Bi 1 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report

Home , Merv Griffin

BI 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015

ITEMS: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2014-1001 TENTATIVE TRACT 36744 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2014-1003

APPLICANT: GRIFFIN RANCH INVESTORS, LP (MARK MAJER)

CONSULTANT: CRM TECH

PROJECT: THE ESTATES AT GRIFFIN LAKE

LOCATION: 81345 AVENUE 54

BACKGROUND:

The study area is a 40±acre site located on the south side of Avenue 54, between Monroe and Madison Streets. The property, varying between 10-20 feet below mean sea level, was developed as a residential and equestrian compound built during the late 1970’s through mid-1980’s, and was formerly owned by the late Merv Griffin. The property is bordered by the Griffin Ranch residential project to the south, east and west, with the Madison Club development across Avenue 54 to the north. The City is currently processing development applications proposing to subdivide the site into 78 single-family lots, leaving the original Merv Griffin estate intact and expanding the existing 2.1-acre pond to a 6-acre lake.

A Phase I (survey level) Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey was completed for the subject property. The Survey includes a record search and field survey of the property. As per SB 18 procedure, the City requested comments from tribal contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. The 90-day consultation period passed with no consultation requests or specific comments on the project being received.

A Paleontological Resources Assessment was also completed for the property, which includes a field survey, records search, findings from the area and personnel qualifications.

Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 1 of 4

These reports, when accepted, will be part of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project application.

DISCUSSION:

Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey - A comprehensive records search and on- site investigation were conducted on the project site by CRM Tech. CRM Tech also contacted local Tribes and received no information identifying traditional cultural sites on or in the vicinity of the project site. The records search determined that the site was not previously surveyed. However, more than 30 prior studies have historically been conducted within one mile of the project site. These studies uncovered 24 historic/archaeological sites and 63 isolates (sites with less than 3 artifacts). As none of these were recorded in the project site’s immediate vicinity, no further consideration under this survey is warranted.

The on-site investigation identified no historic or prehistoric materials within the project area. Historical sources consulted suggest the area remained mostly undeveloped by man until the 1950’s. No evidence of any buildings constructed prior to 1978 was found; all existing buildings on the site are consistent with the period during which Mr. Griffin developed the property and are considered modern. Overall, the entire project area has been disturbed by past development.

The field survey showed no potential for cultural resources on the site. CRM Tech concluded that the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historic resource, no further cultural resource investigation is necessary, and has recommended that, should any cultural materials be unearthed, all work in that area should be halted so that the materials can be examined and evaluated by a qualified archaeological monitor. HPC policy requires monitoring in this part of the City regardless of whether artifacts were found during a Phase I survey.

Paleontological Resources Assessment – CRM Tech conducted a review of previous records searches in the project vicinity through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. Additionally, a literature search of the consultant’s in-house library and personal records was also conducted. Though the results indicate that no paleontological localities have been discovered within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, several localities have been previously reported in nearby areas that share the project area’s soils characteristics. The San Bernardo County Museum finds the project vicinity to have a “high paleontological sensitivity” and that the project has a “high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources.” The Natural History Museum reflects a similar concern.

A field survey was conducted on April 4, 2014, by CRM Tech staff. While it was noted that development activities have heavily disturbed the project area, scattered shells and

Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 2 of 4 shell fragments of freshwater species were observed, which attribute the project site to being located within the Holocene Lake Cahuilla lakebed sequence.

The report concludes that the proposed site may contain sediments from which many Holocene localities are known to have been found. It was also concluded that some of these sediments may be present beneath the site and are considered as high paleontological sensitivity. Due to the extensively disturbed condition of the site, periodic monitoring is recommended for demolition, grubbing and shallow grading (up to a 2 foot depth) and a paleontologic mitigation program to mitigate impacts to be developed and implemented by a qualified monitor equipped to salvage, collect, record, identify, and preserve unearthed fossils.

Historic Preservation Commission policy has been to require monitoring of the entire site during its rough grading as well as trenching if the initial field survey found any fossil mollusk shells on the surface.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Minute Motion 2015-_____, accepting the “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey; Merv Griffin Estates Project” prepared by CRM Tech for 81345 Avenue 54, and recommend to the Planning Commission the following requirements:

 If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

 If any resource recovery occurs, a final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

 Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self-seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid-free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics.

2. Adopt Minute Motion 2015-_____, accepting the “Paleontological Resources Assessment Report; Merv Griffin Estates Project” prepared by CRM Tech for 81345 Avenue 54, and recommend to the Planning Commission the following requirements:

 A paleontological resource impact mitigation program shall be developed and implemented for the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of

Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 3 of 4

CEQA, as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The primary component of the mitigation program will be monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified personnel. Since the surface soils have been extensively disturbed in the past, only periodic monitoring is recommended during demolition, tree removal, grubbing, or shallow surface grading. Continuous monitoring shall be conducted for deeper grading and excavations that reach beyond a depth of two feet. The mitigation program should include but not belimited to the following:

 On- and off-site monitoring of earth-moving and grading in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a monitor has been retained shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth-moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun.

 Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils.

 Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future.

 A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

 Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City for curation. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry.

Report prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner Report approved for submission by: Les Johnson, Community Development Director

Attachments: 1. Historic/Archaeological Resources Survey; Merv Griffin Estates Project – CRM Tech 2. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report; Merv Griffin Estates Project – CRM Tech

Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report - February 20, 2014 Page 4 of 4

ATTACHMENT 1

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY

MERV GRIFFIN ESTATES PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 767-320-013

81-345 Avenue 54, City of La Quinta Riverside County, California

For Submittal to:

Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tempico La Quinta, CA 92253

Prepared for:

Mark Majer, Manager Griffin Ranch Investors, LP 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660

Prepared by:

CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324

Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator

May 15, 2014 CRM TECH Contract No. 2805A

Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liason

Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400

Date: May 15, 2014 (fieldwork completed on April 30, 2014)

Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Merv Griffin Estates Project, Assessor’s Parcel No. 767-320-013, 81345 Avenue 54, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California

For Submittal to: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tempico La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 777-7000

Prepared for: Mark Majer, Manager Griffin Ranch Investors, LP 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 629-2580

USGS Quadrangle: Indio, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)

Project Size: Approximately 40 acres

Keywords: Coachella Valley area, Riverside County; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey; no “historical resources” affected

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on the former Merv Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in Assessor’s Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.

The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the existing residential compound. The City of La Quinta, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 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. Through these various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any “historical resources” within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of La Quinta a finding of No Impact regarding cultural resources.

No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth- moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... i INTRODUCTION ...... 1 SETTING ...... 3 Current Natural Setting ...... 3 Cultural Setting ...... 3 Prehistoric Context...... 3 Ethnohistoric Context ...... 4 Historic Context ...... 5 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 6 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 7 Records Search...... 7 Historical Research ...... 8 Native American Participation ...... 8 Field Survey ...... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...... 8 Records Search...... 8 Historical Research ...... 9 Native American Participation ...... 12 Field Survey ...... 13 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ...... 14 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15 REFERENCES ...... 16 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ...... 18 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ...... 22

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project vicinity...... 1 Figure 2. Project area ...... 2 Figure 3. Typical landscapes in the project area ...... 3 Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies ...... 10 Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1856 ...... 11 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ...... 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903 ...... 11 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ...... 12 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1921-1959 ...... 12 Figure 10. Modern features of the former Merv Griffin estate ...... 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Vicinity ...... 9

ii INTRODUCTION

In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on the former Merv Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in Assessor’s Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 2).

The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the existing residential compound. 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.) and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code). 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.

Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979])

Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio and La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1972; 1980])

2 SETTING

CURRENT NATURAL SETTING

The project area 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 project area and its surrounding 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 near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.

As mentioned above, the project area is occupied by a number of buildings and other facilities of the former Merv Griffin estate, including the main residence, guesthouses, gazebos, and a pond in the northwestern portion, stables and corrals in the northeastern portion, and an equestrian racetrack in the southern portion (Fig. 3). Elevations on the property range around 10-20 feet below mean sea level, and the terrain is relatively level with a slight incline to the northwest. Soils consist of light grey fine sands mixed with freshwater shells, and the vegetation observed in the project area includes both introduced landscaping plants and some native vegetation, such as palms, palo verdes, tamarisks, eucalyptuses, pepper trees, and small desert shrubs and grasses (Fig. 3).

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

Figure 3. Typical landscapes within the project area. Clockwise from top left: view to the south across the equestrian racetrack; landscaping waste; existing buildings; shell deposits in the surface soils. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)

3 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” of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed 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 relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.

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 more heavily 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; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremations.

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 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). The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on 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. 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

4 their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.

The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited 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. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment.

The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally available material as well as exotic material 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.).

Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of 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, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, and Morongo

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 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

5 (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 cove area of La Quinta 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 DESIGN

Scientific research should be directed by a theoretical orientation that is geared toward gathering data to answer questions of current research interest. While numerous theoretical orientations have been put forward and used to guide archaeological research and to improve data-collecting efforts, the cultural ecology approach still tends to be the most useful paradigm in archaeological endeavors, although it is often used in conjunction with newer models. Basically, the cultural ecology approach to understanding cultural development contends that people develop behavioral patterns in order to exploit the resources of the area by means of particular technologies. It also assumes that there is interrelationship of these technologies, the environment, survival, and other aspects of the culture.

Since archaeology deals mostly with the cultural remains that are left long after the people are gone, this theoretical orientation has obvious advantages for archaeological research, although it is left to the archaeologist to determine the extent to which the behavior patterns used to exploit the environment affect other aspects of culture. Because of its continuing usefulness, the cultural ecology theoretical orientation is the basis of the historical/archaeological investigation used in this study.

In practice, a research design serves to identify research issues and to illuminate new information for the purpose of evaluating the significance of cultural resources present within a study area. While no overarching research design has been established for this part of Riverside County, a standard set of research questions, or research domains, can be applied to historical/archaeological investigations in the region, especially for Phase I studies such as this.

The primary goal of a Phase I survey is to identify any prehistoric or historic-period cultural resources that may be present within the study area. This identification process generally includes a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research, Native American contacts, and a field inspection. While little detailed data may be available from the research methods employed during Phase I studies, some types of data gathered during the investigation may be used to address research issues, at least on a basic level. For instance, just the presence of cultural

6 resources on a property indicates that people used the area. Other research questions, such as those posited below, can be addressed during Phase I studies only if certain types of artifacts or features are found within or near the study area.

• Is there any evidence that important events took place on the property or that the property is associated with a historically important person? • Can anything be learned regarding the time period the area was used? Can it be determined whether people used the area during early or late prehistoric times, or during the historic period? • Can anything be learned about the duration of the use of the land? Was the land used continuously for a long period of time, was it used only briefly, or was it used repeatedly over time? • Can anything be learned about the subsistence strategies of the people who used the land? Is there any evidence visible on the surface that indicates what food resources were being processed and/or consumed? Is there any evidence regarding the preparation of the food resources? • Would any of the information gathered during a Phase I study shed light on settlement patterns? Could activities in the study area be related with broader patterns of human habitation of the region? Did the people live on the property or use it only for resource procurement? If they lived on the property, was it a dense or sparse population? Does occupation of the subject property disclose any information regarding settlement strategies or preferences? • Are there historical/archaeological data to be obtained about trade, travel, or cultural interactions?

In addition, a research design should also outline major themes in the prehistory and history of a region or specific area, so that any cultural resources encountered during a Phase I study could be evaluated within the proper context. Based on the prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic contexts discussed above, the following themes can be established for past human activities in the vicinity of the current project area:

• Exploitation of natural resources by Native Americans during the prehistoric and proto-historic periods; • European/American exploration in the Coachella Valley, especially along the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail; • Early settlement and rural development in present-day La Quinta and the Coachella Valley in general; • Transformation of the “cove communities,” including La Quinta, from sparsely populated agrarian settlements to desert resort towns during the 20th century.

RESEARCH METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH

On April 21, 2014, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo (see App. 1 for qualifications) conducted the historical/archaeological resources records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside. During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources in or near the project area and

7 existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH historian Bai “Tom” Tang (see App. 1 for qualifications) on the basis of published literature in local and regional history, and historic maps of the La Quinta area. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office’s (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856-1903 and the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1980. These maps are collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, located in Moreno Valley.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION

On April 18, 2014, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission for a records search in the commission’s sacred lands file. Following the Native American Heritage Commission’s recommendations, CRM TECH further contacted 16 tribal representatives in the region in writing on April 23 to solicit local Native American input regarding any potential cultural resources concerns over the proposed project. The correspondences between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives are attached to this report in Appendix 2.

FIELD SURVEY

On April 30, 2014, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester (see App. 1 for qualifications) carried out the intensive-level, pedestrian field survey of the project area. Most of the property was surveyed by walking a system of parallel north-south or east-west transects spaced 10-15 meters (approx. 33-50 feet) apart. Where the regular survey transects were impracticable, such as around the existing buildings and structures, Ballester remained as close to the courses of the transects as possible, and examined the exposed ground surface whenever possible.

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). Visibility of the native ground surface ranged from poor (0%) to good (approx. 80%) in the project area, depending upon the density of the vegetation and the presence of other ground cover, such as landscaping waste.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCH

According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no cultural resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property. Outside the

8 project boundaries but within a one-mile radius, EIC records show more than 30 previous cultural resources studies covering various tracts of land and linear features, including the adjacent properties on all sides (Fig. 4).

As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, 24 historical/ archaeological sites were previously recorded within the scope of the records search, as listed in Table 1. In addition, 63 isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—were also recorded, consisting predominantly of ceramic sherds but including groundstone and chipped-stone artifacts as well. All but one of the isolates, a shotgun shell base, were prehistoric—i.e., Native American—in nature. None of these previously recorded sites or isolates was located in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Historical sources consulted for this study suggest that the project area apparently remained unsettled and undeveloped through most of the historic period (Figs. 5-9). Between the 1850s and the early 1900s, the only man-made feature observed in the present-day La Quinta area was the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail, which skirted the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west of the project location (Figs. 5-7). Other than a foot trail along the course of today’s Avenue 54, no man-made features were known to be present in or near the project area as late as 1941,

Table 1. Previously Recorded Sites within the Scope of the Records Search Site No. Recorded by/Date Description 33-000142 Eberhart 1951 Unknown 33-003943 Goodman 1990 Prehistoric temporary camp site 33-003944 Goodman 1990 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-004090 Love and Torres 1990 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-008682 Schroth 1999 Human cremation 33-008683 Schroth 1999 Groundstone and chipped-stone artifacts 33-008684 Schroth 1999 Historic-period refuse scatter 33-008690 Schroth 1999 Historic-period refuse scatter 33-009043 Strudwick et al. 1999 Prehistoric temporary camp site 33-009560 McKenna 1999 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-009561 McKenna 1999 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-009562 McKenna 1999 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-009563 McKenna 1999 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-009564 McKenna 1999 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-011438 Ballester 2002 Ceramic scatter with groundstone and chipped-stone artifacts 33-013753 Boites and Ballester 2004; Prehistoric temporary camp site Ballester 2004 33-013754 Boites and Ballester 2004; Prehistoric temporary camp site Ballester 2004 33-013755 Ballester 2004 Prehistoric temporary camp site 33-013756 Jackson and Ballester 2004; Prehistoric temporary camp site Ballester 2004 33-013975 Tang 2004 Single-family residence 33-014734 Ballester 2005 Prehistoric habitation site with cremation features 33-014735 Ballester 2005 Ceramic sherd scatter 33-015327 Ballester 2005 Prehistoric habitation site 33-015328 Melzer 2005 Prehistoric habitation site

Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure.

10 despite the gradual growth of nearby towns such as La Quinta, Coachella, and Thermal and the sparsely populated agrarian settlements in between (Fig. 8).

By the 1950s, a building had appeared on the northern edge of the project area, beside Avenue 54 (Fig. 9). Between then and 1978, a larger building was constructed in the western portion of the project area, along with the pond that remain extant today (Fig. 2). In 1986, the property was acquired by famed musician, actor, and television host Mervyn Edward “Merv” Griffin, Jr., who used it as a second home and a ranch to raise racehorses (Palm Springs Life 2012; 2013). Most of the features now present on the property, including the lavish residence and the equestrian facilities, were built for Griffin over the next few years (ibid.). The latest addition among them, the racetrack in the southern portion of the project area, dates only Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1856. (Source: to 2006 (Google Inc. 2006). After Griffin’s GLO 1856)

Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1903. (Source: USGS 1904) GLO 1903)

Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1959. USGS 1941a; 1941b) (Source: USGS 1956; 1959)

death in 2007, the estate was eventually sold in 2013, and is now used for vacation rental (Palm Springs Life 2013). As it was completely redeveloped in the late 1980s under the Griffin ownership, the project area appears to be relatively low in sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic period.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION

In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the Native American Heritage Commission reported in a letter dated April 18, 2014, that the sacred lands record search 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 commission provided a list of potential contacts in the region.

Upon receiving the NAHC’s response, CRM TECH requested consultation with all 12 individuals on the referral list and the organizations they represent. In addition, as previously recommended by these tribal representatives or the appropriate tribal government staff, the following four individuals were also contacted:

• Karen Kupcha of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Yvonne Markle, Environmental Office Manager for the Cahuilla Band of Indians; • John Gomez, Jr., Cultural Resources Coordinator for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Gabriella Rubalcava, Environmental Director for the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians.

12 As of this time, two of the tribal representatives have responded in writing. Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, replied in a letter dated April 30, 2014, stating that the tribe had no specific information on any sites of Native American traditional cultural value in the project area. On behalf of the Cabazon Band, Ms. Stapp deferred further consultation to the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (see App. 2).

In a letter dated May 12, 2014, Patricia Garcia, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, noted that tribal records showed no previous cultural resources surveys covering the project area. Ms. Garcia requested copies of the records search results and all other cultural resource documentation generated from this project, and the presence of a professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitor during any ground-disturbing activities associated with the project (see App. 2).

FIELD SURVEY

The intensive-level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources. The entire project area was closely inspected for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic periods, but none was found. Besides the racetrack and the corrals, there are currently at least 11 buildings on the property, including residences, stables, garages, and gazebos, all of which appear consistent in age to the Griffin era in the property’s ownership history, and are thus modern in origin (Fig. 10).

No evidence was found of the buildings that were constructed on the property before 1978, as shown in the historic maps (Figs. 2, 9). Since their former sites are now occupied by modern buildings

Figure 10. Modern features of the former Merv Griffin estate. Clockwise from top left: corral; stable; garage/storage building; residence. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)

13 from the Griffin era, these older buildings were presumably demolished prior to the development of the Griffin estate. In short, no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered during the field survey, and the ground surface in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed as a result of past development, further reducing the property’s potential sensitivity for buried cultural remains from the prehistoric or historic period.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

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 “a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:

(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))

A local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC §5020.1(k), “means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.” For properties within the City of La Quinta, the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code) provides for the establishment of a historic resources inventory as the official local register. A property may be considered for inclusion in the historic resources inventory based on one or more of the following:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or

14 B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of the indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (LQMC §7.06.020)

The results of this study have established that no potential historical resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area, and none was encountered during the present survey. The existing buildings, structures, and other features on the property, while demonstrating a clear connection to Merv Griffin, a prominent celebrity of the entertainment industry, are less than 30 years old today, falling far short of sufficient age to attain historic significance. Furthermore, as a second residence acquired by Griffin is his late years, the estate is not closely tied to his most distinguished professional accomplishments. As a modern creation that does not demonstrate extraordinary historical, architectural, or artistic merits, the former Griffin estate is not considered a potential “historical resource,” as defined above. Based on these findings, the present study concludes that no historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area.

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.”

In summary of the research results outlined above, no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, were encountered throughout the course of this study. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of La Quinta:

• No historical resources exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the project as currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. • No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

REFERENCES

Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. Historical Index, Land Status Records, T5-7S R6-8E, SBBM. Microfiches on file, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Moreno Valley. 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. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1856. 1903 Plat Map: Township No. 6 South Range No. 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1903. Google Inc. 2006 Aerial photographs taken on January 30 and August 4. 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. 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. Palm Springs Life 2012 As Time Goes By: Merv Griffin’s Morocco-Inspired Estate—Created with His Intimate Input—Looks for a New Owner; by Ellen Paris (July). Http://www.palmspringslife.com/Palm- Springs-Life/July-2012/As-Time-Goes-By/. 2013 Merv Griffin Estate in La Quinta Sells for $7 Million; by Jim Powers (June). Http:// www.palmspringslife.com/Palm-Springs-Life/Desert-Guide/June-2013/Merv-Griffin-Estate-in- La-Quinta-Sells-for-7-Million/. 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.

16 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. 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: Coachella, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1952 and 1953, field- checked in 1955-1956. 1959 Map: Palm Desert, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1954, field-checked in 1957 and 1959. 1972 Map: Indio, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1956 edition photorevised in 1972. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1980 Map: La Quinta, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1959 edition photorevised in 1978.

APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/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.

Honors and Awards

1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980, 1981 President’s Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.

Cultural Resources Management Reports

Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.

Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.

18 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.

19 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.

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICA 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. • Surveys, excavations, mapping, and records searches.

Honors and Awards

2000-2002 Dean’s Honors List, University of California, Riverside.

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. • Report writing, site record preparation, and supervisory responsibilities over all aspects of fieldwork and field crew. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. • Survey, testing, data recovery, monitoring, and mapping. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. • Two and a half months of excavations on Topomai village site, Marine Corp Air Station, Camp Pendleton. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. • Two weeks of excavations on a site on Red Beach, Camp Pendleton, and two weeks of survey in Camp Pendleton, Otay Mesa, and Encinitas. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. • Two weeks of survey in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Eureka Valley, Death Valley National Park.

APPENDIX 2

CORRESPONDENCE WITH NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES*

* A total of 16 local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report.

22 SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, RM 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390 – Fax [email protected]

Project: Griffin Estate Project; 81345 Avenue 54 (CRM TECH Contract No. 2805A)

County: Riverside

USGS Quadrangle Name: Indio, Calif.

Township 5 South Range 7 East S.B. BM; Section(s) 15

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: [email protected]

Project Description: The primary component of the project is to develop 40 acres of land located along the south side of Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street (at 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013), in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California.

April 18, 2014

April 23, 2014

RE: Griffin Estates Project; 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013 40 Acres in the City of La Quinta Riverside County, California CRM TECH Contract #2805A

Dear Tribal Representative:

Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, in coordination with the City of La Quinta, will be conducting environmental studies under CEQA for the Griffin Estate Project. The project area encompasses approximately 40 acres of previously developed land located along the south side of Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street (at 81345 Avenue 54; APN 767-320-013). The project entails the construction of 78 single-family residences, but the existing estate home will remain on the property. The accompanying map, based on the USGS Indio, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle, depicts the location of the project area in Section 15, T6S R7E, SBBM. CRM TECH has been hired to conduct a cultural resource study, including the Native American scoping, for this project.

In a letter dated April 18, 2014, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area, but recommends that local Native American groups be contacted for further information. 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.

According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center, located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside, there are no known historical/archaeological sites within the boundaries of the project area. However, at least 16 prehistoric sites and 64 prehistoric isolates have been recorded within a one-mile radius. The closest of these, Site 33-013753 (CA-RIV-7523), consisting of a temporary encampment, was located approximately 0.12 mile west of the project area. Three historic-period sites, including two refuse scatters and a single-family residence, have also been recorded within the one-mile radius. Lastly, one historic-period isolate has been recorded within the one-mile radius, consisting of an isolated shotgun shell base.

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 within or near the project area that need to be taken into consideration as part of the cultural resources investigation. 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, which is the City of La Quinta for CEQA-compliance purposes. We would also like to clarify that CRM TECH, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, is not the appropriate entity to initiate government-to-government consultations. Thank you for the time and effort in addressing this important matter.

Respectfully,

Nina Gallardo CRM TECH Email: [email protected]

03-003-2014-003 May 12, 2014

[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]] CRM TECH Ms. Nina Gallardo 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324

Re: Griffin Estates

Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Griffin Estates project. The project area is located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. A records check of the ACBCI registry indicates this area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the folllowing: *The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office *A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center. *Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.

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 [email protected].

Cordially, 03-003-2014-003

Pattie Garcia Director Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS ATTACHMENT 2

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT

MERV GRIFFIN ESTATES PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 767-320-013

81-345 Avenue 54, City of La Quinta Riverside County, California

For Submittal to:

Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tempico La Quinta, CA 92253

Prepared for:

Mark Majer, Manager Griffin Ranch Investors, LP 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660

Prepared by:

Harry M. Quinn, Paleontologist/Geologist Deirdre Encarnación, Report Writer CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324

Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator

May 15, 2014

CRM TECH Contract #2805P Approximately 40 Acres USGS Indio, Calif., 7.5’ (1:24,000) Quadrangle Section15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on the former Merv Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in Assessor’s Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.

The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the existing residential compound. 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 potentially disrupt or adversely affect any significant paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.

In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH reviewed the results of previously completed records searches on the project vicinity, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic field survey of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Findings from these research procedures indicate that the project’s potential to impact significant paleontological resources ranges from low in the disturbed surface soils to high, especially for Holocene-age invertebrate fossils, in the undisturbed Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments that may be present under the ground surface.

Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends that a paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented for the proposed project to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. The primary component of the mitigation program will be monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified personnel. Since the surface soils have been extensively disturbed in the past, only periodic monitoring is recommended during demolition, tree removal, grubbing, or shallow surface grading. Deeper grading and excavations that impact the undisturbed subsurface soils, on the other hand, are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments. Therefore, continuous monitoring is recommended for any earth-moving operations that reach beyond the depth of two feet.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... i INTRODUCTION...... 1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 3 Definition ...... 3 Significance Criteria ...... 3 Paleontological Sensitivity ...... 4 SETTING ...... 5 METHODS AND PROCEDURES...... 6 Records Searches ...... 6 Literature Review ...... 6 Field Survey ...... 7 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...... 7 Records Searches ...... 7 Literature Review ...... 7 Field Survey ...... 8 Summary ...... 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 8 REFERENCES ...... 10 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ...... 12 APPENDIX 2: RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS ...... 15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project vicinity ...... 1 Figure 2. Project area ...... 2 Figure 3. Typical landscapes in the project area ...... 6

INTRODUCTION

In April and May 2014, at the request of Griffin Ranch Investors, LP, CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on the former Merv Griffin estate in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area consists of approximately 40 acres of land in Assessor’s Parcel Number 767-320-013, occupied by an extensive residential compound with associated equestrian and other recreational facilities. It is located at 81-345 Avenue 54, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, in the northwest quarter of Section 15, T6S R7E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 2).

The study is part of the environmental review process for the Griffin Estates project, which proposes to subdivide of the property for single-family residential development while retaining the core of the existing residential compound. 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 potentially disrupt or adversely affect any significant paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.

Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle, 1979 edition)

Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Indio and La Quinta, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles, 1972/1980 edition)

on the project vicinity, conducted a literature search, and carried out a systematic field survey of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of this study.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

DEFINITION

Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains, and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary formations in which they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age, which is typically regarded as older than 10,000 years, the generally accepted temporal boundary marking the end of the last late Pleistocene glaciation and the beginning of the current Holocene epoch.

Common fossil remains include marine shells; the bones and teeth of fish, reptiles, and mammals; leaf assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces, another type of paleontological resource, include internal and external molds (impressions) and casts created by these organisms. These items can serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and sediments in which they are contained, and may prove useful in determining the temporal relationships between rock deposits from one area and those from another as well as the timing of geologic events.

Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils, particularly vertebrate fossils, are considered to be nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally fossils may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or as a result of human disturbances; however, they generally lay buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of surface fossils does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface deposits, while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains may be found in the subsurface.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer of the San Bernardino County Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant scientific interest if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends exhibited among organisms, living or extinct; 2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein; 3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas; 4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or

3 5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. (Scott and Springer 2003:6)

PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

The fossil record is unpredictable, and the preservation of organic remains is rare, requiring a particular sequence of events involving physical and biological factors. Skeletal tissue with a high percentage of mineral matter is the most readily preserved within the fossil record; soft tissues not intimately connected with the skeletal parts, however, are the least likely to be preserved (Raup and Stanley 1978). For this reason, the fossil record contains a biased selection not only of the types of organisms preserved but also of certain parts of the organisms themselves. As a consequence, paleontologists are unable to know with certainty, the quantity of fossils or the quality of their preservation that might be present within any given geologic unit.

Sedimentary units that are paleontologically sensitive are those geologic units (mappable rock formations) with a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. More specifically, these are geologic units within which vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or are likely to be present. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent as well as sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically amenable to the preservation of fossils.

A geologic formation is defined as a stratigraphic unit identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g., grain size, texture, color, and mineral content) and stratigraphic position. There is a direct relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are enclosed, and with sufficient knowledge of the geology and stratigraphy of a particular area, it is possible for paleontologists to reasonably determine its potential to contain significant nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossil remains.

The paleontological sensitivity for a geologic formation is determined by the potential for that formation to produce significant nonrenewable fossils. This determination is based on what fossil resources the particular geologic formation has produced in the past at other nearby locations. Determinations of paleontologic sensitivity must consider not only the potential for yielding vertebrate fossils but also the potential for a few significant fossils that may provide new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, and/or stratigraphic data.

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995:22-27) issued a set of standard guidelines intended to assist paleontologists to assess and mitigate any adverse effects/impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources. The Society defined three potential categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units that might be impacted by a proposed project. These categories are described below, along with the criteria used to establish their sensitivity.

• High sensitivity: Geologic units assigned to this category are considered to have a high potential for significant nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossils. Sedimentary rock

4 units in this category contain a relatively high density of recorded fossil localities, have produced fossil remains in the vicinity, and are very likely to yield additional fossil remains. • Low sensitivity: Geologic units are assigned to this category when they have produced no or few recorded fossil localities and are not likely to yield any significant nonrenewable fossil remains. • Undetermined sensitivity: Geologic units are assigned to this category when there is limited exposure of the rock units in the area and/or the rock units have been poorly studied.

SETTING

The project area is located in the Coachella Valley, which occupies the northwestern portion of the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province (Jenkins 1980:40-41; Harden 2004:63-64; Harms 1996:iii). The Colorado Desert Province is bounded on the southwest side by the Peninsular Ranges Province, on the north by the eastern Transverse Ranges Province, and on the northeast by the southern portion of the Mojave Desert Province (ibid.). The province widens to the southeast through the Imperial Valley and into Mexico.

One of the major features within the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, a 290-km- long (approx. 180 miles) structural depression containing the present-day Salton Sea and extending from the San Gorgonio Pass area southward into Mexico. During the late Miocene and early Pliocene, this trough was a northward extension of the Gulf of California (Powell 1995). By late Pleistocene and Holocene times, the northwestern portion of this trough was filled with over 4,000 feet of sediments (Proctor 1968). While the term “Salton Trough” refers to the entire structural depression from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California, the term “Salton Basin” is used to describe that portion of the area that drains directly into the Salton Sea (Harms 1996:117). The Salton Sea, therefore, occupies the Salton Basin portion of the Salton Trough (ibid.).

The Salton Trough was once the location of a much larger freshwater lake, known as Holocene Lake Cahuilla, that formed when water from the Colorado River flowed into the basin directly and then back out through Baja California to the Gulf of California (Waters 1983). Holocene Lake Cahuilla occupied a much larger portion of the Salton Basin than that of the present-day Salton Sea (Rogers 1965).

The shoreline of the last ancient lake to fill the basin can be seen today as a line along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains at an elevation of about 42 feet above sea level (Waters 1983; Wilke 1978). Along some portions of this shoreline, tufa was deposited on the rocky areas. This tufa was radiometrically dated as Late Pleistocene through early Holocene (Smith and Turner 1975:24-25; Turner and Reynolds 1977). However, it appears that these dates are too old and that the entire tufa sequence is more likely of Holocene age (Quinn 2000:5-6).

Elevations within the Colorado Desert province tend to be low, while those of the adjacent provinces can be quite high. This configuration has made for local to regional rapid filling of the basin, especially along its margins, with coarse clastic sediments. Such coarse sediments afford only local environments for the preservation of vertebrate remains. However, some scattered vertebrate fossils have been found in these fluvial-derived clastic sediments.

Figure 3. Typical landscapes within the project area. Clockwise from left: view to the south across the equestrian race track; landscaping waste; existing buildings; shell deposits in the surface soils. (Photos taken on April 30, 2014)

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

RECORDS SEARCHES

The records search service was provided by the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles, originally for the adjacent griffin Ranch project in 2004. These institutions maintain files of regional paleontological localities as well as supporting maps and documents. The records search results were used to identify any known paleontological localities within the project area or in the general vicinity.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In addition to the records searches, a literature search was conducted using materials in the CRM TECH library, including unpublished reports produced during surveys of other properties in the area,

6 and the personal library of CRM TECH geologist/paleontologist Harry M. Quinn, California Professional Geologist #3477 (see App. 1 for qualifications).

FIELD SURVEY

On April 4, 2014, CRM TECH paleontological surveyor Daniel Ballester (see App. 1 for qualifications) carried out the intensive-level, pedestrian field survey of the project area under the direction of Harry M. Quinn. Most of the property was surveyed by walking a system of parallel north-south or east-west transects spaced 10-15 meters (approx. 33-50 feet) apart. Where the regular survey transects were impracticable, such as around the existing buildings and structures, Ballester remained as close to the courses of the transects as possible, and examined the exposed ground surface whenever possible.

In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined to determine the soil types, to verify the geological formations, and to look for any indications of paleontological remains. Visibility of the native ground surface ranged from poor (0%) to good (approx. 80%) in the project area, depending upon the density of the vegetation and the presence of other ground cover, such as landscaping waste.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCHES

The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County Museum found no known paleontological localities within or in the immediate vicinity of the project area (McLeod 2004; Scott 2004; see App. 2). However, several paleontological localities have been reported nearby from sediment lithologies similar to those known to occur in the subsurface at this location, specifically the Lake Cahuilla beds of late Pleistocene or Holocene age (ibid.). These alternating lacustrine and fluvial deposits have produced diverse freshwater fossil remains (ibid.).

Based on these previous discoveries, the San Bernardino County Museum considers the project vicinity to be an area of “high paleontologic sensitivity,” and declares ground-disturbing operations within undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds to have a “high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources,” primarily Holocene-age lacustrine fossils (Scott 2004). The Natural History Museum also notes that older Quaternary deposits at some depth beneath the uppermost soil levels may contain significant fossil remains (McLeod 2004).

LITERATURE REVIEW

The surface sediments in the project area was mapped by Dibblee (1954:Plate 3) as Qal, namely Recent alluvial-fan, flood-plain, swamp, lake, and sand dune deposits. Rogers (1965) mapped the surface sediments in the project area as Ql-Qal, or Quaternary lake deposits and alluvium of Recent (Holocene) origin. Later, Dibblee (2008) mapped the surface geology as Qa, or alluvial sand and

7 clay of valley areas. Based on these mappings, the project area is located within the lakebed of Holocene Lake Cahuilla during its last high stand.

The surface soils within the project area have been mapped by Knecht (1980:Sheet 12) as entirely CpA. The CpA-type soils belong to the Coachella Series, specifically the Coachella fine sand, 0-2% slopes, and form on alluvial fans and flood plains (ibid.:16).

FIELD SURVEY

During the field survey, freshwater shells and shell fragments, primarily of Physa sp., Tryonia sp., Anodonta sp. and Gyraulus sp., were observed on the ground surface throughout the project area. No fish or other vertebrate remains were present. It was noted during the survey that the ground surface in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed as a result of past development activities, most notably the construction of the existing residential compound, a large pond, the equestrian facilities, and other associated structures and features.

SUMMARY

The results of the records searches, literature research, and field survey indicate that the project area may contain sediments deposited within the bed of the Holocene Lake Cahuilla, from which many Holocene paleontological localities are known to have been found, including some near the project location. Specimens from these localities usually consist only of freshwater mollusks from the Holocene Lake Cahuilla. However, other invertebrates have been found in association with the vertebrate remains of fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (McLeod 2004; Scott 2004). Some plant spores and pollens have also discovered (ibid.).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CEQA Appendix G provides that “a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if it will ... disrupt or adversely affect a ... paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study.” The present study, conducted in compliance with this provision, is designed to identify any significant, non-renewable paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area, and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities.

The results of the various research procedures completed during this study suggest that the extensively disturbed surface soils in the project area appear to be low in sensitivity for potentially significant paleontological remains. However, undisturbed Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments may be present under the ground surface, and these sediments are considered high in paleontological sensitivity, especially for Holocene-age invertebrate fossils.

8 monitoring of ground disturbances during the project by qualified personnel. Since the surface soils have been extensively disturbed in the past, only periodic monitoring is recommended during demolition, tree removal, grubbing, or shallow surface grading. Deeper grading and excavations that impact the undisturbed subsurface soils, on the other hand, are likely to encounter paleontological resources within the Holocene Lake Cahuilla sediments. Therefore, continuous monitoring is recommended for any earth-moving operations that reach beyond the depth of two feet.

The mitigation program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and should include but not be limited to the following:

1. The excavation of areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources, such as the undisturbed Lake Cahuilla beds and any undisturbed subsurface older alluvium, should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. 2. Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 3. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 4. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources.

9 REFERENCES

Dibblee, T. W., Jr. 1954 Geology of the Imperial Valley Region, California. In R. H. Jahns (ed.): Geology of Southern California, pp. 21-28. California Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Part 2. Sacramento. 2008a Geologic Map of the Palm Desert/Coachella, 15 Minute Quadrangles, Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-373, Santa Barbara, California. Harden, Deborah R. 2004 California Geology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Harms, Nancy S. 1996 A Precollegiate Teachers Guide to California Geomorphic/Physiographic Provinces. National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Far West Section, Concord, California. Jenkins, Olaf P. 1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41. California Division of Mines and Geology Publication. Sacramento. Knecht, Arnold A. 1980 Soil Survey of Riverside County, California—Coachella Valley Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. McLeod, Samuel A. 2004 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed 1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, and -013, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. Records review letter report prepared by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Powell, Charles L., II 1995 Paleontology and Significance of the Imperial Formation at Garnet Hill, Riverside County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-489. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Proctor, Richard J. 1968 Geology of the Desert Hot Springs-Upper Coachella Valley Area, California, with a Selected Bibliography of the Coachella Valley, Salton Sea, and Vicinity. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 94. Sacramento. Quinn, Harry M. 2000 Petroglyphs in Tufa Along the Western Shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 12(4):5-6. Raup, David M., and Steven M. Stanley 1978 Principles of Paleontology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Rogers, Thomas H. 1965 Geological Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet (1:250,000). California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Scott, Eric 2004 Paleontology Records Review, “1518: APNs 767-320-001, -002, -004, and -013,” City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Records review letter report prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Section of Geological Sciences, Redlands, California. Scott, Eric, and Kathleen B. Springer 2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10. Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.

10 Smith, Gerald A., and Wilson G. Turner 1975 Indian Rock Art of Southern California. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995 Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163:22-27. Turner, W. G., and R. E. Reynolds 1977 Dating the Salton Sea Petroglyphs. Science News 111 (February). von Werlhof, Jay 2001 Notes on the Desert Cahuilla and Their Yuman Neighbors. In L. R. McCown, G. A. Clopine, D. H. Bowers, J. von Werlhof, R. D. Simpson, R. V. May, and P. King (eds.): The Lake Le Conte Survey. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 48(3):21-35. Waters, Michael R. 1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla. Quaternary Research 19:373-387. Wilke, Philip J. 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University of California, Berkeley.

APPENDIX 1

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

12 PROJECT GEOLOGIST/PALEONTOLOGIST Harry M. Quinn, M.S.

Education

1968 M.S., Geology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 1964 B. S, Geology, Long Beach State College, Long Beach. 1962 A.A., Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington North Palm Springs, California.

• Graduate work oriented toward invertebrate paleontology; M.S. thesis completed as a stratigraphic paleontology project on the Precambrian and Lower Cambrian rocks of Eastern California.

Professional Experience

2000- Project Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. l998- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1992-1998 Independent Geological/Geoarchaeological/Environmental Consultant, Pinyon Pines, California. 1994-1996 Environmental Geologist, E.C E.S., Inc, Redlands, California. 1988-1992 Project Geologist/Director of Environmental Services, STE, San Bernardino, California. 1987-1988 Senior Geologist, Jirsa Environmental Services, Norco, California. 1986 Consulting Petroleum Geologist, LOCO Exploration, Inc. Aurora, Colorado. 1978-1986 Senior Exploration Geologist, Tenneco Oil E & P, Englewood, Colorado. 1965-1978 Exploration and Development Geologist, Texaco, Inc., Los Angeles, California.

Previous Work Experience in Paleontology

1969-1973 Attended Texaco company-wide seminars designed to acquaint all paleontological laboratories with the capability of one another and the procedures of mutual assistance in solving correlation and paleo-environmental reconstruction problems. 1967-1968 Attended Texaco seminars on Carboniferous coral zonation techniques and Carboniferous smaller foraminifera zonation techniques for Alaska and Nevada. 1966-1972, 1974, 1975 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Alaska for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks and some Tertiary rocks, including both megafossil and microfossil identification, as well as fossil plant identification. 1965 Conducted stratigraphic section measuring and field paleontological identification in Nevada for stratigraphic controls. Pursued more detailed fossil identification in the paleontological laboratory to establish closer stratigraphic controls, mainly with Paleozoic rocks and some Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks. The Tertiary work included identification of ostracods from the Humboldt and Sheep Pass Formations and vertebrate and plant remains from Miocene alluvial sediments.

Publications in Geology

Five publications in Geology concerning an oil field study, a ground water and earthquake study, a report on the geology of the Santa Rosa Mountain area, and papers on vertebrate and invertebrate Holocene Lake Cahuilla faunas.

PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/FIELD DIRECTOR Daniel Ballester, M.S.

Education

• Cross-trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM TECH Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.

Professional Experience

2002- Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Paleontologist, 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.

REPORT WRITER Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.

Education

2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.

Professional Experience

APPENDIX 2

RECORDS SEARCHES RESULTS