Item 11 - Starling Heights Specific Plan (24-071APP) — Yucaipa City Council, October 28, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

Information Expires 1/1/2024

OF Q
o Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database aj
Y
Elev.

Element Occ. Ranks
Population Status
Presence
Historic
Recent
Poss.

CNDDB
Listing Status
Range
Total
Name (Scientific/Common)
Ranks
(Fed/State)
Other Lists
(ft.)
EO's
A
B
C
D
X
U
> 20 yr
<= 20 yr
Extant
Extirp.

Extirp.

Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca
G4T3
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.2
2,480
59 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
white-bracted spineflower
S3
None
BLM S-Sensitive
2 480
S:1
SB CaIBG/RSABG
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_USDA-US Dept of
Agriculture
USFS S-Sensitive
Diadophis punctatus modestus
G5T2T3
None
USFS_S-Sensitive
3,460
14 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
San Bernardino ringneck snake
S2?
None
3,460
S:1
Diplectrona californica
G1G2
None
3,444
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
California diplectronan caddisfly
S1
None
3,444
S:1
Dipodomys merriami parvus
G5T1
Endangered
CDFW_SSC-Species
1,261
81 0
0 3
0 0
1 1
3 4
0 0
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
S1
Candidate
of Special Concern
2,388
S:4
Endangered
Dodecahema leptoceras
G1
Endangered
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.1
42 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
1 0
slender -horned spineflower
S1
Endangered
SB CalBG/RSABG-
S:1
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Elanus leucurus
G5
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
2,760
184
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 white-tailed kite
S3S4
None
CDFW_FP-Fully
2 760
S:1
Protected
I UCN_LC-Least
Concern
Empidonax traillii extimus
G5T2
Endangered
3,400
70 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
southwestern willow flycatcher
S3
Endangered
31400
S:1
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum
G4T1
Endangered
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.1
1,200
31 0
2 1
1 0
3 4
3 7
0 0
Santa Ana River woollystar
S1
Endangered
SB CalBG/RSABG-
2,300
S.7
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
Imperata brevifolia
G3
None
Rare Plant Rank - 2B.1
32 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
California satintail
S3
None
SB CalBG/RSABG-
S:1
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS S-Sensitive
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

Information Expires 1/1/2024

OF Q
o Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database aj
Y
Elev.

Element Occ. Ranks
Population Status
Presence
Historic
Recent
Poss.

CNDDB
Listing Status
Range
Total
Name (Scientific/Common)
Ranks
(Fed/State)
Other Lists
(ft.)
EO's
A
B
C
D
X
U
> 20 yr
<= 20 yr
Extant
Extirp.

Extirp.

Lasiurus xanthinus
G4G5
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
2,600
58 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
western yellow bat
S3
None
of Special Concern
2,600
S:1
I UCN_LC-Least
Concern
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
G5T3
None
Rare Plant Rank - 4.3
1,840
142
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 Robinson's pepper -grass
S3
None
1,840
S:1
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
G3
Delisted
CDFW_SSC-Species
2,600
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
lesser long -nosed bat
S1
None
of Special Concern
2,600
S:1
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii
G5T3
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.3
3,500
41 0
4 0
0 0
0 3
1 4
0 0
Hall's monardella
S3
None
SB CalBG/RSABG-
5,000
SA
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
USFS S-Sensitive
Neotoma lepida intermedia
G5T3T4
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
132
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 San Diego desert woodrat
S3S4
None
of Special Concern
S:1
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10
G5T1 Q
Endangered
AFS_EN-Endangered
108
19 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
1 0
steelhead - southern California DPS
S1
Candidate
108
S:1
Endangered
Phrynosoma blainvillii
G4
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
1,740
784
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 coast horned lizard
S4
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
1,740
S:1
of Special Concern
I UCN_LC-Least
Concern
Rana muscosa
G1
Endangered
CDFW_WL-Watch List
1,800
186
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 southern mountain yellow -legged frog
S2
Endangered
IUCN_EN-Endangered
1,800
S:1
USFS S-Sensitive
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8
G5T1
None
AFS_TH-Threatened
2,080
13 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
Santa Ana speckled dace
S1
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
2 080
S:1
of Special Concern
USFS S-Sensitive
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
G1
None
1,500
30 0
0 1
0 0
1 2
0 2
0 0
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
S1.1
None
2,900
S.2
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
G5T4
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
2,533
34 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
coast patch -nosed snake
S3
None
of Special Concern
2,533
S:1
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

Information Expires 1/1/2024

OF Q
o Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database aj
Y
Elev.

Element Occ. Ranks
Population Status
Presence
Historic
Recent
Poss.

CNDDB
Listing Status
Range
Total
Name (Scientific/Common)
Ranks
(Fed/State)
Other Lists
(ft.)
EO's
A
B
C
D
X
U
> 20 yr
<= 20 yr
Extant
Extirp.

Extirp.

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii
G3T1
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.2
4,600
24 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
Parish's checkerbloom
S1
Rare
SB CalBG/RSABG-
4,600
S:1
California/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS S-Sensitive
Sidalcea neomexicana
G4
None
Rare Plant Rank - 2B.2
30 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 2
0 0
salt spring checkerbloom
S2
None
USFS_S-Sensitive
S:2
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
G4
None
1,780
246
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
S4
None
1,780
S:1
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian
G3
None
2,840
ill
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 Forest
S3.2
None
2,840
S:1
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
Southern Riparian Forest
G4
None
2,160
20 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
Southern Riparian Forest
S4
None
2,160
S:1
Southern Riparian Scrub
G3
None
1,840
56 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
Southern Riparian Scrub
S3.2
None
1,840
S:1
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian
G4
None
2,160
230
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 0
2 0
0 Woodland
S4
None
3,000
S:2
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian
Woodland
Southern Willow Scrub
G3
None
2,200
45 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
Southern Willow Scrub
S2.1
None
2,200
S:1
Spea hammondii
G2G3
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
1,710
1437
0 1
1 2
0 0
0 4
4 0
0 western spadefoot
S3S4
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
2 292
SA
of Special Concern
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Streptanthus campestris
G3
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1 B.3
4,000
73 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
southern jewelflower
S3
None
BLM S-Sensitive
4,000
S:1
SB_CRES-San Diego
Zoo CRES Native
Gene Seed Bank
USFS S-Sensitive
Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

Information Expires 1/1/2024

OF Q
o Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database aj
Y
Elev.

Element Occ. Ranks
Population Status
Presence
Historic
Recent
Poss.

CNDDB
Listing Status
Range
Total
Name (Scientific/Common)
Ranks
(Fed/State)
Other Lists
(ft.)
EO's
A
B
C
D
X
U
> 20 yr
<= 20 yr
Extant
Extirp.

Extirp.

Thamnophis hammondii
G4
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
1,955
184
0 1
1 0
1 1
3 1
3 1
0 two -striped gartersnake
S3S4
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
3,460
S:4
of Special Concern
I UCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFS S-Sensitive
Vireo bellii pusillus
G5T2
Endangered
1,660
505
1 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
2 0
0 least Bell's vireo
S3
Endangered
2,010
S.2
1 1
1 Commercial Version -- Dated July, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

Information Expires 1/1/2024

Appendix F
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Starling Heights Specific Plan Amendment and TTM 20372 39 Biological Resources Assessment Report

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands- •
Project Boundary
Wetlands
L—I
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
❑ Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Starling Heights & TTM 20372
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
July 19, 2023
Freshwater Pond Riverine
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper

Appendix C
Cultural Resource Assessment for the Rockwell TTM
20372 Project
"�- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page114

18 Technology Dr., Ste. 103
Irvine, CA 92618
949-356-6660
www.dukecrm.com
July 21, 2023
Sabrina Snowball
CASC Engineering and Consulting
1470 E. Cooley Drive
Colton, CA 92324
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project, City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California (C-0478)
Dear Ms. Snowball:

At the request of CASC Engineering and Consulting (CLIENT), Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM) has prepared a cultural resources assessment for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project (Project), located in the City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California (see Attachment A, Map 1: Project Vicinity).

The City of Yucaipa (CITY) is the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this letter report is to document compliance with CEQA and to provide information to allow the CITY to determine whether the proposed Project would cause substantial impacts to archaeological or historical resources.

The Project is located within Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 2 West, as depicted on the Yucapa, Calf.

USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (see Attachment A, Map 2: Project Location). It is located at the northeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street in the City of Yucaipa within APNs 0318-021-18, -19, and -58 (see Attachment A, Map 3: Project Aerial Photo). The Project is approximately 15 acres in size, and it will involve construction of a community consisting of 128 two-story townhomes, three (3) community open space areas, and two (2) stormwater retention basins. The Project proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and associated structures within APN 0318-021-58; the other two parcels are vacant. The maximum depth of ground disturbance will be approximately five (5) feet below existing natural grade or three (3) feet below proposed foundations, whichever is greater.

The cultural records search and field survey were conducted by Alexandria Bulato, B.A. Ms. Bulato is the Archaeologist assigned to the Project for DUKE CRM and is the primary author of this report. Ms. Bulato has worked in all phases of archaeology (archival research, field survey, testing and data recovery excavation, laboratory analysis, report preparation, and construction monitoring) since 2016, and she holds a B.A. in Anthropology from California State University (CSU) San Bernardino. The report was reviewed by Brian Glenn, M.A., RPA. Mr. Glenn has over 35 years of experience working in all phases of archaeology, and he holds an M.A. in Archaeology from the University of California at Los Angeles. All work was conducted under the direct supervision of Curt Duke, M.A., RPA. Mr. Duke is the Principal Archaeologist of DUKE CRM and meets the professional qualifications of the Secretary of the Interior for prehistoric and historical archaeology.

Mr. Duke holds an M.A. in Anthropology from CSU Fullerton, and he has worked in all phases of archaeology since 1994.

ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORY ]PALEONTOLOGY

DUDE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
SCCIC records indicate that a total of 22 cultural resource reports cover areas within '/2 mile of the Project (Table 1). Of these, one (1) report covers the Project area. This report, SB-00973, was a study completed in 1980 for the extension of Oak Glen Road. It covers a small portion of the northeast corner of the Project area, and it did not document cultural resources within the Project. Additionally, one (1) report covers an area directly adjacent to the Project to the east. This report, SB-00578, was a study completed in 1977 that did not document cultural resources within the Project.

Table 1. Cultural Resource Studies within % mile of the Project Report
Year
Report Title
Authors
Sites within the
No.

Project area
SB-
1958
Archaeological Investigations in the Yucaipa
Hicks, Frederic
None
00040
Valley.

SB-
1973
Schumaker East and Schumaker West.

Smith, Gerald A.

None
00142
SB-
1976
A Cultural Resources Survey Report, Yucaipa
San Bernardino
None
00338
Valley County Water District.

County Museum
Association
SB-
1976
Environmental Impact Evaluation: Test
Martz, Patricia
None
00339
Excavation at SBR-1000, Yucaipa Valley County
Water District Sanitary Sewers Project.

SB-
1977
Archaeological Investigations at CA-SBR-1000,
Martz, Patricia
None
00378
Yucaipa, California.

SB-
1977
Archaeological — Historical Resources Assessment
Hearn, Joseph E.

None
00578
of Tract 10044, Yucaipa Area.

SB-
1980
An Archaeological Assessment of the Village of
Leonard, Joanne
None
00957
Yukai- a-t (SBR-1000).

SB-
1980
Oak Glen Road Extension: An Addendum to the
Leonard, Joanne
None
00973
Archaeological Assessment of the Realignment of
C.

Avenue E.

SB-
1988
Archaeological Monitoring for the Sun Glen
Swanson, Mark T.

None
01836
Project, Tract 10069, Yucaipa Area, San
Bernardino County.

SB-
1989
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Bissell, Ronald M.

None
01849
Frontrunner Homes Property, Yucaipa, San
Bernardino County, California.

SB-
1989
A Preliminary Report on the 1972-76 Excavations
Tenney, Christy
None
02048
at CA-SBR-1000/H, Yucaipa, California.

SB-
1990
Compendium of Results of Obsidian Studies for
Infotec Research
None
02059
Study Area Sites: Appendix to Prehistoric Sites in
the Prado Basin, California: Regional Context and
Significance Evaluation.

SB-
1990
Glass Beads from the 1977 University of Redlands
Ross, Lester A.

None
02068
Archaeological Excavations at the Southern Tip
of the Yucaipa Rancheria Site (CA-SBR-1000/H),
Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California.

SB-
1977
The Faunal Analysis of SBR-1000, Yucaipa,
Strand, Jennifer
None
02566
California.

SB-
1991
Analysis of Floral -Faunal Remains from Soil
Ridgeway, Ginger
None
03006
Samples of the Martz Excavation.
7/21/2023(C-0478_Rockwell _Cultural _072123)

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Report
Year
Report Title
Authors
Sites within the
No.

Project area
SB-
1996
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Oak Glen
Lerch, Michael K.

None
03128
Road Extension, Ave E to Ave F, Yucaipa, San
Bernardino County, California.

SB-
1996
Village Life at Yukaipa't: Archaeological Data
Grenda, Donn R.

None
03130
Recovery at CA-SBR-1000/H, Yucaipa,
California.

SB-
1996
An Archaeological Study and Geological
Sander, Jay K.

None
03260
Monitoring at Cook's Subdivision, Yucaipa, San
Bernardino County, California.

SB-
1998
Between The Coast and The Desert:

Grenda, Donn R.

None
03607
Archaeological Data Recovery at the Yukaipa't
Site, CA-SBR-1000/H, Yucaipa, California.

SB-
2005
For Low -Water Crossing Improvements on 10d,
Heidelberg, Kurt
None
04838
Stret at Wilson Creek in the City of Yucaipa, San
and David
Bernardino.

Bricker
SB-
2005
A Phase 2 Historical and Architectural Survey of
Hatheway, Roger
None
04840
the Butler/James Ranch Residence Located at
The Clover Cell Site, 32645 Yucaipa Boulevard,
Yucaipa, California.

SB-
2008
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit
Bonner, Wayne
None
06136
Results for Royal Street Communications
H. and Mamie
California, LLC Candidate LA3213A (Yucaipa
Aislin-Kay
YUSD), 33000 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, San
Bernardino County, California.

No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project. Three (3) cultural resources have been recorded within a'/2-mile radius of the Project. One (1) of these resources, P-36-001000, is the village of Yukapa't, a prehistoric habitation site located approximately 0.1-mile east of the Project. The other two (2) resources recorded within'/2 mile of the Project are historic in age. One historic era resource, P-36-012311, is a single- family residence in the Colonial revival style located approximately 0.45-mile northwest of the Project. The other historic era resource, P-36-014490, is a refuse dump consisting of refuse dating to the mid-1950s as well as modern industrial refuse located approximately 0.45-mile east of the Project.

R3&001000
The Yukaipa't village site, also designated as the Yucaipa Rancheria, was originally recorded in 1947 by Gerald Smith of the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM). Various studies have been conducted at the site since its recordation by the SBCM, San Bernardino County Historical Society (SBCHS), University of Redlands, University of California at Riverside (UCR), and by several private cultural resources management firms. These studies have evaluated P-36-001000 as a habitation site occupied from the late prehistoric through the protohistoric period. Analyses have generally separated the site into three (3) spatially and temporally distinct areas: Greven's Knoll, located within the northeastern portion of the site east of 10th Street and thought to represent the earliest occupation; Simpson's Property, located downslope from Greven's Knoll west of 10th Street and thought to represent a late prehistoric component of the site; and Cook's Property, located at the southern end of the site south of Avenue E and thought to represent a protohistoric-historic period deposit (Grenda 1998).

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Knoll by UCR in 1977 and by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI) from 1994 through 1996 concluded that this area represents the earliest occupation of the site during the late prehistoric period, and that this occupation is thought to have had a relatively small population density in comparison to later occupations (Martz 1977, Grenda 1998).

Simpson's Property was excavated in 1947 by the SBCM; in 1948 and 1949 by the University of Redlands; and in 1977 by UCR. Three (3) test pits and one (1) trench excavated in 1947 recovered artifacts including ground stone (mortars and pestles), flaked stone (small triangular side -notched points), and stone and shell beads, as well human skeletal material representing at least three (3) burials. This 1947 study also noted very dark midden soils within this portion of the site. Subsequent excavations in 1948 and 1949 revealed an earlier cultural deposit approximately 6-7 feet below surface and noted as being buried below a sterile layer. Five (5) test units excavated by UCR (Martz 1977) exposed an additional cultural deposit approximately four (4) feet deep. SRI analyzed this deposit, along with the earlier material from the 1940s excavations, as being indicative of a slightly later occupation with a higher population density than the occupation at Greven's Knoll (Grenda 1998).

Excavations were conducted within Cook's Property from 1973-1977 by the University of Redlands; in 1977 by UCR; and from 1996 through 1998 by SRI. The University of Redlands study involved excavation of 46 test pits, and recovered ceramics, flaked stone, ground stone, as well as glass trade beads and other historical period artifacts. The remains of an adobe structure, thought to be occupied from approximately 1853-1877, were also discovered within this southern portion of the site. The University of Redlands study produced very little written documentation to accompany the artifact assemblage, but the materials from this study and from the excavation of an additional 21 test units were analyzed by UCR and were determined to indicate a protohistoric occupation of the site (Martz 1977). SRI (Grenda 1998) excavated an additional nine (9) backhoe trenches and 12 shovel test pits within Cook's Property between 1994 and 1996. These excavations did not expose any features, but recovered a total of 5,966 flaked stone artifacts, 72 ground stone artifacts, seven (7) shell artifacts, 93 ceramic artifacts, and 26,817 faunal bone fragments. These artifacts were analyzed along with the artifact assemblage from the previous excavations, and Cook's Property was interpreted to represent a late prehistoric/early protohistoric seasonal occupation of the site (Grenda 1998).

The site was designated as California Historical Landmark (CHL) #620 in 1957. The entry for the site in the CHL lists the address for both the Yucaipa Adobe and the Yucaipa Rancheria as 32183 Kentucky Street, which is approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the site, but the entry for the site in the CHL indicates that it is located at the intersection of Avenue E and 10th Street.

Sacred Lands File Search
A request for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 7, 2023 to ascertain the presence of known sacred sites, Native American cultural resources, and/or human remains within the boundaries of the proposed Project and the surrounding area. The NAHC responded on March 28, 2023, and indicated that the results of the SLF search were positive. The NAHC recommended that DUKE CRM contact the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) for information regarding potential sacred sites within or adjacent to the Project.

DUKE CRM contacted the YSMN and the MBMI via email on May 24, 2023 to request information. Ryan Nordness of the YSMN responded via email on June 8, 2023 stating that: "The proposed project is located in the immediate vicinity of the known Serrano placename and associated archaeological village site of Yucaipat.

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
DUKE CRM responded to the YSMN requesting a copy of the report detailing this testing. On June 28, 2023, Jamie Nord of the YSMN responded and provided a citation for the study, which was completed in 2022 by Heather McDaniel McDevitt for Dudek. The title of the report indicates that the study involved a forensic canine survey and the use of GPR, and that it was completed within APN 0318-06-126, which is located at the southeast corner of Avenue E and Oak Glen Road approximately 0.15 miles southeast of the Project. DUKE CRM reached out to Ms. McDaniel McDevitt to request a copy of the report, but a response has not been received to date. As of the date of this report, the MBMI has not responded to DUKE CRM's request for information.

Additional Research
DUKE CRM examined the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), which includes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and CHL. The BERD did not identify any additional cultural resources within the Project area. DUKE CRM also consulted the Cultural Resources Assessment appendix to the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yucaipa General Plan. Review of this report did not identify any additional cultural resources within the Project.

The village site of Yuka0a't does not appear on a map of historic and ethnohistoric villages prepared by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The nearest ethnographically known Native American village to the Project was Saxhatpa, thought to be located southwest of what is now the city of Calimesa, approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the Project. Another village, Ackit TFlanakik, is thought to be located approximately 7.6 miles southeast of the Project within what is now the community of Cherry Valley.

Additionally, a review of historical aerial photographs and historical topographic maps was conducted using the University of California, Santa Barbara's online FrameFinder program and the USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. The 1901 Redlands, Calf. 1:62,500 historical topographic map depicts a road south of the current alignment of Avenue E and north of the current alignment of Interstate 10 (I-10), but no other development in the vicinity of the Project. The 1954 Yucaoa, Calif. 1:24,000 historical topographic map depicts Avenue E in approximately its current alignment, as well as the Dunlap School at the northeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street to the west of the Project. Several buildings are also depicted at the southeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street, but no development is depicted within the Project aside from orchards covering the western two- thirds of the Project. A 1953 historical aerial photograph confirms that there was no development within the Project at that time and shows that the Project area was at that time being used for agriculture. A 1962 historical aerial photograph shows no apparent change from the 1953 aerial. The 1967 Yucapa, Calif. 1:24,000 historical topographic map shows that Avenue E had by that time been slightly realigned to the south in the vicinity of the Project, but no other further development is depicted within the Project. A 1980 historical aerial photograph shows that the structure in the southeast corner of the Project area had been constructed by that time. A 1989 aerial depicts that a housing development had by that time been constructed adjacent to the Project to the east, within the boundary of P-36-001000. The 1996 Yucaipa, Calif. historical topographic map also depicts that development, but no other changes are apparent.

Field Survey
DUKE CRM archaeologist Alexandria Bulato, B.A., conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area on April 27, 2023. The majority of the approximately 15-acre Project boundary was intensively surveyed using parallel transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart (see Attachment A, Map 3: Project Aerial). Several portions of the parcel containing the single-family residence (APN-0318-021-58) in the southeastern corner of the Project area were unable to be surveyed as they were fenced and contained horses and dogs. Ground visibility was good to excellent (between 75 to 100 percent) throughout the majority of the Project, with some visibility limitations due to sparse vegetation cover throughout and moderate vegetation cover along the northern and eastern Project boundaries. Ground visibility was poor within the portions of the private parcel that were able to be surveyed due to nonnative grass cover and gravel. The entirety of the Project area, with the exception of the private property, appeared extensively disturbed and appeared to have been recently plowed; 7/21/2023(C-0478_Rockwell _Cultural _072123)

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
tire tracks from heavy equipment were visible throughout the Project. Photographs depicting survey coverage are provided in Attachment B. No cultural resources were observed during the field survey.

Conclusions
DUKE CRM assessed the proposed Project for CRHR-eligible cultural resources subject to potentially significant impacts under CEQA. The pedestrian survey did not identify any prehistoric or historic cultural resources, and the majority of the Project area appears heavily disturbed by plowing. Research indicates that this disturbance has taken place since at least the 1950s. No cultural resources are previously recorded within the Project area; however, less than five (5) percent of the Project area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Additionally, the presence of a complex multicomponent village site including burials (P-36-001000)

0.1-mile from the Project indicates a higher than usual potential for buried cultural resources to be present within the Project. Although the Project area has been extensively disturbed by plowing, the depth of previous disturbance within the Project is not known, and the Project proposes ground disturbance of at least five (5) feet. Based on these factors, the Project area is assessed as having a high sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historical cultural resources, and archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities is recommended.

Archaeological Monitoring
An archaeological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing activities within the Project to ensure that any impacts to prehistoric or historical archaeological resources can be mitigated to be less than significant. The monitor shall work under the direct supervision of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (M.S./M.A. in anthropology or a related discipline with an emphasis in archaeology, and demonstrated competence in archaeological research, fieldwork, reporting, and curation).

1. The qualified archaeologist shall be on -site at the pre -construction meeting to discuss monitoring protocols.

2. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during initial ground disturbance within the Project, including but not limited to clearing, grubbing, grading, trenching, utilities, and off -site easements. If, after excavation begins, the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments are not likely to produce prehistoric or historical archaeological resources, monitoring efforts shall be reduced, or possibly ceased altogether.

3. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect grading efforts if cultural resources are discovered.

4. In the event of an archaeological discovery the monitor shall flag an area 50 feet beyond the discovery and notify the construction crew immediately. No further disturbance in the flagged area shall occur until the qualified archaeologist has cleared the area.

5. In consultation with the qualified archaeologist, the monitor shall quickly assess the nature and significance of the find. If the find is not considered to be potentially significant, it shall be quickly mapped, documented, removed, and the area cleared.

6. If the discovery is considered potentially significant, the qualified archaeologist shall notify the CLIENT and CITY immediately.

7. If the discovery is prehistoric or a potential Tribal Cultural Resource, local Native American groups shall be consulted.

8. In consultation with the CLIENT, CITY, and interested Native American groups (if necessary), the qualified archaeologist shall develop a plan of mitigation which will likely include full-time monitoring, salvage excavation, laboratory processing and analysis, research, curation of the find into a local qualified museum or repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find.

If previously unidentified cultural or paleontological materials are unearthed during construction, work shall be halted in that area until the qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 7/21/2023(C-0478_Rockwell _Cultural _072123_001)

DUDE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

DUKE CRM appreciates the opportunity to provide cultural services in support of this project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (909) 684-2713 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, LLC
Alexandria Bulato, B.A.

Archaeologist/Field Director
Attachments
A: Project Maps
B: Project Photographs
Curt Duke, M.A. RPA
Principal Archaeologist/President
7/21/2023(C-0478_Rockwell _Cultural _072123)

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT MAPS

a a �ety Ave
U C
o' a
R a nc hero St RancheroR
7 d; San Bernardino
pv� National
F-1
�fafa l)S H,yY
�1J7�
1' �Oj' Rd S
aWl i
Y - C.��tl W WilsonSt
Beaumont- "�'�-�weR,m,fly,'%f,
,A 6 Moreno alley
AI°uandro Blvd C/r
efP' nP, C-ws Ave �Q
eh'
O ° Rd e
o
s aF «
m` El Sob,antevjd 3Mo Lalw `a05v
Lake sham 41 v Ferris C.
1 Mathews
_ m 1'� z °dam
0 o E Nuevo Rd Nuevo Aa'
°Mathews D, 3 0
anta,p
oso Rv p
Ellis Ave v
z a
!� N
U
''J Ethenec d
/T Sun Cigrptc,ll O'd'
��m m
to
q; Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake

4. Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Rockwell TTM 20372, C-0478
r,
Y�DUKE
%Z!�CRM
3 a =
� San Jacinto
�.�peLL s
:a 3W Flo' da Av a Hemet E Flonda Ave Flo,ida Ave
East Hemet
s t—o" A -
Winchester
Winchester
S—p:nn Rd i
oon,.nogon, yr
Meni tee o ._„» od
Ja llsy L_r Ls
Project Area
Center
it
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, u and the GIS User Community
0 6 12
Miles N
1 inch = 6 miles 1:360,000

GO
a
lr4SfnL�i C
M
a
t
r
l ty

VIJGYPA
eta BOUtEV
Yuoba
Ilk
:1
Creed_ S T •. - -
` Park
„_ ss�,
Ail
' dal — _ � �.",' � _� a 0 •
• as r Il r� _ .. _ t ra
we
� � � � �, � � of ��,` • - iT'
'� Q. 4 Jx'�-~ Service La • } i3�if: 2013 axi i d
CJ • • •
Figure 2. Project Location Yucaipa, Calif USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle Rockwell TTM 20372, C-0478 T2S, R2W, Section 3 0 0.25 0.5 Date of Map: 1954 / Photorevised: 1996 Miles N
r, iADuKE0 0.25 0.5
O Project Area NEENEEZ:= Kilometers
��CRM
O USGS 7.5' Quads 1 inch = 2,000 feet 1:24,000

't m
—VIP -..qffjm'
J. b4f
_.Yucaipa BIV., _`_Yucaipa_Bivd
A3
s
r
Sola id
CL
T t -0
i!i .cs i u
m

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

ATTACHMENT B

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Project overview from northwest corner, view to southeast.

Project overview from southwest corner, view to east.

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Project overview from northeast corner, view to southwest.

Project overview from southeast corner, view to northwest.

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
r
aw,
�
Overview of enclosures from northeast corner of private parcel, view to southwest.

Example of heavy equipment tire tracks near eastern Project boundary, view to north.

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Close view of plowed sediments near center of Project area, view down and to north.

Project overview from western Project boundary, view to east.

Appendix D
Extended Phase I Survey Rockwell TTM 20372 Project
"�- City of Yucaipa
Starling Heights SP TTM 20372
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Page115

Extended Phase I Survey
Rockwell TTM 20372 Project
City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California
APNs 0318-021-18, 0318-021-19, and 0318-021-58
Prepared on Behalf of: Prepared for:

CASC Engineering & Consulting City of Yucaipa
1470 E. Cooley Drive 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Colton, CA 92324 Yucaipa, CA 92399
Prepared by:

Alexandria Bulato, B.A. and Curt Duke, M.A., RPA
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC
18 Technology Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 356-6660
curt e,dukecrm.com
www.dukecrm.com
DUKE C R M Project Number: C-0478
rDuya
C-DM
February 2024
Fieldwork Performed January 10-11, 2024
Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 3, USGS 7.5' Yucaipa, Calif.

Keywords: —15 acres, Negative Findings

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
T
This page in ten tionallyleft blank

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
DUKE Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUI C R M) is under contract to CASC Engineering & Consulting (CLIENT), to provide cultural resources services for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project (Project) located in the City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California. The purpose of this report is to document efforts made to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Yucaipa (CITY) is the lead agency for CEQA.

The Phase I cultural resource assessment conducted for the approximately 15 acre Project within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0318-021-18, 0318-021-19, and 0318-021-58 included a records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a search of the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC's) Sacred Lands File (SLF), historic background research from public and private sources, and a pedestrian field survey to identify prehistoric or historic era cultural resources on the surface of the Project.

The Phase I study identified prehistoric archaeological site P-36-001000 approximately 0.1 miles east of the Project area. The field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the Project and characterized the Project area as extensively disturbed. An Extended Phase I Survey (XPI) was conducted in order to assess whether P-36-001000 extends into the Project area or whether any other buried cultural resources are present within the Project. The XPI included excavation of nine (9) test trenches around the Project.

From analysis of the Project based on records search data, historical maps and aerial photographs, field survey, and based on the lack of cultural resources and the past history of soil disturbances observed during background research and XPI excavations, it is concluded that the Project has low sensitivity at the surface for cultural resources and a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historic era cultural resources. Given these data, a finding of No Historical Resources Impacted is recommended for CEQA.

If archaeological resources are discovered during Project activities the City shall be contacted immediately, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to investigate the discovery. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. In addition, according to the California Health and Safety Code, a cemetery is place where six or more human bodies are buried (Section 8100), and unauthorized disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

Additional efforts may be necessary if the proposed Project changes with regards to earth disturbing activities.

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................ ii
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................................................1 RegulatoryContext........................................................................................................................................................1 CEQA..........................................................................................................................................................................1 ResearchDesign............................................................................................................................................................. 5 SETTING............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 NaturalSetting................................................................................................................................................................ 5 CulturalSetting............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Prehistory.................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Ethnography............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Cahuilla................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Serrano.................................................................................................................................................................... 8 History......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................................................10 Personnel.......................................................................................................................................................................10 Research.........................................................................................................................................................................10 RecordsSearch.........................................................................................................................................................10 OtherResearch.........................................................................................................................................................10 FieldSurvey...................................................................................................................................................................10 ExtendedPhase I Survey (XPI).................................................................................................................................10 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................................11 Research.........................................................................................................................................................................11 RecordsSearch.........................................................................................................................................................11 OtherResearch.........................................................................................................................................................14 FieldSurvey...................................................................................................................................................................15 ExtendedPhase I Survey (XPI).................................................................................................................................15 SiteSensitivity Summary............................................................................................................................................. 29 FINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................29 Inadvertent Archaeological Finds......................................................................................................................... 29 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Figures
Figure1. Study Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure2. Project Location Map........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure3. Project Aerial Photo.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Project overview from northwest corner, view to southeast.....................................................................15 Figure 5. Project overview from northeast corner, view to southwest.....................................................................16 Figure 6. Plowed soils near center of Project area...................................................................................................... 16 Figure7. XPI trench locations........................................................................................................................................18 Figure 8. Trench 1 overview facing north....................................................................................................................19 Figure 9. Trench 1 east wall profile................................................................................................................................19 Figure 10. Trench 2 overview facing southwest.......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11. Trench 2 north wall profile.......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 12. Trench 3 overview facing northeast............................................................................................................ 21 Figure 13. Trench 3 south wall profile.......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14. Trench 4 overview facing northeast............................................................................................................ 22 Figure 15. Trench 4 profile south wall profile.............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 16. Trench 5 overview facing southwest.......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 17. Trench 5 east wall profile............................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 18. Trench 6 overview facing south.................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 19. Trench 6 east wall profile............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 20. Trench 7 overview facing northeast............................................................................................................ 26 ii

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Figure 21. Trench 7 east wall profile............................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 22. Trench 8 overview facing south.................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 23. Trench 8 east wall profile............................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 24. Trench 9 overview facing southwest.......................................................................................................... 28 Figure25. Trench 9 profile..............................................................................................................................................28 Tables
Table 1. Cultural Resources Studies within '/Z mile of the Project...........................................................................11 Table 2. Previously Identified Cultural Resources within '/z mile of the Project..................................................13 Appendices
Appendix A. Resumes
Abbreviations
B.A.

Bachelor of Arts
BERD
California Built Environment Resources Directory
CLIENT
CASC Engineering & Consulting
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CHL
California Historical Landmark
City
City of Yucaipa
CRHR
California Register of Historical Resources

DUI C R M
DUKE Cultural Resources Management, LLC
GPR
Ground Penetrating Radar
M.A.

Master of Arts
MBMI
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
NAHC
Native American Heritage Commission
PCT
Paleocoastal Tradition
Project
Rockwell TTM 20372 Project
Q yw
very young sand and gravel active wash deposits
Qya
Pleistocene young axial -valley silt, sand, and gravel deposits RPA
Registered Professional Archaeologist
SBCHS
San Bernardino County Historical Society
SBCM
San Bernardino County Museum
SCCIC
South Central Coastal Information Center
SLF
Sacred Lands File
SRI
Statistical Research, Inc.

UCR
University of California at Riverside
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WPLT
Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition
XPI
Extended Phase I
YSMN
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
iii

DuKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION
DUKE Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUI C R M) is under contract to CASC Engineering & Consulting (CLIENT) to provide cultural resources services for the Rockwell TTM 20372 Project (Project) located in the City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, California. The purpose of this report is to document compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Yucaipa (City) is the CEQA lead agency.

Project Description
The Project is located in the City of Yucaipa in southwestern San Bernardino County (Figure 1) within Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 2 West, as depicted on the Yucaipa, Calif. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 2). It is located at the northeast corner of Avenue E and 12th Street within APNs 0318-021-18, -19, and -58 (Figure 3). The Project is approximately 15 acres in size, and will involve construction of a community consisting of 128 two-story townhomes, three (3) community open space areas, and two (2) stormwater retention basins. The Project proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and associated structures within APN 0318-021-58; the other two parcels are vacant. The maximum depth of ground disturbance will be approximately five (5) feet below existing natural grade, or three (3) feet below proposed foundations, whichever is greater.

Regulatory Context
Existing state and local regulations require the identification of cultural resources during the planning stage of new projects.

CEQA
CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as a resource listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This includes cultural resources that have been determined for a local register or through a local historic resources survey. A resource may be considered potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the four criteria listed below:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Furthermore, CEQA necessitates that the lead agency considers whether the project will significantly affect unique archaeological resources that are ineligible for listing in the CRHR and to avoid these unique archaeological resources when possible or mitigate any effects to less than significant levels (PRC 21083.2). As stated by CEQA, a unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which clearly demonstrates with a high probability that it meets, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

i laN 177 kw,r
cre%fllne
M
oil �W E Nrgiu tnd l
z Hi --A
R*" kn° A r. T
Fare rm - "itldm w sr., > • ' h st + ,,d sr
W a•.,I,A - Salt
Lake
Arrowhead
Running
S pr in gs
.I.
u'
3 II
cr..r�wvr,rr�
ar. a Bernardino
5 c
Cdton'-- o Mentcnc rAirt�"•`�
n Lana Linda
Project Area
ItGrand To"aCA
• —` y_._. K+ w 9r.e Yucaipa
'crry�A L _ _ � _ � Urrd°r.Can'i-° = .Y r�Ra.
+. Calimesa
Riverside
I� C wry
Iumpa Valley
� 0
Z.
o � �
� � m
T' x $6ltetl W Wilcon Si
Moreno Valley ^'
Ai. as.ndt a &Ivd J
J o �3ay � ¢ u,•Rra oeRn
a. y
bJ
E1 Sobr rrMp �M ■ LAW eo 5c
Lnktl •'%nrm5+ 1. K§rrla m •�
+darhrsY. � � m
JC
.Q
s a E Ph —Rd tdunru
°Mama..•a Or I
^<°RwaRa & y x San Jacinto
Etlr a '
SAl.�a Ar■
g u Z Hegnei
a• :r w......
la aae.. Er-1wida Ava F1WId. A..

F. thnu a _ EaatHenet
ca..w,. xrr•,I
r.,
pyt�k
In -;I ,d
Sun Ciy
Wi nch aslef h1 ou n t n I
S,mp c n� {E J (Amer
qv\
Mori lee D nm.,ni
Canydri L*e s _ v: 116, lrh.
~ • 1NnWR Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, LAfy 01 INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), r Elrinon Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Rockwell TTM 20372, C-0478 0 6 12
UKE Miles JJ
Project Area
RM1 inch = 6 miles 1:360,000

�,r
�� •� {/r � JJ �/$� � ^e `---fir._ M � Il
Its
asa ti �. Urn 2226 o � Yl1CA1PA w `. 8ClC1LEV
.�14T
!� :! err` WFST =_ 1 • •Al_; � K _ • I:O • •�;_.. to
tm
`_- 5ehaol --
' AID • �1..... • 1i • _ -
Jarik FG 1 2
_ -,. � � " 'ir�r;rili�zy • sr '1'Ip� I �,....`F," � i- �,•:' ■*, sip FJ A
' NEST
• F W',
Pork
�Jr 4
>;y a �- service La ■ i 5E 2013 ati h d
■ i; •
Figure 2. Project Location Yucaipa, Calif USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle Rockwell TTM 20372, C-0478 T2S, R2W, Section 3 0 0.25 0.5 +� �j Date of Map: 1954 / Photorevised: 1996 Miles N
JL� 0 0.25 0.5
O Project Area ONEENNEZ= Kilometers
CRMO USGS 7.5' Quads 1 inch = 2,000 feet 1:24,000

Wcaipa,Blvd� '_"'3Y.0 :dip
.-.; • - .• '� -�_ � `�'fix' •�
-mLn r
A.

Avenue fl Avenue © {
UnIs too
Camcl6tiDr
. a • N
3 ,'-- t
Xe rye
Veni
Old
Ile
, 1
5 a r
� kY r � •'rr � ,
PL~�
40 _4

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Research Design
The primary purpose of this undertaking is to identify cultural resources within the Project that may be eligible for the CRHR and to determine what impacts proposed Project will have on those historical resources. This research design and associated methodology is developed to interpret these resources in the context of the cultural traditions represented. This includes those represented by Native American, Hispanic, Anglo-American and other cultural traditions.

At the theoretical level, archaeological investigations are based on partial and fragmented remnants of material items from past cultures, and they are therefore considered through the perspective of Cultural Materialism.

The premise of Cultural Materialism links materials, as represented by those items in the archaeological record, to the patterned action of human behavior within specific environments (culture) (Harris 1968:659). We consider Cultural Materialism to be a theoretical premise encompassing all other assumptions.

Research questions for survey -level investigations are generally based on information specific to the Project area and make use of previously gathered data. Prehistoric research would generally utilize a cultural ecology model with a focus on the relationships between functional site types and resource locations. Historic research would similarly focus on understanding how occupants of a region utilized the environment. Identified resources would be traced through documentation to individuals or groups whenever possible and correlated with identities of the occupants to formulate further research questions.

The Project is subject to CEQA which requires that lead agencies, in this case the City, consider impacts to historical resources that are potentially eligible for the CRHR. This report also considers impacts to cultural resources that are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Basic research questions include:

1. Are cultural resources located within the Project?
a. Are the conditions conducive to cultural resources within the Project? b. What is the sensitivity of the Project location for cultural resources? c. What is the level of prior disturbance to the property? d. Are there cultural resources that may be impacted by the Project? e. What is the potential for buried cultural resources?

2. Should any cultural resources be considered potential historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, potentially NRHP- and the CRHR-eligible criteria or significant resources according to CEQA, and do they possess integrity?

3. What impacts will the proposed Project have on any potential historical resources?

4. What treatment, avoidance and/or mitigation measures can be implemented to decrease the level of impact to potential historical resources to less than significant?

SETTING
Natural Setting
California is divided into 11 geomorphic provinces, each naturally defined by unique geologic and geomorphic characteristics. The Project is located in the northeastern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is distinguished by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys following faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges are bound to the east by the Colorado Desert and extend north to the San Bernardino — Riverside county line (Norris and Webb 1976), west into the submarine continental shelf, and south to the California state line and beyond.

The Project consists of an approximately 15-acre area in the City of Yucaipa, located within the Yucaipa Valley approximately four (4) miles southwest of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains (see Figure 1). The Project consists of a generally flat area with an adjacent channelized drainage immediately east (see Figures 2 & 3). The Project area is approximately 2,150 feet above sea level.

The Project area is geologically and geographically characterized by very young sand and gravel active wash deposits (QQgm) overlying and surrounded by older Holocene to late Pleistocene young axial -valley silt, sand,

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
T
and gravel deposits (Qya) (Matti et al. 2003). Soils within the Project area consist primarily of Hanford series granitic sandy loam deposits in the western portion of the Project and Tujunga series granitic alluvium in the eastern portion of the Project. Both soil types are generally deep and well -drained, and form on alluvial fans and floodplains (SoilWeb 2024).

Cultural Setting
Prehistory
Two primary regional schemas are commonly cited in the archaeological literature for western San Bernardino County where the Project is located. These schemas or syntheses generalize the presence or absence of certain artifact types into explanatory frameworks of temporal chronologies and/or subsistence practices. Schemas are necessary because many archaeological sites lack material conducive to absolute dating, e.g., carbon for radiometric (14C), and to cross -date sites by comparison to either coastal or desert chronologies with established chronological sequences backed by absolute dates. In western Riverside County, it is thought to be the meeting ground of both coastal and inland desert schemas and neither exclusively explains prehistoric finds.

The first schema, advanced by Wallace (1955), defines four cultural horizons for the southern California coastal province, each with characteristic local variations:

I. Early Man (-9000-8500 B.P.) is a hunting culture based on almost exclusive evidence of chipped - stone hunting materials: dart points, scrapers, choppers, and bifaces.

II. Milling Stone (8500-4000 B.P.) reflects a change to a more sedentary, plant -collecting lifestyle as evidenced by the introduction and dominance of milling stone artifacts and a decrease in well - made projectile points.

III. Intermediate (4000-1500 B.P.) is characterized by a larger dependency on hunting, use of the dart and atlatl, and the shift from using the mano/metate to mortar/pestle. However, knowledge of this horizon suffers from lack of knowledge about what occurred during this time, not a lack of inhabitants along the southern California coast.

IV. Late Prehistoric (1500-200 B.P.) contains a more nuanced artifact assemblage indicative of a more complex lifestyle and an increase of population. This horizon is characterized by an increase in bow and arrow use, steatite containers, pottery, circular fish hooks, perforated stones, asphaltum, diversified bone tools, ample shell ornaments, and elaborate mortuary customs.

Warren and Crabtree (1986) employ a more ecological approach to the deserts of southern California, defining five (5) traditions in prehistory:

I. Lake Mojave (12000-7000 B.P.)
II. Pinto (7000-4000 B.P.)
III. Gypsum (4000-1500 B.P.)
IV. Saratoga Springs (1500-800 B.P.)
V. Shoshonean (800-200 B.P.)
Warren and Crabtree (1986) viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts. The authors viewed changes in settlement pattern and subsistence as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, the short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and the general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals, that continues to this day. The work by Warren and Crabtree (1986) is built upon, in part, by Warren (1980) in which he argued for a chronology based on projectile points as period markers backed by radiocarbon assays providing absolute dates.

The two (2) schemas contrast in important ways. The units employed by Warren (1968) are "traditions," and in contrast to Wallace (1955), traditions may be spatially restricted but display temporal continuity. For Wallace, "horizons" or "periods," are extensive through space but restricted in time. More recent schema have been attempted to reconcile these differences. As presented below, Koerper and Drover (1983) synthesized 6 DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
T
chronologies for coastal southern California and employed Wallace's (1955) horizon terminology but use radiometric data to sequence stylistic changes observed in the artifact assemblages, which they interpreted as material indication of cultural change through time. Regardless of the overall schema to best explain the prehistory of western Riverside County, the region can be understood within broad chronological frameworks and as the meeting ground of the coastal and desert subsistence patterns.

Early Holocene (11, 600 — 7,600 BP)
Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last ice -age (-11,000 years before present [BP]). As the environment warmed and dried, large Ice Age fauna died out, requiring adaption by groups to survive. The western Great Basin and deserts of southern California were characterized by large pluvial (rainfall -fed) lakes, streams, marshes, and grasslands. The human response to this environment is known as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) (Moratto 1984). The WPLT is generally identified by an advanced flaked -stone industry of foliate knives/points, Silver Lake and Lake Mojave points, lanceolate bifaces, and long-stemmed points. Other flaked -stone tools include crescents, scrapers, choppers, scraper -planes, hammer stones, cores, drills, and gravers. People of this period hunted diverse populations of smaller animals and collected a wide number of plants from diverse eco-zones. Importantly, this period lacks widespread evidence of milling stones, and, therefore, hard seed processing was likely not widely practiced. Sites are generally found along the shores of former pluvial lakes, marshes, and streams (Moratto 1984). The desert manifestation of the WPLT is the Lake Mojave Complex, while along the coast the WPLT is seen in the San Dieguito Complex. Along the coast, rising sea levels created bays and estuaries. Following initial settlement along the coast, groups adopted marine subsistence including fish and shellfish. These shell middens contain flaked cobble tools, metates, manos, discoidals, and flexed burials and allowed for a semi sedentary lifestyle (Byrd and Raab 2007). Eventually, shellfish became the primary source of food, while plant gathering, hunting and fishing were less important.

The Paleocoastal Tradition (PCT) has many similarities to the WPLT, but it reflects a coastal adaptation (Davis et al. 1969). PCT sites are located along bays and estuaries. Subsistence patterns indicate the eating of mollusks, sea mammals, sea birds, and fish in addition to land plants and animals. The argument for a PCT has gained momentum based on a vast amount of recent research that has been conducted along the California coast and the Channel Islands (Byrd and Raab 2007). A recent study dates habitation on San Miguel Island back to —11,300 BP (Daisy Cave), while a site on San Clemente (Eel Point) shows that a Paleocoastal Tradition was entrenched at Eel point in the early Holocene, with the hunting of seals, sea lions, and dolphins, as well as the gathering of shellfish (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Middle Holocene (7,600 — 3,650 BP)
The middle Holocene was a time of change and transition. As conditions continued to warm and dry, lakes and streams in the desert disappeared, and ancient inhabitants shifted to a mixed food procurement strategy with emphasis on gathering shellfish, grasses, and hard seeds. Fishing and the hunting of smaller animals played a less significant role in day-to-day activity. This shift in subsistence is what Wallace (1955) named the Millingstone Horizon and this name has continued among archaeologists studying the coastal province of southern California. Large habitations are seen in the inland areas and considerable variability is seen along coastal occupation of southern California. Trade networks are postulated by researchers that have dated Olivella grooved rectangle shell beads as far north as central Oregon dating to 4,900-3,500 BP (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Characteristics of middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, discoidals, and crescentics.

LateHolocene (3,650 — 233 BP)
During the late Holocene there was a migration of Takic speakers from the San Joaquin Valley into southern California (Sutton 2009, 2010). Characteristics of the late Holocene include the introduction of the bow and arrow, mortar and pestle, use of ceramics, and a change to more complex and elaborate mortuary behaviors.

Technologies associated with marine resource exploitation proliferated and diversified. The climate fluctuated with periods of drought alternated with cooler and moister periods (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007; Jones et al. 2004). This resulted in dynamic regional cultural patterns with considerable local 7 DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
variation. Byrd and Raab (2007) suggest that foragers in southern California over -exploited high -ranked food, such as shellfish, fish, marine and land mammals, and plant remains. This led to resource depression, causing people to forage and process more abundant but higher cost resources. Throughout this period, economic and social diversity flourished and became increasingly complex, and populations continued to grow.

Ethnography
The Project is located in an area that was shared between the Cahuilla and the Serrano at the time of European contact. These groups are both members of the Takic subfamily family of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Moratto 1984), which is thought to have entered the southern California or the Mojave Desert region roughly 3,500 —1,500 years BP (Sutton 2009).

Cah ullla
Cahuilla territory included the Coachella Valley as well as the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountain ranges. The Cahuilla called themselves the Iviatim; the word "Cahuilla" is likely derived from kawi a, the word for "master" in the Cahuilla dialect ivia. This dialect belongs to the Cupan language subgroup of the Takic language family.

Bean and Smith (1978a) estimated that the Cahuilla numbered between 6,000 and 10,000 at the time of Spanish contact. Although ethnographers categorize the Cahuilla population by habitation locale (Mountain, Pass, and Desert), the Cahuilla divided themselves first into two moieties (Wildcat and Coyote) with subdivisions based on patrilineal descent clans and further subdivisions within clans based on politically important lineages.

According to Franciscan Mission records and ethnographic information, each lineage occupied their own village (Earle 2004). The nearest ethnographically known Cahuilla village to the Project is Saxbatpa, thought to be located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the Project.

Cahuilla clans were led politically and ceremonially by a Chief, or Net. The Net controlled the sacred dance house and the sacred bundle, masut, which consisted of matting wrapped around items sacred to the clan. The masut was the sacred expression of each clan. Like other Takic-speaking groups, the Cahuilla would publicly gather for the naming of children, marriage, male and female initiation ceremonies, the ascendency of a Net, Eagle -Killing ceremonies, and mourning ceremonies. Mourning ceremonies took place as a way to collectively mourn all those that had died since the previous mourning ceremony. Each person was cremated along with his or her possessions in a ceremony separate from the larger mourning ceremony. Mourning ceremonies were one of the most important ceremonies in that sacred songs were sung, sacred dances were danced, and moieties exchanged food and other valued goods (Bean 1972; Hooper 1920).

The three ethnographically documented Cahuilla habitation zones (Mountain, Pass, and Desert) serve as guidelines for understanding their subsistence practices. In general, the Mountain and Pass Cahuilla diet emphasized acorn, yucca, agave, and pinyon gathering in the mountain and foothill regions. In contrast, the Desert Cahuilla focused on the gathering of mesquite, cactus, and hard seeds. These are generalizations, however, and Desert Cahuilla sometimes utilized resources in the foothills (Bean and Saubel 1972). The Cahuilla were also observed to cultivate small quantities of corn, beans, squash, pumpkins, melons, and wheat as early as 1824 by the Romero expedition. These crops potentially made their way to the region from the Colorado River area, and ethnographic interviews suggest that cultivation of these crops was a recent practice at that time (Bean et al. 1995).

Serrano
The Serrano inhabited the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, the Mojave Desert, and the San Bernardino Valley. The Serrano language is a dialect of the Serran subgroup of the Takic language family (Bean and Smith 1978b). Various ethnographees divide the Serrano into two groups (Mountain and Desert Serrano).

The Desert Serrano were uniquely adapted to living year-round in desert conditions, with some expeditions to higher altitudes and to the Colorado River to collect varied resources.

The Serrano lived in small villages near permanent water sources. Sutton and Earle (2017) estimated the population of Desert Serrano to be approximately 700 in 1776. The nearest ethnographically known Serrano village to the Project is Amutskupiabit, located approximately 23 miles northwest. Villages were usually composed of related family lineages. Like the Cahuilla, the Serrano had two patrilineal moieties, Wildcat and

DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Coyote. These moieties commonly intermingled for marriage, economic reciprocity, or ritual, and villages often consisted of two or more lineage sets bound by these factors (Bean and Smith 1978b). Structures within villages were thatched of brush or reeds, and consisted of dwellings, ramadas, granaries, sweathouses, a ceremonial structure, and a cemetery. The Serrano cremated their dead and participated in mourning ceremonies. The spiritual leader of the village, known as the ki-ka?, lived in the ceremonial structure and maintained the village's rituals and ceremonies. The Serrano divided control of the sacred space and ceremony between the two moieties, a practice unique among Takic-speaking groups (Bean and Smith 1978b).

The Serrano were hunter -gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources based on specific environment and seasonality. They gathered desert plants including Joshua Tree flowers, mesquite bean, yucca, cacti, and desert seed plants, and also gathered higher elevation plants such as pinyon nuts and acorns. A wide variety of large and small game was hunted. Food preparation implements included earth ovens, watertight baskets, heated stones, shallow trays, metates, wooden and stone manos, flint knives, stone and bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, baskets, and horn and bone spoons and stirrers. The Serrano regularly traded with groups along the Colorado River and along the coast (Bean and Smith 1978b).

History
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The first Europeans to explore the coast of California belonged to the 1542 expedition of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo.

Europeans are thought to have first visited the interior of California in 1769, when Gaspar de Portola led an overland expedition from San Diego to Monterey. Two later expeditions were led by Juan Bautista de Anza in 1774 and 1775 from Sonora, Mexico through southwestern Arizona and southern California (Brown 2001).

The Spanish government began establishing missions in San Diego in 1769 to facilitate colonization and deter rival European nations. In 1819, near the end of the period of Spanish colonization of California, the San Bernardino de Sena Estancia was established in what is now Redlands to serve the nearby Mission San Gabriel in the Los Angeles area. The Mill Creek Zanja was also built during this time, allowing for increased farming and ranching in the area (Yucaipa Valley Water District n.d.).

Mexico won independence from Spain in 1822. The Mexican Period is largely identified with the ranchos bestowed on individuals in large part through the land grant system as lands became available through the secularization of the missions that began in 1826 after a decree from Governor Jose Maria Echeandia (Engstrand and Ward 1995). The Project is located on land that was part of the original Rancho San Bernardino land grant deeded to the Lugo and Sepulveda families by Governor Juan B. Alvarado during the Mexican Period in 1842 (Ogden 1862). Throughout the Mexican period, grazing and agricultural development in the Yucaipa Valley continued to grow, in part due to the expansion of irrigation efforts (Yucaipa Valley Water District n.d.).

The Mexican Period ended in California on June 14, 1846, when a band of American settlers supported by explorer John C. Fremont captured Mexican general Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo in a raid in Sonoma. This became known as the "Bear Flag Revolt," and it established the short-lived California Republic, which ended on July 7, 1846 when U.S. Navy forces captured Monterey. The war between the U.S. and Mexico ended in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which greatly expanded U.S. Territory including California in exchange for $15 million paid to Mexico (Rolle 2003).

California became a state in 1850 and a major destination for Anglo-American settlers from the eastern side of the U.S., in large part due to the publicized discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Between 1850 and 1900, the population of California grew dramatically from approximately 93,000 to 1,500,000 (U.S. Census 1995). Although property rights of rancho owners were secured by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, many ranchos were transferred and subdivided as California transitioned from a ranching to an agricultural economy.

Anglo-American settlers and immigrants from Europe, Asia, and Central and South America all settled into the Los Angeles Basin and surrounding areas. Agricultural development in the Yucaipa Valley continued to expand in the American period, and the area began to urbanize beginning in the 1950s due to post -World War II

DuKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
development pressures. This urbanization continued into the Yucaipa Valley and the surrounding Inland Empire area (Yucaipa Valley Water District n.d.).

METHODS
Personnel
The records search, field survey, and Extended Phase I (XPI) fieldwork was conducted by Alexandria Bulato, Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) (Appendix A. Resumes). Ms. Bulato is the Archaeologist assigned to the Project for DUKE CRM and is the primary author of this report. Ms. Bulato holds a B.A. in Anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology from California State University, San Bernardino. She has worked in all phases of archaeology since 2016 throughout southern and central California and parts of Arizona and is cross -trained in the identification of paleontological resources.

All work was conducted under the direct supervision of Curt Duke, Master of Arts (M.A.), Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA). Mr. Duke is the Principal Archaeologist of DUKE C R M . Mr. Duke meets the Secretary of the Interior professional qualifications for prehistoric and historical archaeology and has worked in all phases of archaeology (archival research, field survey, testing and data recovery excavation, laboratory analysis, construction monitoring) since 1994. Mr. Duke holds an M.A. in Anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology from California State University, Fullerton. Mr. Duke has worked throughout southern and northern California and parts of Arizona and Nevada.

Research
Records Search
On March 13, 2023, DUKE CRM conducted a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The SCCIC is part of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and is located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources and reports within a 1/2-mile radius of the Project. DUKE CRM also examined the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), which is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Officer and includes the NRHP, CRHR, California Points of Historical Interest, and California Historical Landmarks.

OtherResearch
DUKE CRM also consulted the Cultural Resources Assessment appendix to the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yucaipa General Plan. The internal archives at DUKE C R M were also inspected for relevant background information. Additionally, a review of historical aerial photographs and historical topographic maps was conducted using the University of California, Santa Barbara's online FrameFinder program and the USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer.

A request for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 7, 2023 to ascertain the presence of known sacred sites, Native American cultural resources, and/or human remains within the boundaries of the proposed Project and the surrounding area.

Field Survey
DUKE CRM archaeologist Alexandria Bulato, B.A., conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area on April 27, 2023. The goal of the pedestrian survey was to identify prehistoric or historic era cultural resources on the surface of the Project. The majority of the approximately 15-acre Project boundary was intensively surveyed using parallel transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart (see Figure 3: Project Aerial Photo). A Spectra GPS, and field map were used to locate the Project boundary, and photos were taken on an iPhone 13 smartphone.

Extended Phase I Survey (XPI)
The XPI was conducted in order to identify buried archaeological deposits and/or features if they exist within the Project. The XPI was proposed based on the results of the research conducted as part of the Phase I study. 10 DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The field survey determined that the surface of the Project area has been highly disturbed; however, because the depth of disturbance was unknown and due to the Project's proximity to a Native American village, resource P-36-001000, it was anticipated that potential cultural resources could be encountered during the XPI survey.

The XPI program was designed to determine if portions of P-36-001000 extend into the Project; to identify previously unrecorded archaeological resources that may exist within the Project; to define the horizontal and/or vertical site boundaries of any archaeological resources that may exist within the Project, and to determine whether any archaeological resources that may exist within the Project are so disturbed that they would not be considered eligible for the CRHR and therefore would not be considered significant under CEQA.

These goals were accomplished through the use of mechanical excavation, observations of stratigraphic profiles, and screening of excavated soils. Mechanical trenching was chosen over hand excavation (e.g. shovel test pits) because it allows for greater depth of excavation and the exposure of more sediment, therefore providing a higher degree of confidence that buried archaeological resources will not be discovered during Project construction.

To examine the Project area for buried archaeological resources, a total of nine (9) trenched were excavated within the Project using a backhoe. Trenches measured three (3) feet wide, 15 feet long, and were excavated to depths between five (5) and eight (8) feet. Trenching was completed in two (2) days by a crew consisting of one (1) field director, one (1) field technician, and one (1) backhoe operator. A sample of five (5) 5-gallon buckets of soil was screened through 1/8-inch mesh for each one (1)-foot (12-inch) level. No artifacts were collected; analysis of artifacts was conducted in the field, and any observed artifacts were returned to the trenches prior to backfilling. A representative from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) was present during excavations.

RESULTS
Research
Records Search
SCCIC records indicate that a total of 22 cultural resource reports cover areas within 1/2 mile of the Project (Table 1). Of these, one (1) report covers the Project area. This report, SB-00973, was a study completed in 1980 for the extension of Oak Glen Road. It covers a small portion of the northeast corner of the Project area, and it did not document cultural resources within the Project. Additionally, one (1) report covers an area directly adjacent to the Project to the east. This report, SB-00578, was a study completed in 1977 that did not document cultural resources within the Project.

Table 1: Cultural Resource Studies within % mile ofthe Project Report
Year
Report Title
Authors
Sites within the
No.

Project area
SB-
1958
Archaeological Investigations in the Yucaipa
Hicks, Frederic
None
00040
Valley.

SB-
1973
Schumaker East and Schumaker West.

Smith, Gerald A.

None
00142
SB-
1976
A Cultural Resources Survey Report, Yucaipa
San Bernardino
None
00338
Valley County Water District.

County Museum
Association
SB-
1976
Environmental Impact Evaluation: Test
Martz, Patricia
None
00339
Excavation at SBR-1000, Yucaipa Valley County
Water District Sanitary Sewers Project.

SB-
1977
Archaeological Investigations at CA-SBR-1000,
Martz, Patricia
None
00378
Yucaipa, California.

SB-
1977
Archaeological — Historical Resources Assessment
Hearn, Joseph E.

None
00578
of Tract 10044, Yucaipa Area.
11 DUKE CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Report
Year
Report Title
Authors
a
Sites within the
No.

A
Project area
SB-
1980
An Archaeological Assessment of the Village of
Leonard, Joanne
None
00957
Yukai- a-t SBR-1000 .