HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EASTGATE BUILDING 1 PROJECT City of San Bernardino San Bernardino County, California For Submittal to: San Bernardino International Airport Authority 1601 East Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92408 and Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region, Airports Division Los Angeles Airports District Office 15000 Aviation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90261 Prepared for: Tom Dodson and Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 Prepared by: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator June 26, 2018 CRM TECH Contract No. 3336 Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: San Bernardino International Airport Eastgate Building 1 Project, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Ben Kerridge, Archaeologist/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400 Date: June 26, 2018 For Submittal to: San Bernardino International Airport Authority 1601 East Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 382-4100 and Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region, Airports Division Los Angeles Airports District Office 15000 Aviation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90261 (310) 725-3614 Prepared for: Tom Dodson and Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 (909) 882-3612 USGS Quadrangle: Redlands, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Rancho San Bernardino land grant; T1S R3W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) Project Size: Approximately 114 acres Keywords: Eastern San Bernardino Valley; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey; Site 36-006848 (CA-SBR-6848H): North Fork Ditch/ Cram and van Leuven Ditch; no “historic properties” or “historical resources” affected EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Between April and June 2018, at the request of Tom Dodson and Associates, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed San Bernardino International Airport Eastgate Building 1 Project in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The APE encompasses approximately 114 acres of vacant land in the northeastern portion of the San Bernardino International Airport (former Norton Air Force Base), located on the south side of Third Street and near the intersection of Lankershim Avenue, within the Rancho San Bernardino land grant and T1S R3W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The anticipated footprint of the undertaking will be limited to the northerly 101.5 acres of the APE, and the vertical extent of the APE may reach as deep as 20 feet below the ground surface where underground infiltration systems will be installed but will not exceed three feet in most of the APE. The study is part of the environmental review process for the undertaking, which entails the construction of an Air Cargo Logistics Center next to Taxiway E, primarily an approximately 658,500- square-foot warehouse with docking and parking facilities for an estimated 14 aircraft. The San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA), as the lead agency for the undertaking, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the undertaking requires oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the study is also conducted to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The purpose of the study is to provide SBIAA and FAA with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the undertaking would have an effect on any “historic properties,” as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l), or “historical resources,” as defined by Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3), that may exist in or near the APE. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background and geoarchaeological research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out a systematic field survey of the entire APE. The results of these research procedures indicate that Site 36-006848 (CA-SBR-6848H), representing the 1865 alignment of the North Fork Ditch, an extension of the 1858 Cram and van Leuven Ditch, was previously delineated as lying along the northern boundary of the APE, but no evidence of this early irrigation work could be found at that location during the field survey. In view of the drastic changes in the landscape that have occurred since it was abandoned in the 1880s, it is apparent that all surface remnants of the ditch in the vicinity of the APE have been obliterated by later developments, especially the construction of Norton Air Force Base in 1940-1941 and the realignment of City Creek to this location around the same time. A small segment of a runway and a portion of an airport apron were noted during the survey as lying within the APE, both of them dating at least to the 1950s. They were once integral components of Norton Air Force Base, which was previously determined not to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to the lack of historic integrity. Furthermore, as working components of the modern infrastructure, their current appearance reflects alterations and maintenance over the past six decades, and no longer retains any distinctively historical characteristics. Similarly, the concrete-lined City Creek Channel on the northern edge of the APE, which evidently dates to the construction of the airfield in 1940-1941, also lacks sufficient historical characteristics to be i considered a potential “historic property” or “historical resource” due to later alterations and maintenance. In conclusion, the present study did not encounter any “historic properties” or “historical resources” within or adjacent to the APE, and the subsurface sediments in the vertical APE appear to be relatively low in sensitivity for potentially significant archaeological remains. Based on these findings, and pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) and Calif. PRC §21084.1, CRM TECH recommends to SBIAA and FAA a conclusion that no “historic properties” or “historical resources” will be affected by the proposed undertaking. No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the undertaking unless project plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during earth-moving operations associated with the undertaking, all work in the immediate area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Current Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 4 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 Prehistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 4 Ethnohistoric Context ............................................................................................................... 6 Historic Context ....................................................................................................................... 6 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................................. 7 Records Search ............................................................................................................................. 7 Historical Background Research ................................................................................................... 8 Native American Participation ...................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................. 8 Geoarchaeological Analysis.......................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 9 Records Search ............................................................................................................................. 9 Historical Background Research ................................................................................................... 9 Native American Participation .................................................................................................... 12 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................... 13 Geoarchaeological Analysis........................................................................................................ 13 DISCUSSION