HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
for the Maple Property
San Bernardino County, California
Prepared For:
Nolan Leggio
Diversified Pacific
10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Prepared By:
215 North 5th Street
Redlands, California 92374
November 2023
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
E N VIRO N MENTAL C O NSU LTA N T S
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property i November 2023
2023-169
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Diversified Pacific retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2023 to conduct an archaeological resources
inventory for the Fontana Maple Property in San Bernardino County, California. Diversified Pacific
proposes the construction of an 8.38-acre housing development east of Locust Avenue, west of North
Maple Avenue, north of West Foothill Boulevard, and south of Barbee Street in the City of Fontana. The
proposed development would be located within Assessor's Parcel Numbers 02-431-4201, 02-431-4202,
02-431-4203, 02-431-4204, 02-431-4205, and 02-431-4206.
The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. The records search results
indicated that two previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within the Project Area. As a
result of those studies, no sites or isolates have previously been recorded within the Project Area.
As a result of the field survey, ECORP did not record any cultural resources within the Project Area.
Recommendations for the management of unanticipated discoveries are provided.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property ii November 2023
2023-169
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Area of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act.......................................................................................... 5
1.4 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period/Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 BP) ................................... 7
3.1.2 Early Archaic Period/Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,500 BP) ................................................. 7
3.1.3 Encinitas Tradition or Milling Stone Period/Middle Holocene (8,500 to
1,250 BP) ................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.4 Palomar Tradition (1,250 to 150 BP) ........................................................................................... 9
3.2 Ethnohistory ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Regional History ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Fontana Area History ...................................................................................................................................... 12
4.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Personnel Qualifications ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Records Search Methods .............................................................................................................................. 14
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods .............................................................................................. 15
4.4 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods ..................................................................................... 15
4.5 Field Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
5.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................................................. 16
5.1.1 Previous Research ........................................................................................................................... 16
5.1.2 Records ................................................................................................................................................ 17
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs ...................................................................................... 18
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results .............................................................................................................................. 19
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property iii November 2023
2023-169
5.3 Other Interested Party Consultation Results ......................................................................................... 19
5.4 Field Survey Results ......................................................................................................................................... 19
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 21
6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 21
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training .................................................................................................. 21
6.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 21
6.3.3 Post-Review Discoveries ............................................................................................................... 22
7.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Project Area Overview (view southwest; September 14, 2023). ....................................................................20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area ...............................................16
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination
Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination
Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property iv November 2023
2023-169
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effect
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BP Years Before Present
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
GLO General Land Office
MLD Most Likely Descendant
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 1 November 2023
2023-169
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Diversified Pacific retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2023 to conduct an archaeological resources
inventory for the Fontana Maple Property in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. A
survey of the Project Area was required to identify potentially eligible cultural resources (i.e.,
archaeological sites and historic buildings, structures, and objects) that could be affected by the Project.
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project Area consists of approximately 8.38 acres of property located in the southwestern quarter of
the southeastern quarter of Section 4 of Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian as depicted on the 1967 (photorevised 1980) Fontana, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1). It is located northwest of the intersection of West
Foothill Boulevard and North Maple Avenue. The Proposed Project entails the construction of a gated
residential community consisting of six buildings, each of which is either a three-story or four-story
apartment building. The Proposed Project will also include a pool, a dog park, landscaped open space,
and a combined clubhouse and leasing office, in addition to roadways, necessary utilities, and a covered
garage and open parking.
1.2 Area of Potential Effects
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of the horizontal and vertical limits of a project and includes
the area within which significant impacts or adverse effects to Historical Resources or Historic Properties
could occur as a result of the project. The APE is defined for projects subject to regulations implementing
Section 106 (federal law and regulations). For projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review, the term Project Area is used rather than APE. The terms Project Area and APE are
interchangeable for the purpose of this document.
The horizontal APE consists of all areas where activities associated with a project are proposed and, in the
case of this Project, equals the Project Area subject to environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA. This includes areas proposed for construction, vegetation
removal, grading, trenching, stockpiling, staging, paving, and other elements in the official Project
description. The horizontal APE is illustrated in Figure 1 and represents the survey coverage area.
The vertical APE is described as the maximum depth below the surface to which excavations for project
foundations and facilities will extend. Therefore, the vertical APE for this Project includes all subsurface
areas where archaeological deposits could be affected. The subsurface vertical APE varies across the
Project Area; this study assumes that this subsurface ground disturbance will not exceed 20 feet below the
current surface, and therefore, a review of geologic and soils maps was necessary to determine the
potential for buried archaeological sites that cannot be seen on the surface.
The vertical APE also is described as the maximum height of structures that could impact the physical
integrity and integrity of setting of cultural resources, including districts and traditional cultural properties.
For this Project, this study assumes that the above-surface vertical APE will not exceed 50 feet above the
surface, which is the height of the tallest building.
)LJXUH3URMHFW/RFDWLRQDQG9LFLQLW\
0DSOH3URSHUW\
/R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
1
?
?
0
D
S
O
H
3
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
?
0
$
3
6
?
/
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
B
9
L
F
L
Q
L
W
\?
/
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
D
Q
G
9
L
F
L
Q
L
W
\
D
S
U
[
0
3
B
/
Q
9
W
U
R
W
H
O
O
L
Q
L
(
6FDOHLQ)HHW
)RQWDQD&$ >SU @1$'
&$PLQXWH7RSRJUDSKLF4XDGUDQJOH
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\
6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
765:6%%0
/DWLWXGH 1$' 1
/RQJLWXGH 1$' :
:DWHUVKHG 6DQWD$QD
0DS'DWH
6RXUFHV (65,86*6
0DS)HDWXUHV
3URMHFW$UHDDF
:::: : 32 "'=====••,::=======-------"--•=~s =;
~ " ll
If ••
II
II
II
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 3 November 2023
2023-169
1.3 Regulatory Context
The CEQA lead agency for this Project is the City of Fontana. There is currently no known federal lead
agency.
A review of the regulatory context is provided below; however, the inclusion of any of these laws and
regulations in this report does not make a law or regulation apply when it otherwise would not. Similarly,
the omission of any other laws and regulations from this section does not mean that they do not apply.
Rather, the purpose of this section is to provide context in explaining why the study was carried out in the
manner documented herein.
1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA establishes national policy for the protection and enhancement of the environment. Part of the
function of the federal government in protecting the environment is to “preserve important historic,
cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.” Cultural resources need not be determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
of 1966 (as amended) to receive consideration under NEPA. NEPA is implemented by regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508).
The definition of effects in the NEPA regulations includes adverse and beneficial effects on historic and
cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.8). Therefore, the Environmental Consequences section of an
Environmental Impact Statement [see 40 CFR 1502.16(f)] must analyze potential effects to historic or
cultural resources that could result from the proposed action and each alternative. In considering whether
an alternative may “significantly affect the quality of the human environment,” a federal agency must
consider, among other things:
Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources
(40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)), and
The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or
objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)).
Therefore, because historic properties are a subset of cultural resources, they are one aspect of the human
environment defined by NEPA regulations.
1.3.2 National Historic Preservation Act
The federal law that covers cultural resources that could be affected by federal undertakings is the NHPA
of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects
of a federal undertaking on properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The agencies must afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
undertaking. A federal undertaking is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y):
A federal undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part
under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 4 November 2023
2023-169
or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and
those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval.
The regulations that stipulate the procedures for complying with Section 106 are in 36 CFR 800. The
Section 106 regulations require:
definition of the APE.
identification of cultural resources within the APE.
evaluation of the identified resources in the APE using NRHP eligibility criteria.
determination of whether the effects of the undertaking or project on eligible resources will be
adverse; and
agreement on and implementation of efforts to resolve adverse effects, if necessary.
The federal agency must seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, in some
cases, the ACHP, for its determinations of eligibility, effects, and proposed mitigation measures. Section
106 procedures for a specific project can be modified by negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement or
Programmatic Agreement between the federal agency, the SHPO, and, in some cases, the project
proponent.
Effects to a cultural resource are potentially adverse if the lead federal agency, with the SHPO’s
concurrence, determines the resource eligible for the NRHP, making it a Historic Property, and if
application of the Criteria of Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5[a][2] et seq.) results in the conclusion that the
effects will be adverse. The NRHP eligibility criteria, contained in 36 CFR 60.4, are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that
possess aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
association, and
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory.
In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, barring exceptional circumstances (36 CFR 60.4).
Resources that are eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP are historic properties.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 5 November 2023
2023-169
Regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.5) require that the federal agency, in
consultation with the SHPO, apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to historic properties within the APE.
According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1):
An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the
characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National
Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.
1.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the state law that applies to a project’s impacts on cultural resources. A project is an activity that
may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and that is undertaken or funded by a
state or local agency, or requires a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency. CEQA requires
that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts will be significant, then apply
mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
A Historical Resource is a resource that 1) is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State Historical Resources Commission, or has
been determined historically significant by the CEQA lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria
for the CRHR, 2) is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code
(PRC) 5020.1(k), or 3), and has been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in
PRC 5024.1(g) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)).
The eligibility criteria for the CRHR are as follows (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(b)):
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
(2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
(3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
(4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition, the resource must retain integrity, which is evaluated with regard to the retention of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)). Resources
that have been determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR.
Impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA (listed in an official historic inventory or survey or
eligible for the CRHR), are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics
that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)). Demolition or
alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features that they would no longer be eligible would result
in a significant impact. Whole or partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would result in a
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 6 November 2023
2023-169
significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration
of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed visual impacts) of physical
features in the Project Area could also result in significant impacts.
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are defined in Section 21074 of the California PRC as sites, features,
places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included in or determined
to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined
in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or are a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Section 5024.1. Section 1(b)(4) of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 established that only California Native American
tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the California PRC, are experts in the identification of TCRs and
impacts thereto. Because ECORP does not meet the definition of a California Native American tribe, it only
addresses information in this report for which it is qualified to identify and evaluate, and that which is
needed to inform the cultural resources section of CEQA documents. This report, therefore, does not
identify or evaluate TCRs. Should California Native American tribes ascribe additional importance to, or
interpretation of archaeological resources described herein, or provide information about non-
archeological TCRs, that information is documented separately in the AB 52 tribal consultation record
between the tribe(s) and lead agency and summarized in the TCRs section of the CEQA document, if
applicable.
1.4 Report Organization
The following report documents the study and its findings and was prepared in conformance with the
California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Archaeological Resource Management Reports:
Recommended Contents and Format. Appendix A includes records search information from the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and historical society coordination. Appendix B contains
documentation of a search of the Sacred Lands File. Appendix C presents photographs of the Project Area.
2.0 SETTING
2.1 Environmental Setting
Elevations within the Project Area range from 1,307 to 1,318 feet above mean sea level. The Project is
located approximately 3.6 miles southwest of Lytle Creek Wash, 5 miles south of Cajon Wash, and 4.5
miles northeast of Mount Jurupa.
2.2 Geology and Soils
The Project Area is located between Lytle Creek Wash and Cajon Wash, which are the sources of alluvial
soils within the Project Area. Morton (2003) shows that the Project Area soils consist of quaternary
alluvium dating to the Holocene. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey
maps the Project Area as approximately 89 percent TuB—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes and
11 percent TvC—Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes. Both soil types are classified as
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 7 November 2023
2023-169
alluvium derived from granite and are mapped as being typically 80 inches to a restrictive feature (NRCS
2023).
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife
The dominant plant community within the Project Area includes, but is not limited to, California
buckwheat (Erigonium fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and common sunflower
(Heliathus annus; iNaturalist 2023).
Wildlife species that may occur within the Project Area include crow and raven (Corvus spp.), rabbit
(Sylvilagus spp.), hare (Lepus spp.), coyote (Canus latrans), and common raccoon (Procyon lotor;
Booth 1968; iNaturalist 2023).
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History
3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period/Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 BP)
The first inhabitants of southern California were big game hunters and gatherers exploiting extinct species
of Pleistocene megafauna (e.g., mammoth and other Rancholabrean fauna). Local "fluted point"
assemblages comprised of large spear points or knives are stylistically and technologically similar to the
Clovis Paleo-Indian cultural tradition dated to this period elsewhere in North America (Moratto 1984).
Archaeological evidence for this period in southern California is limited to a few small temporary camps
with fluted points found around late Pleistocene Lake margins in the Mojave Desert and around Tulare
Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Single points are reported from Ocotillo Wells and Cuyamaca
Pass in eastern San Diego County and from the Yuha Desert in Imperial County (Rondeau et al. 2007).
3.1.2 Early Archaic Period/Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,500 BP)
Approximately 10,000 years ago, at the beginning of the Holocene, warming temperatures, and the
extinction of the megafauna resulted in changing subsistence strategies with an emphasis hunting smaller
game and increasing reliance on plant gathering. Previously, Early Holocene sites were represented by
only a few sites and isolates from the Lake Mojave and San Dieguito complexes found along former
lakebeds and grasslands of the Mojave Desert and in inland San Diego County. More recently, southern
California Early Holocene sites have been found along the Santa Barbara Channel (Erlandson 1994), in
western Riverside County (Goldberg 2001; Grenda 1997), and along the San Diego County coast (Gallegos
1991; Koerper et al. 1991; Warren 1967).
The San Dieguito Complex was defined based on material found at the Harris site (CA-SDI-149) on the
San Dieguito River near Lake Hodges in San Diego County. San Dieguito artifacts include large leaf-
shaped points; leaf-shaped knives; large ovoid, domed, and rectangular end and side scrapers; engraving
tools; and crescentics (Koerper et al. 1991). The San Dieguito Complex at the Harris site dates to 9,000 to
7,500 years before present (BP; Gallegos 1991). However, sites from this time period in coastal San Diego
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 8 November 2023
2023-169
County have yielded artifacts and subsistence remains characteristic of the succeeding Encinitas Tradition,
including manos, metates, core-cobble tools, and marine shell (Gallegos 1991; Koerper et al. 1991).
3.1.3 Encinitas Tradition or Milling Stone Period/Middle Holocene (8,500 to
1,250 BP)
The Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and the Milling Stone Period (Wallace 1955) refer to a long period
of time during which small mobile bands of people who spoke an early Hokan language foraged for a
wide variety of resources including hard seeds, berries, and roots/tubers (yucca in inland areas), rabbits
and other small animals, and shellfish and fish in coastal areas. Sites from the Encinitas Tradition consist of
residential bases and resource acquisition locations with no evidence for overnight stays. Residential
bases have hearths and fire-affected rock indicating overnight stays and food preparation. Residential
bases along the coast have large amounts of shell and are often termed shell middens.
The Encinitas Tradition as originally defined (Warren 1968) applied to all of the non-desert areas of
southern California. Recently, four patterns within the Encinitas Tradition have been proposed which apply
to different regions of southern California (Sutton and Gardner 2010). The Topanga Pattern includes
archaeological material from the Los Angeles Basin and Orange County. The Greven Knoll Pattern pertains
to southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Each of
the patterns is divided into temporal phases. The Topanga Pattern included the Los Angeles Basin and
Orange County. The Topanga I phase extends from 8,500 to 5,000 BP and Topanga II runs from 5,000 to
3,500 BP. The Topanga Pattern ended about 3,500 BP with the arrival of Takic speakers, except in the
Santa Monica Mountains where the Topanga III phase lasted until about 2,000 BP.
The Encinitas Tradition in inland areas east of the Topanga Pattern (southwestern San Bernardino County
and western Riverside County) is the Greven Knoll Pattern (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Greven Knoll I
(9,400 to 4,000 BP) has abundant manos and metates. Projectile points are few and are mostly Pinto
points. Greven Knoll II (4,000 to 3,000 BP) has abundant manos and metates and core tools. Projectile
points are mostly Elko points. The Elsinore site on the east shore of Lake Elsinore was occupied during
Greven Knoll I and Greven Knoll II. During Greven Knoll I faunal processing (butchering) took place at the
lakeshore and floral processing (seed grinding), cooking, and eating took place farther from the shore.
The primary foods were rabbit meat and seeds from grasses, sage, and ragweed. A few deer, waterfowl,
and reptiles were consumed. The recovered archaeological material suggests that a highly mobile
population visited the site at a specific time each year. It is possible that their seasonal round included the
ocean coast at other times of the year. These people had an unspecialized technology as exemplified by
the numerous crescents, a multi-purpose tool. The few projectile points suggest that most of the small
game was trapped using nets and snares (Grenda 1997). During Greven Knoll II, which included a warmer
drier climatic episode known as the Altithermal, it is thought that populations in interior southern
California concentrated at oases and that Lake Elsinore was one of them. The Elsinore site (CA-RIV-2798)
is one of five known Middle Holocene residential sites around Lake Elsinore. Tools were mostly manos,
metates, and hammerstones. Scraper planes were absent. Flaked-stone tools consisted mostly of utilized
flakes used as scrapers. The Elsinore site during the Middle Holocene was a “recurrent extended
encampment” which could have been occupied during much of the year.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 9 November 2023
2023-169
The Encinitas Tradition lasted longer in inland areas because Takic speakers did not move east into these
areas until circa 1,000 BP. Greven Knoll III (3,000 to 1,000 BP) is present at the Liberty Grove site in
Cucamonga (Salls 1983) and at sites in Cajon Pass that were defined as part of the Sayles Complex (Kowta
1969). Greven Knoll III sites have a large proportion of manos and metates and core tools as well as
scraper planes. Kowta (1969) suggested the scraper planes may have been used to process yucca and
agave. The faunal assemblage consists of large quantities of lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and lesser
quantities of deer, rodents, birds, carnivores, and reptiles.
3.1.4 Palomar Tradition (1,250 to 150 BP)
The native people of southern California (north of a line from Agua Hedionda to Lake Henshaw in San
Diego County) spoke Takic languages which form a branch or subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language
family. The Takic languages are divided into the Gabrielino-Fernandeño language, the Serrano-Kitanemuk
group (the Serrano [includes the Vanyume dialect] and Kitanemuk languages), the Tataviam language,
and the Cupan group (the Luiseño-Juaneño language, the Cahuilla Language, and the Cupeño language)
(Golla 2011). According to Sutton (2009), Takic speakers occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley before
3,500 BP. Perhaps as a result of the arrival of Yokutsan speakers (a language in the Penutian language
family) from the north, Takic speakers moved southeast. The ancestors of the Kitanemuk moved into the
Tehachapi Mountains and the ancestors of the Tataviam moved into the upper Santa Clara River drainage.
The ancestors of the Gabrielino (Tongva) moved into the Los Angeles Basin about 3,500 BP, replacing the
native Hokan speakers. Speakers of proto-Gabrielino reached the southern Channel Islands by 3,200 BP
(Sutton 2009) and moved as far south as Aliso Creek in Orange County by 3,000 BP.
Takic people moved south into southern Orange County after 1,250 BP and became the ancestors of the
Juaneño. Takic people moved inland from southern Orange County about 1,000 BP, becoming the
ancestors of the Luiseño, Cupeño, and Cahuilla. Takic people from the Kitanemuk area moved east along
the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains and spread into the San Bernardino Mountains and
along the Mojave River becoming the ancestors of the Serrano and the Vanyume.
The material culture of the inland areas where Takic languages were spoken at the time of Spanish
contact is part of the Palomar Tradition (Sutton 2011). San Luis Rey I Phase (1,000 to 500 BP) and San Luis
Rey II Phase (500 to 150 BP) pertain to the area occupied by the Luiseño at the time of Spanish contact.
The Peninsular I (1,000 to 750 BP), II (750 to 300 BP), and III (300 to 150 BP) Phases are used in the areas
occupied by the Cahuilla and Serrano (Sutton 2011).
San Luis Rey I is characterized by Cottonwood Triangular arrow points, use of bedrock mortars, stone
pendants, shell beads, quartz crystals, and bone tools. San Luis Rey II sees the addition of ceramics,
including ceramic cremation urns, red pictographs on boulders in village sites, and steatite arrow
straighteners. San Luis Rey II represents the archaeological manifestation of the antecedents of the
historically known Luiseño (Goldberg 2001). During San Luis Rey I there were a series of small permanent
residential bases at water sources, each occupied by a kin group (probably a lineage). During San Luis Rey
II people from several related residential bases moved into a large village located at the most reliable
water source (Waugh 1986). Each village had a territory that included acorn harvesting camps at higher
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 10 November 2023
2023-169
elevations. Villages have numerous bedrock mortars, large dense midden areas with a full range of flaked
and ground stone tools, rock art, and a cemetery.
3.2 Ethnohistory
Ethnographic accounts of Native Americans indicate that the Gabrieliño (also known as Gabrieleno, or
Tongva) once occupied the region that encompasses the Project Area. At the time of contact with
Europeans, the Gabrieliño were the main occupants of the southern Channel Islands, the Los Angeles
Basin, much of Orange County, and extended as far east as the western San Bernardino Valley. The term
“Gabrieliño” came from the group’s association with Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, established in 1771.
The Gabrieliño are believed to have been one of the most populous and wealthy Native American tribes in
southern California prior to European contact, (Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984) and
spoke a Takic language. The Takic group of languages is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family.
The Gabrieliño occupied villages located along rivers and at the mouths of canyons. Populations ranged
from 50 to 200 inhabitants. Residential structures within the villages were domed, circular, and made from
thatched tule or other available wood. Gabrieliño society was organized by kinship groups, with each
group composed of several related families who together owned hunting and gathering territories.
Settlement patterns varied according to the availability of floral and faunal resources (Bean and Smith
1978; McCawley 1996; Miller 1991).
Vegetal staples consisted of acorns, chia, seeds, piñon nuts, sage, cacti, roots, and bulbs. Animals hunted
included deer, antelope, coyote, rabbits, squirrels, rodents, birds, and snakes. The Gabrieliño also fished
and collected marine shellfish (Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996; Miller 1991).
By the late 18th century, Gabrieliño population had significantly dwindled due to introduced European
diseases and dietary deficiencies. Gabrieliño communities disintegrated as families were taken to the
missions (Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996; Miller 1991). However, current descendants of the
Gabrieliño are preserving Gabrieliño culture.
3.3 Regional History
The first European to visit California was Spanish maritime explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542.
Cabrillo was sent north by the Viceroy of New Spain (Mexico) to look for the Northwest Passage. Cabrillo
visited San Diego Bay, Catalina Island, San Pedro Bay, and the northern Channel Islands. The English
adventurer Francis Drake visited the Miwok Native American group at Drake’s Bay or Bodega Bay in 1579.
Sebastian Vizcaíno explored the coast as far north as Monterey in 1602. He reported that Monterey was
an excellent location for a port (Castillo 1978). Vizcaíno also named San Diego Bay to commemorate Saint
Didacus. The name began to appear on European maps of the New World by 1624 (Gudde 1998).
Colonization of California began with the Spanish Portolá land expedition. The expedition, led by Captain
Gaspar de Portolá of the Spanish army and Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, explored the
California coast from San Diego to the Monterrey Bay Area in 1769. As a result of this expedition, Spanish
missions to convert the native population, presidios (forts), and towns were established. The Franciscan
missionary friars established 21 missions in Alta California (the area north of Baja California) beginning
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 11 November 2023
2023-169
with Mission San Diego in 1769 and ending with the mission in Sonoma established in 1823. The purpose
of the missions and presidios was to establish Spanish economic, military, political, and religious control
over the Alta California territory. Mission San Diego was established to convert the Native Americans that
lived in the area, known as the Kumeyaay or Diegueño. Mission San Gabriel Archangel was founded in
1771 east of what is now Los Angeles to convert the Tongva or Gabrielino. Mission San Fernando, also in
Tongva/Gabrielino territory, was established in 1797. Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776
on San Juan Creek (in what is now southern Orange County) to convert the Acjachemen or Juaneño.
Mission San Luis Rey was established in 1798 on the San Luis Rey River (in what is now northern San
Diego County) to convert the Luiseño. Missions San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara were founded in
Chumash territory in 1782 and 1786, respectively (Castillo 1978).
Some missions later established outposts in inland areas. An asistencia (mission outpost) of Mission San
Luis Rey, known as San Antonio de Pala, was built in Luiseño territory along the upper San Luis Rey River
near Mount Palomar in 1810 (Pourade 1961). A chapel administered by Mission San Gabriel Archangel
was established in the San Bernardino area in 1819 (Bean and Smith 1978). The present asistencia within
the western outskirts of present-day Redlands was built circa 1830 (Haenszel and Reynolds 1975). The
missions sustained themselves through cattle ranching and traded hides and tallow for supplies brought
by ship. Large cattle ranches were established by Mission San Luis Rey at Temecula and San Jacinto
(Gunther 1984). The Spanish also constructed presidios, or forts, at San Diego and Santa Barbara, and a
pueblo, or town, was established at Los Angeles. The Spanish period in California began in 1769 with the
Portolá expedition and ended in 1821 with Mexican independence.
After Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, what is now California became the Mexican
province of Alta California. The Mexican government closed the missions in the 1830s and former mission
lands were granted to retired soldiers and other Mexican citizens for use as cattle ranches. Much of the
land along the coast and in the interior valleys became part of Mexican land grants or “ranchos”
(Robinson 1948). During the Mexican period there were small towns at San Diego (near the presidio), San
Juan Capistrano (around the mission), and Los Angeles. The rancho owners lived in one of the towns or in
an adobe house on the rancho. The Mexican Period includes the years 1821 to 1848.
The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the
United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the
territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California
to become a state in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but
usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Land
that was not part of a land grant was owned by the U.S. government until it was acquired by individuals
through purchase or homesteading. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on
the ranchos, making it difficult to pay the new American taxes on the thousands of acres they owned.
Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived Anglo-
Americans. The resulting foreclosures and land sales transferred most of the land grants into the hands of
Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 12 November 2023
2023-169
3.4 Fontana Area History
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company purchased 28,500 acres west of Lytle Creek in 1887 and
planned three townsites, the third of which they called Rosena. Rosena was planned where Fontana is
now. Streets for Rosena were laid out, but Lytle Creek proved unable to bring a reliable water supply this
far west, and the company went bankrupt before Rosena could be developed. In 1905, Azariel Blanchard
(A.B.) Miller and associates leased 17,000 acres of former Semi-Tropic land that had been intended for
development as Rosena from the Fontana Development Company. Using animal-drawn plows and
scrapers, Miller created farms, installed irrigation, raised grain, and finally planted in 1910. By 1913, Miller
subdivided the area into smaller plots, and the community of Fontana was thus founded in 1913 as an
agricultural community. By 1913, the National Old Trails Association established a portion of unpaved
highway next to the railroad tracks from Rialto to Rancho Cucamonga. They made a map of the new
roadway but did not label Fontana. By 1926, Route 66 had followed the National Old Trails Highway,
giving Fontana a new economic corridor (City of Fontana n.d.a; Fontana Historical Society 2015; Schuiling
1984).
Fontana became a popular location for livestock. By 1819, ten families were raising chickens, which
became five hundred families by 1926. The United States Department of Agriculture selected Fontana for
the only Experimental Rabbit Breeding Station in 1928, and later, food scraps from Los Angeles were
shipped by train to feed hogs. At the start of WWII, Fontana was the home of 50,000 hogs, the largest hog
ranch in the world at that time (Schuiling 1984).
During WWII, Henry Kaiser began steel mill operations in Fontana. By 1942, Fontana was the first town on
the west coast to provide rolled steel plates which were used for Victory and Liberty class military ships.
The steel mill transformed Fontana from an agricultural to an industrial city and was a major employer for
many years after World War II (City of Fontana n.d.a; Schuiling 1984).
On June 25, 1952, Fontana was incorporated as a city. By 1968, they had established the Downtown
Redevelopment Project Area, and the Fontana Redevelopment Agency, which continues to design long-
range revitalization projects in Fontana (City of Fontana n.d.a., n.d.b.). In 1965, Caltrans completed
Interstate 10, connecting Fontana with Los Angeles to the west, and San Bernardino and Arizona to the
east by car. The interstate provided more traffic, but also diverted travelers away from the downtown
businesses along Route 66 (City of Fontana n.d.a.; Road Trip Journeys 2019). This was likely an unintended
consequence of design, since Route 66 was a roadway with businesses at its side, where travelers can pull
over at any time; the interstate system is a closed system, where no businesses are at the roadside, and
the roadway is entered and exited at controlled points.
Today, Fontana is the second most-populous city in San Bernardino County, with retail, health care, and
manufacturing as its biggest employers. Fontana’s focus from 1983 to 2006 on transforming into a
bedroom community has let it to now begin attracting professional businesses and enliven its downtown
district (City of Fontana City Council 2018; City of Fontana n.d.a.; Road Trip Journeys 2019; Sperling’s Best
Places n.d.). This has been facilitated by Interstates 10, 15, and 210 traversing the city, which allows for
travel to the north, south, east, and west of the city for its residents to work elsewhere.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 13 November 2023
2023-169
4.0 METHODS
4.1 Personnel Qualifications
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Sonia Sifuentes, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology, was responsible for this
archaeological resource investigation. Staff Archaeologist Casey LeJeune, RPA conducted the fieldwork.
Staff Archaeologist Robert J. Cunnigham conducted the in-house records search review. Ms. Lejeune and
Associate Archaeologists Nick Bizzell, Evelyn Hildebrand, RPA, and Steve Wintergerst prepared the
technical report. Lisa Westwood, RPA provided technical report review and quality assurance.
Sonia Sifuentes is a Senior Archaeologist and the Southern California Cultural Resources Manager at
ECORP and has more than 15 years of experience in cultural resources management, primarily in southern
California. Ms. Sifuentes holds a M.S. in Archaeology of the North. She has participated in and supervised
numerous surveys, test programs, and data recovery excavations for both prehistoric and historical sites;
and has cataloged, identified, and curated thousands of artifacts. She has conducted evaluations of
cultural resources for eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR. Ms. Sifuentes is experienced in the organization
and execution of field projects in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. She has
contributed to and authored numerous cultural resources technical reports, research designs, and cultural
resources management plans.
Casey LeJeune is a Staff Archaeologist who has worked in cultural resource management since 2020, with
experience in the southeast and southern California. She holds an M.A. in anthropology with focus in
forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. She has participated in fieldwork on
forensic and historic burials, survey, large-scale data recovery, monitoring, and in-field lithic analysis. Ms.
LeJeune also has extensive lab experience in human osteology and analysis of historic and prehistoric
artifacts.
Robert J. Cunningham has 17 years of experience in cultural resources management, with an emphasis on
the recordation, analysis, and evaluation of historic-period resources. He has participated in all aspects of
archaeological fieldwork, including survey, test excavation, and construction monitoring. He has served as
Field Director for archaeological inventories and site evaluation projects and has worked on San Diego
County projects under ECORP’s blanket purchase order since 2010. He has recorded and mapped
numerous prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites and has identified and documented
hundreds of prehistoric and historic artifacts. Mr. Cunningham has prepared numerous archaeological site
records and has authored and contributed to a variety of cultural resources technical reports.
Nicholas Bizzell is an Associate Archaeologist with ECORP and has more than 12 years of experience in
cultural resources management. He holds a B.A. in Anthropology from Sonoma State University in Rohnert
Park, California. Mr. Bizzell has participated in numerous archaeological projects throughout California,
experience that includes working with clients in both public and private sectors. Mr. Bizzell has substantial
archaeological experience with cultural resources monitoring, inventory surveys, excavation and
subsurface testing, and laboratory analysis for projects in northern and southern California. Additionally,
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 14 November 2023
2023-169
Mr. Bizzell is cross trained as a paleontological monitor for projects requiring both archaeological and
paleontological monitoring.
Evelyn Hildebrand is an Associate Archaeologist with more than five years of experience working in
cultural resource management across California. She holds an M.A. in Applied Archaeology and a B.A. in
Anthropology with a focused curriculum in archaeology. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. She has participated in
various aspects of archaeological fieldwork including survey, test excavation, data recovery, artifact
analysis, construction monitoring, both as an archaeological monitor and field lead, and the recording and
recovery of pre-contact and historic-period archaeological sites. She has contributed to and authored
multiple cultural resources reports.
Steve Wintergerst is an Associate Archaeologist with 15 years of experience in cultural resources
management. He holds a B.A. in Anthropology. Mr. Wintergerst has participated in all aspects of
archaeological fieldwork and laboratory process, with extensive experience throughout California and
western Arizona. His experience has involved working as an archaeological crew chief, archaeological
technician, archaeological monitor, paleontological monitor, and paleontological preparator. He is
experienced in the organization and execution of field projects in compliance with CEQA and Section 106
of the NHPA. He has contributed to multiple cultural resource reports.
Lisa Westwood has 28 years of experience and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology. She holds a B.A. in Anthropology and
an M.A. in Anthropology (Archaeology). She is the Director of Cultural Resources for ECORP.
4.2 Records Search Methods
ECORP conducted an in-house records search for the Project Area at the South-Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) of the CHRIS at California State University, Fullerton on September 5, 2023
(Appendix A). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a
1-mile (1,600-meter) radius of the Proposed Project Area, and whether previously documented pre-
contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist
within this area.
In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Bernardino County,
the following historic references were also reviewed: Built Environment Resource Directory (OHP 2022);
Historic Property Data File for San Bernardino County (OHP 2012); the National Register Information
System (National Park Service [NPS] 2023); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks
(CHL; OHP 2023a); CHL (OHP 1996 and updates); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and
updates); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); Caltrans Local Bridge Survey
(Caltrans 2020); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2023); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).
Other references examined include a RealQuest Property Search and historic General Land Office (GLO)
land patent records (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2023). Historic maps reviewed include the:
1856 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West;
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 15 November 2023
2023-169
1873 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West;
1889 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West;
1898 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale);
1901 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale);
1942 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale);
1943 USGS Fontana California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale);
1953 USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale);
1954 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale); and
1967 USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale).
ECORP reviewed historic aerial photographs taken in 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1985, and 1994 for any
indications of property usage and built environment.
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods
In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) on August 25, 2023 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Area (Appendix B).
This search determines whether the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have
recorded Sacred Lands, because the Sacred Lands File is populated by members of the Native American
community with knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the Sacred
Lands File, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding TCRs, but the
responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and
local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies do not delegate government-to-
government authority to any private entity to conduct tribal consultation.
4.4 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods
ECORP emailed the Fontana Historical Society on August 25, 2023 to solicit comments or obtain historical
information that the repository might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical
significance in the area (Appendix A).
4.5 Field Methods
ECORP subjected the Project Area to an intensive pedestrian survey on September 14, 2023 under the
guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties (NPS 1983)
using 15-meter-spaced transects. ECORP expended 0.25 person-day in the field. At the time, ECORP
examined the ground surface for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources and inspected the
general morphological characteristics of the ground surface for indications of subsurface deposits that
may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, ECORP
examined the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 16 November 2023
2023-169
erosion, or vegetation disturbances for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. ECORP did not
conduct subsurface investigations or artifact collections during the pedestrian survey.
Standard professional practice requires that all cultural resources encountered during the survey be
recorded using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523-series forms approved by the California
OHP. The resources are usually photographed, mapped using a handheld Global Positioning System
receiver, and sketched as necessary to document their presence using appropriate DPR forms.
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Records Search
The records search consisted of a review of previous research and literature, records on file with the SCCIC
for previously recorded resources, and historical aerial photographs and maps of the vicinity.
5.1.1 Previous Research
Twenty-six previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 1 mile of the Project
Area, covering approximately 10 percent of the total area surrounding the Project Area within the records
search radius (Appendix A). Of the 26 studies within the 1-mile radius, 2 were conducted within the
Project Area. Alexandrowicz et al. (1992) and McKenna (2004) conducted studies that included the current
Project Area, but no cultural resources were recorded. Appendix A lists the reports located within 1 mile of
the Project Area. These studies revealed the presence of pre-contact sites, including stone circles, tools,
and Millingstone Horizon sites, and historical sites, including architecture associated with ranching
activities, residences and other buildings, and avenues and streets. The previous studies were conducted
between 1973 and 2015 and vary in size from 8 to 12,800 acres.
The results of the records search indicate that more than half of the Project Area has been previously
surveyed for cultural resources; however, these studies were conducted in smaller segments, at different
times, by different consultants, as many as 50 years ago, or under obsolete standards. Therefore, ECORP
conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area for the Project under current protocols.
The records search also determined that three previously recorded pre-contact and historic-era cultural
resources are located within 1 mile of the Project Area (Table 1). All three are believed to be associated
with early historic-period privies/trash scatters and a religious building. There are no previously recorded
cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project Area.
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area
Site Number
CA-SBR-
Primary Number
P-36- Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
8040H 8040 Grenda 1994 Historic Historic privy
10659H 10659 Shepard 2002 Historic Refuse scatter and concrete
foundation
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 17 November 2023
2023-169
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area
Site Number
CA-SBR-
Primary Number
P-36- Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
24867 Crawford 2011 Historic Religious building
5.1.2 Records
The OHP’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for San Bernardino County (dated September 2,
2022) included five resources within 1 mile of the Project Area (OHP 2022):
8287 Alder Avenue;
8534 Laurel Avenue;
7789 Locust Avenue;
7887 Locust Avenue; and
8057 Locust Avenue, located immediately adjacent to the Project Area.
None of the resources listed on the BERD within 1 mile of the Project Area have been found eligible for
the NRHP.
The National Register Information System (NPS 2023) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties
within the Project Area. The nearest National Register property is Bono’s Restaurant, approximately 2.5
miles west of the Project Area.
ECORP reviewed resources listed as California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996) by the OHP (2023a) on
August 15, 2023. The nearest listed landmark is #950, United States Rabbit Experimental Station; the
plaque is located 2.19 miles west of the Project Area (OHP 2023b).
Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002) mentions CHL #950, which was the only experimental rabbit
breeding station in the United States.
Historic GLO land patent records from the BLM’s patent information database (BLM 2023) revealed that
the entirety of Township 1 South, Range 5 West was patented to Andrew J. Pope on June 10, 1870 (BLM
Serial Number CACAAA 084020) under the Sale-Cash entry authority (April 24, 1820: Sale-Cash Entry
3 Stat. 566).
A RealQuest online property search for APNs 02-431-4201, 02-431-4202, 02-431-4203, 02-431-4204, 02-
431-4205, and 02-431-4206 revealed that the Project Area had been previously used for school district
purposes. The APN results indicate that structures have been present since 1948 with no further details
regarding their presence currently.
The Caltrans Bridge Local and State Inventories (Caltrans 2020, 2023) did not list any historic bridges
within 1 mile of the Project Area. The nearest bridges are 1.9 miles north of the Project Area and were
built for SR 210 around 2004 to 2005.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 18 November 2023
2023-169
The Handbook of North American Indians (Bean and Smith 1978) lists the nearest Native American villages
as being located on Jurupa Rancho, approximately 6 miles south of the Project Area.
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs
A review of historical aerial photographs and maps of the Project Area provides information on the past
land uses of the Project Area and potential for buried archaeological sites. This information shows that the
Project Area was initially used for agriculture. Following is a summary of the review of historical maps and
photographs:
The 1856 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West depicts the Project Area as
undeveloped and the Los Angeles & San Bernardino Road in the top half of Section 4.
The 1873 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West depicts the Project Area as
undeveloped and does not depict the Los Angeles & San Bernardino Road.
The 1889 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 1 South, Range 5 West depicts the Project Area as
undeveloped and again depicts the Los Angeles & San Bernardino Road in the top half of
Section 4.
The 1898 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale) depicts
the Project Area as undeveloped and houses in the immediate vicinity.
The 1901 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale) does not
depict any further development.
Aerial photographs from 1938 show that the Project Area is being used for agriculture.
The 1942 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale) depicts a
residence as within the Project Area.
The 1943 USGS Fontana California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale) depicts
residences to the north and west of Foothill Boulevard and Maple Avenue, one of which is in the
Project Area.
Aerial photographs from 1948 show structures north and west of Maple Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard, one of which is located within the Project Area.
The 1953 USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale) depicts the
Project Area as having one main structure and three ancillary structures.
The 1954 USGS San Bernardino, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale) map
depicts agricultural use within the Project Area and homes immediately to the south.
Aerial photographs from 1959 and 1966 show five structures within the Project Area.
The 1967 USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale) depicts further
development along Maple Avenue and Foothill Boulevard outside of the Project Area.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 19 November 2023
2023-169
Aerial photographs from 1985 are unclear due to limited resolution, however, it appears that one
of the northern buildings is no longer present.
Aerial photographs from 1994 are also limited in resolution, but the buildings are no longer
present.
In sum, the Project Area had been used for agricultural or school district purposes and was vacant until
1948; the buildings were removed by 1994.
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results
The results of the NAHC search of the Sacred Lands File were received on October 20, 2023. The search
was positive, indicating the presence of sacred lands within the Project Area. A record of all
correspondence to date is provided in Appendix B.
5.3 Other Interested Party Consultation Results
ECORP has not received any responses to the email sent to the Fontana Historical Society as of the date of
the preparation of this document.
5.4 Field Survey Results
ECORP surveyed the Project Area for cultural resources on September 14, 2023. The ground surface
visibility throughout the Project Area varied from good to poor. Areas with good visibility (i.e., between 60
and 90 percent) included the entire western half of the Project Area and large sections of the eastern half.
Areas with fair and poor visibility (i.e., between 0 and 50 percent) included portions of the eastern half of
the Project Area with dense vegetation and the areas beneath a trailer and a storage container, which
were centered in the northern portion of the Project Area. Most of the Project Area was covered in
moderately dense vegetation consisting of Russian thistle, ragweed, crabgrass, and other species. The
entire Project Area appeared to have been disced, and the soil was loose and contained numerous animal
burrows. The Project Area was also surrounded by a chain-link fence, which was down in one corner of the
Project Area. Disturbances present included animal tracks, animal burrows, foot traffic, and a substantial
amount of modern refuse throughout the Project Area. As a result of the field survey, ECORP did not
locate any cultural resources within the Project Area.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 20 November 2023
2023-169
Figure 2. Project Area Overview (view southwest; September 14, 2023).
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 21 November 2023
2023-169
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The records search and 2023 field survey did not yield any historic-period or pre-contact cultural
resources within the Project Area. Therefore, no known Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA
or Historical Resources under CEQA will be affected by the Proposed Project.
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources
The Project Area and surrounding areas have not been studied extensively to determine the presence of
cultural resources. Therefore, previous investigations are not sufficient to indicate the likelihood for
subsurface cultural resources in the Project Area. Due to the presence of quaternary alluvial soils dating to
the Holocene, the positive indication of sacred lands within the Project Area, and the likelihood of
precontact sites along perennial waterways such as nearby Lytle Creek, there exists a moderate potential
for buried pre-contact archaeological sites within the Project Area. Due to the presence of historic-period
homes as shown in historic maps and historic aerial photograph reviews, but a lack of surface evidence to
support their current presence, there exists a moderate potential for intact buried historic-period
archaeological sites within the Project Area.
6.3 Recommendations
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training
The lead agency shall ensure that a Contractor Awareness Training Program is delivered to train
equipment operators about cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform construction
personnel about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural
resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for
notifying the lead agency of any occurrences; Project-specific requirements and mitigation measures; and
enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance with the program.
The training shall be prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and may be provided either
through a brochure, video, or in-person tailgate meeting, as determined appropriate by the archaeologist.
The training shall be provided to all construction supervisors, forepersons, and operators of ground-
disturbing equipment. All personnel shall be required to sign a training roster. The construction manager
is responsible for ensuring that all required personnel receive the training. The Construction Manager shall
provide a copy of the signed training roster to the lead agency as proof of compliance.
6.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring
A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting or working under the direction of someone meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, should be retained to monitor all ground-
disturbing activities associated with Project construction, including vegetation removal, clearing, grading,
trenching, excavation, or other activities that will disturb original (pre-Project) ground. The monitor must
have the authority to temporarily pause activity at the location in the event of an unanticipated discovery,
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 22 November 2023
2023-169
so that they can direct the procedures in the following section. Initially, one monitor may be assigned to
the Project who circulates throughout all areas of active ground disturbance. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery, the lead agency should reconsider the number of monitors to ensure that future
discoveries are managed in accordance with state law and federal laws.
6.3.3 Post-Review Discoveries
There always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded
cultural resources. Both CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA require the lead agency to address any
unanticipated cultural resource discoveries during Project construction. Therefore, ECORP recommends
the following procedures.
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during
construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and
shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional
judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource,
work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.
If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from
any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies.
The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment
measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined by CEQA
or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-
work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site
either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2)
that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure
reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641).
The archaeologist shall notify the San Bernardino County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner
determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will
notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for
the Project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time
access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the
remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can
mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the
remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also
include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an
open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 23 November 2023
2023-169
document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume
within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine
that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 24 November 2023
2023-169
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
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. Prepared
for the City of Fontana.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8,
California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Booth, Ernest Sheldon. 1968. Mammals of Southern California. University of California Press. Berkeley.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2023 Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records,
Records Automation website. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/. Accessed September 19, 2023.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Local Bridges. Caltrans GIS data (Last updated
March 26, 2020). https://gisdata-
caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/989216729fdd41b3beb73029e000deda_0/explore?location
=34.113891%2C-117.404990%2C13.84. Accessed September 20, 2023.
_____. 2023. State Highway Brides. Caltrans GIS data (Last Updated February 13, 2023). https://gisdata-
caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ea685fd702f840a7a751b12373d6249c_0/explore?location
=34.123943%2C-117.372792%2C12.12. Accessed September 20, 2023.
Castillo, Edward D. 1978. The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C.
City of Fontana. n.d.a. About the City of Fontana. https://www.fontanaca.gov/31/About-Us. Accessed July
31, 2023.
_____. n.d.b. History. https://www.fontanaca.gov/75/History. Accessed July 31, 2023.
City of Fontana City Council. 2018. Trends for Fontana’s Future.
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26757/Chapter-2---Trends-for-Fontanas-
Future. Accessed July 31, 2023.
Cleland, Robert Glass. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1970. The
Huntington Library Press, San Marino.
Erlandson, J. M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.
Fontana Historical Society. 2015. Historical Sites. http://www.fontanahistoricalsociety.com/historical-
sites.html. Accessed September 19, 2023.
Gallegos, D. 1991. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter-Gatherers
of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 19-41.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 25 November 2023
2023-169
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Goldberg, S. 2001. Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations (Five volumes).
Applied Earthworks, Inc., Hemet, California.
Golla, V. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Grenda, D. R. 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake
Elsinore: Archaeological Investigations at a Stratified Site in Southern California. Statistical Research
Technical Series No 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Gudde, E. G. 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.
Revised from the first edition, 1949. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gunther 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. JD Gunther.
Haenszel, Arda M. and Jennifer Reynolds. 1975. The Historic San Bernardino Mission District. San
Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.
iNaturalist 2023. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=156196. Accessed September 29,
2023.
Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, and A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition
Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of
Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 81-88.
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Kowta, M. 1969. The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological
Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6. Berkeley.
Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press,
Ballena Press, Banning, California.
McKenna, Jeanette A. 2004. A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District
Elementary School #32 (8.43 Acres), in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Prepared for THE PLANNING CENTER.
Miller, Bruce W. 1991. The Gabrielino. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
Publishers), Orlando, Florida.
Morton, D. M. 2003. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report OF-2003-418, 1:24,000.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_61860.htm. Accessed September 19, 2023.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 26 November 2023
2023-169
National Park Service (NPS). 2023 National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm. Accessed September 18,
2023.
_____. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 48
Federal Register 44716-68.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil
Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed September 18,
2023.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2023a. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks
Website. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387. Accessed August 15, 2023.
_____. 2023b. United States Rabbit Experimental Station Historical Landmark.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/950. Accessed June 20, 2023.
_____. 2022. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), dated
September 2, 2022 for San Bernardino County. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.
Accessed September 19, 2023.
_____. 2012. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Bernardino County.
_____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento,
California.
_____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Pourade, Richard. 1961. The History of San Diego: Time of the Bells. San Diego Historical Society.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020221082220/http:/www.sandiegohistory.org/books/pourade/ti
me/timechapter9.htm. Accessed August 15, 2023.
Road trip Journeys. 2019. Fontana “City of Action”. https://www.theroute-66.com/fontana.html. Accessed
July 28, 2023.
Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims,
Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rondeau, M. F., J. Cassidy, and T. L. Jones. 2007. Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and
the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 299-315. Altamira
Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Salls, R. A. 1983. The Liberty Grove Site: Archaeological Interpretation of a Late Milling Stone Horizon Site on
the Cucamonga Plain. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Schuiling, Walter C. 1984. San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. Windsor Publications, Woodland Hills.
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Maple Property 27 November 2023
2023-169
Sperling’s Best Places. n.d. Economy in Fontana, California.
https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/fontana. Accessed July 31, 2023.
Sutton, M. Q. 2011. The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1-74.
_____. 2009. People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2 and 3):31-93.
Sutton, M. Q. and J. K. Gardner. 2010. Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.
Wallace, W. J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, C. N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In
Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern
New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1. Portales, New Mexico.
_____. 1967. The San Dieguito Complex: a Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.
Waugh, M. G. 1986. Intensification and Land-Use: Archaeological Indication of Transition and
Transformation in a Late Prehistoric Complex in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. UMI Dissertation Services, ProQuest,
Ann Arbor.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination
Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination
Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
APPENDIX A
Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination
5HFRUGV6HDUFK
0DSOH3URSHUW\
/R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
1
?
?
0
D
S
O
H
3
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
?
0
$
3
6
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
B
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
D
S
U
[
0
3
B
5
6
B
&
+
5
,
6
W
U
R
W
H
O
O
L
Q
L
(
6FDOHLQ)HHW
)RQWDQD&$ >SU @1$'
&$PLQXWH7RSRJUDSKLF4XDGUDQJOH
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\
6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
765:6%%0
/DWLWXGH 1$' 1
/RQJLWXGH 1$' :
:DWHUVKHG 6DQWD$QD
0DS'DWH
6RXUFHV (65,86*6
0DS)HDWXUHV
3URMHFW$UHDDF
PLOH%XIIHU
=--~-~-~==-==-;===:-==-=----c--~!s :;
~32
~
n
Q
II
II
II
• L,,rt,ia :•
Re
p
o
r
t
L
i
s
t
Re
p
o
r
t
N
o
.
Ye
a
r
Ti
t
l
e
Af
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
I
D
s
Ma
p
l
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
0
2
3
-
1
6
9
SB
-
0
0
7
6
0
19
7
3
AR
T
I
F
A
C
T
S
O
F
E
A
R
L
Y
M
A
N
I
N
T
H
E
N
E
W
WO
R
L
D
SC
I
E
N
C
E
1
8
2
(
4
1
1
9
)
:
1
3
7
1
-
13
7
1
W
A
D
E
,
M
.
P
.
M
.
36
-
0
0
2
1
0
2
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
0
7
6
0
;
Vo
i
d
e
d
-
7
3
-
1
2
.
7
SB
-
0
2
6
2
1
19
9
2
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
A
N
D
P
A
L
E
O
N
T
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
I
N
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
I
N
TH
E
N
O
R
T
H
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
AR
E
A
,
C
I
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
BE
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AR
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
CO
N
S
U
L
T
I
N
G
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
AL
E
X
A
N
D
R
O
W
I
C
Z
,
J
.
ST
E
V
E
N
,
A
N
N
E
Q
.
DU
F
F
I
E
L
D
-
S
T
O
L
L
,
JE
A
N
E
T
T
E
A
.
MC
K
E
N
N
A
,
S
U
S
A
N
R
.
AL
E
X
A
N
D
R
O
W
I
C
Z
,
AR
T
H
U
R
A
.
K
U
H
N
E
R
,
an
d
E
R
I
C
S
C
O
T
T
36
-
0
0
4
2
9
6
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
1
1
0
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
1
1
1
,
36
-
0
0
6
2
5
1
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
5
8
3
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
5
8
4
,
36
-
0
0
6
5
8
5
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
5
8
6
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
5
8
7
,
36
-
0
0
6
5
8
8
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
5
8
9
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
0
7
,
36
-
0
0
6
8
0
8
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
0
9
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
1
0
,
36
-
0
0
6
8
1
1
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
1
2
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
1
3
,
36
-
0
0
6
8
1
4
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
1
5
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
8
1
6
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
2
6
2
1
;
Vo
i
d
e
d
-
9
2
-
2
.
2
0
A
-
B
SB
-
0
2
9
4
2
19
9
4
AR
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
AR
C
H
I
V
A
L
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
OF
P
A
R
C
E
L
2
4
6
-
12
1
-
0
1
,
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
GR
E
N
D
A
,
D
O
N
N
R
.
36
-
0
0
8
0
4
0
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
2
9
4
2
SB
-
0
3
5
3
8
19
9
5
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
I
N
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
FL
R
O
T
H
E
3
0
0
0
+
/
-
A
C
R
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
R
I
A
L
T
O
AI
R
P
O
R
T
A
R
E
A
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
,
N
O
R
T
H
RI
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
.
2
9
P
P
AR
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
AS
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
W
H
I
T
E
,
L
A
U
R
I
E
a
n
d
RO
B
E
R
T
S
.
W
H
I
T
E
36
-
0
0
6
1
1
0
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
2
5
0
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
3
2
9
,
36
-
0
0
6
7
8
0
,
3
6
-
0
0
6
7
8
1
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
3
5
3
8
SB
-
0
3
5
9
8
19
9
8
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
S
E
A
R
C
H
AN
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
O
R
A
P
B
M
S
TE
L
E
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
:
C
M
19
0
-
0
1
I
N
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
.
5
P
P
LS
A
BR
E
C
H
B
E
I
L
,
B
R
A
N
T
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
3
5
9
8
SB
-
0
3
8
9
6
20
0
3
A
P
H
A
S
E
I
C
U
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
IN
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
O
F
T
H
E
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
U
N
I
F
I
E
D
SC
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
,
E
R
I
C
B
I
R
C
H
H
I
G
H
SC
H
O
O
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
,
I
N
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
CA
.
4
1
P
P
MC
K
E
N
N
A
E
T
A
L
MC
K
E
N
N
A
,
J
E
A
N
E
T
T
E
A.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
3
8
9
6
SB
-
0
3
8
9
7
20
0
3
A
P
H
A
S
E
I
C
U
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
IN
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
UN
I
F
I
E
D
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
EL
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
C
H
O
O
L
#
2
9
I
N
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
OF
R
I
A
L
T
O
,
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
CA
.
4
0
P
P
MC
K
E
N
N
A
E
T
A
L
MC
K
E
N
N
A
,
J
E
A
N
E
T
T
E
A.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
3
8
9
7
SB
-
0
4
2
5
4
20
0
4
A
P
H
A
S
E
I
C
U
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
E
H
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
UN
I
F
I
E
D
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
EL
E
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
S
C
H
O
O
L
#
3
2
(
8
.
4
3
A
C
R
E
S
)
,
IN
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
BE
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
A
.
3
4
P
P
MC
K
E
N
N
A
E
T
A
L
MC
K
E
N
N
A
,
J
E
A
N
E
T
T
E
A.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
4
2
5
4
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
3
SB
A
I
C
9
/
5
/
2
0
2
3
1
1
:
5
6
:
5
6
A
M
Re
p
o
r
t
L
i
s
t
Re
p
o
r
t
N
o
.
Ye
a
r
Ti
t
l
e
Af
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
I
D
s
Ma
p
l
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
0
2
3
-
1
6
9
SB
-
0
4
2
5
9
20
0
3
NE
G
A
T
I
V
E
A
R
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
&
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
:
Y
A
R
D
3
,
AR
R
O
W
R
O
U
T
E
A
T
L
O
C
U
S
T
A
V
E
,
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
CA
.
1
1
P
P
CO
M
P
A
S
S
R
O
S
E
RO
M
A
N
I
,
J
O
H
N
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
4
2
5
9
SB
-
0
4
3
7
3
20
0
4
TA
M
A
R
I
N
D
P
A
R
K
/
C
A
-
5
6
9
7
-
A
EA
R
T
H
T
O
U
C
H
TH
A
L
,
E
R
I
K
A
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
4
3
7
3
SB
-
0
4
5
3
6
20
0
5
TA
M
A
R
I
N
D
P
A
R
K
/
C
A
-
5
6
9
7
B
.
9
P
P
EA
R
T
H
T
O
U
C
H
,
I
N
C
TH
A
L
,
S
E
A
N
M
.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
4
5
3
6
SB
-
0
4
5
5
7
20
0
2
AN
A
R
C
H
A
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
&
PA
L
E
O
N
T
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
O
F
1
3
,
7
0
0
'
N
A
V
A
J
O
R
O
A
D
SE
W
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
,
T
O
W
N
O
F
A
P
P
L
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
3
9
P
P
MI
C
H
A
E
L
B
R
A
N
D
M
A
N
AS
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
DI
C
E
,
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
36
-
0
1
0
8
6
0
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
4
5
5
7
SB
-
0
5
4
9
8
20
0
3
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
Re
l
i
n
q
u
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
R
o
u
t
e
6
6
(
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
F
o
nt
a
n
a
,
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
Co
u
n
t
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
8
Ha
m
m
o
n
d
,
C
h
r
i
s
t
i
e
36
-
0
0
2
9
1
0
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
-
;
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
5
4
9
8
SB
-
0
5
4
9
8
A
20
0
3
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
th
e
R
e
l
i
n
q
u
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
R
o
u
t
e
6
6
(F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
E
a
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
Il
e
x
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
M
a
p
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
c
i
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Sa
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
,
C
A
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
8
Ch
r
i
s
t
i
e
H
a
m
m
o
n
d
SB
-
0
6
1
2
8
20
0
8
Be
c
h
t
e
l
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
i
t
e
LA
8
0
6
4
(
S
o
l
o
m
o
n
C
o
l
o
r
s
I
I
)
,
1
2
5
1
W
e
s
t
Du
r
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
,
R
i
a
l
t
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Ce
l
l
u
l
a
r
A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
W
l
o
d
a
r
s
h
i
,
R
o
b
e
r
t
J
.
SB
-
0
6
8
1
4
20
1
0
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
R
e
c
o
r
d
S
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
y
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,
L
L
C
,
S
i
t
e
L
A
5
1
5
0
A
(
S
c
h
e
n
S
t
e
e
l
)
Lo
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
8
8
3
0
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
R
a
n
c
h
o
Cu
c
a
m
o
n
g
a
,
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
HE
A
R
T
W
l
o
d
a
r
s
k
i
,
R
o
b
e
r
t
J
.
a
n
d
Bo
n
n
e
r
,
D
i
a
n
e
F
.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
6
8
1
4
SB
-
0
6
9
1
3
20
1
1
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
S
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
S
i
t
e
Vi
s
i
t
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
T
-
M
o
b
i
l
e
U
S
A
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
I
E
24
3
1
9
A
(
E
t
i
w
a
n
d
a
)
,
1
4
2
4
W
e
s
t
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
R
i
a
l
t
o
,
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
Bo
n
n
e
r
,
W
a
y
n
e
H
.
a
n
d
Sa
r
a
h
A
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
6
9
1
3
SB
-
0
6
9
1
6
20
1
0
Ri
a
l
t
o
C
A
3
,
1
5
0
S
o
u
t
h
L
a
r
c
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
R
i
a
l
t
o
,
CA
Hu
d
s
o
n
,
J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n
SB
-
0
6
9
6
9
20
1
1
Re
e
d
,
1
8
1
5
0
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Te
t
r
a
T
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
Pu
c
k
e
t
t
,
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
36
-
0
0
2
9
1
0
,
3
6
-
0
2
0
1
3
7
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
3
SB
A
I
C
9
/
5
/
2
0
2
3
1
1
:
5
6
:
5
8
A
M
Re
p
o
r
t
L
i
s
t
Re
p
o
r
t
N
o
.
Ye
a
r
Ti
t
l
e
Af
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
I
D
s
Ma
p
l
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
0
2
3
-
1
6
9
SB
-
0
7
0
8
4
20
1
0
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
/
A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
,
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
L
i
n
e
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
i
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
R
a
i
l
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
,
C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
o
f
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
a
n
d
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
.
CR
M
T
E
C
H
Ta
n
g
,
B
a
i
“
T
o
m
”
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
0
8
4
SB
-
0
7
0
8
6
20
1
1
Di
r
e
c
t
A
P
E
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
fo
r
T
-
M
o
b
i
l
e
U
S
A
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
I
E
2
4
1
4
3
-
A
(B
l
e
s
s
e
d
J
o
h
n
X
X
I
I
I
)
,
1
7
4
3
4
M
i
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
Fo
n
t
a
n
a
,
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
Cr
a
w
f
o
r
d
,
K
a
t
h
l
e
e
n
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
0
8
6
SB
-
0
7
5
1
5
20
1
2
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
A
r
t
s
Fu
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
A
T
&
T
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
i
t
e
N
o
.
LA
8
0
6
3
,
1
0
8
2
8
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
,
Sa
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
9
2
3
7
6
.
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
Su
p
e
r
n
o
w
i
c
z
,
D
a
n
a
E
.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
5
1
5
SB
-
0
7
8
0
7
20
1
3
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
V
e
r
i
z
o
n
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
P
r
o
p
o
e
r
t
y
a
t
th
e
R
e
e
d
-
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
B
S
i
t
e
,
U
n
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
Pa
r
c
e
l
A
l
o
n
g
L
o
c
u
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
F
o
n
a
n
a
,
S
a
n
Be
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
9
2
3
3
5
.
Te
t
r
a
T
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
Pu
c
k
e
t
t
,
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
8
0
7
SB
-
0
7
8
0
9
20
1
2
Re
c
o
r
d
s
S
e
a
r
c
h
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
AT
&
T
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
i
t
e
LA
8
0
6
3
(
A
r
t
'
s
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
)
,
1
8
0
2
8
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
,
Fo
n
t
a
n
a
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
9
2
3
7
6
.
CA
R
E
W
l
o
d
a
r
s
k
i
,
R
o
b
e
r
t
J
.
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
8
0
9
SB
-
0
7
8
6
7
20
1
4
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
C
l
a
s
s
I
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
:
V
e
r
i
z
o
n
W
i
r
e
l
e
s
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
l
d
e
r
-
Ne
w
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
,
Co
u
n
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
LS
A
Fu
l
t
o
n
,
P
h
i
l
36
-
0
2
4
8
6
7
NA
D
B
-
R
-
1
0
6
7
8
6
7
SB
-
0
8
1
9
0
20
1
5
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
A
R
E
A
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
A
T
B
A
S
E
L
I
N
E
RO
A
D
A
N
D
L
A
U
R
E
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
,
A
S
S
E
S
S
O
R
PA
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
0
2
4
0
-
2
4
1
-
5
2
,
R
I
A
L
T
O
,
S
A
N
BE
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
Mc
K
E
N
N
A
e
t
a
l
.
Mc
K
e
n
n
a
,
J
e
a
n
e
t
t
e
A
.
36
-
0
2
9
0
5
7
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
3
SB
A
I
C
9
/
5
/
2
0
2
3
1
1
:
5
7
:
0
0
A
M
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
N
o
.
Tr
i
n
o
m
i
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
L
i
s
t
Ot
h
e
r
I
D
s
Re
p
o
r
t
s
Ty
p
e
Ag
e
At
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
d
e
s
Re
c
o
r
d
e
d
b
y
Ma
p
l
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
0
2
3
-
1
6
9
P-
3
6
-
0
0
8
0
4
0
CA
-
S
B
R
-
0
0
8
0
4
0
H
AP
N
2
4
6
-
1
2
1
-
0
1
SB
-
0
2
9
4
2
AH
0
4
;
A
H
1
6
19
9
4
(
G
R
E
N
D
A
,
D
O
N
N
)
P-
3
6
-
0
1
0
6
5
9
CA
-
S
B
R
-
0
1
0
6
5
9
H
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
N
a
m
e
-
C
G
/
S
B
-
2
Si
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
AH
0
4
20
0
2
(
R
i
c
h
a
r
d
S
h
e
p
a
r
d
,
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
Gr
o
u
p
)
;
20
0
3
P-
3
6
-
0
2
4
8
6
7
SB
-
0
7
8
6
7
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
SB
A
I
C
9
/
5
/
2
0
2
3
1
2
:
0
0
:
0
3
P
M
215 North Fifth Street ł Redlands, CA 92374 ł Tel: (909) 307-0046 ł Fax: (909) 307-0056 ł www.ecorpconsulting.com
August 5, 2023
FontanaHistorical Society
16830Spring St, Fontana, California 92335,
Sent via email: fontanahistoricalsociety1906@gmail.com
RE: CulturalResourcesIdentificationEffortfortheMaple PropertyDevelopment Project,San
Bernardino County, California
Dear Fontana Historical Society:
ECORP Consulting, Inc. has been retained to assist in the planning of the development on the project
indicated above. The proposed project area consists of a roughly square area comprising a total of
approximately 8.5 acres locatedin the City of Fontana,This areaIs located east of locus avenue and west
of north maple avenue, north of west foothill boulevard and south of Barbee street in apns: , 02-431-4202,
02-431-4202, 02-431-4203, 02-431-4204, 02-431-4205,and 02-431-4206 in the Southeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of section 4 in Township 1 south, Range 5west; San Bernardino Base and Meridian as
depicted on the 1980Photo revised version of the 1969 Fontana, California 7.5 minute topographical map,
as shown on the attached map. As part of the identification effort, we are seeking information from all
parties that may have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties or cultural resources in the area
of potential effect.
Included is a map showing the project area outlined. We would appreciate input on this undertaking from
the historical society with concerns about possible cultural properties or potential impacts within or
adjacent to the area of potential effect. If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 307-0046 or
ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in our cultural resource management study.
Sincerely,
Sonia Sifuentes
SouthernCalifornia Cultural
Resources Manager/Senior
Archaeologist
Attachment:
Project Location and Vicinity Map
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
E'\ V I RO;,,/ \IE:\ TA L. CO '\SU LT""A""'\"'T"'S'------------------
5HFRUGV6HDUFK
0DSOH3URSHUW\
/R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
1
?
?
0
D
S
O
H
3
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
?
0
$
3
6
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
B
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
D
S
U
[
0
3
B
5
6
B
1
$
+
&
W
U
R
W
H
O
O
L
Q
L
(
6FDOHLQ)HHW
)RQWDQD&$ >SU @1$'
&$PLQXWH7RSRJUDSKLF4XDGUDQJOH
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\
6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
765:6%%0
/DWLWXGH 1$' 1
/RQJLWXGH 1$' :
:DWHUVKHG 6DQWD$QD
0DS'DWH
6RXUFHV (65,86*6
0DS)HDWXUHV
3URMHFW$UHDDF
• M =2=~=~=a•:•••-c•••=••• ••:::ca•
:32 • I . " I
I
I
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
E~\ IRONME~ TAL CO,\SLLTA:\ TS
From:Nick Bizzell
To:fontanahistoricalsociety1906@gmail.com
Cc:Sonia Sifuentes
Subject:RE: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Maple Property Development Project, San Bernardino County
Date:Friday, August 25, 2023 1:18:00 PM
Attachments:ECORP_Fontana Maple Property_08.25.2023.pdf
My Apologies as I did not include the attached letter with map to the previous email. Please find
here a copy of the letter and that attached location map. Thank you.
Nick Bizzell
Associate Archaeologist ᆏ ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Ph: 714.648.0630 ᆏ Fax: 714.648.0935 ᆏ
nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.comᆏ www.ecorpconsulting.com
Rocklin ᆏ Redlands ᆏ Santa Ana ᆏ San Diego ᆏ Chico ᆏ Flagstaff, AZ ᆏ Santa Fe, NM
From: Nick Bizzell
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 1:15 PM
To: fontanahistoricalsociety1906@gmail.com
Cc: Sonia Sifuentes <ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com>
Subject: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Maple Property Development Project, San
Bernardino County
Dear Fontana Historical Society,
ECORP Consulting, Inc. has been retained to assist in the planning of the development on the project
indicated above. The proposed Project Area consists of a roughly square area comprising a total of
approximately 8.38 acres located in the City of Fontana. This area Is located east of Locus Avenue
and
west of North Maple Avenue, north of West Foothill Boulevard and south of Barbee Street in APNs:
02-
431-4201, 02-431-4202, 02-431-4203, 02-431-4204, 02-431-4205,and 02-431-4206 in the
southeastern
quarter of the southwestern quarter of Section 4 in Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San
Bernardino Base
and Meridian as depicted on the 1967 USGS Fontana, California (photorevised 1980) 7.5-minute
topographical map, as attached. As part of the identification effort, we are seeking information from
all
parties that may have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties or cultural resources in the
ECORP Consulting , Inc.
E'.'\ \ IRO!\ \IENTAL CONSVLTANTS
Project Area.
Included is a map showing the outlined Project Area. We would appreciate input on this undertaking
from
the historical society with concerns about possible cultural properties or potential impacts within or
adjacent to the area of potential effect. If you have any questions, please contact Sonia Sifuentes at
(909) 307-0046 or
ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com.
Sincerely,
Nick Bizzell
Associate Archaeologist ᆏ ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2861 Pullman St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Ph: 714.648.0630 ᆏ Fax: 714.648.0935 ᆏ
nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.comᆏ www.ecorpconsulting.com
Rocklin ᆏ Redlands ᆏ Santa Ana ᆏ San Diego ᆏ Chico ᆏ Flagstaff, AZ ᆏ Santa Fe, NM
ECORP Consulting , Inc.
E'.'\ \ IRO!\ \IENTAL CONSVLTANTS
APPENDIX B
Sacred Lands File Coordination
1
Steven Wintergerst
From:Nick Bizzell
Sent:Friday, August 25, 2023 12:49 PM
To:NAHC@NAHC
Cc:Sonia Sifuentes
Subject:Requesting Sacred Lands File Search for the Maple Property Project 2023-169
Attachments:2023-169_SLF_Maple_Property.pdf; MP_RS_NAHC(draft01).pdf
Good AŌernoon,
ECORP is requesƟng a Sacred Lands Įle search for a planned 8.38 acre development project located within the APNs:
02Ͳ431Ͳ4201,02Ͳ431Ͳ4202,02Ͳ431Ͳ4203,02Ͳ431Ͳ4204,02Ͳ431Ͳ4205,and 02Ͳ431Ͳ4206. AƩached is a copy of the Sacred
Lands File search request and a locaƟon map. Please refer to the project number 2023Ͳ169 and CC
ssifuentes@ecorpconsulƟng.com on all correspondence.
Thank you,
Nick Bizzell
AssociateArchaeologistᆐᆑECORPConsulting,Inc.
2861 Pullman St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Ph: 714.648.0630 ᆐᆑ Fax: 714.648.0935 ᆐᆑ
nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.comᆐᆑ www.ecorpconsulting.com
Rocklin ᆐᆑ Redlands ᆐᆑ Santa Ana ᆐᆑ San Diego ᆐᆑ Chico ᆐᆑ Flagstaff, AZ ᆐᆑ Santa Fe, NM
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
ENVIRONMENT,\L CONSULTANTS
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project: ______________________________________________________________________
County:______________________________________________________________________
USGS Quadrangle Name:_______________________________________________________
Township:__________ Range:__________ Section(s):__________
Company/Firm/Agency:_________________________________________________________
Street Address:________________________________________________________________
City:______________________________________________ Zip:______________________
Phone:_____________________________________________
Fax:_______________________________________________
Email:_____________________________________________
Project Description:
DiversifiedPacific-FontanaMapleProperty
SanBernardino Date:Aug.25,2023
1967Fontana,CA(1980PhotoRevised)
1south 5west 4
ClientProposesthedevelopmentofan8.38acresitelocatedwithintheAPNs:
02-431-4201,02-431-4202,02-431-4203,02-431-4204,02-431-4205,and02-431-4206.
Pleaserefertotheprojectnumber2023-169andCCssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com
onallcorrespondence.
ECORPConsultingInc.
215North5thStreet
Redlands 92374
909-307-0046
909-307-0056
ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com
5HFRUGV6HDUFK
0DSOH3URSHUW\
/R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
1
?
?
0
D
S
O
H
3
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
?
0
$
3
6
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
B
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
?
&
X
O
W
X
U
D
O
5
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
D
S
U
[
0
3
B
5
6
B
1
$
+
&
W
U
R
W
H
O
O
L
Q
L
(
6FDOHLQ)HHW
)RQWDQD&$ >SU @1$'
&$PLQXWH7RSRJUDSKLF4XDGUDQJOH
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\
6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
765:6%%0
/DWLWXGH 1$' 1
/RQJLWXGH 1$' :
:DWHUVKHG 6DQWD$QD
0DS'DWH
6RXUFHV (65,86*6
0DS)HDWXUHV
3URMHFW$UHDDF
:::: : 32 "'=====••,::=======-------"--•=~s =;
~ " ll
If ••
II
II
II
You don't often get email from nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.com. Learn why this is important
From:NAHC@NAHC
To:Nick Bizzell
Cc:Vela, Cameron@NAHC
Subject:RE: Requesting Sacred Lands File Search for the Maple Property Project 2023-169
Date:Monday, August 28, 2023 3:39:50 PM
Attachments:2023-169_SLF_Maple_Property.pdf
MP_RS_NAHC(draft01).pdf
Hello,
Thank you for your message. We're in receipt of your request. We have recently hired new staff, and
this change in our office is creating some delays. We estimate a turn-around time of 4 weeks and
don't anticipate responding sooner than the end of that time frame. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Kind regards,
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
From: Nick Bizzell <nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.com>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 12:49 PM
To: NAHC@NAHC <NAHC@nahc.ca.gov>
Cc: Sonia Sifuentes <ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com>
Subject: Requesting Sacred Lands File Search for the Maple Property Project 2023-169
Good Afternoon,
ECORP is requesting a Sacred Lands file search for a planned 8.38 acre development project located
within the APNs: 02-431-4201,02-431-4202,02-431-4203,02-431-4204,02-431-4205,and 02-431-
4206. Attached is a copy of the Sacred Lands File search request and a location map. Please refer to
the project number 2023-169 and CC ssifuentes@ecorpconsulting.com on all correspondence.
Thank you,
Nick Bizzell
Associate Archaeologist ᆏ ECORP Consulting, Inc.
I
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
E:\ \ IRO!\ \IENTAL CONSt.;LTANTS
2861 Pullman St, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Ph: 714.648.0630 ᆏ Fax: 714.648.0935 ᆏ
nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.comᆏ www.ecorpconsulting.com
Rocklin ᆏ Redlands ᆏ Santa Ana ᆏ San Diego ᆏ Chico ᆏ Flagstaff, AZ ᆏ Santa Fe, NM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
October 20, 2023
Nick Bizzell
ECORP Consulting Inc.
ViaEmail to: nbizzell@ecorpconsulting.com
Re: Diversified Pacific-Fontana Maple Property Project , San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Bizzell:
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 mayrecommend 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: Cameron.vela@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
S
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
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
County Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone #Fax #Email Address Cultural Affiliation
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F Patricia Garcia, Director of Historic
Preservation
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6919 pagarcia@aguacaliente.net Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians F Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 (760) 369-7161 hhaines@augustinetribe.com Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians F Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
(760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 anthonymad2002@gmail.com Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians F Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 972-2568 (951) 763-2808 chairman@cahuilla-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esaprza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 besparza@cahuilla-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Christina Swindall Martinez,
Secretary
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh
Nation
N Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
(844) 390-0787 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
N Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
(626) 483-3564 (626) 286-1262 GTTribalcouncil@aol.com Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation N Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
(951) 807-0479 sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
(626) 407-8761 christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
N Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
(562) 761-6417 (562) 761-6417 gtongva@gmail.com Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource
Director
P.O. Box 3919
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
(909) 262-9351 tongvatcr@gmail.com Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson 23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
(310) 403-6048 Chavez1956metro@gmail.com Gabrielino
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño
Indians
F Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
(760) 782-0711 (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3515 (760) 742-3189 sgaughen@palatribe.com Cupeno
Luiseno
Pala Band of Mission Indians F Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Road
Pala, CA, 92059
(760) 891-3537 awallick@palatribe.com Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians F Steve Bodmer, General Counsel
for Pechanga Band of Indians
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6171 (951) 695-1778 sbodmer@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians F Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga
Cultural Analyst
P.O. Box 2183
Temecula, CA, 92593
(951) 770-6313 (951) 695-1778 eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 executivesecretary@quechantribe.
com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 culturalcommittee@quechantribe.c
om
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 historicpreservation@quechantribe
.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 admin@ramona-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 484-4835 lgonzalez@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney
General
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 689-5727 dwalsh@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural
Resources Manager/Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 648-3000 cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Linton, Tribal
Council/Culture Committee
Member
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
(760) 803-3548 jlinton@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians F Alexandra McCleary, Cultural
Lands Manager
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
(909) 633-0054 alexandra.mccleary@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians N Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
(909) 578-2598 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians N Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
(253) 370-0167 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource
Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Cultural Committee, P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 Cultural-
Committee@torresmartinez-
nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/20/2023
Counties Last Updated
San Bernardino Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 7/20/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 6/28/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 6/28/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 6/28/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
8/18/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
8/18/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Ventura
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Ventura
3/28/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
3/16/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura
3/16/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Ventura
5/30/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,Ventura
5/30/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 3/23/2023
Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 3/23/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
8/2/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
8/2/2023
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
5/16/2023
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
5/16/2023
Imperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
5/16/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 8/16/2016
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
5/31/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
7/7/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
5/31/2023
Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura
5/31/2023
Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino 3/27/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino 10/10/2023
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego
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 Diversified Pacific-Fontana Maple Property Project, San Bernardino County.
Record: PROJ-2023-004922
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: San Bernardino
NAHC Group: All
Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino 10/10/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
7/14/2023
Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
7/14/2023
10/20/2023 11:48 AM
1 of 1
+-+-
t t
t t
+ +
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+-+-
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+-+-
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
+-+-
t t
+ +
+ +
APPENDIX C
Project Area Photographs
Camera Photo
No.
,?viDVV, \M61.,..
\L ~3 0'] C{
\tJ\(n -
~;qv;
I Mh"i /
64~0
\ \J\(tL-
()4-i)\
\~(n-
D4u2--
\ ~---
6.trO~
\Mm-
04-{)4
t ~61 __..
~
\ }J\(n --,, ()4Qu
•,
'
Proj ect Name: foV\-¼ V?V\ Ho,~ IG
Proj ect Number: 2-0l '3 .-l \o°1
Desc ription Facing Date
?A ~" -trOVV\ N V\J UJYVJI' SE q /14 / 2.:s
flit ov iYO~ SW C-OYV\JX NE q /14/23
(,'1 Vi) \J\ vci ~\J\ f ft/\ Ll_ CkVOVC!'C'}Z \ 0
~ 1cU ck ? fr s
-qr O\i\ \ t y-~ S fOYU11', U V\ V'--0:
\ V\ N {lOYtftrlf\ of ? r N
fo-\l(d dvt'vcw~ tVJ ~ f0Yt1'--Dr1
Ok f>/'r-~
fu V1MV!t\ SlAV 1?\C£ UVW/Af-J( 1 {
~1 tJ o n+ '? A NE
N\be\tv V' rt.+v\ 1;<, , vi t A Sc
f ft. DV .fvowi St v(SYV'lvv t'JW
? A UV --WbM NE: C()V V\VV svv ,v
Initials
e,LL
,v
•
"-'---
-~"--... ~ ,_
IMG _0398 IMG _0399 IMG _0400 IMG _0401 IMG_0402
-~ ·-: ····-:.
.... ,. . .,,~,.:.-r·'-:• ... ~; .·.· --: -:..--"'1.1..-:'.'(C\'f;·-..,.~ ;c\,-:.."-""C,-· ,,_-·
IMG_0403 IMG_0404 IMG_0405 IMG_0406