The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5 Historical and Archaeological Resources Survery Report HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 20079 Assessor’s Parcel Number 0226-421-06 City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California For Submittal to: Planning Division Department of Community Development City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Prepared for: W. Dean Brown The Planning Consortium 29422 Modjeska Canyon Road Silverado, CA 92676 Prepared by: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator October 18, 2017 CRM TECH Contract Number 3247 Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Tentative Tract Map Number 20079, Assessor’s Parcel Number 0226-421-06, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Ben Kerridge, Archaeologist/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Project Archaeologist/Filed Director Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400 Date: October 18, 2017 For Submittal to: Planning Division Department of Community Development City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 (909) 350-7640 Prepared for: W. Dean Brown The Planning Consortium 29422 Modjeska Canyon Road Silverado, CA 92676 (714) 328-6313 USGS Quadrangle: Devore, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 14, T1N R6W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) Project Size: Approximately 9.5 acres Keywords: San Bernardino Valley; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey; no “historical resources” under CEQA i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Between August and October 2017, at the request of The Planning Consortium, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey for a proposed residential development project on the northwestern edge of the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project area, designated Tentative Tract Map Number 20079, consists of what is currently Assessor’s Parcel Number 0226-421-06, an approximately 9.5- acre parcel of undeveloped land located northwest of the intersection of Labrador Avenue and Montreal Drive. It lies within the southwest quarter of Section 14, T1N R6W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, which entails the establishment of 21 residential lots, two streets, an equestrian trail, and other associated utilities. The City of Fontana, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out a systematic field survey of the project area. Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any “historical resources” within or adjacent to the project area. However, due to the presence of dense vegetation growth and the resulting poor ground visibility, portions of the project area could not be surveyed adequately and will need to be inspected again once the vegetation is removed. Based on these considerations, CRM TECH recommends that grubbing and/or other vegetation removal work in the project area be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Meanwhile, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resources” is partially beyond the scope of this study and remains to be addressed through Native American consultation by the City of Fontana in accordance with Assembly Bill 52. Furthermore, if any subsurface cultural deposits are encountered during future grading, trenching, excavation, or other earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 6 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 7 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Research ........................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 11 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 12 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project location ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Recent aerial photograph of the project area ........................................................................ 3 Figure 4. Current natural setting of the project area ............................................................................ 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1873-1875 ........................................................................ 10 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1893-1894 ........................................................................ 10 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1936 ................................................................................. 10 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954 ........................................................................ 10 1 INTRODUCTION Between August and October 2017, at the request of The Planning Consortium, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey for a proposed residential development project on the northwestern edge of the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The project area, designated Tentative Tract Map Number 20079, consists of what is currently Assessor’s Parcel Number 0226-421-06, an approximately 9.5-acre parcel of undeveloped land located northwest of the intersection of Labrador Avenue and Montreal Drive (Figures 2, 3). It lies within the southwest quarter of Section 14, T1N R6W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figure 2). The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, which entails the establishment of 21 residential lots, two streets, an equestrian trail, and other associated utilities. The City of Fontana, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out a systematic field survey of the project area. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1. Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS San Bernardino, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1969]) 2 Figure 2. Project location. (Based on USGS Cucamonga Peak and Devore, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1988; 1996]) 3 Figure 3. Recent aerial photograph of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery) 4 SETTING CURRENT NATURAL SETTING The City of Fontana is located in the central portion of the San Bernardino Valley, a broad inland valley defined by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges on the north and a series of low rocky hills on the south. The natural environment of the region is characterized by its temperate Mediterranean climate, with seasonal average temperatures ranging between 35º and 90º Fahrenheit. Rainfall is typically less than 20 inches annually, most of which occurs between November and March. The project area consists of an irregular-shaped parcel of vacant land bounded by a residential neighborhood on the south and the east and by the San Sevaine Canyon Wash on the west, with undeveloped open fields continuing to the north and the west (Figures 3, 4). The southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains lies approximately a quarter-mile north of the project location. Elevations in the project area range approximately from 1,775 to 1,860 feet above mean sea level. A small portion of the property near the northeast corner has been disked in the past, but the area was covered by dense vegetation growth at the time of the survey. The vegetation along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property has been cleared to protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods from brush fires. The terrain of the project area is rough, with an incline toward the north. Two drainages cross the western portion of the project area, and a large earthen levee runs near the center of the property in a roughly north-south direction. The soil Figure 4. Current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on September 1, 2017; view to the north) 5 appears to be made up of medium-brown coarse alluvial sands with rocks and large boulders. The vegetation observed include sycamore trees, buckwheat, datura, white sage, sunflower, foxtails, wild mustard, and other common grasses and shrubs (Figure 4). CULTURAL SETTING Prehistoric Context The earliest evidence of human occupation in inland southern California was discovered below the surface of an alluvial fan in the northern portion of the Lakeview Mountains, overlooking the San Jacinto Valley, with radiocarbon dates clustering around 9,500 B.P. (Horne and McDougall 2008). Another site found near the shoreline of Lake Elsinore, close to the confluence of Temescal Wash and the San Jacinto River, yielded radiocarbon dates between 8,000 and 9,000 B.P. (Grenda 1997). Additional sites with isolated Archaic dart points, bifaces, and other associated lithic artifacts from the same age range have been found in the Cajon Pass area, typically atop knolls with good viewsheds (Basgall and True 1985; Goodman and McDonald 2001; Goodman 2002; Milburn et al. 2008). The cultural prehistory of southern California has been summarized into numerous chronologies, including those developed by Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Warren (1984), and others. Specifically, the prehistory of the inland region has been addressed by O’Connell et al. (1974), McDonald et al. (1987), Keller and McCarthy (1989), Grenda (1993), Goldberg (2001), and Horne and McDougall (2008). Although the beginning and ending dates of different cultural horizons vary regionally, the general framework can be devided into three primary periods: • Paleoindian Period (ca. 18,000-9,000 B.P.): Native peoples of this period created fluted spearhead bases designed to be hafted to wooden shafts. The distinctive method of thinning bifaces and spearhead preforms by removing long, linear flakes leaves diagnostic Paleoindian markers at tool-making sites. Other artifacts associated with the Paleoindian toolkit include choppers, cutting tools, retouched flakes, and perforators. Sites from this period are very sparse across the landscape and most are deeply buried. • Archaic Period (ca. 9,000-1,500 B.P.): Archaic sites are characterized by abundant lithic scatters of considerable size with many biface thinning flakes, bifacial preforms broken during manufacture, and well-made groundstone bowls and basin metates. As a consequence of making dart points, many biface thinning waste flakes were generated at individual production stations, which is a diagnostic feature of Archaic sites. • Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,500 B.P.-contact): Sites from this period typically contain small lithic scatters from the manufacture of small arrow points, expedient groundstone tools such as tabular metates and unshaped manos, wooden mortars with stone pestles, acorn or mesquite bean granaries, ceramic vessels, shell beads suggestive of extensive trading networks, and steatite implements such as pipes and arrow shaft straighteners. Ethnohistoric Context The City of Fontana lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Serrano and the Gabrielino peoples adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Gabrielino, probably the most influential Native 6 American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far east as the San Bernardino-Riverside area. The homeland of the Serrano was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the Fontana area exhibited similar social organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often occurring with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. As early as 1542, the Gabrielino were in contact with the Spanish during the historic expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, but it was not until 1769 that the Spaniards took steps to colonize Gabrielino territory. Shortly afterwards, most of the Gabrielino people were incorporated into Mission San Gabriel and other missions in southern California. The Serrano were brought into the mission system after 1819, when an asistencia of Mission San Gabriel was established in present- day Loma Linda. Due to introduced diseases, dietary deficiencies, and forceful reduction, Gabrielino and Serrano population dwindled rapidly. By 1900, the Gabrielino had almost ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group (Bean and Smith 1978a:540). The Serrano, meanwhile, were mostly settled on the San Manuel and the Morongo Indian Reservations (Bean and Smith 1978b:573). Historic Context In 1772, three years after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California, Pedro Fages, comandante of the new province, and a small force of soldiers under his command became the first Europeans to set foot in the San Bernardino Valley (Beck and Haase 1974:15). They were followed in the next few years by two other famed early Spanish explorers, Juan Bautista de Anza and Francisco Garcés, who traveled through the valley in the mid-1770s (ibid.). Despite these early visits, for the next 40 years the inland valley received little impact from the Spanish colonization activities in Alta California, which were concentrated predominantly in the coastal regions. For the bulk of the Spanish-Mexican period, the San Bernardino Valley was considered a part of the land holdings of Mission San Gabriel. The name “San Bernardino” was bestowed on the region at least by 1819, when a mission asistencia and an associated rancho were officially established under that name in the eastern end of the valley (Lerch and Haenszel 1981). After gaining independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government began in 1834 the process of secularizing the mission system in Alta California, which in practice meant the confiscation of the Franciscan missions’ vast land holdings, to be distributed later among prominent citizens of the province. During the 1830s and the 1840s, several large land grants were created in the vicinity of present-day Fontana, but the project area was not involved in any of these, and thus remained public land when California became a part of the United States in 1848. Used primarily as cattle ranches, the ranchos around Fontana saw little development until the mid- 19th century, when a group of Mormon settlers from Salt Lake City founded the town of San 7 Bernardino in 1851. After the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the mid-1870s, and especially after the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway introduced a competing line in the 1880s, a phenomenal land boom swept through much of southern California, ushering in a number of new settlements in the San Bernardino Valley. In 1887, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company purchased a large tract of land near the mouth of Lytle Creek, together with the necessary water rights to the creek, and laid out the townsites of Rialto, Bloomington, and Rosena (Schuiling 1984:90). While Rialto and Bloomington were soon settled and began to grow, little development took place at Rosena before the collapse of the 1880s land boom and the ensuing financial destruction of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company (Schuiling 1984:90, 102). In 1905, Azariel Blanchard “A.B.” Miller (1878-1941), widely considered the founder of present-day Fontana, arrived in Rosena from the Imperial Valley and, along with his associates, soon established Fontana Farms on a tract of land that eventually reached 20,000 acres (Anicic 2005:32-40). Within the first 10 years of the 20th century, an irrigation system was constructed and much of the land was planted in grain and citrus crops (Schuiling 1984:102). Miller’s Fontana Farms endeavors became synonymous to the location, which lead to Rosena’s renaming as Fontana in 1913. Up to Miller’s death in 1941, Fontana remained primarily an agricultural settlement where poultry, hog, and rabbit raising played a particularly important role in the local economy (Schuiling 1984:102). During World War II, however, the establishment of the Kaiser Steel Mill dramatically altered the agrarian setting of the Fontana area. With other industrial enterprises moving into the area after Kaiser, Fontana became known as a center of heavy industry, a characterization that lasted until recent years (ibid.:106). Since the closure of the Kaiser Steel Mill in 1983, and in response to demand for affordable housing, Fontana, like many other cities in the San Bernardino Valley, has increasingly taken on the characteristics of a “bedroom community.” RESEARCH METHODS RECORDS SEARCH On August 22, 2017, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo conducted the records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which is the State of California’s official cultural resource records repository for the County of San Bernardino. During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the SCCIC for a complete inventory of previously identified historical/archaeological resources and existing cultural resources studies within a one- mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or San Bernardino County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Ben Kerridge and principal investigator/historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included primarily published literature in local and regional history, U.S. General Land 8 Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1875, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1901-1996, and aerial photographs taken in 1938-2016. The historic maps are collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, located in Moreno Valley. The aerial photographs are available at the NETR Online website and through the Google Earth software. FIELD SURVEY On September 1, 2017, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester carried out a pedestrian field survey of the project area. Where possible, Ballester walked a series of parallel transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. Due to the presence of dense vegetation, however, regular transects were impracticable on portions of the property. In those areas, Ballester followed any accessible route available and examined as much exposed ground surface as possible. Ground visibility was generally poor (0-25 percent) because of the vegetation growth. RESULTS AND FINDINGS RECORDS SEARCH According to records on file at the SCCIC, the project area was included in several large-scale cultural resource studies completed between 1984 and 1992 (Figure 5), but no cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project boundaries. Because all of these past studies are now more than 20 years old, they are considered to be outdated for statutory compliance purposes in connection to the current project. Within a one-mile radius of the project location, SCCIC records show at least 16 other previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features (Figure 5). Together, the previous studies in the vicinity covered more than 90 percent of the land within the scope of the records search, and resulted in the recordation of 27 historical/archaeological sites into the California Historical Resources Inventory. All but one of these sites dated exclusively to the historic period. The lone exception, Site 36-006816, consisted of a prehistoric—i.e., Native American—lithic scatter as well as a historic-period wagon road, refuse scatter, a well, a levee, and a retaining wall. It was recorded in 1991 about 0.13 mile to the northwest of the project area. The 26 historic-period sites included buildings, irrigation features, structural remains, rock alignments, cairns, power transmission lines, and a limestone quarry. Four of these sites were considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (36-006807, 36-006808, 36- 006812, and 36-006815). None of these sites, however, was found within or adjacent to the project boundaries, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study. HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical sources consulted for this study demonstrate ample evidence of settlement activities in the surrounding area as early as the 1870s but no indication of such activities within the project boundaries throughout the historic period (Figures 6-9; NETR Online 1938-1966). In 1873-1875, several settlers’ houses, roads, and agricultural fields were noted in the general vicinity of the project 9 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by SCCIC file number. Locations of historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure. 10 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1873-1875. (Source: GLO 1875) Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1893-1894. (Source: USGS 1901; 1903) Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1936. (Source: USGS 1941) Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954. (Source: USGS 1954) 11 location (Figure 6). By 1938, however, no man-made features of any kind were known to be present within or adjacent to the project area (NETR Online 1938). Between 1938 and 1955, portions of the project area were impacted by flood-control work implemented along the San Sevaine Canyon Wash to the west, including the forerunner of the earthen levee across the property today (NETR Online 1938-1966). The adjacent residential neighborhood to the south and the east was developed in the 1990s, but the project area itself has evidently remained vacant and undeveloped to the present time (NETR Online 1994-2012; Google Earth 1994-2016). FIELD SURVEY No buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older) were encountered within or adjacent to the project boundaries during the field survey. As mentioned above, portions of the project area have been disturbed by past flood-control work, including the construction of the earthen levee across the center of the property and a second levee along the western project boundary. Meanwhile, the areas along the eastern and southern boundaries have been impacted by construction activities on the adjacent properties. Evidence of past disking was observed in the northeastern portion of the project area, and some grubbing has occurred along the southern and eastern property boundaries, but much of the ground surface remained covered by dense vegetation growth and could not be inspected adequately. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assist the City of Fontana in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register 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 in 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. (PRC §5024.1(c)) 12 As discussed above, no potential “historical resources” were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area, and none were encountered during the present survey. However, it should be noted that ground visibility was poor at the time of the archaeological field survey because of the dense vegetation growth, and portions of the project area could not be examined effectively. In order to establish positively the presence or absence of surface archaeological remains, especially those of prehistoric origin, the project area will need to be inspected again once the vegetation is removed, as discussed further below. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “historical resource” or a “tribal cultural resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC §21084.1-2). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.” In summary of the research results presented above, no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, were encountered throughout the course of the study, but portions of the project area could not be surveyed adequately due to poor ground visibility. Furthermore, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resources,” as defined by PRC §21074, is partially beyond the scope of this study and remains to be addressed through the Native American consultation process that the City of Fontana will be conducting pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Based on these considerations, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Fontana: • No “historical resources” are known to exist within or adjacent to the project area, and thus the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical resources.” • The presence or absence of “tribal cultural resources” in or near the project area remains to be determined by the City of Fontana in consultation with the State of California Native American Heritage Commission and the local Native American groups, • Archaeological monitoring should be required during grubbing and/or other vegetation removal work in the project area. The monitoring program should consist of, at a minimum, the following: • Ground surface exposed through vegetation removal should be inspected systematically by a qualified archaeologist. Whenever cultural materials more than 50 years old are discovered, they need to be field-recorded and evaluated. The monitor should be prepared to quickly recover any artifacts as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. If a substantial cultural deposit is encountered, however, the monitor must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction activities in that area to allow for controlled removal. • On-site monitoring should be coordinated with interested Native American groups, who may wish to participate. • If human remains or possible human remains are encountered, construction activities in the immediate vicinity should be halted temporarily, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department should be notified immediately pursuant to state law. 13 • Collected artifacts should be cleaned, identified, catalogued, analyzed, and prepared for curation at an appropriate repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for additional research in the future. • Site record forms that incorporate the artifacts encountered during monitoring should be prepared and submitted to the SCCIC as a permanent record of the discovery. • A report that documents the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory of recovered artifacts and a detailed artifact analysis, should be prepared upon completion of the fieldwork. The report should include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the archaeological remains and a discussion of the significance of all recovered cultural material. • It is anticipated that no other cultural resources investigation will be necessary on this property, but the final determination on the necessity will depend on field observations during the monitoring program. • If any subsurface cultural deposits are encountered during future grading, trenching, excavation, or other earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. REFERENCES Anicic, John Charles, Jr. 2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco and Chicago. Basgall, Mark E., and D.L. True 1985 Archaeological Investigations in Crowder Canyon, 1973-1984: Excavations at Sites SBR- 421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and SBR-713, San Bernardino County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith 1978a Gabrielino. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California; pp. 570-574. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1875 Plat Map: Township No. 1 North Range No. 6 West, SBBM; surveyed in 1873-1875. Goldberg, Susan K. (ed.) 2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. On file, Eastern information Center, University of California, Riverside. Goodman, John D., II 2002 Archaeological Survey of the Charter Communications Cable Project, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-102. San Bernardino. 14 Goodman, John D., II, and M. McDonald 2001 Archaeological Survey of the Southern California Trials Association Event Area, Little Pine Flats, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-106. San Bernardino. Google Earth 1994-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity, taken in 1994, 2002-2007, 2009, 2011- 2014, and 2016. Available through the Google Earth software. Grenda, Donn 1993 Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-RIV-2798/H, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1997 Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Technical Series 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall 2008 CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Keller, Jean S., and Daniel F. McCarthy 1989 Data Recovery at the Cole Canyon Site (CA-RIV-1139), Riverside County, California. Pacific Coast Archeological Society Quarterly 25. Lerch, Michael K., and Arda M. Haenszel 1981 Life on Cottonwood Row. Heritage Tales 1981:33-71. Fourth Annual Publication of the City of San Bernardino Historical Society, San Bernardino. McKenna, Jeannette A. 1995 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the Westgate Property (1000 +/- Acres) in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. McDonald, Meg, Philip J. Wilke, and Andrea Kauss 1987 McCue: An Elko Site in Riverside County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(1):46-73. Milburn, Doug, U.K. Doan, and John D. Goodman II 2008 Archaeological Investigation at Baldy Mesa-Cajon Divide for the Baldy Mesa Off- Highway-Vehicle Recreation Trails Project, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-53-091. San Bernardino. NETR Online 1938-2012 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity, taken in 1938, 1959, 1966, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012. http://www.historicaerials.com. O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix (eds.) 1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Schuiling, Walter C. 1984 San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. Windsor Publications, Woodland Hills, California. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1901 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); surveyed in 1893-1894. 1903 Map: Cucamonga, Calif. (30’, 1:62,500); surveyed in 1894. 15 1941 Map: Devore, Calif. (1:31,680); surveyed in 1936. 1954 Map: Devore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1952, field-checked in 1954. 1969 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (1:250,000); 1958 edition revised. 1988 Map: Devore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1966 edition photorevised in 1985. 1996 Map: Cucamonga Peak, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1988 edition revised in 1996. Warren, Claude N. 1984 The Desert Region. In Michael J. Moratto (ed.): California Archaeology; pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 16 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China. 2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China. Cultural Resources Management Reports Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990. Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 17 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA* Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level. UCLA Extension Course #888. 2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist. 2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms. Research Interests Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity. Cultural Resources Management Reports Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986. Memberships * Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 18 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER Ben Kerridge, M.A. Education 2014 Archaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton. 2009 Project Management Training, Project Management Institute/CH2M HILL. 2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton. Professional Experience 2015- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2015 Teaching Assistant, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California. 2010- Naturalist, Newport Bay Conservancy, Newport Beach, California. 2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California. Papers Presented • Geomorphological Survey of Tracts T126–T151 to Support Archaeological Shoreline Research Project. Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece, 2014. • The Uncanny Valley of the Shadow of Modernity: A Re-examination of Anthropological Approaches to Christianity. Graduate Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2010. • Ethnographic Endeavors into the World of Counterstrike. 74th Annual Conference of the Southwestern Anthropological Association, 2003. Cultural Resources Management Reports Co-author and contributor to numerous cultural resources management reports since 2013. Memberships Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. 19 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Daniel Ballester, M.S. Education 2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside. 1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino. 2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California. Professional Experience 2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Nina Gallardo, B.A. Education 2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside. Professional Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. • Surveys, excavations, construction monitoring, field recordation, mapping, records searches, and Native American liaison. Honors and Awards 2000-2002 Dean’s Honors List, University of California, Riverside.