HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C- Cultural ReportCitrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022
APPENDIX C ‐ CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana , San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:
Candyce Burnett
Kimley-Horn
3880 Lemon Street Suite 420
Riverside, California 92501
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
BCR Consulting LLC
505 West 8th St.
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. KIM2116
National Archaeological Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Reconnaissance Cultural Resources Assessment
Resources Recorded: KIM2116-H-1 Historic-Period Concrete Foundation/Stone Alignment
Keywords: Fontana
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Devore, California (1988)
January 18, 2022
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus East Project (the project) located in the City of
Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. Tasks completed for the scope of work
include a cultural resources records search, an intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources
survey, Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
and paleontological overview. These tasks were performed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological
records search. This research has revealed that 19 cultural resource studies have taken
place resulting in the recording of three cultural resources (all historic-period) within one
half-mile of the project site. One of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural
resources but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The Historic-
Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376) encompasses the
project site, although no components of that resource have ever been identified within the
project site boundaries.
During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists identified a historic-period building
foundation and stone alignment temporarily designated KIM2116-H-1. It is not
recommended eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) and as such is not a historical resource under CEQA. Due to a lack of historical
resources located within the project site, BCR Consulting recommends that no additional
cultural resources work or monitoring is necessary for any proposed project activities.
However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving
activities, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and
significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Misison Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill
(AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project. Since the city will initiate and carry out
the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided
in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR
Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
iii
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Citrus East Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the
Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically
significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area
is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should
be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................... 1
NATURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 5
CULTURAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 6
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 6
ETHNOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 6 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................ 7
PERSONNEL ........................................................................................................................ 8
METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 8
RESEARCH .................................................................................................................... 9
FIELD SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 9
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 10
RESEARCH .................................................................................................................. 10
FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................................ 11
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS ......................................................................................... 11
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 11 CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATIONS .................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 12
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2
TABLES
A: Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site .......................................... 10
APPENDICES
A: DPR523 SITE RECORDS
B: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
D: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT E: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
1
INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus East Project (the project) located in the City of
Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. An intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources survey of the project site was completed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The project site is located in section 19 of
Township 1 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Devore, California (1988) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects
undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of
Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that
meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code
§ 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §
5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,
military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the
lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially
alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that
convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an
impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible
measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of
significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on
the resource.
Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally,
a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
3
meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), §
15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one of
more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California
Register.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources
of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical
resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic
preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for
Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in
order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this
report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be
evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California
Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the
resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Senate Bill 18. California Senate Bill 18 states that prior to a local (city or county)
government’s adoption of any general plan or specific plan, or amendment to general and
specific plans, or a designation of open space land proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the
city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the
purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to Cultural Places.
A Cultural Place is defined in the PRC sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 as:
1. Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site,
or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or;
2. Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1,
including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or
historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
4
The intent of SB-18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and
local governments (“government-to-government”) at the earliest possible point in the
planning process so that cultural places can be identified and preserved and to determine
necessary levels of confidentiality regarding Cultural Place locations and uses. According to
the Government Code (GC) Section 65352.4, “consultation” is defined as:
The meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the
views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where
feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native
American Tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s
sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality
with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.
Assembly Bill 52. California Assembly Bill 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. As
stated in Section 11 of AB 52, the act applies only to projects that have a notice of
preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or
after July 1, 2015.
AB 52 establishes “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs) as a new category of resources under
CEQA. As defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074, TCRs are “sites, features,
places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California
Native American Tribe” that are either: (1) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion
in the CRHR; included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) determined by the lead agency to be significant
pursuant to the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR set forth in Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(c), if supported by substantial evidence and taking into account the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe. A “historical resource” as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(h) may also be TCRs.
AB 52 further establishes a new consultation process with California Native American tribes
for proposed projects in geographic areas that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
that tribe. Per Public Resources Code Section 21073, “California Native American tribe”
includes federally and non-federally recognized tribes on the NAHC contact list. Subject to
certain prerequisites, AB 52 requires, among other things, that a lead agency consult with
the geographically affiliated tribe before the release of an environmental review document
for a proposed project regarding project alternatives, recommended mitigation measures, or
potential significant effects, if the tribe so requests in writing. If the tribe and the lead agency
agree upon mitigation measures during their consultation, these mitigation measures must
be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document (Public Resources Code
Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21084.2, and 21084.3).
Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the
results of the SB18 and AB52 consultation are not provided in this report. However, this
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
5
report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff are available
to answer questions and address comments as necessary.
Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on
paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on
paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code
specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor.
Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of
paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to
analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential
impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in
the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not
summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by professional
paleontologists from the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix D.
NATURAL SETTING
The elevation of the project site is approximately 1640 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The property remained vacant and relatively unchanged from 1938 to 1994. Between the
years of 1994 and 2002 the property was subjected to clearing and grubbing (United States
Department of Agriculture 1938, 1959, 1966, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018). The project site is composed of alluvial fan deposits derived from Lytle
Creek dating from the Late Pleistocene to Holocene (Dibblee Jr. 2003). The current study has not yielded any evidence that local sediments have produced raw materials used in
prehistoric tool manufacture within 0.5-miles of the project site. Local rainfall ranges from 5
to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37).
Although recent and historical impacts have decimated local vegetation, remnants of a formerly dominant coastal sage scrub vegetation community have been sporadically
observed in the area. Signature plant species include black sage (Salvia mellifera),
California brittlebush (Encelia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum),
California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), golden yarrow
(Eriophyllum confertiflorum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diverilobum), purple sage (Salvia leucophyla), sticky
monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), sugar bush (Rhus ovate), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), coastal century plant (Agave shawii), coastal cholla
(Opuntia prolifera), Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera), many-stemmed
liveforever (Dudleya multicaulis), our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.) (Williams et al. 2008:118-119). Signature animal species within Coastal Sage
Scrub habitat include the kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), California horned lizard
(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), orange throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthrus),
San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), California quail (Callipepla californica), and San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunnecapillus
sandiegensis) (Williams et al. 2008:118-120). Local native groups made use of many of
these species (see Lightfoot and Parrish 2008).
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
6
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The local prehistoric cultural setting has been organized into many chronological
frameworks (see Warren and Crabtree 1986; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Lanning 1963; Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1962, 1978; Campbell and Campbell 1935), although there is no
definitive sequence for the region. The difficulties in establishing cultural chronologies for
western San Bernardino County are a function of its enormous size and the small amount of
archaeological excavations conducted there. Moreover, throughout prehistory many groups
have occupied the area and their territories often overlap spatially and chronologically resulting in mixed artifact deposits. Due to dry climate and capricious geological processes,
these artifacts rarely become integrated in-situ. Lacking a milieu hospitable to the
preservation of cultural midden, local chronologies have relied upon temporally diagnostic
artifacts, such as projectile points, or upon the presence/absence of other temporal
indicators, such as groundstone. Such methods are instructive, but can be limited by prehistoric occupants’ concurrent use of different artifact styles, or by artifact re-use or re-
sharpening, as well as researchers’ mistaken diagnosis, and other factors (see Flenniken
1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989). Recognizing the
shortcomings of comparative temporal indicators, this study recommends review of Warren
and Crabree (1986), who have drawn upon this method to produce a commonly cited and relatively comprehensive chronology.
Ethnography
The project site vicinity has been peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano. Each
group consisted of semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers who spoke a variation of the Takic
language subfamily. Individual ethnographic summaries are provided below.
Gabrielino. The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers
reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith
1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when
Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other
brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the
Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and
customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the
greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and
intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often
administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to
have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights
and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food
were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland
regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine
mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote,
bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles
were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).
Serrano. The Uto-Aztecan “Serrano” people occupied the western Mojave Desert periphery.
Kroeber (1925) applied the generic term “Serrano” to four groups, each with distinct
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
7
territories: the Kitanemuk, Tataviam, Vanyume, and Serrano. Only one group, in the San
Bernardino Mountains and West-Central Mojave Desert, ethnically claims the term Serrano.
Bean and Smith (1978) indicate that the Vanyume, an obscure Takic population, was found
along the Mojave River at the time of Spanish contact. The Kitanemuk lived to the north and west, while the Tataviam lived to the west. The Serrano lived mainly to the south (Bean and
Smith 1978). All may have used the western Mojave area seasonally (see deBarros 2004;
Lightfoot and Parrish 2009). Historical records are unclear concerning precise territory and
village locations. History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period
(1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period
(1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard
called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a
guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the
desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in
1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for
San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino,
crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the
San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to
decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions,
reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes
(Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States
primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for
beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However,
beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from
New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of
disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the
economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and
real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic
pursuits that have continued to proliferate to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).
Local Sequence (Brunzell 2017:5). In 1851, Mormons settling in the San Bernardino Valley
purchased the land from Don Antonio Maria Lugo. Early communities in the San Bernardino
County area started with this group of Mormons, although most returned to Salt Lake City in
1857. The Southern Pacific Railroad moved into the San Bernardino Valley in 1875, and the
Santa Fe Railroad built a stop in the Fontana area in 1887, naming it Rosena. A trickle of
settlement continued, and there were around 25 families living there by the time A. B. Miller
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
8
arrived in 1905. He purchased the land the next year, and a town was laid out in 1909.
Settlement was successfully promoted by a dedication ceremony and celebration in 1913, at
which a number of plots in the area were sold. By 1927, there were 399 families with land in
the area, and the township was officially created in 1929.
The Semi-Tropic Water and Land Company incorporated in 1887 to sell real estate and
water rights in San Bernardino County. The company acquired 285,000 acres of land along
ten miles of Lytle Creek, giving it riparian rights and allowing it to control and sell the water.
The company laid out small towns including Fontana, Rialto, Sansevaine, and Bloomington
on its land holdings. In 1891, the company subdivided most of the land surrounding the town
sites into 20-acre parcels it called “farm lots.” Successful agricultural endeavors resulted in
residential and institutional expansion during the 1920s. Between 1924 and 1926, the school
district was established, the American Legion Post 262 was constructed, and the Fontana
Woman’s Club House was established and constructed. Proliferation of the automobile was
accompanied by an expanded infrastructure of paved roads and two garages and several
service stations were constructed.
Fontana remained an agricultural area for the first few decades of its existence; citrus, grain,
grape, poultry, cattle, and swine production formed the basis of the local economy. World
War II changed this dynamic with the establishment of the Fontana Kaiser Steel plant in
1942, the first steel mill west of the Mississippi. Fontana quickly became the West Coast’s
leading steel producer, and the plant remained in operation until 1984. Mickey Thompson’s
Fontana International Drag Way, an important drag racing strip, was established in the
1950s. While it no longer operates, Fontana retains a connection to drag racing with both a
new drag strip and an automobile museum. Today, Fontana has a population of over
175,000 and occupies approximately 56 square miles. Shipping and trucking play a major
role in the city’s economy.
PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the
current study and compiled the technical report. The South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological
records search. BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nicholas Shepetuk and Field
Technician Fabian Reyes-Martinez completed the pedestrian field survey.
METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter
2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article
5, Section 15064.5. The pedestrian cultural resources survey was intended to locate and
document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites,
features, isolates, and historic-period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined
project boundaries. The project site was examined using 15-meter transect intervals, where
accessible.
This study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the project
boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the above-referenced
regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
9
potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks completed to achieve that end
include:
• Cultural resources records search to review any studies conducted and the resulting
cultural resources recorded within a one half-mile radius of the project boundaries
• Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire project site
• California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility evaluation
for any cultural resources discovered
• Development of recommendations and mitigation measures for cultural resources
documented within the project boundaries, following CEQA
• Completion of DPR 523 forms for any discovered cultural resources
• Vertebrate paleontology resources report through the Western Science Center
• Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Research
Records Search. Prior to the field survey a records search was conducted at the South
Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. This archival
research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and
survey and excavation reports completed within one half-mile of the current project.
Additional resources reviewed included the National Register, the California Register, and
documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These
include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest,
Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through records of
the General Land Office Maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, the San
Bernardino County Assessor, and through various Internet resources.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on
September 2, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced
approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the project site, where accessible.
Cultural Resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Ground visibility averaged
approximately 80 percent within project boundaries. Digital photographs were taken at
various points within the project site. These included overviews as well as detail
photographs of all cultural resources. Cultural resources were recorded per the California
OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR Forms (see Appendix A)
• Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes
• Digital photography of all cultural resources (see Appendix A).
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
10
RESULTS
Research
The SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological records
search. This research has revealed that 19 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of three cultural resources (all historic-period) within one half-mile
of the project site. One of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural
resources but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The boundaries
for the historic-period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376)
encompasses the project site, although no components of that resource have ever been identified within the project site boundaries. Results are summarized in Table A, and a
comprehensive records search bibliography is provided in Appendix B.
Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site
USGS 7.5
Min. Quad. Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Site
Cultural Resource
Studies Within One Half-
Mile of Project Site
Fontana,
California
(1980)
P-36-6587: Historic-Period Foundations (1/4 Mile SE)
P-36-6588: Historic-Period Foundations (Adjacent SE)
P-36-15376: Historic-Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water
Works (Encompasses Project Site)
SB-1407, 1611, 1737,
1983, 2064, 2096, 2621,
3049, 3527, 3957, 4020,
4021, 4022, 4209, 5088,
5089*, 6986, 7375, 7990
*Previously assessed the project site for cultural resources.
Additional Research. Please note that the references for this section are provided in
Appendix A. The project site is part of a larger 157.97-acre property patented to Harriet O.
Mattern in 1899 (1843-1926). It is located within the plotted boundaries of the Grapeland
Homesteads/Water Works development (P-36-15376) which was occupied from about 1890
until about 1905. However, the subject property was first purchased about the time
Grapeland was abandoned. Furthermore, although Harriet O. Mattern did name witnesses
associated with the Grapeland development (including D.G. Schofield and G.F.R.B. Perdew)
in the purchase of the subject property, there is no evidence that those individuals were ever
involved in its development or cultivation. Therefore, the development of the subject
property cannot be specifically associated with Grapeland. The property was occupied by a
residential structure by 1901, although it was not cultivated or developed further during this
period. During the years she owned the subject property, Mattern lived on a 300-acre ranch
with her husband Frederick W. Mattern (1841-1926) in Bloomington, to the south. Mattern
purchased other local properties in the ensuing years in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los
Angeles Counties and was the plaintiff in lawsuits regarding properties in Huntington Beach
and in San Bernardino County. The Matterns both died without developing the property. By
1935, the original structure was gone and a small house, two ancillary structures, and a
livestock enclosure had been constructed, and about 10 acres of land had been cleared.
Several pepper trees had been planted by this time although the property had still never
been cultivated. By 1938 about 20 acres had been cleared for cultivation, and a large
east/west oriented stone alignment (probably a result of field clearing activities) was in place
in the northern portion of the subject property. By 1959 two additional ancillary buildings had
been constructed and most of the cleared area was planted in row crops. Agricultural activity
had stopped on the property by 1977 and only the house and one ancillary building
remained in place. By 1994, the buildings had been demolished and the property was
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
11
cleared. Ownership information was not available for the era in which the subject property
was cultivated. The property was acquired by Stratham Investments LLC prior to 1989. It
was acquired by H & H Partnership in 1989 and they remain owners.
Field Survey
During the field survey Mr. Shepetuk and Mr. Reyes Martinez carefully inspected the project
site and identified a stone alignment that measures approximately 350 feet long (east/west)
by about eight feet wide, and a concrete foundation with building footings and partial four-
course stone wall from the residence described above. These items have been temporarily
designated KIM2116-H-1. Modern and historic-period building materials are scattered
around the former residence. The project site has been subject to repeated mechanical
clearing and weed abatement, and subsurface probes indicate little potential for intact buried
materials. Site vegetation included pepper trees, mixed seasonal grasses, and buckwheat.
Sediments included silty sand with many granitic cobbles.
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS
During the field survey, a historic-period concrete foundation with concrete footings and
partial stone wall, and a historic-period stone alignment were identified. Research indicates
that these were part of a small residential and agricultural complex that was constructed
between the late 1920s and early 1930s, and abandoned by about 1989. CEQA calls for the
evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for
determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California
Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under
CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation
under a local ordinance.
Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on
National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California
Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
12
ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
California Register Evaluations
KIM2116-H-1. Criterion 1: Substantial research has not indicated a close association
between the subject property and any important events. It is therefore not eligible for the
California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Substantial research has failed to connect
the subject property with the lives of persons important in California’s past. It is therefore not
eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: The remaining elements do
not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the subject
property is not eligible under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: The subject property has not and is not
likely to yield information important in prehistory or history and is therefore not eligible for
listing under Criterion 4. The subject property and its historic-age components are therefore
recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register,
and as such are not recommended historical resources under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus East Project
located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The records search data indicated that the project site was encompassed within the Grapeland Homesteads/Water
Works (designated P-36-15376), although the field survey did not identify any items that
could be associated with this resource. During the field survey, BCR Consulting
archaeologists identified a historic-period building foundation and stone alignment
temporarily designated KIM2116-H-1. These were part of a residential/agricultural complex developed between the late 1920s and early 1930s. It is not recommended eligible for the
California Register and as such is not a historical resource under CEQA. Due to a lack of
historical resources located within the project site, BCR Consulting recommends that no
additional cultural resources work or monitoring is necessary for any proposed project
activities. However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature
and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Misison Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Senate Bill (SB) 18 Native American
Consultation for the project. Since the city will initiate and carry out the required Native
American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report.
However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff
is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
13
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Citrus East Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the
Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically
significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area
is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should
be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
14
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior
Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 3:1-26.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's
Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians
of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
Brunzell, David
2017 Cultural Resources Assessment El Paseo Project, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. On File at the South-Central Coastal Information
Center. Fullerton, California.
Campbell, E., and W. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino,
California: Huntington Library.
deBarros, Phil 2004 Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan Rancho Las Flores Project,
Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. On File at the SCCIC.
Dibblee Jr., Thomas W. 2003 Geologic Map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California.
Electronic Document: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71731.htm.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
Flenniken, J.J. 1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. Stone Tool Analysis: Essays
in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G. Pavesic.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
15
Flenniken, J.J. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American
Anthropologist 91:149-158.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of
1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Hunt, Alice P. 1960 The Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers No. 47.
Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. University of California Press. Los Angeles
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, Dover. New York.
Lanning, Edward P. 1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment, an Introduction. UC Press, Berkeley.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum
Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
United States Geological Survey
1988 Devore, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Wallace, William J.
1958 Archaeological Investigation in Death Valley National Monument. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 42:7-22.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American
Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448-470.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
16
Warren, Claude N. and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North
American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183-193.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California
Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 3 *Resource Name or #: KIM2116-H-1
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Devore Date: 1988 T 1N; R 5W; Section 19; SBBM c. Address: N/A City: Fontana Zip:
d. UTMs: 458280mE/3779048mN (Structure Foundation at NW Corner; NAD83) Elevation: 1640’ AMSL
e. Other Locational Data: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Citrus and Summit Avenues, Fontana.
*P3a. Description: This resource consists of a concrete foundation and stone retaining wall that comprises a portion of a 157.97-acre
property patented to Harriet O. Mattern in 1899 (1843-1926; State of California 1899). It is located within the plotted boundaries of P-
36-15376, the Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works development which was occupied from about 1890 until about 1905. However,
the subject property was first purchased about the time Grapeland was abandoned. Furthermore, although Harriet O. Mattern did
name witnesses associated with the Grapeland development (including D.G. Schofield and G.F.R.B. Perdew) in the purchase of the
subject property, there is no evidence that those individuals were ever involved in its development or cultivation (San Bernardino
County Sun [SBCS] 18 Nov. 1898; Slack Gist 1954). Therefore, the subject property is not considered a part of Grapeland. The
property was occupied by a residential structure by 1901, although it was not cultivated or developed further during this period (USGS
1:62.5 San Bernardino Quad 1901). During the years she owned the subject property, Mattern lived on a 300-acre ranch with her
husband Frederick W. Mattern (1841-1926) in Bloomington, to the south (SBCS 17 Feb 1911). Mattern purchased other local
properties in the ensuing years in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties and was the plaintiff in lawsuits regarding
properties in Huntington Beach and in San Bernardino County (SBCS 17 March 1925; Continued on Continuation Sheet, Page 3).
References:
San Bernardino County. Property Information Management System. www.sbcounty.gov/assessor/pims. Accessed 11/27/2021.
San Bernardino County Sun. Multiple Articles from Dates Included in Citations Above. newspapers.com. Accessed 11/27/20921.
Slack Gist, Evalyn. Destined to Die of Thirst. November, 1954. Westways. P-36-15376. On File at the SCCIC.
State of Calif. 1899. Land Patent for W ½ of NW ¼ and W ½ of SW ¼ , T1N, R5W, SBM. glorecords.blm.gov. Accessed 11/27/2021.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1935, 1938, 1959, 1977, 1994. Aerial Photos of Fontana (historicaerials.com; UCSB Frame Finder).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AH2. Foundations/structure pads.
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☐Structure ☐Object Site ☐District ☐Element of District ☐Other
P5b. Description of Photo: Photo 1: Building Foundation. (View SE) *P6. Date Constructed/ Age and Sources: Constructed between 1927 and 1935 Historic ☐Prehistoric ☐Both (see P3a. above) *P7. Owner and Address: H&H Partnership *P8. Recorded by: N. Shepetuk, F. Reyes-Martinez BCR Consulting LLC 505 W. Eighth Street Claremont, California 91711 *P9. Date Recorded: 9/2/21 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive. *P11. Report Citation: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus East Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. *Attachments: ☐NONE Location Map ☐ Sketch Map Continuation Sheet ☐Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐Other (List):
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 3 of 3 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) KIM2116-H-1
*Recorded by: Nicholas Shepetuk, Fabian Reyes Martinez *Date: September 2, 2021
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
The Matterns died before developing the property. By 1935, the original structure was gone and a small house, two ancillary
structures, and a livestock enclosure had been constructed, and about 10 acres of land had been cleared. Several pepper trees
had been planted although the property had still never been cultivated. By 1938 about 20 acres had been cleared for cultivation,
and a large east/west oriented alignment (probably a result of field clearing activities) was in place in the northern portion of the
subject property. By 1959 two additional ancillary buildings had been constructed and most of the cleared area was planted in row
crops. Agricultural activity had stopped on the property by 1977 and only the house and one ancillary building remained in place.
By 1994, the buildings had been demolished and the property was cleared (USDA 1935, 1938, 1959, 1977, 1994). Ownership
information was not available for the area in which the subject property was cultivated. The property was acquired by Stratham
Investments LLC prior to 1989. It was acquired by H & H Partnership in 1989 and they remain owners (San Bernardino County
2021). The features that remain on the property include a stone alignment that measures approximately 350 feet long (east/west)
by about eight feet thick, and a concrete foundation with building footings and partial four-course stone wall from the pre-1935
residence. Modern and historic-period building materials are scattered around the former residence. Subsurface probes indicate
little potential for buried materials.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
APPENDIX B
RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-01407 1983 HISTORICAL BRIEF ON GRAPELAND,
SIERRA HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
FONTANA HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
ANICIC, JR., JOHN
CHARLES
NADB-R - 1061407;
Voided - 83-9.3
SB-01611 1986 A CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE LA CUESTA
PROPERTY, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO BISSELL, RONALD M.36-006588NADB-R - 1061611;
Paleo - ;
Voided - 86-12.7
SB-01611A 1986 ASSESSMENT OF THE
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR
THE LA CUESTA SPECIFIC PLAN,
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO RASCHKE, ROD
SB-01737 1987 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY REPORT
FOR THE LA CUESTA PROPERTY:
HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HATHEWAY AND
MCKENNA
HATHEWAY, ROGER G.
and JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA
36-011505NADB-R - 1061737;
Voided - 87-10.8
SB-01983 1989 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, PHASES 2,
3, 4, AND 5, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1061983;
Voided - 89-12.3
SB-02064 1990 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA PHASE 6,
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006585, 36-006586,
36-006587, 36-006588, 36-006589
NADB-R - 1062064;
Voided - 90-1.11
SB-02096 1990 PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS: HISTORIC
DOCUMENTATION AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATIONS
OF SITES WITHIN THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006588, 36-006589
NADB-R - 1062096;
Voided - 90-4.9
SB-02621 1992 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN
THE NORTH FONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE
AREA, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
ALEXANDROWICZ, J.
STEVEN, ANNE Q.
DUFFIELD-STOLL,
JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA, SUSAN R.
ALEXANDROWICZ,
ARTHUR A. KUHNER,
and ERIC SCOTT
36-004296, 36-006110, 36-006111,
36-006251, 36-006583, 36-006584,
36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587,
36-006588, 36-006589, 36-006807,
36-006808, 36-006809, 36-006810,
36-006811, 36-006812, 36-006813,
36-006814, 36-006815, 36-006816
NADB-R - 1062621;
Voided - 92-2.20A-B
Page 1 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 3:25:13 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-03049 1995 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
REPORT: HISTORIC STRUCTURE
REMAINS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF CITRUS & SUMMIT
AVENUES, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO,
CA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A., TAMARA L. FARRIS,
and RICHARD S.
SHEPARD
NADB-R - 1063049
SB-03527 2000 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVENTORY OF THE FONTANA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE #4 IN THE CITY
OF FONTANA. 20PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1063527
SB-04020 1996 HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION &
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATIONS
OF HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
WITHIN THE SIERRA LAKES TREE
LOCATION PROJECT AREA, FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 596PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006587, 36-006588,
36-006589
NADB-R - 1064020
SB-04021 1999 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL
RECORDATION OF THE SUMMIT AVE.
RESERVOIR LOCATED WITHIN
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH RANGE 5 WEST
SECTION 30, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 15PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006589NADB-R - 1064021
SB-04022 1999 REPORT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING ACTIVITIES AT THE SIERRA
LAKES PROJECT SITE, CITY OF
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 129PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006587, 36-006588,
36-006589
NADB-R - 1064022
SB-04209 2004 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE FONTANA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #33 PROJECT
AREA IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 40PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1064209
SB-05088 2005 A PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE FONTANA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE
SCHOOL NO. 10, LOCATED IN THE CITY
OF FONTANA, SNA BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA, JENNETTENADB-R - 1065088
Page 2 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 3:25:13 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-05089 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of
210 Acres for the Proposed Citrus Heights
North Specific Plan in the City of Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California.
Perry, Richard M.NADB-R - 1065089
SB-06986 2010 Phase I Resources Assessment Report for
the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the
Cities of Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino
County, California.
CogstoneGlover, Amy and Sherri
Gust
NADB-R - 1066986
SB-07375 2012 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site
Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate
IE24363-B (SCE Tower), 5458 Citrus
Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Sarah A. Williams
NADB-R - 1067375
Page 3 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 3:25:14 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-36-006587 CA-SBR-006587H P1072-31-H SB-02064, SB-
02621, SB-04020,
SB-04022
AH02 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-006588 CA-SBR-006588H P1072-32-H SB-01611, SB-
02064, SB-02096,
SB-02621, SB-
04020, SB-04022
AH02 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-006589 CA-SBR-006589H Resource Name - Grapeland
Irrigation District Ditch
SB-02064, SB-
02096, SB-02621,
SB-04012, SB-
04020, SB-04021,
SB-04022, SB-
05691, SB-06982,
SB-07783
Site Historic AH06 1990 (Jeanette McKenna, McKenna
et al.)
P-36-011505 CA-SBR-011505H Other - P1072-26H;
Resource Name - Summit Ave
Homestead
SB-01737, SB-07783SiteHistoricAH02; AH04; AH11;
AH16
1987 (Hatheway & Mckenna);
2002 (GOODWIN, LSA)
P-36-011506 CA-SBR-011506H Resource Name - LSA-JWM 230-
S-1;
Resource Name - Sec 19 Cabin
SB-07783SiteHistoricAH02; AH04; AH06 2002 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA)
P-36-011508 CA-SBR-011508H Resource Name - LSA-JWM 230-
S-3;
Resource Name - Cypress
Ave/Section 19 Dry Sub-Lot Road
SB-05691, SB-07783OtherHistoricAH072002 (Robert Reynolds, LSA)
P-36-011510 CA-SBR-011510H Resource Name - LSA-JWM 230-
S-5;
Resource Name - Sierra Cutoff
SB-05691, SB-07783OtherHistoricAH072002 (Robert Reynolds, LSA)
P-36-011511 CA-SBR-011511H Resource Name - LSA-JWM 230-
S-6;
Resource Name - Lytle Creek
Cutoff
SB-05691, SB-07783OtherHistoricAH072002 (Robert Reynolds, LSA)
P-36-011512 CA-SBR-011512H Resource Name - LSA-JWM 230-
S-7;
Resource Name - Summit Ave
SB-07783OtherHistoricAH072002 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA)
P-36-015376 Resource Name - Grapeland
Homesteads & Water Works;
PHI - SBR-116
SB-04012, SB-05691Building,
Structure,
Other
Historic HP22; HP29; HP30;
HP33; HP39
1987 (Anicic, John, Fontana
Historical Society);
1989;
2016
Page 1 of 1 SBAIC 11/15/2021 3:25:00 PM
Resources highlighted in green have been previously verified by SCCIC staff.
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
APPENDIX C
NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
October 5, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: johnny.defachelle@gmail.com
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,
21084.2 and 21084.3, Citrus East Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Defachelle:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed
project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or
mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to
consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies
of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated
California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by
means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed
project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for
notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation
as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural
resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
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
Page 2 of 2
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure
in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission
was positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the attached list for more
information.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative
response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having
the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your
assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
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
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed
u
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
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
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
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 Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Citrus East Project, San
Bernardino County.
PROJ-2021-
004992
10/05/2021 09:56 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
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
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
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
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 Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Citrus East Project, San
Bernardino County.
PROJ-2021-
004992
10/05/2021 09:56 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
APPENDIX D
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org
BCR Consulting LLC September 27, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Defachelle,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Citrus East Project in the city
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is located at the intersection of
Summit Avenue and Citrus Avenue in Township 1 North, Range 5 West in Section 19 on the
Devore, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating to
the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of
high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively
modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial
depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial
sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the
project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the Citrus East
Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene
periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the
development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during
development should be observed.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at
dradford@westerncentermuseum.org
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
APPENDIX E
PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
Photo 1: KIM2116-H-1 Building Foundation Overview (View SE)
Photo 2: KIM2116-H-1 Stone Walls at SE Building Foundation Area (View SE)
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
Photo 3: KIM2116-H-1 Historic-Period Stone Alignment (View EE)
Photo 4: Overview Showing Modern and Historic-Period Debris from KIM2116-H-1(View NE)
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L TI N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S SM E NT C I T R U S E A ST P R O J E C T
Photo 5: Project Site Overview from NE Corner Towards KIM2116-H-1 (View SW)
Photo 6: Project Site Overview from NE Corner Towards (View NW)