DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California National Aeronautics and Space Administration Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California October 25, 2019 Draft SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California October 25, 2019 This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT Cover Sheet Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory Lead Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Point of Contact: Peter Zorba SSFL Project Director 5800 Woolsey Canyon Road Canoga Park, CA 91304 [email protected] Date: October 25, 2019 Abstract: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to inform NASA decision makers, regulating agencies, and the public about the environmental impacts of the proposed soil cleanup activities at NASA’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County, California. NASA has prepared this SEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.); the NEPA- implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508); and the NASA Procedural Requirements 8580.1 for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Part 1216, Subpart 1216.3). For NASA’s soil cleanup activities at SSFL, significant new information relevant to the scope of the soil cleanup and potential environmental impacts has been identified since the publication of NASA’s 2014 Environmental Impact Statement. Specifically, there has been a significant increase in the expected soil remediation area and volume as determined by the follow-on field work and verification by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in its draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Section 1, Purpose and Need, describes the site history, reasons for conducting this evaluation, and the scope of the analysis. Section 2, Description of Proposed Action Alternatives, describes the Action Alternatives for implementing the soil remediation and the No Action Alternative for soil cleanup. This section also includes a description of other alternatives and resource areas that were considered but removed from further consideration. Section 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, provides an overview of the existing physical, biological, social, and cultural conditions and the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action Alternatives on the NASA-administered property at SSFL. DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Site History and Description .................................................................................................. 1-7 1.3 Site Characterization and Remediation ................................................................................. 1-9 1.4 SSFL Administration and Commitments ................................................................................ 1-9 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................... 1-10 1.6 Scope of the Analysis ........................................................................................................... 1-10 1.7 Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................ 1-10 2 Description of Proposed Action Alternatives .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Soil Treatment Technologies .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 2-7 2.2.1 Alternative A: AOC Cleanup ...................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.2 Alternative B: Revised LUT Levels Cleanup ............................................................... 2-9 2.2.3 Alternative C: Suburban Residential Cleanup ......................................................... 2-10 2.2.4 Alternative D: Recreational Cleanup....................................................................... 2-11 2.2.5 Alternative Comparison .......................................................................................... 2-12 2.3 Alternatives and Options Eliminated ................................................................................... 2-23 2.3.1 Additional Risk-based Cleanup Alternatives ........................................................... 2-23 2.3.2 Additional Cleanup Technology Options ................................................................ 2-23 2.3.3 Additional Soil Transport Options ........................................................................... 2-24 2.4 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................................. 2-25 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-1 3.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-7 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-10 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-20 3.1.4 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-21 3.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-22 3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-22 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-35 3.2.3 Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 3-45 3.2.4 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-46 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-47 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-47 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-53 3.3.3 Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 3-58 3.3.4 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-59 3.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 3-60 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-60 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-65 AX0822181311COS DRAFT iii CONTENTS CONTINUED 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-69 3.4.4 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-69 3.5 Geology ................................................................................................................................ 3-71 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-71 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-81 3.5.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................... 3-84 3.5.4 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-84 3.6 Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials and Waste .......................................................... 3-85 3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vews/Etter Website: SSMPA
    Sa nta Susana Mountain Park Association A Non-Profit 501 (c)(4)Organization lr;ePtelTJbe/~ Incorporated ,c.uqlJst ',1 . ~ ~ , 2008 ,Vews/etter Website: SSMPA. COf7'1 Volume 38 Issue 7 E-Mail: !~A IL@SSMpA. CQA1 GENER1\L MEMBERSHIP MEETING September 15,2008 at 7:15PM At this month's meeting, Wayde Hunter , the current President of the North Valley Coalition will be our featured speaker. His main topic will be the status of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Excerpts from his Bio: Wayde arrived came from . ~ . Australia in 1969 and became a U.S. Citizen. He has over 30 years experience ;n the Industrial Engineering field as an engineer, supervisor, and manager involving product lines as diverse as electronics and aircraft transparencies to munitions and food. He has continued to work with the various permitting and enforcement agencies of the City, County and State that oversee the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. He actively represents the community re­ sponding to Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Mitigated Negative Declarations for most projects in the northeast end of the San Fernando Valley and the Santa Clarita Valley. Positions currently held include, but not limited to: 1. President, North Valley Coalition of Concerned Citizens Inc (NVC) 2. Board Member, District 3 Representative, Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council - City of Los Angeles (Re-elected 2nd term) 3. Member, Sunshine Canyon City Landfill Community Photo: Carla Hen !")' Advisory Committee - City of Los Angeles 4. Member, Alternative Technology Advisory Subcom­ Sign posn--d on \toul8ey Ca n y o n Road mittee - County of Los Angeles Solid Waste Manage­ leading to Roeketd)-"DejBoeing Indnstry.
    [Show full text]
  • Ssfl1007sage Ranch Fact Sheet Wmap3.Indd
    FACT SHEET November 2007 Department of DTSC Issues Order to Boeing and NASA to Toxic Substances Control Take Action on Sage Ranch On November 1, 2007, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order (Order) to The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the cleanup of Asbestos Containing Material (asbestos) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) along the northern boundary (please see the map on page two) of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). The SSFL is located in the Simi Hills in the south- The Mission of eastern portion of Ventura County, California, approximately 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. the Department of DTSC issued this order under its authority in the California Health and Safety Code. Toxic Substances Since the contamination is on adjacent property and potentially accessible to the public, DTSC is requiring quick action and is sending this fact sheet to inform the Control is to community of the cleanup activities. During the development of the Order, we briefed provide the highest community representatives regarding the sampling results and the need for cleanup. level of safety, and This Fact Sheet Provides a Brief Summary of: to protect public •Specifi c Location of Cleanup •Proposed Transportation Route for Trucks •Why Cleanup is Necessary •California Environmental Quality Act health and the •Background for this Action •Pre-Cleanup Activities •Proposed Cleanup •Where to Find the Documents environment from •Safety and Dust Control •Who to Contact for Information toxic harm. Specifi c Location of Cleanup This Order applies to property including the “Northern Drainage” and the former Rocketdyne- Atomics International Rifl e and Pistol Club.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV Radiological Study Ventura County, California (Hydrogeologic, Inc
    DRAFT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE BOEING COMPANY SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY SOILS AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION PROJECT Prepared for: The Boeing Company 5800 Woolsey Canyon Road Canoga Park, California 91304 Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 1861 Knoll Drive Ventura, California 93003 805/644-2220, 805/644-2050 (fax) December 2013 Project No. 1302-2701 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK The B oeing Company S S FL S oils & Groundwater Remediation P roj ect December 2013 B iological Resources S tudy TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Biological Support for Past or Ongoing Activities .......................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose .............................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 4 2.1 Soil Remediation Activities ............................................................................ ? 2.2 Groundwater Remediation Activities ............................................................. ? 3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................... 10 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................................................... 11 5.1 Vegetation .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GOALS, POLICIES and PROGRAMS Last Amended by the Ventura
    VENTURA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Last Amended by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on March 12, 2019 Ventura County General Plan GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 2019 Decision-Makers and Contributors Ventura County Planning Ventura County Board of Supervisors: Commission: Steve First District Phil White First District Bennett Linda Parks Second District Nora Aidukas Second District W. Stephen Kelly Long Third District Third District Onstot Bob Huber Fourth District James King Fourth District John Richard Fifth District Fifth District Zaragoza Rodriguez RMA GIS Mapping & Graphics Ventura County Planning Division: Section: Kim L. Prillhart, Director Jose Moreno Susan Curtis, Manager, General Plan Update Shelley Sussman, Project Manger RMA Information Services: Kim Uhlich, Senior Planner Alan Brown Whitney Wilkinson, Biologist County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Planning Division 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009-1740 (805) 654-2494 FAX (805) 654-2509 www.vcrma.org/divisions/planning VENTURA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors – May 24, 1988 (GPA #88-1) All amendments became effective 30 days after approval date, except as otherwise noted below: Amended - September 13, 1988 Amended - December 10, 1996 (88-2) (96-3) [Effective - Amended - December 20, 1988 May 10, 1997] (88-3 & 88-4) Amended - December 17, 1996 Amended - June 20, 1989 (89-1.1 (96-2) through 1.5) Amended - July 22, 1997 (97-2) Amended - June 20, 1989 (89- Amended -
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing Repairs Potholes Dotting Woolsey Canyon Road As Promised (Summit Life, Feb
    VOLUME V, #42 APRIL 2017 Boeing repairs potholes dotting Woolsey Canyon Road as promised (Summit Life, Feb. 2017). Based on government remediation plans, however, wear and tear on the roadway from heavy truck traffic will most likely continue for several more years (see story on page two). SANTA SUSANA MOUNTAIN PARK ASSOCIATION OPPOSES DOE’S PROPOSED TEN-YEAR SANTA SUSANA ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PLAN; The 45-year-old organization opts instead for two-year “Conservation Of Natural Resources” alternative based on Field Lab’s commitment to open space ummit residents would most likely need the help of sev- eral environmental scien- tists to decide which of three Stechnically complex Department of Energy remediation alternatives offered up over the past two months would best settle long-standing pol- lution issues hanging cloud-like over Boeing’s Santa Susana Field Labora- tory and much of the neighboring West San Fernando Valley including Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Simi Val- ley and West Hills. Fortunately, however, the non- profit Santa Susana Mountain Park Association (SSMPA) has already done the heavy lifting, submitting their findings a month ago on the DOE’s recently published Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Of the three cleanup options for the 2,800 acre site offered in the EIS, only the least invasive Directors of the Santa Susana Mountain Park Association (shown one makes sense, according to from left) are Dean Wageman, Darlene Wageman, Board President “ ” the SSMPA, an organization with Teena Takata, Robert Bob Dager, Warren Stone, John Luker, Board over 700 members and followers. Vice President Tom Nachtrab, and Wendi Gladstone.
    [Show full text]
  • 38239 SSFL Group3 Ritext
    This page intentionally left blank. Contents Acronyms .........................................................................................................................................xxv Executive Summary......................................................................................................................ES-1 1. Introduction and Methodology .......................................................................................1-1 1.1 SSFL Description and Background ..........................................................................1-1 1.1.1 SSFL Facility Information............................................................................1-1 1.1.2 SSFL Environmental Programs...................................................................1-3 1.1.3 Scope and Objectives of the Group 3 RI Report .......................................1-8 1.2 Physical Setting of the Reporting Area..................................................................1-11 1.2.1 Climate and Meteorology..........................................................................1-11 1.2.2 Physiography ..............................................................................................1-11 1.2.3 General Geology and Hydrogeology at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory .............................................................................................................1-12 1.2.4 SSFL Surface Water Features ....................................................................1-17 1.2.5 Habitat..........................................................................................................1-18
    [Show full text]
  • Site Inspection Report, Energy Technology Engineering
    Site Inspection Report Energy Technology Engineering Center/Area IV Sind Hills, California EPA ID No.: CA3830090001 USACE Contract No.: DACA45-98-D0004, Delivery Order 25 Work Order No.: 20074.025.161 September 2003 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Prepared by: Weston Solutions, Inc. 1575 Treat Blvd, Suite 212 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Document Provided and Located on: http://www.RocketdyneWatch.org Energy Technology Engineering Center/Area IV SI Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Apparent Problem 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Location 2 2.2 Site Description 2 3.0 INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS 3 3.1 Previous Sampling and Analyses 3 3.1.1 Brandeis-Bardin Institue Property: 1992 Soil/Sediment Sampling 3 3.1.2 Brandeis-Bardin Institue Property: 1994 Soil/Sediment Sampling 4 3.1.3 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Property: 1992 Soil Sampling 5 3.1.4 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Property: 1994 Soil Sampling 6 3.1.5 Bell Canyon: 1998 Soil Sampling 6 3.1.6 Brandeis Bardin Institute Property: 1992 and 1994 Surface Water Sampling 7 4.0 HAZARDOUS RANKING SYSTEM FACTORS 7 4.1 Sources of Contamination 7 4.2 Groundwater Pathway 7 4.3 Surface Water Pathway 8 4.4 Soil Exposure 9 4.5 Air Pathways 10 5.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS 11 6.0 SUMMARY " 11 7.0 REFERENCE LIST 13 11 Document Provided and Located on: http://www.RocketdyneWatch.org Energy Technology Engineering Center/Area IV Sf Report List of Tables Table 3-1: Brandeis-Bardin Institute Property: 1992 Rocketdyne Soil/Sediment Sampling Results 16 Table 3-2: Brandeis-Bardin Institute Property: 1994 Rocketdyne Soil/Sediment Sampling Results .
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments
    PUBLIC COMMENTS The SMMART Trails Coordination Draft Summary Report was mailed in April, 1997, to approximately 1,350 individuals, organizations, and agencies (see Table 5 for the list of the organizations and agencies that received a copy). Additionally, copies were made available at several local libraries and at offices of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The Executive Summary of the Draft Report was provided to 500 agencies, organizations, and media outlets along with a press release announcing the public open houses. Additionally, attempts were made to post the Executive Summary of the Draft Report on the World Wide Web but due to unanticipated technical difficulties, this was not achieved during the publicized comment period. Two open houses were held May 7th and 8th, at the William O. Douglass Outdoor Classroom in the Franklin Canyon area and Agoura Hills High School, respectively. The format of these meetings were as follows: a welcome from the National Park Superintendent, an introduction to the project by the project coordinator, and short presentations made by representatives of the six Action Teams. During the second hour, the group dispersed to visit stations around the room where the teams had maps and additional information displayed and were available to answer questions and receive comments. Written comment sheets were provided to participants to obtain their input as well. Over the two nights, 94 people attended in addition to SMMART Action Team members. Comments Received A total of 115 comments were received fromthe public.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report
    MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Los Angeles River Center & Gardens 570 West Avenue Twenty-six, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90065 Phone (323) 221-8900 MEMORANDUM TO: The Governing Board FROM: Joseph T. Edmiston, FAICP, Executive Officer DATE: November 4, 2015 SUBJECT: Agenda Item VII: Consideration of resolution authorizing entering into a project agreement with the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District for the acquisition of APN 2017-005-033 totaling approximately 18.43 acres in Box Canyon, Chatsworth, City of Los Angeles. Staff Recommendation: That the Governing Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing entering into a project agreement with the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District for the acquisition of APN 2017-005-033 totaling approximately 18.43 acres in Box Canyon. Background: The subject 18.43-acre parcel is located in Box Canyon within the eastern Simi Hills adjacent to the west of the Chatsworth Reservoir Nature Preserve. The parcel is part of a greenbelt between the Chatsworth Reservoir Nature Preserve and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) owned Sage Ranch Park. Over 80 percent of the parcel lies within the Santa Susanna Mountains/Simi Hills Significant Ecological Area containing a rich complex of undisturbed mixed chaparral, sandstone outcrops, and southern willow scrub. The subject parcel also contains a portion of the long envisioned Rim of the Valley Trail, which presents trail linkage opportunities to connect Chatsworth Reservoir Nature Preserve and the MRCA-owned Sage Ranch Park. The parcel is in urgent need of protection from the increasing pace of development within the immediate vicinity of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2003
    February 2015 Volume 21 Issue 2 Rancho Simi Trail Blazers A Division of the Rancho Simi Foundation RSTB CLUB MEETING Volunteers Needed!! This month’s RSTB meeting will be at: If anyone is Sycamore Drive Community Center interested in 1692 Sycamore Drive – Room B-1 volunteering for Wednesday: February 18, 2014 the work parties 5:30PM Everyone Welcome to attend! chair or the Publicity chair contact Mike Kuhn at: * Not within the jurisdiction of the Rancho [email protected] Simi Recreation and Park District. Upcoming Events Weekly hikes!! February 7th Griffith Park: Mt. Hollywood Trail from Ferndell Park* 5.2 MRT - Moderate (1,026' of eleva- Has anyone tion gain/loss) or 9-mile counterclock- ever told wise lollipop Loop - Moderate-to- you to take strenuous (1,743' of elevation hike? gain/loss) 8AM February 14th Johnson Motorway Did you know that in Simi Valley to Rocky Peak* 9 MRT - Moderate (1,600' of elevation you can take many hikes with the gain/loss.) 8AM Rancho Simi Trail Blazers and explore the beauty of Simi Valley February 18th Club Meeting The Hummingbird Trail and other beautiful locations? We The Sycamore Drive Community Meeting time have so much fun taking photos, Center - 1692 Sycamore Drive - Room is 8AM. The talking and just viewing the B-1 Everyone Welcome to attend! event will end beautiful scenery like the photo 5:30PM at noon. All above. February 21st Work Party - The tools will be Hummingbird Trail 8AM provided. Hikes are every Sunday, We will be Tuesday, Thursday, and most February 28th New Millennium removing rocks, doing some lopping Saturdays Loop Trail* to increase trail clearance and some 12.2 MRT - Moderate (1,000' eleva- trail trimming.
    [Show full text]
  • California State University, Northridge
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Secret Nuclear Meltdown? Measuring Cesium-137 from Environmental Samples to Determine Radiation Exposure from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, California A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Science in Geology by Justin Raul Pardo August, 2020 The thesis of Justin Raul Pardo is approved: Dr. Trevis Matheus Date Dr. Priya Ganguli Date Dr. Jennifer Cotton, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgments Before I joined the geology department, I was learning about stable isotopes and their applications from Dr. Jennifer Cotton’s geochemistry class. I knew I caught the “isotope bug” of wanting to do research in isotope geochemistry and would like to graciously thank my advisor, Dr. Cotton for taking me as her first graduate student. Joining Dr. Cotton’s lab allowed me to participate in research projects, learned from top researchers in my field at the Isotopes in the Spatial Ecology and Biogeochemistry Course at the University of Utah, and collaborate with new researchers. I want to thank next my co-advisor Dr. Trevis Matheus, who has shown and taught me the dendrochronological world. This project would not have been completed without Dr. Matheus in the field and lab mentoring me in how we collect and cross-date tree-cores and wood samples. I would also like to thank Dr. Priya Ganguli for being on my thesis committee and directing me to take a class with my current advisor that began my academic journey. Dr. Ganguli spoke highly about Dr. Cotton’s geochemistry class, which has since positively changed my life and led me to enroll in a doctorate program at the University of Ottawa This project could not have existed without Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Institute of Archeo-Astronomy and Rocket Engineering Research Project
    ’alałpay INSTITUTE OF ARCHEO-ASTRONOMY AND ROCKET ENGINEERING RESEARCH PROJECT = the place of the rocket scientist = ’ałtšuqlašmu “the place of the astronomer” Interpretive Planning at stawayǝk ’i’alałpay, “sky valley” Simi Hills, Eastern Ventura County ’ałtšuqlaš = a person who observed the night sky and named children Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains (RCDSMM), Clark P. Stevens Michael Sotona Matthew Vestuto Devlin Gandy for Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians The root verb for ’ałtšuqlaš (astronomer) is šuqlaš. Sam Cohen šuqlayǝš, a related noun, is the term for a series of songs sung at night by the ’ałtšuqlaš. Copyright © 2020 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, all rights reserved + & Coca 2 Test Stand # 2787 Area 2 Nasa SSFL Cupuled rock outcrop with a Bedrock Milling Feature Area 2 SSFL Photo: Wired Magazine June, 2014 Photo by: Juergen Nogai + = Chumash ’ałtšuqlaš “Astronomer” ` Wernher von Braun at Santa Susana Field Laboratory INTERPRETIVE CENTER PROJECT SITE : stawayǝk ’i’alałpay “sky valley” - former Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) ’alałpay INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOASTRONOMY AND ROCKET ENGINEERING = the place of the rocket scientist ’ałtšuqlašmu = the place of the astronomer The interpretive center covers the entire history of the site, while focusing on two primary periods of significance: PERIOD 1 Chumash, Paleo-astronomical ’ałtšuqlaš period of Astronomer activity (__? to present) 7 PERIOD 2 Santa Susana Field Lab period Contrast of two different cultures, both focused on the heavens in this extraordinary landscape, is the unique interpretive opportunity of the site. ’ałtšuqlaš Geological, pre-historic, ranching/mission, and environmental remediation and habitat conservation periods will also be interpreted to provide a = a person who observed the night sky and named children context for the primary periods of significance.
    [Show full text]