The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppendix C - Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment Begonia Village at Route 66 Project Cultural Resources Study prepared for Begonia Real Estate Development Inc. 980 Roosevelt, Suite 110 Irvine, California 92620 prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90012 May 2022 Please cite this report as follows: Glenn, Ryan, Harvey, Amanda R., Reaux, Derek, and Shannon Carmack 2022. Cultural Resources Technical Report of the Begonia Village at Route 66 Project. Rincon Consultants Project No. 21-11204. Report on file at Rincon Consultants, Inc. Cultural Resources Study i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4 Project Description ..............................................................................................................4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................4 Personnel ............................................................................................................................4 2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................................................7 State Regulations ................................................................................................................7 California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................7 Assembly Bill 52 .....................................................................................................7 Codes Governing Human Remains.........................................................................8 City of Fontana Regulations and Policies ............................................................................8 General Plan Policies ..............................................................................................8 City of Fontana Municipal Code .............................................................................9 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................ 10 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 10 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................ 10 Prehistoric Context ............................................................................................. 10 Early Man Horizon (ca. 10,000 – 6,000 B.C.) ....................................................... 10 Milling Stone Horizon (6000–3000 B.C.) ............................................................. 11 Intermediate Horizon (3,000 B.C. – A.D. 500)..................................................... 11 Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 500–Historic Contact) ......................................... 12 Ethnographic Overview ....................................................................................... 12 Historic Overview ................................................................................................ 15 4 Background Research .................................................................................................................. 17 California Historical Resource Information System ......................................................... 17 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................... 17 Previously Recorded Resources .......................................................................... 18 Native American Heritage Commission ........................................................................... 19 Historic-Period Aerial Photograph Review ...................................................................... 20 5 Fieldwork ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Pedestrian Survey Methods ............................................................................................. 21 Results .............................................................................................................................. 21 6 Management Recommendations ................................................................................................ 22 Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program ................................................................. 22 City of Fontana Begonia Village at Route 66 Project ii Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources and Qualified Archaeological Monitors ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources and Native American Monitors 23 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects ............ 24 7 References ................................................................................................................................... 25 Tables Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Project Site ........... 17 Table 2 Previously Recorded Resources within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Project Site ................. 18 Figures Figure 1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Project Site ..........................................................................................................................6 Appendices Appendix A Records Search Summary Appendix B Native American Scoping Cultural Resources Study 3 Executive Summary Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by Begonia Real Estate Development Inc., in conjunction with the City of Fontana to conduct a Phase I cultural resources study for the Begonia Village at Route 66 Project (proposed project or project) at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in Fontana, California. The project site a 10.2-acre vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue intersection. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the City of Fontana serving as lead agency. This study includes a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Contacts program, a pedestrian survey of the project site, and preparation of this report according to the Archaeological Resources Management Report (ARMR) guidelines and in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The cultural resource records search identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the current project site. No cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Based on the results of the current study, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA. Five management recommendations are detailed in the last section of this report in the case of the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during the execution of the current undertaking. They include a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training; protocols for unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, Tribal cultural resources, and humans remains; and construction monitoring. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 4 1 Introduction Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by Begonia Real Estate Development Inc., in conjunction with the City of Fontana to conduct a Phase I cultural resources study for the proposed project at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in Fontana, California. The project site is a 10.2-acre vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue intersection (Figure 1). This cultural resources study includes a cultural resources records search, a Sacred Lands File Search and Native American contacts program, a pedestrian survey, and the preparation of this technical report according to the Archaeological Resources Management Report (ARMR) guidelines and in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Description The proposed project involves the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential gated community with amenities such as pools, exercise facilities, spas, and jogging/walking paths on a 10.2-acre vacant lot on the northwest corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue intersection. The project includes a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units within 13 two-story “Big House” structures with a total of 156 housing units and one large, four-story wrap building with 250 housing units. A four-story above-ground parking structure with approximately 458 spaces would provide parking for the units within the four-story wrap building, while individual parking garages with direct access as well as surface parking spaces would be provided for the units within the Big House structures. Project Location The project site is located at the northwest corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue intersection in the City of Fontana, California. The project site encompasses approximately 10.2 acres and is identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 111-036-115, 111-036-116, 111-036-122, and 111-036-123. It is located in Township 01S, Range 06W, Section 1, 12 and Township 01S, Range 05W, Section 6-7 of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fontana CA 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 2). The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, an undeveloped lot to the west, and commercial properties to the east and south. Personnel Rincon Archaeological Resources Project Manager, Amanda Harvey, Ph.D., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), managed this cultural resources study. Dr. Harvey meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology (NPS 1983). Archaeologist Mark Strother, MA, RPA conducted the Native American outreach and Rachel Bilchak completed the cultural resources record search for the project. Derek Reaux, Ph.D., RPA performed the historic-period aerial photograph review. Ryan Glenn, MA, RPA and Derek Reaux are the primary authors of this report. Ryan Glenn completed the field survey. Geographic Information Systems Analyst Tracy Popiel prepared the figures found in this report. Principal Shannon Carmack, MA, RPA reviewed this report for quality control. Cultural Resources Study 5 Figure 1 Project Location Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 6 Figure 2 Project Site Cultural Resources Study 7 2 Regulatory Setting This section includes a discussion of the applicable state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources to which the proposed project should adhere before and during implementation. State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21084.1) or tribal cultural resources (PRC §21074[a][1][A]- [B]). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource shall be considered historically significant if it meets any of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a], [b]). PRC §21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an 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: 1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information 2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type 3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person Assembly Bill 52 A historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 8 record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[a][1-3]). Section 15064.5(a)(3) also states that a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. Assembly Bill 52 As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR). AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a TCR, when feasible (PRC §21084.3). PRC §§21074(a)(1)(A), (B) define TCRs as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that meet either of the following criteria: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC §5020.1(k) 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding TCRs. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA and proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Codes Governing Human Remains The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. City of Fontana Regulations and Policies General Plan Policies Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures, and cultural resources sites within the City of Fontana are preserved. Cultural Resources Study 9 Policies: (1) Coordinate city programs and policies to support preservation goals; (2) support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives; and (3) collaborate with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local tribal organizations about land development that may affect Native American cultural resources and artifacts. Goal 2: Residents’ and visitors’ experience of Fontana is enhanced by a sense of the city’s history. Policies: (1) Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and the economic benefits of historic preservation in Fontana; and (2) support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum. Goal 3: Archaeological resources are protected and preserved. Policies: (1) Collaborate with state archaeological agencies to protect resources. City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article XIII (Preservation of Historic Resources) of the City of Fontana Municipal Code (City of Fontana 2021) provides guidelines and regulations pertaining the preservation and protection of historic, archaeological, and cultural resources within the city. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 10 3 Natural and Cultural Setting Natural Setting The project site is located within the City of Fontana in an area surrounded by a mobile home community to the north, Tokay Avenue and an automobile sales center to the east, Foothill Boulevard and commercial/retail uses to the south, and vacant land to the west. The project site is situated at an elevation of 350 meters (1145 feet [ft]) above mean sea level (AMSL). Vegetation is dense on the site and mainly consists of non-native-grasses, Datura, and wild radish. Cultural Setting Cultural resources include prehistoric resources, historic-period resources, and Native American resources. Prehistoric resources represent the remains of human occupation prior to European settlement. Historic-period resources represent remains after European settlement and may be part of a "built environment," including man-made structures used for habitation, work, recreation, education and religious worship, and may also be represented by houses, factories, office buildings, schools, churches, museums, hospitals, bridges and other structural remains. Native American or Tribal resources include ethnographic elements pertaining to Native American issues and values. Prehistoric Context During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural changes within all or portions of southern California (c.f., Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984). Wallace (1955, 1978) devised a prehistoric chronology for the southern California region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Though initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), Wallace’s (1955) synthesis has been modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by southern California researchers over recent decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217; Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002; Mason and Peterson 1994). The prehistoric chronological sequence for southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983). Early Man Horizon (ca. 10,000 – 6,000 B.C.) Numerous pre-8000 B.C. sites have been identified along the mainland coast and Channel Islands of southern California (c.f., Erlandson 1991; Johnson et al. 2002; Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984; Rick et al. 2001:609). The Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island produced human femurs dated to approximately 13,000 years ago (Arnold et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2002). On nearby San Miguel Island, human occupation at Daisy Cave (SMI-261) has been dated to nearly 13,000 years ago and included basketry greater than 12,000 years old, the earliest on the Pacific Coast (Arnold et al. 2004). Cultural Resources Study 11 Although few Clovis or Folsom style fluted points have been found in southern California (e.g., Dillon 2002; Erlandson et al. 1987), Early Man Horizon sites are generally associated with a greater emphasis on hunting than later horizons. Recent data indicate that the Early Man economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, including a significant focus on aquatic resources in coastal areas (e.g., Jones et al. 2002) and on inland Pleistocene lakeshores (Moratto 1984). A warm and dry 3,000-year period called the Altithermal began around 6000 B.C. The conditions of the Altithermal are likely responsible for the change in human subsistence patterns at this time, including a greater emphasis on plant foods and small game. Milling Stone Horizon (6000–3000 B.C.) Wallace (1955:219) defined the Milling Stone Horizon as “marked by extensive use of milling stones and mullers, a general lack of well-made projectile points, and burials with rock cairns.” The dominance of such artifact types indicates a subsistence strategy oriented around collecting plant foods and small animals. A broad spectrum of food resources was consumed including small and large terrestrial mammals, sea mammals, birds, shellfish and other littoral and estuarine species, near-shore fishes, yucca, agave, and seeds and other plant products (Kowta 1969; Reinman 1964). Variability in artifact collections over time and from the coast to inland sites indicates that Milling Stone Horizon subsistence strategies adapted to environmental conditions (Byrd and Raab 2007:220). Lithic artifacts associated with Milling Stone Horizon sites are dominated by locally available tool stone and in addition to ground stone tools, such as manos and metates, chopping, scraping, and cutting tools, are very common. Kowta (1969) attributes the presence of numerous scraper-plane tools in Milling Stone Horizon collections to the processing of agave or yucca for food or fiber. The mortar and pestle, associated with acorns or other foods processed through pounding, were first used during the Milling Stone Horizon and increased dramatically in later periods (Wallace 1955, 1978; Warren 1968). Two types of artifacts that are considered diagnostic of the Milling Stone period are the cogged stone and discoidal, most of which have been found within sites dating between 4,000 and 1,000 B.C. (Moratto 1984:149), though possibly as far back as 5,500 B.C. (Couch et al. 2009). The cogged stone is a ground stone object that has gear-like teeth on the perimeter and is produced from a variety of materials. The function of cogged stones is unknown, but many scholars have postulated ritualistic or ceremonial uses (c.f., Dixon 1968:64-65; Eberhart 1961:367) based on the materials used and their location near to burials and other established ceremonial artifacts as compared to typical habitation debris. Similar to cogged stones, discoidals are found in the archaeological record subsequent to the introduction of the cogged stone. Cogged stones and discoidals were often purposefully buried, or “cached.” They are most common in sites along the coastal drainages from southern Ventura County southward and are particularly abundant at some Orange County sites, although a few specimens have been found inland as far east as Cajon Pass (Dixon 1968:63; Moratto 1984:149). Cogged stones have been collected in Riverside County and their distribution appears to center on the Santa Ana River basin (Eberhart 1961). Intermediate Horizon (3,000 B.C. – A.D. 500) Wallace’s Intermediate Horizon dates from approximately 3,000 B.C. - A.D. 500 and is characterized by a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, as well as greater use of plant foods. During the Intermediate Horizon, a noticeable trend occurred toward greater adaptation to local resources including a broad variety of fish, land mammal, and sea mammal remains along the coast. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 12 Tool kits for hunting, fishing, and processing food and materials reflect this increased diversity, with flake scrapers, drills, various projectile points, and shell fishhooks being manufactured. Mortars and pestles became more common during this transitional period, gradually replacing manos and metates as the dominant milling equipment. Many archaeologists believe this change in milling stones signals a change from the processing and consuming of hard seed resources to the increasing reliance on acorn (e.g., Glassow et al. 1988; True 1993). Mortuary practices during the Intermediate typically included fully flexed burials oriented toward the north or west (Warren 1968:2-3). Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 500–Historic Contact) During Wallace’s (1955, 1978) Late Prehistoric Horizon the diversity of plant food resources and land and sea mammal hunting increased even further than during the Intermediate Horizon. More classes of artifacts were observed during this period and high quality exotic lithic materials were used for small finely worked projectile points associated with the bow and arrow. Steatite containers were made for cooking and storage and an increased use of asphalt for waterproofing is noted. More artistic artifacts were recovered from Late Prehistoric sites and cremation became a common mortuary custom. Larger, more permanent villages supported an increased population size and social structure (Wallace 1955:223). Warren (1968) attributes this dramatic change in material culture, burial practices, and subsistence focus to the westward migration of desert people he called the Takic, or Numic, Tradition in Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties. This Takic Tradition was formerly referred to as the “Shoshonean wedge” (Warren 1968), but this nomenclature is no longer used to avoid confusion with ethnohistoric and modern Shoshonean groups (Heizer 1978:5; Shipley 1978:88, 90). Modern Gabrieleño/Tongva in western Riverside County are generally considered by archaeologists to be descendants of these prehistoric Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking populations that settled along the California coast during the Late Prehistoric Horizon. Ethnographic Overview The project site is in an area where the traditional territories of the Serrano and Gabrieleño Native American groups adjoined and overlapped (Kroeber 1925). While these boundaries are based on interviews with informants and research with records such as those of the Hispanic Catholic Missions in the region, it is likely that such boundaries were not static; rather, they were probably fluid, and may have changed through time. Below are synopses of ethnographic data for each of the four Native American groups. Gabrieleño The project site is located in the traditional territory of the Native American group known as the Gabrieleño. The name “Gabrieleño” denotes those people who were administered by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission. It includes people from the Gabrieleño area proper, as well as other social groups nearby (Kroeber 1925; Plate 57; Bean and Smith 1978:538). The term Gabrieleño was imposed upon the Tribe by Spanish Missionaries. Because of this, descendants have chosen to use their original name, Tongva (Welch 2006). This term is used in the remainder of this section to refer to the pre-contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants. Archaeological evidence points to the Tongva arriving in the Los Angeles Basin sometime around 500 BCE, but this Cultural Resources Study 13 has been a subject of debate. Tongva lands encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands; and the present-day cities of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina. The Tongva language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, which can be traced to the Great Basin region (Mithun 2001). This language family includes dialects spoken by the nearby Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Tataviam to the northwest. Yet, it is considerably different from those of the Chumash people living to the northwest and the Diegueño (including Ipai, Tipai, and Kumeyaay) people living to the south. The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast. A total tribal population is estimated to have been at least 5,000 in 1770 (Bean and Smith 1978:540), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a number closer to 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Political organization followed a patrilocal and patrilineal pattern. Typically, the oldest son would lead a family. Chieftainship was also passed down patrilineally. A Chari, or chief of a village or political grouping was separated from any religious leadership (King 2011). At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and taught people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925: 637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built. Elements of Chinigchinich beliefs suggest it was a syncretic mixture of Christianity and native religious practices (McCawley 1996: 143-144). Houses constructed by the Tongva were large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles, thatched with tule and could hold up to 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and probable communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996: 27). The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the Tribe exploited mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like most native Californians, acorns were the staple food. By the time of the early Intermediate Period, acorn processing was an established industry. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Fresh water and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, insects, and large and small mammals were also consumed (Kroeber 1925:631–632; Bean and Smith 1978:546; McCawley 1996: 119–123, 128–131). The Tongva used a wide variety of tools and implements to gather food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, digging sticks, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. The Tongva made oceangoing plank canoes (known as a ti’at) capable of holding six to 14 people used for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Tule reed canoes were employed for near-shore fishing (McCawley 1996: 117-127). Tongva people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Kroeber 1925:629; McCawley 1996: 129–138). Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated. Inhumation was more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation was more predominate on the Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 14 remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996:157). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the post-Contact period (McCawley 1996:157). Serrano The Serrano are another Native American group that occupied territory near the project site. The Serrano occupied an area in and around the San Bernardino Mountains between approximately 450 and 3,350 m (1,500 to 11,000 feet) above mean sea level. Their territory extended west of the Cajon Pass, east past Twentynine Palms, north of Victorville, and south to Yucaipa Valley. The Serrano language is part of the Serran division of a branch of the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock (Mithun 2006: 539, 543). The two Serran languages, Kitanemuk and Serrano, are closely related. Kitanemuk lands were northwest of Serrano lands. Serrano was originally spoken by a relatively small group located in the San Bernardino and Sierra Madre mountains, and the term “Serrano” has come to be ethnically defined as the name of the people in the San Bernardino Mountains (Kroeber 1925: 611). The Vanyume, who lived along the Mojave River and associated Mojave Desert areas and are also referred to as the Desert Serrano, spoke either a dialect of Serrano or a closely related language (Mithun 2001: 543). Year-round habitation tended to be located on the desert floor, at the base of the mountains, and up into the foothills, with all habitation areas requiring year-round water sources (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1908). Most Serrano lived in small villages located near water sources (Bean and Smith 1978: 571). Houses measuring 3.7 to 4.3 m (12 to 14 feet) in diameter were domed and constructed of willow branches and tule thatching, and occupied by a single extended family. Many of the villages had a ceremonial house, used both as a religious center and the residence of the lineage leaders. Additional structures in a village might include granaries and a large circular subterranean sweathouse. The sweathouses were typically built along streams or pools. A village was usually composed of at least two lineages. The Serrano were loosely organized along patrilineal lines and associated themselves with one of two exogamous moieties or “clans”—the Wahiyam (coyote) or the Tukum (wildcat) moiety. The subsistence economy of the Serrano was one of hunting and collecting plant goods, with occasional fishing (Bean and Smith 1978: 571). They hunted large and small animals, including mountain sheep, deer, antelope, rabbits, small rodents, and various birds, particularly quail. Plant staples consisted of seeds; acorn nuts of the black oak; piñon nuts; bulbs and tubers; and shoots, blooms, and roots of various plants, including yucca, berries, barrel cacti, and mesquite. The Serrano used fire as a management tool to increase yields of specific plants, particularly chía. Trade and exchange was an important aspect of the Serrano economy. Those living in the lower- elevation, desert floor villages traded foodstuffs with people living in the foothill villages who had access to a different variety of edible resources. In addition to inter-village trade, ritualized communal food procurement events, such as rabbit and deer hunts and piñon, acorn, and mesquite nut-gathering events, integrated the economy and helped distribute resources that were available in different ecozones. Contact between Serrano and Europeans was minimal prior to the early 1800s. As early as 1790, however, Serrano began to be drawn into mission life (Bean and Vane 2002). More Serrano were relocated to Mission San Gabriel in 1811 after a failed indigenous attack on that mission. Most of the remaining western Serrano were moved to an asistencia built approximately 7.5 miles from the current project site near Redlands in 1819 (Bean and Smith 1978: 573). Cultural Resources Study 15 A smallpox epidemic in the 1860s killed many indigenous southern Californians, including many Serrano (Bean and Vane 2002). Oral history accounts of a massacre in the 1860s at Twentynine Palms may have been part of a larger American military campaign that lasted 32 days (Bean and Vane 2002: 10). Surviving Serrano sought shelter at Morongo with their Cahuilla neighbors; Morongo later became a reservation (Bean and Vane 2002). Other survivors followed the Serrano leader Santos Manuel down from the mountains and toward the valley floors and eventually settled what later became the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Reservation, formally established in 1891. In 2003, most Serrano lived either on the Morongo or San Manuel reservations. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation, established through presidential executive orders in 1877 and 1889, includes both Cahuilla and Serrano members. Established in 1891, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Reservation includes Serrano. Both Morongo and San Manuel are federally recognized tribes. People of both reservations participate in cultural programs to revitalize traditional languages, knowledge, and practices. Historic Overview Post-European contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848– present). Spanish Period (1769–1822) Spanish exploration of what was then known as Alta (upper) California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542. For more than 200 years after his initial expedition, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast making limited inland expeditions but did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). Spanish entry into what was to become Riverside County did not occur until 1774 when Juan Bautista de Anza led an expedition from Sonora, Mexico to Monterey in northern California (Lech 1998). In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra established the first Spanish settlement at Mission San Diego de Alcalá. This was the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish between 1769 and 1823. The establishment of the missions marks the first sustained occupation of Alta California by the Spanish. In addition to the missions, four presidios and three pueblos (towns) were established throughout the state (State Lands Commission 1982). During this period, Spain also deeded ranchos to prominent citizens and soldiers, though very few in comparison to the subsequent Mexican Period. To manage and expand their herds of cattle on these large ranchos, colonists enlisted the labor of the surrounding Native American population (Engelhardt 1927a). The missions were responsible for administrating to the local Indians as well as converting the population to Christianity (Engelhardt 1927b). The influx of European settlers brought the local Native American population in contact with European diseases which they had no immunity against, resulting in catastrophic reduction in native populations throughout the state (McCawley 1996). Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 16 Mexican Period (1822–1848) The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) reached California in 1822. This period saw the federalization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act enabled Mexican governors in California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form land grants. Successive Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1822 and 1846, putting most of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2007). About eight land grants (ranchos) were located in San Bernardino County. The nearest, Rancho San Bernardino, included the eastern portion of the city of Rialto, approximately 1 1/2 mile east of the current project site (Shumway 2007). American Period (1848–Present) The American Period officially began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for ceded territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming, and pay an additional $3.25 million to settle American citizens claims against Mexico. Settlement of southern California increased dramatically in the early American Period. Many ranchos in the county were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 led to the California Gold Rush, despite the first California gold being previously discovered in southern California at Placerita Canyon in 1842 (Guinn 1977; Workman 1935:26). Southern California remained dominated by cattle ranches in the early American period, though droughts and increasing population resulted in farming and more urban professions supplanting ranching through the late nineteenth century. In 1850, California was admitted into the United States and by 1853, the population of California exceeded 300,000. Thousands of settlers and immigrants continued to move into the state, particularly after completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. City of Fontana Located in near the San Bernardino Mountains in southwest San Bernardino County, the city of Fontana was founded in 1913 (City of Fontana n.d.). Fontana started as an agricultural town with vineyards, citrus orchards, and chicken ranches, becoming an industrial town by 1942 as the Kaiser Steel Mill, founded by Henry J. Kaiser, opened and became a primary source of employment (City of Fontana n.d.). The industrial industry continued to rise and prosper in Fontana as the city is located along major trade routes: Interstate 10, Interstate 15, Interstate 210, and near a Union Pacific Railroad line (City of Fontana n.d.). The placement of the city continued to allow Fontana to grow and the city currently serves over 200,000 residents. Cultural Resources Study 17 4 Background Research California Historical Resource Information System Rincon archaeologist Rachel Bilchak conducted a search of cultural resource records housed at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on April 5, 2021 (Appendix A). The search was conducted to identify all previous cultural resources work and previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. The records search also included a review of all available historic USGS 7.5-, 15-, and 30-minute quadrangle maps. Previous Studies The SCCIC records search identified five previous cultural resources studies that have been conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (Table 1). One of these studies included the project site but did not identify any cultural resources. Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within a 0.5-Mile Radius of the Project Site Report Number Author(s) Year Title Relationship to Project Site SB-02621 J. Alexandrowicz (SOPA), A. Duffield- Stoll (SOPA), J. McKenna (SOPA), S. Alexandrowicz, A. Kuhner, E. Scott 1992 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigation within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Inside SB-03601 Brechbiel, Brant 1998 Cultural Resource Record Search and Literature Review for A PBMS Telecommunications Facility: Cm194-01, City of Fontana, Ca. 4pp Outside SB-05062 Hoover, Anna M. 2005 An Archaeological Records Search and Survey Report: APN's 1110-331-005 to - 12and -22; 1110-161-021 to -023 and 110-331-003, Tracts 16526, 16604 & 17010, +/- 58-acre Property, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Outside SB-05496 SB-05498 SB-05498A Hammond, Christie 2003 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Relinquishment of State Route 66(Foothill Boulevard) Between East Avenue/Ilex Street and Maple Avenue city of Fontana San Bernardino, CA Outside Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 18 Report Number Author(s) Year Title Relationship to Project Site SB-07401 Tang, Bai "Tom", Deirdre Encarnacion, Terri Jacquemain, and Daniel Ballester 2013 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood Control Project, in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Outside Source: South Central Coastal Information Center, April 2021 Previously Recorded Resources Eight cultural resources have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which are located within the project site. Of the resources within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site, all eight are historic. The nearest resource is approximately 0.5-miles away and consists of a historic-period, roadway called Almeria Avenue. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) eligibility status of some sites is currently unknown due to incomplete records at the South Central Coastal Information Center and because the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility has not been updated since 2012. The results of the records search are summarized below in Table 2. Table 2 Previously Recorded Resources within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Project Site Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status Relationship to Project Site P-36- 002910 CA-SBR- 002910H Historic Structure, Site National Old Trails Highway; US Highway 66; Historic Route66; *See Footnote comment Not evaluated Outside P-36- 012239 Historic Structure Malaga Underpass Bridge Pumping Station, #54- 0004W 2019 (Mark Bowen, Jacobs, Jacobs) 2003 (Hammond) Not evaluated Outside P-36- 015392 8631 Sierra Ave, Fontana unknown Not evaluated Outside P-36- 020137 CA-SBR- 015904H Historic Railroad grade, Engineering Structure, Historic Bridge Pacific Electric San Bernardino Line; Pacific Electric Southern Pacific Alignment 2004 (Laura S White, Archaeological Associates); 2005 (Janet Hansen, LSA); 2006 (Phil Fulton, LSA); 2008 (Daniel Ballester, CRM TECH); Not evaluated Outside Cultural Resources Study 19 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status Relationship to Project Site 2011 (Patrick Stanton, SRI); 2014 (Smallwood, J.) P-36- 024620 CA-SBR- 015661H Historic Road Historically called Almeria Avenue 2011 (Patrick Stanton, SRI) Not evaluated Outside P-36- 024623 CA-SBR- 15664H Historic Road Historically called Lime Ave. 2011 (Patrick Stanton, SRI) Not evaluated Outside P-36- 024624 CA-SBR- 15665H Historic Road Unnamed historical- period road unknown Not evaluated Outside P-36- 024625 CA-SBR- 15666H Historic Site Highway “C” marker post 2011 (J. Lev-Tov) Not evaluated Outside Source: South Central Coastal Information Center, April 2021 *1962;1963 (L. Burr Belden, Desert Magazine); 1974 (Terry Suss, SBCM); 1977 (Gallegos, BLM); 1978 (F. Berg, BLM); 1980 (J. Arbuckle); 1982 (Maggie McShan, Neddles Desert Star); 1982 (Mac & Maggie McShan, Footprints);1982; 1986 (T. Van Bueren, Infotec); 1989 (J. Berg, Far Western); 1989;1990; 1990 (M. Lerch, Michael K. Lerch &Associates); 1991 (J. Petersen, UC Riverside); 1993 (Kevin Rafferty, Archaeological Research of Southern Nevada); 1993 (L. Glover, Far Western); 1993 (Kenneth Becker, RMW PaleoAssociates); 1993 (Laurie White, Archaeological Associates); 1994 (Lauren Weiss, The Keith Co); 1995 (Lauren Bricker); 2000 (John d. Goodman, SBNF); 2000 (J. Underwood and S. Rose,KEA Environmental); 2001 (John Dietler, TierraEnvironmental); 2001 (Jeffrey Wedding, Harry ReidCenter for Environmental Studies); 2003 (Christie Hammond, CaltransDistrict 8); 2003 (Christie Hammond, Caltrans); 2004 (Dr. Jackson Underwood`,EDAW, Inc); 2004 (D. McDougall, Applied Earthworks); 2004 (J. Underwood, EDAW, Inc); 2004 (B. Gothar, Applied Earthworks); 2005 (Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al); 2006 (David Brunzell, LSA Associates, Inc); 2007 (Andrew M. Walters, Caltrans District 8); 2007 (Casey Tibbet, LSA); 2007 (Koji Tsunoda, Jones &Stokes); 2008 (D. McDougall, Applied Earthworks); 2008 (Kurt McLean, URS); 2009 (J. Berg, Far Western); 2009 (J. George, Applied Earthworks); 2009 (Katherine Anderson, ESA); 2010 (M. Colleen Hamilton, Applied Earthworks); 2010 (Kristen Erickson, URS);2010; 2010 (S. Jow, AECOM); 2011 (Andrew Belcourt, LSA); 2011 (C. Higgins, Far Western); 2011 (J. Lev-Tov, SRI); 2011 (McKenna, Mckenna et al.); 2011 (James J. Schmidt, Compass Rose); 2011 (K. Chmiel, ICF); 2011 (D. Winslow, ASM); 2012 (B. Bartram, Chambers Group,Inc); 2013 (J. Castells, URS); 2013 (R. Kellawan, Far Western); 2013 (M. O'Neill, Pacific Legacy); 2014 (Josh Smallwood, Helix); 2014 (P. McGinnis, AECOM);2015; 2015 (John Goodman, CRM Tech); 2016 (Kristina Lindgren, ECORP Consulting, Inc); 2017 (Shannon Davis, ASM); 2017 (Chris Powell, ASM); 2017 (Colleen Davis, ICF); 2018 (Shannon Davis, ASM); 2018 (Anna Hoover, L&L); 2018 (none, Urbana Preservation &Planning); 2019 (Mark Bowen, Jacobs, Jacobs). Native American Heritage Commission Rincon requested a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 5, 2021. As part of this request, Rincon asked the NAHC to provide a list of Native American groups and/or individuals culturally affiliated with the area who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project site. The NAHC sent a response on April 19, 2021, stating that a search of the SLF was completed with negative results. The NAHC also provided a list of 17 Native American contacts who may have knowledge regarding cultural resources of Native American origin within the project site. Rincon prepared letter templates that the City sent to the Tribes on were sent to the Tribes by the City on September 22, 2021. Native American correspondence can be found in Appendix B. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 20 On October 8, 2021, the City received a response from Andrew Salas, Chairman for the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, requesting consultation. A consultation meeting was held on December 2, 2021. The Kizh Nation requested Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures including Native American monitoring during ground disturbing activities and treatment protocol in the event that tribal cultural resources or human remains are unearthed. These mitigation measures were incorporated into the IS-MND. They also provided confidential data on the location of their known Tribal Cultural Resources and supporting literature. Emails post consultation meeting and data provided available to the City in the confidential Appendix J of the IS-MND. On October 11, 2021, the City received a response from Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), stating that the project site was located within Serrano ancestral territory, but the Tribe does not have any issues with the project’s implementation as planned at the current time. The Tribe also proposed an inadvertent discovery mitigation measure and recommend that the Tribe is contacted if pre-contact or historic-era resources are encountered during project related construction activities. The Tribe also requested all materials generated as a result of the project, including but not limited to isolate records, site records, survey reports and testing reports. Historic-Period Aerial Photograph Review Rincon reviewed historic-period aerial photographs depicting the project site to examine past land uses in the area from HistoricAerials.com (2021). Based on the earliest available historic aerial imagery, this property has remained vacant and undeveloped since at least 1938. Sometime between 1938 and 1948 the property shifted from possible agricultural use to an unused grass lot. From 1938 to 1966, multiple ranch homes and operations surrounded the property. Sometime between 1966 and 1994, a residential neighborhood was built on the northern border of the property and commercial operations appear on the properties to the east, west, and south of the project site. From 2002-2005, the aerial imagery shows that multiple dirt roads cut across the property disturbing at least a portion of the site. These roads are no longer visible on the project site by 2009. Modern imagery shows that the project site is vacant but contains two small billboards along Foothill Boulevard and a number of electric poles. Cultural Resources Study 21 5 Fieldwork Pedestrian Survey Methods Rincon archaeologist Ryan Glenn, MA, RPA conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site on May 28, 2021. Mr. Glenn surveyed the project site using transects spaced 5 to 10 meters apart and oriented north to south. The entire project site was subject to a 100% coverage survey. The Rincon archaeologist examined all exposed ground surface for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock [FAR]), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were visually inspected. Survey notes were prepared by the surveyor and are available upon request. Results The project site is an undeveloped parcel with thick vegetation consisting of tall grasses, Datura, Mustard, and wild radish leading to moderate to poor ground visibility (approximately 20 to 50 percent). Review of aerial photographs shows that the site appears to have been used for agricultural purposes and at one time had a complex of farm-related structures and possibly a residence directly adjacent to the property, but not in the project site. No evidence of these structures was visible during the survey, however modern refuse was noted throughout the entirety of the project site. The field survey did not identify any prehistoric or historic-period cultural resources within the project site. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 22 6 Management Recommendations The cultural resource records search identified no previously recorded sites within the current project site. No cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Based on the results of the current study, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA. The following measures are recommended in the case of the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during the execution of the current undertaking. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, and the fact that no cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey, Rincon does not recommend archaeological or Native American monitors to be present during ground disturbing activities. However, Rincon does recommend a brief worker training program to assist in identifying any unanticipated cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbing activities and monitors if cultural or Tribal resources are uncovered. These Management Recommendations mirror the Mitigation Measures in the project’s IS-MND document. Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program CR-1 recommends a qualified archaeologist should be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training should be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983; qualified archaeologist). Archaeological sensitivity training should include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. A sign in sheet indicating that all construction personnel have received this training should be kept on file by the project applicate, construction crews, and the City. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources and Qualified Archaeological Monitors CR-2 details the actions required if an unanticipated archaeological resource is encountered. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work in the immediate vicinity should be halted, and the City of Fontana Community Development Department should be immediately informed of the discovery. A qualified archaeologist should be retained by the project applicant to determine if the find is classified as a significant cultural resource. Furthermore, if and only if, an unanticipated discovery is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be Tribal in nature, then any consulting Native American Tribe(s) should be informed of the find and their input requested for the treatment of said find. Mitigation Measure 6.3 (TCR-1) may also be applicable if the resource is Tribal in nature. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist should coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resources should be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Cultural Resources Study 23 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. The final recommendations on the treatment and disposition of the finding should be developed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, Mitigation Measure TCR-1, and should be reviewed by the City prior to implementation. The final recommendations should be implemented, and the City should be provided with a final report on the treatment and disposition of the finding prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. When possible, any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin should be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they should be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. The qualified archaeologist should also determine if monitoring during further ground-disturbing activities is needed or not. If monitoring does occur, the qualified archaeological monitor should complete monitoring logs on a daily basis that provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring should end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when qualified archaeological monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. If the material culture is Tribal in nature, the end of monitoring will be determined in consultation with the Native American monitor(s). Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources and Native American Monitors TCR-1 details the actions required if an unanticipated Tribal resource is encountered. Ground disturbance is defined as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The project applicant should obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) and a qualified archaeological monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities if any consulting Tribe(s) requests a monitor to be present during such activities. The Native American monitor will be a separate individual from the qualified archaeological monitor and will be a representative of the consulting Tribe(s). If more than one Tribe requests consultation, one representative from each Tribe should be designated a Native American monitor. If the City determines that an individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor, they may be the same individual. If consulting Tribe(s) do not request the presence of a monitor during ground disturbing activities, then a Native American monitor must be retained with the identification of any unanticipated discovery of Tribal cultural resources or prehistoric cultural resources. The Native American Monitor(s) should complete monitoring logs on a daily basis that provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring should end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when the Native American monitor(s) in consultation with the qualified archaeological monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 24 If the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure TCR-2) the coroner should be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the coroner should notify the NAHC as mandated by state law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD should then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects TCR-2 notes the process for the discovery of Native American human remains or associated funerary objects. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archeological contexts. While no known burial sites have been identified in the project area, excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which include Native American burial sites. The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of associated cultural resources (funerary objects) with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. All development projects are subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 that states that no further disturbance should occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified of the find within 24 hours of identification. All work in the areas should be immediately diverted and a minimum of 50 feet exclusion zone around the burial should be created. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner must notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD. The MLD should complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted site access. Adherence to these laws and Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and TCR- 1 in the IS-MND ensures that any unanticipated discovery of human remains is treated properly and respectively and that impacts to those remains would be reduced to less than significant. Cultural Resources Study 25 7 References Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research Vol. 12, No. 1. Bean, Walton 1968 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia B. Vane 2002 The Native American Ethnography and Ethnohistory of Joshua Tree National Park: An Overview and Assessment Study: Section IV. The Serrano. Electronic document, online at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/jotr/history3.htm, accessed May, 2021. Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 215-228. Altimira Press, New York. City of Fontana n.d. About Us. Electronic document, online at https://www.fontana.org/31/About-Us, accessed May 2021. 2021 City of Fontana Municipal Code. Electronic document, online at https://www.fontana.org/90/Municipal-Code, accessed May 2021. Couch, Jeffrey S., Joanne S. Couch, and Nancy Anastasia Wiley 2009 Saved by the Well: The Keystone Cache at CA-ORA-83, the Cogged Stone Site. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:147-156. Dillon, Brian D. 2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by W. J. Wallace and F. A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 60, Berkeley. Dixon, Keith A. 1968 Cogged Stones and Other Ceremonial Cache Artifacts in Stratigraphic Context at ORA- 58, a Site in the Lower Santa Ana River Drainage, Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3):57-68. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 26 Eberhart, Hal 1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26(3):361-370. Engelhardt, Zephyrin, O.F.M. 1927a San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. 1927b San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San Gabriel, California. Erlandson, Jon M. 1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore Cooley, and Richard Carrico 1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120–128. Glassow, Michael A, L. Wilcoxen, and J. M. Erlandson 1988 Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailey and J. Parkington pp. 64–77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Guinn, J.M. 1977 Gold! Gold! Gold! from San Francisquito! In Los Angeles Biography of a City, edited by John Caughey and LaRee Caughey. University of California Press, Berkeley. Harrington, John P. 1942 Cultural Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1-46. Heizer, Robert F. 1978 Introduction. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 1–6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Historic Aerials 2021 Fontana. Electronic Document, online at www.historicaerials.com, accessed May 2021. Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 541–545. USDI Minerals Management Service and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Cultural Resources Study 27 Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp, and Jon M. Erlandson 2002 The Cross Creek Site and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67:213–230. Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar 2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Berkeley, California. King, Chester 2011 Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains. Topanga Anthropological Consultants. Prepared for the National Park Service Pacific West Region. Topanga, California Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34. Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6, Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kowta, Makoto 1969 The Sayles Complex, A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6:35–69. Berkeley, California. Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York. McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California. Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems–Analysis and Discussion, Volume 1, part 1 of 2. Prepared by The Keith Companies. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 28 Mithun, Marianne 2001 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999, Cambridge Univer University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. National Park Service [NPS] 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at http://www.nps.gov/history/local- law/Arch_Standards.htm, accessed May 2021. O’Neil, Stephen 2002 The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton. Reinman, Fred M. 1964 Maritime Adaptations on San Nicolas Island, California. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1963–1964:47–80. Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, and René Vellanoweth 2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66:595–613. Rolle, Andrew 2003 California: A History. Revised and expanded sixth edition. Harlan Davidson, Inc., Wheeling, Illinois. State Lands Commission 1982 Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities. Office of the State Lands Commission, Sacramento, California. Shipley, William F. 1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80–90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007 California Ranchos. Second Edition. The Borgos Press. Cultural Resources Study 29 True, Delbert L. 1993 Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1–26. Wallace, William 1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Warren, Claude 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. Portales. Welch, Rosanne 2006 A Brief History of the Tongva Tribe: The Native Inhabitants of the Lands of Puente Hills Preserve. Department of History, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California Workman, Boyle 1935 The City that Grew. Southland Publication Co., Los Angeles. Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project 30 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Records Search Summary Appendix B Native American Scoping 1 Rachel Bilchak From:Rachel Bilchak Sent:Wednesday, July 28, 2021 9:58 AM To:Courtney Montgomery Subject:FW: Rincon SCIC GIS Map Request; 15926 W. Foothill Blvd. Fontana CA Attachments:Rincon Project 21-11204_15926 Foothill Blvd_SCIC Data Request Form.pdf; CR_Records Search Map.pdf; IC_Submittal_20210402.zip Rachel Bilchak, BA, BS, RA Archaeologist Rincon Consultants, Inc. Environmental Scientists | Planners | Engineers 408-396-7264 direct rinconconsultants.com From: Rachel Bilchak Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM To: Jaime Lennox <jaime@scic.org> Cc: Mark Strother <mstrother@rinconconsultants.com> Subject: Rincon SCIC GIS Map Request; 15926 W. Foothill Blvd. Fontana CA Hi Jamie, We have a search request; virtual appointment please. Attached you will find our records search request for Rincon Project No. 21-11204 in San Bernardino County, as well as the corresponding records search map and shapefiles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help, Rachel Rachel Bilchak, BA, BS Archaeologist Rincon Consultants, Inc. Environmental Scientists | Planners | Engineers 213-788-4842 ext. 3034 408-396-7264 direct rinconconsultants.com 2 Records Search Map ±0 2,0001,000 FeetHalf-Mile Buffer Area of Potential Effects 0 500250 Meters 1:24,000 Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, Esri, and their licensors © 2021. FontanaQuadrangle T01S R06W S1,12 and T01S R05W S6-7. The topographic representationdepicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently found in the vicinity todayand/or features depicted in this map may have changed since the original topographic mapwas assembled. Cultural Resources Study Rincon Consultants, Inc. South Central Coastal Information Center California State University, Fullerton Department of Anthropology MH-426 800 North State College Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92834-6846 657.278.5395 / FAX 657.278.5542 sccic@fullerton.edu California Historical Resources Information System Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties _____________________________________________________________________________ 5/18/2021 Records Search File No.: 22305.8496 Rachel Bilchak Rincon Consultants, Inc. 8825 Aero Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Re: Record Search Results for 21-11204 Fntna The South Central Coastal Information Center received your records search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Fontana, CA USGS 7.5’ quadrangle(s). Due to the COVID-19 emergency, we have implemented new records search protocols, which limits the deliverables available to you at this time. WE ARE ONLY PROVIDING DATA THAT IS ALREADY DIGITAL AT THIS TIME. Please see the attached document on COVID-19 Emergency Protocols for what data is available and for future instructions on how to submit a records search request during the course of this crisis. If your selections on your data request form are in conflict with this document, we reserve the right to default to emergency protocols and provide you with what we stated on this document. You may receive more than you asked for or less than you wanted. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ½-mile radius: As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ shape files ☐ hand-drawn maps Resources within project area: 0 None Resources within ½-mile radius: 8 SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST Reports within project area: 1 SB-02621 Reports within ½-mile radius: 5 SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 2019: ☒ available online; please go to https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 Archaeo Determinations of Eligibility 2012: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/39.98/-100.02 Ethnographic Information: ☒ not available at SCCIC Historical Literature: ☒ not available at SCCIC GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: (see below) ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above. The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice. Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System, Isabela Kott Assistant Coordinator, GIS Program Specialist Enclosures: (X) Covid-19 Emergency Protocols for San Bernardino County Records Searches – 2 pages (X) Custom Maps – 2 pages (X) Resource Database Printout (list) – 3 pages (X) Report Database Printout (list) – 1 page (X) Resource Record Copies – (archaeological in project area only, all non-archaeological) 582 pages (X) Report Copies – (project area only) 175 pages (X) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (2012) – 1 page (X) National Register Status Codes – 1 page Emergency Protocols for San Bernardino County Records Searches These instructions are for qualified consultants with a valid Access and Use Agreement. WE ARE ONLY PROVIDING DATA THAT IS ALREADY DIGITAL AT THIS TIME. WE ARE NOT PROVIDING SHAPEFILE DATA FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; YOU WILL ONLY RECEIVE A CUSTOM DIGITAL MAP. We can only provide you information that is already in digital format; therefore, your record search may or may not be complete. Some records are only available in paper formats and so may not be available at this time. This also means that there may be data missing from the database bibliographies; locations of resource and report boundaries may be missing or mis-mapped on our digital maps; and that no pdf of a resource or report is available or may be incomplete. As for the GIS mapped data, bibliographic databases, and pdfs of records and reports; not all the data in our digital archive for San Bernardino County was processed by SCCIC, therefore, we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Accuracy checking and back-filling of missing information is an on-going process under normal working conditions and cannot be conducted under the emergency protocols. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented situation. Your options will be limited so that we can help as many of you as possible in the shortest amount of time. You may not get everything you want and/or you may get more than you want. We appreciate your patience and resilience. Please send in your request via email using the data request form along with the associated shape files and pdf map of the project area. If you have multiple SBCO jobs for processing, you may not get them all back at the same time. Use this data request form: http://web.sonoma.edu/nwic/docs/CHRISDataRequestForm.pdf Please make your selections on the data request form based on the following instructions. 1. Keep your search radius as tight as possible, but we understand if you have a requirement. The wider the search radius, the higher the cost. You are welcome to request a Project area only search, but please make it clear on the request form that that is what you are seeking. 2. You will get custom maps of resource locations for the project area and the radius that you choose. We will only be providing maps of report locations for the project area and up to a ¼- mile radius. If you need bibliographic information for more than ¼-mile radius – you will be charged for all report map features within your selected search radius. You can opt out of having us create custom maps but you still pay for the map features in the project area or the selected search radius if you want the associated bibliographic information or pdfs of resources or reports. 3. You can request copies of site records and reports if they are digitally available. 4. You will also get the bibliographies (List, Details, Spreadsheet) that you choose for resources and reports. Because the bibliographic database is not yet complete, you will only get what is available at the time of your records search. 5. If you request more than what we are offering here, we may provide it if it is available or we reserve the right to default to these instructions. If you want copies of resources and reports that are not available digitally at the time of the search, you can send us a separate request for processing when we are allowed to return to the office. Fees will apply. 6. You will need to search the OHP BERD yourself for your project area and your search radius. This replaces the old OHP HPD. It is available online at the OHP website. 7. You can go online to find historic maps, so we are not providing them at this time. 8. Your packet will be sent to you electronically via Dropbox. We use 7-zip to password protect the files so you will need both on your computers. We email you the password. If you can’t use Dropbox for some reason, then you will need to provide us with your Fed ex account number and we will ship you a disc with the results. As a last resort, we will ship on a disc via the USPS. You may be billed for our shipping and handling costs. 9. We will be billing you at the staff rate of $150 per hour and you will be charged for all resources and reports according to the “custom map charges”, even if you don’t get a custom or hand- drawn map. You will also be billed 0.15 per pdf page, as usual. Quad fees will apply if your research includes more than 2 quads. The fee structure for custom maps was designed to mimic the cost of doing the search by hand so the fees are comparable. 10. A copy of the digital fee structure is available on the Office of Historic Preservation website under the CHRIS tab. If the digital fee structure is new to you or you don’t understand it; please ask questions before we process your request, not after. Thank you. City: San Diego Zip: 92123 Street Address: 8825 Aero Drive Contact Person: Mark Strother Company/Firm/Agency: Rincon Consultants, Inc. Township/Range/Section: T01S /R06W / S1, 12 and T01S /R05W /S6-7 USGS Quadrangle Names: Fontana Quadrangle County: San Bernardino Project:15926 Foothill Blvd. Project. Rincon Project No.21-11204 Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search nahc@nahc.ca.gov (916) 373-5471 – Fax (916) 373-3710 Sacramento, CA 95814 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request of W. Foothill Blvd. and Tokay Ave. The project area is approximately 10.7 acres of undeveloped property on the cross streets construct a multifamily housing project on the site located in the city of Fontana California. Project Description: For the 15926 Foothill Blvd. Project the property owner plans to Email: mstrother@rinconconsultants.com Phone: (760) 918-9444 extension 2047 Records Search Map ±0 2,0001,000 FeetHalf-Mile Buffer Area of Potential Effects 0 500250 Meters 1:24,000 Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, Esri, and their licensors © 2021. FontanaQuadrangle T01S R06W S1,12 and T01S R05W S6-7. The topographic representationdepicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently found in the vicinity todayand/or features depicted in this map may have changed since the original topographic mapwas assembled. Cultural Resources Study Rincon Consultants, Inc. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 1 April 19, 2021 Mark Strother Rincon Consultants, Inc. Via Email to: mstrother@rinconconsultants.com Re: 15926 Foothill Blvd. Project, San Bernardino County Dear Mr. Strother: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Andrew Green Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer Luiseño PARLIAMENTARIAN Russell Attebery Karuk COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Julie Tumamait-Stenslie Chumash COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Pomo NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6800 Fax: (760) 699-6919 Cahuilla Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6907 Fax: (760) 699-6924 ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net Cahuilla Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA, 91723 Phone: (626) 926 - 4131 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA, 91778 Phone: (626) 483 - 3564 Fax: (626) 286-1262 GTTribalcouncil@aol.com Gabrieleno Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231 Los Angeles, CA, 90012 Phone: (951) 807 - 0479 sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com Gabrielino Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA, 90707 Phone: (562) 761 - 6417 Fax: (562) 761-6417 gtongva@gmail.com Gabrielino Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Charles Alvarez, 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307 Phone: (310) 403 - 6048 roadkingcharles@aol.com Gabrielino Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220 Phone: (951) 755 - 5110 Fax: (951) 755-5177 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Morongo Band of Mission Indians Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220 Phone: (951) 755 - 5259 Fax: (951) 572-6004 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (928) 750 - 2516 scottmanfred@yahoo.com Quechan Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (760) 572 - 2423 historicpreservation@quechantrib e.com Quechan 1 of 2 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 15926 Foothill Blvd. Project, San Bernardino County. PROJ-2021- 002096 04/19/2021 03:29 PM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Bernardino County 4/19/2021 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources 26569 Community Center Drive Highland, CA, 92346 Phone: (909) 864 - 8933 jmauck@sanmanuel-nsn.gov Serrano Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 - 2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343 Patton, CA, 92369 Phone: (909) 528 - 9032 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343 Patton, CA, 92369 Phone: (253) 370 - 0167 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 654 - 5544 Fax: (951) 654-4198 ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno 2 of 2 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 15926 Foothill Blvd. Project, San Bernardino County. PROJ-2021- 002096 04/19/2021 03:29 PM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Bernardino County 4/19/2021