HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix E - Paleontological Resources Assessment
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT
ROME HILL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 371-150-001 and -002
City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Prepared for:
Builder’s Max, Inc.
1207 North East Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
Prepared by:
Ben Kerridge, Paleontologist/Report Writer
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
May 22, 2022
CRM TECH Contract No. 3808P
Approximately 6.75 acres
USGS Lake Elsinore, Calif., 7.5’ (1:24,000) quadrangle
La Laguna (Stearns) land grant; T6S R4W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between November 2021 and May 2022, at the request of Builder’s Max, Inc., CRM TECH
performed a paleontological resource assessment for the proposed Rome Hill Commercial
Development Project in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The project
area consists of approximately 6.75 acres of vacant land in Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 371-
150-001 and -002, located on the northeastern side of Grand Avenue and to the west of Rome
Hill, on the southern shore of Lake Elsinore. It comprises a portion of the Rancho La Laguna
(Stearns) land grant lying within Township 6 South Range 4 West, San Bernardino Baseline
and Meridian.
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the project. The City of Lake
Elsinore, as the lead agency, required the study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the
necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would adversely
affect any significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as required by CEQA, and to
design a paleontological mitigation program, if necessary. In order to identify any
paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the
probability for such resources to be encountered during the project, CRM TECH initiated a
records search at the Western Science Center (WSC), conducted a literature review, and carried
out a systematic field survey.
Geologic sources suggest that the soils in much of the project area are composed of alluvial
and fluvial valley and terrace deposits. Soil descriptions of these units vary, with some dating
them to the Holocene and others to the early Holocene to Pleistocene. The most recent
geologic maps of the area shows the knoll at the northeastern end of the property as a part of
the sandstone member of the fossiliferous Pleistocene Pauba formation. The County of
Riverside assigned the project area an “Undetermined Potential” in the portion closest to Grand
Avenue and a “Low Potential” elsewhere. The WSC assesses the soils at this location as being
highly sensitive based on nearby clusters of fossil localities in similar formations and cautions
that any excavations associated with the project could encounter scientifically significant
paleontological resources.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH concludes that the proposed project’s potential to impact
significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources appears to be high, especially near higher
elevations at and near the knoll at the northeastern end. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends
that a paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented
during the project to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. As
the primary component of the mitigation program, all earth-moving operations in the project
area should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. Under this condition, the
proposed project may be cleared to proceed in compliance with CEQA provisions on
paleontological resources.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 4
Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Significance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 4
Paleontological Sensitivity................................................................................................................ 5
SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 6
METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 6
Records Searches .............................................................................................................................. 6
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 7
Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 7
RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8
Records Searches .............................................................................................................................. 8
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 8
Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 10
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX 2: Records Search Results (Confidential) ...................................................................... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project location ..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area ............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 7
Figure 5. Geologic map of the project vicinity .................................................................................... 9
1
INTRODUCTION
Between November 2021 and May 2022, at the request of Builder’s Max, Inc., CRM TECH
performed a paleontological resource assessment for the proposed Rome Hill Commercial
Development Project in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The
project area consists of approximately 6.75 acres of vacant land in Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 371-
150-001 and -002, located on the northeastern side of Grand Avenue and to the west of Rome Hill,
on the southern shore of Lake Elsinore. It comprises a portion of the Rancho La Laguna (Stearns)
land grant lying within Township 6 South Range 4 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
(Figures 2, 3).
The study is a part of the environmental review process for the project. The City of Lake Elsinore,
as the lead agency, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary
information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would adversely affect any
significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, as required by CEQA, and to design a
paleontological mitigation program, if necessary.
In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area
and to assess the probability for such resources to be encountered during the project, CRM TECH
initiated a records search at the Western Science Center (WSC), conducted a literature review, and
carried out a systematic field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods,
results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the
appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle, 1979 edition)
2
Figure 2. Project location. (Based on USGS Lake Elsinore and Wildomar, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles, 1988 edition)
3
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area.
4
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DEFINITION
Paleontological resources represent the remains of prehistoric life, exclusive of any human remains,
and include the localities where fossils were collected as well as the sedimentary rock formations in
which they were found. The defining character of fossils or fossil deposits is their geologic age,
which is typically regarded as older than approximately 12,000 years, the generally accepted
temporal boundary marking the end of the last late Pleistocene (circa 2.6 million to 12,000 years
B.P.) glaciation and the beginning of the current Holocene epoch (circa 12,000 years B.P. to the
present).
Common fossil remains include marine shells; the bones and teeth of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals; leaf assemblages; and petrified wood. Fossil traces, another type of paleontological
resource, include internal and external molds (impressions) and casts created by these organisms.
These items can serve as important guides to the age of the rocks and sediments in which they are
contained and may prove useful in determining the temporal relationships between rock deposits
from one area and those from another as well as the timing of geologic events. They can also
provide information regarding evolutionary relationships, development trends, and environmental
conditions.
Fossil resources generally occur only in areas of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, siltstone,
mudstone, claystone, or shale). Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils,
particularly vertebrate fossils, are considered nonrenewable paleontological resources. Occasionally
fossils may be exposed at the surface through the process of natural erosion or because of human
disturbances; however, they generally lay buried beneath the surficial soils. Thus, the absence of
fossils on the surface does not preclude the possibility of their being present within subsurface
deposits, while the presence of fossils at the surface is often a good indication that more remains
may be found in the subsurface.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to guidelines proposed by Eric Scott and Kathleen Springer (2003) of the San Bernardino
County Museum, paleontological resources can be considered to be of significant scientific interest
if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends
exhibited among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of
geologic events therein;
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or the interactions
between paleobotanical and paleozoological biota;
4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; and/or
5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
5
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The fossil record is unpredictable, and the preservation of organic remains is rare, requiring a
particular sequence of events involving physical and biological factors. Skeletal tissue with a high
percentage of mineral matter is the most readily preserved within the fossil record; soft tissues not
intimately connected with the skeletal parts, however, are the least likely to be preserved (Raup and
Stanley 1978). For this reason, the fossil record contains a biased selection not only of the types of
organisms preserved but also of certain parts of the organisms themselves. As a consequence,
paleontologists are unable to know with certainty, the quantity of fossils or the quality of their
preservation that might be present within any given geologic unit.
Sedimentary units that are paleontologically sensitive are those geologic units (mappable rock
formations) with a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
More specifically, these are geologic units within which vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate
fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or are likely to be present. These
units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant paleontological
resources anywhere within their geographical extent as well as sedimentary rock units temporally or
lithologically amenable to the preservation of fossils.
A geologic formation is defined as a stratigraphic unit identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g.,
grain size, texture, color, and mineral content) and stratigraphic position. There is a direct
relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are enclosed and, with
sufficient knowledge of the geology and stratigraphy of a particular area, it is possible for
paleontologists to reasonably determine the formation’s potential to contain significant
nonrenewable vertebrate, invertebrate, marine, or plant fossil remains.
The paleontological sensitivity for a geologic formation is determined by the potential for that
formation to produce significant nonrenewable fossils. This determination is based on what fossil
resources the particular geologic formation has produced in the past at other nearby locations.
Determinations of paleontologic sensitivity must consider not only the potential for yielding
vertebrate fossils but also the potential of yielding a few significant fossils that may provide new and
significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, and/or stratigraphic data.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology issued a set of standard guidelines intended to assist
paleontologists to assess and mitigate any adverse effects/impacts to nonrenewable paleontological
resources. The guidelines defined four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units
that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed below (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010:1-2):
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace
fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their
paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.
• Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional
collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources,
such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.
6
SETTING
The Lake Elsinore area is situated in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Province, near
where it adjoins the Transverse Ranges Province (Jenkins 1980:40-41; Harms 1996:131). The
Peninsular Ranges Province is bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges Province, on the
northeast by the Colorado Desert Province, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean (ibid.). It extends
southward to the southern tip of Baja California (Jahns 1954:Plate 3; Harden 2004:465).
The Peninsular Ranges Province is made up of a series of northwest-southeast trending structural
blocks consisting of uplifted mountains that are separated by valley basins that have developed along
the intervening fault zones. The mountains are made up mainly of igneous intrusive rocks,
metasedimentary rocks, and some metavolcanic rocks (Harden 2004:466-468). The non-crystalline
rocks in the western portion of the mountains consist of both metavolcanic and metasedimentary
rocks that are mainly of Mesozoic age, while the eastern portion contains mainly metasedimentary
rocks of Paleozoic and older age (ibid.:471-472). The crystalline basement rocks are present in both
the western and the eastern portions and consist mainly of Mesozoic-age granitic rocks with some
scattered gabbroic intrusions (ibid.:466-468).
The project area lies on the southeast shore of Lake Elsinore, the largest natural lake in southern
California. Geologically, the area is a part of the Elsinore Fault Zone, being to the north of Elsinore
Peak and approximately a half-mile from the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, which define the
southeastern boundary bound the fault zone. This location is at the southern end of the Perris Block,
which is situated between the San Jacinto and Elsinore-Chino fault zones (English 1926). The Perris
Block is bounded on the north by the Cucamonga (San Gabriel) Fault and on the south by a vaguely
delineated boundary near the southern end of the Temecula Valley (ibid.). This structural block is
considered to have been active since Pliocene time (Woodford et al. 1971:3421). Colluvial/alluvial
sediments of varying thickness derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the
low-lying areas of the Perris Block. These structurally depressed troughs are filled with nonmarine
sediments of upper Pliocene through Recent ages (Mann 1955:Plate 1; Kennedy 1977:5), and the
ridges are composed of plutonic igneous rocks, metasedimentary rocks, and late-stage intrusive
dikes.
The terrain in the project area is relatively level except for a small knoll in the northeastern portion,
and the elevations on the property range roughly from 1,260 feet to 1,280 feet above mean sea level.
The boundaries of the project area are defined by a rural residential property on the northwest, Grand
Avenue on the southwest, Kathryn Way on the southeast, and a portion of the exposed lakebed of
Lake Elsinore on the northeast (Figure 3). Much of the surface soils of the project area appear to be
disturbed, and the vegetation consists of non-native trees as well as low-lying grasses (Figure 4).
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
RECORDS SEARCHES
The records search service for this study was provided by the Western Science Center (WSC) in
Hemet. The WSC maintains files of regional paleontological localities as well as supporting maps
7
Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on January 26, 2022; view to the
southwest)
and documents. The records search results were used to identify known previously performed
paleontological resource assessments as well as known paleontological localities within a one-mile
radius of the project location. A copy of the records search results are attached to this report in
Appendix 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In conjunction with the records searches, CRM TECH paleontologist Ben Kerridge pursued a
literature review on the project area and vicinity under the direction of principal paleontologist Ron
Schmidtling. Sources consulted include primarily topographic, geologic, and soil maps of the Lake
Elsinore area, published geologic literature pertaining to the project location, the Riverside County
General Plan and Geographic Information System, satellite and aerial images available at the
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth
software, and other materials in the CRM TECH library, including unpublished reports produced
during similar surveys in the vicinity.
FIELD SURVEY
On January 26, 2022, CRM TECH paleontological surveyor Daniel Ballester carried out the
intensive-level field survey of the project area under Ron Schmidtling’s direction. During the
survey, Ballester walked a series of parallel northeast-southwest transects spaced 15 meters
(approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface of the project area was systematically
examined to determine soil types, verify the geological formations, and search for indications of
8
paleontological remains. Ground visibility was good to excellent (90 percent) as the area had been
largely cleared of vegetation (Figure 4).
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCHES
The WSC did not identify any known paleontological localities within the project area or within a
mile radius but reported a cluster of localities just beyond one mile (see Appendix 2). The WSC
described the surface soils in the project area as entirely alluvial valley deposits of Pleistocene to
Holocene age. According to the WSC, the Pleistocene-aged soils match those at the nearby fossil
localities that have produced fossil specimens such as mammoth, camel, and bison. Therefore, the
WSC considers these soils high sensitivity for scientifically significant paleontological resources
(see Appendix 2).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Engel (1947) maps the surface geology of the project area as Qal and Qf, with Qf corresponding to
the small knoll in the northeastern portion of the property. He describes Qal as Holocene alluvium
and Qf as Pleistocene fanglomerate or terrace deposits (ibid.). Rogers (1965) maps the project area
as uniformly Qal. Jennings (1977) shows the soils in the project area as Q, defined as alluvium,
lake, playa, and terrace deposits of late Holocene age.
Morton and Weber (2003) identify the project area geology as Qyva for the level areas and Qpfs for
the knoll. They describe Qyva as Holocene to late Pleistocene fluvial valley deposits of
unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay and Qpfs as the sandstone member of the Pleistocene age Pauba
formation (ibid.). Morton and Miller (2006; Figure 5) show the surface geology at the project
location as Qvya in the level area in the southwest and Qps in the elevated portion in the northeast.
Their definition and description of Qvya and Qps are essentially identical to those of Qyva and Qpfs,
respectively, by Morton and Weber (2003).
Riverside County paleontological sensitivity maps classify the project location as “Undetermined
Potential” in the area near Grand Avenue and as “Low Potential” in the northeastern portion (RCIT
n.d.). According to definitions outlined in the County’s General Plan, “Undetermined Potential”
means:
Areas underlain by sedimentary rocks for which literature or unpublished studies are not available
have undetermined potential for containing significant paleontological resources. These areas need to
be inspected by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist before a specific determination of high potential
or low potential can be assigned. (County of Riverside 2015:4.9-11)
“Low Potential” is described as follows:
Lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for
containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impacts. The mapping of low
potential was determined based on actual documentation and was not generalized to cover all areas
9
Figure 5. Geologic map of the project vicinity. (Based on Morton and Miller 2006)
10
of a particular rock unit on a geologic map. It must be noted that surface geology, such as soils, are
not always indicative of subsurface geology or the potential for paleontological resources. For
instance, an area mapped as soil type “Qal” may actually be a thin surficial layer of non-fossiliferous
sediments which covers fossil-rich Pleistocene sediments. Also, an area mapped as granite may be
covered by a Pleistocene soil horizon that contains fossils. Thus, actual sensitivity must be ultimately
determined by both a records search and a field inspection by a paleontologist. (County of Riverside
2015:4.9-11).
FIELD SURVEY
Throughout the course of the field survey, no surface manifestation of any paleontological remains
was observed within the project area. It was observed during the survey that native soils in the
project area range from sandy loams to loamy sands.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA guidelines (Title 14 CCR App. G, Sec. V(c)) require that public agencies in the State of
California determine whether a proposed project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource” during the environmental review process. The present study, conducted in
compliance with this provision, is designed to identify any significant, non-renewable
paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area, and to assess the
possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities.
In summary of the research results presented above, no paleontological localities were previously
found in the project area, and no surface manifestation of any fossil remains were observed during
the field survey. Geologic sources suggest that the soils in much of the project area are composed of
alluvial and fluvial valley and terrace deposits. Soil descriptions of these units vary, with some
dating them to the Holocene and others to the early Holocene to Pleistocene. The most recent
geologic maps of the area shows the knoll at the northeastern end of the property as a part of the
sandstone member of the fossiliferous Pleistocene Pauba formation. The County of Riverside
assigned the project area an “Undetermined Potential” in the portion closest to Grand Avenue and a
“Low Potential” elsewhere. The WSC assesses the soils at this location as being highly sensitive
based on nearby clusters of fossil localities in similar formations and cautions that any excavations
associated with the project could encounter scientifically significant paleontological resources.
Based on these findings, CRM TECH concludes that the proposed project’s potential to impact
significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources appears to be high, especially near higher
elevations at and near the knoll at the northeastern end. Therefore, CRM TECH recommends that a
paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented during the
project to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. The mitigation
program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (Scott and Springer 2003)
as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), and should
include but not be limited to the following components:
• All Earth-moving operations in the project area should be monitored for potential paleontological
remains by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly
11
salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to
temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large
specimens.
• Collected samples of sediment should be processed to recover small fossils, and all recovered
specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage.
• A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the procedures outlined above. The report should include a
discussion of the significance of the paleontological findings, if any. The report and the
inventory, when approved by the City of Lake Elsinore, would signify completion of the
program to mitigate potential impacts on paleontological resources.
Under these conditions, the proposed project may be cleared to proceed in compliance with CEQA
provisions on paleontological resources.
REFERENCES
County of Riverside
2015 County of Riverside General Plan. https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/
general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/04-09_CulturalAndPaleoResrcs.pdf.
Engel, Rene
1947 Geologic Map of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle (1:62,500). California Division of
Mines. https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/7910/7/Engel_r_1959_plate_1.PDF.
English, W.A.
1926 Geology and Oil Resources of the Puente Hills Region, Southern California. United
States Geological Survey Bulletin 146. Washington, D.C.
Harden, Deborah R.
2004 California Geology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Harms, Nancy S.
1996 A Precollegiate Teachers Guide to California Geomorphic/Physiographic Provinces.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Far West Section, Concord, California.
Jahns, R.H.
1954 Geology of the Peninsular Range Province, Southern California and Baja California. In
R.H. Jahns (ed.): Geology of Southern California; Chapter II. California Division of Mines
Bulletin 170, Part 3. San Francisco.
Jenkins, Olaf P.
1980 Geomorphic Provinces Map of California. California Geology 32(2):40-41.
Kennedy, Michael P.
1977 Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside
County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131. Sacramento.
Mann, John F., Jr.
1955 Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California. California Division of
Mines Special Report 43. San Francisco.
Morton, Douglas M. and Fred K. Miller
2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’x60’ Quadrangles, California.
United States Geological Survey Open-file Report 06-1217. Washington, D.C.
12
Morton, Douglas M. and F. Harold Weber, Jr.
2003 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Elsinore 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California;
Version 1.0. United States Geological Survey Open-file Report 03-281. Washington, D.C.
Raup, David M., and Steven M. Stanley
1978 Principle of Paleontology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
RCIT (Riverside County Information Technology)
n.d. Map My County. https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public.
Rogers, Thomas H.
1965 Geological Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet (1:250,000). California Division of
Mines and Geology, Sacramento.
Scott, Eric
2004 Personal communication with CRM TECH geologist/paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Scott, Eric, and Kathleen Springer
2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10.
Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to
Paleontological Resources. http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Resources/SVP_
Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
Woodford, Alfred O., John S. Shelton, Donald O. Doehring, and Richard K. Morton
1971 Pliocene-Pleistocene History of the Perris Block, Southern California. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 82(12):3421-3448.
13
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
14
PRINCIPAL PALEONTOLOGIST
Ron Schmidtling, M.S.
Education
1995 M.S., Geology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1991 Pasadena City College, Pasadena, California.
1985 B.A., Archaeology, Paleontology, Ancient Folklore, and Art History, University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Professional Experience:
2020- Principal Paleontologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2014- Instructor of Earth Science, History of Life, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology,
Columbia College Hollywood, Reseda, California.
2013, 2015 Volunteer, excavation of a camarasaur and a diplodocid in southern Utah, Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, California.
1993-2014 Consultant, Getty Conservation Institute, Brentwood, California.
• Geological Consultant on the Renaissance Bronze Project, characterizing
constituents of bronze core material;
• Paleontological Consultant for Antiquities/Conservation, identifying the
foraminifera and mineral constituents of a limestone torso of Aphrodite;
• Scientific Consultant on the Brentwood Site Building Project, testing building
materials for their suitability in the museum galleries.
1999-2001 Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor, Michael Brandman Associates, Irvine,
California.
1997 Department of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1994 Scientific Illustrator and Teaching Assistant, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
and Department of Biological Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles.
Memberships
AAPS (Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences), USA; CSEOL (Center for the Study of
Evolution and the Origin of Life), Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Publications and Reports
Author, co-author, and contributor on numerous paleontological publications and paleontological
resource management reports.
15
PROJECT PALEONTOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Ben Kerridge, M.A.
Education
2019-2020 Physical Geology, California Geology, and Historical Geology Coursework, Fullerton
College, Fullerton, California.
2014 Geoarchaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece.
2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Professional Experience
2015- Project Archaeologist/Paleontologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California.
2015 Teaching Assistant, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece.
2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2010- Naturalist, Newport Bay Conservancy, Newport Beach, California.
2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2002-2006 English Composition/College Preparation Tutor, various locations, California.
PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEYOR/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California.
1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California,
Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
• Cross-trained in paleontological field procedures and identifications by CRM
TECH Geologist/Paleontologist Harry M. Quinn.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo,
California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Paleontologist/Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
16
APPENDIX 2
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
(Confidential)
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org
CRM TECH November 30, 2021
Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Dear Ms. Gallardo,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Proposed Rome Hill
Commercial Development Project (CRM TECH No. 3808P) in the city of Lake Elsinore, Riverside
County, California. The project site is located at the northeast intersection of Grand Avenue and
Kathryn Way in the La Laguna (Stearns) Land Grant in Township 6 South, and Range 4 West, on
the Lake Elsinore and Wildomar USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entirely as alluvial valley deposits
dating from the Pleistocene to Holocene epoch (Morton & Webber, 2003). Pleistocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity, and while the Western Science
Center does not have localities within the project area or a one-mile radius, we do have
multiple localities associated with the Summerly Project just outside of the one-mile radius.
Carbon-14 dating conducted on wood samples at the site indicated a depositional age of 14,830
BP +/- 50 years and squarely placed the site in the Pleistocene epoch. The Summerly Project
consisted of over fifty fossil localities and included fossil specimens associated with mammoth
(Mammuthus columbi), camel (Camelops hesternus), bison (Bison sp.) and many more.
Any fossil specimens recovered from the Proposed Rome Hill Commercial Development Project
would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the
project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the
recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation
program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the study
area.
If you have any questions, or would like further information about the Summerly Project, please
feel free to contact me at dradford@westerncentermuseum.org
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager