summarized below, and a complete record is attached to this report in Appendix 2. FIELD SURVEY On August 6-9, 2019, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and project archaeologists Sal Boites, Sabrina Fajardo, Nina Gallardo, Ben Kerridge, Hunter O’Donnell, Michael Richards, and Damien Tietjen carried out the intensive-level field survey of the project area with the assistance of Native American monitor Daniel Mirelez from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. 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 ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years ago or older). 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. Artifacts and features that were identified during the survey, including those previously recorded, were marked with survey flags. Further inspection and recordation of the sites and isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—was completed upon completion of the survey. A subsequent site visit and further field recordation was carried out on October 8, 2019, by Ballester and project archaeologist Deirdre Encarnación. The recordation procedures included, at minimum, a description of the resource and its components, a location map, and a sketch map for the sites. The field maps and descriptions were then compiled into standard site record forms and submitted to the EIC for inclusion in the California Historical Resources Inventory. RESULTS AND FINDINGS PREVIOUS STUDIES IN THE VICINITY According to EIC records, as many as 11 previous cultural resource studies have involved at least a portion of the current project area, including four large-scale overview studies and seven area- specific studies. Three of the overview studies were conducted for the City of La Quinta General 10 Plan in 1991-1992 and two updates to it in 2000 and 2010, and the other was a 2006 update to the citywide historic resources survey. Each of these four studies covered the entire La Quinta city limits, well beyond the current project boundaries. Among the seven area-specific studies, four were Phase I surveys or archaeological monitoring programs that only covered small portions of the project area along the eastern edge. The other three, completed in 1979, 1987, and 1998, included all or most of the project area (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1979; Gallegos et al. 1987; Love et al. 1998). However, these three studies are now more than 20 years old and are considered out-of-date for statutory compliance purposes today, thus necessitating the current study. Within the one-mile scope of the records search, EIC records show nearly 60 additional studies on various tracts of land and linear features, reflecting the rapid growth of the project vicinity over the past 40 years. Collectively, these studies covered more than 90% of the land within the scope of the records search and resulted in the identification and recordation of 70 historical/archaeological sites and 49 isolates within the one-mile radius. Among these, eight of the sites and one of the isolates dated to the historic period, representing mostly residential buildings and ranch/farm complexes but also including a date palm garden, a well, and refuse items. The vast majority of the previously recorded cultural resources, accounting for 62 sites and 48 isolates, were of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin, which attests to the rich archaeological heritage of the La Quinta area from the prehistoric era. The sites consisted mainly of ceramic and lithic scatters with some bedrock milling features, groundstone artifacts, and the remnants of fire hearths. Some of the larger concentrations of artifacts have been interpreted as habitation or fish camp sites, especially an immense, 40-acre habitation area recorded at 33-005212. A few of the sites also included rock art panels and human cremation remains. Unique artefactual remains included processed clay and a stone ball. A total of 43 prehistoric isolates consisted of pottery sherds, while three manos, one Anadonta fragment and one Olivella bead fragment were also recorded. Based on existing records, ten of the sites and six of the isolates were recorded within or partially within the current project area, as listed below: Site 33-000193 rock art panels Site 33-001715 rock art panels with artifact scatter and historic-period graffiti Site 33-001716 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-001717 ceramic sherds, flake, sun-colored amethyst glass Site 33-005213 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-005214 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-008386 ceramic sherd scatter Site 33-008388 historic-period farm complex with partially collapsed adobe house Site 33-009545 rock art panels Site 33-011625 abandoned single-family residence Isolate 33-009000 two ceramic sherds Isolate 33-009001 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-009002 one ceramic sherd 11 Isolate 33-009003 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-009004 one ceramic sherd Isolate 33-009005 one ceramic sherd As recorded previously, eight of sites and all of the isolates were entirely or primarily prehistoric in origin, and the other two sites dated to the historic period. The recorded locations of these sites and isolates were re-visited during the field survey, including the portions of the sites that ultimately proved to be outside project boundaries, and the pertinent field observations are discussed in the sections below. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Historical sources consulted for this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities within the project area prior to the 1910s. Between 1855 and 1903, the only man-made feature known to be extant in the project vicinity was a “Road from Indian Wells to Torres,” a part of the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail, which ran roughly 1,000 feet to the east of the project location (Figs. 5-7). By the late 1930s and early 1940s, the segment of Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail near the project location had been abandoned in favor of a regular grid of new roads, including the forerunners of today’s Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and had disappeared from the landscape as a result of agricultural development in the vicinity during the early 20th century (Fig. 8; CVWD 1939). Meanwhile, most of the project area had been developed by that time into an agricultural enterprise known in the 1950s as the Coral Reef Ranch (Fig. 1; CVWD 1939). Past studies in the project area suggest that the ranch was established by Hartman P. Travis, a Los Angeles physician, and his associate Lawton Clary, who managed the property in Travis’ absence, on 320 acres of land that Travis had acquired from the U.S. government in 1918 through a desert land claim (Love et al. 1998:44; BLM n.d.). In 1941, at least four buildings were present on the landholdings of the ranch, all clustered on the northern edge of the project area (Fig. 8). The remains of the ranch complex, including the partially collapsed adobe house, have been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory as Site 33-008388 (Love et al. 1998:41-44; Norwood 1998). In 1953-1954, another residence was built on the eastern edge of the project area (Fig. 9; Woodard 2002). Located on the east side of the Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856. (Source: GLO 1856) 12 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: USGS 1904) Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903. (Source: GLO 1903) Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: USGS 1941a; 1941b) Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959. (Source: USGS 1956; 1959b) 13 original alignment of Madison Street, this house has been recorded as Site 33-011625 (ibid.). On the Coral Reef Ranch to the west, some of the buildings present in 1941 had been removed by the 1950s, but the farming operations continued well into the late 20th century before finally being abandoned by the 1990s (Fig. 9; NETR Online 1953-1996; Love et al. 1998:3). Since then, the entire project area has stood undeveloped to the present time (NETR Online 1996-2016; Google Earth 1996-2018). The only notable change to the landscape in the project area over the past 20 years was the realignment of Madison Street to its current route along the eastern project boundary in 2004, which resulted in the demolition of the residence at Site 33-011625 (Google Earth 2004). NATIVE AMERICAN INPUT In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC reported in a letter dated July 23, 2019, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area but recommended that local Native American groups be contacted for further information. For that purpose, the NAHC provided a list of potential contacts in the region (see App. 2). Upon receiving the NAHC’s reply, on July 26 CRM TECH sent written requests for comments to all 11 tribal organizations on the referral list. For some of the tribes, the designated spokespersons on cultural resources issues was contacted in lieu of the individuals on the referral list, as recommended in the past by the tribal government staff. The 11 tribal representatives contacted are listed below: • Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Amanda Vance, Chairperson, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians; • Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; • BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural Coordinator, Cahuilla Band of Indians; • Shane Chapparosa, Chairperson, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians; • Travis Armstrong, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Morongo Band of Mission Indians; • John Gomez, Jr., Cultural Resource Coordinator, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Mercedes Estrada, Tribal Administrative Assistant, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; • Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resources Coordinator, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; • Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. As of this time, five tribal representatives have responded in writing (see App. 2). Among them, Victoria Martin, Tribal Secretary for the Augustine Band, Nancy Markwardt, Recording Administrator/Office Manager for the Cabazon Band, and BobbyRay Esparza of the Cahuilla Band stated that their tribes were unaware of any cultural resources within the project area. Mr. Esparza requested notification of future progress of the project, while Ms. Martin requested notification of any cultural resource recovery during the project. Lacy Padilla, Archaeologist with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office, requested copies of all cultural resource documentation for this project for tribal review as well as tribal monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities during the project. Travis Armstrong of the Morongo Band replied initially that the tribe had no additional information to provide at this time and would likely defer to the Agua Caliente Band during further consultations for this project under provisions 14 of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. In a later follow-up, he added that the tribe might provide other information to the City of La Quinta during AB 52 consultations. In addition to the written replies, Daniel Mirelez, tribal monitor for the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, provided verbal comments while participating in the archaeological field survey. His comments were focused on the three rock art sites located within or partially within the project area, stating that the rock art panels found at these sites should be protected during the project. POTENTIAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA During the field survey, it was noted that the ground surface in much of the project area has been disturbed to various degrees, although the westernmost portion at the base of Coral Mountain remains in a relatively natural state. Scattered modern refuse, of no historical or archaeological interest, was observed over much of the project area, especially along the project boundaries and in the vicinity of the adobe house at Site 33-008388, which has been heavily vandalized and appears to serve today as a transient camp (Fig. 4). Two of the recorded prehistoric archaeological sites and four of the isolates, namely 33-005214, 33- 005214, 33-009000, 33-009002, 33-009004, and 33-009005, all of them consisting of ceramic sherds, could not be found at their reported locations and are presumed to have been destroyed or removed. One of two previously recorded historic-period sites in the project area, 33-011625, is also no longer extant, having been removed during the Madison Street realignment project in 2004, as noted above. In the meantime, six previously unknown historical/archaeological resources were identified and recorded in the project area during the survey, including one prehistoric site, three prehistoric isolates, and two historic-period isolates. These were subsequently designated by the EIC as Site 33- 028909 and Isolates 33-028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33-028912. The prehistoric site and isolates again consist entirely of ceramic sherds, while the historic-period isolates are both single pieces of sun-colored amethyst glass. On balance, a total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within project boundaries today. Three of the sites contain panels of rock art as well as other associated artifacts and features. As they are all situated in proximity to each other along the eastern base of Coral Mountain, they have been termed the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex. All of the sites and isolates identified within the project area are discussed in further detail below (Fig. 10; see App. 3 for locations and record forms). Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex Site 33-000193 (CA-RIV-193) Originally recorded in 1973, Site 33-000193 consists of six petroglyph panels with over 220 carved surfaces, one bedrock metate, and a small ceramic scatter located along the base of the southeastern most extent of Coral Mountain (Shepard 1973; McCarthy 1987; Quinn 1998a; McCarthy and Moriquand 2003). When first recorded, the site was interpreted as “an old family or clan area,” 15 Figure 10. Prehistoric and historic cultural remains in the project area. Clockwise from upper left: rock art panel Nos. 5 and 6 at 33-000193; petroglyphs at 33-001715; mortars in tufa-coated boulder at 33-001715; rock art panel No. 1 at 33-009545; ceramic sherds at 33-001716; sun-colored amethyst glass at 33-028907. (Photographs taken on August 6-9, 2019) where house rings, fire pits, remains of a hand-dug well, and a cremation area were also reported, along with a small scatter of pottery and lithic artifacts (Shepard 1973). The petroglyph panels are pecked into tufa, and Shepard (1973) produced drawings of eight design elements, all of which were relocated during the 1998 survey (Love et al. 1998). Panels 1 through 7 are in a small alcove. Panel 8 and 9 are located further to the north. Two of the panels have been interpreted as containing Japanese kanji ideograms, likely carved between circa 1910 and 1927 with a hammer and chisel (McCarthy and Moriquand 2005:49-50). One of the ideograms is eroding, but the other has been interpreted to read “higashi” or “east” (ibid.). Records show a Higashi family as being resident Japanese settlers in the Coachella Valley during that time period, and it is considered coincidental that “higashi” translates as “east” and that the ideogram faces east (ibid.). 16 During the current field survey, 33-000193 was revisited and its current condition noted. All of the panels remain and the petroglyphs are clearly visible except for Panel 7, on which the petroglyph is eroding and difficult to see. A tremendous amount of modern graffiti has been carved into the rocks surrounding the petroglyphs, but the petroglyphs retain their original design elements and have not been vandalized. A single buffware ceramic sherd was observed in the alcove near Panels 1-7. The two cremations observed in 1973 were apparently removed for reburial prior to 1980 (Gallegos et al. 1987:4). Site 33-001715 (CA-RIV-1715) First recorded during the 1979 survey of the project area, Site 33-001715 was initially described as a pottery sherd scatter of very light to moderate density, shown in existing site records as lying in the same general vicinity as 33-000037 and partially overlapping the latter site (Kearns 1979a). The rock art panels at this site were mistakenly thought to be part of 33-000037 as recorded by Safford (1947). Site 33-000037 has since been re-located some two miles to the southwest of this location (Quinn 1998b). During the 1998 survey, all of the designs described by Kearns in 1979 were re-located, and several additional designs were noted as well (Love et al. 1998). In addition to the rock art panels, artifactual remains have been recorded on the ground surface to the east, including some 90 ceramic sherds, four manos or mano fragments, and a metate fragment (ibid.). McCarthy and Moriquand (2003; 2005) also described mortars, milling slicks, historic-period graffiti, and Japanese kanji ideograms at the site. The historic-period graffiti includes names and dates ranging from as early as “Barney 1864” to “Lloyd Duro 1946” (McCarthy and Moriquand 2003:18). The Lloyd Duro graffiti includes a cross motif previously thought to be of prehistoric origin. Lloyd Duro and his brother John Duro, whose name is also carved at the site, both lived at Torres Martinez at the time (ibid.). Japanese kanji dating to circa 1910-1927, apparently produced with hammer and chisel, have also been recorded at the site (McCarthy and Moriquand 2005:49-50). Site 33-001715 was revisited during the field survey, and although only Panels 1-3 of the 15 recorded panels are situated within project boundaries (see App. 3), the entire site was surveyed. Modern graffiti is rampant throughout the site, but although much of it is in close proximity to the petroglyphs, few of them appear to be vandalized (Fig. 10). Panel 1 consists of a handprint exhibiting recent carving or re-carving, and may not be Native American in origin. Panel 2 is a multi-element design consisting of a cross and three initials also exhibiting recent carving or re- carving. Panel 3 is on the same boulder as and only a few meters northwest of Panel 2. This element does not exhibit any recent carving and is well repatinated. Mortars described by McCarthy and Moriquand (2003) were observed, including several on a tufa- covered boulder located within project boundaries (Fig. 10). These mortars are unique in that they are the only ones within the Coachella Valley known to be formed in tufa (ibid.:12). Many of the mortars appear to be either modern or extremely altered, likely by shotgun blasts, but several are 17 concluded to be of prehistoric origin. Several more mortars were noted on a ledge outside of project boundaries, and these appear to be unaltered. No new rock art panels were found during the current survey. More than 60 ceramic sherds were found to the north of the panels, within the previously established site boundaries. None of the groundstone artifacts that were observed during the 1998 survey could be found, however. Site 33-009545 (CA-RIV-6404) Situated roughly halfway between 33-000193 and 33-001715, Site 33-009545 was originally recorded by McCarthy (1987) in a site record update for 33-000193 but is now considered a separate site (Quinn 1998c). The site consists of six rock art panels carved into the tufa that covers the granite bedrock boulders. Each of the six rock art panels were revisited during the current survey. As with the other two sites within this rock art complex, the rock surface surrounding the petroglyphs has been heavily vandalized with modern graffiti (Fig. 10). Panels 1 and 6 can be seen relatively clearly in the tufa, but Panels 2, 4, and 5 exhibit a much lower visibility. The overall condition of the six panels is deteriorating due to erosion. Ceramic Sherd Scatters Site 33-001716 (CA-RIV-1716) Site 36-001716 was originally recorded as a small scatter of six sherds, possibly from a single vessel, situated near a large mesquite stand (Kearns 1979b). Two subsequent surveys were not able to relocate these artifacts (Gallegos et al. 1987:7; Love et al. 1998:26). During the current survey, one ceramic sherd was observed within the previously established boundaries of 36-001716 (Fig. 10). The small sherd was located west of a dirt road and appears to be buffware. Site 33-001717 (CA-RIV-1717) Also recorded by Kearns (1979c), Site 33-001717 was described as a small sherd scatter with a possible cremation. When it was revisited in 1987, no evidence of a cremation was found, and three sherds were collected at that time (Gallegos et al. 1987:9). The site was again visited in 1998, at which time a total of 23 ceramic sherds, a quartz flake, and a piece of purple glass were recorded (Love 1998a). As a result, site boundaries were expanded from 3 x 3 m to 120 x 95 m (ibid.). The one piece of sun-colored amethyst glass dated from the early 20th century, giving the site a minor historic component. During the current survey, 33-001717 was revisited, and the only cultural remains observed within site boundaries were three ceramic sherds located northwest of a dirt road. Site 33-008386 (CA-RIV-6120) Site 33-008386 was first recorded as a light scatter of 19 ceramic sherds located south of the former agricultural fields of the Coral Reef Ranch and north of the earthen levee (Love 1998b). The site measured approximately 110 x 60 m in size (ibid.). The current field survey observed 10 ceramic sherds within the site boundaries. The 10 buffware ceramic sherds are in the eastern portion of the site, while the western portion of the site is buried beneath a large stockpile of soil. 18 Historic-period Site Site 33-008388 (CA-RIV-6122) First recorded in 1998, Site 33-008388 represented the remains of buildings and other features of the former Coral Reef Ranch, with a total of six loci and intermittent refuse scatters (Norwood 1998). The most notable feature, the partially collapsed adobe house near the center of the project area, was designated Locus 1 of the site. Historical background research on the site during the 1998 study, on the basis of archival and oral historical sources, suggests that the house was likely built by Ben Clary, a member of Coral Reef Ranch co-owner Lawton Clary’s family, during the 1920s or 1930s (Love et al. 1998:44). Among the other five loci of the site, Locus 2 was a foundation and well or cistern, Locus 3 was a residential foundation, Locus 4 was a pole barn foundation and a well, Locus 5 was a well, cistern and two structural foundations, and Locus 6 was a scatter of artifacts, including some that predate 1920 (Norwood 1998). The site was revisited during the current survey, and the adobe building was found to be vandalized, burned, and further deteriorated, but the walls are standing and the adobe bricks are overall in very good condition (Fig. 4). The rest of the site is mostly intact with the exception of Locus 5, where only one of the two foundations, designated Feature 3 in the original site record, still remains while the rest of the features have all been removed. Prehistoric Isolates Isolates 33-009001 and 33-009003 Prehistoric isolates 33-009001 and 33-009003 were both recorded in 1998 as single brownware sherds (Love 1998c; 1998d). When these isolates were visited during the current study, the sherd at 33-009003 was re-located while an additional sherd was found at 33-009001, bringing the total number of sherds there to two. Newly Recorded Site and Isolates Site 33-028909 (CA-RIV-12949) Located in a former agricultural field in the easternmost portion of the project area, Site 33-028909 is a small ceramic scatter with six buffware sherds. The site measures approximately 30 x 14 m and has been highly disturbed by past agricultural activities. Isolate 33-028907 This isolate consists of a sun-colored amethyst glass shard measuring 4.4 x 4.4 x 0.3 cm (Fig. 10), found in a former agricultural field in the northeastern portion of the project area. Isolate 33-028908 Located in a former agricultural field in the northeastern portion of the project area, 33-028908 consists of a buffware ceramic sherd measuring 1.5 x 1.3 x 0.3 cm in size. 19 Isolate 33-028910 Isolate 33-028910 consists of a piece of sun-colored amethyst glass located in a former agricultural field in the easternmost portion of the project area. The glass shard measures 2.1 x 1.9 x 0.5 cm. Isolate 33-028911 Located south of a former agricultural field and north of the earthen levee in the southernmost portion of the project area, 33-028911 consists of two buffware ceramic sherds measuring 1.7 x 1.4 x 0.3 cm and 7.5 x 5.2 x 3.0 cm. Isolate 33-028912 Isolate 33-028912 consists of a single buffware sherd located south of a former agricultural field, in the southern portion of the project area. It measures 4.0 x 2.8 x 0.3 cm in size. Previously Recorded Sites and Isolates Not Re-located Site 33-005213 (CA-RIV-5213) Site 33-005213 was recorded in 1987 as consisting of five ceramic concentrations containing 131 sherds and six rim sherds (Gallegos et al. 1987:10). All of the artifacts were collected at that time (ibid.). The reported location of this site was visited during the 1998 study, but no artifacts were found (Love et al. 1998:31). The site location was visited again during this study, and it was confirmed that no archaeological remains could be found in that area. Site 33-005214 (CA-RIV-5214) Also recorded in 1987, 33-005214 consisted of a scatter of 21 ceramic sherds (Gallegos et al. 1987:10). The site was updated in 1998, at which time 13 ceramic sherds were found at the site (Love et al. 1998:33). During the current survey, the location of the site was revisited but none of the sherds was found. It is possible that the site has been covered by shifting sands. Site 33-011625 33-011625 represented an abandoned single-family residence at 58-500 Madison Street, on the eastern edge of the current project area. Constructed in 1953-1954, the house was recorded during a 2002 survey for the then-proposed Madison Street realignment project and was determined not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the time (Woodard 2002:3). It was subsequently demolished during that project in 2004 (Google Earth 2004), and its former site is now occupied by the new Madison Street right-of-way. Isolates 33-009000, 33-009002, 33-009004, and 33-009005 Isolate 33-009000 consisted of two brownware ceramic sherds while the other three isolates consisted of a single sherd each (Love et al. 1998). None of these artifacts could be found at the recorded location during this study. 20 DISCUSSION APPLICABLE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY GUIDELINES The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area and to assist the City of La Quinta in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) RESOURCE EVALUATION In summary of the research results outlined above, a total of 22 cultural resources, including 11 historical/archaeological sites and 11 isolates, have been recorded as lying within or partially within the project area, and eight of the sites and seven of the isolates remain extant today. Pursuant to CEQA provisions, these 15 cultural resources are evaluated below under the criteria for listing in the California Register. The three sites and four isolates that are no longer present in the project area do not require any further consideration in the CEQA-compliance process for this project. Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex (33-000193, 33-001715, and 33-009545) Two of the three rock art sites in the project area, 33-000193 and 33-001715, were previously evaluated in 2003 by McCarthy and Moriquand (2003:27). According to their evaluation: Using the criteria for National Register of Historic Places to evaluate the significance of the rock art, it is recommended that these sites, RIV-193 and -1715, are eligible under Criterion “c” and “d.” These criteria relate to sites that contains works that “...possess high artistic values...” and “...may be likely to yield information important in prehistory...” The images present at Coral Mountain likely 21 represent a style of rock art that was produced within a very narrow span of time. The petroglyphs at RIV-193 and -1715 and the milling features and ceramic at RIV-1715 are contributing elements to their eligibility. The kinds of information important to the prehistory these sites have provided or are likely to contain include (1) distribution and design element inventory of petroglyphs, a recognized sensitive resource to contemporary Native Americans; (2) designs that may be unique in themselves and represent a style and time period not yet fully recognized and described; (3) data about milling features unique to the Coachella Valley that reflects part of the subsistence patterns of the valley post Lake Cahuilla; (4) unique opportunity to study ethnic petroglyphs (i.e., kanji); and, (5) data on the ceramic manufacturing and distribution of local vs. exotic wares through further analysis. As the criteria for the National Register and the California Register are essentially identical, Sites 33-000193 and 33-001715 are considered eligible for listing in the California Register as well under Criteria 3 and 4 above. The third site in this group, 33-009545, in composed of very similar features of rock art and geographically forms a link between the other two sites (see App. 3). Therefore, it meets Criteria 3 and 4 for the California Register for similar reasons and, in addition, as an important contributor to the significance of the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex as a whole. Based on these considerations, the present study concludes that Sites 33-000193, 33-001715, and 33-009545 meet CEQA’s definition of “historical resources” individually as well as collectively. Ceramic Sherd Scatters (33-001716, 33-001717, 33-008386, and 33-028909) Site 33-001717 was previously determined not to be eligible for listing in the California Register due to the low number of artifacts and the minimal archaeological data potential (Love 1998a:2). Similarly, 33-008386 was described as having “very little research potential” (Love 1998b:2). The same rationale also applies to Sites 33-001716 and 33-028909, where one single sherd and a scatter of six sherds, respectively, were found during this study. The information potential of these small, sparse ceramic scatters has essentially been exhausted through their recordation, and the sites do not demonstrate any other unique or remarkable qualities. Therefore, none of these four sites appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and none of them qualifies as a “historical resource.” Historic-period Site (33-008388) Site 33-008388, representing the remains of the former Coral Reef Ranch that was first established in the1910s, was previously determined to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 4 because of its “potential to add important information about the early pioneer days of this part of the Coachella Valley” and for a “demonstrable public interest” (Love et al. 1998:51). Today, the conditions of many features at the site, including the partially collapsed adobe house, have further deteriorated, and some of the features at Locus 5 have been removed, but the overall integrity of the site remains largely unchanged from the level noted in 1998. As the remnants of one of the earliest settlements and agricultural enterprises to be established in the present-day boundaries of the City of La Quinta, Site 33-008388 remains eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 4, as noted in 1998, with a local level of significance. To a lesser extent, it also exhibits a local level of significance under Criterion 2 for its 22 association with the early settlement and growth of La Quinta as a pattern of events that has made an important contribution to the development of the community. Accordingly, CRM TECH reiterates the 1998 conclusion that Site 33-008388 meets the definition of a “historical resource.” Isolates (33-009001, 33-009003, 33-028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33-028912) The isolates located within the project area consist of either prehistoric ceramic sherds or glass fragments from the historic period, with no associated archaeological features or other artifacts. By definition, isolates like these do not qualify as archaeological sites due to the lack of contextual integrity. Therefore, Isolates 33-009001, 33-009003, 33-028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33- 028912 are not considered potential “historical resources,” and require no further consideration in the CEQA-compliance process. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.” As stated above, among the eight historical/archaeological sites and seven isolates currently in existence within or partially within the project area, Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, collectively comprising the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex, and Site 33-008388 appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and thus meet the definition of “historical resources.” Under CEQA provisions, the impact on these sites from the proposed project that would compromise their integrity would constitute “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” In order to prevent or mitigate potential project impact to the four sites that constitute “historical resources,” CRM TECH recommends that the rock art panels and bedrock milling features at Sites 33-000193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, be avoided and protected in situ during the project through the establishment of an Environmentally Sensitive Area. If any disturbance to the balance of these three sites cannot be avoided, especially to the portion of the larger 33-001715 lying on the level valley floor, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation should be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. For Site 33-008388, CRM TECH recommends a comprehensive recordation program to reduce project impact to a level less than significant. As outlined in the 1998 study: …[D]etailed drawings and measurements are required to preserve the information about [the adobe] 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 23 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. (Love et al. 1998:54) None of the other sites or isolates present within the project area appears eligible for the California Register. Therefore, they do not qualify as “historical resources” and require no further consideration in the CEQA-compliance process. However, given the rich archaeological discoveries in and near the project area documented in the current and previous studies, the possibility of encountering buried prehistoric cultural remains during the project cannot be overlooked. Therefore, CRM TECH further recommends that archaeological monitoring be implemented during ground- disturbing activities associated with the project. The monitoring program should be coordinated with the pertinent local Native American groups, who may wish to participate. 24 REFERENCES Anderson, M. Kat 2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. The Official Federal Land Records Site. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov. City of La Quinta 1997 City of La Quinta Historic Context Statement (Draft). On file, City of La Quinta Community Development Department. CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.) 2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm. CVWD (Coachella Valley Water District) 1939 Whitewater River and Tributaries, California; aerial photograph taken on November 27, 1939. On file, CVWD Engineering Department, Coachella. Gallegos, Dennis, Carolyn Kyle, and Roxana Phillips 1987 Cultural Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1903 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian; surveyed in 1903. Google Earth 1996-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1996, 2002, 2004-2006, 2009, and 2011-2018. Available through the Google Earth software. Gunther, Jane Davies 1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D. Gunther, Riverside. Johnston, Francis J. 1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside. Kearns, T.M. 1979a California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-001715 (CA-RIV-1715). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1979b California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-001716 (CA-RIV-1716). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1979c California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-001717 (CA-RIV-1717). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 25 Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Laflin, Patricia 1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Love, Bruce 1998a California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-001717 (CA-RIV-1717) update. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1998b California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-008386 (CA-RIV-6120). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1998c California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-009001. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1998d California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-009003. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Love, Bruce, Bai “Tom” Tang, Harry M. Quinn, and Richard H. Norwood 1998 Cultural Resources Report: Coral Mountain Project, Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. McCarthy, Daniel 1987 California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-000193 (CA-RIV-193) update. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. McCarthy, Daniel, and Leslie Moriquand 2003 Inventory, Analysis, and National Registry Evaluation of Two Rock Art Sites at Coral Mountain (CA-RIV-193 and CA-RIV-1715), La Quinta, Riverside County, California. On file, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada. 2005 Three Rock Art Sites at Coral Mountain, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(4):27-61. Norwood, Richard H. 1998 California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-008388 (CA-RIV-6122). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Quinn, Harry 1998a California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-000193 (CA-RIV-193) update. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1998b California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-001715 (CA-RIV-1715) update. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1998c California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-009545 (CA-RIV-6404). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. NETR Online 1953-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1953, 1972, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. http://www.historicaerials.com. Robinson, W.W. 1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Ross, Delmer G. 1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California. 26 Safford, ? 1947 California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-000037 (CA-RIV-37). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Schaefer, Jerry 1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1979 Archaeological Survey Report on the O’Neal Property, Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Shepard, C. 1973 California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-000193 (CA-RIV-193). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Shields Date Gardens 1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. 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 photographs taken in 1941. 1941b Map: Toro Peak, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1956 Map: Map: Coachella, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1952-1953, field-checked in 1955-1956. 1959a Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); aerial photographs taken in 1952-1955, field- checked in 1959. 1959b Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1954, field-checked in 1957-1959. 1972a Map: Indio, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised in 1972. 1972b Map: Valerie, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised in 1972. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised in 1978. 1996 Map: Martinez Mtn., Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised in 1994. Woodard, Teresa 2002 California Historical Resources Inventory record forms, 33-011625. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 27 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN/ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China. 2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural 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. 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. Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 28 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA* Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level. UCLA Extension Course #888. 2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist. 2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms. Research Interests Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity. Cultural Resources Management Reports Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986. Memberships * Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 29 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER Deirdre Encarnación, M.A. Education 2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. 2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University, California. 1993 A.A., Communications, Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y. 2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. Professional Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California. 2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University. 2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation. Memberships Society for California Archaeology; Society for Hawaiian Archaeology; California Native Plant Society. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICAN LIAISON 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. Cultural Resources Management Reports Co-author of and contributor to numerous cultural resources management reports since 2004. 30 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/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. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino. 2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California. Professional Experience 2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands. 1999-2002 Project 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. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 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. 31 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 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. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 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. 32 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/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. Memberships Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 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. 33 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST 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. 34 APPENDIX 2 CORRESPONDENCE WITH NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES* * A total of 11 local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report. SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916)373-3710 (916)373-5471 Fax nahc@pacbell.net Project: Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project (CRM TECH No. 3511A) County: Riverside USGS Quadrangle Name: La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mtn, and Valerie, Calif. Township 6 South Range 7 East SB BM; Section(s) 27 and 28 Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH Contact Person: Nina Gallardo Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324 Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405 Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us Project Description: The primary component of the project is a residential development on approximately 385 acres of land located on the west side of Madison Street, between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. July 2, 2019 From: Nina Gallardo <ngallardo@crmtech.us> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:44 PM To: Michael Mirelez Subject: Participation in Fieldwork for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Hello, I’m emailing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural resources study for the proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A). I’m contacting you to see if the tribe would like to participate in the field survey for the project and we will contact the tribe again when we have a specific time and date for the fieldwork. I’m attaching the project area map and other information. Please feel free to email back with any questions regarding the proposed project and availability for the field survey. Thank you for your time and input on this project. Nina Gallardo CRM TECH July 26, 2019 Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project 385 Acres in the City of La Quinta Riverside County, California CRM TECH Contract #3511 Dear Ms. Garcia-Plotkin: I am writing to bring your attention to an ongoing CEQA-compliance study for the proposed project referenced above. The project entails the construction of a residential development but will also include a hotel and a commercial center on approximately 385 acres of land that is located on the west side of Madison Street, between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, in the City of La Quinta. The subject property was previously surveyed for cultural resources during several past studies that covered much larger areas in 1979, 1987, and 1998. At least ten sites and six isolates have been recorded within the current project area. The accompanying map, based on the USGS La Quinta, Indio, Martinez Mountain, and Valerie, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles, depicts the location of the project area in Sections 27 and 28, T6S R7E, SBBM. In a letter dated July 23, 2019, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the sacred lands record search was negative, but recommends that local Native American groups be contacted for further information (see attached). Therefore, as part of the cultural resources study for this project, I am writing to request your input on potential Native American cultural resources in or near the project area. Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious sites or other sites of Native American traditional cultural value in or near the project area, or any other information to consider during the cultural resources investigations. Any information or concerns may be forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail. Requests for documentation or information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead agency, namely the City of La Quinta. We would also like to clarify that, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, CRM TECH is not involved in the AB 52-compliance process or in government-to-government consultations. The purpose of this letter is to seek any information that you may have to help us determine if there are cultural resources in or near the project area that we should be aware of and to help us assess the sensitivity of the project area. Thank you for your time and effort in addressing this important matter. Respectfully, Nina Gallardo Project Archaeologist/Native American liaison CRM TECH Encl.: NAHC response letter and project location map From: Markwardt, Nancy <nmarkwardt@cabazonindians-nsn.gov> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 11:06 AM To: ‘ngallardo@crmtech.us’ Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Good morning. Thank you for reaching out directly to the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. There is no presence of Native American cultural resources that may be impacted by your future project, the proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project on 385 acres in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, CA. Good luck with your future project. Nancy Markwardt Recording Administrator/Office Manager On behalf of Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, Ca 92203 Office: (760) 342-2593 Fax: (760) 347-7880 From: Cultural Department <culturaldirector@cahuilla.net> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:42 AM To: ngallardo@crmtech.us Cc: anthony madrigal Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Good Morning Ms. Gallardo, The Cahuilla Band of Indians received your letter regarding the above project located in Riverside County, Ca. The Cahuilla Band does not have knowledge of any cultural resources within or near the project area. Although this project is outside the Cahuilla reservation boundary it is within the Cahuilla traditional land use area. We request to be notified of all updates and/or changes with the project moving forward and appreciate your help in preserving Tribal Cultural Resources in your project. Respectfully, BobbyRay Esparza Cultural Coordinator Cahuilla Band of Indians Cell: (760)423-2773 Office: (951)763-5549 Fax:(951)763-2808 From: Tribal Historic Preservation Office <thpo@morongo-nsn.gov> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 12:49 PM To: ‘ngallardo@crmtech.us’ Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Hello, Thank you for your letter regarding the project. We have no additional information to provide at this time and will likely defer to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla for this project during the AB 52 process. Thank you for reaching out to our office. Sincerely, Travis Armstrong Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Morongo Band of Mission Indians 951-755-5259 Email: thpo@morongo-nsn.gov From: Nina Gallardo <ngallardo@crmtech.us> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:56 PM To: Michael Mirelez Subject: FW: Participation in Fieldwork for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Hello Michael, I’m emailing to see if the tribe has a monitor available to participate in the fieldwork for the projects in La Quinta. I’m attaching the project area map and other information for the project. I spoke with Daniel Ballester and he stated that he would like to conduct the survey possible this Tuesday morning (8/6) around 6 am. Please let me know if this date and time is convenient for the tribe. Thanks again for your time, Nina Gallardo CRM TECH From: Tribal Historic Preservation Office <thpo@morongo-nsn.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:59 AM To: ngallardo@crmtech.us Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Wave at Coral Mountain Project in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County (CRM TECH No. 3511A) Hello, Regarding the above referenced project, we have no additional comments to provide at this time but may provide other information to the lead agency during the AB 52 consultation process. Thank you for reaching out to our office. Sincerely, Travis Armstrong Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Morongo Band of Mission Indians 951-755-5259 Email: thpo@morongo-nsn.gov