HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C Cultural Resources Assessment CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
FOR THE
CHASE ROAD PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0228-151-17, -18, and -19
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Preparer:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
__________________________
Signature
Project Proponent:
EPD Solutions
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
November 22, 2022
Revised: February 7, 2023
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors:
Consulting Firm:
Client/Project Proponent:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Type of Study:
USGS Quadrangle:
Acreage:
Key Words:
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A.
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
EPD Solutions
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
November 22, 2022; revised February 7, 2023
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 0228-151-
17, -18, and -19)
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey
Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the USGS
Devore, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle
6.84 (gross) acres
Survey; no cultural resources identified; Devore USGS
Quadrangle; no further study recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................ 1.0–5
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ....................................... 1.0–18
1.3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search ....... 1.0–19
1.4 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................... 1.0–19
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................... 1.0–19
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ................................................................... 3.0–1
3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................ 3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey .............................................................................. 3.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 4.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ...................... 5.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................... 6.0–1
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search*
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map .................................................................................. 1.0–2
Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map ................................................................................... 1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 Project Development Map ............................................................................ 1.0–4
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project, facing northwest ...................................................... 3.0–2
Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project, facing southeast ....................................................... 3.0–2
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Chase Road Project .... 1.0–18
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request from EPD Solutions, a cultural resources study was conducted by
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA) for the proposed Chase Road
Project. The 6.84-acre (gross) study area for the project is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 0228-151-17, -18, and -19, and is located west of Citrus Avenue at the western terminus
of Chase Road, in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project is situated
in Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Devore, California topographic quadrangle map.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources within the
project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Fontana environmental
review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
As a part of this cultural resources study, BFSA conducted an archaeological records search at the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU
Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded
archaeological sites within the project or in the immediate vicinity. The records search did not
identify any previously recorded resources within the project; however, 29 resources, primarily
associated with the historic built environment, are recorded within a one-mile radius. A Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC).
A review of historic maps and aerial photographs shows that no structures have ever been
located within the property. According to the aerial photographs, the property is currently vacant
and was used agriculturally from at least 1938. The project was surveyed on November 3, 2022.
Survey conditions were good, as the property had been repeatedly disced and cleared and was
devoid of almost all vegetation. The limited vegetation within the subject property provided good
ground visibility. The archaeological survey of the Chase Road Project did not locate any cultural
resources within the subject property. Further, based on the records search results, the most
common resource types identified within one mile of the project are associated with the historic
built environment. However, the subject property did not historically contain any structures.
Given the lack of historic development/occupation within the property, coupled with the
survey results and previous ground disturbing agricultural activities, there is minimal potential for
archaeological resources to be encountered by the proposed project. As such, mitigation measures
will not be required, and monitoring of grading will not be recommended. Although no monitoring
is recommended, in the event that any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the
grading process, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and a
qualified archaeologist shall be engaged to discuss the discovery and determine if further
mitigation measures are warranted. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC
at CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated
at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The cultural resources study program for the project was conducted in order to comply
with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The project is west of Citrus Avenue
at the western terminus of Chase Road, in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(Figure 1.1–1) and includes APNs 0228-151-17, -18, -19. The 6.84-acre (gross) project is situated
within Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
as shown on the USGS (7.5-minute) Devore, California topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1.1–
2). The project applicant proposes to subdivide to property for the construction of a residential
development (Tract 20580; Figure 1.1–3).
The decision to request this investigation was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity
of the locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural
resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns. The proximity to Lytle
Creek and the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the creek are part of an environmental setting
that supported a significant prehistoric population for over 10,000 years. Regarding historic
resources, the property is located within an area that historically supported rural
residential/agricultural and commercial businesses, and structures older than 50 years of age are
common in the project vicinity.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the city of
Fontana near the western margin of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan that emanates from the San
Gabriel Mountains approximately four miles to the northeast. The deposits are a result of the uplift
and erosional dissection of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. The main source of these sediments
is from the Lytle Creek drainage, near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault
zone cuts across and separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Morton and
Miller 2006). Geomorphically, the project is relatively flat lying, with a gentle slope to the
southwest and an average elevation of approximately 1,420 feet above mean sea level. The project
is underlain by late Holocene-aged (approximately within the last few thousand years) young
alluvial-fan deposits, mostly composed of sand (Morton and Miller 2006). The specific soil types
found within the project are characterized as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
(TvC) (NRCS 2022).
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
The project historically appears to have primarily been utilized for agriculture. During the
prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food resources to support
prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during prehistoric times included
mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety
of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project during the prehistoric occupation
offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from surrounding
creeks, streams, and the Santa Ana River.
1.3 Cultural Setting
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene circa 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling
Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790)
Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region
moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition into the Late Prehistoric Period. This
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of
more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments
during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and
the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the
Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade
networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day
Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso
Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River,
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of
the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including
Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island,
this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern
California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as
the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied
at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were
comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller
family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of
primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak
groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in
sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the
locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and
included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland
resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare,
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been
at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family;
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established
lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were
politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain
seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to
exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion,
leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s)
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was
legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between
the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting
healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and
collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status, and in the case of
powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other
groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making
baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses
varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-
covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures
included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near
the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore
deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact)
cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain,
yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment
or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other
tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell
flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and
wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were
fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial
items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since
it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales
relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-
transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and
Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were
induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer,
using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family
dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take
place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole
roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband,
wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or
widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the
mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader
would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and
sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).
The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality.
Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and
piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots,
bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small
rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also
hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed
with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often
during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used
to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to
a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food
acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or
bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either
stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
(Los Angeles County), who began colonization in the region and surrounding areas (Chapman
1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California
was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given
permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from
Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through what is
now Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became more vulnerable to
theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland
to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet
their needs, the Spaniards embarked on a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations
within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of
Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla
rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name
from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama
rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California were classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and were
considered highly valuable as a result. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963).
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry established
during the earlier rancho period.
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region.
General History of the City of Fontana
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer
based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries,
Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the
Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other
properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including
almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the
United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was
formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to:
[U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These
latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and
using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the
settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long
and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them,
quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to
control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had
acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the
channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). In the early 1900s:
The use of the automobile had grown considerably … and there was a need for
better roads, the The National Old Trails (N.O.T.) Association was organized to
promote a highway between Los Angeles and New York; which was aligned close
to the tracks of the AT & Santa Fe railroad through California and Arizona, passing
through Fontana. (Whittall 2020)
In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana
Development Company purchased Rosena and by 1905, had begun the building of a farming
complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a
company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). By 1906, Miller
had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created
the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the
construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting
of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Cornford 1995).
In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe
railroad tracks. That year, Foothill Boulevard was improved “and the Automobile Club of
Southern California’s map of 1912 shows the N.O.T. highway running on the north side of the
Santa Fe Railroad, passing through Rialto and heading straight, west until reaching Cucamonga”
(Whittall 2020). Much of the land to the south of the Fontana townsite was utilized as a hog farm,
while the remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The
smaller “starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose
between grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery.
“In 1926, the N.O.T. alignment became part of the newly created U.S. Highway 66. And
it was gradually improved and widened after that date” (Whittall 2020). “By 1930 the Fontana
Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time
settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Cornford 1995).
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. The facility was financed and built by the wartime
government agency known as the Defense Plant Corporation (DPC) and was one of two steel plants
in the west (Graves 2009). To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed
the Fontana Kaiser Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care
organization in the United States. According to Cornford (1995):
For hundreds of Dustbowl refugees from the Southwest, still working in the
orchards at the beginning of World War Two, Kaiser Steel was the happy ending
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
to the Grapes of Wrath. Construction of the mill drained the San Bernardino Valley
of workers, creating an agricultural labor shortage that was not relieved until the
coming of the braceros in 1943. Kaiser originally believed that he could apply his
Richmond methods to shaping the Fontana workforce: leaving the construction
crews in place and “training them in ten days to make steel” under the guidance of
experts hired from the East. But he underestimated the craft knowledge and
folklore, communicated only through hereditary communities of steelworkers, that
were essential to making steel. Urgent appeals, therefore, were circulated through
the steel valleys of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, recruiting draft-exempt
steel specialists for Fontana.[61]
The impact of five thousand steelworkers and their families on local rusticity was
predictably shattering. The available housing stock in Fontana and western San
Bernardino County (also coveted by incoming military families) was quickly
saturated. With few zoning ordinances to control the anarchy, temporary and
substandard shelters of every kind sprouted up in Fontana and neighboring districts
like Rialto, Bloomington, and Cucamonga. Most of the original blast furnace crew
was housed in a gerrybuilt trailer park known affectionately as “Kaiserville.” Later
arrivals were often forced to live out of their cars. The old Fontana Farms colonists
came under great pressure to sell to developers and speculators. Others converted
their chicken coops to shacks and rented them to single workers—a primitive
housing form that was still common through the 1950s.[62]
Although areas of Fontana retained their Millerian charm, especially the redtiled
village center along Sierra with its art-deco theater and prosperous stores,
boisterous, often rowdy, juke joints and roadhouses created a different ambience
along Arrow Highway and Foothill Boulevard. Neighboring Rialto—presumably
the location of Eddie Mars’s casino in Chandler’s The Big Sleep —acquired a
notorious reputation as a wide-open gambling center and L.A. mob hangout (a
reputation which it has recovered in the 1990s as the capital of the Inland Empire’s
crack gangs). Meanwhile the ceaseless truck traffic from the mill, together with the
town’s adjacency to Route 66 (and, today, to Interstates 10 and 15), made Fontana
a major regional trucking center, with bustling twenty-four-hour fuel stops and
cafes on its outskirts …
Boomtown Fontana of the 1940s ceased to be a coherent community or cultural
fabric. Instead, it was a colorful but dissonant bricolage of Sunkist growers,
Slovene chicken ranchers, gamblers, mobsters, over-the-road truckers,
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
industrialized Okies, braceros, the Army Air Corps (at nearby bases), and
transplanted steelworkers and their families.
Wallis (2018) elaborates:
Towards the tail end of the war, Kaiser would propose a massive steel deal in an
attempt to rejuvenate the Kaiser steel company. This deal would expand the
company because Kaiser foresaw a spike in postwar steel production. “At one point
he became expansive in the outlining of Los Angeles’ probable role in the immense
industrial development of Southern California. [3] Kaiser had a feeling that not
only would items like washing machines and stove production spike after the war
but rail and automobile production would spike as well. “…overall steel production
of 1,800,000 a year of steel products ranging from ships, washing machines,
housing structural shapes, utensils, roofing and stoves to rails and sheet metal for
tinplate and most size pipes.” [4] Kaisers deal and his bold productions would see
the companies steel production increase greatly after the war to a point where it
actually is said to have broken steel production records. “Henry J. Kaiser said in a
year-end statement today that a record breaking 853,000 tons of steel ingots were
produced at the Fontana plant in 1948.
Following the war:
… the [Kaiser] Health Plan in Fontana went public, and with the strong support of
labor unions like the Retail Clerks International Union and the International
Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union it began to grow throughout the region.
The first facility outside of Fontana was established in Harbor City in 1950 when
the entire West Coast ILWU signed up for the plan. (Cushing 2013)
At that time, Henry Kaiser expanded his efforts beyond the steel mill itself and into experimental
aviation and mass-produced housing. Although his “venture into experimental aviation was short-
lived,” he had “substantial success” in the field of mass-produced housing. “For two decades he
had been building homes for his dam and shipyard workers, even master planning entire
communities” (Cornford 1995). “Shortly after V-J Day Kaiser dramatically announced a ‘housing
revolution’” consisting of “‘a nearly 100-mile plant-to-site assembly line’ in Southern California
(where he predicted that immigration would reach a million per year in the immediate postwar
period)” (Cornford 1995). This assembly line consisted of the “construction of ten thousand
prefabricated homes in the Westchester, North Hollywood, and Panorama City areas” (Cornford
1995):
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
After the turbulent, sometimes violent, transitions of the 1940s, Fontana settled
down into the routines of a young milltown. The Korean War boom enlarged the
Kaiser workforce by almost 50 per cent and stimulated a new immigration from the
East that reinforced the social weight of traditional steelworker families. The
company devoted new resources to organizing the leisure time of its employees,
while the union took a more active role in the community. The complex craft
subcultures of the plant intersected with ethnic self-organization to generate
competing cliques and differential pathways for mobility. At the same time, the
familiar sociology of plant-community interaction was overlaid by lifestyles
peculiar to Fontana’s Millerian heritage and its location on the borders of
metropolitan Los Angeles and the Mojave Desert. Although locals continued to
joke that Fontana was just Aliquippa with sunshine, it was evolving into a sui
generis working-class community. (Cornford 1995).
The increased immigration to the area during and after the war created a housing boom
equivalent to that seen in other areas focused upon wartime production, such as San Diego (City
of San Diego 2007) and Seattle (Stropes et al. 2019). One of the most common architectural styles
during the Post-war boom was the Minimal Traditional style. Between 1935 and 1950, the
Minimal Traditional home was one of the few designs approved by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA). “In an explosion of building at the war’s end, 5.1 million homes were built
between 1946 and 1949. Minimal Traditionals made up a significant portion of these” (McAlester
2015). “By 1950 the Minimal Traditional was being replaced by Ranch homes. Postwar prosperity
meant that larger homes could be built and financed, and the Ranch was a perfect fit for the tastes
of a new decade” (McAlester 2015).
The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952 “and shortly after, the freeway
system in LA would start to divert traffic away from Route 66” (Whittall 2020). However, despite
traffic being diverted away from the Fontana area:
In the 1950s and ’60s, Fontana was home to a drag racing strip that was a venue in
the NHRA circuit. Mickey Thompson’s Fontana International Dragway was also
referred to as Fontana Drag City or Fontana Drag Strip. The original Fontana strip
is long since defunct, but the owners of NASCAR’s new Auto Club
Speedway opened a new NHRA-sanctioned drag strip in Fontana in mid-2006 to
resurrect Fontana’s drag-racing heritage. (Kiddle Encyclopedia 2022)
“In 1964, Route 66 was replaced by the freeway and two years later, Fontana joined the city of
Duarte trying to have a large sign posted in San Bernardino to announce that Route 66 remained a
through route into Los Angeles, they failed” (Whittall 2020).
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
Kaiser Steel was eventually closed in the 1980s; however, the city has since become a
transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic
2005; City of Fontana 2018a).
Between 1980 and 1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000, assisted by
the Fontana Redevelopment Agency, who provided incentives for housing developers to build
within the city (City of Fontana 2018b; Cornford 1995). This process led to the first specific plan
and development agreement for the South Ridge residential area. Residential development
continued to grow through the 1990s; however, commercial activities in the downtown area
declined as new commercial developments near freeways and the new residential areas pulled
shopping away from the historic downtown core (City of Fontana 2018b).
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search for a one-mile radius was completed by BFSA at the
SCCIC at CSU Fullerton on November 16, 2022. The SCCIC records search did not identify any
resources within the project; however, 29 resources are recorded within one mile of the project
(Table 1.3–1). These resources primarily are associated with the built environment and historic
use of the surrounding area. Only one resource, which is situated over three-quarters of a mile
from the Chase Road Project, contained a prehistoric component.
Table 1.3–1
Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the Chase Road Project
Site Number Resource Type
P-36-006251 Historic foundations
P-36-007326 Remnants of historic residential and commercial
structures
P-36-007327 Historic foundation and cistern
P-36-010909 Historic foundations and trash scatter
P-36-014191; P-36-014192; P-36-014193;
P-36-014194; P-36-014195; P-36-014196;
P-36-014198; P-36-014199; P-36-014201;
P-36-015291; P-36-019911; P-36-019912;
P-36-019913; P-36-020338; P-36-020915;
P-36-020916; P-36-020917; and P-36-020918
Historic single-family property
P-36-014197 Historic commercial structure
P-36-014200 Historic motel
P-36-009366; P-36-015497; P-36-024621;
and P-36-024623 Historic road
P-36-009365 Multicomponent site containing a historic ranch
complex and prehistoric lithic scatter
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
The records search results also indicated that a total of 37 cultural resources studies have
been conducted within one mile of the project. One of these studies does overlap the eastern third
of the current project (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. [SRS] 1981). The SRS study included
approximately 550 acres of land primarily south and west of the Chase Road Project. Six historic
resources, primarily ranch complexes, were identified by SRS within the study area; however, it
appears that none of these resources were formally recorded as no site forms corresponding to the
sites could be found on file at the SCCIC (SRS 1981). Regardless, none of these additional
resources were identified within or adjacent to the Chase Road Project.
In addition to requesting the archaeological records search from the SCCIC, BFSA
reviewed the following historic sources:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory
• 1896, 1898, and 1901 San Bernardino (15-minute) USGS maps
• 1936, 1941, 1955, 1968, and 1980 Devore (7.5-minute) USGS maps
• 1943, 1953, 1963, 1975, and 1985 Fontana (7.5-minute) USGS maps
• Aerial photographs (1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1969, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1994, 2002,
2005, 2009, 2014, 2016, and 2018)
These sources did not indicate the presence of any archaeological resources within the
project. No structures have ever been mapped within the subject property, nor are any visible on
any of the aerial photographs. According to the aerial photographs, the property was used for
agriculture from at least 1938. A ranch complex, identified by SRS as the “Chase Ranch egg
hatcher” (1981), is visible southwest of the project on the 1938 aerial photograph. Rural residences
are visible east of the project, near Citrus Avenue on the 1948 aerial photograph, and a rural
residential property is visible directly adjacent to the east of the project, on the 1959 aerial
photograph. Between 1994 and 2016, the surrounding area slowly transitioned from agriculture
and rural residential landscapes to residential subdivisions. Despite development surrounding the
project, the property never contained structures and was historically cleared and disced multiple
times since 1938. No water drainages or freshwater resources are mapped in the immediate
vicinity of the project and no bedrock outcrops are visible on the aerial photographs. The lack of
a natural water source or other features typically associated with prehistoric sites in the area
indicate a relatively low sensitivity for prehistoric resources within the project.
1.3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
At BFSA’s discretion, a SLF search was requested from the NAHC on November 3, 2022,
to identify any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–20
importance, not recorded with the SCCIC. The NAHC results were positive for the presence of
recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of celigious or ceremonial importance. All
correspondence can be found within Appendix C.
1.4 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino
County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are
used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide
the guidance for making such a determination, as provided below.
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
(Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting
the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically
or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant
unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or
culturally significant.
3) 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 may be considered to be a historical resource, provided
the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC
SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) 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; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–21
history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), 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. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of
the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant; or,
c) 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 inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–22
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and
site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains
unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect
on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are
noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address
impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA
process.
Section 15064.5(d-e) contains additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding
Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC, as provided in PRC
SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American
burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action
implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this study is to identify any cultural resources, should they exist,
within the project. For the current project, the study area under investigation is in the city of
Fontana in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the cultural
resources study conducted for the project included the survey of the 6.84-acre (gross) property.
Given the area involved, the research goals for this project are focused upon realistic study options.
Since the main objective of the investigation is to identify the presence of and potential impacts to
cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the
development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the
identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into
consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional
research topics and issues.
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of
changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The
overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area
occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and research were
undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and
4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources
identified.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search and
an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 6.84-acre (gross) property. This study was
conducted in conformance with City of Fontana environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the
California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed
for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for an archaeological
resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO 1995).
3.1 Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard
archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the
project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey
transects set 10-meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive
areas where cultural resources might be located were closely inspected. Photographs documenting
overall survey conditions were taken frequently.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
Director of Field Operations Clarence Hoff conducted the pedestrian survey of the project
on November 3, 2022. The survey was an intensive reconnaissance consisting of a series of
transects across the project. At the time of the survey, the project was vacant and nearly devoid of
vegetation. The minimal vegetation within the project consisted primarily of non-native weeds
and grasses and ground visibility was characterized as good (approximately 75 percent). Plates
3.2‒1 and 3.2‒2 depict the conditions of the project at the time of the survey. According to the
aerial photographs, the property was used agriculturally from at least 1938, with subsequent
photographs showing multiple periods of clearing and discing. The characterization of the
property as highly disturbed was confirmed during the field survey. The survey did not result in
the identification of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project, facing northwest.
Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the project, facing southeast.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase I archaeological survey for the Chase Road Project did not locate any cultural
resources within the property. Further, the records search indicates the most common resource
types identified within one mile of the project are associated with the historic built environment.
However, the subject property did not historically contain any structures and was primarily utilized
for agriculture. Therefore, given the lack of historic development/occupation within the property
and the previous ground-disturbing activities associated with the agricultural use of the property,
there is minimal potential for archaeological resources to be encountered by the proposed project.
As such, mitigation measures will not be required, and monitoring of grading will not be
recommended.
Based upon the results of the field survey, no further archaeological study is recommended,
and no site-specific mitigation measures for cultural resources are recommended as a condition of
project approval. However, in the event that any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are
inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall
stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be engaged to discuss the discovery and determine if further
mitigation measures are warranted. Should human remains be discovered, treatment of these
remains shall follow California Public Resources Code 5097.9. Any human remains that are
determined to be Native American shall be reported to the San Bernardino County sheriff-coroner
and subsequently to the NAHC.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the project was directed by Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Director of Field Operations
Clarence Hoff. The report text was prepared by Andrew Garrison. Report graphics were provided
by Emily Soong. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Courtney McNair.
Emily Soong conducted the records search at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. Archival research was
conducted at the BFSA research library, Historicaerials.com, and the San Bernardino
Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
Anicic, John Charles, Jr.
1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms
Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society.
Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California.
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland,
California.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–2
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
City of Fontana
2018a About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
2018b Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document,
https://www.fontana.org/Document Center/View/26716/54-Cultural-Resources,
accessed June 29, 2021.
City of San Diego
2007 San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. Submitted to the State of California
Office of Historic Preservation and on file at the City of San Diego, San Diego,
California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Cornford, Danial (editor)
1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and Oxford, California.
Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Cushing, Lincoln
2013 The roots of Southern California Kaiser Permanente. Electronic document,
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/the-roots-of-southern-
california-kaiser-permanente, accessed April 18, 2022.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–3
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Gallegos, Dennis
1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual
Papers 2(1).
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego
County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast,
edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Graves, Steven M.
2009 Geography 417, California for Educators: World War II and the late 20th Century.
Electronic document, https://www.csun.edu/~sg4002/courses/417/417_lectures/
417_post_war.htm, accessed April 18, 2022.
Hall, William Hammond
1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State
Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D.
Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento.
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kiddle Encyclopedia
2022 Auto Club Speedway facts for kids. Electronic document,
https://kids.kiddle.co/Auto_Club_Speedway, accessed April 18, 2022.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–4
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. INFOTEC
Research, Inc., Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades,
California.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and
Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern
California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis on file at the University of California at
San Diego, San Diego, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. In The History of San Diego 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. In The History of San Diego 3. Union-Tribune Publishing Company,
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–5
San Diego, California.
Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History. 2nd ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
1981 Cultural Resources Report on the Rancho Fontana Project Located in the Fontana Area
of the County of San Bernardino. Unpublished report on file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton,
California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Stropes, Tracy A., J.R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith
2019 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8801 East Marginal Way Project, City of
Tukwila, King County, Washington. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished
report on file at the City of Tukwila, Tukwila, Washington.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
Wallis, Eileen V.
2018 World War II in California’s Inland Empire. Electronic document,
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/world-war-ii-in-californias-inland-empire/kaiser-steel,
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–6
accessed April 18, 2022.
Whittall, Austin
2020 The History of Route 66. Electronic document, https://www.theroute-
66.com/history.html, accessed April 18, 2022.
Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural
Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of
California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246-338.
World Forestry Center
2017 Andrew Jackson Pope (1820-1978). Electronic document, https://www.worldforestry
.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/POPE-ANDREW-JACKSON.pdf, accessed
February 26, 2019.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Mills Act application.
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Chase Road Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)