HomeMy WebLinkAboutE - Cultural ReportA CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE
ALMOND AND VALLEY DISTRIBUTION CENTER
PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 234-071-026 and -027
Submitted to:
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Prepared for:
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
March 8, 2023
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Archaeological Database Information
Author: Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Report Date: March 8, 2023
Report Title: A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley
Distribution Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California (APNs 234-071-026 and -027)
Submitted to: City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Prepared for: T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, California (7.5 minute)
Study Area: 11.22 acres
Key Words: USGS Fontana Quadrangle (7.5 minute); archaeological survey;
negative; monitoring not recommended.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
II. SETTING .................................................................................................................. 1
Natural Environment ................................................................................................. 1
Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives ....................................................... 5
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 20
IV. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................. 20
Research Goals ........................................................................................................ 21
Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................ 22
V. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 25
Background Research and Results of Records Searches ......................................... 25
Field Reconnaissance .............................................................................................. 26
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 28
VII.CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... 30
VIII. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 30
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 Page
Figure 1 General Location Map ................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Project Location Map (USGS) .................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Project Development Map .......................................................................... 4
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Plates
Plate Page
Plate 1 Overview of the project, facing south ....................................................... 27
Plate 2 Overview of the project and modern structures, facing northeast ............ 28
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the
Project ....................................................................................................... 25
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
I. INTRODUCTION
In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, BFSA Environmental Services, a
Perennial Company (BFSA) conducted an archaeological survey of the 11.22-acre Almond and
Valley Distribution Center Project. This project (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 234-071-
026 and -027) is located north of the intersection of Almond Avenue and Valley Boulevard, at
9813 Almond Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). On
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale Fontana, California topographic
quadrangle map, the project is situated within Section 22, Township 1 South, Range 6 West, of the
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figure 2). Currently, the property is being utilized by U.S.
Xpress Enterprises, Inc., a freight forwarding service, and primarily consists of parking and storage
of tractor trailers. Previously, the property was utilized for agriculture. The project applicant
proposes to clear the property for the construction of a new industrial warehouse (Figure 3).
The archaeological survey, which was conducted on February 16, 2023, was completed in
order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a
potential adverse impact to cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified as a result of
the current survey, and the project will not impact any recorded cultural resources. As part of this
study, a copy of the report will be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton). All investigations conducted
by BFSA related to this project conformed to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
City of Fontana environmental guidelines.
II. SETTING
Natural Environment
The Almond and Valley Distibution Center Project is generally located in southwestern
San Bernardino County in the city of Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin
south of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino
Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains extend from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the
east to the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse
Ranges with peaks exceeding 9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The project is located near the western margin and distal southern end of the broad Lytle
Creek alluvial fan that emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains approximately nine to 10 miles
to the north as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains (Wirths 2023).
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).
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
5
The project is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 1,055 feet AMSL.
The project is underlain by late Holocene-aged (approximately within the last few thousand years)
young alluvial fan deposits. These deposits are likely underlain by an older deposit of young
alluvial fan sediments that are early Holocene and late Pleistocene in age (approximately 6,000 to
120,000 years ago [Cohen and Gibbard 2011]). Soils in and around the project are characterized
as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (NRCS 2019).
Currently, the only vegetation found within the property is commercial landscaping around
the perimeter, which primarily consists of grasses and eucalyptus trees. 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 Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek,
and the Santa Ana River. Historically, the property likely contained the same plant and animal
species that are present today.
The project is characterized as a previously graded industrial lot. The subject property is
completely disturbed with the ground obscured by hardscape and gravel. No natural features often
associated with prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcroppings or natural sources of water, are
located within the subject property.
Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives
The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material
remains left behind. This is done by using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which
draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper
into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material
culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the
archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a
given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts
of a given culture upon this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment.
Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material
culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic”
perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the
participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain
a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by
definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work.
As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding,
and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt
to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material
culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
6
that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective.
As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and
juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.”
This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture.
However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of
choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions.
Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices,
changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address
both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the
archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological
(etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the
ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution
had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia
of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has
affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there
remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As
a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
Introduction
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).
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7
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).
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 around 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,
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8
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
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
9
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;
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)
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
10
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
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 greatly profited 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”
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
11
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
12
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).
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general
periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American
Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into
additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to
1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these
phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for
archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western
peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents,
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan
Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an
expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific
coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track,
Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names
have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”;
60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages
observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial,
long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged
from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
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 colonizing 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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
13
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
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 increasingly
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 upon 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 became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
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, as a
result, were considered highly valuable. 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). A review of Riverside County place names
quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
14
locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake
Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo
(Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments
within western Riverside County.
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
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 that was
established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
15
in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the
Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
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. As the Jurupa area
became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates
founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not
until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that
the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well
suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive
irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in
California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population
growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation
of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson
1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a
military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During
World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location
of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout
the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant
portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s,
Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more
than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents
(Patterson 1971).
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
16
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
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
17
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 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
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.
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
18
their chicken coops to shacks and rented them to single workers—a primitive
housing form that was still common through the 1950s.
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,
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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
19
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):
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. “In an explosion of building at the war’s end, 5.1 million homes were built
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
20
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).
Kaiser Steel was eventually closed in the 1980s; however, the city has since become a
transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic
2005; City of Fontana 2018a).
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of 11.22 acres located at 9813 Almond Avenue in the city of Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California (APNs 234-071-026 and -027). The parcels are characterized
as previously disturbed and graded. Currently, the property is being utilized by U.S. Xpress
Enterprises, Inc., a freight forwarding service, and primarily consists of parking and storage of
tractor trailers. The project applicant proposes to clear the property for the construction of a new
industrial warehouse, with associated landscaping, hardscape, and infrastructure. (see Figure 3).
IV. SCOPE OF WORK
In order to determine the presence of cultural resources within the proposed project, the
archaeological investigation consisted of the following tasks:
1) An archaeological records search was conducted by BFSA at the SCCIC at CSU
Fullerton to gather any information regarding recorded cultural resources within or
adjacent to the project.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
21
2) The initial archaeological survey of the property was accomplished by conducting a
structured intensive reconnaissance that followed survey transects, which were parallel
to the existing street directions. All areas of disturbed ground and any rodent burrows
were analyzed for evidence of buried archaeological deposits.
3) This archaeological technical report was prepared to present the results of the field
survey, impact analysis, and presentation of any mitigation measures required for
project approval.
Research Goals
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which
humans have used the land and resources within the project area over time, as well as to aid in the
determination of resource significance. For the current project, the area under investigation is the
southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the archaeological
program included a survey of the 11.22-acre property. Given the area involved and the narrow
focus of the cultural resources study, the research design for this project was necessarily limited
and general in nature. Since the main objective of the investigation was 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. Although survey-level investigations are limited in terms
of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that
could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following
research questions take into account the size and location of the project.
Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be situated with a specific time period,
population, or individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be
determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities?
What is the site function? What resources were exploited?
• How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys
conducted in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for
valley environments of the region?
Data Needs
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
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
22
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival 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.
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, criteria outlined in CEQA provide the
guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the CEQA criteria that a
resource must meet in order to be determined important.
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 [California Code of Regulations],.
Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an 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 an 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 Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
23
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 an 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 an 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 upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an 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 an
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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
24
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 an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an 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 upon it
are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to
address impacts upon other resources, but they need not be considered further in the
CEQA process.
Section 15064.5(d) and Section 15064.5 (e) contain additional provisions regarding human
remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native
American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (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 requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
25
V. RESULTS OF STUDY
Background Research and Results of Records Searches
The records search compiled from SCCIC data indicates that 31 resources, all associated
with the historic built environment, have been recorded within one mile of the project. One of the
resources, the boundaries of the historic Kaiser Steel complex, is mapped as overlapping the
project. However, it appears this boundary was loosely drawn and although in proximity of the
original location of the Kaiser Steel Mill, the project does not appear to have ever contained any
elements of the resource. The remaining 30 resources consist of two rail lines, a stucco ranch
house, a gasoline filling station lamppost, a two-story motel, and 25 single-family residences
(Table 1).
Table 1
Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project
Site(s) Description
P-36-004131 Historic Kaiser Steel Mill
P-36-007426 Historic Declezville Branch Line Railroad
P-36-007795 Historic stucco ranch house
P-36-009862 Historic gasoline filling station lamppost
P-36-010330 Historic Southern Pacific Railroad
P-36-020009 Historic two-story motel
P-36-012227, P-36-020010, P-36-020011,
P-36-020012, P-36-020013, P-36-020014,
P-36-020015, P-36-020016, P-36-020017,
P-36-020018, P-36-020019, P-36-020020,
P-36-020021, P-36-020022, P-36-020023,
P-36-020024, P-36-020025, P-36-020026,
P-36-020027, P-36-020028, P-36-020029,
P-36-020030, P-36-020031, P-36-029643,
and P-36-033027
Historic single-family residence
The results of the records search data also indicate that 20 cultural resource studies have
been conducted within a one-mile radius of the subject property, none of which include the subject
property. The full records search results are provided in Appendix B.
The following historic sources were also reviewed:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility
• The OHP Built Environment Resources Directory
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
26
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records
• Historic aerial photographs dating between 1938 and 2021
The BLM GLO records confirm Pope’s initial ownership of the Fontana region in the mid-to late
nineteenth century; however, no other individuals who may have had direct involvement with the
subject property are listed. Rather, an additional patent for the project vicinity lists the Federal
Farm Mortgage Corp., USA, in 1957. Aerial photographs show that between 1938 and 1959, the
property was under cultivation, containing crops, and devoid of any structures. By 1966, the
property appears to have been cleared of crops but remained unimproved. By 1985, the property
had been graded and paved and appears similar to its current state. The 1985 aerial photograph
also shows two structures that had been added to the northwestern corner of the property. A review
of Assessor’s data on file with the County of San Bernardino Property Information Management
System shows that these structures were completed on the property in 1981 and 1986 and therefore
are not historic or eligible to be considered for significance under CEQA criteria. The aerial
photographs confirm that despite being located within the recorded boundaries of P-36-004131,
the property was not directly associated with the Kaiser Steel Mill operations.
BFSA also requested, at its own discretion, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the
NAHC to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or
ceremonial importance are present within the project. This request is not part of any Assembly
Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search has been returned with positive
results for potential sites or locations of Native American importance within the vicinity. The
NAHC suggested contacting local Native American groups, specifically the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians/Kizh Nation (Kizh), for further information. The Kizh were included on the
NAHC response email and additional outreach will be conducted by the lead agency under the
official AB 52 Native American consultation process. All correspondence is provided in Appendix
C.
The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for prehistoric
sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property due to the extensive nature of past
ground disturbances and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. No
prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the project, and these resources tend to be
situated farther south, closer to the bedrock-laden Jurupa Mountains. Due to the parcel being
completely disturbed and covered with hardscape, it is also unlikely for historic resources to be
contained within the boundaries of the property.
Field Reconnaissance
BFSA Field Archaeologist Mary M. Chitjian conducted the pedestrian survey of the project
on February 16, 2023. The archaeological survey was completed by walking parallel transects at
10-meter intervals across the parcel. The property is characterized as a previously graded
industrial lot covered in hardscape and gravel. The project is completely disturbed and currently
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
27
used as parking for tractor trailers associated with U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., a freight
forwarding service (Plate 1). Two modern (1981 and 1986) structures in the northwest corner of
the property were noted (Plate 2); however, they do not meet the minimum age requirement under
CEQA to be considered historic. During the survey, no evidence of any cultural resources was
observed.
Plate 1: Overview of the project, facing south.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
28
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural resources study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center Project was
completed in accordance with City of Fontana environmental policies and CEQA significance
evaluation criteria. The records search results indicate that the most common resources within one
mile are associated with the historic built environment and focused research has shown that, no
historic-age structures have ever been located within the property. The property was historically
utilized for cultivation and was impacted through clearing, grading, and modern development.
This characterization of the property as disturbed is relevant to the consideration of cultural
resources being present within the project.
The property is completely disturbed. No evidence of any cultural resources was observed
during the survey. As such, archaeological monitoring of grading is not recommended or
warranted based upon the findings of this cultural resources assessment. However, in accordance
with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Final Envrionmental Impact Report
of the Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (City of Fontana 2018b), the following mitigation
measures are recommended for the project:
Plate 2: Overview of the project and modern structures, facing northeast.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
29
MM-CUL-2: If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them
for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological
sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or
focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a
local government action) to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA
guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
MM-CUL-3: Where consistent with applicable local, State, and federal law and
deemed appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall
consider the following requests by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and
Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during
construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of
the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall
project may continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity
(as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior
standards) and the City/project applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native
American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as possible;
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
30
• Utilize a Native American monitor from the appropriate Native American
entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards) where deemed appropriate or required by the City,
during initial ground-disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or
cultural resource excavations.
VII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and have been
compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria as defined in Section 15064.5.
March 8, 2023
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Date
Project Archaeologist
VIII. REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, Utah, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, Utah, 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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
31
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
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.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York,
New York.
City of Fontana
2018a About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
2018b Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035. Approved and Adopted by City
Council November 13, 2018. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-
Documents-11-13-2018, 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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
32
Cohen, K.M., and P.L. Gibbard
2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years.
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on
Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-v2011.jpg.pdf.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Cornford, Daniel (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.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, 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 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, California.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
33
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, Los Angeles, California.
Graves, Steven M.
2010 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.
Gunther, Jane D.
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside,
California.
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, California.
Harris, Marvin
1991 Cultural Anthropology. Harper Collins Publishers Inc., New York, New York
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians
8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kiddle Encyclopedia
2022 Auto Club Speedway facts for kids. Electronic document,
https://kids.kiddle.co/Auto_Club_Speedway, accessed April 18, 2022.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
34
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta
2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the
Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM
Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
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, Connecticut.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077): 969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and
Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New
York.
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern
California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis on file at the University of California at
San Diego, San Diego, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
35
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 22, 2021.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside,
California.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company,
San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. 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, San Diego, California.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York,
New York.
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 26, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,
California.
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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
36
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849–1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
Wallis, Eileen V.
2018 World War II in California’s Inland Empire. Electronic document,
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/world-war-ii-in-californias-inland-empire/kaiser-steel,
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.
Whittall, Austin
2020 The History of Route 66. Electronic document, https://www.theroute-
66.com/history.html, accessed April 18, 2022.
Wirths, Todd A.
2023 Paleontological Assessment for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center Project.
Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Unpublished report on file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton,
California.
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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa.perennialenv.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
BFSA Environmental Serives, A Perennial Company 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.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 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
Mills Act application.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3
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.
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Cultural Resources Study for the Almond and Valley Distribution Center
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)