APPENDIX D

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resource Assessment

Renaissance East Project City of Rialto San Bernardino County, California

August 16, 2017

Prepared for: Kimley-Horn 401 B Street, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101

Prepared by: Department of PaleoServices San Diego Natural History Museum P.O. Box 121390 San Diego, California 92112-1390

Shelly L. Donohue, Paleontological Report Writer Thomas A. Deméré, Ph.D., Principal Paleontologist Executive Summary This paleontological resource assessment was prepared for the Renaissance East Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is located northeast of the intersection of Renaissance Parkway and Ayala Avenue, immediately south of State Route 210. Proposed work at the site includes the construction of a new shopping, dining, and entertainment center that will include several restaurants and multi-tenant buildings, a 4-story hotel, as well as parking lots, driveways, and other ancillary features (e.g., signs, fencing, landscaping, utilities, etc.). Planned earthwork at the site has not been disclosed, but is presumed to include mass grading for creation of level building pads, and trenching for utilities. The purpose of this report is to identify and summarize paleontological resources that occur within the vicinity of the Project site, identify Project elements (if any) that may negatively impact paleontological resources, and provide recommendations to reduce any potential negative impacts to less than significant levels, if necessary. The report includes the results of an institutional records search and a paleontological field survey. Published geologic mapping for the Project site varies among authors, but generally indicates the site is underlain by Pleistocene- to Holocene alluvial deposits, and possibly eolian deposits. The paleontological field survey confirmed the presence of high-energy alluvial fan deposits at the site, but did not document eolian deposits. The alluvial deposits at the site consist of poorly sorted cobble to boulder conglomerate composed of subangular clasts, and are believed to extend at least 70 feet below grade at the Project site, based on observations of exposures in a quarry immediately south of the Project site. The alluvial deposits are believed to be Holocene in age (less than about 11,000 years old) at the surface, becoming older with depth. No recorded fossil collection localities are known from Holocene- or Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits within a 1-mile radius of the Project site, but fossils have been discovered in older Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits exposed elsewhere in western San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Recovered fossils primarily consist of large-bodied “Ice Age” mammals (e.g., ground sloth, mammoth, mastodon, camel, bison, dire wolf, sabertoothed cat, short-faced bear) and small terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., lizards, rodents, birds). Fossils are generally not known from Holocene-age sediments due to their relatively young geologic age. Following the paleontological potential guidelines outlined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), a low paleontological potential is assigned to all alluvial-fan deposits at the Project site. This assignment is based on the assumed Holocene age of the deposits, as well as the high energy nature of their deposition. A low paleontological potential is also assigned to any Pleistocene-age alluvial-fan deposits that may be present in the subsurface underlying the Holocene deposits. This assignment is based on the exceptionally coarse-grained nature of these deposits that suggests high energy deposition. Construction of the Renaissance East Project will probably involve only minor grading and trenching and thus will likely be confined to surficial alluvial fan deposits with a low paleontological potential. Based on these factors, construction is unlikely to create negative impacts to paleontological resources, and thus paleontological mitigation is not recommended for the Project. In the unlikely event that fossils are unearthed during construction (i.e., an inadvertent discovery), measures are provided to ensure proper collection and treatment of the fossils.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment i Contents

Executive Summary ...... i 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Description and Scope of Work ...... 1 1.2 Definition of Paleontological Resources ...... 1 1.3 Regulatory Framework ...... 4 1.3.1 San Bernardino County ...... 4 2.0 Methods ...... 5 2.1 Paleontological Records Search and Literature Review ...... 5 2.2 Paleontological Field Survey ...... 5 2.3 Resource assessment criteria: Paleontological Potential ...... 5 2.3.1 High Potential ...... 5 2.3.2 Undetermined Potential...... 6 2.3.3 Low Potential ...... 6 2.3.4 No Potential ...... 6 2.4 Paleontological Impact Analysis ...... 6 3.0 Existing Conditions: Geologic Setting ...... 7 4.0 Results ...... 7 4.1 Results of the Record Search and Literature Review ...... 7 4.1.1 Project Geology ...... 7 4.1.2 Project Paleontology ...... 7 4.2 Results of the Paleontological Field Survey ...... 8 4.3 Results of Paleontological Potential Analysis ...... 9 4.4 Results of Paleontological Impact Analysis ...... 9 5.0 Recommendations & Conclusions ...... 10 6.0 References ...... 11

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment ii

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Description and Scope of Work This technical report provides an assessment of paleontological resources at the Renaissance East Project site in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The approximately 7.68 acre Project site is bordered to the west by Ayala Avenue, to the south by Renaissance Parkway, to the north by State Route (SR) 210, and to the east by an existing residential development (Figure 2). Proposed work at the site includes the construction of a new shopping, dining, and entertainment center that will include a 10,486 square foot Cracker Barrel Restaurant, a 2,720 square foot Sonic Drive-in Restaurant, an additional 4,900 square foot drive through restaurant, a 4,300 square foot multi-tenant building, a 4,800 square foot multi-tenant building, a 52,742 square foot, 4-story hotel, as well as 423 parking spaces, driveways, and other ancillary features (e.g., signs, fencing, landscaping, utilities, etc.). Planned earthwork at the site has not been disclosed, but is presumed to include mass grading for creation of level building pads, and trenching for utilities. Because the proposed Project site occurs in an area underlain by native sedimentary rocks, it was determined that a paleontological resource assessment should be conducted to evaluate whether the proposed Project has the potential to negatively impact paleontological resources. Completion of this report fulfills mitigation measure CR-5 of the Renaissance Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. This assessment report is intended to summarize existing paleontological resource data at the Project site, discuss the significance of these resources, examine Project related impacts to paleontological resources, and provide recommendations to reduce any impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels, if any such impacts should occur. The assessment also presents the results of an institutional records search of the paleontological collections at the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). This report was written by Shelly L. Donohue and Thomas A. Deméré of the Department of PaleoServices, SDNHM. 1.2 Definition of Paleontological Resources As defined here, paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are the buried remains and/or traces of prehistoric organisms (i.e., animals, plants, and microbes). Body fossils such as bones, teeth, shells, leaves, and wood, as well as trace fossils such as tracks, trails, burrows, and footprints, are found in the geologic deposits (rock units) within which they were originally buried. The primary factor determining whether an object is a fossil or not isn’t how the organic remain or trace is preserved (e.g., “petrified”), but rather the age of the organic remain or trace. Although typically it is assumed that fossils must be older than ~10,000 years (i.e., the generally accepted end of the last glacial period of the Pleistocene Epoch), organic remains of early Holocene age can also be considered to represent fossils because they are part of the record of past life. Fossils are considered important scientific and educational resources because they serve as direct and indirect evidence of prehistoric life and are used to understand the history of life on Earth, the nature of past environments and climates, the membership and structure of ancient ecosystems, and the pattern and process of organic evolution and extinction. In addition, fossils are considered to be non-renewable resources because typically the organisms they represent no longer exist. Thus, once destroyed, a particular fossil can never be replaced. And finally, for the purposes of this report, paleontological resources can be thought of as including not only the actual fossil remains and traces, but also the fossil collecting localities and the rock units containing those localities.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 1

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 2

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 3

1.3 Regulatory Framework Because paleontological resources are considered scientifically and educationally significant nonrenewable resources, they are protected under a variety of federal (e.g., Antiquities Act of 1906; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976; Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 1009), state (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act; Public Resources Code), and county (e.g., San Bernardino County General Plan) laws, regulations, and ordinances. The proposed Renaissance East Project site is located within the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County. The City of Rialto General Plan does not specifically address paleontological resources, although the San Bernardino County General Plan does. Relevant regulations for San Bernardino County are outlined below.

1.3.1 San Bernardino County

The County of San Bernardino General Plan Conservation Element aims to protect paleontological resources under the umbrella of cultural resources, through the following goals and policies:

 GOAL CO 3. The County will preserve and promote its historic and prehistoric cultural heritage.

Relevant Programs under Policy CO 3.4: 4. In areas of potential but unknown sensitivity, field surveys prior to grading will be required to establish the need for paleontologic monitoring. 5. Projects requiring grading plans that are located in areas of known fossil occurrences, or demonstrated in a field survey to have fossils present, will have all rough grading (cuts greater than 3 feet) monitored by trained paleontologic crews working under the direction of a qualified professional, so that fossils exposed during grading can be recovered and preserved. Fossils include large and small vertebrate fossils, the latter recovered by screen washing of bulk samples. 6. A report of findings with an itemized accession inventory will be prepared as evidence that monitoring has been successfully completed. A preliminary report will be submitted and approved prior to granting of building permits, and a final report will be submitted and approved prior to granting of occupancy permits. The adequacy of paleontologic reports will be determined in consultation with the Curator of Earth Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum

Additionally, Chapter 82.20 of the San Bernardino County Development Code (82.20.010 - 82.20.040) addresses the treatment of paleontological resources by providing an overlay and evaluation criteria for determining the significance of paleontological resources, providing qualifications for professional paleontologists, and outlining the steps of a paleontological mitigation program. This Chapter was created in recognition of the following items:  The identification and preservation of significant paleontologic (fossil) resources is necessary as many such resources are unique and non-renewable.  Preservation of such paleontologic resources provides a greater knowledge of County natural history, thus promoting County identity and conserving scientific amenities for the benefit of future generations.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 4

2.0 Methods 2.1 Paleontological Records Search and Literature Review A paleontological records search was conducted at the SDNHM in order to determine if any documented fossil collection localities occur within the Project site or immediately surrounding area. The records search involved examination of the SDNHM paleontological databases for any records of known fossil collection localities within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project site. Additionally, a review was conducted of relevant published geologic maps (e.g., Morton and Miller, 2006; Dibblee and Minch, 2003), published geological and paleontological reports (e.g., Jefferson, 1991; Springer et al., 2009), and other relevant literature (e.g., field trip guidebooks, theses and dissertations, unpublished paleontological mitigation reports). This approach was followed in recognition of the direct relationship between paleontological resources and the rock units within which they are entombed. Knowing the geologic history of a particular area and the fossil productivity of rock units that occur in that area, it is possible to predict where fossils may, or may not, be encountered. 2.2 Paleontological Field Survey A paleontological field survey was conducted on June 26, 2017 by Deven M. O’Neil and Patrick J. Sena of the Department of PaleoServices, SDNHM, in order to confirm the mapped geology, to field check the results of the literature and records searches, and to determine the paleontological potential of strata present in the vicinity of the Project site. The field survey involved inspection of sedimentary exposures within the Project site, as well as other exposed strata in the immediate vicinity in order to collect stratigraphic data (e.g., bedding type, thickness, geologic contacts), detailed lithologic descriptions of strata (e.g., color, sorting of grains, texture, sedimentary structures, and grain size of sedimentary rocks), and prospect for any fossilized remains present at the surface. The field paleontologists were equipped with standard field equipment (e.g., rock hammer, camera, hand lens, tape measure), and a Garmin Handheld GPS unit. 2.3 Resource assessment criteria: Paleontological Potential In recognizing the fact that paleontological resources are considered to include not only actual fossil remains and traces, but also the fossil collecting localities and the rock units containing those fossils and localities, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has developed a procedure for evaluating the paleontological potential of individual rock units. This procedure assigns ranks to rock units along a four- tiered scale based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils (SVP, 2010), as outlined below.

2.3.1 High Potential Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential include, but are not limited to, some volcaniclastic formations (e. g., ashes or tephras), some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e. g., deposits aged middle Holocene and older consisting of fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross- bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.). Paleontological potential includes both the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils, as well as the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 5

Rock units which contain potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, including deposits associated with animal nests or middens, and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as having high potential.

2.3.2 Undetermined Potential Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy.

2.3.3 Low Potential Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or, based on general scientific consensus, only preserve fossils in rare circumstances where the presence of fossils is an exception not the rule, e. g. basalt flows or Recent colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils.

2.3.4 No Potential Rock units with no potential are either entirely igneous in origin and therefore do not contain fossil remains, or are moderately to highly metamorphosed and thus any contained fossil remains have been destroyed. Artificial fill materials also have no potential, because the stratigraphic and geologic context of any contained organic remains (i.e., fossils) has been lost. For projects encountering only these types of rock units, paleontological resources can generally be eliminated as a concern, and no further action taken. 2.4 Paleontological Impact Analysis Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities (e.g., mass grading, trenching), cut into the rock units within which fossils are buried, and physically destroy the fossil remains. As such, only earthwork activities that will disturb potentially fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks (i.e., those rated with a high or undetermined paleontological potential) have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. Under California Environmental Quality Act and San Bernardino County guidelines, paleontological mitigation typically is recommended to reduce any negative impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels. The purpose of the impact analysis is to determine which (if any) of the proposed Project-related earthwork may disturb potentially fossil-bearing rock units, and where and at what depths this earthwork will occur. The paleontological impact analysis involved analysis of all available project documents, and comparison with geological and paleontological data gathered during the record search and literature search.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 6

3.0 Existing Conditions: Geologic Setting The proposed Project site lies within the upper reaches of the Santa Ana River Valley, adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east and northeast. This region is referred to as the Riverside Lowlands, and is characterized by the broad floodplain of the Santa Ana River and its numerous tributaries (such as Cajon Wash, immediately north of the Project) dotted by occasional low hills (e.g., Jurupa Hills to the south of the Project, Shandin Hills to the northeast of the Project). Here, the low hills and adjacent mountain ranges are composed primarily of Mesozoic (~125 million years or older) crystalline basement rocks that are predominantly plutonic in origin. These uplands are actively eroding, and depositing eroded sediments in the basin lowlands as alluvial fans and/or stream channel deposits. Such erosion has been taking place in this area since at least Pliocene-time (Morton and Miller, 2006). Locally, the proposed Project site is situated in the lowland area south of the San Gabriel Mountains that, as mapped by Morton and Miller (2006), is underlain by old eolian deposits (dune sand), unit 3, of late to middle Pleistocene age in the west, and young alluvial-fan deposits, unit 5 of Holocene to late Pleistocene age in the east (Figure 2). However, other workers (e.g., Dibblee and Minch, 2003; Bortugno and Spittler, 1986) do not map dune sand at the Project site, and instead indicate that the entirety of the site is underlain by alluvial deposits of Holocene to Pleistocene age. Alluvial-fan deposits at the Project site were likely deposited by Cajon Wash, a tributary of the Santa Ana River. The modern channel of Cajon Wash is located about 1.5 miles northeast of the Project site.

4.0 Results 4.1 Results of the Records Search and Literature Review

4.1.1 Project Geology Published geologic mapping (Morton and Miller, 2006) indicates that the western approximately 1/3 of the site is underlain by old eolian deposits (dune sand) of middle to late Pleistocene age, while the eastern 2/3 of the site is underlain by young alluvial-fan deposits of late Holocene age. In contrast, Dibblee and Minch (2003) map the entirety of the Project site as surficial sediments (alluvial gravel and sand, composed of boulder gravel near mountains) of Holocene to late Pleistocene age, while Bortugno and Spittler (1986) map the Project site as younger alluvial fan deposits (Holocene), with a contact with old alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to Pleistocene) occurring along the eastern boundary of the Project site. Based on the results of the paleontological field survey (Section 4.2, below), we follow Dibblee and Minch (2003) and Bortugno and Spittler (1986) and suggest that the sedimentary deposits exposed at the Project site represent alluvial fan deposits of Holocene to possibly late Pleistocene age.

4.1.2 Project Paleontology A records search of paleontological collections data at the SDNHM found no recorded fossil collection localities within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project site. This result is not surprising given the fact that fossils are generally not known from Holocene-aged alluvial deposits due to their relatively young geologic age (less than about 10,000 years). It is noteworthy, however, that fossil collection localities are known from older Pleistocene-aged eolian and alluvial deposits exposed elsewhere in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. These recorded localities yielded well-preserved fossil remains of Pleistocene (“Ice Age”) large-bodied mammals including ground sloth, mammoth,

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 7

mastodon, camel, bison, dire wolf, sabertoothed cat, American lion, and giant short-faced bear, as well as remains of small terrestrial vertebrates including lizards, birds, rabbits, and rodents (e.g., Jefferson, 1991; Anderson et al., 2002; Springer et al., 2009; 2010; Lofgren, 2011). 4.2 Results of the Paleontological Field Survey The proposed Project site consists of a relatively level parcel covered with sparse, grassy vegetation that appears to have been previously graded, and is routinely maintained by disking. The site is surrounded by a chain-link fence, with existing power boxes in the northeastern portion of the site. The surficial soils consist primarily of poorly sorted sand and gravel, with subangular clasts of metamorphic and granitic rocks derived from the surrounding uplands. No exposures of more deeply buried bedrock were observed inside the boundary of the Project site, However, a large quarry is located across Renaissance Parkway, to the south, and from a viewpoint outside of the quarry an estimated 70 vertical feet of cut could be observed that appeared to consist of poorly sorted cobble to boulder conglomerate composed of subangular clasts. It is assumed this conglomerate is laterally extensive, and represents the stratigraphy underlying the Project site. Based on the large clasts and poorly sorted nature of this conglomerate, it is likely that it was deposited as part of a high energy, alluvial fan depositional system, which experienced episodic flood events. Notably, no exposures of dune sand were observed during the field survey. In the northwestern portion of the site, minor surficial exposures of well-sorted coarse-grained sandstone were observed, but it is thought this represents an artificial fill structure, rather than native bedrock. The area mapped as dune sand deposits by Morton and Miller (2006) extends into the active quarry to the south of the Project site, but no significant sand exposures were observed cropping out in the quarry walls. Therefore, it is believed that the entirety of the sedimentary rocks underlying the Project site represent high-energy alluvial fan deposits (fanglomerates). The alluvial fan deposits appear to be Holocene in age, and likely transition to older, Pleistocene-age deposits at an unknown depth below grade. No fossils were observed during the paleontological field survey.

Figure 3. Overview of the Project site looking east (Left) and north (Right), showing the relatively level and sparsely vegetated nature of the existing pad. Note the presence of gravels and cobbles at the ground surface. Photos taken by Patrick J. Sena.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 8

Figure 4. Close-up view of the quarry walls located to the south of the Project site, highlighting the coarse-grained nature of conglomeratic strata (fanglomerate). Photo taken by Patrick J. Sena. 4.3 Results of Paleontological Potential Analysis Alluvial fan deposits underlying the proposed Project site are assigned a low paleontological potential, based on their assumed Holocene age, as well as the high energy nature of their original deposition. In general, fossil potential varies based on the inferred depositional setting of a rock unit, with fine-grained strata (e.g., mudstones, siltstones, and sandstones) deposited in a low energy setting being more likely to preserve fossils than coarse-grained strata (e.g., pebble or boulder conglomerates) deposited in a high energy setting. Presumably, the Holocene alluvial fan deposits at the Project site overlie older Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits at an unknown depth below existing grade. Typically, Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits are assigned either a high paleontological potential if fossils are locally well documented, or an undetermined paleontological potential if local fossils are not well documented. For the Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits presumably occurring at depth at the Renaissance East Project site, a low paleontological potential is assigned based on general observations made of the fanglomerates exposed in the adjacent quarry (e.g., lack of paleosol horizons and sandstone beds or lenses) 4.4 Results of Paleontological Impact Analysis As discussed above, the entirety of the Project site is underlain by high energy alluvial fan deposits of Holocene age (low paleontological potential), with patches of previously placed artificial fill. Presumably, these deposits are underlain at an unknown depth by older high energy alluvial fan deposits of Pleistocene-age, which have also been assigned a low paleontological potential. Given the low paleontological potential of these deposits, it is unlikely that their disturbance by proposed Project earthwork will result in negative impacts to paleontological resources.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 9

5.0 Recommendations & Conclusions Implementation of a paleontological mitigation program is not recommended for the Renaissance East Project, as Project-related earthwork is not anticipated to negatively impact paleontological resources. However, in the unlikely event that fossils are unearthed during earthwork activities (i.e., an inadvertent discovery), the following measures should be followed: Measures to be implemented in the event of an inadvertent discovery: 1.) Upon discovery of an unearthed fossil, earthwork within the vicinity of the discovery shall immediately halt, and a qualified paleontologist should evaluate the discovery. Earthwork shall be diverted until the significance of the fossil discovery can be assessed by the qualified paleontologist. 2.) If the fossil discovery is deemed significant, the fossil shall be recovered using appropriate recovery techniques based on the type, size, and mode of preservation of the unearthed fossil. 3.) Earthwork may resume in the area of the fossil discovery once the fossil has been recovered, and the qualified paleontologist deems the site has been mitigated to the extent necessary. Additional earthwork following the fossil discovery may be monitored for paleontological resources on an as-needed basis, at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. 4.) Recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, and stored in a recognized professional repository along with associated field notes, photographs, and compiled fossil locality data. For projects in San Bernardino County the recommended designated repository is the San Bernardino County Museum. Donation of the fossils should be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen curation and storage. 5.) A final summary report should be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report should include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. This report shall be submitted to appropriate agencies (e.g., project proponent, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County), as well as to the designated repository.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 10

6.0 References Anderson, R.S., M.J. Power, S.J. Smith, K.B. Springer, and E. Scott. 2002. Paleoecology of a Middle Wisconsin deposit from southern California. Quaternary Research 58:310-317. Bortugno, E.J. and T.E. Spittler. 1986. Geologic map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle, California. California Division of Mines and Geology: Regional Geologic Map 3A. Scale 1:250,000. Dibblee, T.W., and J.A. Minch. 2003. Geologic map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF-105. Scale 1:24,000. Jefferson, G. T, 1991. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two. Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports, Number 7, Los Angeles. Lofgren, D.L. 2011. Unpublished records search report on the I-15 in Riverside County from the Raymond Alf Museum, Claremont, California. Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217. Scale 1:100,000. Reynolds, S.F.B. and R.L. Reynolds. 1991. The Pleistocene beneath our feet: near surface Pleistocene fossils in inland southern California basins. In: M.O. Woodburn, S.F.B Reynolds, and D.P. Whistler (eds.), Inland Southern California: the Last 70 Million Years. Redlands: San Bernardino County Museum Special Publication 38(3&4): 41-43 San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). 2017. Unpublished paleontological collections data and field notes. Scott, E. and S.M. Cox. 2008. Late Pleistocene distribution of Bison (Mammalia: Artiodactyla) in the Mojave Desert of southern California and Nevada. In: X. Wang and L.G. Barnes (eds.), Geology and Vertebrate Paleontology of Western and Southern North America, Contributions in Honor of David P. Whistler. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 41:359-382. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, p. 1-11. Springer, K., E. Scott, J.C. Sagebiel, and L.K. Murray. 2009. The Diamond Valley Lake local fauna: late Pleistocene vertebrates from inland southern California. In: L.B. Albright III (ed.), Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in honor of Michael O. Woodburne. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 65: 217-235. Springer, K., E. Scott, J.C. Sagebiel, and L.K. Murray. 2010. Late Pleistocene large mammal faunal dynamics from inland southern California: the Diamond Valley Lake local fauna. In: E. Scott and G. McDonald (eds.), Faunal dynamics and extinction in the Quaternary: papers honoring Ernest L. Lundlius, Jr. Quaternary International 217: 256-265.

Renaissance East Project - Paleontological Resource Assessment 11