P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
9.98 Acre Property Moreno Valley
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
April 26, 2024
P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
9.98 Acre Property Moreno Valley
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared on behalf of:
Amy Flores
Applied Planning, Inc.
117692 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, California 92883
Prepared for:
The City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, California 92553
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
Principal Investigator
Contributions by Nicholas Shepetuk, B.A.
and John JP Defachelle, B.S.
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. APP2103
Sites Recorded: None
Keywords: Intensive Survey of Approximately 9.98 Acres
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Sunnymead (1980), California Section 6 of Township 3 South, Range 3 South, San Bernardino Base and Meridian April 26, 2024
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Applied Planning, Inc. to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the 9.98 Acre Property Moreno Valley (consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers 481-020-013, -029, -030, -034, -035, and -038; the project) located in the City of Moreno Valley (City), Riverside County, California. Tasks completed for the scope of work include a cultural resources records search, intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources survey, Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission, and Paleontological Overview. These tasks were performed in fulfillment of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside conducted the cultural resources records search. The records search revealed that eight cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of five cultural resources within the research radius. None of these studies have assessed the project site for cultural resources and no cultural resources have been previously identified within its boundaries.
During the field survey, BCR Consulting personnel did not identify any cultural resources (including historic-period architectural resources, prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period archaeological resources) within the project site boundaries, despite relatively high surface visibility. The project site has been subject to severe disturbances associated with mechanical clearing, discing, and modern refuse dumping.
These factors confer low sensitivity for significant buried resources within the project site boundaries. However, while the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist would have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• prehistoric flaked -stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains;
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements.
Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC (Appendix A).
The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
iii
Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix B has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as alluvial sand and gravel deposits from the Holocene epoch (Dibblee and Minch, 2003). Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1-mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ . ii INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 REGULATORY SETTING ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 PERSONNEL ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 NATURAL SETTING ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 GEOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 HYDROLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 BIOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6 CULTURAL SETTING ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ................................ ................................ .............................. 6 ETHNOGRAPHY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 8 HISTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 RESEARCH ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11 FIELD SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 RESEARCH ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11 FIELD SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 14
APPENDICES
A: NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
B: PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
C: PHOTOGRAPHS
D: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
FIGURES
1: Project Location Site ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2
TABLES
A: Cultural Resource Studies ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 B: Cultural Resources Summary ................................ ................................ .................. 11 A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Applied Planning, Inc. to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the 9.98 Acre Property Moreno Valley (consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers 481-020-029, -030, -034, -035, -038, -039; the project) located in the City of Moreno Valley (City), Riverside County, California.
The project site comprises approximately 9.98 acres located in Section 6 of Township 3 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, in the City of Moreno Valley. The project site is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Sunnymead, California (1980) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect 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” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource.
BCRCONSULTING LLC
HERE Garra:i!,J3
5 Miles i
0.25 Project Location Site
9.98 Acres in Moreno Valley
Project Reference: ESRI; USGS Quad: Sunnymead, California (1980)
0.5 Kilometers
0.5 Miles
Figure 1
Applied Planning, Inc.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
3 Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one of more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic -period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Senate Bill 18. California Senate Bill 18 states that prior to a local (city or county) government’s adoption of any general plan or specific plan, or amendment to general and specific plans, or a designation of open space land proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to Cultural Places.
A Cultural Place is defined in the PRC sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 as:
1. Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or;
2. Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
4 including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).
The intent of SB -18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and local governments (“government -to-government”) at the earliest possible point in the planning process so that cultural places can be identified and preserved and to determine necessary levels of confidentiality regarding Cultural Place locations and uses. According to the Government Code (GC) Section 65352.4, “consultation” is defined as:
The meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American Tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.
Assembly Bill 52. California Assembly Bill 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. As stated in Section 11 of AB 52, the act applies only to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.
AB 52 establishes “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs) as a new category of resources under CEQA. As defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074, TCRs are “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either: (1) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the C alifornia Register; included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), if supported by substantial evidence and taking into account the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A “historical resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(h) may also be TCRs.
AB 52 further establishes a new consultation process with California Native American tribes for proposed projects in geographic areas that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with that tribe. Per Public Resources Code Section 21073, “California Native American tribe” includes federally and non -federally recognized tribes on the NAHC contact list. Subject to certain prerequisites, AB 52 requires, among other things, that a lead agency consult with the geographically affiliated tribe before the releas e of an environmental review document for a proposed project regarding project alternatives, recommended mitigation measures, or potential significant effects, if the tribe so requests in writing. If the tribe and the lead agency agree upon mitigation measures during their consultation, these mitigation measures must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21084.2, and 21084.3). Since the City will initiate and carry out the r equired AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
5 consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address comments as necessary.
Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor.
Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by professional paleontologists from the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix B.
Personnel
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA, acted as Principal Investigator and compiled the technical report with contributions from BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nicholas Shepetuk, B.A. and BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologist John JP Defachelle, B.S. Mr. Shepetuk and Mr.
Defachelle conducted the field survey. Eastern Information Center (EIC) staff completed the records search. The Native American Heritage Commission completed the Sacred Lands File search. The Western Science Center completed the paleontological overview.
NATURAL SETTING
Geology
The project site is situated in the Moreno Valley, which occupies a portion of California's Peninsular Range geologic province that encompasses western Riverside County.
Crystalline rocks in the area include gabbro and granodiorite of the southern California batholith. These resistant rocks weather to form dark or light colored, boulder-covered conical buttes and hills. They are granitic and have intruded and metamorphosed to locally form gneissic and schistose rocks (Rogers 1965). The surficial sediments in the area of the project site are comprised of unindurated, undissected , alluvial sand, gravel, and clay of valley areas (Dibblee 2003) . The southern tip of the Northern Peninsular Range has a number of igneous rocks utilized by Native Americans for food (particularly seed) processing (see Brunzell 2007). These include granodiorites, quartz monzonites, and breccias, which are found locally. Metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, such as metamorphosed quartzite, are also found near the project site . Olivine basalt and andesite containing phenocrysts have also been locally utilized for the prehistoric manufacture of chipped stone tools (ibid.).
Hydrology
The region is characterized by a semi -arid climate, with dry, hot summers, and moderate winters. Rainfall ranges from 12 to 16 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). Precipitation usually occurs in the form of winter rain, with occasional monsoonal showers in late summer. The nearest water source is an unnamed intermittent drainage that crosses the A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
6 project site from northwest to southeast. Elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1 ,640 to 1 ,660 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As such , it is characterized as lower Sonoran Life Zone, represented in cismontane valleys and low - mountain slopes (Jaeger and Smith 1971).
Biology
Coastal sage scrub plant community dominates the local vegetation. Signature plant species within the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat includes black sage ( Salvia mellifera ), California brittlebush ( Encelia californica), California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), golden yarrow ( Eriophyllum confertiflorum), laurel sumac ( Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry ( Rhus integrifolia), poison oak ( Toxicodendron diverilobum ), purple sage ( Salvia leucophyla ), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), sugar bush (Rhus ovate), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana ), coastal century plant ( Agave shawii ), coastal cholla ( Opuntia prolifera ), Laguna Beach liveforever ( Dudleya stolonifera ), many -stemmed liveforever ( Dudleya multicaulis), our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) (Williams et al. 2008:118 -119). Signature animal species within Coastal Sage Scrub habitat include the kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys spp.), California horned lizard ( Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), orange throated whiptail ( Cnemidophorus hyperthrus ), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii ), brown -headed cowbird ( Molothrus ater ), California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica ), California quail ( Callipepla californica ), and San Diego cactus wren ( Campylorhynchus brunnecapillus sandiegensis ) (Williams et al. 2008:118-120). For details on prehistoric (particularly Luiseño) local use of plant and animal species, see Lightfoot and Parrish (2009) , Bean and Shipek (1978:552) , and Oxendine (1983:19-29). Sparkman (1908) and Bean and Saubel (1972) have listed the harvesting and processing methods and seasons for edible plants that grow in the above described communities and others).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Two primary regional syntheses are commonly utilized in the archaeological literature for southern California. The first was advanced by Wallace in 1955, and defines four cultural horizons, each with characteristic local variations: Early Man Horizon, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Employing a more ecological approach, Warren (1986) defined five periods in southern California prehistory: Lake Mojave, Pinto, Gypsum, Saratoga Springs, and Protohistoric. Warren viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts and coast. Many changes in settlement patterns and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, the short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and the general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals, that continue to this day (Warren 1986).
Paleoindian (12,000 to 10,000 BP) and Lake Mojave (10,000 to 7000 BP) Periods.
Climatic warming characterizes the transition from the Paleoindian Period to the Lake A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
7 Mojave Period. This transition also marks the end of Pleistocene Epoch and ushers in the Holocene. The Paleoindian Period has been loosely defined by isolated fluted (such as Clovis) projectile points, dated by their association with similar artifacts discovered in -situ in the Great Plains (Sutton 1996:227 -228). Some fluted bifaces have been associated with fossil remains of Rancholabrean mammals approximately dated to ca. 13,300 -10,800 BP near China Lake in the northern Mojave Desert. The Lake Mojave Period has been associated with cultural adaptations to moist conditions, and resource allocation pointing to more lacustrine environments than previously (Bedwell 1973). Artifacts that characterize this period include stemmed points, flake and core scrapers, choppers, hammerstones, and crescents (Warren and Crabtree 1986:184). Projectile points associated with the period include the Silver Lake and Lake Mojave styles. Lake Mojave sites commonly occur on shorelines of Pleistocene lakes and streams where geological surfaces of that epoch have been identified (Basgall and Hall 1994:69).
Pinto Period (7000 to 4000 BP). The Pinto Period has been largely characterized by desiccation of the southern California region. As formerly rich lacustrine environments began to disappear, the artifact record reveals more sporadic occupation of the drier regions, indicating occupants’ recession into the cooler fringes (Warren 198 6). Pinto Period sites are rare and are characterized by surface manifestations that usually lack significant in- situ remains. Artifacts from this era include Pinto projectile points and a flake industry similar to the Lake Mojave tool complex (Warren 198 6), though use of Pinto projectile points as an index artifact for the era has been disputed (see Schroth 1994). Milling stones have also occasionally been associated with sites of this period (Warren 1986).
Gypsum Period. (4000 to 1500 BP). A temporary return to moister conditions during the Gypsum Period is postulated to have encouraged technological diversification afforded by the abundance of resources available (Warren 198 6:419-420; Warren and Crabtree 1986:189). Lacustrine environments reappear and begin to be exploited during this era (Shutler 1961, 1968). Concurrently a more diverse artifact assemblage reflects intensified reliance on plant resources. The new artifacts include milling stones, mortars, pestles, and a proliferation of Humboldt Concave Base, Gypsum Cave, Elko Eared, and Elko Corner - notched dart points (Warren 198 6; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Other artifacts include leaf - shaped projectile points, rectangular -based knives, drills, large scraper planes, choppers, hammerstones, shaft straighteners, incised stone pendants, and drilled slate tubes. The bow and arrow appears around 1500 BP, evidenced by the presence of a smaller type of projectile point, the Rose Spring point (Rogers 1939; Schroeder 1953, 1961; Shutler 1961; Yohe 1992).
Saratoga Springs Period (1500 to 800 BP). During the Saratoga Springs Period regional cultural diversifications of Gypsum Period developments are evident. Influences from Patayan/Yuman assemblages are apparent in the southern inland areas, and include buff and brown wares often associated with Cottonwood and Desert Side -notched projectile points (Warren 198 6:423). Obsidian becomes more commonly used throughout southern California and characteristic artifacts of the period include milling stones, mortars, pe stles, ceramics, and ornamental and ritual objects. More structured settlement patterns are evidenced by large villages, and three types of identifiable archaeological sites (major habitation, temporary camps, and processing stations) emerge (McGuire and Hall 1988).
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
8 Diversity of resource exploitation continues to expand, indicating a much more generalized, somewhat less mobile subsistence strategy.
Shoshonean Period (800 BP to Contact). The Shoshonean period is the first to benefit from contact -era ethnography and is subject to its inherent biases. Interviews of living informants allowed anthropologists to match artifact assemblages and particular traditions with linguistic groups, and plot them geographically (see Kroeber 1925; Gifford 1918; Strong 1929). During the Shoshonean Period continued diversification of site assemblages, and reduced Anasazi influence both coincide with the expansion of Numic (Uto -Aztecan language family) speakers across the Great Basin, Takic (Uto -Aztecan language family) speakers into southern California, and the Hopi across the Southwest (Sutton 1996).
Hunting and gathering continued to diversify, and the diagnostic arrow points include desert side-notch and cottonwood triangular. Ceramics continue to proliferate, though are more common in southeastern Riverside County during this period (Warren and Crabtree 1986).
Trade routes have become well established between coastal and inland groups.
Ethnography
The Project site is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Cahuilla and the Luiseño.
Cahuilla. The Cahuilla belong to the Cupan subgroup of the Takic subfamily of the Uto - Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek 1978:575). Like other Native American groups in southern California, they practiced semi-nomadic hunter -gatherer subsistence strategies and commonly exploited seasonably available plant and animal resources . Spanish missionaries were the first outsiders to encounter these groups during the late 18th century.
The Cahuilla are generally divided into three groups: Desert Cahuilla, Mountain Cahuilla, and Western (or Pass) Cahuilla (Kroeber 1925 ; Bean and Smith 1978 ). The term Western Cahuilla is preferred over Pass Cahuilla because this group is not confined to the San Gorgonio Pass area. The distinctions are believed to be primarily geographic, although linguistic and cultural differences may have existed to varying degrees (Strong 19 29).
Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and the Cocopa - Maricopa Trail, a major prehistoric trade route, ran through it. The first written accounts of the Cahuilla are attributed to mission fathers; later documentation was by Strong (1929), Bright (1998), and others.
Luiseño. Typically, the native culture groups in southern California are named after nearby Spanish missions, and such is the case for this Takic-speaking population. For instance, the term “Luiseño” is applied to the natives inhabiting the region within the “ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Mission San Luis Rey…[and who shared] an ancestral relationship which is evident in their cosmogony, and oral tradition, common language, and reciprocal relationship in ceremonies” (Oxendine 1983:8). The first written accounts of the Luiseño are attributed to the mission fathers. Sparkman (1908), Oxendine (1983) and others produced later documentation. Prior to Spanish occupation, the territory of the Luiseño extended along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek to the south, Aliso Creek to the northwest, and the Elsinore Valley and Palomar Mountain to the east. These territorial boundaries were somewhat fluid and changed through time. They encompassed a diverse environment that A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
9 included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys and foothills, and mountain groves of oaks and evergreens (Bean and Shipek 1978:551).
Like other Native American groups in southern California, the Luiseño caught and collected seasonally available food resources, and led a semi -sedentary lifestyle. Luiseño villages generally were located in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges sheltered in canyons, near a water source, and in a location that was easily defended. Individuals from these villages took advantage of the varied resources available. They also established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Kroeber 1925, Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luiseño lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Luiseño villages were politically independent, administered by a hereditary chief, and occupied by patrilineally linked extended families (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luiseño believed in private property, which covered items and land owned by the village, as well as items (houses, gardens, ritual equipment, trade beads, eagle nests, and songs) owned by individuals. Trespass against any property was punished (Bean and Shipek 1978:551).
Luiseño subsistence was based primarily on seeds like acorns, grass seed, Manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, and pine nuts. Seeds were dried and ground to be cooked into a mush. Game animals such as deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, wood rat, mice, antelope, and many types of birds supplemented their vegetal intake (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:341 -362). The Luiseño utilized fire for crop management and communal rabbit drives (ibid.; Bean and Shipek 1978:552).
History
In southern California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The Spanish period (1769 -1821) is represented by exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. Spanish influence continued to some extent after 1821 due to the continued implementation of the mission system.
Mexican Period. The Mexican period (1821-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican -American War (Cleland 19 51). The Secularization Act of 1834 resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos) of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. Sixteen ranchos were granted in Riverside County. At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated California's economy (Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period . The American Period, 1848 –Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
10 Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849 –1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861 –1862, followed by a significant drought diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19 th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits of the 20th century (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1951).
Economic and ethnic diversification and growth have resulted in California’s most visible 20th century hallmarks. Prior to World War II agriculture, oil, tourism, railroad, and film industries all flourished, and while the great the Great Depression of the 1930s slowed (and in many cases stopped) growth, these all remained important throughout the century. The wartime economy helped alleviate many causes of the Great Depression, and the subsequent years saw further diversification in which the aerospace and electronic s industries emerged.
During World War II, many people had relocated to California in support of the military industrial complex, and a large number remained post -war in search of employment and to start families. The subsequent population boom coincided with the greatest economic growth in the history of the state, and accompanied large -scale land subdivision, construction of bedroom communities, and development of a comprehensive freeway system and a state system of higher education (Lavender 1972). These factors have all helped reshape California’s landscape, economy, and material culture.
METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The pedestrian cultural resources survey is intended to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites, features, isolates, and historic-period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined project boundaries. The project site was examined using 10 to 15 meter transect intervals.
The study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the given project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the above - referenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks completed include:
• Sacred Lands File search through the Native American Heritage Commission, and communications with recommended tribes and individuals; • Cultural resources records search through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) to review any previous studies conducted and the resulting cultural resources recorded within one half-mile of the project site boundaries;
• Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project site.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
11 Research
Records Search. Prior to fieldwork, a records search request was submitted to the EIC. The records search included a review of all prerecorded historic-period and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports generated from projects located within one half-mile of the project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the Built Environment Resource Directory which summarizes listings from National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Field Survey
An intensive -level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on January 4, 2022 and an updated survey was completed on May 26, 2023 . The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 10-15 meters apart across 100 percent of the accessible project site. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project boundaries and all soil exposures were carefully examined for evidence of cultural resources.
RESULTS
Research
Records Search. A cultural resource records search was conducted by the EIC at the University of California, Riverside. The records search revealed that eight cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of five cultural resources within the research radius. None of these studies have assessed the project site for cultural resources, and no cultural resources have been previously identified within its boundaries . Tables A and B summarize the disposition of previous studies and cultural resources within one half- mile of the project site. A records search bibliography is provided as Appendix D.
Table A. Cultural Resource Studies Summary
USGS 7.5-Minute Quad Previous Studies
Sunnymead, California (1980) RI-2061, 7862, 8078, 9385, 9784, 9856, 10784, 10802
Table B. Cultural Resources Summary
Primary No. Period Approximate Distance from Project Site/Description P-33-7285 Historic 0.7-Miles SW / Residential
P-33-7286 Historic 0.5-Miles NE / Residential
P-33-7287 Historic 0.5-Miles NE / Farm House
P-33-7288 Historic 0.3-Miles NE / Residential/Restaurant P-33-17203 Historic 0.1-Miles NE / Residential
Additional Land Use Research. A review of aerial photos indicate that the project site once had a dirt road through the property from 1966 to 1985. Aerial photographs show that a vertically-oriented steel water tank and a horizontal propane tank were constructed on the A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
12 project site near the southwest corner prior to 1966 (United States Department of Agriculture 1966).
Predictive Modeling. Cultural resources recorded in this portion of Riverside County indicate that historic agricultural and residential developments are locally common.
Additionally, prehistoric use of bedrock for milling stations and lithic scatters and fire affected rock have also been identified in the general area , although these were not identified locally during the records search . These resources are commonly associated with vegetal (particularly seed) processing, chipped stone tool manufacture, trade, and cooking. As a result the field survey emphasized careful inspection for artifacts and features associated with historic agricultural and residential use, and of suitable rock outcrops and soil exposures for the presence of related features and artifacts.
Field Survey
The project was surveyed on January 4, 2022 and again on May 26, 2023 . During the field surveys, BCR Consulting archaeologists carefully inspected the project site for evidence of cultural resources, using the methods described above. Ground visibility was 100 percent within the project boundaries during the survey. Sediment included brown, moist, semi-loose clay with moderate levels of gravel. The project site has been subject to mechanical clearing and discing for weed abatement and modern refuse dumping and grading. Two historic- period steel tanks occupied the project site during the initial survey, but have been removed by the time the second field survey was completed. No cultural resources of any kind (including historic -period or prehistoric archaeological resources or historic -period built environment resources) remain in place within the project site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the records search and most recent field survey, BCR Consulting personnel did not identify any cultural resources (including architectural historical resources, prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic archaeological resources) within the project site. Two historic-period (pre-1966) steel tanks occupied the project site during the initial survey, but have been removed by the time the second field survey was completed. The project site has been subject to severe disturbances associated with mechanical clearing, discing , and modern refuse dumping. These factors confer low sensitivity for significant buried resources within the project site. However, while the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist would have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed.
Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities include:
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
13 • prehistoric flaked -stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains;
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements.
Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix B has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as alluvial sand and gravel deposits from the Holocene epoch (Dibblee and Minch, 2003). Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
14 REFERENCES
Basgall, Mark E., and M.C. Hall
1994 Perspectives on the Early Holocene Archaeological Record of the Mojave Desert. In Kelso Conference Papers 1987 -1992, edited by G.D. Everson and J.S. Schneider, pp. 63 -81. California State University, Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 4.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978 Cahuilla. In California (pp 566 -570), edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño in California (pp. 550 -563), edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh. Malki Museum Press. Banning, California.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bedwell, S.F.
1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.
Bright, William
1998 California Place Names, The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names .
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1951 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills —Southern California, 1850 -80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.
Dibblee, Thomas W.
2003 Geologic Map of the Sunnymead / South ½ of Redlands Quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.
Gifford, Edward W.
1918 Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology 14(22)155-219.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
15 Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California . California Natural History Guides: 13. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. New York: Dover Publications.
Lavender, David
1972 California: Land of New Beginnings. Harper and Row. New York.
Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
McGuire, K.R., and M.C. Hall
1988 The Archaeology of Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California.
Report Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Oxendine, Joan
1983 The Luiseño Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Rogers, M.J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3.
Rogers, T.H.
1965 Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, CDMG, Scale 1:250,000.
Schroeder, Albert H.
1953 A Few Sites in Moapa Valley, Nevada. The Masterkey 27(1):18-24, (2):62-68
1961 The Archaeological Excavations at Willow Beach, AZ, 1950. Utah Anthro. Papers 50.
Schroth, Adella Beverly
1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Shutler, Richard, Jr.
1961 Lost City, Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nev. State Museum Anthropological Papers 5.
1968 The Great Basin Archaic. In Prehistory in the Western United States. Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):24-26. Edited by C. Irwin-Williams, Eastern New Mexico University.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
16 Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4). University of California, Berkeley.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1-358.
Sutton, Mark Q.
1996 The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(2):221-257.
United States Department of Agriculture
1966 Aerial Photographs of Riverside County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 5/30/2023.
U.S. Geological Survey
1980 Sunnymead, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map
Wallace, William J.
1955 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
Warren, Claude N.
1986 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. Moratto with contributions by D.A. Fredrickson, C. Raven, and C.N. Warren, pp. 339 –430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Warren, Claude N., and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183 -193. W.C.
Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
Yohe, Robert M., II
1992 A Reevaluation of Western Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site (CA -INY-372). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
APPENDIX A
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
November 17, 2021
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: [9.98] Acre Property (APP2103) Project, Riverside County To Whom It May Concern:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
1 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed [9.98] Acre Property (APP2103) Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
005674
11/17/2021 02:59 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
11/17/2021
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed [9.98] Acre Property (APP2103) Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
005674
11/17/2021 02:59 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
11/17/2021
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
3 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed [9.98] Acre Property (APP2103) Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
005674
11/17/2021 02:59 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
11/17/2021
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
APPENDIX B
PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org BCR Consulting LLC October 19, 2021
David Brunzell
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Brunzell,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the [9.98] Acre Property Project in the city of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The project site is located south of Ironwood Avenue, east of Heacock Street, north of Hemlock Avenue, and west of Davis Street in Section 6, Township 3 South, Range 3 on the Sunnymead, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial sand and gravel deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the [9.98] Acre Property Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
[9.98] Acre Property Project
Project area, one mile radius, geologic mapping, and any WSC fossils. ..... ""\
� '3'
I
••i,,
�
Legend
♦-:,. Project area and one mile radius
0 Qa: Alluvial gravel, sand, and clay of valley areas (Holocene) 0 Qg: Alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels (Holocene) . ' ..
'i 1 .
- \(
,�
'
00 /����co M
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
Photo 1: Project Overview
Photo 2: Project Overview
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
Photo 3: Project Overview
Photo 4: Pre-1966 Water Tanks (no longer present)
A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
Photo 5: Vacant Area Occupied by Former Pre-1966 Water Tanks (no longer present)
Photo 6: Vacant Area Occupied by Former Pre-1966 Water Tanks (no longer present) A P R I L 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 P H A S E I C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T 9 . 8 A C R E P R O P E R T Y
C I T Y O F M O R E N O V A L L E Y
APPENDIX D
RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs RI-02061 1986 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF FESTIVAL
AT MORENO VALLEY, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AUTHOR(S)LERCH, MICHAELNADB-R - 1082496;
Voided - MF-2260
RI-07862 2008 Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report Heacock Street Road-Widening
Project City of Moreno Valley Riverside
County, California
CRM TECHSmallwood, Josh, Terri
Jacquemain, and Laura
H. Shaker
33-017202, 33-017203Submitter - CRM
TECH Contract No.
2228
RI-08078 2008 Cultural Resource Inventory of Proposed
Improvements to Indian Detention Basin and
Ironwood Avenue in the City of Moreno Valley
Riverside, California
ECORP Consulting, Inc.ECORP Consulting, Inc.
RI-09385 2015 Engineering Refinement Survey and
Recommendation of Eligibility for Cultural
Resources with Southern California Edison
Company's West of Devers Upgrade Project,
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,
California
ASM AffiliatesMathew M. DeCarlo and
Diane L. Winslow
RI-09784 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the
Moreno Valley Festival Project
Brian F. Smith & AssociatesJennifer R. Kraft and
Brian F. Smith
RI-09856 2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report for APN 292-160-023 Located on Sunnymead
BLVD., Just West of Heacok Street, City of
Morenoi Valley, Riverside County, California
PAST, IncBarbie Getchell and John
E. Atwood
Other - 1255
RI-10784 2019 A CLASS III HISTORIC RESOURCES
STUDY FOR THE MORENO VALLEY
FESTIVAL PROJECT FOR SECTION 106
COMPLIANCE SPL-2018-00821 CITY OF
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFRONIA
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.
Tracy A. Stropes,
Jennifer R.K. Stropes,
and Brian F. Smith
RI-10802 2019 A CLASS III HISTORIC RESOURCES
STUDY FOR THE MORENO VALLEY
FESTIVAL PROJECT FOR SECTION 106
COMPLIANCE
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Tracy A. Stropes,
Jennifer R.K. Stropes,
and Brian F. Smith
OHP OTIS Report
Nbr -
COE_2019_0214_00
2
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
P-33-007285 Other - Ser. No. 33-2388 10;
OTIS Resource Number -
464916;
OHP Property Number - 062626
RI-08554Building Historic HP03 1983 (J. Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007286 Other - Ser. No. 33-2388-11;
OTIS Resource Number -
464917;
OHP Property Number - 062627
Building Historic HP02 1983 (Jim Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007287 Other - Ser. No. 33-2388-12;
OTIS Resource Number -
464918;
OHP Property Number - 062628
Building Historic HP02 1983 (Jim Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007288 Other - Ser. No. 33-2388-13;
OTIS Resource Number -
464919;
OHP Property Number - 062629
Building Historic HP02 1983 (Jim Warner, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-017203 Other - CRM TECH 2228-2;
Other - 12183 Heacock Street
RI-07862, RI-08554Building Historic HP02 2008 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM TECH)