NBZ - DTSC - Santa Susana Field Laboratory Site Investigation and

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
June 3, 2010
Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA – State Historic Preservation Officer
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Historic Preservation
1414 9th Street, Room 1442
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
RE: Santa Susana Field Laboratory Proposed Action
Dear Mr. Donaldson:
The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a proposed
undertaking on the Boeing-owned property of Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) Area IV,
Ventura County, California and is initiating this correspondence in compliance with Section 106
of the NHPA.
The proposed undertaking is to conduct a radiological characterization survey of Area IV of the
SSFL. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is 290 acres within Area IV of the SSFL (Figure 1.).
A complete description of the project is detailed in the attached document titled Cultural
Resources Assessment Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV Radiological Study, Ventura
County, California.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR Part 800) requires
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In
accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c), the EPA requests consultation and concurrence with the
California SHPO regarding the proposed undertaking.
EPA’s SSFL Cultural Resource Specialist (CRS) has reviewed the proposed undertaking and he
has determined that the proposed project would have no adverse effects on historic properties
within the APE. A survey and assessment of potential historic structures was conducted in 2009
by Post/Hazeltine Associates. The results of this survey and assessment (attached) determined
that there were no historic structures within the APE that are eligible for inclusion in either the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Places
(Post/Hazeltine 2009:95).
Also in preparation for this project a separate record search of the surrounding area was
conducted with the South Central Coastal Information Center at the California State University,
Fullerton. Archaeological surveys that include all or part of the APE were conducted in 1999,
2001, 2007 and 2009, survey #s VN-1818, VN-2480, VN-2611, VN-2797, respectively. A total
of five (5) archaeological sites have been identified and recorded within the APE for this
undertaking. At least four of the five archaeological sites within the APE have been deemed
ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the archaeologists
who originally recorded and evaluated the sites. However, since formal concurrence of
ineligibility has not been sought from nor been given by SHPO, all archaeological sites within
the APE are considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and considered historic properties for
the purposes of this undertaking.
This undertaking proposes a no adverse effect on historic properties through a “flag and avoid
approach”. The specifics of the methodology are detailed in the document titled, Cultural
Resources Protection Measures (attached). These measures have been derived from the draft
Cultural Resources Management Plan prepared for the SSFL site by National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) in February 2010; the draft Cultural Resources Clearance
Survey prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) in November 2009; and from formal
consultations with Native American representatives conducted by the DOE and EPA on
December 3, 2009. Documentation of Tribal consultation is attached.
In accordance with applicable regulations and policies, the EPA requests concurrence from the
California SHPO that no adverse effect occurs to historical properties with the proposed
undertaking following a “flag and avoid” approach and provided the mitigation measures
detailed in the Cultural Resources Protection Measures are employed.
We would also take this opportunity to inform SHPO that a parallel EPA undertaking is planned
for an 182 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to the north of Area IV in the near future
(Figure 2). Although a complete pedestrian survey of this parcel referred to as the Northern
Boundary Zone (NBZ) has recently been conducted, the report of the results of this survey is not
yet available for review. We will prepare and submit a subsequent consultation proposal to
SHPO regarding the NBZ after the cultural resources survey report is available we have assessed
the potential effects on any historic properties in the NBZ.
If you have any questions regarding this request for consultation and concurrence, please call
Ray Corbett, Ph.D. at 805-682-4711 ext 141. If you would like to contact me, I can be reached
at (415) 947-4148.
Sincerely,
Craig Cooper
Project Manager
Superfund Division
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE RESOURCES AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001
(916) 653-6624 Fax: (916) 653-9824
[email protected]
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
July 15, 2010
In Reply Refer To: EPA100603A
Craig Cooper
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV Radiological Testing, Ventura County, California
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 (as amended 8-05-04) regulations implementing Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
my comments on its determination of effects that the proposed undertaking will have on historic
properties.
The undertaking consists of the vegetation clearing, gamma scanning, geophysical survey, soil
sampling, water monitoring, and sediment sampling and radiological testing on 290 acres within
Area IV of Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). Vegetation clearing will cut or trim vegetation
to a height of six to 18 inches using a combination hand held mechanical equipment and hand
tools. Heavy equipment such as wheel-driven mowers will be operated in previously disturbed
areas. Gamma scanning is passive scanning for radiation using hand held, wheel mounted
(stroller), mule mounted, and forklift mounted scanners. Geophysical survey will be conducted
using ground-penetrating radar and electro-magnetometer to identify potential buried materials.
Up to 3500 of each surface and subsurface soil samples will be collected. Sampling will be both
targeted and random samples. All samples initially planned in areas of archaeological sensitivity
or known historic properties will be relocated to an adjacent, less sensitive location. Each
borehole will be a maximum of ten feet deep. Water sampling will involve both surface and
groundwater samples. All ground water samples will be taken from pre-existing monitoring wells
both in and near Area IV of SSFL. Surface water and sediment will be sampled from active
water locations, mainly drainage pathways within banks in areas of recent deposition. In
addition to your letter and maps of June 3, 2010, you have submitted the following documents
as evidence of your efforts to identify historic properties in the APE:
● Cultural Resources Assessment Santa Susana Field Laboratory: Area IV Radiological Study,
Ventura County (Richard Guttenberg and Ray Corbett; John Minch and associates, Inc.: June
2010).
● Historic Structures/Sites Report for Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory
(Post/Hazeltine Associates: April 2009).
● Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area
4, Ventura County, California (W & S Consultants: September 2001).
EPA100603A 07/15/10
● Archaeological Survey Report: Southern California Edison Proposed Fiber Optic Moorpark
East Copper Cable Replacement Project (Gwen Romani, Compass Rose Archaeological Inc.:
September 2009).
Based on their identification efforts, through research at the South Central Coastal Information
Center and previous pedestrian surveys of the APE, the EPA has concluded that there are 263
previously recorded structures and ruins within the APE most of which are modern. All of the
structures within the APE have been determined not eligible by the EPA. The EPA has also
identified five archaeological sites (CA-VEN-1772, CA-VEN-1773, CA-VEN-1774, CA-VEN1775, and CA-VEN-1362) within the APE. All five of these sites have not been formally
evaluated and will be treated as eligible for the purposes of this undertaking. The EPA,
proposes to prevent adverse effects to these sites by flagging a fifty foot buffer around each site
and avoid site disturbance including complete avoidance by vegetation clearing, use of only
hand held gamma scanning equipment with the presence of a qualified archaeological monitor
within the protected buffer area, and complete avoidance by the geophysical survey and soil
sampling programs.
The EPA has determined that all of the structures identified within the APE are not eligible for
the National Register. Pursuant to CFR 800.4(c), I concur with your finding of not eligible for the
263 historic structures listed in Table 1 of the report: Historic Structures/Sites Report for Area IV
of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory by Post/Hazeltine Associates (pages 11-17).
The EPA has determined that the appropriate finding of effect for this undertaking is that of No
Adverse Effects with the condition of avoiding the five identified archeological sites within the
APE (CA-VEN-1772, CA-VEN-1773, CA-VEN-1774, CA-VEN-1775, and CA-VEN-1362).
After reviewing your letter and supporting documentation, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), I
concur with your finding of No Adverse Effect with conditions as long as the previously
discussed mitigation measures are followed.
Be advised that under certain circumstances, such as unanticipated discovery or a change in
project description, the EPA may have additional future responsibilities for this undertaking
under 36 CFR Part 800.Thank you for seeking my comments and for considering historic
properties in planning your project. If you require further information, please contact Trevor Pratt
of my staff at phone 916-445-7017 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA
State Historic Preservation Officer
The Office of Historic Preservation will be moving to a new location as of July 14, 2010.
The new address for the office will be 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento CA 95816.
Please update your records accordingly. The entire office will also be receiving new
phone numbers, and those numbers will be posted on our website at
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov when they are active.
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY
Northern Undeveloped Lands Radiological Study
Ventura County, California
Prepared by:
Richard Guttenberg
Ray Corbett, Ph.D.
John Minch and Associates, Inc.
26623 Sierra Vista
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
TEL (949) 367-1000
FAX (949) 367-0117
Contact Person
Edwin Minch (714) 501-4163 (cell)
Prepared for:
Hydro Geologic, Inc
Bldg 204
5800 Woolsey Canyon Rd.
Canoga Park, CA 91340
Contact Person
Steven Vaughn, Project Manager
October 18, 2010
INTRODUCTION
JMA (John Minch and Associates, Inc.) has been retained to provide consulting services for
cultural resources at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Simi Valley, CA. The purpose
of this summary is to provide a description of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
proposed Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) Northern Undeveloped Lands (NUL)
Radiological Characterization Survey in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed
undertaking may affect any of the known, and potentially undiscovered cultural resources that
exist within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). JMA’s Cultural Resource Specialist (CRS) has
reviewed the previous archaeological investigations conducted on the property, performed an
independent records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State
University, Fullerton, and is reviewing all available previous correspondence between
stakeholders,
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission,
Native
American
Tribal
Representatives, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). This summary is
prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under regulations implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, (NHPA) 36 CFR Part 800.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING
The Agency and Applicant proposing the undertaking are the same, namely, EPA.
The
Undertaking is to be administered by EPA pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The EPA is undertaking the project in
accordance with federal legislative mandate, HR 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2008.
Funding for the proposed Undertaking originates from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The proposed Undertaking is the radiological characterization of the northern portion of SSFL
referred to as the Northern Undeveloped Lands, or NUL. The NUL is adjacent to Area IV of
SSFL owned by The Boeing Company (Boeing), where upon the United States Department of
Energy (DOE) and its contractors once operated several nuclear reactors and associated fuel
facilities and laboratories. A similar Undertaking is currently ongoing in Area IV. The NUL
consists of 182 acres, where industrial activities have never occurred, but a lawsuit settlement
stipulated purchase of this area by Boeing from the adjoining American Jewish University’s
2
Brandeis-Bardin Campus.
The purpose and need for the Undertaking is to determine the presence of potential radioactive
contamination in surface soils, and subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediment
within the NUL.
Environmental Setting
The NUL consists of naturally vegetated steep terrain, hills and rock outcrops. The project
boundary is adjacent to the northern boundaries of Areas II, III and IV of SSFL. The SSFL
property lies approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Simi Valley.
The NUL is
undeveloped and distinguished by very steep north-facing slopes and numerous large sandstone
rock outcrops.
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Class III Inventory/Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for the NUL by CRM TECH,
Inc. in 2010. The results of the pedestrian survey included the identification and recordation of
three prehistoric archaeological sites located in the project boundaries. Two of the sites identified
by CRM TECH are characterized as lithic scatters, CA-VEN-1803 and CA-VEN-1804. The
third, CA-VEN-1805 is described as a lithic scatter featuring a natural water cistern (Hogan and
Tang, 2010). All three sites are noted to contain prehistoric artifacts, however, CA-VEN-1804 is
also thought to possibly contain historic artifacts as well (Hogan and Tang, 2010).
At the time they issued their survey report, CRM TECH deemed the three sites they recorded as
undeterminable for eligibility for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places without
further subsurface testing. However, since concurrence of ineligibility has not been sought from
or granted by SHPO, all archaeological sites within NUL are considered eligible and treated
accordingly for the purposes of this undertaking. In addition, the presence of the newly identified
archaeological sites in NUL indicates the potential for elements of the project activities involving
ground disturbance and clearing of vegetation to impact previously undiscovered cultural
resources. Such activities were considered and addressed in the 2010 investigation conducted by
CRM TECH, and the recommendations made in the survey report take into account the potential
effects that the proposed Undertaking may have on any cultural resources that exist within the
APE.
3
The Project Area
An area map, showing the location of the entire SSFL site, including the Area of Potential Effects
(APE) in relation to the surrounding areas is provided on Figure 1. Also included on Figure 1 are
the locations of the newly identified archaeological sites previously referenced. The vicinity map
shown on the United States Geologic Survey Calabasas 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map
is shown on Figure 2. The latter map more clearly identifies the project area in relation to the
entire SSFL.
4
Figure 1
Locations of the recorded archaeological sites in NUL.
5
Figure 2
Vicinity Map of Santa Susana Field Laboratory
6
The Proposed Undertaking
General Description of Activities
The Undertaking involves several activities that are not anticipated to have any adverse affect on
cultural resources in the project area, and is proposed to begin in November 2010 and is
anticipated to be completed by December 2011. The separate components of the Undertaking
include Vegetation Clearing, Gamma Scanning, Geophysical Survey, Surface and Subsurface
Soil Sampling, Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling, Surface Water and Sediment Sampling,
and Support Activities. A discussion of each component of the Undertaking is provided below,
as well as a description of general avoidance measures that will be implemented to avoid adverse
impacts to cultural resources.
Vegetation Clearing
To provide access for project related vehicles/equipment and allow operation of gamma scanning
equipment at optimum levels of sensitivity, vegetation within the APE will be cut or trimmed to a
height of approximately six to 18 inches. Vegetation cutting in previously undisturbed areas will
be conducted using a combination of hand held mechanical equipment and hand tools. In
addition, heavy equipment such as tracked or wheel-driven mowers (i.e. a tractor with a mower
attachment) can only be operated in previously disturbed areas in the NUL. As discussed in the
Avoidance Measures below, known archaeological sites will be delineated with a 50 ft. buffer
around site boundaries and flagged for avoidance by either JMA’s CRS or the Cultural Resource
Monitor.
Vegetation Clearing Avoidance Measures
The following measures have been identified to avoid the adverse effects associated with
vegetation clearing activities:
VC-1
Before initiation of vegetation clearing activities, JMA’s CRS will identify the
locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and establish a
50 ft. exclusion zone around the site boundaries. The 50 ft. buffer will be
delineated with colored flagging tape and will be avoided from vegetation
clearing and removal. In addition, all vegetation clearing activities in areas
deemed sensitive by the CRS (e.g., previously undisturbed areas) will be
7
performed under the supervision of the Cultural Resources Monitor.
Gamma Scanning
EPA will characterize surface soil for gamma activity over 100 percent of the accessible areas of
the NUL to identify and characterize elevated areas of gamma radiation. Scanning will be
conducted at a rate of one to three feet per second and will normally require only one pass over
each area being scanned. Gamma scanning will be completed using a combination of hand-held,
stroller-mounted, mule-mounted, and off-road, forklift mounted systems. The stroller-mounted,
mule-mounted and forklift mounted systems will be custom-built systems that are capable of
detecting low levels of gamma radiation. The potential ground disturbance that may result from
the use of each scanning system is provided below:
Hand-held – foot traffic and vegetation alteration. No expected ground disturbance.
Wheel mounted – foot traffic, light vehicle traffic and vegetation alteration. Minimal
potential for ground disturbance.
Mule mounted - foot traffic, mule traffic, and vegetation alteration. Minimal potential for
ground disturbance.
Forklift mounted - foot traffic, vehicle traffic and vegetation alteration. Heavy equipment
operation has a potential for ground disturbance.
Gamma Scanning Avoidance Measures
The following measures have been identified to avoid and minimize the effects associated with
gamma scanning activities:
GS-1
Before initiation of gamma scanning activities, JMA’s CRS will identify the
locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and establish a
50 ft. exclusion zone around the site boundaries. The 50 ft. buffer will be
delineated with colored flagging tape and scanning within the exclusion zone will
be limited to hand-held equipment and performed under the supervision of the
Cultural Resources Monitor. In addition, all gamma scanning in areas deemed
sensitive by the CRS will be performed under the supervision of the Cultural
Resources Monitor.
8
Geophysical Survey
EPA may conduct a geophysical survey to determine areas of potential subsurface disturbance
that may be indicative of waste burial areas. The sub-surface geophysical survey will be
conducted using ground-penetrating radar (GPR) (or other appropriate technology) and either
electromagnetometer (EM) or magnetometer in locations suggested by the EPA’s Historical Site
Assessment (HSA) report. It is assumed that the EM and magnetometer survey will be completed
at target locations in search of potential buried materials covering as much as approximately 80
acres within area IV and the NUL. The GPR survey will be conducted over approximately 15
acres, based on the results of the EM and magnetometer surveys. The impacts associated with
each type of geophysical survey are foot traffic and light vehicle traffic. The presence of
personnel and equipment during the geophysical surveys (regardless of the type of equipment
used) may impact cultural resources.
Geophysical Survey Avoidance Measures
The following measures have been identified to avoid and minimize the effects associated with
geophysical survey activities:
GP-1
Before initiation of the geophysical survey, JMA’s CRS will identify the
locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and establish a
50 foot. exclusion zone around the site boundaries. The 50 ft. buffer will be
delineated with colored flagging tape and will be avoided from geophysical
survey activities. , and in addition, all activities in areas deemed sensitive by the
JMA archaeologist CRS will be performed under the supervision of the
archaeological Cultural Resources Monitor.
Soil Sampling
EPA will collect surface and subsurface soil samples to characterize the representative
concentration of each radionuclide of concern in surface and subsurface soil within the NUL
Study Area. EPA is also collecting and containerizing soil samples which will be analyzed for
potential chemical contamination by the Department of Energy. Biased and random sampling
techniques will be used to identify surface and subsurface soil sampling locations. Should a
sample location be identified within an area of known archaeological sensitivity then that location
will be relocated nearby so impacts will be totally avoided. In the NUL, EPA anticipates that soil
9
samples will be initially collected from approximately 1,500 surface locations and 1,500
subsurface locations. As explained below, from two to four closely spaced boreholes up to
approximately 10 feet below ground surface will be needed at each subsurface sample location to
conduct the gamma logging, define the subsurface sample interval and collect the requisite soil
volume for sample analysis.
Borehole gamma logging will be performed to identify depth intervals for subsurface soil
samples. Boreholes will be made using a manually operated hand auger or mechanized direct
push technology (DPT) rig with 3.25 inch tooling. Each borehole will be advanced to a depth of
approximately 10 feet deep below ground surface or until refusal is reached if less than 10 feet.
Continuous cores will be collected in each borehole, the lithology will be logged, and the soil
classification will be documented for each sample.
Downhole gamma logging will be completed after the lithologic logging effort or concurrently
with the lithologic logging effort. A 2-inch inner diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe will be
inserted into the open borehole. A probe attached to a Ludlum 2221 ratemeter will be lowered
down the PVC piping at 6-inch intervals to document total gamma radiation counts. After the
lithologic and gamma logging efforts have been completed at the borehole, the sample interval
will be selected based on the previously described parameters.
Surface soil samples will be collected from 0 to 6 inches below the ground surface using stainless
steel trowels, stainless steel shovels and/or spoons, and/or hand driven 3 inch sample tubes to
collect enough soil to fill the appropriately sized sampling container. Subsurface soil sample
intervals will be selected based on subsurface gamma scanning results and material noted during
the lithologic logging effort. The DPT rig or hand auger will then be advanced to the desired
depth to collect the subsurface soil sample. Additional off-set boreholes may be necessary to
meet sample volume requirements. Additional off-set boreholes, if needed, will also be 6 to 12
inches from the previous borehole. EPA does not anticipate more than four boreholes per sample
location: one borehole for lithologic and gamma logging and one to three boreholes for soil
sample collection.
After the logging and sampling efforts are completed, each borehole will be backfilled with any
unused soil volume from the same borehole and high solids bentonite. The impact of each
activity is listed below:
10
Surface soil sampling – foot traffic, light vehicle traffic and vegetation alteration, ground
disturbance.
Subsurface soil sampling – foot traffic, light vehicle traffic, heavy vehicle traffic,
vegetation alteration, ground disturbance.
Subsurface gamma scanning – foot traffic, light vehicle traffic, heavy vehicle traffic and
vegetation alteration, ground disturbance.
Soil Sampling Avoidance Measures
The following measures have been identified to avoid the effects associated with soil sampling
activities:
SS-1
Before initiation of soil sampling activities, JMA’s CRS will identify the locations of
previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and establish a 50 ft. exclusion zone
around the site boundaries. The 50 ft. buffer will be delineated with colored flagging
tape and avoided from all soil sampling activities. In addition, all soil sampling in areas
deemed sensitive by the CRS will be performed under the supervision of the Cultural
Resources Monitor.
Monitoring Well Sampling
EPA will evaluate existing radiological conditions in groundwater at on- and off-site locations.
Groundwater sampling will be conducted at existing on-site and off-site wells. Approximately 10
existing monitoring wells in the NUL will be sampled during 2011. In addition, approximately
20 existing off-site wells will also be sampled in 2011. The impacts resulting from this sampling
activity is expected to be foot traffic and light vehicle traffic.
Monitoring Well Sampling Avoidance Measures
JMA has determined that there is no potential for the Monitoring Well Sampling to have any
adverse affects on known or unknown cultural resources.
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
EPA will collect surface water samples to determine radionuclide concentrations in on-site and
11
off-site surface water and seeps. The surface water sampling will be conducted in two phases.
Phase 1 will focus on identifying the general extent of contamination and identification of key
radionuclides. Phase 2 will involve conducting a detailed evaluation of the radionuclides that
were detected during Phase 1. Phase 2 may include a more extensive sediment sampling effort in
areas of sediment contamination identified during Phase 1, and a targeted radionuclide suite. The
collection of surface water samples will be focused on drainage pathways with specific sample
locations being determined during the site reconnaissance.
EPA will also collect sediment
samples to determine radionuclide concentrations in major drainage areas. Sediment sampling
will target the fine-grained sediment located within the stream and associated stream bank. EPA
is also collecting and containerizing soil samples which will be analyzed for potential chemical
contamination by the Department of Energy.
Approximately 60 surface water sample locations and 80 sediment sample locations are
anticipated. Surface water and sediment sampling will target major drainage ways downstream of
potential radiological source areas in Area IV and the NUL. Based on data obtained from the onsite sample locations in Area IV and the NUL, surface water and sediment sampling may extend
further downstream at locations on-site (but outside Area IV and the NUL) and into adjacent offsite properties. Environmental impacts are expected to consist of foot traffic and light vehicle
traffic.
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Avoidance Measures
The following measures have been identified to avoid and minimize the effects associated with
surface water and sediment sampling activities:
SWSS-1
In the event that surface water and sediment sampling activities are located
within or adjacent to areas of known archaeological sensitivity the sampling crew
shall coordinate with JMA’s CRS to identify a means of access that avoids
impacts to cultural resources. If surface water samples are to be collected from
areas of known archaeological sensitivity, all sampling is to be conducted under
the supervision of a JMA Cultural Resources Monitor.
12
Support Activities
The support activities may consist of a variety of actions including: use office and equipment
storage space at the EPA field office area located at Building 204 in SSFL Area II, use of a
animal (e.g.. mule) stable located within the EPA field office area, mobilization/staging,
equipment/Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) stock piling, IDW management, access/on-site
travel, access improvement, vegetation alteration and vegetation/soil removal.
As indicated in Figure 3, EPA’s field office area is located approximately 300 feet from Area IV
and consists of Building 204, nearby outbuildings and adjacent paved areas. The animal (e.g.
mule) stable is located within the EPA field office area and the entire field office area is fenced
and locked outside normal working hours. Gamma scanning equipment and support vehicles will
move to and from the field office and the NUL via existing paved and dirt/gravel roads located
both onsite and offsite.
IDW associated with the site activities will consist of purge water, decontamination water and
soil cuttings.
Purge water will be generated during monitoring well sampling activities.
Decontamination water will be associated with every sampling activity.
Soil cuttings will be collected during soil logging activities.
The IDW generated during field activities will be placed in leak tight vessels (55 gallon drums or
similar containers) and transported to a temporary staging at Buildings 4011 and 4015 for
subsequent removal by a disposal contractor.
13
Figure 3
Location of SSFL Field Office, Area II
14
Support Activities Avoidance Measures
Avoidance, documentation and minimization measures for support activities are provided below:
SA-1
Before initiation of any support activities, JMA’s CRS will identify the locations of
previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and establish a 50 ft. exclusion zone
around the site boundaries. The 50 ft. buffer will be delineated with colored flagging
tape and the exclusion area will be avoided. In addition, all support activities in areas
deemed sensitive by the CRS will be performed under the supervision of the Cultural
Resources Monitor.
SA-2
Additionally, any previously undiscovered cultural resources that are encountered during
any portion of the Undertaking shall be fully documented and recorded by JMA’s CRS.
Site Record forms for these sites will be submitted to the South Central Coastal
Information Center at the California State University Fullerton and thus be recorded in
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) inventory.
SA-3
In the event that temporally diagnostic artifacts or other isolated artifacts that are
vulnerable to damage and/or unauthorized collection are encountered, the Cultural
Resources Monitor shall obtain a GPS position of the artifact’s exact location and then
collect them. They will either be returned to their original locations after the project has
concluded, or deposited in a public curation facility as appropriate.
15
References Cited
Hogan, Michael and Bai “Tom” Tang
2010 Cultural Resources Identification Survey: Northern Undeveloped Land at the Santa
Susana Field Laboratory Site, Simi Hills Area, Ventura County, California. California
archaeological survey. Submitted to United States Department of Energy.
16
CLASS III INVENTORY/PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SANTA SUSANA
FIELD LABORATORY AREA 4, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
W&S Consultants
2242 Stinson Street
Simi Valley, CA 93065
805-581-3577
24 September 2001
The following paragraphs are taken from the report, Class III Inventory/Phase I
Archaeological Survey of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area 4, Ventura County,
California” (W&S Consultants 2001). These selected excerpts present information from
the report that has been edited to remove locational references or descriptions that could
lead someone to the four sites identified by the investigators.
The cultural resource study was conducted in 2001 in advance of the Environmental
Assessment being prepared by DOE for the final closure of Area IV. The initial
determination of eligibility for inclusion to the National Registry of Historic Places made
by the report’s authors was based on criteria available at that time. As part of the process
of preparing the EIS for Area IV, DOE will re-evaluate the recommendations and make a
second assessment of each site’s eligibility.
Management Summary
A Class III Inventory/Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for Area 4 of the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory (SSFL), eastern Ventura County, California. The study area is a 290-acre parcel that has been
used for aerospace and nuclear research and testing since 1947. The investigation involved an archival
records search, a review of existing published and unpublished references on local prehistory and history,
and an on-foot, intensive survey of the subject property. No sites had been recorded within the study area,
but the study area had never been systematically surveyed by archaeologists. On-foot survey resulted in
the identification of four archaeological sites. Site SSFL-l is a small rockshelter containing a single pink
painting of a burro, of unknown cultural origin and age. SSFL-2 is a small rockshelter that contained two
pieces of lithic debitage and a fire-blackened ceiling. SSFL-3 is a single bedrock mortar. SSFL-4 is a
small rockshelter that once contained a midden deposit; an estimated 75% of this deposit has been
destroyed by artifact looting and thus the site now lacks integrity. Due to their failure to satisfy the criteria
of inclusion, these four sites have been determined not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.
Based on this determination, the proposed closure and remediation program is determined to have no
effect.
SSFL-l: This site is a small cave. The cave measures a maximum of approximately six meters wide by
4.5 meters deep by 1.7 meters in height. It consists of two distinct "alcoves," the southern of which is by
far the larger and deeper. The cave opens to the east, with the opening facing a small naturally enclosed
area, fanned by surrounding sandstone outcrops.
Archaeological remains at this cave consist of one pictograph and other traces of fugitive pigment. The
pictograph is a relatively large (circa 35 by 20 cm), purplish-pink portrayal of a burro. It is shown in
profile with the proportionally larger head and shorter legs of the donkey, as opposed to a horse. Minor
"runs" of pigment along the stomach line indicate that the motif was drawn with wet paint, rather than
having been dry applied.
This motif is located at the far (western) end of the southern alcove, on a back wall under a low ceiling. A
near vertical rock panel that is at eye level as one enters this alcove also has remnants of this same paint.
Although it is impossible to determine the intended form of this motif (graffiti has obscured much of it), it
is clear that it was painted with the same pigment as the burro, and that this was also wet applied. We
could find no additional evidence of painting in the cave.
Aside from the intact motif and pigment traces that we noted, no other archaeological remains of any kind
were observed at the cave. It lacks aboriginal artifacts, midden deposit, or even substantial fire-blackening
on the ceiling, any of which might signal aboriginal use. Likewise, the apron and immediately
surrounding area lacked any evidence of aboriginal or historical use.
Although some engraved graffiti is present at the site, the primary painted motif is intact. Given the
location of this site within an enclosed area of sandstone outcrops, no other impacts due to development
or use of the SSFL have occurred to the cave or its immediate surroundings.
SSFL-2: This site consists of a small cave/rockshelter whose walls are heavily fire-blackened (suggesting
that fires were built within the overhang). In addition, two pieces of quartzite lithic debitage (primary
flakes) were noted on the ground surface. The cave itself is high, with the ceiling estimated to be about 3
meters above modern ground surface. It is six meters wide at the dripline and three meters deep. A small,
high alcove is also located at the back of the cave. This is too small for most types of human use, and
currently contains a packrat nest. Often, however, these nests contain remnants of perishables (such as
baskets) stored in caves prehistorically. The cave opens to the south and is fronted by a pile of large
boulders, thereby placing it within a rocky area somewhat removed from development.
Site SSFL-2 appears to have served as a small prehistoric, ephemerally used specialized activity area. No
midden deposit was noted and there is no evidence to suggest that it was intensively or regularly used. In
part, this may reflect its distance from any natural water source.
SSFL-3: This is a single bedrock mortar (BRM) location. The BRM is shallow (<5 cm deep). While it
provides a clear indication of prehistoric plant --probably acorn --processing at this location, the small
size and singular nature of this mortar suggest that this was a casually rather than intensively used
location.
The BRM is located on a large (~1x2x3 m), open boulder sitting in front of a shallow overhang/sandstone
cliff face. When surveyed, the area in and surrounding the overhang were covered with vegetation, and
ground surface visibility was difficult. While it is possible that additional archaeological remains are
present at this location, given the ground surface cover, none could be located despite intensive
examination.
SSFL-3 is intact. Again, it is located in a rocky area of sandstone outcrops and thus away from the areas
of previous development and use.
SSEL-4: The last site discovered within Area 4 is a long but low rockshelter. The rockshelter is within an
area of sandstone outcrops. The shelter opens to the NE, and measures seven meters wide by 4.5 meters
deep by 1.5 meters high. The midden and the apron in front of it (covering a circumference of roughly 20
meters) contain a dark, organically enriched midden soil. We observed five manos/mano fragments within
and immediately in front of the shelter, lithic debitage and calcined animal bone. In addition, at least one
very deep bedrock mortar is present on exposed bedrock, at ground surface, in front of the shelter.
Additional BRMs and other artifacts may be present in or adjacent to the shelter. When examined during
the current study, however, much of the front and opening of the shelter were covered by a dense stand of
poison oak, making our investigation of it somewhat cursory.
This site, like the others found within Area 4, is located within a rocky series of bedrock outcrops. This
site was found to be heavily disturbed through looting. Roughly 75% or more of the midden deposit
within the shelter has been removed, down to bedrock. An old floor heater duct register, apparently used
as a kind of artifact sieve, has been left behind in the shelter, providing evidence that the deposit was
crudely screened when looted. The remnants of the midden deposit and depth of bedrock indicate that
approximately 35-40 cm of archaeological deposit were once present within the shelter.
The backdirt from this looting has been spread over the ground surface in front of the overhang. It may
cover intact archaeological deposit at the dripline and apron or, alternatively, it may be covering bedrock
at ground surface, including the possibility of additional BRMs. Regardless, the integrity of SSFL-4 has
been seriously compromised by this looting, which, most likely, occurred during the height of activities at
the SSFL during the late 1950s and 1960s.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
An intensive Class III Inventory I archaeological survey was conducted for the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory Area 4 study area, Ventura County, California. This involved background studies reviewing
the prehistory, ethnography and historical land-use of the study area; an archival records search to
determine whether any prehistoric or historical archaeological sites had been recorded or were known to
exist on this property; and an intensive on-foot survey of the study area.
Background studies failed to demonstrate existing knowledge of any prehistoric or ethnographic
occupation or use of the study area, per se, although well-known sites are located elsewhere on the SSFL.
The study area, however, had never been systematically surveyed by archaeologists.
Intensive survey of 100% of the 290 acres study area resulted in the identification and recording of four
archaeological sites. Each of these is located in rocky, undeveloped areas and is associated with a
rockshelter or cave. The nature and status of these sites are as follows:
SSFL-l consists of a rock painting of a pink burro on the back wall of a small sandstone cave. Although
there are traces of additional fugitive pigment of this same distinct color present on another wall in this
cave, no other associated archaeological remains (prehistoric, historical, aboriginal or Euro-American) of
any kind are present. The motif is clearly not prehistoric in age and is probably Euro-American as
opposed to Native American in origin. Whether this painting is historical, in the sense of being greater
than 50 years in age or instead contemporary is unknown although, minimally, evidence suggests that it is
40 or more years old. Its purpose and function are unknown, although it may in some fashion relate to the
name Burro Flats. Uncontrollable natural processes of exfoliation are rapidly destroying this painting.
Although these processes may take a few hundred years before the motif is entirely destroyed, there is no
existing conservation technology that, over the long term, can prevent the destruction of this motif.
SSFL-2 is another rockshelter exhibiting fire blackened walls and ceilings. Two pieces of lithic debitage
were observed on the ground surface of the shelter, although no midden deposit is present. The site
appears to represent a small special use area.
SSFL-3 is a single bedrock mortar, located on an open boulder adjacent to a rockshelter. No additional
archaeological remains have been found in association with this plant processing feature.
SSFL-4 is a low rockshelter that contains a midden deposit and bedrock mortar. We estimate that 75% or
more of this deposit has been destroyed by looting. This site probably served as a small habitation locale,
of unknown age. Because of the looting, however, the site currently lacks integrity.
5.2 Determinations of NRHP Eligibility and Effect
Evaluation of the significance of the cultural resources identified during the Class III inventory, and a
determination of the effect of the proposed project on these same resources, are based on an initial
determination of eligibility of these resources to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Such a
determination is based on the criteria required by and outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act,
sec. 101 (a), and Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4, respectively. As so defined, a cultural
property is eligible to the NRHP if it:
1.
is at least 50 years in age;
2. retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, feeling and association; and
3. also has one or more of the following characteristics:
a. association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or:
b. association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or:
c. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or:
d. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
The baseline for criterion (3.d) may generally be taken as the utility of a particular site in addressing
existing regional research designs and problems, as discussed previously.
The effect of the proposed action on cultural resources is then defined at Title 36 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 800.9. An action is said to have an effect on a property when the action may alter the
characteristics of a significant property that qualified it for the NRHP. An adverse effect is one that
diminishes a significant property's integrity through physical destruction, damage or alteration; or alters
or conflicts with the character of the property when such character is contributory to its inclusion in the
NRHP. An action has no effect when the criterion of effect is not met.
Site SSFL-I fails to meet the requirements of criterion (3) and it is uncertain whether it meets the age
criterion specified in (1). It is therefore determined not eligible to the NRHP.
SSFL-2 consists of a rockshelter and two pieces of lithic debitage. As such, it qualifies as a sparse lithic
scatter (ORP 1988). Based on a programmatic agreement between the federal government and the State of
California Office of Historic Preservation, sparse lithic scatters are considered categorically not eligible
for the NRHP.
SSFL-3 consists of a single bedrock mortar. As a single archaeological feature, it does not meet the
criteria of eligibility to the NRHP.
SSFL-4 is a rockshelter that once contained a potentially significant midden deposit Artifact looting
sometime in the past, however, has destroyed 75% or more of this deposit. The site currently lacks
integrity, based on this fact, and is therefore determined not eligible to the NRHP, due to its failure to
satisfy criterion (2).
The potential effect of the proposed project, consisting of the closure of SSFL Area 4 and the remediation
of potential environmental hazards contained therein, can then be assessed with reference to two
concerns. The first involves the physical actions resulting from the proposed project, and whether such
actions have the potential directly or indirectly impact cultural resources of any kind. The location of the
four archaeological sites identified during the Class III inventory Phase I survey in each case involves
rocky areas. None of these have been developed or used during the life of the Area 4 facility as a result of
their physical settings. Because of this fact, none of the four site areas will require specific remediation
actions. The proposed project, therefore, will have no effect on cultural resources of any kind within
Area 4.
Second, and reflecting specifically the legal concerns outlined above by reference to 36 CFR 800.9, none
of the four archaeological sites identified and recorded within the SSFL Area 4 study area have been
determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. Based on this fact, the proposed remediation and closure
project is determined to have no effect on significant cultural resources.
6.0 CITED REFERENCES
Aleahmad, L.
1990
Simi Valley: Towards New Horizons. Chatsworth, Windsor Press.
Anonymous
n.d.a
History of activities at SSFL. Typescript table.
n.d.b
SSFL History. Typescript table.
n.d.c
Untitled table of SSFL buildings with construction dates. Typescript table.
Applegate, R.
1975
An Index of Chumash Place Names. Papers on the Chumash. San Luis Obispo County
Archaeological Society Occasional Paper. San Luis Obispo.
Arnold, J.
1987
Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. University of California
Publications in Anthropology 18. Berkeley.
ATDSR
1991
Draft Preliminary Site Evaluation: Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County,
California. (http://www.atsdt.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/santa/san_toc.html)
Bancroft, H.H.
1963
History of California, Vol. 1, 1542-1800. Santa Barbara, Wallace Hebberd.
Barrows, D.P
1900
Ethno-Botany of the Cahuilla Indians. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Bean, L.J.
1972
Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, Univ. California
1978
Cahuilla. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. RF Heizer, ed.
pp. 575-587. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, L.J. and K.S. Saubel
1972
Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Morongo, Malki Museum.
Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith
1978a
Gabrielino. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. R. Heizer,
ed. pp. 538-549. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution.
1978b
Serrano. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. R. Heizer, ed.
pp. 570-574. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution.
Benedict, R.
1924
A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26:366-392.
Bolton, H.E.
1971
Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769-1774. New York, AMS
Press.
Boneau Companys, F.
1983
Gaspar de Portola: Explorer and Founder of California (trans. A. Brown). Lerida, Spain,
Instituto de Estudios Ilerdenses.
Brandes, R.
1970
The Costanso Narrative of the Porto16 Expedition: First Chronicle of the Spanish Conquest
of Alta California. Newhall, Hogarth Press.
Brown, A.K.
1967
The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. University a/California
Archaeological Survey Reports 69. Berkeley.
Cameron, J.S.
1956
Simi's First Farmer. Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly.
1963
Simi Grows Up: The Story of Simi, Ventura County, California. Los Angeles. Anderson,
Ritchie and Simon.
Clewlow, C.W., Jr., and M.R. Walsh
1999
Cultural Resource Assessment and Report on Archival Research, Surface Reconnaissance,
and Limited Subsurface Evaluation at Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura
County, California. Manuscript on file, CSUF AIC.
Crowe, E.
1957
Men of El Tejon: Empire in the Tehachapis. Los Angeles, Ward Ritchie Press.
Curtis, F.
1959
Arroyo Sequit: Archaeological Investigations of a Late Coastal Site in Los Angeles County,
California. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California, Paper No. 4.
Dakin, S.B.
1939
A Scotch Paisano in Old Los Angeles: Hugo Reid's Life in California, 1832-1852, Derived
from His Correspondence. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Dom, R.I.
1998
Rock Coatings. (Developments in Earth Surface Processes 6). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Dumke, G.S.
1944
The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, Huntington Library.
Eberhart, H.
1961
The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26:361-370.
Edberg, B.
1985
Shamans and Chiefs: Visions of the Future. In Earth and Sky: Papers from the Northridge
Conference on Archaeoastronomy, edited by A. Benson and T. Hoskinson, pp. 65-92.
Thousand Oaks, Slo'w Press.
Englehart, Z.
1927
San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley. Chicago, Franciscan Herald Press.
1930
The Missions and Missionaries of California, Volume ll: Upper California (2nd edition,
revised). Chicago, Franciscan Herald Press.
Erlandson, J.
1988
Of Millingstones and Mollusks: The Cultural Ecology of Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherers
on the California Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB.
Erlandson, J. and R. Colton, editors
1991
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1. UCLA.
Fenenga. F.
1973
Archaeological Survey of the Area of Air Force Plant 57, Coca Test Area, Santa Susana Field
Laboratory, Ventura County, California. Manuscript on file, CSUF AIC.
Francis, J.
200I
Style and Classification. In Handbook of Rock Art Research, ed. by D.S. Whitley, pp.221246. Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press.
Geiger,M.
1969
Franciscan Missionaries in Hispanic California, 1769-1848: A Biographical Dictionary. San
Marino, Huntington Library.
Grant, C.
1965
The Rock Paintings of the Chumash. Berkeley, University of California.
Havens, P.
1997
Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time. Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum, Simi
Valley.
Hobson, J.A.
1994
The Chemistry of Conscious States: Toward a Unified Model of the Brain and the Mind.
Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Hooper, L.
1920
The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology 16(6):315-380.
Johnson, J.
1988
Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB.
1997a
Chumash Indians in Simi Valley. In P. Havens, Simi Valley: A Journey Through Time, pp. 521. Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum, Simi Valley.
1997b
The Indians of Mission San Fernando. Southern California Quarterly LXXIX (3):249-290.
Johnson, K.L.
1966
Site LAN-2: A Late Manifestation of the Topanga Complex in Southern California
Prehistory. Anthropological Records 23. Berkeley.
Johnston, B.E.
1962
California's Gabrielino Indians. Los Angeles, Southwest Museum.
Jorgensen, L.C., editor
1982
The San Fernando Valley: Past and Present. Los Angeles, Pacific Rim Research.
King, C.D.
1981
The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System
Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Davis.
Kroeber. AL.
1908
Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2):29-68. Berkeley.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.
Washington, D.C.
Kowta, M.
1969
The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the
Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in
Anthropology, Volume 6. Berkeley.
Kuhn, Michael
n.d.a
Unpublished notes on Simi Valley place-names and trails.
n.d.b
H'I'M. Unpublished notes on this placename.
Landberg, L.
1965
The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers 19. Highland Park.
Leonard, N.N.
1971
Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C. to 1800 A.D.).
Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13: 93-136. UCLA.
Lewis-Williams, J. D. and TA Dowson
1988
The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Paleolithic Art. Current Anthropology
29: 201-245.
McIntyre, M.J.
1990
Cultural Resources of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties, California In Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity, edited
by B. Love and W. DeWitt, pp. 1-20. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Occasional
Paper No.2.
Meighan, CW.
1959
The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretation in
Archaeology. American Antiquity 24:383-405.
Moratto, M.
1984
California Archaeology. New York, Academic Press.
Muntz, P.A.
1974
A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley, University of California.
Nadeau, R.
1965
The City-Makers: The Story of Southern California's First Boom. Corona del Mar, TransAnglo Books. \
OHP
1998
Reid, H.
1968
California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse
Lithic Scatters: A Program for the Identification of an Archaeological Resource Class.
Sacramento, Office of Historic Preservation, State of California Resources Agency.
The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852 (ed. by R.F. Heizer).
Southwest Museum Papers No. 21. Highland Park.
Robinson, W. W.
1961
The Story of San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles, Title Insurance and Trust Company.
1981
Los Angeles From the Days of the Pueblo (Revised by D.B. Nunis, Jr.). Los Angeles,
California Historical Society.
Rogers, D.B.
1929
Prehistoric Man of the Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa
Barbara
Romani, J., G. Romani and D. Larson
1985
Archaeoastronomical Investigations at Burro Flats: Aspects of Ceremonialism at a Chumash
Rock Art and Habitation Site. In Earth and Sky: Papers from the Northridge Conference on
Archaeoastronomy, edited by A. Benson and T. Hoskinson, pp. 93-108. Thousand Oaks,
Slo'w Press.
Romani, J., D. Larson, G. Romani and A. Benson
1988
Astronomy, Myth, and Ritual in the West San Fernando Valley. In Visions of the Sky:
Archaeological and Ethnological Studies of California Indian Astronomy, edited by R.A.
Schiffman, pp. 109-134. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory, Number 16. Salinas,
CA.
Rowe, M.
2001
Dating by AMS Radiocarbon Analysis. In Handbook of Rock Art Research, ed. by D.S.
Whitley, pp. 139-166. Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press.
Rozaire, C.E.
1959
Pictographs at Burro Flats. Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly 4:2·6.
Salls, R.
1985
The Scraper Plane: A Functional Interpretation, Journal of Field Archaeology 12(1):99-106.
Sheridan, S.N.
1926
History of Ventura County, Volume I. Chicago, S.J. Clarke.
Strong, W.D.
1929
Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 26. Berkeley.
Thompson and West
1880
History of Los Angeles County, California with Illustrations Descriptive of Scenery,
Residences, Fine-Blocks and Manufactories. Oakland, CA.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION SURVEY
NORTHERN UNDEVELOPED LAND AT THE
SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY SITE
Simi Hills Area
Ventura County, California
For Submittal to:
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
Prepared for:
CDM Federal Services
555 17th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator
Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist
Terri Jacquemain, Historian
Daniel Ballester, Field Director
June 10, 2010
Revised August 11, 2010
Second Revision October 8, 2010
CRM TECH Contract No. 2433
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE INFORMATION
Author(s): Michael Hogan
Deirdre Encarnación
Terri Jacquemain
Daniel Ballester
With contributions by Rudy Ortega and Freddie Romero
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: June 10, 2010; Revised August 11, 2010; October 8, 2010
Title: Cultural Resources Identification Survey: Northern Undeveloped
Land at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Site, Simi Hills Area,
Ventura County, California
For Submittal to: United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-5000
Prepared for: CDM Federal Services
555 17th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 383-2300
USGS Quadrangle: Calabasas, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle; T2N R17-18W, San Bernardino
Base Meridian; within a portion of the Rancho Simi land grant
Project Size: Approximately 182 acres
Keywords: Coastal southern California; Phase I historical/archaeological
resources survey; Sites 56-001803 through 56-001805 and Isolates 56100471 through 56-100475; chipped stone and groundstone artifacts;
natural water cistern with rock shelter; Phase II archaeological
testing and evaluation program recommended if necessary
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between March and August 2010, at the request of CDM Federal Services, CRM TECH
performed a cultural resources identification survey on approximately 182 acres of
undeveloped land in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. The Area of
Potential Effects (APE), as delineated for this study, is the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) gamma walkover study area comprising the Northern
Undeveloped Land, located on the hillside overlooking the Santa Susana Field Laboratory
(SSFL) to the south, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the City of Simi Valley. It
encompasses a portion of the Rancho Simi land grant lying within T2N R17-18W, San
Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS Calabasas, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle. The
study is a part of the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act environmental
review process being implemented by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in
support of the closure of Area IV of the SSFL.
The purpose of the study is to provide the DOE and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with the necessary information to determine, in advance of the
EPA's proposed gamma walkover survey of the Northern Undeveloped Land, if that
survey could have an effect on any "historic properties," as defined by Section 106, that may
exist in or near the APE. The EPA's proposed survey encompasses all of Area IV and the
Northern Undeveloped Land. However, Area IV has been previously investigated for
cultural resources. Therefore, only the Northern Undeveloped Land will be addressed
during the current study.
In order to identify potential historic properties, CRM TECH conducted a historical/
archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, and
carried out a systematic field survey. During the field survey, three previously unknown
prehistoric—i.e., Native American—archaeological sites and five isolated prehistoric
artifacts were identified within the APE. The isolates, subsequently designated 56-100471
through 56-100475, consist of a total of four chipped-stone artifacts and one granite biface
mano, found at different locations within the APE. Such isolates, or localities with fewer
than three artifacts, by definition do not qualify as archaeological sites due to the lack of
contextual integrity. As such, they do not constitute potential historical properties, and
require no further consideration.
The sites, designated 56-001803 through 56-001805, include three scatters of lithic debitage,
one of which also features a natural water cistern. Due to the possible presence of
additional cultural materials in buried deposits, the significance of Sites 56-001803 through
56-001805—and their qualifications as historical properties under Section 106—cannot be
determined without further archaeological investigations, including subsurface testing. As
the best way to protect these potential historic properties, CRM TECH recommends that
the proposed gamma walkover survey plans within the APE take into account the presence
of Sites 56-001803 through 56-001805 and facilitate the preservation of the sites in situ, if
possible. Depending on the feasibility of in-situ preservation, the additional archaeological
investigations may or may not be necessary at these sites. All proposed undertakings or
projects that may arise any time in the future must also consider potential impacts to these
sites.
i
In order to ensure the proper protection of Sites 56-001803 through 56-001805 during the
proposed gamma walkover survey, CRM TECH recommends that an Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA) be designated at each site to avoid accidental disturbance of any
subsurface cultural deposits during surface and subsurface soil sampling operations. The
ESA should encompass the location of each site in its entirety, along with a 50-foot buffer
zone, and should be clearly demarcated with the assistance of a qualified archaeologist
prior to the commencement of such operations.
If the preservation of any of the three sites proves to be infeasible, CRM TECH
recommends that an appropriate archaeological testing and evaluation program be
completed at the site(s) to be impacted to ascertain its significance under Section 106
provisions. Further recommendations regarding the final disposition of the site(s) will be
formulated on the basis of the results of the testing and evaluation program.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
SETTING........................................................................................................................................ 3
Current Natural Setting ............................................................................................................ 3
Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................................... 4
Prehistoric Context................................................................................................................ 4
Ethnohistoric Context ........................................................................................................... 4
Regional Historic Context..................................................................................................... 7
Santa Susana Field Laboratory............................................................................................. 9
RESEARCH METHODS..............................................................................................................10
Records Search..........................................................................................................................10
Historical Background Research.............................................................................................10
Field Survey..............................................................................................................................10
RESULTS AND FINDINGS.........................................................................................................12
Records Search..........................................................................................................................12
Historical Background Research.............................................................................................15
Field Survey..............................................................................................................................16
Site 56-001803........................................................................................................................17
Site 56-001804........................................................................................................................17
Site 56-001805........................................................................................................................18
Isolate 56-100471...................................................................................................................18
Isolate 56-100472...................................................................................................................18
Isolate 56-100473...................................................................................................................18
Isolate 56-100474...................................................................................................................18
Isolate 56-100475...................................................................................................................18
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................19
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................19
Significance Criteria .................................................................................................................19
Evaluation.................................................................................................................................20
Isolates...................................................................................................................................20
Archaeological Sites .............................................................................................................20
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................20
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications.....................................................................................25
APPENDIX 2: Site and Isolate Locations (Confidential) ..........................................................30
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Project vicinity .............................................................................................................. 1
Area of Potential Effects .............................................................................................. 2
Typical landscapes within the APE ............................................................................ 3
Field survey coverage of the APE..............................................................................11
Previous cultural resources studies ...........................................................................14
The APE and vicinity in 1893-1901 ............................................................................16
The APE and vicinity in 1938 .....................................................................................16
Artifacts and archaeological features found in the APE..........................................17
Archaeological sensitivity within the APE ...............................................................22
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Scope of the Records Search .......13
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the Vicinity ..........................................15
Table 3. Archaeological Sites and Isolates Recorded during the Current Study...................16
iv
INTRODUCTION
Between March and June 2010, at the request of CDM Federal Services, CRM TECH
performed a cultural resources identification survey on approximately 182 acres of
undeveloped land in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California (Fig. 1). The Area of
Potential Effects (APE) delineated for the survey is located on the hillside overlooking the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) to the south, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
City of Simi Valley. It encompasses a portion of the Rancho Simi land grant lying within
T2N R17-18W, San Bernardino Base Meridian, as depicted in the USGS Calabasas, Calif.,
7.5' quadrangle (Fig. 2). The study is a part of the Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act environmental review process being implemented by the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) in support of the closure of Area IV of the SSFL.
The purpose of the study is to provide the DOE and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with the necessary information to determine, in advance of the
EPA's proposed gamma walkover survey of the Northern Undeveloped Land, if that
survey could have an effect on any "historic properties," as defined by Section 106, that may
exist in or near the APE. In order to identify such properties, CRM TECH conducted a
historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research,
and carried out a systematic field survey. The following report is a complete account of the
methods and results of the various avenues of research, and the final conclusion of the
study.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Los Angeles, Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1975])
1
2
Figure 2. Area of Potential Effects. (Based on USGS Calabasas and Simi Valley East, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1967; 1969])
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The APE is located on the rugged hillside near the crest of the Simi Hills between the Simi
and San Fernando Valleys, bounded by the Brandeis-Bardin Institute on the northnorthwest, Runkle Canyon on the southwest, and the SSFL facilities on the south-southeast.
Conceptually, the APE can be divided into eastern and western portions with a small
junction connecting the two (Fig. 2).
Monitoring wells and dirt access roads are found in both portions of the property and
several large drainages traverse the steep and rocky terrain. Large sandstone outcrops,
heavily eroded by wind and water, were observed throughout the APE. The entire APE
was burned by wildfire in 2005, but the vegetation has recovered substantially.
Chaparral/oak woodland is the dominant vegetation community, featuring such plants as
oak, poison oak, wild cucumber, sages, elderberry, chia, sunflowers, flat-top buckwheat,
and various other shrubs and grasses (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Typical landscapes within the APE, showing dense vegetation, steep slopes, and bedrock outcrops.
Top left: facing east in the northwest portion of the APE; top right: southwest across a large drainage;
bottom left: west across the APE; bottom right: in the northeast portion, view to the southeast. (Photos
taken on April 19-21, 2010)
3
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
It is widely acknowledged that human occupation in what is now the State of California
began 8,000-12,000 years ago, or even earlier. In order to understand Native American
cultures before European contact, archaeologists have devised chronological frameworks
that endeavor to correlate the observable technological and cultural changes in the
archaeological record to distinct periods of time. Several schemes have been developed for
southern California, oftentimes based on a particular site or area that is being investigated.
However, at the general level, most archaeologists tend to follow a chronology adapted
from a scheme developed by William J. Wallace in 1955 and subsequently modified by
others. Although the beginning and ending dates of the different horizons or periods may
vary, the general framework of prehistory in this region under this chronology consists of
the following periods:
•
•
•
•
•
The Late Pleistocene Period (pre-10000 B.C.), is considered the earliest period of time
that people would have inhabited southern California and is also characterized as the
"Early Man" and "Big Game Hunting" period with its end roughly coinciding with the
end of the Pleistocene Epoch;
Early Hunting Stage (ca. 10000-6000 B.C.), which was characterized by human reliance
on big game animals, as evidenced by large, archaic-style projectile points and the
relative lack of plant-processing artifacts;
Millingstone/"Intermediate" Horizon (ca. 6000 B.C.-A.D. 1000), when plant foods and
small game animals came to the forefront of subsistence strategies, and from which a
large number of millingstones, especially heavily used, deep-basin metates, were left;
Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500), during which a more complex social
organization, a more diversified subsistence base—as evidenced by smaller projectile
points, expedient milling stones and, later, pottery—and regional cultures and tribal
territories began to develop;
Protohistoric Period (ca. A.D. 1500-1700s), which ushered in long-distance contact with
Europeans and led to the historic period.
Evidence of lifeways during these prehistoric periods is mostly gleaned and hypothesized
through interpretations of the archaeological record. In general, the prehistory of southern
California, especially coastal southern California, is thought to have been one of increasing
populations and increasing social complexity. People adapted to changing environmental
conditions and used and developed technologies to better exploit the resources to survive
and maintain their culture. As populations increased, societies had to develop ways to deal
with the extensive numbers of people, in their own group as well as outsiders.
Ethnohistoric Context
Systematic studies of Native Americans in southern California did not occur until the late
1800s or early 1900s and later. Thus, much of what is known about the Native American
cultures in southern California comes from interviews with people discussing what they
remembered about their childhood and what they remembered their fathers and
grandfathers telling them about earlier ways of life. By talking with many people and by
researching early—mostly Spanish—documents, and by reviewing the archaeological
4
record, ethnographers have put together a picture of many aspects of Native American
culture of at least the Late Prehistoric and the Protohistoric periods.
Based on numerous sources of information, the APE lies in an area where the traditional
territories of the Chumash and the Gabrielino/Tongva, and probably the Tataviam,
adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and
Protohistoric periods. The homeland of the Chumash was primarily the coastal region
from Morro Bay in the north to Malibu Canyon in the south, including the Santa Barbara
Channel Islands, and inland to the San Joaquin and Simi Valleys (Grant 1978a). The
homeland of the Gabrielino/Tongva was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, along the coast
from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, reaching as far east as the San
Bernardino-Riverside area (Bean and Smith 1978). The Tataviam held a smaller territory
along the upper Santa Clara River drainage, primarily on the south-facing slopes of the
Liebre and Sawmill mountains (King and Blackburn 1978), but they also used and
inhabited the area of the APE.
The establishment of five Spanish missions, from 1772 to 1804, began a rapid decline of
indigenous cultures and customs, and by the early 1800s virtually all of the Chumash
population had been incorporated into the mission system (Grant 1978a). Presently,
although the Chumash occupied a large territory and resource base, most of the available
information describing the Chumash people and lifeways primarily deals with the coastal
and island populations (Grant 1978a; King 1981).
The aboriginal environment afforded the Chumash a rich resource base. Their subsistence
patterns included the gathering of plants and hunting of land animals, but were based
more on marine resources. The consistent procurement of fish and marine mammals, as
well as the movement of cargo and people to and from the Channel Islands, was enabled
by the tomol, or plank canoe (Gamble 2002). The Chumash and the Gabrielino/Tongva are
the only North American Indian tribes known to construct and use the plank canoe prior to
European contact (Gamble 2002). Other material culture produced by the Chumash
included steatite and sandstone bowls, mortars and pestles, basketry, and strings of shell
money made from Olivella shells and Pismo clam shells (Grant 1978b; Romero 2010).
Pre-contact population estimates range from 8,000 to 20,000, scattered among an estimated
26 to 46 villages (Grant 1978a). The Chumash had at least six distinct languages, all
belonging to the Hokan language family (Kroeber 1925; Grant 1978a). A decline in
population began under Spanish rule (1769-1822) and continued through the Mexican and
early American Periods (Kroeber 1925; Grant 1978a). Although many organized bands of
Chumash descendants exist today throughout southern and central California, only the
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is federally recognized (Santa Ynez Band of
Chumash Indians 2010).
While there is little direct information in ethnographic literature about the Simi Hills area,
it is known to have also been frequented also by the Gabrielino/Tongva, a Takic-speaking
people who were among the most populous, wealthiest, and therefore most powerful
ethnic nationality in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978:538).
Unfortunately, most Gabrielino/Tongva cultural practices had declined long before
systematic ethnographic studies were instituted. Today, the leading ethnographic sources
5
on Gabrielino/Tongva culture are Bean and Smith (1978), Miller (1991), and McCawley
(1996), on which most of the following discussion is based.
According to the archaeological record, the Gabrielino/Tongva were not the first
inhabitants of the present-day Los Angeles region. Evidence suggests they may have
arrived as early as the Middle Holocene, replacing or inter-marrying with indigenous
Hokan speakers (Howard and Raab 1997; Porcasi 1998). By the time of European contact,
the Gabrielino/Tongva influence had spread as far as the San Joaquin Valley, the Colorado
River, and Baja California.
In equilibrium with the natural environment, different groups of the Gabrielino/Tongva
adopted different types of subsistence economy, albeit all based on some combination of
gathering, hunting, and/or fishing. The coastal groups relied primarily on the abundant
marine resources available, while in the inland areas, the predominant food sources were
acorns, sage, deer, and various small animals, including birds. Because of the similarities
to other southern California tribes in economic activities, inland Gabrielino/Tongva
groups' industrial arts, dominated by basket weaving, demonstrated no substantial
difference from those of their neighbors. Coastal Gabrielino/Tongva material culture, on
the other hand, reflected an elaborately developed artisanship most recognized through the
medium of steatite.
The intricacies of Gabrielino/Tongva social organization are not well known, although
there is evidence indicating the existence of a moiety system in which various clans
belonged to one or the other of two main social/cultural divisions. There also seems to
have existed at least three hierarchically ordered social classes, topped with an elite
consisting of the chiefs, their immediate families, and the very rich. Some individuals
owned land, and property boundaries were marked by the owner's personalized symbol.
Villages were politically autonomous, composed of nonlocalized lineages, each with its
own leader. The dominant lineage's leader was usually the village chief, whose office was
generally hereditary through the male line. Often several villages were allied under the
leadership of a single chief. The villages were frequently engaged in warfare against one
another, resulting in what some consider to be a state of constant enmity between coastal
and inland Gabrielino/Tongva groups.
As early as 1542, the Gabrielino/Tongva were in contact with the Spanish during the
historic expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, but it was not until the late 1700s that the
Spaniards took steps to colonize Gabrielino/Tongva territory. Shortly afterwards, most of
the Gabrielino/Tongva people were incorporated into Mission San Gabriel and other
missions in southern California. Due to introduced diseases, dietary deficiencies, and
forceful reduction, Gabrielino/Tongva population dwindled rapidly. By 1900, they had
almost ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group. In recent decades, however, there
has been a renaissance of Native American activism and cultural revitalization among a
number of groups of Gabrielino/Tongva descendants.
Mr. Rudy Ortega, a member of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, notes
that the social and cultural ties and organization of the lineages established in the premission period continued through the mission period from 1797 to 1846. While living at
San Fernando Mission, the Tataviam ancestors adapted to mission life, nominally accepted
Christianity, learned and took up new work skills within the mission economy, retained
6
their traditional languages, and maintained many aspects of traditional social, ceremonial,
and political life within the mission (Ortega 2010).
Mr. Ortega further states that the Fernandeño village in the APE is indentified as Jucjauynga
had seventy-six tribal members that were baptized during the period of recruitment from
San Fernando Mission. The Fernandeños are defined Indians who were baptized in
Mission San Fernando, and their descendants. The Indians who accepted baptism at the
mission were composed of several language groups including the Chumash, Serrano or
Kitanemuk, Tataviam, and western Tongva or Gabrielino. A small number of other
Indians were also baptised at the mission between 1799 and 1855. Except for the Chumash,
the other language groups are related and scholarship indicated they had interrelated
cultures and political relations. Mr. Ortega also notes that the languages among the
Kitanemuk, Tataviam, and Tongva are variations within the Takic language family, but
while they shared similar language heritage, they did not share a common political
identity. The famous California anthropologist Alfred Kroeber suggests that the Takic
speaking Indians of the region were organized into tribelets, or small lineages, that held
territory, controlled water, maintained local sovereignty, and had recognition from other
surrounding groups. While villages can be corporate entities, according to Kroeber this is
not the case for the Takic, and Chumash, peoples in the San Fernando region. Lineages or
local groups of extended families were the primary functional political and cultural
groupings. Takic villages were primarily kinship groups, that villages could move around
according to need, and they were often identified by kinship group (Ortega 2010).
Regional Historic Context
Spanish colonization activities in the Los Angeles-Ventura-Santa Barbara region began
officially in 1771, with the establishment of Mission San Gabriel in what is now Montebello.
Ten years later, in an effort to ease dependence on the mission, the Spanish governor of
Alta California recruited several dozen poor farmers from Mexico to take up residence on a
patch of land later to be known as Los Angeles (Bean and Rawls 1988:33). Shortly after
that, in March 1782, Mission San Buenaventura, the first non-Native settlement in presentday Ventura County, was founded by Fransciscan friar Junipero Serra and named after St.
Bonaventure, a 13th century theologian (Gudde 1998:410).
Settlement in the Los Angeles-Ventura-Santa Barbara region was encouraged by the
Spanish colonial government's concession of vast tracts of land, or ranchos, to soldiers set
to retire from service (Ethington 2005). In present-day Ventura County, these included the
enormous 113,009-acre Rancho Simi, formally Rancho San José de Nuestra Senora de Altagarcia
y Simi, which was granted to the Pico brothers in 1795. After Mexico gained independence
from Spain in 1822, the land grant was confirmed by the Mexican authorities in 1842. With
the U.S. annexation of Alta California in 1848, it was again confirmed by the U.S. Public
Land Commission in 1852.
American settlers flooded California during the second half of the 19th century, partly due
to the discovery of gold and other precious metals in the Sierra Nevada in 1848, which
increased demand for beef and other cattle products throughout the state. Cattle raising
was a wildly lucrative business that provided the scaffolding for the economic and social
growth and formed the basis for private property development in most of southern
California during the early decades of the American period, just as it did in the Spanish
and Mexican Periods. In 1861, a post office was established for the small town that had
7
formed around Mission San Buenaventura, and the name was eventually shortened to
simply "Ventura" (Gudde 1998:410). In 1872, it became the county seat of newly created
Ventura County, formerly a part of Santa Barbara County (Gudde 1998:410.).
The Southern Pacific Railway reached southern California in 1876, followed by the
competing Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1883-1885. The completion of the
two transcontinental railways, particularly the latter, provided a new catalyst for economic
development in southern California, based in land sales, and naturally, transport. Towns
by the dozens sprang up all around Los Angeles, refining the transportation corridors and
commuting patterns that took shape as suburban development spread rapidly outward.
The first rail line across Ventura County, the Coast Line branch of the Southern Pacific
Railway, was completed in 1888 (Storke 1891:183-194).
Closer to the APE, Rancho Simi was acquired around 1860 by U.S. Senator Thomas A.
Scott, who later headed the Pennsylvania Railroad (Press Reference Library 1915:164;
Murphy 1979:27-29). Scott invested in the land as a speculative bid based on oil reports in
the region, but was later forced to lease it for farming and sheep ranching when no
substantial oil reserves were found (Murphy 1979:27-29). After Scott died in 1881, his
agent, Thomas R. Bard, remembered today as a state senator, Ventura County organizer,
and "Father of Point Hueneme," formed the Simi Land and Water Company to create a new
town on 96,000 acres of Rancho Simi land (Columbia Encyclopedia 2008; W&S Consultants
2001:28). Land sales commenced and the neophyte town was given the cosmopolitan name
of "Simiopolis," which ultimately gave way to "Simi Valley" (Columbia Encyclopedia 2008;
W&S Consultants 2001:28). Although sales reached 23,260 acres by 1891, the buyers
apparently tended to be ranchers or speculators, leaving the area largely unoccupied (W&S
Consultants 2001:28).
Further subdivision of the land in the early 20th century spurred some residential growth,
the most notably example being Mortimer Ranch, a 1,787-acre housing development laid
out in 1927, which became the basis of today's community of Santa Susana Knolls, located
adjacent to the north of the SSFL (W&S Consultants 2001:29). Yet agriculture dominated
eastern Ventura County well into the mid-20th century, as the steep valleys and rugged
terrain of the Santa Monica Mountains provided the interior county communities with a
natural barrier from Los Angeles County.
As roads improved and expanded, however, more former Angelinos became Ventura
County residents, especially after U.S. Highway 101 reached freeway speed in the 1960s
making the commute to Los Angeles more convenient. As a result, suburbanization
accelerated throughout the county, but particularly in the eastern portion, where housing
and land were more affordable for the working class.
The exponential growth of Simi Valley and the surrounding region in the latter half of the
20th century is easily illustrated by increases in population. Although the town's
population more than doubled between 1950 and 1960, from around 3,000 to over 8,000, the
growth was still light in terms of total population. By 1970, the year after Simi Valley
incorporated as a city, the population count reached 59,250, an increase of more than 600%.
As of May 2010, the population was estimated at 126,322, within city limits that encompass
42 square miles (City of Simi Valley 2010). Once characterized as a commuter bedroom
community, Simi Valley has since established an individual identity through residential,
8
commercial, and civic development, and has been consistently named one of the "Safest
Cities in America."
Santa Susana Field Laboratory
At the onset of World War II, and in the midst of a massive defense build-up, Los Angeles
became a center for the production of aircraft, ammunitions, and other war supplies.
Owing in part to its favorable weather, Los Angeles attracted such aviation titans as
Donald Douglas, the founder of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, who began
production in Santa Monica, and the Lockheed Aircraft Company (now Lockheed Martin)
did the same in Burbank, while North American Aviation (NAA) set up shop in Inglewood
(Ethington 2005).
The SSFL is jointly owned by The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), with all land operated by Boeing. The property is
divided into four administrative areas (Areas I, II, III, and IV) and areas of undeveloped
land to both the north and south. Areas I, III, and IV and the undeveloped land are owned
by Boeing. Area II is owned by NASA. Ninety acres of Area IV were leased to the DOE to
conduct a broad range of energy-related research and development. The undeveloped
lands of the SSFL have never been used for industrial activities.
Prior to development, the land at the SSFL was used for ranching. During 1948 North
American Aviation (NAA) began using (by lease) what is now known as the northeastern
portion, or Area I of the SSFL. Starting in 1948, activities at SSFL included research,
development, and testing of liquid-fueled rocket engines and associated components such
as pumps and valves. The majority of the SSFL was acquired with the purchase of the
Silvernale property in 1954, and development of the western portion of the SSFL began
soon after. Undeveloped land parcels to the south of the SSFL were acquired during 1968
and 1976 and to the north during 1998. No site-related operations were conducted in these
undeveloped portions of the SSFL. Boeing acquired the property in 1998.
The majority of rocket engine testing and ancillary support operations occurred from the
1950s through the early 1970s. These were conducted by Rocketdyne in Areas I and III in
support of various government space programs and in Area II on behalf of NASA. Rocket
engine testing frequency decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, and ceased in 2006. In
addition to the primary facility operation of rocket engine testing, the SSFL was used for
research, development, and testing of water jet pumps, lasers, and liquid metal heat
exchanger components, and research and development of related technologies.
Nuclear energy research, testing, and support facilities were located within the 90-acre
portion of Area IV that was leased to DOE and designated as the Energy Technology
Engineering Center (ETEC). Atomics International (AI), a division of NAA, and
Rocketdyne conducted operations on behalf of DOE, with operations occurring primarily
from the 1954 through the 1980s. DOE and its predecessor agencies sponsored nuclear
energy research and energy development projects within Area IV of the SSFL. The research
and energy development activities included nuclear energy operations (development,
fabrication, disassembly, and examination of nuclear reactors, reactor fuel, and other
radioactive materials) and large-scale liquid sodium metal experiments for testing liquid
metal fast breeder reactor components.
9
Nuclear energy research activities within Area IV ceased in 1988 when DOE terminated all
nuclear programs. DOE then shifted its focus to facility decontamination and demolition
(D&D), and environmental cleanup.
RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On March 23, 2010, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo (see App. 1 for qualifications)
conducted the historical/archaeological resources records search at the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The SCCIC, located on the campus of the California
State University, Fullerton, is the State of California's official cultural resource records
repository for the Counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange, and a part of the
California Historical Resource Information System, established and maintained under the
auspices of the Office of Historic Preservation.
During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the SCCIC for
previously identified cultural resources in or near the APE and existing cultural resources
reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified cultural resources include
properties designated as California Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest, as
well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Terri Jacquemain, CRM TECH Historian (see App. 1 for qualifications), conducted the
historical background research on the basis of published literature in local/regional history
and historic maps of the vicinity. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) topographic maps dated 1903 and 1941-1944, which are
collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside.
FIELD SURVEY
On April 19-21, 2010, CRM TECH Field Director Daniel Ballester (see App. 1 for
qualifications) carried out the systematic, on-foot field survey of the APE with project
archaeologists Robert Porter, Evan Mills, and Will Jenson. CRM TECH Principal
Investigator Michael Hogan joined the crew on April 19. Utilizing a hand-held GPS unit,
the field personnel established project boundaries before commencing the survey work.
Some areas were surveyed at an intensive level by walking parallel transects spaced 10-15
meters (approx. 33-50 feet) apart, including small area of level terrain in the eastern portion
of the APE, just above a large drainage (Fig. 4). Other areas were surveyed at a
reconnaissance level due to the dense vegetation, including poison oak and thick stands of
brush, and rugged and steep terrain (Figs. 3, 4). As part of the reconnaissance-level survey,
all ridges, drainages, hilltops, and saddles were inspected, and sandstone outcrops were
closely examined for any evidence of bedrock milling features, potential rock shelters,
caches of artifacts, and rock art. The crew attempted, within reason, to reach all areas
10
Figure 4. Field survey coverage of the APE.
11
where human activity may have occurred. Steep slopes with either loose soil or rock faces,
as well as areas of impenetrable brush, were not surveyed.
Using these methods, the APE was systematically inspected and all reasonable effort was
made to examine the property for any evidence of human activities dating to the
prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years ago or older). Ground visibility was poor (010%) throughout much the APE because of the dense vegetation. However, there were
numerous areas where the vegetation was not so thick, as well as areas of bedrock outcrops
that could be inspected for evidence human use.
When artifacts and/or features were discovered during the survey, their locations were
marked with survey flags and entered into the handheld GPS unit. Upon completion of the
survey, the artifacts and/or features were re-visited, photographed, and mapped. An
appropriate level of recordation was completed on all archaeological resources identified
through the survey efforts. Following guidelines established by the Office of Historic
Preservation and common archaeological practices, localities with fewer than three artifacts
were recorded as isolates.
Field recordation included a description of the resource and a location map for all finds,
while scaled sketch maps were also produced for locations with more extensive
archaeological remains. The field maps and descriptions were then compiled into standard
site record forms and submitted to the SCCIC for assignment of permanent record numbers
and inclusion in the California Historical Resources Information System.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to SCCIC records, the APE had not been surveyed systematically for cultural
resources prior to this study, and no cultural resources had been recorded on or
immediately adjacent to the property. Outside the APE but within a one-mile radius,
SCCIC records show at least 26 previous cultural resources studies on various tracts of land
and linear features (Table 1), including one that may have involved a small sliver of land in
the northwest corner of the APE (Fig. 5).
As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, 32 historical/archaeological
sites and 3 isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—were previously
recorded within the scope of the records search as listed in Table 2. None of these
previously recorded sites or isolates was located immediately adjacent to the APE, and thus
none of them requires further consideration during this study.
Fifteen of the sites listed in Table 2 have been combined into a new site, 56-001072, the
Burro Flats Painted Cave site, located in Area II, approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the
current APE. The Burro Flats Painted Cave site, as currently recorded, is located along the
left (northern) bank of the northernmost fork of Bell Creek, a major drainage, on relatively
level ground. The site consists of several elaborate rock art panels, areas of midden soil,
milling features, rock shelters, a network of paths worn in the sandstone exposures, cupule
rocks, and other evidence of habitation.
12
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Scope of the Records Search
Number
VN-00028
Author/Date
Rosen 1975
VN-00211
Fenenga 1973
VN-00280
Kuhn 1980
VN-00389
VN-00571
Pence 1978
McDowell 1987
VN-00696
VN-00714
McDowell 1987
Van Horn 1980
VN-00845
Lopez 1975
VN-00924
Whitley and Simon 1990
VN-00968
W & S Consultants
VN-01027
VN-01058
VN-01089
VN-01174
Romani, Larson,
Romani, & Benson 1988
Rozaire 1959
Edberg
Romani, Romani, and
Larson
Redfeldt 1979
LaMonk
Bissell 1989
VN-01178
Whitley and Simon 1992
VN-01406
Knight 1993
VN-01446
VN-01818
Gutman et al. 1970
Clewlow and Walsh
1999
VN-02239
King and Parsons 1999
VN-02480
Whitley 2001
VN-02607
Craft and Mustain 2007
VN-02611
Craft and Mustain 2007
VN-02711
Emmick et al. 2008
VN-01039
VN-01051
VN-01052
Title
Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources and Potential Impact of
Proposed Widening and Realignment of the Ventura Freeway
(Federal Highway 101), Ventura County
An Archaeological Survey of the Area of Air Force Plant 57, Coca Test
Area, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, Calif.
Response Letter of April 21, 1980 Map of Simi Valley Showing the
Areas Which Have Been Surveyed
Archaeological Assessment of TT 3045, Simi Valley, California
Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cerwin Ranch
Development for Conditional Use Permit Number CUP-440
Archaeological Reconnaissance and Test of TT 3045, Simi Valley
Archaeological Survey Report: The Ventura County Portion of the
Las Virgenes Ranch
An Archaeological Survey of the Southern Pacific Milling Company's
Runkle Canyon Gravel Quarry Lease, Simi Valley, Ventura County,
California
Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Resource Assessment of the
Rancho Pacifica Property, Runkle Ranch, City of Simi Valley, Ventura
County, California
Phase II Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-VEN-1018, Simi
Valley, Ventura County, California
Astronomy, Myth, and Ritual in the West San Fernando Valley
Pictographs at Burro Flats
Shamans and Chiefs: Visions of the Future
Astronomical Investigations at Burro Flats: Aspects of Ceremonialism
at a Chumash/Gabrielino Rock Art and Habitation Site
Prehistoric Indian Rock Art of California
Pictograph Cave Burro Flats
Cultural Resources Summary of the Ahmanson Ranch Property, 5500
Acres in Ventura County, California
Phase I Archaeological Survey and Assessment of Two Areas of
Unauthorized Grading on the Czerwinski Portion of the Runkle
Ranch Specific Plan Area, Simi Valley, Ventura County, Calif.
Recent Investigations at Burro Flats (CA-VEN-1072), Ventura County,
California
UCAS-271 Site Sheets for Santa Monica Mountains Rockshelters
Cultural Resource Assessment and Report on Archival Research,
Surface Reconnaissance, and Limited Subsurface Evaluation at
Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, Calif.
Archaeological Record of Settlement an Activity in the Simi Hills
Malu'liwini
Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Santa
Susana Field Laboratory Area 4, Ventura County, California
Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison
Company Big Rock 16kv Reconductor O&M Project, Ventura County,
California
Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison
Company Energy Circuit 16kv Reconductor O/O Chatsworth Sub
Dsp Project, Ventura County, California
Cultural resources Inventory of Santa Susana Field Laboratory,
NASA Areas I and II, Ventura County, California
13
14
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the APE, listed by SCCIC file number. Locations of historical/archaeological sites
are not shown as a protective measure.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search
Number
56-000151*
56-000152*
56-000153*
56-000154*
56-000155*
56-000156*
56-000157*
56-000158*
56-000159*
56-000160*
56-000161*
56-000683
56-000763
56-000731
56-000732
56-000733
56-000763
56-000764
56-001017
56-001050
56-001065*
56-001066*
56-001067*
56-001068*
56-001072
Recorded by/Date
Rozaire 1959
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Rozaire 1960
Kuhn 1980
Kuhn 1981
Kuhn et al. 1981
Kuhn et al. 1981
Kuhn 1981
Kuhn 1982
Kuhn 1982
Whitley 1990
Knight and Stickle 1991
Knight and Krupp 1991
Knight and Stickle 1991
Knight and Krupp 1991
Knight 1991
N/A
56-001119
56-001772
56-001773
56-001774
56-001775
56-001800
56-100135
56-100140
56-100198
56-152837
Knight 1993
Whitley 2001
Whitley 2001
Whitley 2001
Whitley 2001
Bard 2007
Whitley 1990
Knight 1991
Craft and Mustain 2007
Craft and Mustain 2007
Description
Midden deposit
Midden, pictographs
Midden, pictographs
Midden, mortars, petroglyphs
Petroglyphs
Pictograph, rock shelter
Pictograph, rock shelter
Pictograph, rock shelter
Pictograph, rock shelter
Pictograph, rock shelter
Pictograph, rock shelter
Quartzite flakes
Rock shelter with lithic and groundstone
Rock shelter with associated artifacts
Rock shelter with associated artifacts
Rock shelter
Rock shelter
Rock shelter with midden
Lithic quarry/workshop
Rock shelter with pendant and chipped-stone artifacts
Two rock shelters with midden and associated artifacts
Rock shelter with pictograph panel
Prehistoric trail
Rock shelter and three bedrock milling stations
Burro Flats Painted Cave site (formerly Sites 56-000151 through 56000161 and 56-001065 through 56-001068)
Bedrock milling station with two mortars and a cupule
Cave with historic-period painting
Rock shelter with associated artifacts
Single bedrock mortar
Rock shelter with midden and associated artifacts
Rock shelter with associated artifacts
Isolate: quartzite scraper plane
Isolate: chert core
Isolate: vessel rim sherd
Historic-period laboratory building
* Combined into Site 56-001072
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical maps consulted for this study (Figs. 6, 7) suggest that the APE is relatively low in
sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic period. Around the turn of the 20th
century, no man-made features of any kind were observed in or near the APE in the Simi
Hills (Fig. 6). Forty years later, while a few isolated buildings, probably farmsteads, were
scattered nearby, and a winding dirt road crossed the western tip of the APE, no evidence
of any settlement or land development activities was noted within or adjacent to the APE
(Fig. 7). Despite the establishment of the SSFL on adjacent land shortly after that, the entire
APE has evidently remained relatively vacant and undeveloped to the present time.
15
Figure 6. The APE and vicinity in 1893-1901.
(Source: USGS 1903a; 1903b)
Figure 7. The APE and vicinity in 1938. (Source:
USGS 1941; 1944)
FIELD SURVEY
During the field survey, all accessible areas were surveyed for cultural resources, and areas
of potential human use were inspected. As a result, eight previously unknown
archaeological sites and isolates, subsequently designated 56-001803 through 56-001805 and
56-100471 through 56-100475 by the SCCIC, were identified and recorded within the APE
(Table 3; Fig. 8), all of which are predominantly of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—
origin. These sites and isolates are discussed in further detail below, and a confidential
map showing their locations in the APE is presented in Appendix 2. Additionally, a
known, potential rock shelter was visited. As with other potential rock shelters and cache
areas in the APE, no evidence of prehistoric use could be found. A rock wall in front of the
opening of the rock shelter, thought to be historical in age, was determined otherwise
through closer examination. Therefore, that feature was not recorded.
Table 3. Archaeological Sites and Isolates Recorded during the Current Study
Number
56-001803
56-001804
56-001805
56-100471
56-100472
56-100473
56-100474
56-100475
Description
Lithic scatter
Lithic scatter
Lithic scatter with natural water cistern
Isolate: quartzite shatter
Isolate: quartzite flake
Isolate: quartzite core
Isolate: quartzite flake
Isolate: biface mano fragment
16
Eligibility to NRHP
Undeterminable at this time
Undeterminable at this time
Undeterminable at this time
No
No
No
No
No
Figure 8. Artifacts and archaeological features found in the APE. Clockwise from upper left: natural water
cistern at Site 56-001805; quartzite flake at Isolate 56-100472; quartzite flake at site 56-001806; adorned
metal fragment at Site 56-001804.
Site 56-001803
A total of seven chipped-stone artifacts, including four flakes and three cores, were
observed at this small lithic reduction site. The artifacts were made from two types of
quartzite material, one reddish gray in color and the other grayish tan. All three cores were
multidirectional and made from quartzite of poor quality. The four flakes have all been
identified as secondary reduction flakes. There are no bedrock milling features or rock
shelters nearby. The site area is covered with dense vegetation growth, and disturbance by
natural erosion and wildfires is minimal.
Site 56-001804
Site 56-001804 consists of a small lithic reduction area located near a natural drainage, at
the foot of a large north-facing slope near the northern boundary of the APE. A spring is
located approximately 50 m to the northeast of the site. Four chipped-stone artifacts made
from quartzite were found at the site, including three secondary flakes and one
multidirectional core. A few metal fragments, apparently from a cast-iron stove that may
have been historical in origin, were also noted at the northern end of the site. The area is
covered with thick vegetation, and has been minimally disturbed by natural erosion,
wildfires, and horses observed grazing in the area.
17
Site 56-001805
Located on top of a sandstone outcrop, Site 56-001805 features a large natural water cistern
that measures approximately 7 x 2 x 3 m in size. At the time of the survey, the cistern was
filled with water, with small freshwater shrimp living at the bottom. A prehistoric lithic
scatter is located at the base of the boulder, adjacent to the sandstone outcrop, suggesting
that the cistern was likely used by Native people during prehistoric times.
The lithic scatter measures approximately 12 x 8 m in area, and contains a total of 12
chipped-stone artifacts, including 1 core and 11 flakes, all of them of quartzite material.
The area is covered with dense vegetation, which limits ground visibility. Disturbances are
minimal, caused mainly by natural erosion, wildfires, and animal activities.
A small dam, measuring 3 ft wide and 8 in high, has been created at the northern end of the
cistern using local rocks and modern concrete. It appears that the cistern would hold water
with or without the dam. On the east side of the cistern, an overhang in the rock formation
created a small shelter that is about 4 m wide, 3 m deep and 1.5 m high (Fig. 7).
Isolate 56-100471
This isolate consists of a dark gray quartzite shatter, measuring 2.4 x 1.4 x 1.1 cm in size.
The artifact was found in an area of dense vegetation growth.
Isolate 56-100472
This isolate consists of a single quartzite flake, found roughly 135 m southwest of Site 56001803. The flake measures approximately 4.9 x 3.4 x 1.9 cm in size, and was also found in
an area of dense vegetation growth.
Isolate 56-100473
A single core fashioned from a blue-gray quartzite cobble was recorded at this location. It
measures 10.7 x 10.4 x 8.7 cm in size, and exhibits crushed and battered striking platforms
and random flake removal scars. Roughly 40% of the cortex remains on the cobble. Like
the other isolates, the core was found in an area of dense vegetation growth.
Isolate 56-100474
This isolate is a reddish gray quartzite flake, measuring 5.9 x 3.8 x 1.2 cm in size. The flake
was found amid dense vegetation and a group of large sandstone outcrops on a northfacing slope.
Isolate 56-100475
This isolate consists of a medium-size granite biface mano fragment with moderate use on
both sides and pecking, measuring roughly 10 x 8.8 x 5.4 cm in size. The mano is located
within a small drainage covered with dense vegetation.
18
DISCUSSION
Ground visibility was poor over much of the APE, which is also marked by steep drainages
and barren bedrock outcrops. Areas that are relatively level, as well as boulder outcrops
that might contain rock shelters or caches, were surveyed for cultural resources, if the
vegetation and terrain permitted access. The fact that numerous isolated finds and three
sites were found and recorded, even in areas of dense vegetation and poor ground
visibility, indicate that the field survey coverage was thorough.
The fact that many of the other previously recorded sites in the vicinity are rock shelters
with associated artifacts or features is commensurate with the landscape and the notion
that the area was generally used for the procurement of resources while living in more
suitable areas nearby. Noteworthy, also, is that these previously recorded rock shelters
seem to be in more hospitable areas, close to water sources and on relatively level
ground—areas that are, generally, not found in the APE. Nevertheless, intensive survey
efforts were expended during this study to look for evidence of caches and rock shelters
that were used by the native people, but none was found within the APE.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present the
significance evaluation of the three sites and five isolates found within the APE, and the
conclusion on whether any of them qualifies as a historic property as defined by Section
106 guidelines.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The term "historic property," according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
"means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or
eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior" (36 CFR 800.16(l)). The eligibility for inclusion in the National
Register is determined by applying the Secretary of the Interior's criteria, developed by the
National Park Service as per provision of the National Historic Preservation Act. 36 CFR
60.4 provides the criteria as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
19
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history. (36 CFR 60.4)
Against these criteria, the sites and isolates discovered during this study are evaluated as to
their qualifications as historic properties. The results of the evaluation are discussed
below.
EVALUATION
Isolates
As stated above, five prehistoric isolates, or localities with fewer than three artifacts, were
recorded within APE during this study, consisting of a total of four chipped-stone artifacts
and one groundstone artifact. By definition, such isolates do not qualify as archaeological
sites due to the lack of contextual integrity. As such, they do not constitute potential
historic properties.
Archaeological Sites
Three previously unknown archaeological sites were recorded during this study. All three
are prehistoric in nature, although some artifacts of possible historical origin were also
noted at Site 56-001804. The sites contain primarily scatters of worked lithic material, such
as flakes and cores, while one, 56-001805, also contains a natural water cistern at the base of
the outcrop containing the feature, with a small rock shelter nearby. The presence of the
artifacts, together with the large quantity of water observed in the cistern, lends itself to the
conclusion that the cistern was almost certainly used for water-storage purposes in
prehistoric times.
Other than the cistern at 56-001805, the cultural constituents of the three sites are quite
common for prehistoric sites found in this area, and the number of artifacts visible on the
ground surface is limited. However, their presence may indicate that other archaeological
features or artifacts lie buried beneath the surface, which cannot be detected through a
standard surface survey.
In light of these findings, the archaeological data potential of Sites 56-001803 through 56001805 largely depends upon the presence or absence of subsurface cultural deposits.
Therefore, their historical significance—and qualifications as historical properties under
Section 106—cannot be determined without further archaeological investigations,
including subsurface testing. Depending on the feasibility for the sites to be preserved in
situ during the gamma walkover survey or future potential development in or near the
APE, however, such investigations, and a conclusive evaluation of the sites, may or may
not be necessary, as discussed further below.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing report has provided background information on the APE, outlined the
methods used in the current study, and presented the results of the various avenues of
research. In summary, three previously unknown prehistoric archaeological sites and five
20
isolated prehistoric artifacts were identified and recorded within the APE during this
study. The isolates are not considered potential historic properties for Section 106compliance purposes, but the sites will require future archaeological investigations to be
adequately evaluated.
As the best way to protect the three sites, CRM TECH recommends that the proposed
gamma walkover survey, as well as any future, as yet-unplanned development activities
for the APE take into account the presence of Sites 56-001803 through 56-001805 and
facilitate the preservation of the sites in situ, if possible. In order to ensure the proper
protection of Sites 56-001803 through 56-001805, CRM TECH recommends that an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) be designated at each site to avoid accidental
disturbance of any cultural materials (Fig. 9). The ESA should encompass the location of
each site in its entirety, along with a 50-foot buffer zone, and should be clearly demarcated
with the assistance of a qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of such
operations. The 50-foot buffer zone appears to be adequate, given the low density of
artifacts that were recorded at each site and the fact that a thorough search of the area was
conducted to find all cultural materials in the area.
If the preservation of any of the three sites proves to be infeasible, CRM TECH
recommends that an appropriate archaeological testing and evaluation program be
completed at the site(s) to be impacted to ascertain its significance under Section 106
provisions. Further recommendations regarding the final evaluation and treatment of the
site(s) will be formulated on the basis of the results of the testing and evaluation program.
21
22
Figure 9. Archaeological sensitivity within the APE, showing, as indicated, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), areas that could potentially
contain cultural resources, and areas that are, based on topography, landform, and survey coverage, assigned a low sensitivity .
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978
Gabrielino. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Walton, and James J. Rawls
1988
California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Boeing Company
2010
Environment, Santa Susana, History. Http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/
environment/santa_susana/history.html.
City of Simi Valley
2010
About Simi Valley: At a Glance. Http://www.ci.simi-valley.ca.us/.
Columbia Encyclopedia, The
2008
Thomas Alexander Scott. Http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-ScottTA.html.
Elsasser, Albert B., and Robert F. Heizer
1963
The Archaeology of Bower's Cave, Los Angeles County, California. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports 59:1-59. Berkeley.
Ethington, Philip J.
2005
Los Angeles. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. Http://encarta. msn.com.
Gamble, Lynn
2002
Archaeological Evidence for the Origin of the Plank Canoe in North America.
American Antiquity 67(2):301-315.
Grant, Campbell
1978a Chumash: Introduction. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 505-508. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Eastern Coastal Chumash. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 509-519. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Gudde, Erwin G.
1998
California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names;
fourth edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Howard, W. J., and L. M. Raab
1993
Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads as Evidence of an Early Period Southern
California Channel Island Interaction Sphere. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 29(3):1-11.
King, Chester
1981
The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in
Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.
King, Chester, and Thomas C. Blackburn
1978
Tataviam. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 535-537. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
McCawley, William
1996
The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/
Ballena Press, Banning/Novato, California.
23
Miller, Bruce W.
1991
The Gabrielino. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California.
Murphy, Arnold L. (ed.)
1979
A Comprehensive Story of Ventura County, California. M&N Printing, Ventura.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
2010
NASA Santa Susana Field Laboratory History. Http://ssfl.msfc.nasa.gov/
cultural/ssfl-history.aspxt.
Ortega, Rudy
2010
Tribal Administrator, Fernandeño Tatavian Band of Mission Indians. Advice
provided as part of formal consultation meeting with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency on September 15, 2010.
Porcasi, Judith F.
1998
Middle Holocene Ceramic Technology on the Southern California Coast: New
Evidence from Little Harbor, Santa Catalina Island. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 20:270-284.
Press Reference Library
1915
Notables of the West: Being the Portraits and Biographies of Progressive Men of the West
Who Have Helped in the Development and History Making of This Wonderful Country, Vol. 2:
Western Edition. International News Service, Los Angeles.
Romero, Freddie
2010
Cultural Preservation Consultant, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Elders
Council. Advice provided as part of formal consultation meeting with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on September 15, 2010.
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
2010
Santa Ynez Reservation. http://www.santaynezchumash.org/reservation.html.
Storke, Yda Addis
1891
A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, and Ventura, California. Louis Publishing Company, Chicago.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior)
1903a Map: Calabasas, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); surveyed in 1893 and 1900-1901.
1903b Map: Santa Susana, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); surveyed in 1900.
1941
Map: Santa Susana, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1938.
1944
Map: Calabasas, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1938.
1967
Map: Calabasas, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1952 edition photorevised in 1967.
1969
Map: Simi Valley East, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1951 edition photorevised in 1969.
1975
Map: Los Angeles, Calif. (1:250,000); aerial photographs taken in 1972.
W&S Consultants
2001
Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory Area 4, Ventura County, California. On file, South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Wallace, William J.
1955
A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Archaeology 11(3):214-230.
24
APPENDIX 1
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
25
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993
1987
1982
Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside.
M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China.
2000
"Introduction to Section 106 Review," presented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
"Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the
Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
1994
Professional Experience
20021993-2002
1993-1997
1991-1993
1990
1990-1992
1988-1993
1985-1988
1985-1986
1982-1985
Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside.
Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside.
Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside.
Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University.
Lecturer, History, Xi'an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'an, China.
Honors and Awards
1988-1990
1985-1987
1980, 1981
University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside.
Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School.
President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources
Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review
Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento,
September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit,
Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
Membership
California Preservation Foundation.
26
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA*
Education
1991
1981
1980-1981
Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.
Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002
Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local
Level. UCLA Extension Course #888.
"Recognizing Historic Artifacts," workshop presented by Richard Norwood,
Historical Archaeologist.
"Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze," symposium presented
by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
"Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer.
"Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
2002
2002
1992
1992
Professional Experience
20021999-2002
1996-1998
1992-1998
1992-1995
1993-1994
1991-1992
1984-1998
Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside.
Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands.
Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside
Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College,
U.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.
Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside.
Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various
southern California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and
Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American
Culture, Cultural Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural
resources management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
* Register of Professional Archaeologists.
Society for American Archaeology.
Society for California Archaeology.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society.
Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.
27
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.
Education
2003
2000
1993
M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California.
B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State
University, California.
A.A., Communications, Nassau Community College, Garden City, N.Y.
2001
2000
Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.
Professional Experience
20042001-2003
2001
2001
Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton,
California.
Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California.
Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University.
Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Nina Gallardo, B.A.
Education
2004
B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
2004-
Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
• Surveys, excavations, mapping, and records searches.
Honors and Awards
2000-2002
Dean's Honors List, University of California, Riverside.
28
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, B.A.
Education
1998
1997
1994
2007
2002
B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino.
Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of
California, Riverside.
University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State
University, San Bernardino.
"Historic Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Base
Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside,
California.
Professional Experience
20021999-2002
1998-1999
1998
1998
Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.
Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California.
Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
PROJECT HISTORIAN
Terri Jacquemain, M.A.
Education
2004
2002
M.A., Public History and Historic Resource Management, University of
California, Riverside.
B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Professional Experience
20032002-2003
1997-2000
1991-1997
Historian/Architectural Historian/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/
Colton, California.
Teaching Assistant, Religious Studies Department, University of California,
Riverside.
Reporter, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, California.
Reporter, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California.
Memberships
California Council for the Promotion of History.
Friends of Public History, University of California, Riverside.
29
APPENDIX 2
LOCATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
AND ISOLATES WITHIN THE APE
(Confidential)
30
31
CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION MEASURES
SANTA SUSANNA FIELD LABORATORY
AREA IV AND THE NORTHERN UNDEVELOPED LANDS
REVISION 8, SEPTEMBER 2010
Field activities associated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed
action at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) site that disturb the ground surface may
potentially have an adverse effect on known and unknown cultural resources. Cultural resources
include archaeological deposits (soils that contain material evidence of human activity including
the remains of houses, hearths, cemeteries, and other features), artifacts (objects made by people
such as whole or broken grinding stones, bowls and tools of various kinds), and rock paintings
and carvings that are tied to the landscape, all of which provide information about the culture of
the people who made and used them. Cultural resources also include certain plants and sacred
sites (natural features of the landscape that are recognized in local traditions and places with
religious significance).
To mitigate the potential for disturbing cultural resources within Area IV of the SSFL a record
search was conducted to identify all archaeological sites that have been recorded through
previous surveys. Field work has been designed so as to avoid all known and previously
identified cultural resources. The measures that will be taken by EPA to protect cultural
resources during execution of the proposed action were derived from the draft Cultural
Resources Management Plan prepared for the SSFL site by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) in February 2010; the draft Cultural Resources Clearance Survey
prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) in November 2009; and from consultations held
between EPA, State Historic Preservation Office and Tribal Representatives on December 2 and
3, 2009. The DOE conducted an additional survey within the Northern Undeveloped Lands of
the SSFL in the Spring of 2010. The additional archaeological sites and cultural resources
identified in this or subsequent surveys will be integrated into the Cultural Resources Protection
Measures, which are outlined herein.
Applicable Federal and State Laws
The following regulations were evaluated for their potential applicability to EPA’s proposed
action:
National Historic Preservation Act
National Environmental Policy Act
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Field protocols will be implemented to meet the substantive requirements of these regulations.
No ground disturbing activity including vegetation clearing, mechanical gamma scanning, or soil
sampling will be conducted within 50 feet of identified archaeological sites. Hand-held gamma
scanning (non ground disturbing activity) will be allowed at identified archaeological sites if the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory SMP
U. S. EPA Region 9
F-1
JMA, Inc. 10/21/2010
HGL—SMP, Appendix F, Cultural Resources Protection Measures, SSFL—Ventura County, California
Cultural Resource Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant are present. Field crew
members will be trained to identify potential cultural objects, and will not disturb, remove, or
collect any artifacts. A Cultural Resources Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant
have been retained to monitor all ground disturbing activity and to provide archaeological
monitoring support as necessary during the execution of the field work. If any previously
unknown or unrecorded cultural resources are encountered or discovered through the field work,
the Cultural Resources Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant will be notified and
consulted immediately. The Cultural Resource Monitor operates under the supervision of the
Cultural Resource Specialist, and has the authority to redirect work as necessary in order to
evaluate and protect newly discovered cultural resources.
The Cultural Resources Monitor is a qualified archaeologist and specialist in southern California
Native American artifacts and culture. As part of this work activity, the Cultural Resources
Monitor will identify and flag all archaeological sites, areas, or artifacts, and oversee the
execution of avoidance and protection measures as necessary throughout the field effort.
Field Protocols
Identification, avoidance, and protection measures will be taken during the execution of field
activities at the SSFL site to protect Cultural Resources in accordance with all applicable laws,
regulations, and policies as follows:
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) and subcontractor field personnel will receive training for
identifying cultural features, archaeological sites, and artifacts. This training will be
jointly conducted by the Cultural Resource Specialist and a local (Southern California)
Tribal Representative before work begins.
Cultural resources protection measures will be applied during all ground disturbing field
activities. All known cultural resources, as identified through previous surveys, as well as
all archeological sites and artifacts discovered through the course of this undertaking will
be avoided. If potential artifacts are identified, the field crew will leave them in place and
notify the Cultural Resources Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant
immediately.
A Cultural Resources Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant will be present
to oversee all field work that:
a) May uncover or expose cultural resources (e.g. vegetation cutting and removal).
b) Involves ground disturbance (e.g. mechanical gamma scanning and soil sampling).
c) In the unforeseen event that a Native American Advisor/Consultant is temporarily
unavailable for monitoring, a notification via email will be sent to Native American
stakeholders requesting concurrence that the work can proceed during the interim.
Based on comments received within 24 hours of such notification, a decision will be
made to proceed in the absence of a Native American Advisor/Consultant if
necessary.
Previously undiscovered cultural resources that are encountered during any portion of
the Undertaking shall be protected and avoided as noted above, and fully documented
and recorded by the JMA Cultural Resource Specialist. Site Record forms for these
Santa Susana Field Laboratory SMP
U. S. EPA Region 9
F-2
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. 10/21/2010
HGL—SMP, Appendix F, Cultural Resources Protection Measures, SSFL—Ventura County, California
sites will be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
the California State University Fullerton and thus be recorded in the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) inventory. Upon request, site
record forms will be provided to Native American groups that have confidentiality
agreements with the SCCIC.
In the event that temporally diagnostic artifacts or other isolated artifacts that are
vulnerable to damage and/or unauthorized collection are encountered, the archaeological
monitor shall obtain a GPS position of the artifact’s exact location and then collect them.
They will either be returned to their original locations after the project has concluded, or
deposited in a public curation facility as appropriate. The ultimate disposition of artifacts
will be determined in consultation with Native American representatives.
Cultural materials that are found to be contaminated that are non-porous will be
decontaminated to the levels considered safe for handling and storage.
Cultural materials found to be contaminated but which cannot be decontaminated to
levels considered safe due to their porosity, will be packaged and labeled with
appropriate warnings.
In addition, the Cultural Resource Specialist will provide periodic oversight of the gamma
scanning field activities. This level of monitoring is appropriate in order to oversee the
implementation of the cultural resource avoidance and protection measures described herein,
identify previously unrecorded archaeological sites or artifacts, and to ensure that previously
unrecorded cultural resources are avoided and protected when encountered.
The Cultural Resources Monitor and Native American Advisor/Consultant have the
authority to redirect work if there are archaeological concerns associated with vegetation
clearing, gamma scanning, and/or sampling activities.
The Cultural Resources Specialist and Native American Advisor/Consultant will consult
with EPA during the execution of field activities as necessary to protect cultural
resources.
Santa Susana Field Laboratory SMP
U. S. EPA Region 9
F-3
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. 10/21/2010
FORMAL CONSULTATION MEETING WITH NATIVE AMERICAN STAKEHOLDERS
EPA Radiological Study in Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Lab Site
Ventura County, California - September 15th, 2010, 10:00am to 2:30pm
EPA Field Office; Building 204, Santa Susana Field Lab
****************************************************************************************************
AGENDA
1. Introductions
2. Purpose of the Meeting and Review of the Agenda
3. EPA's archeological resources consultants
Ray Corbett, Ph.D. Cultural Resources Specialist, Lead Archaeologist
Richard Gutenberg, Cultural Resources Project Manager
Chester King, Ph.D. Cultural Resource Specialist, Consulting Archaeologist
Al Knight, Cultural Resource Monitor
4. Native American Monitor/Consultants hired by EPA’s Prime Contractor (HGL Inc)
Charlie Cooke , Patrick Tumamait, Beverly Folkes
5. Overview of EPA’s Work Activities in Area IV
Review of status of Action Items from our June 9th consultation meeting
Overview of EPA Work completed to date
Verbal report by Native American monitors on work to date
Verbal report by Cultural Resource Monitor on work to date
LUNCH BREAK (30 minutes)
6. Overview of the Cultural Identification Report for the Northern Undeveloped
Lands
Native American Stakeholder comments
7. EPA Cultural Resources Protection Measures
Cultural Resources Education for Field Crew
Flag and Avoid
Monitoring During Ground-Disturbing Activities
Monitoring When near Identified Resources
Protection of Previously Undiscovered Resources
New edit: Notification process if Native American monitor not available
Native American Stakeholder comments
8. Next Steps and Meeting Wrap-up
EPA submission consultation package on Northern Undeveloped Land to SHPO
is scheduled for approximately October 8, 2010
EPA starts work in Northern Undeveloped Land: Approx. November 8, 2010
Future formal consultation meetings regarding EPA work: None anticipated at
this time
Written Report by EPA: When EPA work on radiological study is complete;
approximately mid-2012
nd
th
General public visitation days: Every 2 and 4 Wednesday of the month (see
EPA Flyer for more information)
List of Action Items
Native American Consultation Meeting held September 15th, 2010
EPA Radiological Study; Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) site
1. EPA to email PDF map identifying locations of various types of gamma scanning technologies to
the Native American Stakeholders.
2. EPA will provide Patrick Tumamait with hard copy of all Stakeholder comments to the Cultural
Resources Protection Measures (CRPM).
3. Patrick will provide his cell phone number to Rudy Ortega and Jimmy Vasquez.
4. Native American Monitors will provide a monthly report (depending on activities or findings) to
the Native American stakeholders who attended the formal consultation meetings in Dec 2009,
June 2010, or Sept 2010. If there is a “significant” finding, an email notification will be sent out
per the CRPM in the interim. EPA’s prime contractor (HGL Inc) will work with the Native
American monitors to assist with the email distribution of the monitor’s monthly reports.
5. EPA will address the following comments in the CRPM:
a. Native American Stakeholders to develop list of plants considered to be sacred and will
provide this list to the Native American Monitors. Native American Monitors to
coordinate with the EPA biologist regarding the sacred plant list and to flag/avoid the
sacred plants to the extent that the quality of the EPA radiological study is not
compromised.
b. Revise the 4th bullet under Field Protocols so that, upon request, site record forms will
be provided to Native American groups that have confidentiality agreements with the
SCCIC.
6. Recommended edits to the cultural resources survey report for the Northern Undeveloped
Lands (NUL) will be transmitted to DOE as follows:
a. EPA to email the document in Word to Rudy and Freddie;
b. Rudy and Freddie to send Craig all recommended edits to this document by September
27th ;
c. Craig to send all recommended edits to Stephie Jennings (DOE);
d. Stephie to coordinate with the DOE contractor who authored the document to have the
revisions made;
e. DOE to resubmit the revised survey report to EPA in early October prior to EPA’s
submission of a compliance package to the SHPO concerning EPA’s work in the NUL.
7. DOE to find out if the current version of the cultural resources report for the NUL has been
submitted to info center. DOE to ensure that the cultural survey report for the NUL is
submitted to the info center after the report is revised to address Native American stakeholder
comments.
8. EPA will provide Native American Stakeholders: (a) a copy of EPA’s compliance package on
upcoming work in the NUL upon issuance to the SHPO; (b) a copy of any SHPO correspondence
to EPA in this matter.