Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Tentative Tract No. 32497

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
THE ENCANTO ESTATES PROJECT
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 044-200-011 and -012
Near the City of Imperial, Imperial County, California
For Submittal to:
County of Imperial
Community and Economic Development Office
836 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243
Prepared for:
Betsy A. Lindsay
UltraSystems Environmental
100 Pacifica, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
June 26, 2006

Author(s): Nicholas F. Hearth, Project Archaeologist/Report Writer
Robert Porter, Project Archaeologist
Terri Jacquemain, Project Historian
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 784-3051
Date: June 26, 2006
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Encanto
Estates Project, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 044-200-011 and 012, near the
City of Imperial, Imperial County, California
For Submittal to: County of Imperial
Community and Economic Development Office
836 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243
Project Size: Approximately 400 acres
Contract No.: CRM TECH No. 1876
USGS Quadrangle: El Centro, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle
Section 7, T6S R8E, San Bernardino Base Meridian
Keywords: USGS El Centro quadrangle; Imperial County; historical/
archaeological resources survey; no "historical resources" found

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In May and June 2006, at the request of UltraSystems Environmental, CRM
TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 400 acres of
rural land near the City of Imperial, Imperial County, California. The subject
property of the study, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 044-200-011 and -012, is
located on the southwest corner of Dogwood Road and Worthington Road. It
consists of portions of Lots 108 and 109 in what would be Sections 16, 17, and
18, T15S R14E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study is part of the
environmental review process for a proposed mixed-use development
projects known as Encanto Estates. The County of Imperial, as Lead Agency
for the project, required the study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the study is to provide the County of Imperial with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed
project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/
archaeological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area,
as mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such resources,
CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search,
pursued historical background research, contacted Native American
representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey.
The results of the study indicate that the project area was once the site of Jim
Delfino's cattle feed yard, a well-known local business that was in operation
from the 1950s to the 1980s, but none of the buildings or other features
associated with the business remains on the property today. Several ditches
that apparently date to the historic period were noted in the project area, all
of them parts of the irrigation system in the Imperial Valley that some
consider to be historically significant. None of these ditches, however,
demonstrates any distinctively historical characteristics. Individually, these
ubiquitous elements of the historic infrastructure show no potential to qualify
as "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, and their physical components
contribute little to the potential historic significance of the overall system.
Since their presence at this location is well documented, these ditches were
not formally recorded during the survey.
Based on the study results summarized above, CRM TECH concludes that no
"historical resources" are present within the project area, and accordingly
recommends to the City of Imperial a finding of No Impact regarding cultural
resources. No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for
the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include
areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are
encountered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project,
all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Current Natural Setting ................................................................................................................ 3
Cultural Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3
Prehistory .................................................................................................................................... 3
Ethnography ............................................................................................................................... 4
History......................................................................................................................................... 4
RESEARCH METHODS.................................................................................................................... 5
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 5
Historical Research ........................................................................................................................ 5
Native American Contact ............................................................................................................. 6
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 6
RESULTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................................................................. 6
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 6
Native American Contact ............................................................................................................. 9
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 9
DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 11
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 13
APPENDIX 2: CONTACT WITH NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES.................... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity .................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area....................................... 3
Figure 4. Previous cultural resources studies ............................................................................... 7
Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1854-1856.................................................................... 8
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1953............................................................................. 8
Figure 7. Typical irrigation ditches in the project area................................................................ 9

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32497
In the City of Perris
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Melissa Miller
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Prepared by:
Harry M. Quinn, Geologist/Paleontologist
Nicholas Hearth, Report Writer
CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
July 27, 2006
CRM TECH Contract #1883P
Approximately 12 Acres
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 306-110-014 through -022 and 306-120-006 through -010
Section 20, T4S R3W, San Bernardino Base Meridian
USGS Perris, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between May and July, 2006, at the request of Albert A. Webb Associates,
CRM TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on
approximately 12 acres of agricultural land in the City of Perris, Riverside
County, California. The subject property of the study, Tentative Tract No.
32497, encompasses what are currently Assessor's Parcel Numbers 306-011-
014 through -022 and 306-120-006 through -010. It is located on the southwest
corner of Orange Street and Medical Center Drive, in the northwest quarter of
Section 20, T4S R3W, San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study is part of the
environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property
for residential development. The City of Perris, as Lead Agency for the
project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the study is to provide the City of Perris with the necessary
information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would
potentially disrupt or adversely affect any paleontological resources, as
mandated by CEQA, and to design a paleontological salvage program for the
project, if necessary. In order to identify any paleontological resource
localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility
for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction
activities, CRM TECH initiated records searches at the San Bernardino
County Museum and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
pursued additional literature research, and carried out a field inspection of
the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology.
Based on the results of these research procedures, the proposed project's
potential to impact significant non-renewable paleontological resources is
determined to be low in the surface deposit of Holocene-age alluvium, but
moderate to high if older, Pleistocene-age alluvium is reached. Based on this
assessment, if ground disturbance is to exceed five feet in depth, periodic
monitoring is recommended. Should any older, Pleistocene-age alluvium be
encountered or if excavation exceeds 10 feet in depth, continuous monitoring
will be necessary, along with a program to mitigate impacts to the
paleontological resources that might be unearthed.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 4
Records Searches............................................................................................................................ 4
Literature Review........................................................................................................................... 4
FIELD SURVEY.............................................................................................................................. 4
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 5
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 6
DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................... 6
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 6
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................. 7
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ....................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX 2: Record Search Results............................................................................................ 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3. Tentative Tract No. 32497................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4. Typical landscape in the project area ............................................................................ 4

WELL PLANTS 35 AND 36
Assessors Parcel Numbers 325-250-33 and -36
Near the City of Ridgecrest
Kern County, California
For Submittal to:
Indian Wells Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1329
Ridgecrest, CA 93556
Prepared for:
Victoria Morrell
Krieger and Stewart, Inc.
3602 University Avenue, Suite 201
Riverside, CA 92501
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
August 11, 2006

Author: Nicholas F. Hearth, Report Writer
Thomas Melzer, Archaeologist
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 784-3051
Date: August 11, 2006
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Well Plants 35
and 36, Assessors Parcel Numbers 325-250-33 and -36, near the City
of Ridgecrest, Kern County, California
For Submittal to: Indian Wells Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1329
Ridgecrest, CA 93556
Prepared for: Victoria Morrell
Krieger and Stewart, Inc.
3602 University Avenue, Suite 201
Riverside, CA 92501
USGS Quadrangle: Inyokern, 7.5' quadrangle
Section 34, T26S R39E, Mount Diablo Base Meridian
Keywords: USGS Inyokern quadrangle; Ridgecrest-Inyokern area, Kern County;
historical/archaeological resources survey; no "historical resources"
found

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between May and August 2006, at the request of Krieger and Stewart, Inc.,
CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 40 acres
of undeveloped land near the City of Ridgecrest, Kern County, California.
The subject properties of the study, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 325-250-33
and -36, are located on the south side of Las Flores Avenue, between Victor
Street and Strecker Street, in the southwestern quarter of Section 34, T26S
R39E, Mount Diablo Base Meridian. The study is part of the environmental
review process for the proposed Well Plants 35 and 36. The Indian Wells
Valley Water District, as Lead Agency for the project, required the study in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the study is to provide the Indian Wells Valley Water District
with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the
proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/
archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as
mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM
TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued
historical background research, contacted Native American representatives,
and carried out an intensive-level field survey.
Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any
"historical resources," as defined by CEQA, within or adjacent to the project
area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the Indian Wells Valley Water
District a finding of No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further
cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless
construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by
this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any
earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area
should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the
nature and significance of the finds.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Prehistory .................................................................................................................................... 4
Ethnography ............................................................................................................................... 5
History......................................................................................................................................... 5
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 7
Native American Participation .................................................................................................... 8
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 8
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 8
Historical Research ...................................................................................................................... 10
Native American Participation .................................................................................................. 11
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................. 11
DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................................... 11
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 12
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 12
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ....................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX 2: Correspondences with Native American Representatives .............................. 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3. Assessor's parcel map ...................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area....................................... 4
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855........................................................................... 10
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1911-1913.................................................................. 10
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1943-1948.................................................................. 10

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
PERRIS RETAIL CENTER
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 311-050-015
In the City of Perris
Riverside County, California
Prepared for:
Betsy A. Lindsay
UltraSystems Environmental
100 Pacifica, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Prepared by:
Harry M. Quinn, Geologist/Paleontologist
Nicholas Hearth, Report Writer
CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
July 14, 2006
CRM TECH Contract #1896P
Approximately Three Acres
Section 30, T4S R3W, San Bernardino Base Meridian
USGS Perris, Calif., 7.5' Quadrangle

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In June and July 2006, at the request of UltraSystems Environmental, CRM
TECH performed a paleontological resource assessment on approximately
three acres of agricultural land in the City of Perris, Riverside County,
California. The subject property of the study, Assessor's Parcel Number 311-
050-015, is located on the south side of Old Nuevo Road and east of Interstate
215, in the northeast quarter of Section 30, T4S R3W, San Bernardino Base
Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for a
proposed development project known as the Perris Retail Center. The City of
Perris, as Lead Agency for the project, required the study in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the study is to provide the City of Perris with the necessary
information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would
potentially disrupt or adversely affect any paleontological resources, as
mandated by CEQA, and to design a paleontological salvage program for the
project, if necessary. In order to identify any paleontological resource
localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the possibility
for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction
activities, CRM TECH initiated records searches at the San Bernardino
County Museum and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
pursued additional literature research, and carried out a field inspection of
the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology.
Based on the results of these research procedures, the proposed project's
potential to impact significant non-renewable paleontological resources is
determined to be low if no Holocene-age sedimentary deposits are
encountered and moderate to high if older, Pleistocene-age alluvium is
reached. If ground disturbance is to exceed five feet in depth, periodic
monitoring is recommended. Should any older, Pleistocen-age alluvium be
encountered, continuous monitoring will become necessary, along with a
program to mitigate impacts to the paleontological resources that might be
unearthed.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 3
Records Searches............................................................................................................................ 3
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 4
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 4
Field survey..................................................................................................................................... 5
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 7
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ......................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX 2: Record Search Results............................................................................................ 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 3. Typical landscape in the project area ............................................................................ 4

BLACK ANGEL MINE PROJECT
Helendale Area
San Bernardino County, California
For Submittal to:
Land Use Services Department
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Prepared for:
Webber-Plyley, Inc.
C/o George A. Webber, President
Webber and Webber Mining Consultants, Inc.
101 East Redlands Boulevard, Suite 240
Redlands, CA 92373
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
August 15, 2006

Author(s): Nicholas F. Hearth, Project Archaeologist/Report Writer
Lisa Hunt, Project Archaeologist
4472 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 784-3051
Date: August 15, 2006
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Black Angel
Mine Project, Helendale Area, San Bernardino County, California
For Submittal to: Land Use Services Department
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Prepared for: Webber-Plyley, Inc.
C/o George A. Webber, President
Webber and Webber Mining Consultants, Inc.
101 East Redlands Boulevard, Suite 240
Redlands, CA 92373
USGS Quadrangle: Turtle Valley, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle
Sections 36, T8N R3W, San Bernardino Base Meridian
Keywords: USGS Turtle Valley Quadrangle; Stoddard Well area, San Bernardino
County; Assessor's Parcel No. 419-051-20; historical/archaeological
resources survey; no "historical resources" found

i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between June and August 2006, at the request of Webber-Plyley, Inc., CRM
TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 80 acres of
undeveloped land in an unincorporated area near the community of
Helendale, San Bernardino County, California. The subject property of the
study consists of a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 419-051-20, located on the
south side of Hodge Road and within the east half of Section 36, T8N R3W,
San Bernardino Base Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review
process for a proposed aggregate mining operation known as the Black Angel
Mine. The County of San Bernardino, as Lead Agency for the project,
required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
The purpose of this study is to provide the County of San Bernardino with
the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed
project would cause substantial adverse changes to any historical/
archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area, as
mandated by CEQA. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM
TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued
historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field
survey.
Throughout the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any
"historical resources," as defined by CEQA, within or adjacent to the project
area. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the County of San Bernardino a
finding of No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further cultural
resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development
plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during any earth-
moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be
halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and
significance of the finds.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Prehistoric Context .................................................................................................................... 4
Ethnographic Context ............................................................................................................... 4
Historic Context ......................................................................................................................... 5
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 5
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 6
Records Search................................................................................................................................ 6
Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 8
DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 10
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES

Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Tentative Tract No. 32497

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Tentative Tract No. 32497

Similar to Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Tentative Tract No. 32497 (20)

Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Tentative Tract No. 32497