HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Cultural Resource Assessment
APPENDIX D
Cultural Resource Assessment
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR
THE SIERRA DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Tiffany Clark
Gena Severen
8/26/2022
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SIERRA
DISTRIBUTION FACILITY PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
Tiffany Clark, PhD, RPA
Gena Severen, MA, RPA
Prepared for:
Kimley-Horn
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
Technical Report No. 22-422
PaleoWest LLC
301 9th Street, Suite 204
Redlands, California 92374
(909) 283-7533
August 26, 2022
Keywords: Cultural Resources Assessment; California Environmental Quality Act; County of San
Bernardino; City of Fontana; 18 acres; negative survey
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | i
CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................III
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 4
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 4
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 7
2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 8
2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................. 8
2.2 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 52 ................................................................... 8
2.3 CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN UDPATE ............................................... 9
3.0 NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING .......................................................................10
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................10
3.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING ...................................................................................11
3.2.1 Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000 to 1500 B.P.) .........................................11
3.2.2 Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500 to 750 B.P.) ....................................12
3.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 750 to 400 B.P.) ........................................13
3.2.4 Protohistoric Period ...............................................................................13
3.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING ............................................................................13
3.4 HISTORICAL SETTING ...................................................................................14
3.4.1 County of San Bernardino .....................................................................14
3.4.2 City of Fontana .....................................................................................15
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY .....................................................................17
4.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS....................................17
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ..................17
4.3 ADDITIONAL SOURCES ..................................................................................19
4.3.1 Historical Maps and Aerial Imagery Review ..........................................19
4.3.2 Native American Outreach ....................................................................19
5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................20
5.1 FIELD RESULTS ...............................................................................................20
6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................23
7.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................25
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Confidential Record Search Results
Appendix B. Native American Coordination
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map .................................................................................................. 5
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | ii
Figure 1-2. Project location map ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1-3. Project area map ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5-1. Overview of building and stored materials on Almna Systems property, facing
southwest. ................................................................................................................................21
Figure 5-2. Overview of graveled parking lot of Anderson Trucking Company property,
facing south. .............................................................................................................................22
Figure 5-3. Stored container trailers on Land Star Pallets property, facing north. .......................22
Figure 5-4. Vacant property at 17017 Windflower Avenue, facing northeast. ............................23
TABLES
Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Studies within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area ....................................17
Table 4-2 Previously Documented Cultural Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area .......18
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The proposed Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) involves the development of a
warehouse distribution facility and support facilities in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California. The proposed Project would encompass approximately 18 acres of land
(Assessor Parcel Number: 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, -27) at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive in the northern portion of the city.
PaleoWest LLC (PaleoWest) was contracted by Kimley-Horn to conduct a Phase I cultural
resource assessment of the Project area in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); the City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for CEQA compliance.
This report summarizes the methods and results of the cultural resource assessment. The
investigation included background research, outreach with the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) and Native American groups, and a field survey. The purpose of the study
was to determine the potential of the Project to impact archaeological and historical resources
under CEQA.
As part of the background research, PaleoWest conducted a records search at the South
Central Coastal Information Center to identify previously recorded cultural resources and
studies located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. The records search indicated that at
least 17 previous studies have been conducted in the record search area, three of which
included the current Project area. These studies resulted in the documentation of seven cultural
resources, all of which date to the historic period. None of these previously recorded cultural
resources are mapped in the Project area.
PaleoWest also requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the NAHC on June 13,
2022. Results of the SLF search were obtained on July 21, 2022. The SLF search resulted in
positive results with the NAHC recommending that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation be contacted to request information on known Native American cultural resources
in the Project vicinity. In addition, the NAHC provided a list of 18 individuals representing 12
Native American tribal groups that may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project
area. Outreach letters were sent to the Native American contacts on August 10, 2022 with
follow up correspondence conducted on August 25, 2022. Seven comments have been
received as of August 26, 2022.
PaleoWest conducted a pedestrian cultural resource survey of the proposed Project area on
August 17, 2022. The survey identified no prehistoric or historic period cultural resources on the
18-acre property. Furthermore, the extant data suggest that the Project area has a relatively low
potential for containing buried archaeological remains. Based on these findings, PaleoWest
recommends a finding of no impact to historical or archaeological resources under CEQA. No
additional cultural resource management is recommended for the proposed Project.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) involves the development of a
warehouse distribution facility and support facilities in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California. PaleoWest LLC (PaleoWest) was contracted by Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Phase I cultural resource assessment of the Project area in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Fontana (City) is the Lead Agency for the
purposes of the CEQA.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project lies at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and
Clubhouse Drive approximately 0.6 mile north of State Route 210 and 2.8 miles east of the
Interstate 15 (Figure 1-1). The Project area encompasses approximately 18 acres of land on six
contiguous parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27). The
Project area is in Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and
Meridian (SBBM), as depicted on the Devore, CA 7.5' U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The elevation of the Project area is approximately 1,625
feet above mean sea level (amsl).
The Project area is currently in use by three different companies including: Alumna Systems in
the southeast corner at 17051 Windflower Avenue; the Anderson Trucking Company in the
southwest corner at 5975 North Sierra Avenue, and Land Star Pallets in the northwest corner at
6075 North Sierra Avenue (Figure 1-3). The property in the northeast corner at 17017
Windflower Avenue contains a single building that is currently vacant and not in use. The
surrounding area consists of industrial buildings and distribution centers with the east side of
the Project area bounded by the Mid-Valley Landfill.
The proposed Project involves the construction of a one-story 398,000-square foot warehouse
distribution facility. The facility would contain 10,000 square feet of office space with 55 dock-
high doors constructed along the south building wall. Proposed support facilities include 148
parking spaces, 86 trailer stalls, 86 container stalls, and landscaping. The Project area would be
accessed from Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue, via two driveways each. Four commercial/
industrial buildings currently occupy the property (Figure 1-3); these buildings would be
demolished as part of the Project.
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
Tiffany Clark, PhD, Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), served as Principal
Investigator and directed all fieldwork efforts for the Project and was the primary author on the
report. Kyle Knabb, PhD, RPA, acted as the Project Manager. Staff Archaeologists Marcos
Ramos, MA, RPA conducted the record search of the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) with Gena Severen, MA, RPA completing the pedestrian survey and contributing to the
report. Brian Spelts served as the GIS analyst. Finally, Jessica DeBusk, MBA, conducted senior
technical review of this report.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 5
Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 6
Figure 1-2. Project location map
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 7
Figure 1-3. Project area map
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documents the results of a cultural resource investigation conducted for the
proposed Project. Chapter 1 has introduced the Project location and description. Chapter 2
states the regulatory context for the Project. Chapter 3 synthesizes the natural and cultural
setting of the Project area and surrounding region. The results of the previous cultural
investigations and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search is presented in Chapter 4. The field methods employed during this investigation and the
findings are presented in Chapter 5. Management recommendations are provided in Chapter 6.
These are followed by bibliographic references and appendices.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 8
2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The proposed Project is subject to compliance with CEQA, as amended. Compliance with
CEQA statutes and guidelines requires both public and private projects with financing or
approval from a public agency to assess the project’s impact on cultural resources (Public
Resources Code Section 21082, 21083.2 and 21084 and California Code of Regulations
10564.5). The first step in the process is to identify cultural resources that may be impacted by
the project and then determine whether the resources are “historically significant” resources.
CEQA defines historically significant resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)” (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). A
cultural resource may be considered historically significant if the resource is 45 years old or
older and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.1 In addition, it must meet any of the following criteria for listing on the CRHR:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or,
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
(Public Resources Code Section 5024.1).
Cultural resources are buildings, sites, humanly modified landscapes, traditional cultural
properties, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific
importance. A resource can also be determined historically significant under CEQA by virtue of
being included in a local register of historical resources regardless of CRHR eligibility (see Title
14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(a)(2)). CEQA states that if a project will have
a significant impact on important cultural resources, deemed “historically significant,” then
project alternatives and mitigation measures must be considered. Additionally, the Office of
Historic Preservation (OHP) may choose to comment on the CEQA compliance process for
specific local government projects in an informal capacity but does not seek to review all
projects that may affect historically significant cultural resources under CEQA provisions.
2.2 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 52
Signed into law in September 2014, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) created a new class of
resources – tribal cultural resources – for consideration under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources
may include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing
1 The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) guidelines recognize a 45-year-old criteria threshold for
documenting and evaluating cultural resources (assumes a 5-year lag between resource identification and
the date that planning decisions are made) (OHP 1995:2). The age threshold is an operational guideline
and not specific to CEQA statutory or regulatory codes.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 9
in the CRHR, included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined by the
lead CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant and
eligible for listing on the CRHR. AB 52 requires that the lead CEQA agency consult with
California Native American tribes that have requested consultation for projects that may affect
tribal cultural resources. The lead CEQA agency shall begin consultation with participating
Native American tribes prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or environmental impact report. Under AB 52, a project that has potential to cause
a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource constitutes a significant effect on the
environment unless mitigation reduces such effects to a less than significant level.
2.3 CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN UDPATE
There are three goals and associated policies related to archaeological and historical resources
in the City’s General Plan Update 2015-2035 (City of Fontana 2017). These include:
GOAL 1 The integrity and character of historic structures, and cultural resources sites
within the City of Fontana are preserved.
Policies:
Coordinate city programs and policies to support preservation goals.
Support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives.
Collaborate with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local
tribal organizations about land development that may affect Native American
cultural resources and artifacts.
GOAL 2 Residents’ and visitors’ experience of Fontana is enhanced by a sense of the
city’s history.
Policies:
Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and
the economic benefits of historic preservation in Fontana.
Support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum.
GOAL 3 Archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
Policies:
Collaborate with state archaeological agencies to protect resources.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 10
3.0 NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING
This section of the report summarizes information regarding the physical and cultural setting of
the Project area, including the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic contexts of the general
area. Several factors, including topography, available water sources, and biological resources,
affect the nature and distribution of prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic-period human
activities in an area. This background provides a context for understanding the nature of the
cultural resources that may be identified within the region.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project area is situated south of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the
Transverse Ranges that separate the Los Angeles Basin and the Mojave Desert, in the eastern
portion of the Pomona Valley. The Pomona Valley is bordered to the west by the San Gabriel
Valley, to the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, to the east by the San Bernardino Valley, and
to the south by the Santa Ana River. The alluvial valley was formed by the Santa Ana River and
its tributaries. The Santa Ana River originates on the northern and eastern slopes of Mount San
Gorgonio and is the largest hydrological feature near the Project area, approximately eight miles
away. Lytle Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Ana River, runs in a southeast direction from
the San Gabriel Mountains approximately two miles northeast of the Project area. Other
notable tributaries emerging from the southern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains include
San Antonia Creek, Cajon Wash, Deer Canyon Wash, Cucamonga Creek, and Etiwanda Creek.
Geologically, the entirety of the Project area is characterized by young alluvial fan deposits that
date to the Holocene (Qyf5). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey (2022), the dominant soil composition of the Project area is classified as SoC –
Soboba gravelly loamy sand on 0 to 9 percent slopes. These soils consist of excessively drained
gravelly loamy sand that overlies a very gravelly loam and a very stony sand.
As the climate of the region is largely determined by topographic features, climate, in turn,
largely dictates the character of the biotic environment exploited by native populations. The
climate of the Project area is characterized as Mediterranean, with hot, dry summers and cool,
moist winters. It has a semi-arid precipitation regime; significant changes in temperature and
moisture occur based on elevation and exposure, particularly in the nearby mountains.
Prior to historical development of the Project vicinity, vegetation in the area included
representative species of the valley grassland plant community. Indigenous species present
may have included rye grass (Leymus condensatus), blue grass (Poa secunda), bent grass
(Agrostis spp.), needlegrass (Stipa spp.), three-awn (Aristida divaricata), and members of the
sunflower family (Asteraceae). Additionally, restricted riparian communities also occurred near
springs and along watercourses. Various floral species were available from early spring until
winter, and the leaves, stems, seeds, fruits, roots, and tubers from many of these plant species
formed an important subsistence base for the Native American inhabitants of the region (Bean
and Saubel 1972; Hyde and Elliot 1994).
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 11
3.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
Prehistoric occupation of the inland valleys of Southern California can be divided into seven
cultural periods: Paleoindian (circa [ca.] 12,000–9,500 years before present [B.P.]); Early Archaic
(ca. 9,500–7,000 B.P.); Middle Archaic (ca. 7,000–4,000 B.P.); Late Archaic (ca. 4,000–1,500
B.P.); Saratoga Springs (ca. 1,500–750 B.P.); Late Prehistoric (ca. 750–410 B.P.); and
Protohistoric (ca. 410–180 B.P.), which ended in the ethnographic period. Due to the nature of
prehistoric archaeological sites identified within 0.5 mile of the Project area (see Chapter 4), the
prehistoric cultural setting discussed below begins at the Late Archaic period.
These periods are structured based on the archaeological research conducted at Diamond
Valley Lake as part of the Eastside Reservoir Project (ESRP), located approximately 40 miles
southeast of the Project area (Goldberg et al. 2001; McDougall et al. 2003). For the most part,
the prehistory of the inland valleys of Southern California that characterizes the Project area has
been less thoroughly understood than that of the nearby desert and coastal regions. Prior to the
ESRP cultural resources studies, no comprehensive synthesis had been developed specifically
for the interior valley and mountain localities of cismontane Southern California that characterize
the region. The following has been adapted from Horne and McDougall (2003).
3.2.1 Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000 to 1500 B.P.)
The Late Archaic period was a time of cultural intensification in Southern California. The
beginning of the Late Archaic coincides with the Little Pluvial, a period of increased moisture in
the region. Effective moisture continued to increase in the desert interior by approximately
3,600 B.P. and lasted throughout most of the Late Archaic. This ameliorated climate allowed for
more extensive occupation of the region. By approximately 2,100 B.P., however, drying and
warming increased, perhaps providing motivation for resource intensification. Archaeological
site types that typify this time period include residential bases with large, diverse artifact
assemblages, abundant faunal remains, and cultural features as well as temporary bases,
temporary camps, and task-specific activity areas. In general, sites showing evidence of the
most intensive use tend to be on range-front benches adjacent to permanent water sources,
such as perennial springs or larger streams, while less intensively used locales occur either on
upland benches or on the margins of active alluvial fans (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Data from Late Archaic component archaeological sites also suggest increased sedentism
during this period, with a change to a semi-sedentary land-use and collection strategy. The
profusion of features, and especially refuse deposits in Late Archaic components, suggests that
seasonal encampments saw longer use and more frequent reuse than during the latter part of
the preceding Middle Archaic period, with increasing moisture improving the conditions of
Southern California after ca. 3,100 B.P. (Goldberg et al. 2001; Spaulding 2001). Drying and
warming after ca. 2,100 B.P. likely extracted a toll on expanding populations, influencing
changes in resource procurement strategies, promoting economic diversification and resource
intensification, and perhaps resulting in a permanent shift towards greater sedentism (Goldberg
et al. 2001).
A technological innovation introduced during this period was the mortar and pestle, used for
processing acorns and hard seeds, such as those derived from the mesquite pod. This
correlates with a warming and drying trend that began around 2,100 B.P., which appears to
have resulted in resource intensification (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 12
The subsistence base broadened during the Late Archaic period. The technological
advancement of the mortar and pestle may indicate the use of acorns, an important storable
subsistence resource. Hunting also presumably gained in importance. An abundance of broad,
leaf-shaped blades and heavy, often stemmed or notched projectile points have been found in
association with large numbers of terrestrial and aquatic mammal bones. Other characteristic
features of this period include the appearance of bone and antler implements and the
occasional use of asphaltum and steatite. Most chronological sequences for Southern California
recognize the introduction of the bow and arrow by 1,500 B.P., marked by the appearance of
small arrow points and arrow shaft straighteners.
Technologically, the artifact assemblage of this period was similar to that of the preceding
Middle Archaic; new tools were added either as innovations or as “borrowed” cultural items.
Diagnostic projectile points of this period are still fairly large (dart point size), but also include
more refined notched (Elko), concave base (Humboldt), and small stemmed (Gypsum) forms
(Warren 1984). Late in the period, Rose Spring arrow points appeared in the archaeological
record in the deserts, reflecting the spread of the bow and arrow technology from the Great
Basin and the Colorado River region. This projectile point type was not found at the ESRP study
area, and there is no evidence suggesting that the bow and arrow had come into use at this
time in the inland regions of Southern California.
3.2.2 Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500 to 750 B.P.)
In the early years of this period, cultural trends were, in large part, a continuation of the
developments begun during the end of the Late Archaic Period. These include an increasing
adaptation to the arid environment in the deserts and an increase in trade relations (Warren
1984).
Warren (1984) indicates that there were four cultural spheres within the Mojave and Colorado
deserts during the early part of this period, including a southern desert sphere influenced by
Patayan (Hakatayan) cultures adjacent to the Colorado River. This southern cultural sphere
includes the Colorado Desert and San Jacinto Mountains, but it is unclear whether this
influence extended as far west as the Project area.
Lake Cahuilla is believed to have refilled the Coachella Valley around 1,450 B.P. and was the
focus of cultural activities such as exploitation of fish, waterfowl, and wetland resources during
this period. Desert people, speaking Shoshonean languages, may have moved into Southern
California at this time, the so-called “Shoshonean Intrusion.” Brown and Buff Ware pottery first
appeared on the lower Colorado River at about 1,200 B.P. and started to diffuse across the
California deserts by about 1,100 B.P. (Moratto 1984).
However, about 1,060 B.P., environmental conditions became notably warmer and drier. This
period of intense drought, the Medieval Warm, extended throughout the Southwest (Stine
1994; Warren 1984), and led to the withdrawal of Native American populations from marginal
desert areas. Human occupation of the Lake Perris and the ESRP area declined during this time
period, while what occupations there were seemed to have been tethered to springs and other
sources of water (Goldberg et al. 2001). In inland San Diego County, a similar period of reduced
activity or abandonment during this time has been noted (Moratto 1984). Saratoga Springs-style
projectile points, a large triangular form associated with use of the bow and arrow, began to
appear in the ESRP area at this time. However, the sparse assemblages found from this period
obscure the exact timing of the transformation from dart and atlatl to bow and arrow.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 13
3.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 750 to 400 B.P.)
The Medieval Warm extended into the Late Prehistoric Period, ending about 575 B.P. A period
of lower temperatures and increased precipitation, known as the Little Ice Age, resulted in
increased resource productivity in the inland region. Population increased in the region of the
Project area during this wet interval. In the ESRP area, several small, but apparently
semisedentary occupations, date to this time period. Cottonwood Triangular points began to
appear in inland assemblages at this time, and Obsidian Butte obsidian became much more
common (Goldberg et al., 2001).
By about 500 B.P., strong ethnic patterns developed among native populations in Southern
California. This may reflect accelerated cultural change brought about by increased efficiency in
cultural adaptation and diffusion of technology from the central coastal region of California and
the southern Great Basin (Douglas 1981).
During this period, Lake Cahuilla began to recede (Waters 1983) and the large Patayan
populations occupying its shores began moving westward into areas such as Anza Borrego,
Coyote Canyon, the Upper Coachella Valley, the Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San
Jacinto Plain (Wilke 1976). The final desiccation of Lake Cahuilla, which had occurred by
approximately 400 B.P. (A.D. 1640), resulted in a population shift away from the lakebed into
the Peninsular Ranges to the west, and the Colorado River regions to the east.
3.2.4 Protohistoric Period
The improved, dynamic conditions of the Little Ice Age continued throughout the Protohistoric
period. Utilization of the bow and arrow promoted an increase in hunting efficiency while a
renewed abundance of mortars and pestles indicates extensive exploitation of various hard
nuts and berries. As a result of the increased resource utilization of the area, sedentism
intensified with small, fully sedentary villages forming during the Protohistoric period. This is
evidenced by sites containing deeper middens suggesting more permanent habitation. These
would have been the villages, or rancherias, noted by the early nonnative explorers (True 1966,
1970).
The cultural assemblage associated with the Protohistoric period included the introduction of
locally manufactured ceramic vessels and ceramic smoking pipes, an abundance of imported
Obsidian Butte obsidian, Cottonwood Triangular points, and Desert Side-notched points as well
as the addition of European trade goods, such as glass trade beads, late in the period (Meighan
1954).
3.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING
Archival research and published reports suggest the Project area is situated where three
traditional use territories of Native American groups meet. The traditional use territories of the
Serrano, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino come together just southwest of the present-day city of San
Bernardino near the Project area. These cultural groups all spoke languages belonging to the
Takic branch of the Shoshonean family, a part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock (Bean
1978:576; Geiger and Meighan 1976:19). In the following section, a brief synopsis of Serrano,
Cahuilla, and Gabrielino ethnography is presented. This information has been summarized from
Bean and Vane (2001) and McCawley (1996).
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 14
The Cahuilla and Serrano belonged to nonpolitical, nonterritorial patrimoieties that governed
marriage patterns as well as patrilineal clans and lineages. Each clan, “political-ritual-corporate
units” composed of 3 to 10 lineages, owned a large territory in which each lineage owned a
village site with specific resource areas. Clan lineages cooperated in defense, in large
communal subsistence activities, and in performing rituals. Clans were apt to own land in the
valley, foothill, and mountain areas, providing them with the resources of many different
ecological niches. Unlike their Cahuilla and Serrano neighbors, the Gabrielino had a
hierarchically ordered social class that included groupings of elite, middle class, and
commoners. Class membership played a major role in determining individual lifestyles, as it
depended upon both ancestry and wealth (Bean and Smith 1978:543).
In prehistoric times Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano shelters are believed to have been dome
shaped; after contact they tended to be rectangular in shape. Cahuilla and Serrano shelters
were often made of brush, palm fronds, or arrowweed while the Gabrielino utilized reed. Most
of the Serrano and Cahuilla domestic activities were performed outside the shelters within the
shade of large, expansive ramadas; windbreaks, made of vertical poles covered with rush mats,
provided open-air food preparation and cooking areas at Gabrielino settlements.
The Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano were, for the most part, hunting, collecting, harvesting,
and protoagricultural peoples. As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the
roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Fish, birds, insects, and
large and small mammals were also available.
To gather and prepare these food resources, the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano had an
extensive inventory of equipment including bows and arrows, traps, nets, disguises, blinds,
spears, hooks and lines, poles for shaking down pine nuts and acorns, cactus pickers, seed
beaters, digging sticks and weights, and pry bars. In addition, the Cahuilla also had an extensive
inventory of food processing equipment including hammers and anvils, mortars and pestles,
manos and metates, winnowing shells and baskets, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls,
knives (made of stone, bone, wood, and carrizo cane), bone saws, and drying racks made of
wooden poles to dry fish.
Mountain tops, unusual rock formations, springs, and streams are held sacred to the Cahuilla,
Gabrielino, and Serrano, as are rock art sites and burial and cremation sites. In addition, various
birds are revered as sacred beings of great power and sometimes were killed ritually and
mourned in mortuary ceremonies similar to those for important individuals. As such, bird
cremation sites are sacred.
3.4 HISTORICAL SETTING
3.4.1 County of San Bernardino
The earliest recorded historic-period use of the lands within the San Bernardino Valley began in
the 1770s, following establishment of the Mission San Gabriel approximately 40 miles west of
the Project area. Euro-American settlement in San Bernardino began in the early 1800s through
the establishment of Politana and the Asistencia but was largely fostered by the establishment
of a Mormon colony under the leadership of Amasa Lyman and Charles Rich. Brothers Lyman
and Rich bought the San Bernardino Rancho from Jose and Maria Armenta Lugo in 1851. San
Bernardino County was established on April 26, 1853 and ceded a portion of its territory to the
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 15
formation of Riverside County in 1893. Two Mormon colonies were established on either side
of the Santa Ana River. The Mormons who settled in the San Bernardino area raised livestock,
planted crops, and established civic services such as a school and a post office. The majority of
the Mormon settlers in San Bernardino returned to Salt Lake City; however, some remained.
Agriculture and livestock continued to be the chief industries in San Bernardino County
(Chasteen 2015).
General agriculture and livestock raising pursuits were quickly overshadowed by the citrus
industry in Southern California beginning in the 1870s. The first orange trees in San Bernardino
were planted by Anson Van Leuven in 1857. Citrus quickly became the largest industry in
Southern California, including growing, packing, and shipping. Other industries included cattle
ranching, growing sugar beets, and viticulture and enology. The burgeoning citrus industry led
to a population boom and spurred the development of transcontinental railroads (Chasteen
2015).
3.4.2 City of Fontana
Starting in the 1860s and 1870s, companies began to form across California with the intent of
purchasing readily available land (much of it owned by railroad companies) to redevelop into
land colonies. These land colonies were pivotal in the rapid development of regions across the
West and specifically in San Bernardino County. The companies purchased the land, acquired
water rights, established lots, and built infrastructure such as roads and water irrigation lines.
These land colonies were key to agricultural growth in the region (Gentilcore 1960).
In 1881, George and William Chaffey purchased 6,200 acres of land in what is today considered
Upland (west of the Project area) for the formation of the Ontario Colony. The land provided
was ideal for the growing of oranges. Happening concurrently, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water
Company formed. The company purchased 28,000 acres and the water rights to Lytle Creek.
The company laid out the townsites of Rosena (now known as Fontana), Rialto, Bloomington,
and San Sevaine. The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company, though ultimately unsuccessful in
its attempts, initiated early residential and commercial development in San Bernardino County
(Chasteen 2015).
The Chaffey brothers’ success in Ontario Colony was first realized east in Etiwanda. They
purchased approximately 2,500 acres of land and water rights at the base of the San Gabriel
Mountains in the vicinity of Day, Etiwanda, Deer, and San Sevaine creeks in 1882 and formed
the Etiwanda Water Company and a land colony. The 2,500 acres were divided into 10-acre
plots that were guaranteed water delivery once a month, and one share of stock in the water
company per acre purchased. The water was diverted from the Day and Etiwanda creeks
through a wooden flume to a reservoir on the north end of the colony. From here seven parallel
lines of 7- to 10-inch pipe were laid to deliver water to small reservoirs constructed by the
landowners. This system of flumes and distribution pipes improved upon irrigation ditches that
were already in the area, but much of the water in this arid region was lost through evaporation
and seepage into the area’s sandy soil. At this time, noted California historian Kevin Starr stated
that the Chaffey’s land, water, and electrical development in Etiwanda “was the most
innovative agricultural colony in the Far West.” Just the pipeline system alone set a standard
for future irrigation development the Cucamonga Valley (County of San Bernardino n.d.; Hall
1888; Hickcox 1980:20; San Bernardino County Recorder 1882; Starr 1991:15).
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 16
The success of the Chaffey brothers propelled the growth of the region, and their irrigation
system was lauded across the state. With the establishment of the Etiwanda system, the
Ontario Colony became an example of the new standard for land development across the arid
west. Other nearby farming settlements, including the community of Grapeland, sought to
follow its success by establishing their own irrigation systems. The Grapeland Irrigation District
(District) was established in 1891 and encompassed 10,600 acres of land, including the current
Project area (Alexandrowicz et al. 1992:67). Soon after its establishment, the District began
issuing bonds and levying taxes to finance the construction of the proposed water system
which was envisioned as a grid of open water ditches and canals that crisscrossed Grapeland
fed by a tunnel from Lytle Creek (Alexandrowicz et al. 1992:73). Due to financial difficulties, the
irrigation system was never completed. The District was dissolved in 1910 and the title of the
property was transferred to the Fontana Development Company.
In 1913, the Fontana Development Company, which had been renamed the Fontana Union
Water Company, moved to Rosena and renamed the town Fontana (Alexandrowicz et al.
1992:78). The first three buildings in the city were completed in 1914 and included a school, a
citrus packing house, and a Pacific Electric depot. A post office was constructed soon
thereafter. During the early decades of the twentieth century, Fontana’s economy focused on
agriculture, particularly poultry and hog raising. Fontana’s real growth came in 1942 with
construction of the Henry J. Kaiser Steel Mill which quickly transformed the small agricultural
hamlet to an industrial town. The steel mill and surrounding support business remained the top
employer in the city from 1942 until it ceased operation in 1984 (City of Fontana 2022).
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 17
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Multiple sources, including a records search at the SCCIC at California State University,
Fullerton, were consulted to identify prior studies and previously recorded cultural resources
within 0.5 mile of the Project area. The SCCIC records search was undertaken by Mr. Ramos
on July 29, 2022. Copies of the records search results are included in Appendix A.
As part of the cultural resources inventory, PaleoWest staff also examined historical maps and
aerial images to characterize the developmental history of the Project property and surrounding
area. Finally, PaleoWest contacted the NAHC to request a review of the SLF to identify any
known Native American cultural resources that may be present in the Project area. A summary
of the results of the record search and background research are provided below.
4.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
The data review indicates that no fewer than 17 previous investigations have been conducted
and documented within 0.5-mile of the Project area since 1978 (Table 4-1). Three of these
studies (SB-02621, SB-07517, and SB-07813), encompassed a portion or entirety of the Project
area. Study SB-02621 involved a preliminary cultural resource study of 12,800 acres within the
North Fontana Infrastructural Area (Alexandrowicz et al. 1992); the multi-disciplinary study
compiled information from archival research, oral history interviews, and limited survey to
identify culturally sensitive areas within the northern portion of the city. Study SB-07517 was
completed in 1992 and involved a cultural resource investigation of 2,822 acres for the Rialto
Ammunition Storage Point Project (Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC] 1999).
Finally, Study 07813 was conducted in support of the installation of an AT&T cell tower and
support equipment at 6075 Sierra Avenue (Perez 2014). None of these previous studies
identified any cultural resources within the current Project area.
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTED WITHIN
THE STUDY AREA
The review of the record search data indicate that seven cultural resources have been
previously documented within 0.5-mile of the Project area (Table 4-2). All of these resources
date to the historic period and include three road segments, the archaeological remains of
single-family residence and a cabin with corral, a homestead complex, and a refuse scatter. No
prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the record search area. None of the
previously documented resources are located within the Project Area.
Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Studies within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area
Study
No. Date Author(s) Title
SB-00682 1978 Joseph E. Hearn Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of Parcels 239-221-17 and 18,
Rialto Area
SB-01611 1986 Ronald M. Bissell A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the La Cuesta Property, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California
SB-01960 1989 Jeanette A.
McKenna
Cultural Resources Investigations of the Phase I Tree Relocation Property Within the
Proposed Sierra Lakes Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 18
Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Studies within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area
Study
No. Date Author(s) Title
SB-01983 1989 Jeanette A.
McKenna
Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree
Location Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
SB-02096 1990 Jeanette A.
McKenna
Phase II Investigations: Historic Documentation and Archaeological Test Excavations
within the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Location Project Area, Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5,
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
SB-02621 1992
Steven J.
Alexandrowicz, Ann
Q. Duffield-Stoll,
Jeanette A.
McKenna, Susan R.
Alexandrowicz,
Arther A. Kuhner,
and Eric Scott
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations within the North Fontana
Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
SB-03538 1995 Laurie White and
Robert S. White
Cultural Resources Investigation of the 3000 +/- City of Rialto Airport Area Specific
Plan, North Rialto, California
SB-03634 1998 Cary Cotterman Historic Structure Evaluation of WWII Ordinance Storage Igloos in Support of the
Mid-Valley Landfill Expansion, Rialto, San Bernardino County, California
SB-04016 1997 Michael Macko Historical, Archaeological, & Paleontological Assessment of the Mid-Valley Landfill
Expansion, Rialto, San Bernardino County, California
SB-04017 2002 Jeanette A.
McKenna
A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the North Rialto Warehouse Distribution
Center Project Area, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California
SB-04020 1996 Jeanette A.
McKenna
Historic Documentation & Archaeological Test Excavations of Historic Archaeological
Sites within the Sierra Lakes Tree Location Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California.
SB-04022 1999 Jeanette A.
McKenna
Report of Archaeological Monitoring Activities at the Sierra Lakes Project Site,
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
SB-06986 2010 Amy Glover and
Sherri Gust
Phase I Resources Assessment Report for the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the
Cities of Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino County, California.
SB-07517 1999 SAIC Site Survey Report for DERP-FUDS Site #J09CA057200, Rialto Ammunition Storage
Point.
SB-07783 2003 Riordan Goodwin Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment: JW Mitchell Land Co., LLC
Specific Plan, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
SB-07813 2014 Don Perez Cultural Resource Survey: CLV 5447, 6075 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California 92336
SB-08104 2014 David Brunzell Cultural Resources Assessment Sierra and Summit Project, Phase II (42.3 Acres)
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Bold indicates prior cultural resource studies that include the current Project area.
Table 4-2 Previously Documented Cultural Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area
Primary No. Trinomial Type Description
P-36-006584 CA-SBR-006584H Site Historic remains of a single-family residence
P-36-006586 CA-SBR-006586H Buildings and
Structures Historic Adams Residential Complex
P-36-011505 CA-SBR-011505H Site Historic remains of a cabin and corral
P-36-011507 CA-SBR-011507H Site Historic refuse scatter
P-36-011509 CA-SBR-011509H Structure Historic Juniper Avenue North
P-36-011510 CA-SBR-011510H Structure Historic Sierra Cutoff
P-36-011512 CA-SBR-011512H Structure Historic Summit Avenue
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 19
4.3 ADDITIONAL SOURCES
4.3.1 Historical Maps and Aerial Imagery Review
Historical maps consulted as part of the background research include the Bureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) General Lands Office (GLO) survey maps (1875 and 1898), San
Bernardino, CA (1896, 1942, 1954), and Devore, CA (1936, 1941, 1954, 1966) 7.5-minute
USGS quadrangles. Aerial photographs available at NETROnline (2022) dated 1938, 1959, 1966,
1980, 1985, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 were also
reviewed.
The earliest map of the area depicts several small washes north of the Project site with patches
of chamizal (saltbrush) and underbrush to the south (BLM 1875). The only noted development
at this time is a number of short road segments, none of which are located within 0.5 mile of
the Project area. By the end of the nineteenth century, a network of roads, including Sierra
Avenue, had been established in the Project vicinity (USGS 1896). The community of Grapeland
is depicted approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the Project area. The Project site appears to
have remained undeveloped until the early 1950s, at which time a tower structure and
associated building were constructed in the northwestern portion of the property (NETROnline
2022). The tower structure and building were demolished sometime between 1966 and 1980.
By 1980, Windflower Avenue had been built and soon thereafter, four buildings were
constructed on the property (NETROnline 2022). No notable changes in the use of the Project
area have occurred since 1985.
4.3.2 Native American Outreach
PaleoWest contacted the NAHC for a review of the SLF on June 13, 2022. The objective of the
SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural
resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within
the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The NAHC responded on July 21, 2022, stating that
the SLF search resulted in positive results and recommended that the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation be contacted to request information on known Native American
cultural resources in the Project vicinity. In addition, the NAHC provided a list of 18 individuals
representing 12 Native American tribal groups that may also have knowledge of cultural
resources in the Project area. Outreach letters were sent to the Native American contacts on
August 10, 2022 with follow up correspondence conducted on August 25, 2022 (see Appendix
B).
As of August 26, 2022, seven comments have been received. Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Cultural
Resources Analyst at the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) emailed on August 11, 2022 and stated that a record check of their
cultural registry revealed that the Project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.
On August 22, 2022, Lacy Padilla also responded via email and confirmed the previous
response and stated that the ACBCI would defer to the other tribes in the area. Ryan Nordness,
Cultural Resource Analyst for the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), emailed on August 12, 2022 and stated that the Project
is not located near any known cultural resources. Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022 and
stated that the Project is located on the tribe’s ancestral land and that they had concerns
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 20
regarding the Project that they sent to the city of Fontana directly. Robert Dorame, Chairperson
of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, was reached via telephone on
August 26, 2022 and stated that since most of the families in their tribe reside in coastal areas
he would defer to the Tribal Consultant and Adminstrator, Christina Conley. Ms. Conley could
not be reached for comment. Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians, was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022 and requested that he and Co-
Chairperson Wayne Walker if any cultural materials are found during construction activities.
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department Lead for the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022 and stated that he would defer to the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
A cultural resources survey of the Project area was completed by Ms. Severen on August 17,
2022. Prior to conducting the survey, Ms. Severen met on-site with the facility supervisor of
Alumna Systems, a concrete and shoring construction company operating at 17051 Windflower
Avenue. Because of the developed nature of the Project site, the archaeologist initially
conducted a reconnaissance survey of the 18-acre area to assess the current conditions of the
property and identify areas of exposed ground surface. The northeast portion of the Project
area was fenced and inaccessible and was visually inspected from the edge of the property.
The archaeologist inspected any exposed areas of ground surface to identify areas likely to
contain or exhibit sensitive cultural resources. Historical site indicators may include fence lines,
ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations of materials
at least 45 years in age, such as domestic refuse (e.g., glass bottles, ceramics, toys, buttons or
leather shoes), refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture (e.g., metal tanks, farm
machinery parts, horse shoes) or structural materials (e.g., nails, glass window panes,
corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, railroad spurs, etc.).
Prehistoric site indicators may include areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal,
fragments of animal bone, shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human bone. Notes and
photographs of the Project area were taken during the survey.
5.1 FIELD RESULTS
Results of the field survey confirmed that the Project area is fully developed. The Alumna
Systems property (17051 Windflower Avenue) that covers the southeast corner of the Project
area contains an industrial, metal building with a paved and graveled area that is currently used
for staging and material storage (Figure 5-1). The Anderson Trucking Company (5975 North
Sierra Avenue) in the southwest corner of the Project area contains an industrial metal building
with a paved and graveled parking lot that currently houses container trailers (Figure 5-2). The
Land Star Pallets property in the northwest corner (6075 North Sierra Avenue) of the Project
area contains a single building with a gravel and asphalt parking area that is also currently being
used to store container trailers (Figure 5-3). Finally, the northeast corner of the Project area
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 21
(17017 Windflower Avenue) is vacant and contains a single building with a parking area covered
with gravel and asphalt.
The entirety of the Project area is highly disturbed with no native intact sediments observed.
The survey identified no prehistoric or historic period archaeological remains in the Project area.
In addition, the four standing buildings appear to have been constructed within the last 45
years. As such, they do not meet the minimum age guidelines to be considered a cultural
resource under CEQA.
Figure 5-1. Overview of building and stored materials on Alumna Systems property, facing southwest
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 22
Figure 5-2. Overview of graveled parking lot of Anderson Trucking Company property, facing south
Figure 5-3. Stored container trailers on Land Star Pallets property, facing north
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 23
Figure 5-4. Vacant property at 17017 Windflower Avenue, facing northeast
6.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural resources assessment completed by PaleoWest identified no archaeological or
historical resources in the Project area. Results of the site visit revealed surficial sediments
have been disturbed across the Project property by the development four industrial buildings in
the 1980s. As these buildings are less than 45 years old, they do not require management
consideration as potential historical resources under CEQA.
The extant data indicate that there is a low potential for encountering intact buried prehistoric or
historic archaeological deposits in the Project area. No prehistoric archaeological resources
have been identified within 0.5-mile of the Project area. Furthermore, the absence of any major
water source in the vicinity of the Project suggests the area would not have been attractive to
prehistoric groups as either a habitation locale or for resource procurement. Review of historical
topographic maps and aerial photographs indicates that the Project area remained undeveloped
until the mid-twentieth century. As such, it is unlikely that significant historic period
archaeological remains would be present within the Project area. Based on these findings,
PaleoWest recommends a finding of no impacts to archaeological and historical resources
under CEQA. No further cultural resources management is recommended for the Project.
In the event that potentially significant archaeological materials are encountered during Project-
related ground-disturbing activities, all work should be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological
discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 24
significance of the archaeological resource. In addition, Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA
15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the
unlikely event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a
dedicated cemetery. Finally, should additional actions be proposed outside the currently defined
Project area that have the potential for additional subsurface disturbance, further cultural
resource management may be required.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 25
7.0 REFERENCES
Alexandrowicz, Steven J., Ann Q. Duffield-Stoll, Jeanette A. McKenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz,
Arther A. Kuhner, and Eric Scott
1992 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations within the North Fontana
Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Report on file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University,
Fullerton.
Bean, Lowell J.
1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8 (California), edited by R.F.
Heizer, pp. 575–587. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press,
Banning, California.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Serrano. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California (edited by
R.F. Heizer), pp. 571–574. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia B. Vane
2001 Eastside Reservoir Project Phase III: Ethnography and Ethnohistory. Report prepared
by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California. Report submitted to the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
1875 General Lands Office Survey Map for Township 1 North, Range 5 West. Surveyor
General Office, San Francisco, CA. Accessed on August 11, 2022 at
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=285772&sid=oj5isjgk.
qp0.
1898 General Lands Office Survey Map for Township 1 North, Range 5 West. Surveyor
General Office, San Francisco, CA. Accessed on August 11, 2022 at
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=285776&sid=oj5isjgk.
qp0#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1
Chasteen, Carrie
2015 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the I-10 Corridor Improvement Project.
Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California. Report
submitted to State of California Department of Transportation, District 8, San
Bernardino, California.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 26
City of Fontana
2017 General Plan Update 2015-2035. Accessed August 9, 2022 at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---
Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018.
2022 “About the City of Fontana.” Accessed August 21, 2022 at
https://www.fontana.org/31/About-Us.
County of San Bernardino
n.d. “Water Source Management: The Evolution of Today’s Water Agency.” Accessed
August 21, 2021 at
http://web.sbcnep.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=918.
Geiger, Maynard, O.F.M., and Clement W. Meighan
1976 As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and customs as Reported by the
Franciscan Missionaries, 1913-1815. Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library, Santa
Barbara, California.
Douglas, R. C.
1981 Archaeological, Historical/Ethnohistorical, and Paleontological Assessment, Weir
Canyon Park-Road Study, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman Associates,
Tustin. Manuscript on file, University of California Institute of Archaeology, Los
Angeles, California.
Gentilcore, R.
1960 Ontario, California and the Agricultural Boom of the 1880s. Agricultural History, 34
(2), 77-87.
Goldberg, S. K., C. J. Klink, J. A. Onken, W. G. Spaulding, M. C. Robinson, M. C. Horne, and R.
L. McKim
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final
Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings. Report
prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Hall, William Hammond
1888 “Detail Irrigation Map Ontario Sheet” in Irrigation in California (Southern) – The
Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office.
Hickcox, Robert L.
1980 Oral History Interview with Robert L. Hickcox, Interviewed by Betty Maxie.
Accessed August 21, 2021 at
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cwd/id/11683.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 27
Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2003 Cultural Resources Element of the City of Riverside General Plan Update. Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Submitted to Cotton Bridges and Associates,
Pasadena, California.
Hyde, V., and E. Elliot
1994 Yumayk: Long Ago. University of California Press, Berkeley.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. 2nd printing. Malki
Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.
McDougall, D. P., M. C. Horne, and J. Sander
2003 Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of the Lake Mathews Inundation Zone.
Report prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Report submitted to
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 10(2):215–227.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2022 Web Soil Survey Data of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project Area and Vicinity.
Accessed August 11, 2022 at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
NETROnline
2022 Aerial images of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project Area and Vicinity. Accessed
August 11, 2022 at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento. Accessed on December 18, 2020 at
https://scic.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/manual95.pdf.
Perez, Don
2014 Cultural Resource Survey: CLV 5447, 6075 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California 92336. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center, California State University, Fullerton.
San Bernardino County Recorder
1882 “Preliminary Map of the Etiwanda Colony Lands.” Map Book 2, Page 24.
Accessed on August 21, 2021 at
http://170.164.60.159/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=550893&dbid=3&searchid=65e
498a2-7dd5-476f-8ae9-ae9815b3b94e&cr=1.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 28
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
1999 Site Survey Report for DERP-FUDS Site #J09CA057200, Rialto Ammunition Storage
Point. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
Spaulding, W.G.
2001 The Archaeobotany of Domenigoni and Diamond Valleys. In Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological
Investigations, Vol. V: Chapter 13. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor.
Starr, Kevin
1991 Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Stine, Scott
1994 “Extreme And Persistent Drought In California And Patagonia During Mediaeval
Time.” Nature 369, pp. 546–549.
True, D. L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in
Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca State Park, San Diego
County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs No. 1, University of California,
Los Angeles, CA.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. (USGS)
1896 San Bernardino, California (1:62,500) topographic quadrangle.
1936 Devore, California (1:31,680) topographic quadrangle.
1941 Devore, California (1:31,680) topographic quadrangle.
1942 San Bernardino, California (1:62,500) topographic quadrangle.
1954 San Bernardino, California (1:62,500) topographic quadrangle.
1954 Devore, California (1:24,000) topographic quadrangle.
1966 Devore, California (1:24,000) topographic quadrangle.
Warren, Claude
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. J. Moratto. Academic Press New
York, NY.
Waters, M.
1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Lake Cahuilla. Quaternary
Research 19:373–387.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | 29
Wilke, Philip J.
1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Ph.D.
dissertation, Riverside: Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Riverside, California.
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | Appendix A
Appendix A.
Confidential Record Search Results
PrimaryString TrinomialString ResourceName ResType Age InfoBase Attribs RecordingEvents
P-36-006584 CA-SBR-006584H AH02; AH15 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-006586 CA-SBR-006586H AH04; AH05; AH15 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-011505 CA-SBR-011505H Summit Ave Homestead Site Historic Survey AH02; AH04; AH11; AH16 1987 (Hatheway & Mckenna);
2002 (GOODWIN, LSA)
P-36-011507 CA-SBR-011507H LSA-JWM 230-S-2; Summit Ave
Dump Site Historic Survey AH04 2002 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA)
P-36-011509 CA-SBR-011509H LSA-JWM 230-S-4; Juniper Ave
North Other Historic Survey AH07 2002 (Robert Reynolds, LSA)
P-36-011510 CA-SBR-011510H LSA-JWM 230-S-5; Sierra Cutoff Other Historic Survey AH07 2002 (Robert Reynolds, LSA);
2010 (Victoria Harvey, Lindsay Andrews, Southern California Edison)
P-36-011512 CA-SBR-011512H LSA-JWM 230-S-7; Summit Ave Other Historic Survey AH07 2002 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA)
Resources within 0.5 mile of Project Area
ReportNum Authors CitYear CitTitle CitPublisher Resources
SB-00264 SMITH, GERALD A.1975 HISTORICAL - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE AND EVALUATION: BEAUMONT
AVENUE WATER RESOURCES PROJECT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ASSOCIATION
SB-00682 HEARN, JOSEPH E.1978 ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF PARCELS 239-221-
17, 18, RIALTO AREA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ASSOCIATION
SB-01611 BISSELL, RONALD M.1986 A CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE OF THE LA CUESTA PROPERTY,
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES 36-006588
SB-01611 RASCHKE, ROD 1986 ASSESSMENT OF THE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR THE LA CUESTA
SPECIFIC PLAN, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES
SB-01960 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A.1989
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS OF THE PHASE I TREE RELOCATION
PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED SIERRA LAKES PROJECT AREA, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.
SB-01983 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A.1989
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LA CUESTA/SIERRA
LAKES TREE RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, PHASES 2, 3, 4, AND 5, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.
Previous Studies within 0.5-mile of the Project Area
SB-02096 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A.1990
PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS: HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
TEST EXCAVATIONS OF SITES WITHIN THE LA CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL 36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006588, 36-
006589
SB-02621
ALEXANDROWICZ, J. STEVEN, ANNE Q.
DUFFIELD-STOLL, JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA, SUSAN R. ALEXANDROWICZ,
ARTHUR A. KUHNER, and ERIC SCOTT
1992
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE
NORTH FONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE AREA, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
36-004296, 36-006110, 36-006111, 36-006251, 36-006583, 36-
006584, 36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587, 36-006588, 36-
006589, 36-006807, 36-006808, 36-006809, 36-006810, 36-
006811, 36-006812, 36-006813, 36-006814, 36-006815, 36-
006816
SB-03538 WHITE, LAURIE and ROBERT S. WHITE 1995 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION FLRO THE 3000 +/- ACRE CITY OF RIALTO
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, NORTH RIALTO, CA. 29PP ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 36-006110, 36-006250, 36-006329, 36-006780, 36-006781
SB-03634 COTTERMAN, CARY 1998
HISTORIC STRUCTURES EVALUATIO OF WWII ORDINANCE STORAGE IGLOOS IN
SUPPORT OF THE MID-VALLEY LANDFILL EXPANSION, RIALTO, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA. 41PP
TETRA TECH 36-008696
SB-04016 MACKO, MICHAEL 1997 HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL & PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF TEH MID-
VALLEY SANITARY LANDFILL EXPANSION, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 39PP MACKO, INC 36-008696, 36-008697, 36-008698
SB-04017 MDKENNA, JEANETTE A.2002
A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION OF THE NORTH RIALTO
WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER PROJECT AREA, CITY OF RIALTO, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 66PP
MCKENNA ET AL 36-008697, 36-008698
SB-04020 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A.1996
HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION & ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATIONS OF HISTORIC
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE SIERRA LAKES TREE LOCATION PROJECT
AREA, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 596PP
MCKENNA ET AL 36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587, 36-
006588, 36-006589
SB-04022 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A.1999 REPORT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING ACTIVITIES AT THE SIERRA LAKES
PROJECT SITE, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 129PP MCKENNA ET AL 36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587, 36-
006588, 36-006589
SB-06986 Glover, Amy and Sherri Gust 2010 Phase I Resources Assessment Report for the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the Cities of
Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino County, California.Cogstone
SB-07517 SAIC 1999 Site Survey Report for DERP-FUDS Site #J09CA057200, Rialto Ammunition Storage Point.
SB-07783 Goodwin, Riordan 2003 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment: JW Mitchell Land Co., LLC Specific
Plan, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.LSA 36-006589, 36-011505, 36-011506, 36-011507, 36-011508, 36-
011509, 36-011510, 36-011511, 36-011512, 36-011513
SB-07813 Perez, Don 2014 Culturar Resource Survey: CLV 5447, 6075 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California 92336.EBI Consulting
SB-08104 Brunzell, David 2014 Cultural Resources Assessment Sierra and Summit Project, Phase II (42.3 Acres) Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California BCR Consulting LLC
Sierra Distribution Facility Project | Appendix B
Appendix B.
Native American Coordination
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
July 21, 2022
Kyle Knabb
PaleoWest Archaeology
Via Email to: kknabb@paleowest.com
Re: Sierra Avenue, Fontana Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Knabb:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results
were positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the
attached list for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in
the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Other sources of
cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded
sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS)
archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources
in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential
adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they
cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to
consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of
notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to
ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify
the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email
address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
laviles@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
admin@gabrielenoindians.org
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
GTTribalcouncil@aol.com
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
gtongva@gmail.com
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
roadkingcharles@aol.com
Gabrielino
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Sierra Avenue, Fontana Project,
San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
004405
07/21/2022 02:43 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
7/21/2022
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
serranonation1@gmail.com
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
serranonation1@gmail.com
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Sierra Avenue, Fontana Project,
San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
004405
07/21/2022 02:43 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
7/21/2022
Native American Contact/Response Matrix
Recommended Contacts
(Name and Tribal Affiliation) Contact Info Contact Attempts Comments/Notes
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
laviles@aguacaliente.net
Sent via email 8/10/22
Email response received on 8/11/22 from Ms. Arysa
Gonzalez Romero stating that a records check of the Tribal
Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that
this project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use
Area. Therefore, the Tribe defers to the other tribes in the
area. Lastly, the response stated that the correspondence
shall conclude the Tribe's consultation efforts.
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Sent via email 8/10/22
Email response received on 8/22/2022 from Ms. Lacy
Padilla, THPO Operations Manager, stating that a records
check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural
registry revealed that this project is not located within the
Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, the Tribe defers to
the other tribes in the area.
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
admin@gabrielenoindians.org
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22
Chairperson Salas stated that this is their ancestral land
and that they had certain concerns regarding the Project
that they sent to the City of Fontana directly.
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
GTTribalcouncil@aol.com
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/26/22 No response/comment
Recommended Contacts
(Name and Tribal Affiliation) Contact Info Contact Attempts Comments/Notes
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/26/22 No response/comment
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
gtongva@gmail.com
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/26/22
Chairperson Dorame asked if the Sacred Lands File Search
had returned any cultural resources, which it had, and he
was informed of this. He stated that since the majority of
the families in their Tribe reside in the coastal areas, and
not close to this Project, he would defer to the Tribal
Consultant and Administrator, Christina Conley.
Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and
Administrator
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
christina.marsden@alumni.usc.edu
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/26/22 No response/comment
Charles Alvarez,
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
roadkingcharles@aol.com
Sent via USPS 8/10/22;
Follow up call on 8/26/22 No response/comment
Robert Martin, Chairperson
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22 No response/comment
Recommended Contacts
(Name and Tribal Affiliation) Contact Info Contact Attempts Comments/Notes
Ann Brierty, THPO
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22 No response/comment
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
scottmanfred@yahoo.com Sent via email 8/10/22 No response/comment
Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation
Officer
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantribe.com
Sent via email 8/10/22 No response/comment
Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural
Resources
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuelnsn.
Gov
Sent via email 8/10/22
Email response received 8/12/22 from Mr. Ryan Nordness,
the Cultural Resource Analyst for the Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation (formally known as the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians), concerning the Project. Mr. Nordness
stated the Project is not located near any known resources.
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22 No response/comment
Recommended Contacts
(Name and Tribal Affiliation) Contact Info Contact Attempts Comments/Notes
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
serranonation1@gmail.com
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22 See response from Mark Cochrane
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
serranonation1@gmail.com
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22
Co-Chairperson Mark requested that we notify himself and
Co-Chairperson Wayne Walker if any cultural materials are
found during construction activities, and suggested that we
notify them of this via email.
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov
CC: Jessica Valdez
jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov
Sent via email 8/10/22;
Follow up call 8/25/22
Cultural Resource Department Head Joseph Ontiveros said
he would be deferring this over to the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians (Jessica Mauck's response is detailed
above from 8/12).
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Sent via email 8/10/22 See above comment from another tribal contact.
From:Gonzalez Romero, Arysa (TRBL)
To:Gena Granger
Subject:Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigation for the Sierra Avenue and Windflower Avenue Project, City
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Date:Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:26:32 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Greetings,
A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this
project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other
tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts.
Thank you,
Arysa Gonzalez Romero, M.S., RPA.
Cultural Resources Analyst
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Phone: (760)-831-2484
Email: aromero@aguacaliente.net
From:THPO Consulting
To:Gena Granger; THPO Consulting
Cc:Kyle Knabb
Subject:RE: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigation for the Sierra Avenue and Windflower Avenue Project,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 2:08:22 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Greetings,
A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this
project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other
tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts.
Thank you,
Lacy Padilla
THPO Operations Manager
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264
D: 760-699-6956 I C: 760-333-5222
From: Gena Granger <GGranger@paleowest.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 11:40 AM
To: THPO Consulting <ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net>
Cc: Kyle Knabb <kknabb@paleowest.com>
Subject: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigation for the Sierra Avenue and Windflower
Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
** This Email came from an External Source **
Please see the attached letter and map for the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigation
for the Sierra Avenue and Windflower Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California.
Best,
Gena Severen (Granger), MA, RPA | Associate ArchaeologistPaleoWest
ggranger@paleowest.com
mobile: 562-310-0153www.paleowest.com
Los Angeles, California517 S. Ivy AvenueMonrovia, CA 91016
This email has been scanned by Inbound Shield™.
From:Ryan Nordness
To:Gena Granger
Subject:Information request for Sierra Avenue and Windflower Avenue project, Fontana, CA
Date:Friday, August 12, 2022 12:48:36 PM
Hello Gena,
Thank you for reaching out to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians) concerning the proposed project area. YSMN appreciates the
opportunity to review the project documentation received by the Cultural Resources Management
Department on August 11, 2022The proposed project is not located near any known resources.
Thank you again for your correspondence, if you have any additional questions or comments please
reach out to me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Ryan Nordness
Ryan Nordness
Cultural Resource Analyst
Ryan.Nordness@sanmanuel-nsn.gov
O:(909) 864-8933 Ext 50-2022
M:(909) 838-4053
26569 Community Center Dr Highland, California 92346