The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE BEECH AVENUE PROJECT CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APNs 1110-161-12, -13, -14 Lead Agency: City of Fontana Community Development Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 Preparer: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 ___________________ Signature Project Proponent: T & B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 September 20, 2022 Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i Archaeological Database Information Authors: Andrew J. Garrison, M.A. and Brian F. Smith, M.A. Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 Client/Project Proponent: T & B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 Report Date: September 20, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (1110-161-12, -13, - 14) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey USGS Quadrangle: Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the USGS Fontana, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle Acreage: 8.51 acres Key Words: Survey; no cultural resources identified; Fontana USGS Quadrangle; mitigation measures are not recommended. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue 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 Results* * 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 Conceptual Development Plan ..................................................................... 1.0–4 Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii List of Plates Plate Description Page Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the northeast corner, facing southwest ............ 3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing northeast ............ 3.0–2 List of Tables Table Description Page Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Beech Avenue Project ............................................................................................... 1.0–18 Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a request from T&B Planning, a cultural resources study was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) for the proposed Beech Avenue Project. The 8.51- acre study area for the project is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 1110-161-12, -13, and -14, and is located northwest of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project is situated in Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the USGS (7.5- minute) Fontana, 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 County of San Bernardino 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, 17 resources, all historic, 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 September 12, 2022. Survey conditions were excellent, as the property had been repeatedly disced and cleared and was devoid of almost all vegetation. The limited vegetation within the subject property provided excellent ground visibility. The archaeological survey of the Beech Avenue Project did not locate any cultural resources within the project. Further, the records search did not identify any recorded prehistoric resources within one-mile of the project and the most common resource types identified within the records search are associated with the historic built environment. However, the subject property did not historically contain any structures and was primarily utilized for agriculture. 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 Beech Avenue 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 located northwest of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1) and includes APNs 1110-161-12, -13, and -14. The 8.51-acre project is situated within Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the USGS (7.5-minute) Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1.1–2). The project applicant proposes to develop the property for the construction of a commercial warehouse building with associated parking and hardscape (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 six to seven miles to the northeast as a result of uplift and 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 with an average elevation of 1,277 feet AMSL. 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 2019). Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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: Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–10 There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue 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). 1.0–18 Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 2018b). 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 2018c; 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 2018c). 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 September 19, 2022. The SCCIC records search did not identify any resources within the project; however, 17 resources are recorded within one-mile of the project (Table 1.4–1). These resources all are historic and associated with the built environment consisting of Route 66, one bridge, 10 road segments, the former alignment of the Pacific Electric Railway, two residences, one highway marker, and one flood control channel. Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Within One-Mile of the Beech Avenue Project Site Number Resource Type P-36-002910 Historic highway (Route 66) P-36-015397 Historic bridge P-36-015497; P-36-024084; P-36-024087; P-36-024088; P-36-024620; P-36-024621; P-36-024622; P-36-024623; P-36-024624; and P-36-024698; Historic road P-36-020137 Historic Pacific Electric Railway alignment P-36-020309 and P-36-020310;Historic residence P-36-024625 Historic highway marker P-36-029538 Historic flood control channel The records search results also indicated that a total of 12 cultural resources studies have been conducted within one-half mile of the project. None of these studies include the subject property. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–19 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 • 1943, 1953, 1963, 1975, and 1985 Fontana (7.5-minute) USGS maps • Aerial photographs (1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1969, 1983, 1985, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2014, 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 agriculturally from at least 1938. Subsequent photographs show the property has been repeatedly cleared and disced 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. 1.3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search At BFSA’s discretion, a SLF search was requested from the NAHC on August 25, 2022, to identify any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance, not recorded with the SCCIC. At the time of this report the NAHC results are still pending. 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 Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–20 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 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: Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–21 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 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: Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–22 (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 Beech Avenue 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 8.51-acre 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 Beech Avenue 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 8.51-acre 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 15-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 Field archaeologist Mary Chitjian conducted the pedestrian survey of the project on September 12, 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. Vegetation within the project was minimal consisting of lyceum bushes, Russian thistle, and sporadic eucalyptus trees. As such, ground visibility was excellent. 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. Subsequent photographs show the property has repeatedly been cleared and disced since 1938. No structures have ever been constructed on the property and the survey did not result in the identification of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–2 Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project from the northeast corner, facing southwest. Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing northeast Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Phase I archaeological survey for the Beech Avenue Project did not locate any cultural resources within the property. Further, the records search did not identify any recorded prehistoric resources within one-mile of the project and the most common resource types identified within the records search 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 coupled with the previous ground-disturbing activities associated with agricultural, 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 Beech Avenue 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 field archaeologist Mary Chitjian. The report text was prepared by Andrew Garrison and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Emily Soong. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Jacob Tidwell. 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 Beech Avenue 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 Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–2 Chapman, Charles E. 1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York. City of Fontana 2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-Impact- Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update, accessed June 29, 2021. 2018b About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About -The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018. 2018c 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. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–3 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 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. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–4 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 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. 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. 2003 Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-418, scale 1:24,000. 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. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–5 Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. 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, 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. 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. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–6 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, 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 Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel Brian F. Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft 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. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor— included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995. Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)