HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppdx D-3_Paleo Report
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHIPT CITRUS-BOYLE WAREHOUSE PROJECT
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0251-151-03 to -07, -09, -10, -14 to -16, -18 to -22, and -39 to -44
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
For Submittal to:
Planning Division
Department of Community Development
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared for:
MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 102
Riverside, CA 92507
Prepared by:
Ron Schmidtling, Principal Paleontologist
Daniel Ballester, Field Director
Breidy Q. Vilcahuaman, Report Writer
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
September 18, 2023
CRM TECH Project No. 3903P
Approximately 15.44 acres
Fontana, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle; Section 19, T1S R5W, SBBM
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between June 2022 and September 2023, at the request of MIG, Inc., CRM TECH
performed a paleontological resources assessment on approximately 15.44 acres of
partially developed rural land in the southern portion of the City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. The subject property of the study encompasses
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0251-151-03 to -07, -09, -10, -14 to -16, -18 to -22, and
-39 to -44. These 21 contiguous parcels are located east of Citrus Avenue and between
Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue, in the southwest quarter of Section 19, T1S R5W,
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed CHIPT Citrus-
Boyle Warehouse Project, which entails primarily the construction of two commercial
warehouses measuring approximately 126,537 square feet and 167,588 square feet,
respectively. The City of Fontana, as the lead agency for the project, required the study
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose
of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine whether the proposed project would potentially disrupt or adversely affect
any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as mandated by CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the
project area and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future
excavation and construction activities, CRM TECH initiated a records search at the
appropriate repository, conducted a literature search, and carried out systematic field
surveys of the project area, in accordance with the guidelines of the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology. Based on the findings from these research procedures, the
proposed project’s potential to impact significant paleontological resources is
determined to be low for the Holocene-age surface sediments but high for the
undisturbed Pleistocene-age sediments at depth.
Therefore, CRM TECH recommends that a paleontological resource impact mitigation
program be developed and implemented during the project to prevent impacts on
significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources or to reduce such impacts to a level
less than significant. As the primary component of the mitigation program, periodic
monitoring of earth-moving activities for evidence of significant, nonrenewable
paleontological resources is recommended from the onset of earth-moving operations
for the project, and continuous monitoring is recommended once excavations have
reached the depth of five feet, or if older sediments are encountered at lesser depth.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4
Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 4
Paleontological Sensitivity................................................................................................................ 5
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Regional Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................ 6
Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 6
METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 7
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 8
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 9
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 9
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX 2: Records Search Results .............................................................................................. 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area ............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Overview of the western portion of the project area ............................................................ 6
Figure 5. Overview of the eastern portion of the project area ............................................................. 7
Figure 6. Geologic map of the project vicinity .................................................................................. 10
1
INTRODUCTION
Between June 2022 and September 2023, at the request of MIG, Inc., CRM TECH performed a
paleontological resources assessment on approximately 15.44 acres of partially developed rural land
in the southern portion of the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Fig. 1). The
subject property of the study encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0251-151-03 to -07, -09, -10,
-14 to -16, -18 to -22, and -39 to -44. These 21 contiguous parcels are located east of Citrus Avenue
and between Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue, in the southwest quarter of Section 19, T1S R5W,
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed CHIPT Citrus-Boyle
Warehouse Project, which entails primarily the construction two commercial warehouses measuring
approximately 126,537 square feet and 167,588 square feet, respectively. The City of Fontana, as
the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would potentially
disrupt or adversely affect any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as mandated by
CEQA.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area
and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and
construction activities, CRM TECH initiated a records search at the appropriate repository, reviewed
pertinent geological literature, and carried out systematic field surveys on the project area. The
following report is a complete account of these research procedures and the conclusion of the study.
Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their
qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS San Bernardino, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle, 1969 edition)
2
Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Fontana, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle, 1980 edition)
3
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery)
4
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DEFINITION
Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains,
and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary rock formations in
which they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age,
typically older than recorded human history and/or older than the middle Holocene Epoch, which
dates to circa 5,000 radiocarbon years (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010:11).
Common fossil remains include marine and freshwater mollusk shells; the bones and teeth of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals; leaf imprint assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces,
another type of paleontological resource, include internal and external molds (impressions) and casts
created by these organisms. These items can serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and
sediments in which they are contained, and may prove useful in determining the temporal
relationships between rock deposits from one area and those from another as well as the timing of
geologic events. They can also provide information regarding evolutionary relationships,
development trends, and environmental conditions.
Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone,
mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils,
particularly vertebrate fossils, are considered nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally
fossils may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or because of human
disturbances; however, they generally lay buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of
fossils on the surface does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface
deposits, while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains
may be found in the subsurface.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer (2003:6) of the San
Bernardino County Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant
scientific interest if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends
exhibited among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of
geologic events therein;
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions
between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;
4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or
5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
5
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The fossil record is unpredictable, and the preservation of organic remains is rare, requiring a
particular sequence of events involving physical and biological factors. Skeletal tissue with a high
percentage of mineral matter is the most readily preserved within the fossil record; soft tissues not
intimately connected with the skeletal parts, however, are the least likely to be preserved (Raup and
Stanley 1978). For this reason, the fossil record contains a biased selection not only of the types of
organisms preserved but also of certain parts of the organisms themselves. As a consequence,
paleontologists are unable to know with certainty, the quantity of fossils or the quality of their
preservation that might be present within any given geologic unit.
Sedimentary units that are paleontologically sensitive are those geologic units (mappable rock
formations) with a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
More specifically, these are geologic units within which vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate
fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or are likely to be present. These
units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant paleontological
resources anywhere within their geographical extent as well as sedimentary rock units temporally or
lithologically amenable to the preservation of fossils.
A geologic formation is defined as a stratigraphic unit identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g.,
grain size, texture, color, and mineral content) and stratigraphic position. There is a direct
relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are enclosed and, with
sufficient knowledge of the geology and stratigraphy of a particular area, it is possible for
paleontologists to reasonably determine the formation’s potential to contain significant
nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossil remains.
The paleontological sensitivity for a geologic formation is determined by the potential for that
formation to produce significant nonrenewable fossils. This determination is based on what fossil
resources the particular geologic formation has produced in the past at other nearby locations.
Determinations of paleontologic sensitivity must consider not only the potential for yielding
vertebrate fossils but also the potential of yielding a few significant fossils that may provide new and
significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, and/or stratigraphic data.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology issued a set of standard guidelines intended to assist
paleontologists to assess and mitigate any adverse effects/impacts to nonrenewable paleontological
resources. The guidelines defined four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units
that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed below (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010:1-2):
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace
fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their
paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.
• Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional
collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources,
such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
6
SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project area is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphologic
province, which is bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges province, on the east by the
Colorado Desert province, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean (Jenkins 1980:40-41; Harms
1996:150). The Peninsular Ranges province extends southward to the southern tip of Baja
California (Jahns 1954).
More specifically, the City of Fontana is situated in the San Bernardino Valley, a structurally
depressed trough filled with sediments of Miocene through Recent age (Clarke 1978-1979). The
San Bernardino Valley is one of the many tectonically controlled valleys within the valley-and-ridge
systems in the Perris Block, which was defined by English (1926) as a region between the San
Jacinto and Elsinore-Chino fault zones. The block is bounded on the north by the Cucamonga (San
Gabriel) Fault and on the south by a vaguely delineated boundary near the southern end of the
Temecula Valley (ibid.). It is considered to have been active since Pliocene times (Woodford et al.
1971:3421). The Plio-Pleistocene-age non-marine sediments filling the valleys have produced a few
vertebrate fossils as well as invertebrate fossil remains (Mann 1955:13).
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Fontana is located in the central portion of the San Bernardino Valley, a broad inland
valley defined by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges on the north and a series of
low rocky hills on the south. The natural environment of the region is characterized by its temperate
Mediterranean climate, with the average maximum temperature in July reaching 95º Fahrenheit and
Figure 4. Overview of the western portion of the project area. (Photograph taken on August 1, 2022; view to the
northeast)
7
Figure 5. Overview of the eastern portion of the project area. (Photograph taken on August 1, 2022; view to the west)
the average minimum temperature in January hovering around 46º. Rainfall is typically less than 15
inches annually, most of which occurs between November and March.
The project area consists of approximately 15.44 acres of partially developed land bounded by Boyle
Avenue on the north, Slover Avenue on the south, and residential and commercial properties to the
east along Oleander Avenue. There are several single-family residences along Boyle and Slover
Avenues, and a large metal warehouse stands in an open area in the interior of the project area (Fig.
3). The surrounding land use is largely the same as the project property, but the area is experiencing
rapid change to large-scale commercial development.
Elevations in the project area range approximately between 1,072 and 1,084 feet above sea level
over relatively level terrain. The native soils are brown loam and are very dark grayish brown in
color, composed of active alluvial-channel deposits from the late Holocene Epoch (Morton 2003).
The ground surface has been greatly disturbed by past agricultural operations and construction
activities, with some areas covered with concrete, asphalt, or imported gravel (Figs. 4, 5). The
existing vegetation consists mainly of landscaping plants, such as palms, citrus trees, trees of heaven,
and various grasses and bushes.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
RECORDS SEARCH
The paleontological records search service for this study was provided by the Regional
Paleontological Locality Inventory located at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. This
8
institution maintains files of regional paleontological localities as well as supporting maps and
documents. The records search results were used to identify known previously performed
paleontological resource assessments as well as known paleontological localities within a one-mile
radius of the project location. A copy of the records search results is attached to this report in
Appendix 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In conjunction with the records search, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and report writer
Breidy Q. Vilcahuaman pursued a literature review on the project area and vicinity under the
direction of principal paleontologist Ron C. Schmidtling. Sources consulted during the review
include primarily topographic, geologic, and soil maps of the City of Fontana, published geologic
literature pertaining to the project location, and other materials in the CRM TECH library, including
unpublished reports generated by other similar surveys in the vicinity.
FIELD SURVEY
On August 1, 2022, CRM TECH paleontological surveyor Nina Gallardo carried out the intensive-
level field survey of the project area. Where practicable, primarily in open areas not covered by
pavement, the survey was completed by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15
meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In areas occupied by buildings and other built-environment
features, the survey followed meandering lines placed opportunistically wherever the ground was
exposed. In this way, the ground surface in the area was carefully examined to determine the soil
types, to verify the geological formations, and to look for any indications of paleontological remains.
Where the surface soil was exposed, ground visibility was very good (85-90%), but this was limited
to roughly 30% of the total acreage surveyed on that day. Considering the extent of past ground
disturbance on the property, however, the survey was considered adequate for the purpose of this
study in spite of the limitations of surface visibility. After additional parcels were incorporated into
the project area in 2023, CRM TECH archaeologist Hunter O’Donnell carried out a similar field
survey on August 14, 2023, with good ground visibility due to recent mechanical clearing.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
The paleontological records search by the San Bernardino County Museum identified no known
paleontological localities within or adjacent to the project area (Kottkamp 2022; see Appendix 2).
However, paleontological localities have been reported nearby, ranging in distance approximately
from two miles to five miles, from subsurface sediment lithologies similar to those known to occur
at the project location. The nearest locality, SBCM 5.1.11, is located two miles southwest of the
project area and consists of the remains of the extinct saber-toothed cat, Smilodon sp., found
approximately five feet below the surface during trenching operations for a pipeline project
(ibid.:1).
9
LITERATURE REVIEW
The surface geology within the project area has been mapped by several studies. Jahns (1954:Plate
3) mapped it as Qal, defined as alluvial fan, flood plain, swamp, lake, and sand dune deposits of
Recent age. Morton (1976:Plate 1B) mapped the surface geology as Qf, or alluvial fan deposits of
Holocene age. According to his stratigraphic column sequence, the Qf rests with variable thickness
on top of Qal and/or Qao, which are described as alluvium of Holocene age and older,
undifferentiated alluvium of Pleistocene age, respectively (ibid.). These Qao sediments consist of
older alluvium that ranges from unconsolidated alluvial fan deposits to indurated decomposed clay-
rich alluvium (ibid.). Clarke (1978-1979:Plate 2) mapped the surface geology as Qf, namely alluvial
fan deposits of late Quaternary age. Bortugno and Spittler (1986) mapped the surface geology at the
project location as Qyl, or younger fan deposits of Holocene age.
Woodruff and Brock (1980:Map Sheet 7) mapped the surface soils within the project area as TuB.
This type of soils belongs to the Tujunga Series, specifically the Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (ibid.:26). These soils develop on nearly level to gently sloping broad alluvial fans composed
mainly of granitic alluvium (ibid.). More recently, Morton (2003) mapped the surface geology as
Qyf1, or younger alluvial fan deposits of Holocene to late Pleistocene age (Fig. 6). He showed some
outcrops of Qof2 to the south of the project area and some scattered outcrops of Qof3 to the west,
which were described as alluvial fan deposits of late to middle Pleistocene age (ibid.).
FIELD SURVEY
The field survey yielded negative findings for potential paleontological resources, and no surficial
indications of any fossil remains were observed within or adjacent to the project area. The survey
confirms that the ground surface has been extensively disturbed by agricultural, construction, and
demolition activities and is currently littered with building debris, domestic refuse, and concrete slab
foundations left by demolished buildings. No observed soils on the property demonstrated any
paleontological interest.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA guidelines (Title 14 CCR App. G, Sec. V(c)) require that public agencies in the State of
California determine whether a proposed project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource” during the environmental review process. The present study, conducted in
compliance with this provision, is designed to identify any significant, nonrenewable paleontological
resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area and to assess the possibility for such
resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities.
The results of the research procedures completed during this study indicate that the project area
contains surface sediments of Holocene age and alluvial fan origin. Holocene-age sediments in the
project vicinity tend to rest directly on top of older, Pleistocene-age sediments. The thickness of the
Recent sediments is unknown, but it may be determined from on-site soil boring logs should they be
available. While no fossil localities were reported in the project area or in the immediate vicinity,
10
Figure 6. Geologic map of the project vicinity. (Source: Morton 2003)
11
sediments similar to those present under the ground surface at this location have produced significant
fossils of extinct Ice Age animals in other portions of the San Bernardino Valley.
Based on these findings, the proposed project’s potential to impact significant paleontological
resources is determined to be low for the Holocene-age surface sediments but high for the
undisturbed Pleistocene-age sediments at depth. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends that a
paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented during the
project to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. The program should
be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), and should include, but not be limited to, the following:
As the primary component of the mitigation program, periodic monitoring of earth-moving activities
for evidence of significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources is recommended from the onset
of earth-moving operations for the project, and continuous monitoring is recommended once
excavations have reached the depth of five feet, or if older sediments are encountered at lesser depth.
The program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the
proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), and should include, but not be
limited to, the following:
• Periodic monitoring of earth-moving activities should be required during earth-moving
operations for the project, and continuous monitoring will become necessary once ground
disturbance reaches the depth of five feet or if the older sediments are encountered at lesser
depth. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays, and should collect samples of sediments that are likely to contain fossil
remains of small vertebrates or in vertebrates. However, the monitor must have the power to
temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large
specimens.
• Collected samples of sediment should be processed to recover small fossils, and all recovered
specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage.
• A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the procedures outlined above. The report should include a
discussion of the significance of the paleontological findings, if any. The report and the
inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana, would signify completion of the program to
mitigate potential impacts on paleontological resources.
REFERENCES
Bortugno, E.J. and T.E. Spittler
1986 Geologic Map of San Bernardino Quadrangle, California (1:250,000). California
Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
Clarke, Anthony Orr
1978-1979 Quaternary Evolution of the San Bernardino Valley. Quarterly of the San Bernardino
County Museum Association XXVI (2/3), Winter 1978/Spring 1979, Redlands, California.
12
English, W.A.
1926 Geology and Oil Resources of the Puente Hills Region, Southern California. U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 146. Washington, D.C.
Harms, Nancy S.
1996 A Precollegate Teachers Guide to California Geomorphic/Physiographic Provinces. Far
West Section, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Concord, California.
Jahns, R.H.
1954 Geology of the Peninsular Range Province, Southern California and Baja California. In
R. H. Jahns (ed.): Geology of Southern California; Chapter II. California Division of Mines
Bulletin 170, Part 3. San Francisco.
Jenkins, Olaf P.
1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41. California
Division of Mines and Geology Publication. Sacramento.
Kottkamp, Scott
2022 Paleontology Records Review for the Proposed Sites of CRM Tech Boyle Southwest and
Citrus Avenue Projects, Fontana, San Bernadino County, California. Records review letter
report prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, Section of Geological Sciences,
Redlands, California.
Mann, John F., Jr.
1955 Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California. California Division of
Mines Special Report 43. San Francisco.
Morton, Douglas M.
1976 Geologic, Fault, and Major Landslide and Slope Stability Maps. Plate 1-A, Scale
1:48,000. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 113, A Series.
Morton, Douglas M.
2003 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California; Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-418.
Washington, D.C.
Raup, David M., and Steven M. Stanley
1978 Principles of Paleontology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Scott, Eric, and Kathleen B. Springer
2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10.
Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources. http//:vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Resources/SVP_Impact_
Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
Woodford, Alfred O., John S. Shelton, Donald O. Doehring, and Richard K. Morton
1971 Pliocene-Pleistocene History of the Perris Block, Southern California. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 82(12):3421-3448.
Woodruff, George A., and Willie Z. Brock
1980 Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwest Part, California. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
13
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
14
PRINCIPAL PALEONTOLOGIST
Ron Schmidtling, M.S.
Education
1995 M.S., Geology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1991 Pasadena City College, Pasadena, California.
1985 B.A., Archaeology, Paleontology, Ancient Folklore, and Art History, University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Professional Experience:
2020- Principal Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2014- Instructor of Earth Science, History of Life, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology,
Columbia College Hollywood, Reseda, California.
2013, 2015 Volunteer, excavation of a camarasaur and a diplodocid in southern Utah, Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.
1993-2014 Consultant, Getty Conservation Institute, Brentwood, California.
• Geological Consultant on the Renaissance Bronze Project, characterizing
constituents of bronze core material;
• Paleontological Consultant for Antiquities/Conservation, identifying the
foraminifera and mineral constituents of a limestone torso of Aphrodite;
• Scientific Consultant on the Brentwood Site Building Project, testing building
materials for their suitability in the museum galleries.
1999-2001 Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor, Michael Brandman Associates, Irvine,
California.
1997 Department of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1994 Scientific Illustrator and Teaching Assistant, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
and Department of Biological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles.
Memberships
AAPS (Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences), USA; CSEOL (Center for the Study of
Evolution and the Origin of Life), Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Publications and Reports
Author, co-author, and contributor on numerous paleontological publications and paleontological
resource management reports.
15
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
• Cross-trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM
TECH Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Honors and Awards
2000-2002 Dean’s Honors List, University of California, Riverside.
16
REPORT WRITER
Breidy Q. Vilcahuaman, M.A., RPA
Education
2018 M.A., Anthropology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
2005 B.A., Anthropology, University Nacional del Centro del Peru.
Professional Experience
2022- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2021-2022 Archaeological Technician, Applied Earthwork, Inc., Hemet, California.
2021 Archaeologist/Crew Chief, Historical Research Associates, Inc., Portland, Oregon.
2020-2021 Archaeological/Paleontological Technician, Cogstone Resource Management,
Orange, California.
2020 Archaeological Technician, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR
Hunter C. O’Donnell, B.A.
Education
2018 M.A. (anticipated), Applied Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
2015 B.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
2012 A.A., Social and Behavioral Sciences, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California.
2011 A.A., Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut,
California.
2014 Archaeological Field School, Santa Rosa Mountains; supervised by Bill Sapp of the
United States Forest Service and Daniel McCarthy of the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians.
Professional Experience
2016- Graduate Research Assistant, Applied Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
2016-2017 Cultural Intern, Cultural Department, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Temecula,
California.
2015 Archaeological Intern, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California.
2015 Peer Research Consultant: African Archaeology, California State University, San
Bernardino.
17
APPENDIX 2
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
8 July, 2022
CRM Tech
Attn: Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
PALEONTOLOGY RECORDS REVIEW for proposed sites of CRM Tech Boyle
Southwest and Citrus Avenue projects, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California
Dear Ms. Gallardo,
The Division of Earth Science of the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) has
completed a record search for the above-named projects in San Bernardino County, California.
The proposed project sites (Boyle Southwest and Citrus Avenue) are in the City of Fontana,
California as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Fontana, California
quadrangle.
Geologic mapping of that region done by Morton (2003) and Dibblee et al. (2004)
indicates the entire project site is situated atop latest Pleistocene and Holocene age alluvial fan
deposits of the Lytle Creek Fan (Qyfl in Morton, Qa [young Quaternary alluvium] in Dibblee),
comprised of an unconsolidated and poorly sorted mixture of sand, clay, and gravel covered by
soil. This unit covers most of the surface in the Bloomington and Fontana area, and the alluvium’s
average grain size coarsens as one moves northward. These deposits are unlikely to be
fossiliferous themselves, but directly overlie older Pleistocene alluvial deposits that are (Qoa). Qa
sourced from the Jurupa Hills may also be a component of the sediment at the project sites.
Qoa mostly consists of fan deposits sourced from the mountain ranges and hills in and
around the San Bernardino Valley, and was deposited between ~1,8 million to ~11,000 years ago.
Museum
Division of Earth Science
Scott Kottkamp
Curator of Earth Science
2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374 | Phone: 909.798.8608
Projects 3903A and 3904A, Fontana, CA
July 8th, 2022
PAGE 2 of 3
Qoa is variable in its precise lithology, and often appears similar to units of Holocene age except
slightly more consolidated. Pleistocene age alluvial deposits have been found to be highly
fossiliferous in the local area, yielding the remains of mastodons, mammoths, Smilodon, camels,
horses, bison, and ground sloths, as well as microfossils including rodents (Reynolds and
Reynolds, 1991). Reynolds and Reynolds (1991) found that Pleistocene sediments in
northwestern Riverside County generally lie about 5 – 15 feet below recent Holocene surface
sediments. Overall thickness of Pleistocene-age alluvium exceeds several hundred feet in much
of the region; the only other units found at or near the surface within 5 miles of the project sites
are non-fossiliferous igneous and metamorphic rocks of Cretaceous or Paleozoic age (Morton,
2003; Dibblee et al., 2004).
For this review, I conducted a search of the Regional Paleontological Locality Inventory
(RPLI) at the SBCM. The results of this search indicate that no paleontological resources have
been discovered within the proposed project sites. The nearest locality, SBCM 5.1.11, is
approximately 2 miles southwest of the proposed project sites. Permineralized bones of the
saber-toothed cat Smilodon sp. were unearthed there, from 5 feet below the surface at an
elevation of 1000 feet, during the excavation of a pipeline trench. SBCM 5.1.11 is covered with
Qa at the surface, overlaying Qoa (where the Smilodon was found) by only a few feet.
Eight other localities, SBCM 5.1.14 – 5.1.21, are in a half-mile wide flood control basin
located 3.5 miles from the project sites’ midpoint. Each locality corresponds to a distinct unit of
Qoa, which range in grain size from clay to very-fine sand and in color from olive-grey to yellow.
All units’ sediments are moist to wet. These units begin at the surface alongside the basin’s edge,
and the deepest corresponds to 21 feet below surface. Taxa found at these sites include: Gyraulus
sp.; Stagnicola sp.; indeterminate Gastropoda; indeterminate Bivalvia; Sylvilagus sp.; Thomomys
sp.; Neotoma sp.; Microtus californicus; Mammut americanum; Bison sp.; Camelops hesternus;
Equus sp.; and many indeterminate mammalian bones, bone fragments, and enamel shards.
Bones and enamel are preserved via permineralization, while invertebrate shells are either casts
or recrystallized. Vertebrate fossils are incomplete to fragmentary, especially for larger animals,
and often have taphonomic wear patterns suggesting fluvial transport. By comparison, the
mollusk taxa identified are endemic to low energy waters, such as lakes or calm riversides. The
fine sediments constituting the fossiliferous units also correlate with a lacustrine or low-energy
fluvial depositional environment. Similar fossil assemblages to those present at SBCM 5.1.14 –
5.1.21 have been found in Qoa throughout the San Bernardino Valley.
Lastly, SBCM locality 5.1.22 is located approximately 5 miles southeast of the project sites.
Permineralized Mammut pacificus bones were discovered at site 5.1.22, near the Santa Ana
River, within a ditch filled with late Pleistocene age alluvium. The mastodon bones were
Projects 3903A and 3904A, Fontana, CA
July 8th, 2022
PAGE 3 of 3
unearthed from sand approximately 25 feet below the surface, during excavation of the ditch in
1916.
This records search covers only the paleontological records of the San Bernardino County
Museum. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area
covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
Scott Kottkamp, Curator of Earth Science
Division of Earth Science
San Bernardino County Museum
Literature Cited
Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2004. Geologic map of the Riverside West/south 1/2 of Fontana
quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation.
Dibblee Foundation Map DF-128. Scale 1:24,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71756.htm (accessed 25 March 2022).
Morton, D.M. 2003. Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California. USGS. Open-File Report OF-2003-418. Scale 1:24,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_61860.htm (accessed 29 June 2022).
Reynolds, R. E., and Reynolds, R. L. 1991. The Pleistocene Beneath our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene
Fossils from Inland Southern California Basins. San Bernardino County Museum Association
Quarterly 38(3 & 4): 41-43.