Attachment 1E - CEDD Director Report Exhibits — Riverside City Council, January 16, 2024

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) i L&L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... iii

1.0) INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................ ........................ 1

1.1) Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1

1.2) Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1

1.3) Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

1.4) Cultural Resources Staff ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6

1.5) Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

1.5.1) Existing Land Use and Topography ................................ ................................ .......... 6

1.5.2) Soils and Geology ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7

1.5.3) Vegetation and Wildlife ................................ ................................ ............................. 9

1.5.4) Water Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .....10

2.0) CULTURAL SETTING ................................ ................................ ................................ .......11

2.1) Prehistoric Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........11

2.1.1) Paleoarchaic Period (~12,000 to 9,500 BP) ................................ .............................12

2.1.2) Early Archaic Period (9,500 to 7,000 BP) ................................ ................................ .12

2.1.3) Middle Archaic Period (7,000 to 4,000 BP) ................................ ............................... 13

2.1.4) Late Archaic Period (4,000 to 1,500 BP) ................................ ................................ ..15

2.1.5) Late Archaic/Late Prehistoric Transition (1,500 to 1,200 BP) ................................ ...15

2.1.6) Late Prehistoric Period (1,200 to 410 BP) ................................ ................................ 17

2.1.7) Protohistoric Period (410 to 150 BP) ................................ ................................ ........18

2.2) Ethnohistoric Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .....20

2.2.1) Cahuilla ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................20

2.2.2) Luiseno ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................21

2.3) Historic Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............24

3.0) REGULATORY SETTING AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ......26

3.1) Regulatory Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........26

3.1.1) State Significance Criteria ................................ ................................ ........................26

3.1.2) Local Regulations ................................ ................................ ................................ ....27

3.2) Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................34

3.2.1) Cultural Resources Records Search ................................ ................................ ........35

3.2.2) Historic Records Review ................................ ................................ ..........................35

3.2.3) Native American Coordination ................................ ................................ ..................35

3.2.4) Pedestrian Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ....36

4.0) RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................37

4.1) Cultural Resources Records Search ................................ ................................ ...............37

4.2) Historic Records Review ................................ ................................ ................................ 51

4.3) Geoarchaeological Assessment ................................ ................................ .....................51

4.4) Native American Coordination ................................ ................................ ........................52

4.5) Pedestrian Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........55

4.6) Resources in the Project Area ................................ ................................ ........................57

4.6.1) Bedrock Milling Site (33-015434) ................................ ................................ .............57

4.6.2) Historic Isolated Artifacts (ISO-001H) ................................ ................................ .......58

4.6.3) Single Family Residence (841 Alpine Meadows Lane) ................................ .............58

4.6.4) Concrete Well (QUIN-001H)................................ ................................ .....................58

5.0) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ..60

5.1) Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .........60 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) ii L&L

5.2) Native American Requests and Recommendations ................................ ........................62

6.0) REFERENCES CITED ................................ ................................ ................................ .......63

7.0) CERTIFICATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............72

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications ................................ ................................ .......................73 CONFIDENTIAL Appendix B: EIC Records Search Results ................................ ......................80 Photos ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......81 Appendix D: Native American Coordination ................................ ................................ ............ 102 CONFIDENTIAL Appendix E: DPR 523 Forms ................................ ................................ ....... 119

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2 Figure 2. Project Location Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 Figure 4. Development Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 Figure 5. Soils Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Typical Profile of Soil Units Identified within the Project Area ................................ ....... 7 Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies Within 1 Mile of the Project Area .......................37 Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Located Within 1 Mile of the Project Area ...39 Table 4. Summary of Native American Coordination ................................ ................................ .53

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) iii L&L

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
L&L Environmental (L&L), at the request of Landbuild, completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Alpine Meadows Project, Tentative Tract Map No. 38174 (APN 243-600-025) located on ±5.74 acres of land, in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Landbuild proposes a 4-lot residential subdivision with construction of three (3) single-family housing units.

The Project area is west of Kingdom Drive and south of Alpine Meadows Lane in Section 13 of Township 3 South, Range 5 West as shown on the USGS Riverside East, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle map.

This technical report documents efforts to identify historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(j), and complies with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess a Project’s potential to impact historical resources during Project construction, operation, and/or maintenance. These efforts include a cultural resources records search, background research, coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American tribes and organizations, a geoarchaeological assessment, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire Project area.

As a result of these efforts, four (4) potential historical resources were identified within the Project area. This includes a previously recorded bedrock milling site (33-015434) associated with Native American land use activities that may contain buried archaeological features and/or artifact deposits, historic isolated artifacts (ISO-001H), a single-family residence at 841 Alpine Meadows Lane, and a concrete well associated with a windmill that was removed between November 2013 and April 2014 (QUIN-001H). Of these, only historic isolated artifacts ISO -001H was evaluated and found not eligible for the CRHR. No further consideration of this cultural resource is required under CEQA.

The presence of deeply buried archaeological deposits within 0.75 miles of the Project area (i.e., the McCue Elko site) in similar, but not identical, geologic deposits, soils, and landforms coupled with the presence of more than 100 prehistoric archaeological sites indicates the Project area has a high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. Sensitivity is especially high in areas mapped with Hansford coarse sandy loam (HcC) soils. The Project area also possesses moderate to high potential for encountering buried mid-twentieth century historical archaeological resources.

L&L recommends the following conditions/measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potentially significant impacts to historical resources within the Project area.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) iv L&L

CUL-1: Prior to grading a fence with a 20-foot buffer shall be erected around the bedrock milling site (33 -01434) and the concrete well (Quin -001H). The project will avoid impacts to prehistoric bedrock milling site (33 -015434), the single-family residence (841 Alpine Meadows Lane), and the concrete well (QUIN-001H) and neither direct or indirect impacts shall occur to these resources. The fence shall remain in place until approval of final inspection of all newly constructed residential units.

CUL-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project proponent should hire a qualified archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Standards who should oversee implementation of an archaeological monitoring program during all ground -disturbing activities and include archaeological and Native American monitoring and cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel (i.e., Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]). The qualified archaeologist should prepare an archaeological monitoring and discovery plan that will apply to the entire Project area and include, at a minimum, a discussion of key personnel and their specific roles and responsibilities, archaeological monitoring methods, procedures for establishing Environmentally Sensitive Areas for the protection of cultural resources, a discussion of archaeological resource classes that may be encountered during construction, and protocols for identifying, evaluating, treating, and curating archaeological resources that may be encountered. The plan will be prepared in consultation with the City and consulting tribes. Should any cultural resources be discovered during implementation of the monitoring plan, the monitor(s) shall be authorized to temporarily halt all construction - related activities within a 100-foot radius of the discovery while the resource is recorded onto appropriate DPR 523 Forms and evaluated for significance in consultation with the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant, the qualified archaeologist should make recommendations to the City on measures that should be implemented to treat cultural resources in accordance with the protocols developed in the mitigation and discovery plan. No further grading shall occur in the discovery area unt il the City is notified by the qualified archaeologist that treatment has been completed.

implementing the monitoring program, the final monitoring report may also report on the results of lab analysis, special studies, and identify the curatori al facility that has agreed to house any archaeological collections. The archaeological monitoring report will be completed in consultation with the City and consulting tribes. The Project proponent is responsible for completing a final monitoring report that addresses comments from the City, proponent, and/or consulting tribes. Final reports will be submitted to the City, Project Proponent, consulting tribes, and Eastern Information Center located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside.

CUL-4: In the event of discovery of human bone, potential human bone, or a known or potential human burial or cremation, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet of the discovery shall halt immediately and the County Coroner and the Lead Agency shall b e immediately notified. California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in treatment and disposition of the remains. The Lead Agency shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the find and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including excavation and removal of the human remains. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. The project contractor shall implement approved mitigation measure(s), to be verified by the Lead Agency, prior to resuming ground - disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.

Native American tribes made the following requests and recommendations regarding cultural resources in the Project area limits:
• The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians requests formal government -to-government consultation with the Lead Agency und er AB52, notification once the Project enters entitlement, copies of all cultural resource reports and records, and the draft environmental document. Furthermore, the tribe requests follow -up with the Lead Agency regarding Native American monitoring during Project construction.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) vi L&L

• The Rincon Band of Luise ño Indians requested a copy of the record search results and final draft of the cultural resources report.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 1 L&L

1.0) INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.1) Introduction
L&L Environmental (L&L), at the request of Landbuild, completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Alpine Meadows Project, Tentative Tract Map No. 38174 (APN 243-600-025) located on ±5.74 acres of land in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Landbuild proposes a 4-lot residential subdivision with construction of three (3) single-family housing units.

The purpose of this technical report is to provide the City of Riverside with information necessary to determine whether the Project would cause an adverse change to historical resources, as defined in PRC §5020.1(j), and, therefore, result in a significant impact to the environment under CEQA. To accomplish this objective, L&L completed a cultural resource records search, historical and geoarchaeological background research, coordinated with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals, and completed a systematic survey of the entire Project area.

1.2) Project Location
The proposed Project is generally situated in the northwest portion of Riverside County, within the Alessandro Heights area of the City of Riverside, California. It lies east of Harbart Drive, west and northwest of Kingdom Drive and is bordered by Alpine Meadows Lane to the north (Figure 3). Specifically, it lies within the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 3 South, Range 5 West as shown on the USGS Riverside East, CA 7.5’ topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2).

1.3) Project Description
The proposed Project consists of a 4-lot residential subdivision and construction of three (3) single-family housing units on ±5.74 acres of land (Figure 4). The vertical limits of the Project, as it relates to the maximum depth of subsurface excavations and other ground-disturbing activities, are not currently known.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 2 L&L

Figure 1

Project Vicinity Map

Alpine Meadows Lane, City of Riverside
Riverside County, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

QUIN-05-752
December 2021
Project Vicinity
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 3 L&L

Project Site
Figure 2

Project Location Map
(USGS Riverside East [1980] quadrangle,
Section 13, Township 3 South, Range 5 West)

Alpine Meadows Lane, City of Riverside
Riverside County, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

QUIN-05-752
December 2021
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 4 L&L

Figure 3

Aerial Photograph
(Aerial obtained from Google Earth, August 2018)

Alpine Meadows Lane, City of Riverside
Riverside County, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

QUIN-05-752
December 2021
Project Area
Alpine Meadows Lane
Kingdom Drive
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 5 L&L

Figure 4

Development Plan
(Aerial obtained from Google Earth, August 2018,
Plan from Ackerman Associates 2000, Inc. 5/10/2021)

Alpine Meadows Lane, City of Riverside
Riverside County, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

QUIN-05-752
December 2021
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 6 L&L

1.4) Cultural Resources Staff
The cultural resources records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) was completed by EIC Information Officer Eulices Lopez on October 7 , 2021 (Appendix B) . L&L Principal Archaeologist John Eddy, M.A., RPA, completed the historic records review, geoarchaeological assessment, and co-authored the report. L&L Archaeologist William R. Gillean performed the pedestrian survey of the Project area on October 19, 2021 and co-authored the report.

1.5) Environmental Setting

1.5.1) Existing Land Use and Topography
The site is generally bounded as follows: to the west by a residential property and Harbart Drive, with Prenda Dam, a blue -line stream (Prenda Creek), a mixture of undeveloped lands, high-density residential subdivisions, and Washin gton Street beyond; to the north by Alpine Meadows Lane, a blue-line stream (unnamed), and a mixture of low and high-density residential developments and undeveloped lands, with the 91 Freeway and the City of Riverside beyond; to the east by Kingdom Drive and a mixture of low and high -density residential developments and undeveloped lands, with Trautwein Road beyond; and to the south by disturbed vacant lands, Prenda Creek, and a mixture of low and high density residential developments, with additional undeveloped lands, residential and commercial developments, and Van Buren Boulevard beyond (Figure 3).

The Project area gradually undulates downslope from a large terrace , located in the northwest portion, toward a drainage area to the east and then upslope toward the east boundary. Terrace escarpments rise above either side of the northeast to southwest trending drainage that traverses the southeast portion. Elevation in the Project area increases slightly as it trends west to east from approximately 1,300 f eet to 1,320 feet AMSL. Most of the Project area has either been cleared of vegetation or is developed with a single -family residence, a garage, ornamental vegetation, landscaping, and a concrete driveway. An unimproved dirt road trends northeast - southwest from near a pump station near the south-central boundary to a pump station near the former location of a windmill. The most densely vegetated portion is located along the east boundary and southeast portion of the Project area , with some less densely v egetated areas in the south-central and southwest portions and just west of the northeast corner boundary.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 7 L&L

1.5.2) Soils and Geology
The Project area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age (Qyf) with outcroppings of Mesozoic granite, quartz monzonite, granodiorite, and quartz diorite (grMZ). Morton and Cox (2001) describe the alluvial fan deposits as “gray-hued sand and cobble- and gravel-sand deposits derived chiefly from rocks of Peninsular Ranges batholith.” According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (2021) distinct soils exist within the Project area (Figure 5). The northwestern and southeastern portions are composed of Buren fine sandy loam (BuD2), on 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. The northeastern portion is composed of Cieneba rocky sandy loam (CkF2), on 15-50 percent slopes, eroded. Terrace escarpments (TeG) and Hanford coarse sandy loam (HcC), on 2 to 8 percent slopes, are present in the middle of the Project area. Typical profiles for all four (4) soil units are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical Profile of Soil Units Identified within the Project Area.

Map Unit
Symbol Name Acres
% of
Project
Area Typical Profile
BuD2 Buren fine sandy loam, 8 to
15 percent slopes, eroded 2.4 41.9
H1 – 0 to 12 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 – 12 to 28 inches: loam
H3 – 28 to 37 inches: loam
H4 – 37-57 inches: cemented
(duripan)
CkF2
Cieneba rocky sandy loam,
15 to 50 percent slopes,
eroded

0.4 7.2
H1 – 0 to 14 inches: sandy loam
H2 – 14 to 22 inches: weathered
bedrock
HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam,
2 to 8 percent slopes 0.8 13.3
A – 0 to 8 inches: coarse sandy loam
C1 – 8 to 40 inches: fine sandy loam
C2 – 40 to 60 inches: stratified loamy
sand to coarse sandy loam
Depth to restrictive feature: more
than 80 inches
TeG Terrace escarpments 2.1 37.6 N/A

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 8 L&L

Figure 5

Soils Map
(Aerial obtained from Google Earth, August 2018,
USDA Nat. Res. Cons. Serv. SSURGO Data)

Alpine Meadows Lane, City of Riverside
Riverside County, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

QUIN-05-752
December 2021
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 9 L&L

1.5.3) Vegetation and Wildlife
Patches of coastal scrub vegetation are present in the eastern, southeastern, and south -central portions of the Project area. Brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) is the dominant shrub associated with this vegetation community on the Project area and it is best characterized as brittlebush scrub (Encelia farinosa Shrubland Alliance).

Additional perennials associated with this community include California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush ( Artemisia californica ), white sage ( Salvia apiana ), and cudweed aster ( Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. filaginifolia). Other native perennials present include blue elderberry ( Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea) and Anderson box -thorn ( Lycium andersonii). Non -native plants commonly observed include shortpod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana), wild oat (Avena species), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Castor bean (Ricinus communis ), a non -native large shrub or small tree, is conspicuous along the southwestern and south-central site edges in alluvial soils associated with a small onsite drainage.

Disturbed areas that are not vegetated with ornamental plants are sparsely to densely inhabited by various non-native annual plants, including non-native grasses (Bromus species and Schismus barbatus), mustards (Hirschfeldia incana and Sisymbrium irio), Russian thistle ( Salsola tragus), tocalote ( Centaurea melitensis ), filaree ( Erodium species), horehound ( Marrubium vulgare ), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca).

Some native annual plants that are tolerant of disturbed places are also present and include large flower rancher’s fiddleneck ( Amsinckia intermedia ), western sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis).

Non-native ornamental landscaping includes Peruvian pepper tree ( Schinus molle ), blue jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus species), pine (Pinus species), elm (Ulmus species), acacia (Acacia longifolia), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia species), and Mexican fan palm ( Washingtonia robusta ). Additional unidentified ornamental shrubs and smaller landscape annuals are present.

Non-native weedy plants are present in the landscaped areas and include (but are not limited to) common sow thistle ( Sonchus oleraceus ), prickly lettuce ( Lactuca serriola ), lamb's -quarters (Chenopodium album ), pineapple weed ( Matricaria discoidea ), and tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus).

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 10 L&L

Wildlife identified within the Project area included several species of bird and mammal. Bird species observed included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and California quail (Callipepla californica californica). Mammal species include coyote (Canis latrans ), Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii ), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia).

1.5.4) Water Resources
The Project is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. An unnamed ephemeral streambed (not a blue-line stream) runs through the southeast portion of the site from east to west. There has been disturbance to the drainage, particularly on the west end. On the east end vegetation in and along the drainage is brittlebush scrub. On the west end it is either unvegetated or non - native and ruderal. The only riparian vegetation is one (1) native willow tree with a canopy that extends over the property boundary.

The onsite stream is a tributary to Prenda Creek, a blue-line stream that is about 150 feet south of the site. A second blue-line stream (unnamed) is about 350 feet north of the site and converges with Prenda Creek at Prenda Dam, about 0.3 mile west and downstream of the site. Most of the site is within the mapped extent of Prenda Arroyo.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 11 L&L

2.0) CULTURAL SETTING

2.1) Prehistoric Setting
Little is known about the prehistory of the San Jacinto Mountains, leading one researcher to refer to the entire northern Peninsular Ranges as an “archaeological enigma” (Sutton 2011:44). In the absence of a cultural framework for the geographic region researchers often borrow from frameworks established for coastal (e.g., Wallace 1955; Warren 1968; King 1990; Sutton 2010; Sutton and Gardner 2010), desert (Warren 1984; Love and Dahdul 2002; Schaefer and Laylander 2007; Sutton et al. 2007 ), or inland valley regions (e.g., O’Connell et al. 1974; Grenda 1997; Goldberg et al. 2001; Sutton 2011, 2015). The following section provides a brief discussion o f the prehistoric setting for the San Jacinto Mountains that borrows heavily from the general frameworks offered by Goldberg et al. (2001) for Diamond Valley Reservoir, O’Connell et al. (1974) for Perris Valley Reservoir, Grenda (1997) for Lake Elsinore, and Warren (1984) for the greater southern California desert regio n. Additional information related to the prehistor y of southern California can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources including Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), Heizer (1978), Moratto (1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Warren and Crabtree (1986), Raab and Jones (2004), Jones and Klar ( 2007), Arnold and Walsh (2010), and Sutton (2015).

The prehistoric framework proposed by Goldberg et al. (2001) consist s of seven (7) distinct periods: Paleoindian; Early, Middle, and Late Archaic; Saratoga Springs; Late Prehistoric; and Protohistoric. A reassessment of the sequence is proposed in consideration of ongoing research into the antiquity and distribution of late-period projectile point styles (e.g., Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side -notched), dynamic changes in regional social networks in t he inland valleys during the Medieval Warm Interval (e.g., Eddy 2013), and changes in prehistoric settlement activity during the Archaic to Late Prehistoric transition in central western Riverside County.

The revised central cultural sequence replaces Paleoindian, a term first used by Roberts (1940) and proffered by Moratto (1984), with Paleoarchaic after Beck and Jones (1997), Jennings (1957, 1964), Willig (1988), and Davis et al. (2012) and identifies the Saratoga Springs Period, adopted from Warren’s (1984) Mojave Desert sequence, as a potential Occupational Hiatus (ca. 1,500 to 1,200 BP), while the start date for the Late Prehistoric is pushed back several hundred years to approximately 1,200 BP. The revised sequence further differentiates the Late Prehistoric Period into Medieval Warm and Post -Medieval Warm Intervals and divides the period into three (3) distinct phases (Phase I [1,200 to 750 BP]; Phase II [750 to 575 BP]; and Phase III [575 to 410 BP]).

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 12 L&L

2.1.1) Paleoarchaic Period (~12,000 to 9,500 BP)
The earliest period of human occupation in southern California dates to the late Pleistocene- Holocene transition in coastal and desert settings. This is often referred to as the Paleoindian Period (e.g., Roberts 1940; Moratto 1984) , which is commonly applied to the earliest cultures across North America. This period is also referred to as Period I: Hunting (Wallace 1978), Paleocoastal (Braje et al. 2013), San Dieguito (Warren 1968, 1984, Sutton and Gardner 2010), Lake Mojave (Campbell et al. 1937; Warren and Crabtree 1986), and the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Cressman 1940a, 1940b, 1942, 1986; Bedwell 1970, 1973).

Others (e.g., Beck and Jones 1997; Davis et al. 2012) argue the existence of a Paleoarch aic tradition accounts for the stemmed and nonfluted projectile point culture(s) of the Far West and distinguish it from the Paleoindian tradition, which they equate with fluted point cu ltures, most notably Clovis. Davis et al. (201 2:53) identify significant differences in the organization of Paleoarchaic and Paleoindian lithic technologies that challenge the idea of a clear evolution from fluted to nonfluted lithic reduction technologies, as implied within the Clovis first model.

Paleoarchaic sites may be associated with the remains of extinct megafauna. The period is also distinguished by a distinct lithic tool assemblage composed of percussion -flaked scrapers and knives and large, well-made, fluted, leaf-shaped, or stemmed projectile points (e.g., Lake Mojave, Silver Lake ) as well as crescentics, heavy core/cobble tools, hammerstones, bifacial cores, choppers, and scraper planes. Both Warren (1984) and Wallace (1978:27) suggest that the absence of milling tools commonly used to process seeds and other plant materials indicates big game subsistence focus. The early occupants of southern California’s deserts were most likely nomadic large-game hunters, while those occupying th e coastline and islands were entrenched within a maritime economy that included large mammal, fish, and shellfish.

Pleistocene megafauna perished abruptly between 13,000 and 10,000 BP as the climate warmed and became more arid. Human populations responded to the changing environmental conditions by diversifying their subsistence base to include a variety of faunal and floral resources (Warren 1980, 1984).

2.1.2) Early Archaic Period (9,500 to 7,000 BP)
The Early Archaic Period represents the earliest accepted evidence of human occupation in the vicinity of the San Jacinto Mountains. Archaeological remains associated with this time period are often associated with and characterized by an a bundance of metates and manos and a paucity of projectile points and faunal remains, suggesting a transition in subsistence focus from Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 13 L&L

large game hunting to plant resource procurement. Evidence of this transition, which Wallace (1955) subsumed under “Peri od II: Food Collecting,” was noted along southern California’s coastline at approximately 8,500 BP and associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968; Sutton and Gardner 2010), with a slightly earlier date of 9 ,000 BP proposed for central and northern California (Fitzgerald and Jones 1999:86). In southern California’s inland valleys, the appearance of metates and manos date to as early as 9,400 BP (Horne and McDougall 2008).

The Encinitas Tradition , which Sutton and Gardner (2010) divide into inland and coastal manifestations and four (4) distinct cultural patterns (Topanga and La Jolla along the coast; Pauma and Greven Knoll for inland areas) is characterized by a rather generic and flexible subsistence strategy (e.g., Hale 2001:165) employed by smal l groups of highly mobile hunter - gatherers with a heavy reliance upon plant resources (Sutton and Gardner 2010:5). Material culture attributes of the Encinitas Tradition, as originally defined by Warren (1968), include abundant metates and manos, crude co re and flake tools, shell ornaments, bone tools, and a paucity of projectile points.

Few archaeological sites date to the Early Archaic in Riverside County. The majority of these contain scant evidence of Early Archaic, mostly dated off obsidian hydration rind measurements, suggesting ephemeral site use by small, highly mobile groups. This seems to support the idea that ephemeral use of the inland valleys during the Paleoindian period continued into the Early Archaic. However, at least two (2) sites (CA-RIV-5786 and -6069) contain evidence of semi- sedentary residential occupations where site reuse was anticipated, suggesting a predictable availability of water and other critical resources (Goldberg et al. 2001). These sites are found invariably near large, drought -resistant, inland water sources, and may ha ve been destination points on a scheduled, seasonal round.

2.1.3) Middle Archaic Period (7,000 to 4,000 BP)
Settlement activities intensified in the inland areas of cismontane southern C alifornia during the Middle Archaic Period as conditions in the interior deserts deteriorated (Goldberg et al. 2001).

Paleoecological and paleohydrological evidence suggests maximum aridity in the desert regions between approximately 7,000 and 5,000 BP, with amelioration returning at approximately 5 ,500 BP and continuing through 4 ,000 BP (Spaulding 1991, 1995). The Pinto Period (ca. 7 ,000 to 4,000 or 3,500 BP), which succeeded the Lake Mojave Period in the Mojave Desert, represents an adaptive response to changing climatic conditions evident in prehistoric subsistence practices, placing higher emphasis on the exploitation of plants and small animals than the preceding period, although hunting of large game animals continued with similar intensity (Warren 1980, 1984).

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 14 L&L

Sutton and Gardner’s (2011) Greven Knoll I complex for the San Bernardino Mountains and inland valleys, while problematic for its lack of consistency, does identify Pinto material traits among Greven Knoll sites. These traits led Kowta (1969:39) and later Sutton and Gardner (2010:26) to suggest the San Bernardino Mountains and inland valleys were influenced by Pinto groups occupying the Mojave Desert to the north. This influence may have permeated into the lower Colorado Desert as well as the San Jacinto Mountains.

Archaeological investigations in Diamond Valley identified at least 19 archaeological components associated with the Middle Archaic Period. Several intensively used residential bases and/or temporary camps containing abundant cultur al debris, including temporally diagnostic artifacts (Pinto and Silver Lake projectile points, crescents), at least nine (9) complex lithic scatters likely representing resource extraction and processing sites, and one (1) human burial covered with large rocks and ground stone artifacts, were recorded. In addition, evidence of ephemeral Middle Archaic use is present at several sites in the form of isolated radiocarbon -dated features and/or sparse scatters of obsidian debitage dated by obsidian hydration methods. More intensively used residential components occur along alluvial fan margins, while less intensively used areas are situated on arroyo bottoms or upland benches (Goldberg et al. 2001).

CA-RIV-5045, also known as the Diamond Valley Pinto Site, evin ces purely Pinto and Lake Mojave materials in well -stratified, radiometrically defined cultural deposits. In addition to the numerous Pinto-style projectile points recovered, deposits contained abundant and diverse faunal assemblages, an extensive array of flaked stone tools and ground stone implements, and intact cultural features assignable to specific periods of occupation. Radiometric data, feature types, and artifact/ecofact assemblage characteristics indicate that CA -RIV-5045 was occupied most intensively between 6,200 and 5,600 BP, when it is believed to have functioned as a wintertime residential base (McDougall 2001).

The density of Middle Archaic Period sites in Diamond Valley compared to the previous period suggests land-use and settlement activities intensified (Goldberg et al. 2001). Similar evidence of intensification was observed by Grenda (1997) at the Lake Elsinore site (CA -RIV-2798/H) sometime after 4,800 BP. The distribution and variety of sites (i.e., residential bases, temporary camps, and a variety of ephemeral resource extraction and processing sites) suggest that Middle Archaic inhabitants of the inland valleys likely conformed to a rest-rotation collecting strategy that included warm-season residential movements through a series of resource procurement camps (otherwise known as the seasonal round), followed by longer-term residential settlements during the midwinter ebb (Goldberg and Horne 2001). A key feature of rest-rotation collecting is reliance on stored foods during the interval of winter sedentary occupation. Logistic mobility, or the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 15 L&L

collection and transport of critical resources to the home residential base, also played an important role in resource procurement, especially during the winter when stored foods were likely consumed.

2.1.4) Late Archaic Period (4,000 to 1,500 BP)
Analysis of Late Archaic sites in nearby Diamond Valley suggests groups changed to a semisedentary land-use and collection strategy. The profusion of features, especially refuse deposits, in Late Archaic components suggests that seasonal encampments saw longer use and more frequent reuse than during the latter part of the Middle Archaic Period, with increasing moisture improving the conditions of southern California after ca. 3,100 BP (Horne 2001). Drying and warming after ca. 2 ,100 BP likely exacted a toll on expanding populations, influencing changes in resource procurement strategies , promoting economic diversification and resource intensification, and perhaps resulting in a permanent shift toward greater sedentism (Goldberg 2001).

Technologically, the artifact assemblage of the Late Archaic mimicked to the preceding Middle Archaic. New tools were added either as innovations or as “borrowed” cultural items. Influence from the Colorado Desert was apparent in the appearance of Obsidian Butte obsidian at Late Archaic assemblages in Diamond Valley (Robinson 2001a:413). The influence of desert culture that was apparent during the middle and early part of the Late Archaic period, as evinced by the presence of Pinto and Elko-style dart points, waned toward the end of the Late Archaic, and later, Phase I of the Late Prehistoric Period. For instance, the Rose Spring projectile point style, prevalent in the Mojave Desert north and west of the Mojave River, was not found in association with Late Archaic or Phase I Late Prehistoric Period sites in Diamond Valley (Robinson 2001 b).

In fact, Rose Spring-style points are rare throughout the inland valleys. Further, the Late Archaic/Late Prehistoric transition was also marked by a decrease in use of Coso Obsidian (Robinson 2001 a), suggesting access to Mojave Desert resources was restricted, perhaps resulting from the growth of competing social networks (e.g., the stone bead interdependence network [Eddy 2013]).

2.1.5) Late Archaic/Late Prehistoric Transition (1,500 to 1,200 BP) Chronometric data from archaeological site s in Diamond Valley includes a 450-year gap in the human occupation record. Similar gaps were noted at Perris Reservoir (O’Connell et al. 1974) and Lake Elsinore (Grenda 1997), suggesting a potential occupational hiatus of the inland valleys between the end of the Late Archaic (1,500 BP) and advent of the Medieval Warm Interval (1,200 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 16 L&L

BP). A similar occupational hiatus between 1,350 and 1,150 BP is noted in chronometric data from residential sites in Coachella Valley. Evidence suggests the inland valleys and lower desert witnessed a period of sporadic non-intensive use as these once viable areas were abandoned for other locations with greater availability and predictability of natural resources and water.

Late Archaic populations occupying canyons and desert oases of the northwestern Colorado Desert, as well as Diamond, San Jacinto, and Moreno Valleys , could have migrated into the Peninsular Ranges (e.g., Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains; Wilke 1978) or north into the Transverse Ranges and Mojave Desert. Movement southeast into the lower Colorado River is not likely due to the absence of Patayan I ceramics, produced as early as 1,250 BP in the lower Colorado River area (Schroeder 1952; Waters 1982:281), from Coachella Valley deposits radiocarbon dated as early as 1,100 BP. Patayan ceramics (i.e., evidence of interaction with the lower Colorado River), did not arrive in the Coachella Valley or the Peninsular Ranges until 950 BP (Dahdul et al. 2011:98; May 1978:4; Pallette and Schafer 1994:7; Schaefer 1994:5).

While inland valley and lower desert areas were apparently vacated , populations were aggregating near predictable and reliable sources of water in other areas of southern California.

In the Mojave Desert and southwestern Great Basin, population aggregation coincides with the early part of the Saratoga Springs Period (Wallace and Taylor 1959; Wallace 1977, Warren 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986) associated with Rosegate-series and Eastgate-series projectile point styles, as well as morphologically distinct large triangular projectile points, later classified as Saratoga Springs points (Wallace 1988). These points may represent the advent of the bow and arrow weapons system, which was used alongside the former atlatl weapons system for some time. Others working in the Mojave Desert (e.g., Gardner 2002, 2006; Sutton 1996; Sutton et al. 2007; Sutton and Jackson 1993) refer to this period as Rose Spring and place the start date as far back as 1,800 BP.

A shift toward sedentism during the Saratoga Springs/Rose Spring Period led to the development of extensive residential occupations established near spr ings, creeks, and lakeshores (Sutton 1996). In some instances, these occupations were equipped with permanent living structures (Sutton 1990, 1991). Between 1,500 and 1,100 BP, large village sites with well-developed midden deposits appeared in Antelope Valley (Sutton 1981), at the Bickel Site north of Antelope Valley (McGuire et al. 1981), Rustler Rockshelter in the Mojave National Preserve (Davis 1962; Sutton 2005), and possibly at the Saratoga Springs site in Death Valley (Wallace and Taylor 1959). In the northwestern Colorado Desert, a Late Archaic Period occupation near Seven Palms (CA-RIV- 2642; Dahdul et al. 2011) and another below the high shoreline of Lake Cahuilla (CA -RIV-6797; Brock 2002) persisted until approximately 1,350 BP, when the area was apparently abandoned.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 17 L&L

Adaptive responses to changing environmental conditions associated with the Medieval Warm Interval and the diversion of the Colorado River back into the Salton Trough led to repopulation and intensive occupation of the nort hwestern Colorado Desert. Coinciding with this settlement shift in the desert, populations reoccupied inland valleys around 1,200 BP.

2.1.6) Late Prehistoric Period (1,200 to 410 BP)
The initial date of the Late Prehistoric Period in southern California is a topic of some debate. It is commonly associated with appearance of a unique suite of artifacts that include Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-notched (DSN) projectile points and ceramics dated to approximately 800 BP (Warren 1984:424; Goldberg et al. 2001). Others (Dahdul et al. 2011; Wallace 1955; Warren 1968) push the advent of the Late Prehistoric Period as far back as 1,500 BP, coeval with the Saratoga Springs/Rose Spring Period in the Mojave Desert. We suggest a more satisfactory date of 1,200 BP , coinciding with the re -intensification of land-use in inland valleys following a potential 300-year occupational hiatus.

The Late Prehistoric Period may be divided into three (3) distinct phases spanning the time before and during the Medieval Warm Interval – Phase I: 1,200 to 750 BP, Phase II: 750 to 550 BP, and Phase III: 550 to 410 BP.

Phase I of the Late Prehistoric Period (1,200 BP to 1,050 BP) is associated with reoccupation of the inland valleys and northwestern Colorado Desert prior to the onset of the Medieval Warm Interval and the aggregation of populations near reliable water sources during the climatic interval, a pattern that peaked during Phase II (750 and 550 BP). Phase III follows the end of the Medieval Warm Interval and is characterized by the transition toward fewer more permanent residential sites (see Horne 2001) that continued into and after the arrival of Europeans, which marks the beginning of the Protohistoric Period (i.e., 410 BP).

Characteristic artifacts of the Late Prehistoric Period, in general, include large triangular projectile points, sometimes referred to as Saratoga Springs points or perhaps more appropriately ancestral Cottonwoods, that transition into standard Cottonwood points, higher frequencies of millingstones (e.g., unshaped handstones, mortars, and pestles), incised stones, and shell beads. Brownware ceramics, Lower Colorado Buff ware ceramics, and Desert Side -notched points do not typically occur until the Protohist oric. During this time, access to Coso obsidian was restricted to the northern Mojave Desert, possibly associated with the Numic Spread (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Lamb 1958; Sutton 1994) resulting in increased use of cryptocrystalline silicates to the south and east. In the inland valleys, locally available lithic materials (e.g., quartz, Bedford Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 18 L&L

Canyon metavolcanics) were supplemented by obsidian obtained from the Obsidian Butte source in Imperial County near the southern end of Salton Sea.

2.1.7) Protohistoric Period (410 to 150 BP)
The Protohistoric Period marks the arrival of the Spanish in Alta California and the impact of European influence on native populations. Although the Spanish did not formally enter the San Jacinto Mountains until centuries later, Native Americans in the area were aware of Europeans and even acquired some European goods through trade networks well before European colonization began. Such influences may be found when European and Mexican-made materials are encountered in Protohistoric archaeological deposits . S uch discoveries may contribute to analyses of trade networks, political relationships between groups, and shifts in emphasis on subsistence resources.

The Protohistoric Period witnessed an increase in usage of obsidian from the Obsidian Butte source near the southern end of Salton Sea, which was exposed between high stand intervals of Lake Cahuilla sometime between 350 and 300 BP and a gain between 250 to 150 BP.

Furthermore, Desert Side -notched points spread further inland where they are often found in Protohistoric archaeological deposits along with more common Cottonwood Triangular points.

Late in the period, European trade goods (i .e., glass trade beads) were added to the cultural assemblages (Meighan 1954).

Climatic conditions of the Little Ice Age , beginning in Phase III of the Late Prehistoric Period , continued into the Protohistoric Period and supported development of various pr oductive plant communities and ecotones to sustain local populations almost year-round. The use of plant food increased, as did the intensity of the processing effort. Faunal data from this period demonstrates a decrease in faunal diversity, signifying both a reduction in diet breadth and greater dependency on specific animals, namely lagomorphs (McKim 2001).

Lower temperatures during the Little Ice Age coupled with inadequate sources of fuel wood suggest procurement of fuel may have become an increasingl y important element of logistical provisioning. Toolstone distribution patterns indicate that local materials, such as Bedford Canyon metavolcanics and quartz vein deposits , were supplemented by desert materials (obsidian and chert), which gained prominen ce during this period while other relatively closer sources of exotic raw materials from the west (basalt, andesite, rhyolite, metavolcanic rock, and Piedra de Lumbre “chert”) were little used, suggesting that territorial boundaries, at least to the west, had become established.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 19 L&L

Hunting efficiency increased through use of bow and arrow and widespread exploitation of hard nuts and berries, as well as the re -intensification of acorn use (indicated by the abundance of mortars and pestles in Diamond Valley asse mblages), provided reliable and storable food resources. Village sites dating to the Protohistoric Period in Diamond Valley contain deeper refuse-laden midden deposits, suggesting permanent habitation. Settlement became almost completely sedentary , with many small residential sites within larger village territories that included resource gathering and processing areas. These would have been the villages and rancherias noted by early non-native explorers of the region (True 1966, 1970).

Land-use intensification strategies during the Protohistoric Period mirror changes at the end of the Late Archaic Period, when climatic degradation inducing resource stress on local populations may have triggered a shift from rest-rotation collecting to a semisedentary settlement strategy. If the environment during the Protohistoric Period was just as productive as Phase III of the Late Prehistoric Period, what other factors would account for the development of more intensive land- use strategies during the Protohistoric? It has been suggested that the shift to a fully sedentary settlement strategy during the Protohistoric was not a response to environmental degradation, but rather, resource stress resulting from a population increase that started in Phase III of the Late Prehistoric Period (Goldberg 2001).

Increased population in the inland valleys may have led to competition for food, water, and other natural resources (fuel). Resource stress could not be alleviated through territorial expansion and/or resource niche-width expansion, as it was during the Late Archaic and Phase I and II of the Late Prehistoric. Increasing territorial circumscription would require longer occupation of residential bases, reducing logistical movements between seasonal bases. Rather, occupation of permanent villages and increasing population likely led to territoriality over critical resources, precluding opportunities for territorial expansion and/or leading to confrontations and all-out inter- village conflict. An increase in the frequency of projectile points and the strategic placement of residential sites on elevated bedrock surfaces overlooking the floor of Diamond Valley lends some support to this theory (Goldberg et al. 2001). Alternatively, trade and ceremonial gatherings with other groups may have helped maintain social relationships, ensure d food resources during stressful times, and sustained populations.

The Hakataya influence in coastal and inland Southern California regions appears to have diminished during the late Protohistoric Period, when extensive trade networks along the Mojave River and in Antelope Valley apparently broke down and large village sites were abandoned (Warren 1984:427). Warren (1984:428) suggests that disruption in trade networks may have resulted from the movement of the Colorado River basin Chemehuevi populations southward Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 20 L&L

across the trade routes.

2.2) Ethnohistoric Context
Western academics have associated Menifee with Luiseño (Drucker 1937; He izer and Whipple 1971; Kroeber 1925; Pechanga 2011; Smith and Freers 1994) and Cahuilla (Bean 1978) traditional use areas. Both tribes spoke a Cupan language in the Takic family and shared some cultural similarities. Territorial boundaries among these gr oups may have been fluid and likely changed overtime (e.g., according to Strong [1929], the Cahuilla occupied area north of San Jacinto River during the Mexican Period).

The depth and breadth of ethnohistoric and ethnographic data available varies among the tribes, with some tribes’ history more thoroughly documented then others. In some cases, information may not have been shared with outsiders but was retained among the group through oral history, ceremonies, ritual, and song. With respect to the traditional Native American knowledge retained and recovered by local tribes, we present the following ethnographic summary based on data collected and documented by western academics. It includes sections for the Cahuilla and Luiseño, presented in alphabetical order, and focuses on general ethnographic data, including settlement structure, subsistence, and material culture, that inform on the type of Native American cultural resources that may be encountered within the Project area.

2.2.1) Cahuilla
The ethnohistory of the Cahuilla Indians is documented in academic studies, mission records, and major published sources including Kroeber (1908, 1925), Hooper (1920), Strong (1929), Bean (1972, 1978), Heizer (1978), and Bean et al. (1991). San Gorgonio Pass, Coachella Valley, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains were occupied by the Cahuilla people at the time of Spanish arrival in 1769. By the early 1800s, the Cahuilla had expanded into northern Riverside County (Strong 1929 ). The Cahuilla were organized into at least 12 differed patrilineal clans, which owned large spans of territory that included multiple ecological zones at high and low elevations. This allowed the Cahuilla people to exploit a wide range of plant and animal resources in different seasons (Bean 1972). Cahuilla groups are often distinguished by the topographic region (i.e., desert, mountain, and pass) in which they established permanent settlements (Bean 1972).

Desert Cahuilla settlements congregated aroun d the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla as well as near the mouth of canyons and valleys in areas that could supply many of their food resources Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 21 L&L

within a 5-mile area (Bean 1972:73-74). As the lake receded, the Cahuilla moved their villages and adapted their subsistence practices (Wilke 1976). Pass Cahuilla also established settlements in or near the mouth of canyons and valleys in areas. Mountain Cahuilla occupied settlements between 3,000 and 5,000 feet in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains.

Cahuilla clans operated within a hierarchical politico -religious structure, each with one or more ceremonial units that served as a “symbolic representation of the sociopolitical reality of the group” (Bean et al. 1991:5). These groups were part of a ritual c ongregation connecting autonomous groups to the broader socio-political, religious, and economic networks.

The Cahuilla were hunter-gatherers for the most part and may have incorporated agriculture into their subsistence foci prior to European contact. Among the animals the Cahuilla hunted were pronghorn sheep, mule deer, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, desert tortoise, rats , and mice. The Cahuilla often organized communal rabbit hunts prior to ceremonial gatherings to provide food for guests and participa nts. When available, the Cahuilla also hunted fish and birds along the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla.

Cahuilla material culture included an array of utilitarian and ceremonial objects. Cahuilla were well known for their woven baskets. They were also expert potters and used ceramics to craft many different items for storage, cooking, and other uses. Stone and wood implements were integral to daily Cahuilla life. Wooden mortars and pestles were used to process mesquite beans and other seeds and plant materials, as were stone manos and pestles used with stone mortars, metates, and bedrock slicks. Cryptocrystalline and microcrystalline silicates, metavolcanics, and obsidian, among other stone materials, were worked into knives, blades, scrappers, and projectile points to tip wood arrows. Wood was utilized for bow construction, pestles and mortars, arrow shafts, throwing sticks, digging sticks, and flutes. The Cahuilla also utilized various parts of animals (e.g., bone and tendons) and plants (e.g. , mescal fiber sandals) in everyday life.

Ceremonial objects included shell beads, feathers, gourd rattles, crystals, wands, and various items that made up the ceremonial bundle.

2.2.2) Luiseno
The term Luiseño originated as a description of the native peoples associated with Mission San Luis Rey near Oceanside who shared a similar language, culture, and religious worldview. The Luiseño refer to themselves as Payómkawichum, meaning people of the west (R. Basquez, personal communication April 1, 2014) derived from the word Payómkawic (i.e., westerner after Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 22 L&L

Harrington 1933:103). They were distinguished by name from their neighbors west of the Santa Ana Mountains who were brought under the influenc e of Mission San Juan Capistrano (i.e., Juaneños or Acjachemen; cf. Harrington’s [1933:113] 'Axátcmeyam) but shared closely related dialects, culture, and religious customs (Harrington 1933), leading others (e.g., White 1963:91; Bean and Shipek 1978:550) to argue that the Payómkawichum and 'Axátcmeyam represented a single ethnic nationality. As succinctly stated in recent ethnographic work among the Luiseño, the “anthropological characterization of Luiseño history and geography…differs considerably from the Luiseño’s own understanding of their origins as explained by the Luiseño Origin Story, or story of creation” (Curti 2013:19).

The Luiseño were a patrilineal society, meaning property, rights, and leadership positions were inherited through the father. T he Luiseño also practiced a form of patrilocality, in which related males lived in clusters within a village, while females were either married in or married out of the family. The Luiseño did not maintain moieties, at least not the Coyote and Wildcat moi eties common among neighboring groups like the Cahuilla and Serrano, although White (1963) suggested that a type of ceremonial moiety system was in place prior to Spanish arrival.

Luiseño territory was divided into a system of village complexes, village te rritories, and villages.

The village complex, which was like a city, contained multiple villages or neighborhoods, each with their own village territory. The Pechanga Tribe has identified several large village complexes in neighboring areas, including $óovamay centered in Diamond and Domenigoni valleys, Qaxáalku southeast of Lake Matthews, Paxávxa in Temescal Canyon, Páayaxchi at Lake Elsinore, and Téemeku in Temecula (Pechanga 2008).

Areas within a village territory were connected by trails and pathways, all of which communicated information, both public and private, to the Luiseño. A similar system of trails connected village territories and village complexes to one another and emphasized important concepts of community and commonwealth. Oxendine (1983 :45, 177), White (1963:116, 134), and others (e.g., Bean and Vane 2001; Sparkman 1908; and True et al. 1974) recognized the existence of Luiseño settlement land -use patterns within historic village territories . F uture archaeological research in the Project region may determine just how far back these patterns can be traced into prehistory.

The Luiseño, were, for the most part, hunters, collectors, and harvesters who utilized available resources within their village territories while also maintaining usufruct rights to gather from other village territories. Most food resources were gathered within proximity to the village, but during certain seasons the family group would move to the coast for marine resources or into the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 23 L&L

mountains for acorns and deer. Thi s allowed the Luiseño to obtain resources from a variety of ecological zones, which supplied food in all seasons. Environmental niches of particular importance within the Project area would have included Riversidian sage scrub and riparian plant communities.

The Luiseño hunted small and large game, including various hare and rabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, quail, doves, ducks, and other birds, and both antelope and deer. Tree squirrels, most reptiles, and predators such as coyotes, mountain lions, and bobcats, were avoided as food resources, except possibly during lean times. Insects were also available as food resources.

Luiseño hunting technology employed for small and large game included throwing sticks; the bow and arrow, typically with a wo od or bone point (White 1963:127); snares; traps; slings; decoys; disguises; and hunting blinds. Fire also assisted in communal rabbit drives. Many villages also had access to creeks and rivers where nets, traps, spears, hooks and lines, and poisons were used to catch fish.

As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Roots and shoots of various types were gathered from marshes and wetlands. Seeds from various grasses and scrub plants, such as buckwheat, also played an important role in the aboriginal diet and were available for harvest from summer through fall. Certain mushrooms and tree fungi supplemented the diet and were considered delicacies.

Teas were made from a variety of floral resources and were used for medicinal cures as well as for beverages. Tobacco and datura were sacred plants used for rituals and medicine.

Plant and animal processing activities required portable and/or stationary ground stone tools.

BRMs were fixed locations on the landscape utilized in communal, family, and private resource processing settings. They were most populated with slicks, but also contained basin metates and mortars that were worked into the outcrop surface or placed withi n natural depressions. BRMs were used in tandem with manos and pestles. Portable ground stone tools are sometimes found in association with BRMs, but are more commonly associated with village sites, other habitation sites, and resource processing locations that did not contain bedrock outcrops (i.e., complex lithic scatters).

Most Luiseño houses were conical and partially subterranean; however, during the 19th century some had rectangular houses. The dwellings were made of locally available material, suc h as reeds, brush, or bark. Occupants entered using a door at the side of the shelter, which was sometimes accessed through a short tunnel. Smoke from a central fireplace rose through a hole in the center of the roof. Domestic chores, such as cooking, eating, and social interaction, often Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 24 L&L

occurred under a brush-covered ramada that stood near the house. Earth-covered sweat houses for purification and curing rituals, ceremonial houses with fenced areas, and granaries for food storage were found in most villages (Bean and Shipek 1978:553; Bean and Vane 2001:VI.D-5).

2.3) Historic Context
The Santa Ana River plain and its adjacent environs are relatively well known historically.

Europeans first visited the area in the mid-1770s. In 1819 a station associated with Mission San Gabriel was established at Jurupa, but Bean and Vane (1979) note that Mission Indian converts of 1798 originated from the "rancheria of Jurupet" that was located a few miles west of the Mira Loma plain.

Seven-square-league Rancho Jurupa land grant was awarded in 1838 to Mission San Gabriel administrator, Juan Bandini (Bean and Vane 1979; Love et al. 2000). Near the end of the mission period, lands across southern California were resold many times over and Rancho Jurupa was no exception. Bandini, who lived in Los Angeles, sold 1.5 leagues of Rancho Jurupa to his tenant B. D. (Benito) Wilson in 1843 for $1 ,000 (Keller 1995). Wilson built an adobe and dug the first "Jurupa Ditch", which brought water from the Santa Ana River. The San Bernardino South, CA (rev. 1973) topographic map shows Jurupa Ditch originating from a series of wells dug into the Santa Ana River floodplain. It is likely that ditch ingress was destroyed during the massive flooding of 1861-62 and these wells represent later developments.

In October 1845 Bernardo Yorba petitioned Governor Pio Pico for land Yorba had identified as "La Sierra". According to Bissell (1993), Yorba and his brother Thomas had been using the area for grazing since about 1825. Thomas Yorba's widow, Vincente Sepulveda, also submitted a petition to Pio Pico for a land grant in the same area. In 1846, Pio Pico split the grant into two (2) sections, with Bernardo Yorba getting the western portion. Sepulveda received the eastern, or La Sierra, portion.

The land was sold and resold until about 1910, when Willits Hole foreclosed the property and became owner of La Sierra Sepulv eda. He soon donated a school site to the Seventh -day Adventist Church, which eventually established La Sierra College. Hole built a granite mansion at La Sierra Avenue and Cypress Street and a community quickly developed about the College and small orch ards that dotted the region. Many of the homes about the College were built between 1920 and 1950 and the Arlington Heights grove homes located south of the study area may qualify for historic status.

After the mission period ended and California was annexed by the United States, Louis Rubidoux Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 25 L&L

acquired a portion of the Bandini property and Wilson sold half of this land to R ubidoux.

Eventually, Rubidoux acquired a little under 6,450 acres, but had problems with money and began to parcel off the Rancho in the 1850s. The community of Rubidoux was founded in 1887 around the Rancho Jurupa (Rubidoux) adobe and was initially named West Riverside (Gunther 1984).

Hampson et al. (1988) describes the disastrous floods of 1861-62, which wiped out communities and ranches directly adjacent to the Santa Ana River. This event also destroyed the rich vegetative bottomlands of the river, replacing them with a sandy wasteland. Hampson describes the river as a "series of braided streams coursing over sand, and much of the flow was lost to percolation. The volume of water lessened dramatically and (certain) ditches rarely drew as much water as before" (Hampson et al . 1988). This forced ditch rebuilding efforts and these were extended upstream to catch water before it seeped into the ground. It is likely that wells for Jurupa Ditch were excavated after the flooding for this reason. After the flooding, it was two (2) years before rain fell on the area. The drought and the flood altered agricultural mechanisms in the area forever.

Most of the Santa Ana River's flow, at least by 1870, had been cut off by ranchers upstream, making the Mira Loma, Jurupa , and La Sierra areas relatively unimportant from an economic standpoint. The La Sierra area would have been usable once wells had been dug to a depth that would tap artesian water pressures.

The town of Riverside was founded in 1870 by John North and was later incorporated in 1883.

The city’s first orange trees were planted in 1871 and rapidly grew into a major citrus industry , particularly after Eliza Tibbits planted the first navel orange trees in 1873. Glenwood Tavern, in what is now known as downtown Riverside, was owned by Captain Christopher Columbus Miller and later developed into the famous Mission Inn. Miller moved to Riverside in 1874 to survey land for Gage Canal, which brought water to Riverside. His son Frank eventually took over expansion of the Inn and over the years he embellished and expanded it into a world -renowned resort, which has been host to numerous movie stars, musicians , and heads of state. In 1893 Riverside split from San Bernardino County and became the center of newly formed Riverside County.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 26 L&L

3.0) REGULATORY SETTING AND METHODS

3.1) Regulatory Setting
Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, 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. Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.

Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (see PRC, Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). The term embraces any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as some California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) and Points of Historical Interest (CPHIs).

Properties of local significance designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are , therefore, presumed historical resources for purposes of CEQA (PRC, Section 5024.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4850). A lead agency should consider such resources potentially eligible for the CRHR unless the resource was demolished, lost substantial integrity, or if a preponderance of evidence exists demonstrating the resource is not eligible for listing.

Lead agencies also have a responsibility to evaluate potential historical resources not previously designated under a local preservation ordinance or identified in a historical res ources inventory against the CRHR criteria prior to determining the project’s overall effect on the environment under CEQA (PRC, Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(a)(3)). The following criteria are used to evaluate the significance of pot ential historical resources for the proposed project. An effect is considered significant if the proposed project impacts the specific qualities that render a resource eligible for listing in the NRHP and/or the CRHR.

3.1.1) State Significance Criteria
Generally, a resource is considered significant under CEQA if it possesses sufficient integrity and demonstrates eligibility under at least one (1) of the following criteria (California Code of Regulations 15064.5):

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 27 L&L

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 o f a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

As noted above, lead agencies must also consider whether a project will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questi ons and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

3.1.2) Local Regulations
City of Riverside Municipal Code Title 20 – Cultural Resources The City of Riverside Municipal Code Title 20 established the City’s Cultural Heritage Board and Historic Preservation Officer charged with the authority to review and approve the designation of Landmarks, Historic Districts, Structures, or Resources of Merit. Furthermore, the board identifies and advises City departments and gove rnmental entities of known historical, cultural , and archaeological resources; assesses and advises the City Council whether any proposed project would have an adverse effect on the significance of such Cultural Resources; and recommends to the City Council appropriate action in compliance with the City’s adopted CEQA procedures.

20.05.10 – Purpose
The purpose of this title is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts, neighborhoods, streets, works Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 28 L&L

of art, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, arc hitectural, community, aesthetic or artistic value in the City for the following reasons:

A. To safeguard the City's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources; B. To encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past; C. To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources;
D. To promote the enjoyment and use of cultural resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
E. To preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences reflecting phases of the City's history and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction;
F. To enhance property values and to increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants;
G. To protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors, thereby stimulating business and industry;
H. To identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses;
I. To integrate the preservation of cultural resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development processes; J. To conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment;
K. To implement the City's General Plan; and
L. To work in concert with the City's Zoning Code.

1. (Ord. 7108 §1, 2010; Ord. 6263 §1 (part), 1996)

20.05.50 – Definitions
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 29 L&L

O. Historic District means an area which contains:

1. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at least 50 percent of the structures or elements retain significant historic integrity, (a "geographic Historic District") or

2. A thematically-related grouping of cultural resources which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development, and which have been designated or determined eligible for designation as a Historic District by the Historic Preservation Officer or Qualified Designee, Board, or City Council or is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, or is a California Historical Landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a "thematic Historic District").

In addition to either A. or B. above (see https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/cod es/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_TIT20CURE_CH20.50DE), the area also:

3. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;

4. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history;

5. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

6. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects;

7. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;

8. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;

9. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association; or
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 30 L&L

10. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

U. Landmark means any improvement or natural feature that is an exceptional example of a historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains a high degree of integrity, and meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history;

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;

4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual;

5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;

6. Reflects significant geographical patterns, includ ing those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning, or cultural landscape;

7. Is one of the last remaining examples in the City, region, State, or nation po ssessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen; or

8. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

An improvement or natural feature meeting one (1) or more of the above criteria, yet not having the high degree of integrity to qualify as a landmark, may qualify as a structure or resource of merit (see subsection "Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties," below).

An improvement or natural fea ture meeting one or more of the above criteria, yet not formally designated as a landmark by the City Council, may be an eligible landmark.

CC. Point of cultural interest means
(A) Criteria. Point of historical interest means a site, of local significance, me eting one or Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 31 L&L

more of the following criteria:

1. Has anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value;

2. The original physical feature(s) no longer exist to an appreciable extent; and

3. Is found to not qualify as a recognized cultural resource or an eligible cultural resource. (B) Not cultural resources. Points of cultural interest are recognized, not designated, and do not qualify as a cultural resource by virtue of their recognition. (C) Intent. The purpose of points of cultural interest is to recognize otherwise - intangible historic facts about a place in the City. Points of cultural interest are strictly informational in nature.
(D) Relationship with other laws . Points of cultural interest are specifically and expressly intended to not have any significance under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) or the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), the National Environmental Protection Act, or any other environmental law, statute, or regulation.

City of Riverside General Plan
Objective HP -1: To use historic preservation principles as an equal component in the planning and development process.

Policy HP-1.1: The City shall promote the preservation of cultural resources to ensure that citizens of Riverside have the opportunity to understand and appreciate the City's unique heritage.

Policy HP-1.2: The City shall assume its direct responsibility f or historic preservation by protecting and maintaining it’s publicly owned cultural resources. Such resources may include, but are not limited to, buildings, monuments, landscapes, and right -of-way improvements, such as retaining walls, granite curbs, ent ry monuments, light standards, street trees, and the scoring, dimensions, and patterns of sidewalks, driveways, curbs and gutters.

Policy HP -1.3: The City shall protect sites of archaeological and paleontological Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 32 L&L

significance and ensure compliance with all applicable State and federal cultural resources protection and management laws in its planning and project review process.

Policy HP -1.4: The City shall protect natural resources such as geological features, heritage trees, and landscapes in the planning and development review process and in park and open space planning.

Policy HP-1.5: The City shall promote neighborhood/city identity and the role of historic preservation in community enhancement.

Policy HP-1.6: The City shall use historic preservation as a tool for "smart growth" and mixed use development.

Policy HP -1.7: The City shall ensure consistency between this Historic Preservation Element and all other General Plan elements, including subsequent updates of the General Plan.

Objective HP-2: To conti nue an active program to identify, interpret and designate the City's cultural resources.

Policy HP-2.1: The City shall actively pursue a comprehensive program to document and preserve historic buildings, structures, districts, sites (including archaeologi cal sites), objects, landscapes, and natural resources.

Policy HP-2.2: The City shall continually update its identification and designation of cultural resources that are eligible for listing in local, state and national registers based upon the 50 year age guideline for potential historic designation eligibility.

Policy HP-2.3: The City shall provide information to citizens, and the building community about what to do upon the discovery of archaeological resources and burial sites, as well as, the treatment, preservation, and repatriation of such resources.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 33 L&L

Objective HP-3: To promote the City's cultural resources as a means to enhance the City's identity as an important center of Southern California history.

Policy HP-3.1: The City shall conduct educational programs to promote an understanding of the significance of the City's cultural resources, the criteria for historic designation, historic design r eview processes, building permit requirements, and methods for rehabilitating and preserving historic buildings, sites, and landscapes.

Policy HP-3.2: The Planning Division shall promote an understanding and appreciation of the importance of historic prese rvation by the City's departments, boards, commissions, and elected officials.

Objective HP-4: To fully integrate the consideration of cultural resources as a major aspect of the City's planning, permitting and development activities.

Policy HP-4.1: The City shall maintain an up -to-date database of cultural resources and use that database as a primary informational resource for protecting those resources.

Policy HP-4.2: The City shall apply the California State Historical Building Code to ensure that City building code requirements do not compromise the integrity of significant cultural resources, at the property owner’s request.

Policy HP-4.3: The City shall work with the appropriate tribe to identify and address, in a culturally appropriate manner, cultura l resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.

Objective HP-5: To ensure compatibility between new development and existing cultural resources.

Policy HP-5.1: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage new construction to be compatible in scale and character with cultural resources and historic districts.

Policy HP-5.2: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage the compatibility of street design, public improvements, and utility infrastructure with cultural resources and historic districts.

Objective HP-6: To actively pursue funding for a first-class historic preservation program, including money needed for educational materials, studies, surveys, staffing, and Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 34 L&L

incentives for preservation by private property owners.

Policy HP -6.1: The City shall provide financial incentives to promote the restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of cultural resources.

Policy HP -6.2: The City shall use financial resources from st ate, federal and private programs that assist in the identification, designation and preservation of cultural resources.

Policy HP-6.3: The City shall ensure adequate funds in its budget for the staffing and maintenance of a historic preservation program i n compliance with the California State Office of Historic Preservation's Certified Local Government program.

Objective HP-7: To encourage both public and private stewardship of the City's cultural resources.

Policy HP -7.1: The City shall apply code enforce ment, zoning actions, and building safety/construction regulations as tools for helping to protect cultural resources.

Policy HP-7.2: The City shall incorporate preservation as an integral part of its specific plans, general plan, and environmental processes.

Policy HP-7.3: The City shall coordinate historic preservation with other activities within its government structure.

Policy HP-7.4: The City shall promote the preservation of cultural resources controlled by other governmental agencies, including thos e related to federal, state, county, school district, and other agencies.

3.2) Methods
The purpose of this technical report is to provide the City of Riverside with information necessary to determine whether the Project would cause an adverse change to a historical resource, as defined in PRC §5020.1(j) and, therefore, result in a significant impact to the environment under CEQA. To accomplish th is objective, L&L completed a historical resources records search, historical and geoarchaeological background research, coordinated with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals, and conducted a systematic survey of the entire Project area.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 35 L&L

This investigation included the following tasks:
• Review of regional history and previous cultural resource sites and studies within the Project area and the vicinity.
• Examination of archival topographic maps and aerial photographs for the Project area and the general vicinity.
• Request of an NAHC SLS for the Project area and contact with Tribal groups and individuals as named by the NAHC.
• Non-collection Phase I pedestrian survey of the Project area. • Evaluate potential for the proposed project to result in significant impacts to cultural resources, including potential to impact buried cultural resources with no surface expression.
• Develop recommendations associated with impacts to cultural resources foll owing the guidelines as outlined in the Regulatory Setting.

3.2.1) Cultural Resources Records Search
EIC Information Officer Eulices Lopez completed the records search of the Project area on October 7, 2021 at the EIC, located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of EIC maps (Appendix B) to identify previously recorded resource records and historical resource studies on or within a one-mile radius of the Project area.

In addition, the records search included a review of the NRHP, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE), and the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD).

3.2.2) Historic Records Review
L&L reviewed pertinent General Land Office (GLO) maps and records on file with the BLM (BLM 2020) and archival topographic maps and aerial photographs of the Project area were also reviewed (NETR 2020). In addition, parcel records and maps available through the County of Riverside Property Information Website were also reviewed.

3.2.3) Native American Coordination
L&L notified the NAHC of the Project and requested a records search of the Sacred Lands File (SLS) on August 19, 2021. The NAHC responded in writing on September 20, 2021, with a list of local Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals to cont act regarding the Project (Appendix D). L&L contacted the tribes, organizations, and individuals on the NACH list in writing on September 20, 2021 (Appendix E). The letters provided a description of the Project and its Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 36 L&L

location and requested information regarding Native American resources within or near the Project area. As of the date of this report, L&L has received five (5) responses by email from the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians ( ABCMI), the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. All correspondence completed to date is presented in Table 3 of this report and is included in Appendix E.

3.2.4) Pedestrian Survey
The primary purpose of a cultural resource pedestrian survey is to assess the condition of previously recorded resources, identify historic resources and/or unique archaeological resources, and to assess the Project’s potential to impact historic resources. The Project area was surveyed on October 19 , 202 1 by L&L archaeologist William Gillean utilizing the block - transect method with east-west trending transects. Transect intervals measured no more than 15 meters and 100 percent of the Project area was surveyed. The northwest portion of the Project area is fully developed with concrete driveways, ornamental landscaping, a garage, and a single- family residence . During the survey, digital photographs were taken to document current conditions.

In the event cultural resources 45 years of age or older are detected during the survey, efforts would be made to measure, photograph, and map the resources in the field. Resource locational data would be recorded using a GPS device using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). All data obtained in the field would be recorded onto the appropriate DPR 523 Forms.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 37 L&L

4.0) RESULTS

4.1) Cultural Resources Records Search
The records search at the EIC revealed that the Project area has been previously surveyed twice for cultural resources. Further, at least 32 area-specific studies were completed within a one-mile radius of the Project area. The details of these reports are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies Within One Mile of the Project Area.

Report # Date Rsrcs Report Author
RI-00130 1974 Yes Filed Notes for the Archaeological Survey of PL984 Weter Systems Additions Helen Clough
RI-00808 1980 No An Archaeological Assessment of Parcel 16998 Jean A. Salpas RI-01406 1982 Yes AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL 18415 Larry L. Bowles
RI-01583 1978 No ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PARCEL 11604, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Larry L. Bowles
RI-01584 1978 No ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PARCEL 11763, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Larry L. Bowles
RI-01648 1974 No ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT - PROJECT W.O. 5-3764, BOX

SPRINGS FEEDER
Archaeological
Research Inc.

RI-01649 1983 Yes

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SANTA

ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY PROPOSED

IMPORTED WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
San Bernardino
County museum
Association
RI-01889 1984 No AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PARCEL 20093 Jean Salpas RI-02182 1987 Yes
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 20 ACRES,
TENTATIVE TRACT NUMBER 22467, NEAR ALESSANDRO

AVENUE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Archaeological
Research Unit
RI-02183 1987 No
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF 10 ACRES,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21399, NEAR ALESSANDRO

AVENUE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Archaeological
Research Unit
RI-02289 1988 No AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF VISTA VALLEY COMPANY PARCEL, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA C.E. Drover
RI-02368 1988 No AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF A 79- ACRE RESIDENTIAL SITE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA C. E. Drover Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 38 L&L

Report # Date Rsrcs Report Author
RI-02369 1988 Yes AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TT 24016, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA C. E. Drover
RI-02391 1989 Yes

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE

ALESSANDRO HEIGHTS PROJECT LOCATED IN THE CITY

OF RIUVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Archaeological
Research Unit
RI-02392 1999 No
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT:

ASHTON RANCH ESTATES, CITY OF RIVERSIDE,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CRM Tech
RI-02393 1999 No
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT:

EXECUTIVE HOME BUILDERS, CITY OF RIVERSIDE,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CRM Tech
RI-02463 1988 No AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TRACT MAP 23678, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA C. E. Drover
RI-02464 1988 Yes AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TT MAP 23804, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA C. E. Drover
RI-04102 1998 No
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 242-290-009, 1551 WASHINGTON STREET, CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CRM Tech
RI-04146 1998 No LETTER REPORT: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH ON LOTS 26, TRACT NO. 19176 CRM Tech
RI-05565 2002 No

POLE RELOCATION CORRIDOR FOR THE HAWARDEN

DEVELOPMENT ALONG CACTUS AVENUE, WEST OF

HARRINGTON ROAD, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
Compass Rose
Archaeological, Inc.

RI-06427 2004 No

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE SURVEY
REPORT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32443, IN AN

UNINCORPORATED AREA NEAR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
CRM Tech
RI-07057 2006 Yes
An Archaeological Records Search and Survey Report on the Alpine Meadows Lane Project, APN 243-230-027, Approx 5
Acres in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California L&L Environmental,
Inc.

RI-07495 2007 Yes
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Phase II Cultural Resources Testing Tentative Tract Map No. 32270, Riverside, Riverside County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
RI-09523 2015 No Cultural Resources Survey Report For the 910 Highridge Street Project Riverside, California (APN 272-190-010-00)
Laguna Mountain
Environmental, Inc.

RI-09780 2016 No
Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Woodcrest Dam Outlet Modification Project in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California
ECORP Consulting,
Inc.

RI-09818 2015 Yes AFG Development LLC City Project Phase I Cultural Resources Study Rincon Consultants
RI-09825 2015 No Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Residential Subdivision - TM 36763 Project, Riverside County, California Rincon Consultants Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 39 L&L

Report # Date Rsrcs Report Author
RI-09900 2016 No Cultural Resource Report for the TR37177 Project, City of Riverside, Riverside County, California
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.

RI-10394 2018 Yes A Cultural Resources Assessment for TR 37177 City of Riverside County, California
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.

RI-10776 2018 No A Cultural Resources Assessment for TR 37177, City of Riverside, Riverside County, California
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.

RI-10814 2001 Yes Management Plan for CDF's Historic Buildings and Archaeological Sites
California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection
These and similar studies resulted in the identification of at least 124 previously recorded cultural resources within the scope of the records search. These include 118 prehistoric (i.e., Native American) archaeological resources and five (5) historical archaeological and built-environment resources. Native American resources include 73 bedrock milling sites with multiple features, 40 bedrock milling sites with a single slick, four (4) isolated artifacts, and one (1) habitation site (i.e., the McCue Site, 33-000112). Historical archaeological resources include two (2) refuse scatters and one (1) isolated artifact. The two (2) built-environment resources consist of a single-family residence and the Woodcrest Dam, which was constructed in 1954. Cultural resources identified within the scope of the record search are described in Table 3.

Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Project Area.

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-000112/CA-
RIV-000112
Originally recorded
by Larry Bowles, and
Chris L. Moser of the
Archaeological
Research Unit (ARU),
1979.

Last updated by M.K.

Lerch, and G.A.

Smith of the San
Bernardino County
Museum (SBCM),
1982.

Prehistoric: The McCue Site.

Archaic habitation site. ⚫ __ __ No
33-000853/CA-
RIV-000853
Originally recorded
by L.L. Bowles of the
ARU, 1982.

Updated by of R.E.

Parr, J. Goodman, R.

Yohe, and D.

Everson of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Twenty-three (23)
bedrock milling slicks on seven (7)
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 40 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
Last updated by H.

Haas, and B.

Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015
33-000899/CA-
RIV-000899
Originally recorded
by L.L. Bowles of
ARU, 1982.

Updated by R.E.

Parr, R. Yohe, B.

Arkush, and D.

Everson of the ARU,
1989.

Last updated by H.

Haas, and B.

Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: Twenty-eight (28)
bedrock milling slicks on seven (7)
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
33-001839/CA-
RIV-001839
Originally recorded
by J. H. Stirling of the
ARU, 1980.

Updated by D.G.

Pinto of the ARU,
1987.

Prehistoric: A bedrock milling site
composed of two (2) loci. Locus 1
includes fourteen (14) slicks and
four (4) mortars on seven (7)
boulders. Locus 2 includes two (2)
boulders, one with one (1) slick and
the other with three (3) slicks.
⚫ __ __ No
33-002552/CA-
RIV-002552
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by J.

Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-002553/CA-
RIV-00
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by R. E.

Parr, and D. Leavens
of the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-002554/CA-
RIV-002554
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by C.E
Drover (no affiliation),
1988.

Last updated by R. E.

Parr, and D. Everson
of the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders, each with two
(2) slicks.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-002555/CA-
RIV-002555
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by C.E
Drover (no affiliation),
1988.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders, each with two
(2) slicks.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-002556/CA-
RIV-002556
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by C.E
Drover (no affiliation),
Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 41 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
1988.
33-002557/CA-
RIV-002557
Originally recorded
by M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Updated by R. E.

Parr, B. Arkush, D.

Everson, and J.

Lehman of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-002558/CA-
RIV-002558
M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Prehistoric: One milling slick on
one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-002559/CA-
RIV-002559
M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003276/CA-
RIV-003276
Originally recorded
by D. Pinto of the
ARU, 1987.

Updated by R. E.

Parr, and J. Lehman
of the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003483/CA-
RIV003483
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by R. E.

Parr, J. Kent, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders, each with one
(1) slick.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003484/CA-
RIV-003484
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by J.

Goodman, K. Swope,
J. Kent, and D.

Leavens of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Five (5) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, one with
three (3), and one with one (1) slick
each.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003485/CA-
RIV-003484
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by J.

Goodman, K. Swope,
J. Kent, G. Alcock,
and D Leavins of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Eleven (11) milling
slicks on five (5) boulders. One
with seven (7) slicks, and four (4)
boulders with one (1) slick each.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003486/CA-
RIV-003486
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by J.

Goodman, K. Swope,
J. Kent, G. Alcock,
and D. Leavens of
the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Nine (9) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders, one with seven
(7) slicks, and one (1) with two (2).
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003487/CA-
RIV003487
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by R. Parr,
J. Goodman, K.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on a single boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 42 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
Swope, and J. Kent
of the ARU, 1989.
33-003488/CA-
RIV-003488
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by J.

Goodman, K. Swope,
and J. Kent of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on a single boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
33-003489/CA-
RIV-003489
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by J.

Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Eleven (11) milling
slicks on three (3) different
boulders, one with eight (8), one
with two (2), and one with one (1)
slick.
__ __ ⚫ No
33-003490/CA-
RIV-003490
Originally recorded
by C.E. Drover, no
affiliation, 1988.

Updated by R. E.

Parr, and J. Torres of
the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: A bedrock milling site
consisting of fourteen (14) slicks
over of four (4) loci. Locus 1 has
six (6) boulders, one with three (3)
slicks, two (2) with two (2) slicks,
and three (3) boulders with one
slick each. Locus 2 has two (2)
slicks (the 1989 update does not
specify what number of slicks are
on what number of boulders), and
Loci 3 and 4 each have single
boulders with one (1) slick each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003534/CA-
RIV-003534
R.E. Parr, J.

Goodman, G. Alcock,
J. Kent, and M.

Hogan of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: A bedrock milling site
consisting of eleven (11) slicks on
three (3) boulders spread over two
(2) loci.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003536/CA-
RIV-003536
R.E. Parr, G. Alcock,
and J. Kent of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: A bedrock milling site
consisting of twelve (12) slicks on
eight (8) boulders spread over five
(5) loci.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003539/CA-
RIV-003539
R.E. Parr, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003540/CA-
RIV-003540
Originally recorded
by R.E. Parr, G.

Alcock, J. Kent, M.

Hogan, D. Leavins,
and L. Weingartner of
the ARU,1989.

Updated by D. L.

Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: Five (5) milling slicks
on five (5) boulders containing one
(1) slick each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003541/CA-
RIV-003541
Originally recorded
by R.E. Parr, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Updated by D. L.

Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003542/CA-
RIV-003542
R.E. Parr, and M.

Hogan of the ARU,
Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 43 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
1989.
33-003543/CA-
RIV-003543
R.E. Parr, and M.

Hogan of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003544/CA-
RIV-003544
R.E. Parr, M. Hogan,
J. Kent, G. Alcock, D.

Leavinst, and L.

Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Five (5) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
two (2) with one slick, and one with
three (3) slicks.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003545/CA-
RIV-003545
R.E. Parr, and D.

Leavins of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ N0
33-003546/CA-
RIV-003546
R.E. Parr, J.

Goodman, G. Alcock,
and J. Lehman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks,
one each, on two (2) separate
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003547/CA-
RIV-003547
R.E. Parr, and J.

Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003548/CA-
RIV-003548
R.E. Parr, G. Alcock,
and J. Stadelbacher
of the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks,
one each, on two (2) separate
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003549/CA-
RIV-003549
R.E. Parr, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003550/CA-
RIV-003550
R.E.Parr, and M.

Hogan of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Five (5) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
one boulder (1) with three (3) slicks
and two (2) with one (1) slick each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003551/CA-
RIV-003551
Originally recorded
by R.E. Parr, and J.

Stadelbacher of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by D. L.

Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003552/CA-
RIV-003552
R.E. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003553/CA-
RIV-003553
R. Parr, J. Goodman
M. Hogan, and J.

Lehman of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks,
one each, on two (2) separate
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003554/CA-
RIV-003554
J. Goodman, and D.

Leavens of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks,
one each, on two (2) separate
boulders.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003555/CA-
RIV-003555
J. Goodman, and L.

Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003556/CA-
RIV-003556
R. E. Parr, and M.

Hogan of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one (1) boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003557/CA-
RIV-003557
R.E. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003558/CA-
RIV-003558
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
33-003574/CA-
RIV-003575
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 44 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-003575/CA-
RIV-003575
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
33-003576/CA-
RIV-003576
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
33-003577/CA-
RIV-003577
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
33-003578/CA-
RIV-003578
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
33-003579/CA-
RIV-003579
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Nine (9) milling slicks
on five (5) boulders, including four
(4) boulders with two (2) slicks and
one boulder with one (1) slick.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003580/CA-
RIV-003580
Originally recorded
by J. Goodman, L.

Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by Viejo
California Associates
(VCA), 2005.

Updated by Brian F.

Smith and
Associates, Inc.
(BFSA), 2017.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder.

BFSA found the site not significant
under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and not eligible
for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP).
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003581/CA-
RIV-003581
Originally recorded
by R. Parr, J.

Goodman, J. Torres,
D. Leavens, and L.

Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by VCA, no
recorder listed, 2005.

Updated by BFSA, no
recorder listed, 2017.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Prehistoric: Ninety (90) milling
slicks on thirty-six (36) boulders
spread over fifteen (15) loci.

BFSA found the site not significant
under CEQA and not eligible for the
NRHP.
⚫ ⚫ __ No
33-003582/CA-
RIV-003582
J. Goodman, and L.

Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
33-003583/CA-
RIV-003583
Originally recorded
by J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
one boulder with three (3) slicks,
and two (2) boulders with two (2)
slicks each.
⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 45 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-003584/CA-
RIV-003584
Originally recorded
by J. Goodman, and
L. Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
one boulder with two (2) slicks, and
two (2) boulders with one (1) slick
each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003585/CA-
RIV-003585
Originally recorded
by J. Goodman, and
L. Weingartner of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003586/CA-
RIV-003586
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003587/CA-
RIV-003587
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slick
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003588/CA-
RIV-003588
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slick
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003591/CA-
RIV-003591
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003594/CA-
RIV-003594
Originally recorded
by R. Parr, J. Torres,
and D. Leavens of
the ARU, 1989.

Updated by VCA, no
recorder listed, 2005.

Updated by BFSA, no
recorder listed, 2017.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Prehistoric: Fourteen (14) milling
slicks on five (5) boulders,
consisting of two (2) boulders with
one (1) slick, one boulder three (3)
slicks, one boulder with four (4)
slicks, and one boulder with five (5)
slicks.

BFSA found the site not significant
under CEQA and not eligible for the
NRHP.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003595/CA-
RIV-003595
Originally recorded
by R. Parr, J. Torres,
and D. Leavens of
the ARU, 1989.

Updated by VCA, no
recorder listed, 2005.

Updated by BFSA, no
recorder listed, 2017.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
two (2) slicks on one boulder, and
three (3) slicks on one boulder.

BFSA found the site not significant
under CEQA and not eligible for the
NRHP.
__ ⚫ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 46 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-003596/CA-
RIV-003596
R. Parr, R. Yohe, and
G. Alcock of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ ⚫ __ No
33-003597/CA-
RIV-003597
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
33-003598/CA-
RIV-003598
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ __ ⚫ Yes
33-003599/CA-
RIV-003599
R. Parr, R, Yohe, B.

Arkush, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Eight (8) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders. Each boulder
contains four (4) slicks.
__ __ ⚫ No
33-003600/CA-
RIV-003600
R. Parr, and R. Yohe
of the ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003601/CA-
RIV-003601
R. Parr, and G.

Alcock of the ARA,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003602/CA-
RIV-003602
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003605/CA-
RIV-003605
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on three (3) separate boulders, one
slick on each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003606/CA-
RIV-003606
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003607/CA-
RIV-003607
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003608/CA-
RIV-003608
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders, consisting of
two (2) slicks on one boulder and
two (2) boulders with one slick
each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003609/CA-
RIV-003609
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003610/CA-
RIV-003610
J. Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 47 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-003617/CA-
RIV-003617
R. Parr, and J.

Goodman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on three (3) boulders spread over
three (3) loci. Locus A consists of
one boulder with one (1) slick,
Locus B contains one boulder with
two (2) slicks and Locus C consists
of one boulder with one (1) slick.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-003618/CA-
RIV-003618
R.Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders, consisting of
one boulder with two (2) slicks and
one boulder with one (1) slick.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003619/CA-
RIV-003619
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on two boulders, consisting of one
(1) slick on each.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003620/CA-
RIV-003620
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003621/CA-
RIV-003621
R. Parr, D. Everson,
and J. Lehman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Eleven (11) milling
slicks on eight (8) boulders and one
mano fragment.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003622/CA-
RIV-003622
R. Parr, D. Everson,
and J. Lehman of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003623/CA-
RIV-003623
D. Everson of the
ARU, 1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on two (2) boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003624/CA-
RIV-003624
Originally recorded
by R. Parr of the
ARU, 1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003625/CA-
RIV-003625
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Five (5) milling slicks
on three (3) different boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003626/CA-
RIV-003626
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003627/CA-
RIV-003627
R. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003629/CA-
RIV-003629
Originally recorded
by R. Parr, and R.

Yohe of the ARU,
1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2015.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 48 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-003630/CA-
RIV-003630
R. Parr, R. Yohe, B.

Arkush, and D.

Everson of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Twenty-three (23)
milling slicks spread over twelve
(12) boulders, consisting of one
with six (6), one with three (3), four
with two (2), and six with one (1).
⚫ __ __ No
33-003631/CA-
RIV-003631
R. Parr. R. Yohe, B.

Arkush, and D.

Everson of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on three (3) different boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003632/CA-
RIV-003632
R. Parr. R. Yohe, B.

Arkush, and D.

Everson of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on two (2) different boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003633/CA-
RIV-003633
Originally recorded
by R. Parr, and R.

Yohe of the ARU,
1989.

Updated by H. Haas,
and B. Campbell, no
affiliation, 2005.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on two (2) different boulders. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003638/CA-
RIV-003638
R. Parr, and J.

Lehman of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003640/CA-
RIV-003640
R. Parr, and J.

Lehman of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Seven (7) milling slicks,
including one basin metate, on
three (3) different boulders, with
midden, and two (2) manos.
⚫ __ __ No
33-003642/CA-
RIV-003642
R. Parr, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-003643/CA-
RIV-003643
R. Parr, and J.

Lehman of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-008404/CA-
RIV-008404
B. T. Tang of CRM
Tech, 1998.

Historic: A single-family, Ranch
style, residence with swimming
pool, garage, and three (3) sheds.
⚫ __ __ No
33-009039/CA-
RIV-006358
D. L. Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-009040/CA-
RIV-006359
D. L. Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-009041/CA-
RIV-006360
D. L. Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on two different boulder, one slick
on each.
⚫ __ __ No
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 49 L&L

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-009042/CA-
RIV-006361
D. L. Wiewall, and D.

Ballester of CRM
Tech, 1999.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-012323 R.E. Parr of the ARU,
1989.

Historic: An isolated bottle neck,
shoulder, and finish. __ __ ⚫ Yes
33-012324
J. Goodman, and J.

Torres of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: An isolated quartzite
mano. __ ⚫ __ No
33-012325
J, Goodman, and G.

Alcock of the ARU,
1989.

Prehistoric: Two (2) quartzite
manos, one is complete, and the
other is a fragment.
⚫ __ __ No
33-013303
R. Goodwin of LSA
Associates, Inc.,
2004.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-013606 L.L. Bowles, no
affiliation, 1982.

Prehistoric: An isolated occurrence
of a portable mortar/metate. ⚫ __ __ No
33-013609 M.K. Lerch of the
SBCM, 1982.

Prehistoric: An isolated occurrence
of a mylonite flake. ⚫ __ __ No
33-013737/CA-
RIV-007517
J. Smallwood of CRM
Tech, 2004.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on one boulder, and four (4)
andesite flakes.
⚫ __ __ No
33-014132/CA-
RIV-007754
Originally recorded
by K. Bergin, and D.

Ferraro of VCA,
2004.

Updated by BFSA, no
recorded noted,
2016.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Historic: A refuse scatter of artifacts
dating from the mid- to late
twentieth century.

BFSA found the site not significant
under CEQA and not eligible for the
NRHP.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-014133/CA-
RIV-007755
D. Ferraro of VCA,
2004.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. __ __ ⚫ No
33-014134/CA-
RIV-007756
Originally recorded
by D. Ferraro of VCA,
2004.

Updated by BFSA, no
recorded noted,
2016.

Last updated by C.

Accardy of BFSA,
2018.

Historic: A refuse dump dating from
the 1920s to 1950s.

BFSA found the site not significant
under CEQA and not eligible for the
NRHP.
__ ⚫ __ No
33-015434/CA-
Riv-008138
A. Hoover of L&L
Environmental, Inc.,
2006
Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. __ __ ⚫ Yes
33-021017/CA-
RIV-010887
H. Price, and C.

Zepeda-Herman of
RECON, 2011.

Resource
Number
Recorder Name
and Date Resource Description
Within
~One
to 0.5
Mile
Radius
Within
~0.5 to

0.25 Mile
Radius
Within
~0.25
Mile
Radius
Within
Project
Area?
33-021018/CA-
RIV-010888
H. Price, and C.

Zepeda-Herman of
RECON, 2011.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026840/CA-
RIV-012615
K. Lindgren of
ECORP, 2016.

Historic: The Woodcrest Dam
constructed in 1954. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026876/CA-
RIV-006157
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026877/CA-
RIV-006158
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026878/CA-
RIV-006159
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Historic: A sparse refuse scatter of
seven (7) cans. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026879/CA-
RIV-006337
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026880/CA-
RIV-006338
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: Three (3) milling slicks
on a granitic outcrop. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026881/CA-
RIV-006384
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026882/CA-
RIV-007328
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on a granitic outcrop. ⚫ __ __ No
33-026883/CA-
RIV-007329
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: Four (4) milling slicks
on granitic outcrop. ⚫ __ __ No
33-028897/CA-
RIV-012945
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: Two (2) milling slicks
on a granitic outcrop. ⚫ __ __ No
33-028898/CA-
RIV-012947(?)
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

Prehistoric: One (1) milling slick on
one boulder. ⚫ __ __ No
33-028899/CA-
RIV-012947(?)
H. Haas, and B.

Campbell of Rincon
Consultants, Inc.,
2015.

4.2) Historic Records Review
Historic documents and plat maps available from the BLM GLO website were reviewed for information about historical land use and development within the Project area and general vicinity (BLM 2021). In addition, aerial photographs dating between 1938 and 2018 were also reviewed (USGS 1901, 1953, 1967; United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1942; NETR 2021).

Finally, Riverside County Property Information online records were examined for information regarding the Project area.

Aerial photos indicate that the main residence at 841 Alpine Meadows Lane was present by 1953.

Research completed on the Riverside County Planning Department information website (www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us) indicated that the residence was constructed in 1947.

4.3) Geoarchaeological Assessment
Geologic maps consulted during this study indicate the Project area is underlain by young alluvial fan deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age (Qyf) with outcroppings of Mesozoic granite, quartz monzonite, granodiorite, and quartz diorite (grMZ) . Young alluvial fan deposits likely correspond with NRCS mapped sandy loam soils BuD2, CkF2, and HcC. Outcroppings correspond to soils mapped as terrace escarpments (TeG).

Young alluvial fan deposits likely post-date the emergence of human populations in the inland valley of southern California. The earliest known archaeological site in the region lies approximately 17.5 miles to the east by southeast in San Jacinto Valley. CA -RIV-6069, radiocarbon dated to cal BP 9,475-8,530, is an early Holocene occupation site found at a depth of greater than 2 meters below ground surface. The site contained flaked, ground, and battered stone artifacts, faunal remains and bone artifacts, and some of the earliest ceramics identified in southern California (Horne and McDougal 2008).

No geotechnical studies for the Project area or surrounding area were identified during the current study. An archaeological excavation report was listed in the EIC record search results, but the investigation occurred more than a mile from the Project area and copies of the site records and report were not provided.

The McCue Elko site (33-000112) is situated along a large drainage approximately ¾ mile south of the Project area. It is an Archaic prehistoric habitation site containing at least two (2) buried cultural horizons observed in the cut bank terrace adjacent to a stream channel separated by at least one (1) meter of sterile looking fill (Lerch and Smith 1982). The lowest cultural horizon was Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 52 L&L

near the water level where fire affected rock, charcoal, ground stone, bone, and flaked stone were observed. At least 775 artifacts were collected from the streambed by members of the McCue family and later curated at the Riverside Municipal Museum. The artifacts were analyzed and the results later published in the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology (McDonald et al. 1987). The McCue site is one of few sites in the inland valleys that contain “substantial assemblages of Elko series points and milling stones” (McDonald et al. 1987:46).

The McCue Elko site is also underlain by young alluvial fan deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age (Qyf). However, these deposits correspond with NRCS mapped loamy sand (GkD) that extend to depths of greater than 80 inches. These soils are not found within the Project area but are mapped in the large drainage approximately 80 meters to the south. Hanford coarse sandy loam deposits found along the small drainage that runs northeast to southwest through the Project area also extend to depths greater than 80 inches but are present in only 13.3 percent of the Project area. Most soils within the Project area encounter bedrock or other restrictive layers between 14 and 57 inches below ground surface.

The presence of deeply buried archaeological deposits within ¾ mile of the Project area in similar, but not identical, geologic deposits, soils, and landforms is significant. This information, coupled with the presence of more than 100 prehistoric archaeological sites , indicates the Project area has high sensitivity for surface and buried archaeological resources. Sensitivity is especially high in areas mapped with Hansford coarse sandy loam (HcC) soils.

The Project area was subject to development as early as the 1930s (i.e., windmil l and well) and a residence was constructed on the property in 1947. As such, there is also moderate to high potential for encountering surface and buried mid-twentieth century historical archaeological resources.

4.4) Native American Coordination
An SLS was requested from the NAHC on August 19, 2021 and a response was received on September 20, 2021 (Appendix D). The NAHC SLS returned negative results for Native American cultural resources in the immediate Project area. Information scoping letters were sent to the 21 tribes named by the NAHC on September 20, 2021 (Appendix D).

As a result of the information scoping process, five (5) tribes responded by email and in letters including the ABCMI, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, the ACBCI, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. A sample of the scoping letter, response letters, and copies of all additional correspondence are included in Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 53 L&L

and a summary of the detail is provided below in Table 4.1 Table 4. Summary of Native American Coordination.

Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response Action(s) Required?
Jeff Grubbe,
Chairperson
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via USPS on
September 20, 2021
Lacy Padilla responded in a letter
stating the Project area was not
within the boundaries of the ACBCI
Reservation but Is within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area. The Tribe
requested copies of any cultural
resource documentation (reports
and/or records) generated in
connection with this project.

Provide copies of all cultural
resource reports and
records.

Patricia Garcia-
Plotkin,
Director
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 20, 2021
Lacy Padilla responded in a letter
stating the Project area was not
within the boundaries of the ACBCI
Reservation but Is within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area. The Tribe
requested copies of any cultural
resource documentation (reports
and/or records) generated in
connection with this project.

Provide copies of all cultural
resource reports and
records.

Shasta
Gaughen,
THPO
Pala Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 20, 2021
No response received. None
Mark Macarro,
Chairperson
Pechanga Band
of Luiseño
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 20, 2021
Paul Macarro responded on behalf
of the tribe (see below).

Formal government-to-
government consultation
under AB52; Notification
once Project enters
entitlement; Copies of all
cultural resource reports and
records and draft
environmental document;
and Follow-up regarding
Native American monitoring.

The Tribe was notified prior
to the October 19, 2021
survey.

Paul Macarro,
Cultural
Resources
Pechanga Band
of Luiseño
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 20, 2021
Mr. Macarro responded in a letter
stating the Project area was not
within the Reservation’s lands, but
is within the tribes Ancestral
Territory. The tribe identified to two
(2) Traditional Cultural Properties
near the Project area and
requested formal government-to-
government consultation.

Furthermore, the tribe believes
there is a high sensitivity for
encountering subsurface
archaeological deposits during
construction. In addition to formal
government-to-government
consultation, the tribe requests the
following: notification once the
Project begins the entitlement
Formal government-to-
government consultation
under AB52; Notification
once Project enters
entitlement; Copies of all
cultural resource reports and
records and draft
environmental document;
and Follow-up regarding
Native American monitoring.

The Tribe was notified prior
to the October 19, 2021
survey.

1 Please note: the coordination effort does not satisfy the CEQA requirements for government -to- government consultation with Native American tribes and organizations under SB18 and/or AB52.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 54 L&L

Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response Action(s) Required?
process (if it has not already);
copies of all cultural resource
reports and records, as well as
engineering plans and
environmental documents;
archaeological and Native
American monitoring during
earthmoving activities; and
participation in surveys within
Luiseno Ancestral territory.

Amanda
Vance,
Chairperson
Augustine Band
of Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Doug Welmas,
Chairperson
Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Daniel
Salgado,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Ray
Chapparosa,
Chairperson
Los Coyotes
Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via USPS on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Ann Brierty,
Cultural
Resources
Manager
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Robert Martin,
Chairperson
Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
Scoping letter sent
via USPS September
21, 2021
No response received. None
Lovina Redner,
Tribal Chair
Santa Rosa Band
of Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Jill McCormick,
Historic
Preservation
Officer
Quechan of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
Jill McCormick responded in a letter
stating that the Tribe had no
comments on the Project and would
defer to and support the decisions
of the more local Tribes.

None
Manfred Scott,
Acting
Chairman
Quechan of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
Jill McCormick responded in a letter
stating that the Tribe had no
comments on the Project and would
defer to and support the decisions
of the more local Tribes.

None
Isaiah Vivanco,
Chairperson
Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Joseph
Ontiveros,
Cultural
Resource
Department
Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Michael
Mirelez,
Cultural
Resource
Coordinator
Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 55 L&L

Contact
Name and
Title
Contact
Affiliation
Method of
Contact and Date Response Action(s) Required?
Joseph
Hamilton,
Chairperson
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
John Gomez,
Environmental
Coordinator
Ramona Band of
Cahuilla
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None
Cheryl
Madrigal,
THPO
Rincon Band of
Luiseño Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
Ms. Madrigal responded in a letter
stating that the Project is located
within the Territory of the Luiseño
people and is also within the Tribe’s
specific area of Historic interest.

She went on to state that the Tribe
has no knowledge of Tribal Cultural
Resources (TCRs) or Traditional
Cultural Properties (TCPs) within
the project area. However, the
Tribe believes that the area is
culturally sensitive and potential
exists for cultural resources to be
identified during research and
survey work. The Tribe also
recommended that an
archaeological record search be
conducted and requests that a copy
of the results be provided to the
Rincon Band. Finally, the Tribe
recommend working closely with
Tribes located closer to the Project
area as these groups may be able
to provide more pertinent
information.

Provide the Rincon Band of
Luiseño Indians with a copy
of the record search results
and FINAL draft of this
report.

Bo Mazzetti,
Chairperson
Rincon Band of
Luiseño Indians
Scoping letter sent
via email on
September 21, 2021
No response received. None

4.5) Pedestrian Survey
L&L Archaeologist, William R. Gillean, B.S. , performed the pedestrian survey within the Project area on October 19, 2021. The Project area was surveyed via the block-transect method with a transect interval of no more than 15 meters. During the survey, east-west trending transects were completed throughout 100 percent of the Project area. Soils in the Project area are composed primarily of coarse and sandy loam, with clay -like soil noted within the cleared area in the northwest portion near the house and garage.

The Project area gradually undulates downslope from a large terrace located in the northwest portion toward a drainage area to the east and then upslope toward the east boundary. Terrace escarpments rise above either side of the northeast to southwest trending drainage that traverses the southeast portion. Elevation in the Project area increases slightly as it trend s west to east from approximately 1,300 feet to 1, 320 feet AMSL. Most of the Project area has either been Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 56 L&L

cleared of vegetation or is developed with a single -family residence, a garage, ornamental vegetation, landscaping, and a concrete driveway. The most densely vegetated portion is located along the east boundary and southeast portion of the Project area with some less densely vegetated areas in the south-central and southwest portions, and just west of the northeast corner boundary.

Visibility is excellent (95% to 100%) in the north-central cleared portion and dirt road that trends northeast to southwest from near the south -central boundary to near the east -central boundary (Appendix C: Photographs QUIN-005, -024, -031 and -032), fair to good (65% to 75%) in the south-central and southwest portions and just west of the northeast corner boundary (Appendix C: QUIN-004, -005, -006, -007, -008, and -009), and fair to poor (50% to 65%) along the east boundary and southeast portion (Appendix C: Photographs QUIN-010, -011, 012). Photographs of the Project area are included in Appendix C.

L&L revisited three (3) previously recorded cultural resources reportedly located within the Project area by the EIC. These included two (2) bedrock milling sites, each with a single slick (33-003598 and 33 -015434), and an isolated green glass bottle neck finish and shoulder fragment (33 - 012323). Only bedrock milling site 33-015434, originally recorded by L&L in 2006, was verified within the Project area; however, its location did not match the reported UTMs or USGS plotted location in the original site record. The bedrock milling feature was found approximately 40 meters east of its previously plotted USGS location and 130 meters southea st of its reported UTM coordinates. Surprisingly, the location of the bedrock milling feature, according to GPS coordinates (NAD83) captured during the current study, matched the USGS plotted location of site 33-003598, and was approximately 40 meters west of its converted NAD27 to NAD83 UTM coordinates. It is possible that 33 -003598 and 33 -015434 represent the same bedrock milling feature. No evidence of previously recorded isolated historic artifact (33-012323) was identified.

One (1) newly encountered cultural resource, consisting of historic isolated artifacts (ISO-001H), was noted in the southwest portion of the Project area along the western boundary. ISO-001H consists of a church-key opened, Age Dated beer can measuring 4¾ inches tall by 2 5/8 inc hes in diameter and a crushed, sanitary, rotary opened, approximately 6 inch tall, Knott’s Berry Farm Boysenberry syrup can of indeterminate age.

Two (2) additional resources identified during the 2006 survey , but not formally recorded, were also noted. T he first consists of a house constructed in 1947, with an outbuilding and barn situated in Lot 1 (i.e., 841 Alpine Meadows Lane). The second is windmill and associated well in the far eastern portion of the Project area (QUINN-001H). The house remains, but the barn and Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 57 L&L

windmill were removed, although the hexagonal-shaped formed concrete well embossed with the year 1934 on its east facing wall and once associated with the windmill remains. According to Google Earth aerial images, the barn was removed sometime between April 2014 and February 2016 and the windmill was removed sometime between November 2013 and April 2014. The outbuilding appears to have been remodeled and now serves as a fully renovated, stand alone, two-car garage. Neither the residence nor the concrete well associated with the windmill were formally recorded during the current study.

Two (2) modern pump stations were noted within the Project area. One near the believed, former location of the windmill and the other near the south -central boundary. Also, two (2) incidences of dumping of indeterminate (likely modern) age were noted within the Project area. The first was noted near the northeast corner and consisted of stone and mortar chunks and apparent foundation debris. This area measured approximately 30 feet long by 15 feet wide. The second was noted in the drainage near the extreme south-central portion of the Project area and consists of red brick, concrete chunks and curb remnants, and milled wood. This area measured approximately 36 feet long by 7 feet wide.

4.6) Resources in the Project Area
Four (4) cultural resources were identified within the Project area during the current study. These include bedrock milling site 33 -015434, historical isolated artifacts ISO -01H, the sing le-family residence at 841 Alpine Meadows Lane, and the concrete well once associated with the windmill (QUIN-001H) which are of historic age (+45 years ). For the purposes of the Environmental Review purpose, due to the age, these are treated as a resource even though an evaluation at the federal, state and local level has not been completed.

4.6.1) Bedrock Milling Site (33-015434)
This site was originally recorded in 2006 as a single slick on a low -lying granitic boulder in the middle of a drainage (UTMs 11S 466474mN 3752249mE [NAD83]). The exposed portion of the boulder measures 1.75 meters (north -south) and 1.4 meters (east -west) and stands at a height of less than 0.5 meter. The slick is oval -shaped measuring 36 cm (east-west) by 27 cm (north- south). The slick exhibits a high degree of polish but is eroding along its margins. No artifacts or other Native American features were observed on the surface.

The bedrock milling feature was found at the USGS plotted location of site 33-003598, originally recorded by Parr in 1989. It is possible that 33 -003598 and 33 -015434 represent the same bedrock milling feature.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 58 L&L

The site is associated with Nati ve American land use activities . The bedrock milling slick is situated in an erosional environment (i.e., intermittent wash) and Hoover (2006) previously recommended that a Phase II Significance Testing Program would not likely yield important information qualifying the site as eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4. We concur that it is unlikely that significant subsurface deposits (e.g., buried midden, features, artifacts) would be found in association with the site; however, avoidance is recommended and no testing or disturbance to the site shall occur.

4.6.2) Historic Isolated Artifacts (ISO-001H)
One (1) newly encountered historic resource (ISO-001H) was noted near the south west portion of the Project area along the west boundary . ISO-001H consists of a church -key opened, Age Dated Beer can measuring 4¾ inches tall by 2 5/8 inches in diameter and a crushed, sanitary opened, approximately 6 inch tall, Knott’s Berry Farm Boysenberry syrup can of indeterminate age.

Isolated artifact ISO -001H is not considered “historical resources” or “unique archaeological resources” under CEQA because it lacks association with important persons and events (Criteria 1 and 2), does not possess any distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic value (Criterion 3), and does not, on its own, possess the quantity or quality of data to address important research questions (Criterion 4). ISO-001H is not eligible for the CRHR and requires no further consideration under CEQA.

4.6.3) Single Family Residence (841 Alpine Meadows Lane) 841 Alpine Meadows Lane consists of a single -family residence with at least one (1) ancillary building constructed in 1947. The built -environment resource was not formally assessed nor recorded during the current study and avoidance is recommended. No impact shall occur to the building as a result of the proposed project.

4.6.4) Concrete Well (QUIN-001H)
QUIN-001H consists of a hexagonal-shaped formed concrete well embossed with the year 1934 on its east facing wall and was once associated with the windmill remains. According to Google Earth aerial images, the windmill was removed sometime between November 2013 an d April 2014. The built-environment resource was not formally recorded during the current study and avoidance is recommended. No impact shall occur to the building as a result of the proposed Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 59 L&L

project.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 60 L&L

5.0) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
L&L performed a Phase I cultural resources assessment to identify, evaluate, and assess the impacts of the proposed development on historical resources in compliance with CEQA. During this investigation a records search was conducted at the EIC by Information Officer Eulices Lopez on October 7, 2021 (Appendix B). L&L completed historic records background research on the subject property, geoarchaeological assessment, pedestrian survey of the Project area, and coordinated with the NAHC and local Native American groups regarding sacred lands and other Native American resources.

L&L identified four (4) potential historical resources within the Project area. This includes a bedrock milling site ( 33-015434) associated with Native American la nd use activities that may contain buried archaeological features and/or artifact deposits. Additional resources include historic isolated artifacts (ISO-001H), a single-family residence at 841 Alpine Meadows Lane, and a concrete well associated with a windmill that was removed between November 2013 and April 2014 (QUIN-001H). Of these, only historic isolated artifacts ISO-001H was evaluated and found not eligible for the CRHR. No further consideration of this cultural resource is required under CEQA.

Furthermore, the presence of deeply buried archaeological deposits within ¾ mile of the Project area (i.e., the McCue Elko site) in similar, but not identical, geologic deposits, soils, and landforms coupled with the presence of more than 100 prehistoric archaeological sites indicates the Project area has high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. Sensitivity is especially high in areas mapped with Hansford coarse sandy loam (HcC) soils. The Proje ct area also possesses moderate to high potential for encountering buried mid-twentieth century historical archaeological resources.

5.1) Recommendations
L&L recommends the following conditions/measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potentially significant impacts to historical resources within the Project area.

CUL-1: Prior to grading a fence with a 20-foot buffer shall be erected around the bedrock milling site (33 -01434) and t he concrete well (Quin -001H). The project will avoid impacts to prehistoric bedrock milling site (33 -015434), the single-family residence (841 Alpine Meadows Lane), and the concrete well (QUIN-001H) and neither direct or indirect impacts shall occur to these resources . The fence shall remain in place until approval of final inspection of all newly constructed residential units.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 61 L&L

CUL-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project proponent should hire a qualified archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Standards who should oversee implementation of an archaeological monitoring program during all ground -disturbing activities and that includes archaeological and Native American monitoring and cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel (i.e., Worker Envi ronmental Awareness Program [WEAP]). The qualified archaeologist should prepare an archaeological monitoring and discovery plan that will apply to the entire Project area and includes, at a minimum, a discussion of key personnel and their specific roles a nd responsibilities, archaeological monitoring methods, procedures for establishing Environmentally Sensitive Areas for the protection of cultural resources, a discussion of archaeological resource classes that may be encountered during construction, and protocols for identifying, evaluating, treating, and curating archaeological resources that may be encountered. The plan will be prepared in consultation with the City and consulting tribes. Should any cultural resources be discovered during implementatio n of the monitoring plan, the monitor(s) shall be authorized to temporarily halt all construction - related activities within a 100 -foot radius of the discovery while the resource is recorded onto appropriate DPR 523 Forms and evaluated for significance in c onsultation with the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant, the qualified archaeologist should make recommendations to the City on measures that should be implemented to treat cultural resources in accordance with protocols de veloped in the mitigation and discovery plan. No further grading shall occur in the discovery area until the City is notified by the qualified archaeologist that treatment has been completed.

CUL-3: Prior to final building inspection and approval, the Pro ject proponent should provide the City with a draft archaeological monitoring report and a receipt of payment to a local museum or repository for curation of archaeological materials generated during implementation of the monitoring program , if necessary . The draft archaeological monitoring report will, at a minimum, present the results of monitoring field work and provide copies of daily monitoring logs. If archaeological resources are discovered while implementing the monitoring program, the final monit oring report may also report on the results of lab analysis, special studies, and identify the curatorial facility that has agreed to house any archaeological collections. The archaeological monitoring report will be completed in consultation with the Cit y and consulting tribes. The Project proponent is responsible for completing a final monitoring report that addresses comments from the City, proponent, and/or consulting tribes. Final reports will be submitted to the City, Project Proponent, consulting tribes, and Eastern Information Center located on the campus of Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 62 L&L

the University of California, Riverside.

CUL-4: In the event of discovery of human bone, potential human bone, or a known or potential human burial or cremation, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet of the discovery shall halt immediately and the County Coroner and the Lead Agency shall be immediately notified. California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and guidelines of the NAHC shall be a dhered to in treatment and disposition of the remains. The Lead Agency shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the find and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including excavation and removal of the human remains. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for approval of recomme nded mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. The project contractor shall implement approved mitigation measure(s), to be verified by th e Lead Agency, prior to resuming ground - disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.

5.2) Native American Requests and Recommendations
Native American tribes made the following requests and recommendations regarding cultural resources in the Project area limits:
• The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians requests formal government -to-government consultation with the Lead Agency under AB52, notificatio n once the Project enters entitlement, and copies of all cultural resource reports and records, and the draft environmental document. Furthermore, the tribe requests follow-up with the Lead Agency regarding Native American monitoring during Project construction. • The Rincon Band of Luise ño Indians requested a copy of the record search results and final draft of the cultural resources report.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 63 L&L

6.0) REFERENCES CITED

Arnold, J. and M. R. Walsh. 2010. California’s Ancient Past: From the Pacific to the Range of Light. The SAA Press. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.

Bean, L. J. 1972. Mukat’s People. The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, California.

Bean, L. J. 1978. The Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. R.

F. Heizer (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bean, L. J. and F. C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In R.F. Heifer, (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Bean, L. J. and S. B. Vane (CSR, Inc.). 1979. Cultural Resources and the Devers-Mira Loma 500Kv Transmission Line Route (Valley to Mira Loma Section): A Study of the Paleontology, History and Archaeology of the Vicinity of the Line. On file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Bean, L. J., S. B. Vane, and J. Young. 1991. The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press, California.

Beck, C. and G. T. Jones. 1997. The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11:161-236.

Bedwell, S. F. 1970. Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial For t Rock Lake Area of Southcentral Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Bedwell, S. F. 1973. Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Press, Eugene, Oregon.

Bettinger, R. L. and M. A. Baumhoff. 1982. The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485–503.

Bissell, R. 1993. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of The Hidden Valley Golf Course, Norco, Riverside County, California . On file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Braje, T. L., J. M. Erlandson, and T. C. Rick. 2013. Points in Space and Time: The Distribution of Paleocoastal Points and Crescents on the Northern Channel Islands. In California's Channel Islands: The Archaeology of Human-Environment Interactions, C. S. Jazwa and J. E. Perry (eds.), pp. 26-39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Brock, J. 2002. Phase II Archaeological Investigations of Sites CA-RIV-6797 and CA-RIV-6798, Tentative Tract No. 30684, City of Coachella, Riverside County, California. Prepared for the Community Development Department, City of Coachella, California.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2021. General Land Office Records Search. Website accessed November 2021. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 64 L&L

Campbell, E. C. W., W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A. Borbieri, and F. D. Bode. 1937. The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave: A Symposium. Highland Park:

Southwest Museum Papers No. 11.

Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park: Stanford University Press.

Cressman, L. S. 1940a. Studies on Early Man in South Central Oregon. In Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book No. 39: 300-306. Washington, D.C.

Cressman, L. S. 1940b. Early Man in the Northern Part of the Great Basin of South -Central Oregon. Proceedings of the Sixth Pacific Science Congress 4: 169-175. University of California, Berkeley.

Cressman, L. S. 1942. Archaeological Researches in the Northern Great Basin . Carnegie Institution of Washington Publications, 538. Washington, D.C.

Cressman, L. S. 1986. Prehistory of the Northern Area. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp. 120 -126. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Curti, G. H. 2013. Luiseño Ethnohistory: The Pre -Contact Period and its Ongoing Cultural Significance. In Final Cultural Resources Inventory of the Interstate 15 Border Patrol Checkpoint, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Cali fornia [Redacted], by Jason M.

Jones, Caroline Wright, and Giorgio H. Curti. Report prepared for U. S. Customs and Border Protection.

Dahdul, M., J. D. Goodman, Z. X. Hruby, and H. M. Quinn. 2011. Final Report of Results and Findings: Archaeological In vestigations at Locus 1, Site CA -RIV-2642, near the City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. Prepared for the Riverside County Planning Department. Report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Davis, J. T. 1962. The Rustler Rockshelter site (SBr -288), a culturally significant site in the Mohave Desert, California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 57:
25–65.

Davis, L. G., S. C. Willis, and S. J. Macfarlan. 2012. Lithic Techno logy, Cultural Transmission, and the Nature of the Far Western Paleoarchaic/Paleoindian Co-Tradition. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Inermountain West , Edition: 1, Chapter: 3, Publisher: University of Utah Press, Editors: David Rhode, pp. 47-64.

Drucker, P. 1937. Culture Element Distributions: V-Southern California. University of California Publications: Anthropological Records 1(1), pp. 1-52. Berkeley, California.

Eddy, J. J. 2013. The Early Middle Period Stone Bead Interdependence Network. Unpublished Master's Thesis, California State University, Northridge.

Fitzgerald, R. T. and T. L. Jones. 1999. The Milling Stone Horizon Revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21(1): 67–93.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 65 L&L

Gardner, J. K. 2002. Testing a Regional Model of Changing Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Western Mojave Desert: Results from the Coffee Break Site. Coyote Press Archives of Great Basin Prehistory no. 6. Salinas, California.

Gardner, J. K. 2006. The Potential Impact of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly on Human Populations in the Western Mojave Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Goldberg, S. K. 2001. Land Use, Mobility, and Intensification Evaluation and Refinement of the Model. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Chapter 14. Susan K. Goldber g, general editor.

Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Goldberg, S. K. and M. C. Horne. 2001. Revised Research Design for Eastside Reservoir Project Prehistoric Archaeology. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations , Volume IV: Prehistoric Archaeology Synthesis of Findings, pp. 21 –90. App lied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Goldberg, S. K., C. J. Klink, J. A. Onken, W. G. Spaulding, M. C. Robinson, M. C. Horne, and R.

L. McKim. 2001. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations , Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings.

Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Grenda, D. 1997. Site Structure, Settlement Systems, and Social Organization at Lake Elsinore, California. Unpublished Ph.D . dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.

Gunther, J. D. 1984. Riverside County, California Place Names: Their Origins and their Stories.

Rubidoux Printing, Riverside.

Hale, M. J. 2001. Technological Organization of the Milling Stone Pattern in Southern California.

Unpublished Master’s th esis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.

Hampson, R. P., J. Sorensen, S. K. Goldberg, M. T. Swanson, and J. E. Arnold. 1988. Cultural Resources Survey, Upper Santa Ana River, California. Greenwood and Associates. On file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Harrington, J. P. 1933. Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Account of the B eliefs, Usages, Customs, and Extravagencies [sic] of the Indians of This Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, California.

Heizer, R. F. (ed). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 66 L&L

Heizer, R. F. and M. A. Whipple (eds). 1971 (Second Edition). The California Indians A Source Book. University of California Press, Los Angeles.\

Hooper, L. 1920. The Cahuilla Indians. University of Ca lifornia Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 16(6), pp. 315-380.

Horne, M. C. 2001. Site Structure and Features. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings, Chapter 8. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Horne, M. C. and D. P. McDougall. 2008. CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California . Report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Jennings, J. D. 1957. Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 27. Salt Lake City.

Jennings, J. D. 1964. The Desert West. In Prehistoric Man in the New World , edited by J. D.

Jennings and E. Norbeck, pp. 149-174. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Jones, T. L. and K. A. Klar (eds). 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

Keller, J. K. 1995. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Emerald Meadows Ranch, 155.0 Acres of Land Near Rubidoux, Riverside County, California. On file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

King, C. D. 1990. Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. In Evolution of North American Indians, edited by D. H. Thomas. Garland, New York, New York.

Kowta, M. 1969. The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Archaeology, Vol. 6.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of Califo rnia. Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin No.

78. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Kroeber, A. L. 1908. Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2): 29–68.

Lamb, S. M. 195 8. Linguistic Prehistory of the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 95.

Lerch, M. K. and G. A. Smith. 1982. Site Record for CA -RIV-112. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 67 L&L

Love, B. and M. Dahdul. 2002. Desert Chronologies and the Archaic Period in the Coachella Valley. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 38(2&3): 65–86.

Love, B., B. Tang, M. Hogan, and M. Dahdul . 2000. Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties Mission La Rue Senior Housing Project, in the Community of Rubidoux, Riverside County, California. On file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

May, R. V. 1978. A Southern California Indigenous Ceramic Typology: A Contribution to Malcolm J. Rogers Research. ASA Journal 2(2). Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California, Inc., La Verne, California.

McDonald, M., P. J. Wilke, A. Kaus, and C. Moser. 1987. McCue: An Elko Site in Riverside, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(1):46-73.

McDougall, D. P. 2001. CA -RIV-5045: The Diamond Valley Pinto Site. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations , Vol. II: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Occupation Sites, Chapter 8. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor, pp. 739–830.

McGuire, K. R., A. P. Garfinkel, and M. E. Basgall. 1981. Archaeological Investigations in the El Paso Mountains of the western Mojave Desert: The Bickel and Last Chance sites (CA - KER-250 and -261). Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management.

McKim, R. L. 2001. Faunal Assemblages: Vertebrate Faunal Remains. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Proj ect Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Chapter 12. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Meighan, C. W. 1954. A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215–227.

Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Morton, D. M. and B. Cox. 2001. Geologic Map of the Riverside East 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. United States Gologic Survey Open-File Report 01-452.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR). 2021. Historic Aerials and Topographic Maps.

Website accessed November 2021. http://www.historicaerials.com

O’Connell, J. F., P. J. Wilke, T. F. King, and C. L. Mix (editors). 1974. Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California.

California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports 14.

Oxendine, Joan. 1983. The Luiseño Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Ph.D. Dissertation on file with the Department of Anthropology, UC-Riverside.

Pallette, D. and J. Schaefer. 1994. Archaeological Investigations of Two Lake Cahuilla Associated Rockshelters in the Toro Canyon Area, Riverside County, California. Paper Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 68 L&L

presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting (March 26, 1994), Ventura, California.

Pechanga Cultural Resources (Pechanga). 2008. Comments of the Pechanga Tribe of Luiseno Indians Concerning the Villages of Lakeview Draft Final Revised TVOL Report (“Mystic Paavo’: Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation of the Villages of Lakeview Specific Plan, Riverside County, California”) and Currently Proposed Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources Sites. Letter dated June 20, 2008. Submitted to Riverside County Transportation Commission.

Pechanga Cultural Resources (Pechanga). 2011. Pechanga Tribe Comments on the State Route 79 Realignment Archaeological Evaluation Proposal EA 49400 (#080000000784).

Raab, L. M. and T. L. Jones. 2004. Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise.

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Roberts, F. H. H., Jr. 1940. Developments in the problem of the North American Paleoindian. In Essays in historical anthropology of North America in honor of John R. Swanton in celebration of his fortieth year with the Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100): 51-116. Washington (DC): Smithsonian.

Robinson, M. C. 2001a. Toolstone Procurement. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings, Chapter 11. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Submitted to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Robinson, M. C. 2001b. Projectile Points from the Eastside Reservoir Project. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations, Vol. V: Technical Studies, Chapter 2. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor.

Submitted to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Schaefer, J. 1994. The Stuff of Creation: Recent Approaches to Ceramics Analysis in the Colorado Desert. In Recent Research along the Lower Colorado River , pp. 81 –100.

Statistical Research Technical Series, No. 51. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Schaefer, J. and D. Laylander. 2007. The Colorado Desert: Ancient Adaptations to the Wetlands and Wastelands. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity , edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 247–257. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Schroeder, A. H. 1952. A Brief Survey of the Lower Colorado River, from Davis Dam to the International Border. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Smith, G. A. and S. M. Freer s. 1994. Fading Images Indian Pictographs of Western Riverside County. Riverside Museum Press, Riverside.

Sparkman, P. S. 1908. The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Ethnology and Archaeology 8(4).

Spaulding, W. G. 1991. A Middle Holocene Vegetation Record From the Mojave Desert and Its Paleoclimatic Significance. Quaternary Research 35: 427-437.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 69 L&L

Spaulding, W. G. 1995. Environmental Change, Ecosystem Responses, and the Late Quaternary Development of the Mojave Desert. In Late Quaternary Environments and Deep History: A Tribute to Paul S. Martin , edited by D. Steadman and J. Mead. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc. Scientific Papers, Volume 3. Hot Springs, South Dakota.

Strong, W. D. 1929. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1–358. Berkeley, California.

Sutton, M. Q. 1981. Archaeology of the Antelope Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California.

Manuscript in the possession of the author.

Sutton, M. Q. 1990. Koehn Lake in the Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.

Sutton, M. Q. 1991. Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California. Museum of Anthropology Occasional Papers in Anthropology no. 1, California State University, Bakersfield.

Sutton, M. Q. 1994. The Numic Expansion as Seen from the Mojave Desert. In Across the West:

Human Populations Movement and the Expansion of the Numa , David B. Madsen and David Rhode, eds., pp. 133-140.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Sutton, M. Q. 1996. The Current Status of Archaeologic al Research in the Mojave Desert.

Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 18(2): 221–257.

Sutton, M. Q. 2005. Rustler Rockshelter – the 1992 Excavations at Rustler Rockshelter (CA - SBR-288), Eastern Mojave Desert, California. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 52(4).

Sutton, M. Q. 2010. The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2): 1-54.

Sutton, M. Q. 2011. The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4): 1-74.

Sutton, M. Q. 2015. Revisions to the Palomar Tradition Model in Southern California Prehistory.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 51(1): 1-18.

Sutton, M. Q., M. E. Basgall, J. K. Gardner, and M. W. Allen. 2007. Advances in Understanding the Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp 229 –245. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Sutton, M. Q. and J. K. Gardner. 2010. Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tra dition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4): 1–64.

Sutton, M. Q. and S. R. Jackson. 1993. Archaeological Investigations CA-KER-2450, Rosamond Kern County, California. In Archaeological Studies in Rosamond, Western Mojave Desert, California, edited by M. Q. Sutton, pp 10-25. Museum of Anthropology, Occasional Papers no. 3, California State University, Bakersfield.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 70 L&L

True, D. L. 1966. Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

True, D. L. 1970. Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California . Archaeologic al Survey Monograph. University of California, Los Angeles.

True, D. L., C. W. Meighan, and H. Crew. 1974. Archaeological Investigation at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology 11.

Berkeley, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1901. Map: Riverside, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1897.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 1942. Map: Riverside, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1939.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1953. Map: Riverside East, Calif. (7.5’, 24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1951, field checked in 1953.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1967. Map: Riverside East, Calif. (7.5’, 24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1966, field checked in 1967.

Wallace, W. J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology .

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 11(3): 214-230.

Wallace, W. J. 1977. A Half -Century of Death Valley Archaeolog y. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(2): 249–258.

Wallace, W. J. 1978. Post -Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, 25 -36. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution.

Wallace, W. J. 1988. Old Crump Flat and Ubehebe Craters: Two Rockshelters in Death Valley National Monument. Monographs in California and Great Basin Anthropology No. 2, Davis, California.

Wallace, W. J., and E. Taylor. 1959. A Preceramic sit e at Saratoga Springs, Death Valley National Monument. Archaeological Research Associates, Contributions to California Archaeology 3(2).

Warren, C. N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States , edited by C. Irwin -Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1.

Warren, C. N. 1984. The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. J. Moratto. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 71 L&L

Warren, C. N. and R. H. Crabtree. 1986. Prehistory of Southwestern Area. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 183–193.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Waters, M. R. 1982. The Lowland Patayan Ceramic Typology. App. G. in Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, ed. by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B.

Schiffer. Academic Press, New York.

White, Raymond C. 1963. Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.

Wilke, P. J. 1978. Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.

Contributions of the University of California Arc haeological Research Facility 38.

University of California, Berkeley, California.

Willig, J. A. 1988. Paleo-Archaic Adaptations and Lakeside Settlement Patterns in the Northern Alkali Basin. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis- Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, J. L. Fagan, pp. 417-482. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 21. Carson City.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 72 L&L

7.0) CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE: December 31, 2021 SIGNED:

PRINTED NAME: John, MA, RPA, L&L Archaeologist
DATE: December 31, 2021 SIGNED:

PRINTED NAME: Leslie Nay Irish, CEO, L&L Environmental, Inc.

COUNTY REGISTRATION # 170

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 73 L&L

APPENDIX A

Personnel Qualifications
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 74 L&L

Leslie Nay Irish
Principal Project Manager
Cal Trans (CT) 022889

Leslie Irish is the qualifying principal for WBE certification with CALTRANS, with both a State and Federal designation as a 100% WBE and Small Business Enterprise. Ms. Irish has multi - disciplinary experience in environmental, engineering, land developmen t and construction management and administration.

Ms. Irish has more than 25 years of experience as a project manager on public and private NEPA / CEQA projects overseeing the areas of biology, archaeology, paleontology, regulatory services and state and federal level permit processing.

Ms. Irish is a certified to perform wetland / jurisdictional delineations and holds a responsible party permit for performing archaeological and paleontological investigations on (BLM) public lands.

She has attended the desert tortoise handling class, passed the practicum and the test and was awarded a certificate. She remains an active participant in the oversight of mitigation monitoring and reporting programs, the installation and monitoring of revegetation program s and the development of project impact mitigation plans. Her principal office duties include a review of all environmental documents authored by the firm; oversight of regulatory permits, agency consultation and negotiations; impact mitigation review; an d long-term permit compliance. Her field duties are more limited but include delineations / compliance monitoring and reporting (coordination), constraints analysis, plan for corrective measures and resolution of “problem projects”.

Ms. Irish’s responsib ilities include direct contact with clients/project proponents, scientists and agencies and involve her in all aspects of the project from a request for proposal to project completion. Ms. Irish has a complex understanding of the industry from various perspectives. As a result, she uses her personal understanding of team member positions and responsibilities in her role as the principal management and quality control lead.

CREDENTIALS AND PERMITS
• ACOE, Wetlands Delineation Certification Update, 2015 • ACOE, Advanced Wetlands Delineation and Management, 2001 • ACOE, Wetlands Delineation and Management, 1999, Certificate No. 1257 • U.S. Government, Permit for Archaeology & Paleontology on Federal Lands, Responsible Party
• MOU, County of Riverside, Archaeology, Biology, Paleontology and Wetlands ID/Delineation • CALTRANS WBE Certification
• Public Utilities Commission, WBE Certified
• WBENC, WBE Certified

EDUCATION
Certificate in Project Management, Initiating and Planning Projects, UC, Irvine, June 20, 2015 Foundations of Business Strategy, Darden School of Business, UVA, Jan 2014 Design Thinking for Business Innovation (audit), Darden School of Business, UVA, Nov 2013 Update, Storm Water Management BMPs, University of California, Riverside Extension, 2005 Certificate, Wetland Delineation & Management, ACOE, 2000 and Advanced Certificate: 2002 Certificate Program, Field Natural Environment, University of California, Riverside, 1993 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 75 L&L

Leslie Nay Irish
Continued

Certificate Program, Light Construction, Developmental Management, University of California, Riverside, 1987
Certificate Program, Construction Technologies, Administrative Management, Riverside City College, 1987
License B-General and C-Specialties (Concrete/Masonry) and General Law sections, 1986 Core Teaching and Administrative Management, Primary (K-3) and Early Childhood, Cal State, San Bernardino, Lifelong Learning Program, 1973-2005
Behavioral Sciences and Anthropology, Chaffey and Valley Jr./Community Colleges, 1973 – 1976

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
L&L Environmental, Inc. - Principal, Project Manager / Principal in Charge: 1993 - present: Site assessments, surveys, jurisdictional delineations, permit processing, agency consultation/negotiation, impact mitigation, project management, coordination, report writing, technical editing, and quality control.

Marketing Consultant - Principal: 1990 - 1993: Engineering / architectural, environmental, and water resource management consultant.

Warmington Homes - Jr. Project Manager: 1989 - 1990: Residential development, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.

The Buie Corporation - Processor / Coordinator: 1987 - 1990: The Corona Ranch, Master Planned Community.

Psomas & Associates - Processor / Coordinator - 1986 - 1987: Multiple civil engineering and land surveying projects.

Irish Construction Company – Builder Partner: (concurrently with above) 1979 - 1990: General construction, residential building (spec. housing), and concrete and masonry product construction.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Member, Building Industry Association
Member, Southern California Botanists
Member, Archaeological Institute of America
Member, Society for California Archaeology
Member, California Chamber of Commerce
Member, CalFlora
Member, San Bernardino County Museum Associates
Member, Orange County Natural History Museum Associates Life Member, Society of Wetland Scientists
1994-97 President, Business Development Association, Inland Empire 1993-94 Executive Vice President, Building Industry Association, Riverside County 2010 Chair of the Old House Interest Group – Redlands Area Historical Society

SYMPOSIA, SEMINARS, AND WORKSHOPS
Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation Process Overview. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Cultural Resources Group. Temecula, CA. October 2015
ACOE Compensatory Mitigation Workshop – Wilshire Blvd Office, July 16, 2015 May 27, 2015, CWA Rule, Update, San Diego CA, October 20-23, 2015 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 76 L&L

Leslie Nay Irish
Continued

ACOE 2 Day Workshop, Mitigation Rule & Mitigation Checklist, Carlsbad, March 20, 2015 Desert Tortoise Handling Class, update (DT Consortium / Joint Agencies USFWS/CDFG) 2013 Update
Bedrock Food Processing Centers in Riverside County, TLMA, 2009 Nexus Geology-Archaeology, Riverside County, TLMA, 2009 Desert Tortoise Handling Class, (DT Consortium / Joint Agencies USFWS/CDFG), 2008 Certificate Granted
Ecological Islands and Processes (vernal pools, alkali wetlands, etc.), Southern California Botanists, 2004
Low Impact Development, State Water Board Academy, 2004 Inland Empire Transportation Symposium, 2004
Western Riverside County MSHCP Review and Implementation Seminar, 2004 Field Botany and Taxonomy, Riverside City College, 2002 Construction Storm Water Compliance Workshop, BIA, 2002 Identifying Human Bone: Conducted by L&L Environmental, County Coroner and Page Museum, 2002
CEQA/NEPA Issues in Historic Preservation, UCLA, 2000
CEQA and Biological Resources, University of California, Riverside, 2000 CEQA Law Update 2000, UCLA
Land Use Law/Planning Conference, University of California, Riverside CALNAT “95”, University of California, Riverside
Desert Fauna, University of California, Riverside
Habitat Restoration/Ecology, University of California, Riverside Geology of Yosemite and Death Valley, University of California, Riverside San Andreas Fault: San Bernardino to Palmdale, University of California, Riverside Historic Designations and CEQA Law, UCLA

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 77 L&L

John Eddy, M.A., RPA
Principal Investigator
Archaeologist

John Eddy is the Cultural Resources Program Manager for L&L Environmental, Inc., is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), and meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Principal Investigator.

Mr. Eddy has practiced cultural resource management for more than fifteen years including more than 10 years managing cultural resource projects and s taff in the preparation of bids and proposals, contract negotiation and management, project development and design, budgeting, personnel management, as well as tasks related to the execution of archaeological technical studies (e.g., field survey, monitoring, testing and data recovery excavation, technical writing and editing, consultation, etc.) in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NEPA, CEQA and other federal, state and local regulations. He has directed and administered professional on -call contracts with state and federal agencies including environmental on -call contracts service contracts with the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) District 8 and District 5 and the Riverside County Transportation Department. As a CALTRANS archaeologist, Mr. Eddy negotiated avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures with multiple agencies and tribes.

He is skilled in the development and implantation of National Register evaluations, data recovery plans, mitigation and monitoring plans, trea tment plans, historic property preservation documentation reports, site protection plans, site impact reports, cultural landscape assessments, and buried site testing plans and reports.

Mr. Eddy’s responsibilities include direct contact with clients/pr oject proponents, scientists and agencies and involve him in all aspects of the project from a request for proposal to project completion. Mr. Eddy directs the cultural resources program, oversees all cultural and paleontological resource related projects and tasks, and provides QA/QC of cultural resource deliverables

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2020-present – Cultural resources Program Manager/Principal Investigator L&L Environmental, Inc. Redlands, CA.
2019 – Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Inc., Colton, CA. 2017-2018 – Lecturer, California State University, San Bernardino, Department of Anthropology. 2013-2017 – Senior Archaeologist, Applied Earthworks, Hemet, CA. 2010-2013 – Associate Archaeologist, Applied Earthworks, Hemet, CA. 2009-2010 – Associate Environmental Planner (Archaeologist), CALTRANS District 8, San Bernardino, CA.
2008-2009 – Environmental Planner (Archaeologist), CALTRANS District 8, San Bernardino, CA.
2007-2008 – Project Archaeologist/Native American Liaison, CRM TECH, Colton, CA. 2007 – Archaeologist (GS-09-01), Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA. 2003-2007 – Project Archaeologist/Native American Liaison, CRM TECH, Riverside, CA.

CREDENTIALS AND PERMITS
• RPA Certified (990008)
• U.S. Government, ARPA Permit, Responsible Party
• Riverside County Certified Archaeologist
• CALTRANS PQS Principal Investigator (Prehistoric Archaeology) Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 78 L&L

John J. Eddy, M.A., RPA
Continued

HONORS AND AWARDS
Thesis of the Year Award: The Early Middle Period Stone Bead Interdependence Network.

California State University, Northridge, Department of Anthropology, 2013.

Begole Archaeological Research Grant for Geochemcial Analysis of Soapstone from San Diego and Los Angeles Counties, 2008.

Phi Kappa Phi Student Scholarship Award, 2007.

Visiting Researcher, National Science Foundation Funded Program for Solid Samples Research in the Archaeological Sciences, IRMES, California State University, Long Beach, 2006- 2012.

Book Prize for Academic Excellence, California State University, Northridge, Department of Anthropology, 2005 and 2006.

EDUCATION
M.A., Anthropology (Public Archaeology), California State University, Northridge, 2013.

B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino, 2003.

B.A., History, California State University, San Bernardino, 2003.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society for California Archaeology
Coachella Valley Archaeological Society
Society for American Archaeology

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2014 – Landscape Preservation: Advanced Tools for Managing Change, National Preservation Institute. San Francisco..
2012 –Section 4(f) Compliance for Historic Properties, National Preservation Institute. San Francisco.
2010 – Riverside County Cultural Sensitivity Training. Riverside, CA. 2010 – CALTRANS Environmental Academy, CALTRANS Environmental Staff Development.

Irvine, CA.
2010 – ESRI ArcGIS II, Caltrans District 8. San Bernardino, CA. 2009 – Categorical Exclusions (NEPA) and Categorical Exemptions (CEQA. CALTRANS Environmental Staff Development Los Angeles, CA.
2008 – CALTRANS Cultural Resource Procedures and Use of the Programmatic Agreement.

Caltrans Cultural Studies Office (CSO). Sacramento, CA. 2008 – Advanced GIS Applications. California State University, Northridge.

PUBLICATIONS
2009 Source Characterization of Santa Cruz Island Schist and Its Role in Stone Bead Exchange Networks. In Proceedings of the 7th Channel Islands Symposium, February 4-7, 2008, Oxnard, California.
2008 The Cahuilla Indians: An Ethnological and Archaeological Literature Review. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society Occasional Papers No. 4.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 79 L&L

William R. Gillean, B.S.

Archaeologist

Mr. Gillean has gained more than 10 years of archaeological survey, testing, and excavation experience in Arizona, California, and Nevada. His duties at L&L include archaeological mitigation monitoring, Phase I surveys, Cal ifornia Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) research, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Search (SLS) requests, Native American information scoping, completion of site records, and assisting senior staff with technical repo rts. He has experience with a wide range of GPS data collectors, photographic equipment, and software programs. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Anthropology with an emphasis in Cultural Resource Management from Cal Poly, Pomona.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
2015-present – Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc. Redlands, CA. Performs field surveys, research, and completes site recordation for projects in southern California. Contributes to technical reports.
2013-present – Archaeologist, First Carbon Solutions. Irvine, CA. Performs archaeological mitigation monitoring in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. 2010-2015 – Archaeologist, Atkins. San Bernardino, CA. Performed field surveys, research, completed site records, contributed to technical reports, assisted with Native American information scoping letters, and coordinated with the NAHC for SLS requests. Performed archaeological mitigation monitoring in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. 2006-2010 – Archaeologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Skyforest, CA. Performed field surveys, subsurface testing programs, and data recovery projects throughout the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests in southern California.

Completed site records, authored and contributed to technical reports, conducted archaeological reconnaissance and inventory of fire suppression activities in support of the Butler II, Grass Valley, Slide, and Station fires. Made recommendations for minimizing impacts to archeological sites and performed mitigation monitoring in archaeologically sensitive areas during project implementation.
2004-2007 – Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc. Corona, CA. Performed field surveys, research, subsurface testing programs, and data recovery projects in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Inyo Counties, California. Contributed to technical reports and performed archaeological mitigation monitoring.
2003-2004 – Field Technician, Center for Archaeological Research, California State University, Bakersfield. Bakersfield, CA. Provided technical support for the archaeological reconnaissance and inventory of over 40 miles of the Southern California Edison power line corridor located within the San Bernardino National Forest.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2010 – Applied NEPA. USDA Forest Service. San Bernardino, CA. 2008 – The Section 106 Essentials. USDA Forest Service. Sacramento, CA.

EDUCATION
B.S., Anthropology (Cultural Resource Management Emphasis) – 2002, Cal Poly, Pomona, CA Confidential Appendix B is intently removed from this public review version of the report

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 80 L&L

REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX B

EIC Records Search Results

This section was intentionally removed.

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 81 L&L

APPENDIX C

Photos

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 82 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-001

QUIN-01-DM-002

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 83 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-003

QUIN-01-DM-004

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 84 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-005

QUIN-01-DM-006

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 85 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-007

QUIN-01-DM-008

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 86 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-009

QUIN-01-DM-010

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 87 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-011

QUIN-01-DM-012

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 88 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-013

QUIN-01-DM-014

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 89 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-015

QUIN-01-DM-016

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 90 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-017

QUIN-01-DM-018

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 91 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-019

QUIN-01-DM-020

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 92 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-021

Redacted Photo
QUIN-01-DM-022

Redacted Photo
QUIN-01-DM-023

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 93 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-024

QUIN-01-DM-025

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 94 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-026

QUIN-01-DM-027

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 95 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-028

QUIN-01-DM-029

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 96 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-030

QUIN-01-DM-031

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 97 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-032

QUIN-01-DM-033

Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment
Alpine Meadows Project, Riverside, Riverside County, CA June 2023 QUIN-05-P752.ARS.Rev3 (Final) 98 L&L

QUIN-01-DM-034

QUIN-01-DM-035

Riverside City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

Riverside City Council
January 16, 2024