HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPENDIX C – Cultural Resources Survey and ReportCULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
1
November 4, 2022
(21289)
Kelley Needham
WLC Architects
8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-0729
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Fontana Fire Station 80 Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino, California
Dear Ms. Needham,
Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) is providing this Letter Report documenting the results of a cultural resources
records search, literature review and field survey in support of the Fontana Fire Station 80 Project (Project, Proposed
Project) in the City of Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. This assessment includes a cultural resources
records search and literature review for the Project site and study area (Figure 1). The review also includes a field survey
of the entire Project site. The purpose of review is to gather and analyze information needed to assess the potential for
impacts to cultural resources within the Proposed Project site.
Project Description
The Proposed Project includes Fire Station 80 and Training Center, which will be a new facility built by the City of
Fontana in coordination with the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The Project proposes to construct an
approximately 14,663 square-foot fire station, 4,203 square-foot training center, 7,019 square-foot training tower,
along with an equipment storage area. The Project also proposes site improvements proposed include a new parking
area, outdoor training grounds, security fencing, concrete masonry wall, and landscaping.
The City of Fontana is the lead agency for the Proposed Project. An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.) and has determined that preparation of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate under CEQA.
Location and Setting
The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The
triangular shaped 2.3-acre parcel, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0228-021-460000, is situated at the northeast corner
of Cherry Avenue and South Highland Avenue (Figure 1). Cherry Avenue borders the site to the west and South Highland
Avenue borders the site to the south. The location of the Project site is in a Regional Mixed Use (RMU) section of the
city (Fontana General Plan 2021). A utility easement owned by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is adjacent to
the southeastern edge of the Project site. Flood control channels managed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District are located along the northern edge of the Project site. Route 210 (Foothill Freeway) is approximately 0.1 mile
north and Interstate 15 is located 0.5 miles to the west of the Project site. The southern foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains are approximately 2.5 miles to the north.
The Project is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Devore Quadrangle, Township 1 North, Range
6 West, Section 35. The parcels to the west, south and east of the Project site appear to have previously been used for
agriculture; land to the north has been developed. The Project site is sparsely vegetated and was previously partially
developed for grapevine cultivation. The nearest water source, the Santa Ana River, is approximately 10 miles to the
southeast.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
2
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
3
Regulatory Context
As lead agency, the City of Fontana must ensure that the Proposed Project complies with the provisions of CEQA and
determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (PRC Section 21084.1). In addition to
State regulations, proposed projects are also subject to several County of San Bernardino and City of Fontana policies
relating to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. In particular, Chapter 4 of the City of Fontana’s
Fontana Forward - General Plan Update 2015-2038 (2018) includes goals and policies pertaining specifically to cultural
and historic preservation within the City. The regulatory framework as it pertains to cultural resources under CEQA is
detailed below.
Under the provisions of CEQA, including the CEQA Statutes (PRC §§ 21083.2 and 21084.1), the CEQA Guidelines (Title
14 CCR § 15064.5), and PRC § 5024.1 (Title 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.), properties expected to be directly or indirectly
affected by a proposed project must be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR, PRC § 5024.1).
The purpose of the CRHR is to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are
to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change. The
term historical resources includes a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR; a resource
included in a local register of historical resources; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CCR § 15064.5[a]). The criteria for listing
properties in the CRHR were expressly developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1995:2)
regards “any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old” as meriting recordation and evaluation.
California Register of Historic Resources
A cultural resource is considered “historically significant” under CEQA if the resource meets one or more of the criteria
for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR was designed to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to
identify existing cultural resources within the state and to indicate which of those resources should be protected, to
the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The following criteria have been established for the
CRHR. A resource is considered significant if it:
1. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history
and cultural heritage;
2. is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the
work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain
enough of their historic character or appearance to be able to convey the reasons for their significance. Such integrity
is evaluated in regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeological
resource” as defined in PRC § 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A
unique archaeological resource is defined as follows:
▪ An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
▪ Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
4
▪ Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type
▪ Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person
▪ Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing in the CRHR nor qualify as a “unique archaeological
resource” under CEQA PRC § 21083.2 are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A non-unique archaeological
resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead
agency if it so elects” (PRC § 21083.2[h]).
Impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a
significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from a proposed project are thus considered
significant if the project:
(1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource;
(2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource,
which contributes to its significance; or
(3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the
resource.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted in 2015 and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category: tribal cultural
resources (TCRs). AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section
21084.2). AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The
consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. AB 52 requires that lead agencies
“begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have
requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency. It further states that the lead agency shall
establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when
feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features,
places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and
meets either of the following criteria:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section
5020.1(k)
▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 (in applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe)
County of San Bernardino
In addition to the State regulations, the County of San Bernardino adopted several regulations relating to historic, tribal,
and paleontological resources. The Countywide Plan, as it pertains specifically to historic, tribal, and paleontological
resource preservation within the county are included in the Policy Plan (County of San Bernardino, 2020). Cited in the
Cultural Resource Element Section of the Policy Plan, its purpose and principles are as follows:
Purpose: The Cultural Resources Element: Establishes direction on notification, coordination, and partnerships to
preserve and conserve cultural resources. Provides guidance on how new development can avoid or minimize impacts
on cultural resources. Provides direction on increasing public awareness and education efforts about cultural resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
5
Principles: We believe: Today’s generations are stewards of the county’s cultural history and are responsible for
conserving it for future generations. Preserving and celebrating cultural resources enhances our understanding of the
world in which we live. Cultural resources are valuable assets that attract visitors and support local businesses.
Goal CR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources:
Tribal cultural resources that are preserved and celebrated out of respect for Native American beliefs and traditions
▪ Policy CR-1.1 Tribal notification and coordination
o We notify and coordinate with tribal representatives in accordance with state and federal laws to
strengthen our working relationship with area tribes, avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American
archaeological sites and burials, assist with the treatment and disposition of inadvertent discoveries,
and explore options of avoidance of cultural resources early in the planning process.
▪ Policy CR-1.2 Tribal planning
o We will collaborate with local tribes on countywide planning efforts and, as permitted or required,
planning efforts initiated by local tribes.
▪ Policy CR-1.3 Mitigation and avoidance
o We consult with local tribes to establish appropriate project-specific mitigation measures and
resource-specific treatment of potential cultural resources. We require project applicants to design
projects to avoid known tribal cultural resources, whenever possible. If avoidance is not possible, we
require appropriate mitigation to minimize project impacts on tribal cultural resources.
▪ Policy CR-1.4 Resource monitoring
o We encourage active participation by local tribes as monitors in surveys, testing, excavation, and
grading phases of development projects with potential impacts on tribal resources.
Goal CR-2 Historic and Paleontological Resources:
Historic resources (buildings, structures, or archaeological resources) and paleontological resources that are protected
and preserved for their cultural importance to local communities as well as their research and educational potential.
▪ Policy CR-2.1 National and State Historic Resources
o We encourage the preservation of archaeological sites and structures of state or national significance
in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s standards.
▪ Policy CR-2.2 Local historic resources
o We encourage property owners to maintain the historic integrity of resources on their property by
(listed in order of preference): preservation, adaptive reuse, or memorialization.
▪ Policy CR-2.3 Paleontological and archaeological resources
o We strive to protect paleontological and archaeological resources from loss or destruction by requiring
that new development include appropriate mitigation to preserve the quality and integrity of these
resources. We require new development to avoid paleontological and archeological resources
whenever possible. If avoidance is not possible, we require the salvage and preservation of
paleontological and archeological resources.
▪ Policy CR-2.4 Partnerships
o We encourage partnerships to champion and financially support the preservation and restoration of
historic sites, structures, and districts.
▪ Policy CR-2.5 Public awareness and education
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
6
o We increase public awareness and conduct education efforts about the unique historic, natural, tribal,
and cultural resources in San Bernardino County through the County Museum and in collaboration
with other entities.
City of Fontana
In addition to State regulations, projects built in the City of Fontana are also subject to the following goals and policies
outlined in the City of Fontana’s Fontana Forward - General Plan Update 2015-2038 (2018). Specifically, Chapter 4:
Community and Neighborhoods section of the General Plan outlines the City’s goals, policies, and actions relating to
archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources.
Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods; Section B: Goals and Policies
Goals Historic and Cultural Preservation:
▪ The integrity and character of historic structures, and cultural resources sites within the City of Fontana are
preserved.
Policies:
o Coordinate city programs and policies to support preservation goals.
o Support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives.
o Collaborate with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local tribal organizations about
land development that may affect Native American cultural resources and artifacts.
▪ Residents’ and visitors’ experience of Fontana is enhanced by a sense of the city’s history.
Policies:
o Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and the economic benefits of
historic preservation in Fontana.
o Support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum.
▪ Archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
Policies:
o Collaborate with state archaeological agencies to protect resources.
E. Policies and Actions to Achieve the Goals
Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures, cultural resources sites and overall historic character of the
City of Fontana is maintained and enhanced.
Policies:
▪ Coordinate City programs and policies to support preservation goals.
▪ Support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives.
▪ Designate local historic landmarks.
▪ Provide appropriate tools to review changes that may detract from historic integrity and character.
Actions:
A. Designate a staff person in the Planning Division with responsibility for historic and cultural resource
issues and as a liaison to the Fontana Historical Society.
B. Establish and maintain a thorough inventory of historic sites to be kept in the
Planning Division and at the Fontana Historical Society.
C. Review the Historic Resources Inventory prepared in the 1990s and other
resources to develop an authoritative listing.
D. Create a ranking system and priority list to identify the most important historic
sites in Fontana to ensure that these sites are protected by Article XIII of the Fontana Code.
E. Seek assistance in reviewing and completing the Historic Resources Inventory, creating a priority list,
and researching and preparing any sites to submit to listing.
Goal 2: Residents’ and visitors’ experiences of Fontana are enhanced by a sense of the city’s history.
Policies:
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
7
▪ Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and the economic benefits of
historic preservation in Fontana.
▪ Support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum.
Actions:
A. Inform owners about the historic value of their properties.
B. Create a program of historic plaques and markers in collaboration with the Historical Society.
Provide a history of the property and a building plaque in return for a contribution to the Historical
Society.
C. Provide information and assistance for owners of historic properties who do not require a
Certificate of Appropriateness to encourage them to retain the historic value of their properties
when making alterations.
D. Establish the Fontana Historical Museum.
E. Establish programs to inform residents and visitors about Fontana’s history.
F. Develop a brochure and/or a podcast for self-guided historical tours of Fontana, including all
aspects of the city’s history.
G. Create roadside and building markers for important locations in Fontana history, regardless of
whether a historic structure remains on the site.
H. Provide a yearly presentation to schools in Fontana about the city’s history.
I. Incorporate Route 66 history into revitalization design for Foothill Boulevard.
Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
Policy:
▪ Collaborate with state agencies to protect cultural and archaeological resources.
Actions:
A. Continue to ensure that proper protocols are observed in development proposals for sites with
potential archaeological significance.
B. Include cultural and archaeological sites and Native American history and archaeology in programs
about Fontana history.
Environmental Setting
The City of Fontana is located in the San Bernardino Valley, south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, which
in addition to the San Bernardino Mountains form the Traverse Mountain Ranges. The San Bernardino Valley is
bordered on the north by the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains, on the east by the San
Jacinto Mountains, on the south by the Temescal Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains, and on the west by the Pomona
Valley. The area is characterized by the presence of decomposing granite derived from the nearby hillsides and
windborne or water-borne alluvial deposits. The University of California, Davis SoilWeb database was consulted to
identify soils that underlie the Project site. The database indicates that the property is underlain by the Hanford (HaC)
soil association, which consists of coarse sandy loam with slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent (2022).
The Project site is generally located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County on the San Gabriel alluvial
fan. Sediments from the San Gabriel Mountains have washed into the valleys below over thousands of years forming
this fan. The Project site is situated atop a geologic formation of Pleistocene to Holocene age sediments comprised
largely of marine and non-marine (continental) sedimentary rocks described as alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace
deposits; both unconsolidated and semi-consolidated (Jennings 2010; Morton and Miller 2006). At the surface and
immediate subsurface, the sediments are Holocene in age (less than 11,000 years old). Deeper sediments in the valley
areas are Pleistocene in age, ranging from 2.6 million to 11,000 years old (Morton and Miller 2006).
In Southern California, the middle Pleistocene is generally associated with a pre-human presence, although recent
research suggests early human exploration of North America earlier in the Late Pleistocene than previously
documented. Fossil specimens are also associated with the Pleistocene, particularly in areas where deposits are
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
8
referred to as “older Alluvium.” The Holocene is the most recent geologic period and one that is directly associated
with human activity. The Holocene is also generally associated with “younger Alluvium,” which tend not to be fossil
bearing, except in instances where fossils have been redeposited (Morton and Miller 2006).
Native vegetation in the area has generally been denominated by the chapparal community, which includes species
such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), California or wild buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), white sage (Salvia apiana), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla),
bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis),
woolly blue curls (Trichostema lanatum), canyon sunflower (Venegasia carpesioides), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), coast
prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), lupines (Lupinus spp.), and grasses (Calscape 2022).
Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Overview
During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural
changes within all or portions of Southern California (Moratto 1984; Jones and Klar 2007). A prehistoric chronology was
devised for the Southern California coastal region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included
four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric (Wallace 1955, 1978). Though initially lacking
the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), Wallace’s 1955 synthesis has been modified and
improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by Southern California researchers over recent decades (Byrd
and Raab 2007:217; Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002). The prehistoric chronological sequence for
Southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies,
including Koerper and Drover (1983).
It is generally believed that human occupation of Southern California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP).
The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000 and 6,000 years BP, a predominantly hunting
and gathering economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and
butchered large animal bones. The most heavily exploited species were likely those species still alive today. Bones of
extinct species have been found but cannot definitively be associated with human artifacts in California, unlike other
regions of the continent. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological
sites of this period, small game and vegetal foods were likely exploited. A lack of deep cultural deposits from this period
suggests small groups practiced high residential mobility during this period (Wallace 1978).
The three major periods of prehistory for the greater Los Angeles Basin region have been refined by recent research
using radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in coastal Southern California (Koerper and Drover 1983; Mason and
Peterson 1994):
▪ Millingstone Period (6,000–1,000 B.C., or about 8,000–3,000 years ago)
▪ Intermediate Period (1,000 B.C.–A.D. 650, or 3,000–1,350 years ago)
▪ Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 650–about A.D. 1800, or 1,350–200 years ago)
Around 6,000 years BP, a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on vegetal resources occurred.
Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for
processing seeds and other vegetable matter (Wallace 1978). This period, known to archaeologists as the Millingstone
Period, was a long period of time characterized by small, mobile groups that likely relied on a seasonal round of
settlements that included both inland and coastal residential bases. Seeds from sage and grasses, rather than acorns,
provided calories and carbohydrates. Faunal remains from sites dating to this period indicate similar animals were
hunted. Inland Millingstone sites are characterized by numerous manos, metates, and hammerstones. Shell middens
are common at coastal Millingstone sites. Coarse-grained lithic materials, such as quartzite and rhyolite, are more
common than fine-grained materials in flaked stone tools from this time. Projectile points are found in archaeological
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
9
sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 6,000 years BP. An increase in
the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period
(Wallace 1978).
In sites post-dating roughly 3,000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates the reliance on both plant gathering and
hunting continued but was more specialized and locally adapted to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were
added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Chipped-stone tools became more
refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common. During this period, new peoples from the Great Basin
began entering Southern California. These immigrants, who spoke a language of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, seem
to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. The exact time of their entry into the
region is not known; however, they were present in Southern California during the final phase of prehistory. During this
period, population densities were higher than before; and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities
along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). During the Intermediate Period, mortars and
pestles appeared, indicating the beginning of acorn exploitation. Use of the acorn – a high-calorie, storable food source
– probably facilitated greater sedentism and increased social organization. Large projectile points from archaeological
sites of this period indicate that the bow and arrow, a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric Period, had not yet been
introduced; and hunting was likely accomplished using the atlatl (spear thrower) instead. Settlement patterns during
this time are not well understood. The semi-sedentary settlement pattern characteristic of the Late Prehistoric Period
may have begun during the Intermediate Period, although territoriality may not yet have developed because of lower
population densities. Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and
language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups
encountered by the first Europeans during the eighteenth century (Wallace 1978). Despite the regional differences,
many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The
Late Prehistoric Period is better understood than earlier periods largely through ethnographic analogy made possible
by ethnographic and anthropological research of the descendants of these groups in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.
Ethnographic Overview
The Project site lies within an area known to be transitionally occupied by both the Gabrielino who’s villages stretched
from the Pacific coast, east to the edge of the San Bernardino Mountains where the Serrano people have resided for
many generations, and the Cahuilla in the mountains to the Southeast.
Gabrielino
The Gabrielino (sometimes spelled Gabrieliño, Gabrieleno or Gabrieleño), are Cupan speakers. The Cupan languages
are part of the Takic family, which is part of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. Their tribal territory included the
watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers, all of the Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek
in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina. Villages
or triblets were politically autonomous and made up of different lineages. Each lineage had its own leader and would
seasonally leave the village to collect resource items (Bean and Smith 1978). Tribal boundaries were not fixed and
overlapped with neighboring people, including Chumash (Barbareño, Ventureño, Purisimeño, Obispeño, Ineseño,
Cruzeño, Emigdiano, and the Cuyama Chumash), Fernandeño Tataviam, Serrano, Cahuilla, Acjachemen (Juaneño), and
Luiseño cultural groups. These overlaps historically have been a source of confusion, contest, conflict, and opportunity,
which has persisted to this day.
Gabrielino material culture incorporates a variety of tools, including saws made from deer scapulae, bone or shell
needles, fishhooks and awls, scrapers, flakers (of bone or shell), wedges, hafted or unhafted lithic or cane knives, and
lithic drills. Food preparation items included bedrock and portable mortars, metates, mullers, shell spoons, and mealing
brushes. Wooden items include stirrers, paddles, bark platters, wooden bowls (often inlaid with Haliotis shell). Pottery
vessels were made by coiling technique and paddle and anvil (Blackburn 1962-1963). The Gabrielino were noted for
their objects made of steatite, usually obtained from Santa Catalina Islands, where a veritable steatite industry
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
10
flourished, either in raw or finished form. The steatite was used in making animal carvings, pipes, "ritual" objects,
ornaments, and cooking utensils. Utilitarian items were frequently decorated with shell inlaid in asphaltum, rare
minerals, carvings, and painting, and comparable in quality and excellence to that of the Chumash (Bean and Smith
1978).
Houses were domed, circular structures thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo, and in some cases, "so spacious that each
will hold fifty people" (Johnston 1962), capable of supporting three or four families living in each one (Costansó 1911).
For groups located near the sea, the doorways opened seaward, to avoid the north wind (Harrington 1942). Other
structures commonly found in villages included sweathouses (small, semicircular, earth-covered buildings used for
pleasure and as a clubhouse or meeting place for adult males), menstrual huts, and a ceremonial enclosure, the yuva·r.
Ayuva'r was built near the chief's house and was essentially an open-air enclosure, oval in plan, made with willows
inserted wicker fashion among willow stakes, decorated with eagle and raven feathers, skins, and flowers, and
containing inside the enclosure painted and decorated poles. Consecrated anew before every ceremony, these
ceremonial enclosures were the centers for activities relating to the Chingichngish cult. The religious beliefs and rituals
of the cult originated in the Gabrielino territory and found its way to, and significantly influenced, non-Gabrielino groups
(Bean and Smith 1978).
Typically, men hunted, fished, assisted in some gathering activities, and conducted most trading ventures. Large land
mammals were hunted with bow and arrow, while smaller game was taken with deadfalls, snares, and traps, or in
communal hunts with nets, bow and arrows, and throwing clubs (Blackburn 1962-1963). Along the coast harpoons,
spear throwers, and clubs were used. Fishing, typically, took place along shore or along rivers, streams, and creeks with
the use of hook and line, nets, basketry traps, spears, bow and arrow, and vegetal poisons. Deep-sea fishing and trading
expeditions also occurred between island and mainland groups and were undertaken from boats made of wooden
planks lashed and asphalted together. Women were involved mainly in collecting and preparing most floral and some
animal food resources, as well as the production of baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978).
During the Spanish missionization period people from greater area would have been incorporated into the San Gabriel
mission. Whether they were Serrano, Cahuilla, Fernandeño Tataviam, Chumash or local Gabrielino, all would have been
identified as Gabrielino, or as belonging to Mission San Gabriel. Indeed, even Fernandeño people have been collectively
grouped within Gabrielino ethnographic treatments. Today, Fernandeño Tataviam, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-
Kihz Nation, and the Gabrielino-Tongva Indian Tribe identify as individual groups.
Serrano
Despite their Spanish-given name of “Mountaineers” Serrano territory included not only the San Bernardino Mountains
east of Cajon Pass, but also the base and areas north of the San Bernardino mountains out to the desert near Victorville,
eastward as far as Twentynine Palms, and south to and in the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978). The Serrano were
organized into localized lineages occupying favored territories but rarely claiming any territory far from the lineage’s
home base, and as there were neither political unity or organized supralineal groups tribal holdings were only generally
organized and use areas ill-defined (Bean and Smith 1978). The estimated population of the Serrano before European
contact was 1,500-2,500. It has been difficult to estimate the number of people that resided in each village; however,
it is likely that individual villages held only as many as could be accommodated by water sources (Stickle and Weinman-
Roberts 1980). Most village-hamlets were in the foothill Upper Sonoran life-zone while a few were out on the desert
floor (near permanent water sources) or in the forest Transition zone (Bean and Smith 1978). Like their neighbors
Kitanemuk, and Vanyume to the north, the Serrano spoke a dialect of the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic
stock termed Serran, which differed from Cupan speakers such as the Cahuilla and Gabrielino to the south.
Typical Serrano dwellings were circular, domed structures built over an excavated area. These structures were large
enough to contain fire pits, and primarily served as sleeping areas. Ceremonial houses were the only other buildings in
the villages and were normally occupied by the village priest (Stickle and Weinman-Roberts 1980).
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
11
Serrano artifact assemblage is noted to be similar to that of the neighboring Cahuilla and includes musical instruments
such as rattles and flutes; utensils and ornaments such as fire drills, mortars, metates, pipes, beads, awls, and projectile
points from wood, shell, bone, and stone. The Serrano were noted for their pottery and baskets. Their pots were made
of coiled clay smoothed out with a paddle and set in the sun to dry before being fired in a pit. The brownware was
sometimes decorated with designs of circles and lines of either red or black (Stickle and Weinman-Roberts 1980).
The Serrano were also known for their petroglyphs. Abstract and geometric designs are often seen with
representational figures of sheep, lizards and human beings. Some state that their petroglyphs were records of
important events, rough maps, and artistic representations of native life (Stickle and Weinman-Roberts 1980).
Cahuilla
The Cahuilla, along with the Luiseño and the Gabrielino, are one of the most southwesterly of the Shoshonean or Uto-
Aztecan speakers. They are members of the Takic branch of this large language family. Traditional Cahuilla territory
originally included western and part of central Riverside County and extended into northeastern San Diego and
northwestern Imperial counties. The western boundary generally followed the Santa Ana, Elsinore, and Palomar
Mountains. The northern boundary extended north of Riverside to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
Cahuilla territory extended east to include the Coachella Valley and down the valley as far south as the approximate
middle of the Salton Sea. The approximate southern territorial limits included Borrego springs and the south end of the
Santa Rosa Mountains. The Cahuilla territory consisted of the Mountain, the Pass or Western, and the Desert divisions
(Bean 1978; Hooper 1920:316; Strong 1929).
According to Kroeber (1925), Cahuilla society consisted of two ceremonial divisions or moieties: wildcat and coyote.
People were further divided into somewhat localized, patrilineal clans. Each clan had a chief: net in Cahuilla (Kroeber
1925). Some villages contained people of only one clan, but other villages had more than one clan. Also, people of one
clan might live in more than one village. Chiefs were usually chosen by heredity. The chief typically was a religious
leader of the larger social group, from which the chief drew certain wealth. A chief ordered ceremonies, but it was his
assistant, the paha', who executed them. Choice hunting and gathering areas were owned by the clan. The clan chief
also settled intraclan disputes and met with other nets to solve interclan problems and organize ceremonies among
clans.
The Cahuilla sustained themselves through hunting, gathering, and fishing. Major villages were fully occupied during
the winter; but, during other seasons, task groups made periodic forays to collect various plant foods, with larger
groupings from several villages organizing for the annual acorn harvest (Bean and Saubel 1972). Bean and Saubel (1972)
have recorded the use of several hundred species of plants used for food, building/artifact materials, and medicines.
The major plant foods included acorns, pinyon nuts, and various seed-producing legumes. Agave, wild fruits and berries,
tubers, cactus bulbs, roots and greens, and seeds complemented these.
Hunting focused on both small and medium-sized mammals, such as rodents and rabbits, and large mammals, such as
pronghorn sheep, mountain sheep, and mule deer. Hunting was done using the throwing stick or the bow and arrow,
although nets and traps were also used for small animals (Bean 1972).
Cahuilla material culture included dome-shaped to rectangular type houses; aboveground granaries; baskets, pottery,
and grinding implements; throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, dead falls with seed triggers, spring-poled snares, arrows
and self-backed and sinew-backed bows. They sometimes fired bush clumps to drive game out in the open and flares
to attract birds at night. Baskets of various kinds were used for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching,
storing, and cooking. Pottery vessels were used for carrying water, for storage, cooking, and serving food and drink.
Cahuilla tools included mortars and pestles; manos and metates; fire drills; awls; arrow-straighteners; flint knives;
wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; scrapers; and hammerstones. Woven rabbit-skin blankets served to keep
people warm in cold weather. Feathered costumes were worn for ceremonial events; and at these events the Cahuilla
made music using rattles derived from insect cocoon, turtle and tortoise shell, and deer-hoofs, along with wood rasps,
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
12
bone whistles, bull-roarers, and flutes, to make music. They wove bags, storage pouches, cords, and nets from the fibers
of yucca, agave, and other plants (Drucker 1937; Bean 1972, 1978).
Historic Overview
Post-European contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period
(1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848– present). Briefly, and in very general
terms, the Spanish Period encompassed the earliest historic-period explorations of the West, bringing colonization,
missionization and proselytization across the western frontier, the establishment of major centers such as Los Angeles
and Monterey and a line of missions and presidios with attendant satellite communities, along with minor prospecting,
and a foundational economic structure based on the rancho system.
The Mexican Period initiated with a continuation of the same structures; however, commensurate with the political
changes that led to the establishment of the Mexican state the missions and presidios were secularized, the lands
parceled, and Indian laborers released. Increased global trade introduced both foreign and American actors into the
Mexican economic and political sphere, both coincidentally, and purposefully, smoothing the transition to the American
Period. The American Period was ushered in with a momentous influx of people seeking fortune in the Sierra foothills
where gold was “discovered” in 1848.
By the early 1850s people from all over the globe had made their way to California. Expansive industries were required
to supply the early mining operations, such as forestry products, food networks to supply grains, poultry, cattle, and
water systems, which intensified the early Mexican Period structures of ranches and supply chains, as well as the
development and expansion of port cities to supply hard goods and clothes, animals, and people that moved across
vastly improved trail and road networks. California cycled through boom and bust for several decade until World War I
when the Department of the Navy began porting war ships along the west coast. Subsequently, California has grown,
and contracted, predominantly around military policy along the west coast, and the Pacific Ocean. Following the
industrial expansion related to World War II and the Cold War, technology and systems associated have come to fore
as economic drivers.
City of Fontana
The City of Fontana is considered part of the “Inland Empire” in San Bernardino County due its location around
numerous lakes, mountains, desert areas and close proximity to Los Angeles. Fontana is located within San Bernardino
Valley, which became more widely settled once the Southern (Union) Pacific Railroad line between San Francisco and
Los Angeles was completed in 1876. Having been founded in 1913, Fontana began as an agricultural community and
quickly became a thriving industrial town by 1942 due to the opening of the Henry J. Kaiser Steel Mill, which operations
were largely geared towards supporting the efforts made during World War II (WWII). This in turn allowed for a large
percentage of the population to have a primary source of employment, even after the war had ended; the Kaiser Steel
Mill closed operations in 1984 (City 2022).
Additionally, the original Fontana Kaiser Permanente Facility and Hospital establishment owe its namesake to Mr. Henry
Kaiser, as he produced an innovative and effective health care program over concerns for public welfare during the
Great Depression and WWII. As we have seen, the Kaiser Permanente health system has grown to become vast
throughout many states in the Unites States (City 2022).
The City of Fontana also has an early history of being part of the Commerce Department’s network of airfields set up
along airways between major cities. The Fontana Gilfillan Airport, which has had a few different names over the years,
was first recorded on the June 1932 LA Sectional Chart, and was at that time called the “Fontana Intermediate Field.”
It was depicted as a commercial/municipal airport and labeled as a Landing Field. During WWII, the airport was used as
a night training field for the Cal Aero Cadets and was called “Cal-Aero” on the 1947 LA Local Aeronautical Chart. The
first aerial image is from 1948 and shows two very side but short, parallel, paved runways with several small buildings
near the field, along with five single-engine aircraft (Airfields-Freeman.com 2021).
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
13
In the 1950s, the “Fontana Airport” became the site of radar testing flight operations for the Gilfillan Brothers, who
were pioneers in the further development of GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radar; the technology had been
initially developed by MIT during WWII (Airfields-Freeman.com 2021). The 1954 USGS topographical map reflects the
“Gilfillan Airport.” The Fontana Airport would go on to be used for testing vast amounts of radar systems produced by
the Gilfillans and was named “Fontana Gilfillan on the 1965 LA Local Area Aeronautical Chart. The runways were still
depicted on the 1998 USGS topographical map, however, it soon ceased operations, and in 2001 a housing development
was building on the airport site location (Airfields-Freeman.com 2021).
Since Fontana’s incorporation in 1952, and with its sphere of influence, the City now encompasses an area of
approximately 52 square miles and boasts a population of over 213,000. As the City continues to grow, due to its close
proximity to the historic Union Pacific Railroad and major freeways (I-10, I-15, and SR-210), it remains to be a vital hub
for the supply chain. Additionally, the Fontana Metrolink station provides an additional commuting option for residents
working in the larger Los Angeles metropolitan area (City 2022).
Methods of Review
Chambers Group requested a records search from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South
Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Riverside on March 25, 2021. Results were
received on July 9, 2021, providing information on all documented cultural resources and previous archaeological
investigations within one mile of the Project site. A one-mile study area was requested to provide additional context to
the Project site and surrounding area and more information on which to base this review. These results have been
incorporated into this report and are included in Attachment B. Resources consulted during a records search conducted
by the SCCIC include the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI),
Caltrans Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, local registries of historic
properties, and a review of available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as well as historical photographs, maps, and aerial
imagery. The task also includes a search for potential prehistoric and/or historic burials (human remains) evident in
previous site records and/or historical maps. On May 20, 2021, Chambers Group also submitted a request to the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of the Sacred Land Files (SLF) for the Project site and surrounding
vicinity. On June 7, 2021, results of the SLF records search were received and are detailed below and included in
Attachment A.
In addition, on May 20, 2021, Chambers Group requested a paleontological records search from the Western Science
Center (WSC). This information was requested with the intent to provide further context related to the paleontological
sensitivity of the area based on known fossil locations identified within the Project site or one-mile study area. The
paleontological records provide insight into what associated geological formations are more likely to contain fossils as
well as the associated depths and placement of the known fossil locals relative to the geological formations in the area.
On June 1, 2021, Chambers Group received the results of the records search.
Chambers Group archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist Ken Hazlett conducted a cultural resources Phase I
intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area on February 18, 2022. The cultural resources survey consisted of
systematic surface inspection of all areas with transects walked at 10-meter intervals to ensure that any evidence of
surface-exposed cultural materials and/or evidence of paleontological resources could be identified. Chambers Group
examined the ground surface for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone
milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discoloration that might indicate the presence
of a cultural midden, roads and trails, and depressions and other features that might indicate the former presence of
structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations). The Project development area was photographed using a digital
camera and any on-site data was recorded using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit with sub-meter
accuracy. Chambers Group has all field notes, photographs, geodata, and other records related to the current study on
file.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
14
Project Personnel
Chambers Group Cultural Resources Department Lead Lucas Tutschulte managed the Project and co-authored the
report. Chambers Group archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist Ken Hazlett performed the cultural resources
survey and co-authored the report. Chambers Group Cultural Resources Specialists Kellie Kandybowicz and Eduvijes
Davis-Mullens conducted the background research and co-authored the report. Richard Shultz, MA, RPA, served as
Principal Investigator for cultural resources, and performed quality control for the report.
Cultural Resources Reports within the Study Area
Results of the CHRIS records search indicate that 34 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted
within a one-mile study area surrounding the Project site. Of the 34 investigations, three included the Proposed Project
site (SB-02621, SB-03050, SB-07990) and have been bolded and italicized in the following table. Further details
pertaining to these previous investigations are listed in Table 1 and are included in Attachment B.
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the One-Mile Study Area
Report
Number Year Author Title Resources Within Project
Boundary?
SB-01189 1981 Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Cultural Resources Report on The Rancho
Fontana Project Located in The Fontana
Area of The County of San Bernardino
No
SB-01501 1985 Mason, Roger D. Cultural Resource Survey Report for The
Etiwanda Pipeline and Power Plant EIR
No
SB-01506 1985 Swope, Karen K.
and Meg
McDonald
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Archaeological Assessment of Tentative
Tract 13000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California
No
SB-01582 1986 Lerch, Michael K. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory: San
Sevaine Creek Water Project, San
Bernardino County, California
36-005569,
36-033130 No
SB-01655 1987 Lerch, Michael K. Cultural Resource Field Reconnaissance:
Caryn Project, West Valley Foothills
Community Plan
No
SB-02033 1990 McKenna, Jeanette
A.
A Phase I Archaeological Investigation of The
Proposed Lewis Homes' Project Area,
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
No
SB-02041 1989 Hammond,
Stephen R.
Negative Archaeological Survey Report:
Route 15, 30, Post Mile 7.6/9.3, 11.8/13.1
No
SB-02413 1991 Sutton, Paula A. First Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report for The Construction of The
Interstate 15/State Route 30 Interchange in
The Cities of Ranch Cucamonga and Fontana
in San Bernardino County, CA
36-006901
No
SB-02621 1992 Alexandrowicz, J.
Steven, Anne Q.
Duffield-Stoll,
Jeanette A.
Mckenna, Susan R.
Alexandrowicz,
Cultural And Paleontological Resources
Investigations Within the North Fontana
Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California
36-004296,
36-006110,
36-006111,
36-006251,
36-006583,
36-006584,
36-006585,
Yes
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
15
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the One-Mile Study Area
Report
Number Year Author Title Resources Within Project
Boundary?
Arthur A. Kuhner,
And Eric Scott
36-006586,
36-006587,
36-006588,
36-006589,
36-006807,
36-006808,
36-006809,
36-006810,
36-006811,
36-006812,
36-006813,
36-006814,
36-006815,
36-006816
SB-02851 1993 Landis, Daniel G. A Cultural Resources Survey for The Chino
Basin Groundwater Storage Program, San
Bernardino County, CA
36-006254,
36-006810,
36-006901,
36-007323,
36-007661,
36-007792,
36-007793,
36-007794
No
SB-03050 1995 McKenna,
Jeanette A.
A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance
Survey of Westgate Property (1000 +/-
Acres) In the City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA
36-006901
Yes
SB-03172 1996 McKenna, Jeanette
A., and Richard S.
Shepard
A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of
The Landings 750 LLC Project Area, A 200 +/-
Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 51pp
36-009363,
36-009364,
36-009365 No
SB-03173 1997 McKenna, Jeanette
A. And Richard S.
Shepard
Phase III Cultural Resources Investigation:
Archaeological Monitoring Program for The
Landings 750 LLC Project Area, A 200 +/-
Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 45pp
36-009363,
36-009364,
36-009365,
36-009366
No
SB-03174 1996 McKenna, Jeanette
A., and Richard S.
Shepard
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of
The Summit Heights Project Area, Located in
North Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA.
35pp
36-009367,
36-009368,
36-009369,
36-009370
No
SB-04019 2002 McKenna, Jeanette
A.
A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of
The Tentative Tract 16291, The Russo
Property, In the City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 42pp
No
SB-04023 2002 McKenna, Jeanette
A.
Archaeological Monitoring, Fontana
Property. 7pp
No
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
16
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the One-Mile Study Area
Report
Number Year Author Title Resources Within Project
Boundary?
SB-04206 2003 Hammond,
Stephen
Inland Empire Traffic Management Center.
7pp
No
SB-04547 2005 Shepard, Richard Cultural Resources Assessment: Fairfield
Apartments Project Site, APN: 0226-135-03,
Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 7pp
No
SB-04549 2004 Shepard, Richard Cultural Resource Assessment: Sommerville-
Conzelman/Covenant Project Site,
APN:0228-021-20, Fontana, San Bernardino
County, CA. 7pp
No
SB-04554 2004 Dice, Michael, and
Marnie Vianna
An Archaeological Resources Evaluation &
Paleontological Records Search for The
Chaffey High School #9 Project, San Sevaine
& Walnut Ave, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 33pp
No
SB-04559 2003 Berryman, Judy A. Cultural Resources Survey of 250 Acres on
the Western Edge & Proposed Fence line for
The Rifle Ranges & Revaluation of A Portion
Of CA-SBR-8318, Mclb, Barstow, CA. 80pp
36-008318,
36-011294,
36-011295,
36-011296,
36-011297,
36-011298,
36-011299,
36-011300,
36-011301,
36-064594,
36-064595,
36-064596,
36-064597,
36-064598,
36-064599,
36-064600,
36-064601,
36-064602,
36-064603,
36-064604,
36-064605,
36-064606
No
SB-04679 2006 Goodwin, Riordan,
Hansen, Janet,
Judith Marvin, and
Laura S. White
Historical Resources Evaluation Report and
Archaeological Survey Report for the Pacific
Electric Inland Empire Trail, Phase I, City of
Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
CA
36-016448,
36-020136,
36-020137,
36-020138
No
SB-05911 No
Data
No Data No Data No Data No
SB-05997 2008 Smallwood, Josh,
John J. Eddy, Harry
M. Quinn, and
Identification and Evaluation of Historic
Properties: Monitoring Wells and Lysimeters
for Victoria and San Sevaine Flood Control
No
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
17
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the One-Mile Study Area
Report
Number Year Author Title Resources Within Project
Boundary?
Laura Hensley
Shaker
Basins in the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga
and Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California.
SB-05999 2008 Tang, Bai “Tom”,
John J. Eddy, Harry
M. Quinn, Terri
Jacquemain, Daniel
Ballester, and
Laura Hensley
Shaker
Identification and Evaluation of Historic
Properties: Northeast Recycled Water
Expansion Projects in and near the Cities of
Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
No
SB-06000 2008 Tang, Bai “Tom”,
John J. Eddy, Harry
M. Quinn, Terri
Jacquemain, Daniel
Ballester, and
Laura Hensley
Shaker
Extended Phase I Historical/Archaeological
Resources Study: Northeast Recycled Water
Expansion Projects in and near the Cities of
Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
No
SB-06492 No
Data
No Data No Data No Data No
SB-06534 2009 Bonner, Wayne H.,
and Arabesque
Said
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site
Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate
Cherry line, 14337 Baseline Avenue,
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
No
SB-06907 No
Data
No Data No Data No Data No
SB-07401 2013 Tang, Bai "Tom",
Deirdre
Encarnacion, Terri
Jacquemain, and
Daniel Ballester
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood
Control Project, in and near the City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
No
SB-07906 2015 Pigniola, Andrew R. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
TTM19917 Subdivision Project Rancho
Cucamonga, California
No
SB-07990 2014 George, Joan, and
Josh Smallwood
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for
the Etiwanda Pipeline North Relining
Project, Cities of Fontana and Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California
36-002910,
36-006901,
36-015497,
36-016454,
36-020137,
36-024086
Yes
SB-08257 2016 Tang, Bai Due-Diligence Historical/Archaeological
Resources Study Inland Empire Utilities
Agency Recharge Basin Maintenance Plan
Chino Basin Area, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California CRM TECH
Contract No. 2989
No
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
18
Table 1: Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the One-Mile Study Area
Report
Number Year Author Title Resources Within Project
Boundary?
SB-08269 2017 Bryne, Stephen,
Gary Jones, and
Gabrielle Duff
Archaeological Survey Report Interstate 15
(1-15) Corridor Project
36-002910,
36-006901 No
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area
The CHRIS records search also identified 10 previously recorded cultural resources located within the one-mile record
search radius of the Project site. Of these previously recorded resources, none were mapped within the Project site.
The results are summarized in Table 2 and are included in Attachment B.
Table 2: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the One-Mile Study Area
Primary Number Trinomial Resource Names Site
Type
Within Project
Boundary?
P-36-007324 CA-SBR-007324 Historic
Farm/Vineyard No
P-36-007325 CA-SBR-007325 Historic Site No
P-36-009363 CA-SBR-009363H Johnson/Miller Complex Historic Site No
P-36-009364 CA-SBR-009364H S. And M. Biocima
Residential Complex
Historic Site No
P-36-009365 CA-SBR-009365H Otteson Property Historic Site, Building
and Structure;
Prehistoric Site
No
P-36-009368 CA-SBR-009368H Historic
Structure/Reservoir No
P-36-009369 CA-SBR-009369H Historic Site No
P-36-013746 Tibbetts House, Jim's
Landscaping and Nursery
Historic Building No
P-36-014190 Arrowhead Realty Co.
Reservoir
Historic
Structure/Reservoir No
P-36-015497 CA-SBR-007324 *Base Line Road Historic
Structure/Road No
*Registered as California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI) #12/Landmark Plaque Number P278 on 1/31/1973.
Background Research Results
In addition to the records search review, Chambers Group archaeologists completed research to determine if any
additional historic properties, landmarks, bridges, or other potentially significant or listed properties are located within
the Project footprint or one-mile study area. This background research included, but was not limited to, the NRHP,
California State Historic Property Data Files, California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest,
Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, historical aerial imagery accessed via NETR
Online, historical U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State and Local Bridge Surveys. As a result of the archival research, in addition
to the resource indicated in the SCCIC record search results, no previously recorded resources or any other listed or
potentially significant properties were identified within the Project site.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
19
Historic maps and aerial imagery indicate that the Project site has remained largely undeveloped from 1938 to present.
The historical aerial imagery and topographic maps indicate that the earliest alignment of Highland Avenue was
established sometime before 1896. Historic aerial imagery shows that the overall area, including the Project site, was
developed for agricultural use by 1938 and continued to be utilized for agriculture through the 1980’s. The electric
transmission line, which runs northeast to southwest, outside the Project site but paralleling the current boundary, was
first constructed between 1948 and 1959. Additionally, the swath of cleared that is currently observed adjacent to the
southeast margin of the Project site, between the Project site and the transmission line corridor to the west, appears
to have been established and cleared between 1985 and 1994. This cleared area is still maintained and cleared, and is
observable in current imagery bounding the Project site to the southeast. The current alignments of Cherry Avenue and
Highland Avenue were established as dirt roads before 1941 and were later paved sometime between 1966 and 1980.
Evidence of disturbance related to the construction of the Fontana segment of Route 210, the Foothill Freeway, north
of the Project site, was observed in aerial imagery between 1994 and 2002 (NETRonline 2022). The Project site appears
to have been subject to minimal agriculture or re-vegetation efforts between 2002 and present.
Field Survey Results
Chambers Group archaeologist and cross-trained paleontologist Ken Hazlett conducted a cultural resources pedestrian
survey of the Project site on February 18, 2022. The Project site was visually examined with pedestrian survey transects
at 5–10-meter intervals. Ground visibility within the Project site was fair to good, with clear bare ground areas between
and around vegetation providing an average of approximately 70 to 80 percent surface visibility throughout the site.
The entire Project site displayed evidence of previous disturbance related to the adjacent developed infrastructure as
well as previous agricultural activity (Photographs 1 through 4). The western margin of the Project site is bound by the
maintained roadside shoulder along the east margin of Cherry Avenue (Photograph 3). The northern margin of the
Project site is bound by a six-foot-tall chain link fence (Photograph 2). The diagonal southeastern margin is free of any
physical boundary, with similar terrain observed on either side of the Project site boundary along that edge (Photograph
1). While it is located well outside of the current Project site, the existing electric transmission line roughly follows the
northeast to southwest alignment of the southeastern boundary of the Project site. Between the transmission line and
the Project site boundary is the same cleared and well-maintained corridor that appears on the historic aerial imagery
between 1985 and 1994 (Photograph 1). Upon inspection during the survey, this cleared area was observed and
determined that it is not a channel or drainage but may aid in surface water run-off, in addition to serving as an obvious
fire break. Additionally, an approximately 12-meter-wide (east-west) section is cleared and graded along the western
margin, likely related to the agricultural activity to keep a cleared margin between the roadway and the active
agriculture on site (Photograph 3). A sparse scatter of modern refuse was observed along the roadside shoulder margin,
within the Project site. The northern margin exhibited evidence of previous agricultural activity by the plow lines
observed (Photograph 2). Similarly, the southeastern margin of the Project site exhibited a narrow 15-meter-wide
section of soils with shallow 0- to 6-inch-deep plow lines observed. The central portion of the Project site showed
evidence of grapevine cultivation in east-west rows (Photograph 4), with significant bioturbation noted throughout by
small burrowing animal activity. Soils observed were light-brown silty sand along the outer plowed and bladed regions
and medium-brown silty sandy loam in the inner triangular area, in both cases presenting moderate to profuse 0- to
10-cm rounded cobble inclusions.
No surface evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or paleontological resources was identified
within the Project site.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
On May 20, 2021, Chambers Group requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search
of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) important to Native Americans have been
recorded in the Project footprint and one-mile study area. On June 7, 2021, Chambers Group received a response from
the NAHC stating that the search of its Sacred Lands File was positive.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
20
The NAHC provided a list of 18 Native American tribal contacts that may have knowledge of cultural resources near the
Project area (Attachment A). The NAHC SLF results letter and the list of contacts are included in Attachment A.
AB 52 Consultation
The City of Fontana is the lead agency per CEQA Guidelines, and as such, is responsible for initiating tribal consultation
under AB 52. As of the date of this report, Chambers Group has not been notified of the status of AB 52 consultation
between the City of Fontana and any requesting tribal groups, if TCRs have been identified, or if appropriate mitigation
measures have been presented.
As discussed above, a resource may be defined as a TCR if it meets either of the following criteria:
1. sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe that are
listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the national or state register of historical resources, or listed
in a local register of historic resources; or
2. a resource that the lead agency determines, in its discretion, is a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21074)
Paleontological Resources
On June 1, 2021, Chambers Group received the results of the records search. The results indicate that no fossil localities
have been identified within the Project site or within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The records search consisted
only of the records maintained by the Western Science Center (WSC).
Based on these results the paleontological sensitivity is considered low to moderate in the overall area considering the
lack of known fossil localities within the one-mile radius. As noted, no fossils are mapped within the Project site.
However, the Project site is situated on the on the San Gabriel alluvial fan, which is composed of Pleistocene and
Holocene age deposits. While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation potential, any potential
materials found are unlikely to be considered fossil material due to the relatively modern dates of the associated
deposits. Conversely, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching older
Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. If excavation activity associated with the Fontana Fire
Training Station 80 Project disturbs sediments dating to the early Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, any identified
paleontological materials would be scientifically significant (Radford 2021).
Discussion
Chambers Group requested a cultural resources records search and literature review within the Project site and
surrounding one-mile radius study area between March and June of 2021 and conducted a cultural and paleontological
pedestrian field survey in February 2022. The records search results did not indicate any previously identified cultural
resources within the Project site. Similarly, the pedestrian survey did not discover any new cultural resources within
the Project site.
The paleontological records search did not identify any previously recorded paleontological fossil localities within the
Project site and surrounding study area, and no evidence of paleontological resources was observed on the surface
during the pedestrian survey.
In addition, Chambers Group submitted a search request of the NAHC SLF to determine the presence or absence of any
known SLFs within the Project site or surrounding vicinity. The NAHC SLF search resulted in positive findings, indicating
the presence of sacred lands or resources within the vicinity of the Project.
Chambers Group consulted cultural resources and Native American repositories to identify previously recorded
archaeological, paleontological, and tribal resources that may be located on or near the proposed Project, and which
may be adversely affected by the Project. Chambers Group also conducted a pedestrian survey to identify any surface
evidence of cultural and paleontological resources that may exist in the Project site. The background research
confirmed a moderate level of sensitivity for buried resources, both archaeological and paleontological. The survey was
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
21
negative for new or previously recorded cultural resources and no evidence of paleontological resources was observed
on the visible ground surface. As determined through the background research, the general Fontana region is associated
with the traditional use by Gabrielino, Serrano, and Cahuilla tribal groups. The Santa Ana River and its relative proximity
to the Project site would have also provided valuable resources and allowed for a sustainable way of life in the area,
and while cultural resources have not been identified within the Project site, other resources such as TCRs may exist,
but require consultation with such tribes to elucidate their presence.
Additionally, given the largely undisturbed nature of the Project site with no previous development beyond historic
agricultural activity within the site, there remains potential that the current Project’s ground disturbing activity could
impact intact native soil formations or intact geologic units known to be fossil bearing in the region.
Recommendations
Per CEQA Guidelines the Project should be designed to avoid impacts to cultural resources within the project area
whenever feasible. While Chambers Group did not identify any cultural resources through background research or
though survey of the Project site, Chambers Group recommends the following mitigation measures be implemented as
part of Project approval to ensure that potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are less than
significant.
MM CUL-1 The Applicant shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the
Interior Standards or County standards, whichever is greater, and require that all initial ground-
disturbing work be monitored by archaeological specialist (monitor) proficient in artifact and feature
identification in monitoring contexts. The Consultant (Qualified Archaeologist and/or monitor) shall
be present at the Project construction phase kickoff meeting.
MM CUL-2 Prior to commencing construction activities and thus prior to any ground disturbance in the proposed
Project site, the Consultant shall conduct initial Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training to all construction personnel, including supervisors, present at the outset of the Project
construction work phase, for which the Lead Contractor and all subcontractors shall make their
personnel available. A tribal monitor shall be provided an opportunity to attend the pre-construction
briefing, if requested. This WEAP training will educate construction personnel on how to work with
the monitor(s) to identify and minimize impacts to archaeological resources and maintain
environmental compliance. This WEAP training will educate the monitor(s) of construction procedures
to avoid construction-related injury or harm. This training may be performed periodically, such as for
new personnel coming on to the Project as needed.
MM CUL-3 The Contractor shall provide the Consultant with a schedule of initial potential ground-disturbing
activities. A minimum of 48 hours will be provided to the Consultant of commencement of any initial
ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation grubbing or clearing, grading, trenching, or mass
excavation.
A monitor shall be present on-site at the commencement of ground-disturbing activities related to the
Project. The monitor, in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist, shall observe initial ground-
disturbing activities and, as they proceed, adjust the number of monitors as needed to provide
adequate observation and oversight. All monitors will have stop-work authority to allow for
recordation and evaluation of finds during construction. The monitor will maintain a daily record of
observations to serve as an ongoing reference resource and to provide a resource for final reporting
upon completion of the Project.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
22
The Consultant and the Lead Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain a line of communication
regarding schedule and activity such that the monitor is aware of all ground-disturbing activities in
advance in order to provide appropriate oversight.
MM CUL-4 In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified archaeological materials, the Contractor shall
immediately cease all work activities within an area of no less than 50 feet (15 meters) of the discovery.
After cessation of excavation, the Contractor shall immediately contact the City. Except in the case of
cultural items that fall within the scope of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act,
the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project area shall not be
grounds for a project-wide “stop work” notice or otherwise interfere with the Project’s continuation
except as set forth in this paragraph. Additionally, all consulting Native American Tribal groups that
requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources on the Project shall
be notified appropriately. If a discovery results in the identification of cultural items that fall within
the scope of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, the Contractor shall
immediately cease all work activities within an area of no less than 100 feet (30 meters) of the
discovery. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials during construction,
the Applicant retained Qualified Professional Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the
significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction-related activities in the vicinity of the
find. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the discovery constitutes a significant resource
under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the Applicant shall implement an archaeological data recovery
program.
MM-CUL-5 At the completion of all ground-disturbing activities, the Consultant shall prepare an Archaeological
Resources Monitoring Report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed, and
any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing follow-up reports of any
finds to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), as required.
MM PAL-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain the services of a qualified
project paleontologist to remain on-call for the duration of the proposed ground disturbing
construction activity. The paleontologist selected must be approved by the City. Upon approval or
request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological
data recovery shall be prepared for the Proposed Project and submitted to the City for review and
approval. The development and implementation of the PMP shall include consultations with the
applicant's engineering geologist as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered
under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. All specimens
become the property of the City of Fontana unless the City chooses otherwise. If the City accepts
ownership, the curation location may be revised. The PMP shall include developing a multilevel ranking
system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of
fossils within a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to
address paleontological resources encountered during ground disturbing activities. As well as the
appropriate recording, collection, and processing protocols to appropriately address any resources
discovered. The cost of data recovery is limited to the discovery of a reasonable sample of available
material. The interpretation of reasonableness rests with the City, in consultation with the project
paleontologist.
MM-PAL-2 At the completion of all ground-disturbing activities, the project paleontologist shall prepare a final
paleontological mitigation report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
23
in line with the PMP, and all paleontological resources encountered, if any. As well as providing follow-
up reports of any specific discovery, if necessary.
HUMAN REMAINS – LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In the event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, then the proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section
15064.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If human remains are found during ground-disturbing
activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until
the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified
immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which
shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials (NPS 1983).
Chambers Group is available to assist with any further support or document preparation related to Cultural Resources,
including tribal consultation. Please contact the Project Manager Eunice Bagwan, at 949.261.5414 ext 7325, or one of
the contacts below if you have any questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
Kellie Kandybowicz
Cultural Resources Specialist
858.541.2800
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
Richard Shultz MA, RPA Eduvijes Davis-Mullens
Cultural Resources Principal Investigator Cultural Resources Specialist
858.541.2800 Ext 7114 858.541.2800
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202 9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego, CA 92123
Attachments
Attachment A (Confidential): NAHC SLF Results
Attachment B (Confidential): Record Search Results
Lucas Tutschulte
Cultural Department Lead
858.541.2800 Ext 7140
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
24
References
Airfields-Freeman
2021 Abandoned and Little-Known Airfields: California-West San Bernardino. Accessed at
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_SanBernardino_W.htm#fontanaint
Bean Lowell J.
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978 Serrano. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 570-574. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1962-3 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrieliño Material Culture. Annual Reports of the University of
California Archaeological Survey 5:1-50. Los Angeles, California.
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-228. AltaMira Press,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Lanham, Maryland.
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Historic Properties Directory. State of California: Sacramento.
Calscape
2022 California Native Plant Society - Fontana. Accessed at https://calscape.org/loc-Fontana,CA/cat-All-
Plants/ord-popular/vw-list/np-0
City of Fontana
2018 Fontana General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Update 2015-2035. Accessed: https://ca-
fontana2.civicplus.com/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035.
2022 About the City of Fontana. Accessed at https://www.fontana.org/31/About-Us.
County of San Bernardino
2020 County Policy Plan: Cultural Resources Element. Accessed at Cultural Resources – San Bernardino
County (countywideplan.com)
Costansó, Miguel
1911 The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770: Diary of Miguel Costansó. Edited by Frederick J. Teggart.
Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History 2(4):161-327. Berkeley, California.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
25
Forbes, Jack D.
1963 Indian Horticulture West and Northwest of the Colorado River. Journal of the West.
Harrington, John P.
1942 Culture Element Distributions, XIX: Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological
Records 7(1):1-46. Berkeley, California.
Higgins, Paul
1996 The Tataviam: Early Newhall Residents, Old Town Newhall Gazette.
Jennings, C.W., et al.
2010 Geologic Map of California, prepared for California Geological Survey, Map No. 2.
Johnston, Bernice E.
1962 California's Gabrieliño Indians. (Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8) Southwest
Museum, Los Angeles.
Jones, Terry L., and Kathryn A. Klar, editors
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group, Lanham, Maryland.
Knack, Martha C.
1980 Life Is with People: Household Organization of the Contemporary Southern Paiute Indians. Ballena
Press Anthropological Papers No. 19. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press.
Koerper Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.
Koerper Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson
2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity:
Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–
81. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.
Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion,
Volume I. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach. The Keith Companies
Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa. On file, Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press. The University of Michigan.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
26
Morton, D.M., and Miller F. K.
2006 Preliminary digital geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, Southern
California, version 1.9: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217; scale 1:100,000.
NETRonline
2022 NETR Online. Aerial Images: 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1980, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018, 2020. Accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/.
Park, Willard Z., E. Siskin, A. Cooke, W.T. Mulloy, M.K. Opler, I.T. Kelly, and M.L. Zigmond
1938 Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist. 40(4): 622-38.
Radford, Darla
2021 Paleontological record search results letter from the Western Science Center. Hemet, California.
Ruby, Jay W.
1970 Culture Contact between Aboriginal Southern California and the Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Stickel, Gary E., and Lois J. Weinman Roberts
1980 An Overview of the Western Mojave Desert. Bureau of Land management, California Desert District,
Riverside.
Steward, Julian H.
1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology.
University of California, Davis
2022 SoilWeb. Website accessed February 22, 2022.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1966 Geologic and Geophysical Maps of the Devore 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California,
Photo revised 1988. Accessed via Topo Maps.
Wallace, William J.
1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in
the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in
Anthropology 1(3):1-14. Portales.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
27
Photograph 1: Overview of Project site from northeast corner. View Southwest.
Photograph 2: Overview of Project site from northwest corner. View east.
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS LETTER
REPORT FOR THE FONTANA FIRE STATION 80
PROJECT
City of Fontana
28
Photograph 3: Overview of Project site from southwest corner. View north.
Photograph 4: Overview of Project site from northwest corner. View southeast.