[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 54 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14952-14961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6504]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration \1\
Record of Decision: Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land
Tracts Administered by the Department of Energy and Located at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New
Mexico
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of
Decision on the conveyance and transfer of certain land tracts
previously identified as being potentially suitable for this action as
required by Public Law 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 632, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.]
Sec. 2391; the Act). This Record of Decision is based upon the
requirements for DOE action as stated in the Act and upon the
information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the
Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, DOE/EIS-0293. DOE has decided
to implement the Preferred Alternative, i.e., seven tracts will be
conveyed or transferred in full, and three tracts (Airport, TA-21, and
White Rock Y) will be conveyed or transferred in part, based on DOE's
continuing or future need for an individual tract, or a portion of the
tract, to meet the national security mission support function at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). In the ``Conveyance and
Transfer'' EIS discussion of the Preferred Alternative, DOE identified
the potential partial transfer of the White Rock Y Tract due to the
developing proton radiography project, and the tract was considered as
one of the tracts that would be conveyed in whole or in part by 2007.
In this Record of Decision, DOE is conveying or transferring only part
of the White Rock Y Tract because of the potential national security
mission need. Should DOE's siting of the proposed proton radiography
project not require a part of the White Rock Y Tract as a buffer area,
DOE will reassess the need to retain any buffer areas and amend this
Record of Decision, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Nuclear Security Administration was established
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
Public Law 106-65, Title XXXII, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 953 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the disposition of each tract, or portion of a tract,
will be subject to the ability of DOE to complete any necessary
environmental restoration or remediation. DOE will convey to the
Incorporated County of Los Alamos and/or transfer to the Department of
the Interior, in trust for the San Ildefonso Pueblo, ten tracts, in
whole or in part, totaling about 4,046 acres. Pursuant to the
Allocation Agreement between the County of Los Alamos and the San
Ildefonso Pueblo submitted to the Secretary of Energy on January 7,
2000, all lands are to be received by the County of Los Alamos except
for portions of the TA-74 Tract, the White Rock Y Tract, and the White
Rock Tract.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Conveyance and Transfer EIS or to receive a copy of this EIS or other
information related to this Record of Decision, contact: Elizabeth
Withers, Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Los Alamos Area
Office, 528 35th Street, Los Alamos, NM 87544, (505) 667-8690.
[[Page 14953]]
For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at
(800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part
1021). This Record of Decision is based on several factors such as
national security mission need, estimated costs and cleanup durations
and the technical feasibility of achieving restoration and remediation,
and on information provided in the Environmental Impact Statement for
the Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the
Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico (DOE/EIS-0293) (Conveyance and
Transfer EIS).
LANL is one of several national laboratories that supports DOE's
responsibilities for national security, energy resources, environmental
quality, and science. LANL is located in north-central New Mexico,
about 60 miles (97 kilometers) north-northeast of Albuquerque, and
about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe. The small
communities of Los Alamos townsite, White Rock, Pajarito Acres, the
Royal Crest Mobile Home Park, and San Ildefonso Pueblo are located in
the immediate vicinity of LANL. LANL occupies an area of approximately
27,832 acres (11,272 hectares), or approximately 43 square miles (111
square kilometers). DOE also has administrative control over other
properties and land within Los Alamos County that total about 915 acres
(371 hectares).
In 1943, the Federal Government began acquiring land in the general
area of Los Alamos, New Mexico, for the location of a secret research
and development facility for the world's first nuclear weapon, known
originally as ``Project Y of the Manhattan Project'' (now known as
LANL). DOE is the Federal agency with current administrative
responsibility for LANL. In 1949, the New Mexico Legislature created
the County of Los Alamos (the County) from portions of Santa Fe and
Sandoval Counties. However, most of the County remained under the
control of the Federal Government until the 1950s.
Under the Atomic Energy Community Act (AECA) of 1955 (42 U.S.C.
2301-2394), the Federal Government recognized its responsibility to
provide support for a specified period to agencies or municipalities
that were strongly affected by their proximity to facilities that are
part of the nation's nuclear weapons complex while these communities
achieved self-sufficiency. Los Alamos, New Mexico, was established as a
such a wholly government-owned community in which the Federal
Government provided all municipal, educational, medical, housing, and
recreational facilities. The AECA set forth the policies and
obligations of the Federal Government to these communities, including
provisions related to financial assistance payments. These policies
were directed at terminating Federal Government ownership and
management of the communities by facilitating the establishment of
local self-government, providing for the orderly transfer to local
entities of municipal functions, and providing for the orderly sale to
private purchasers of property within these communities. The
establishment of self-government and transfer of infrastructure and
land were intended for the purpose of encouraging self-sufficiency of
the communities through the establishment of a broad base for economic
development. DOE's predecessor agency leased and disposed of some of
the Federal lands under its management to the County, other government
agencies, and to private parties in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
In 1967, DOE's predecessor agencies began to transfer ownership of land
tracts, roads, buildings, and some of the utility systems managed by
DOE to the County to be made available for public use. The land that
was released at that time was primarily located within the Los Alamos
townsite and had been used for civilian housing and community support
functions. A relatively small amount of land was auctioned to
individuals and private developers to establish the Royal Crest Mobile
Home Park, the White Rock and Pajarito Acres communities, and to
develop areas in and around the Los Alamos townsite. Additionally, a
number of various leases for small tracts of land within the County
were entered into during this period. The release of these lands from
Federal Government use in the late 1960's enabled them to be developed
for a variety of uses, ranging from preservation to urban development.
Over the years, the LANL boundaries have changed and have been
reduced extensively as a result of several land transfer efforts.
Today, only about 38 percent of the total land that historically
comprised the LANL reserve remains under DOE's administrative control.
The bulk of this remaining land is occupied by LANL, with the
University of California as DOE's current Management and Operating
contractor conducting day-to-day operation of the site. Currently, LANL
is bounded by the lands of several landowners and stewards with a
variety of land uses.
On November 26, 1997, Congress passed Public Law 105-119, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1998 ( ``the Act''). Section
632 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2391) directs the Secretary of Energy (the
Secretary) to convey to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New
Mexico, or to the designee of the County, and transfer to the
Department of the Interior, in trust for the San Ildefonso Pueblo,
parcels of land under the jurisdictional administrative control of the
Secretary at or in the vicinity of LANL. Such parcels, or tracts, of
land must meet suitability criteria established by the Act. The purpose
of the conveyances and transfers is to fulfill the obligations of the
United States with respect to Los Alamos, New Mexico, under sections 91
and 94 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 (AECA) (42 U.S.C.
2391, 2394). Upon the completion of the conveyance or transfer, the
Secretary of Energy shall make no further financial assistance payments
with respect to LANL under the AECA.
The Act sets forth the criteria, processes, and dates by which the
tracts will be selected, titles to the tracts reviewed, environmental
issues evaluated, and decisions made as to the allocation of the tracts
between the two recipients. DOE's responsibilities under the Act
include identifying potentially suitable tracts of land according to
criteria set forth in the law (Land Transfer Report, April 1998);
conducting a title search on each tract of land (Title Report,
September 1998); identifying any environmental restoration and
remediation that would be needed for each tract of land (Environmental
Restoration Report, August 1999); conducting National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review of the proposed conveyance or transfer
of the land tracts (the Conveyance and Transfer EIS,
[[Page 14954]]
October 1999, distributed in January 2000); reporting to Congress on
the results of the Environmental Restoration Report review and the
final Conveyance and Transfer EIS (Combined Data Report, January 2000);
and preparing a plan for conveying or transferring land according to
the allocation agreement of parcels for Congress (Conveyance and
Transfer Plan, planned for April 2000). The Act further states that the
Secretary must, to the maximum extent practicable, conduct any needed
environmental restoration or remediation activities within 10 years of
enactment (by November 26, 2007), and convey and transfer the tracts
meeting the suitability criteria. Under the Act, DOE has no role in the
designation of recipients nor how the parcels of land will be allocated
between the recipients.
As required by the Act, DOE identified 10 tracts of land as being
potentially suitable for conveyance and transfer. The 10 tracts are the
subject of DOE's Land Transfer Report submitted to Congress in April
1998. These 10 tracts of land are as follows (all acreages given are
approximate and have been adjusted herein to include some rights-of-
ways that were inadvertently excluded from the original April 1998
report):
The Rendija Canyon Tract consists of about 910 acres (369
hectares). The canyon is undeveloped except for the shooting range (the
Sportsman's Club) that serves the local community; the shooting range
is currently under lease from DOE to the community.
The DOE Los Alamos Area Office (LAAO) Tract consists of about 15
acres (6 hectares). It is within the Los Alamos townsite. DOE employees
occupy offices at the site.
The Miscellaneous Site 22 Tract is a small, Los Alamos townsite
parcel located on the edge of the mesa overlooking Los Alamos Canyon.
It consists of less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of disturbed land that
is undeveloped and currently is used as an unsanctioned vehicle parking
area.
The Miscellaneous Manhattan Monument Tract consists of less than
0.5 acre (0.02 hectare). The Manhattan Monument is a small, rectangular
site located within Los Alamos County land and adjacent to Ashley Pond,
where most of the first Los Alamos laboratory work was conducted. A
small log structure occupies the site.
The DP Road Tract (North, South and West) consists of about 50
acres (20 hectares). It is generally undeveloped except for the West
section where the LANL archives are currently located in one of two
buildings.
The TA-21 Tract consists of about 260 acres (105 hectares) and is
located east of the Los Alamos townsite. This occupied site is remote
from the main LANL area; University of California workers occupy
offices at the site, and LANL operations are conducted at facilities
there.
The Airport Tract consists of about 205 acres (83 hectares).
Located east of the Los Alamos townsite, it is close to the East Gate
Business Park. The Los Alamos Airport is located on part of the tract,
while other portions of the tract are undeveloped.
The White Rock Y Tract consists of about 540 acres (219 hectares).
It is undeveloped and is associated with the major transportation
routes connecting Los Alamos with northern New Mexico.
The TA-74 Tract consists of about 2,715 acres (1,100 hectares). It
is a large, remote site located east of the Los Alamos townsite and is
largely undeveloped.
The White Rock Tract consists of about 100 acres (40 hectares). It
is undeveloped except for utility lines, a water pump station, and a
small building in use by the County.
As required by the Act, DOE conducted a review of its ownership for
each of the 10 tracts of land identified as being potentially suitable
for conveyance and transfer. The results of this search (in the form of
formal Title Reports) for any claims, liens, or similar instruments
affecting DOE's title to its interests in the real property for each of
the 10 subject tracts were submitted to Congress in September 1998. No
``clouds on the titles'' were discovered during the search.
DOE identified the environmental restoration and remediation
necessary before it can dispose of the subject tracts in the
Environmental Restoration (ER) Report, as required by the Act.
Descriptions of the type and extent of known tract contamination, the
regulatory status of the site contamination, potential waste generation
associated with environmental restoration activities, the estimated
costs and durations for cleanup, and other site concerns are included
in the report; it also identifies areas where no site data is yet
available.
The LANL ER Project has its own process of site investigation, data
analysis, public and stakeholder involvement and remediation that
occurs under auspices of an Administrative Authority (either the New
Mexico Environment Department or DOE). LANL is regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The activities under the
LANL ER Project are subject to DOE review for compliance with NEPA at
the time that proposals for actions become ripe for decision, which is
typically after public input and Administrative Authority agreement to
pursue specific types of cleanup activities. To the extent that this
information was known or that reasonably bounding data has been
developed, the information was presented and used in the Conveyance and
Transfer EIS analysis. Additional DOE NEPA review will be necessary for
the majority of the activities yet to be undertaken at most of the
subject tracts.
The review of environmental impacts of the conveyance or transfer
of each parcel, as required by the Act, is the subject of the
Conveyance and Transfer EIS. The NEPA compliance process, the general
document scope, the purpose and need for DOE action, the decisions
supported by the impact analysis, a description of the alternatives
analyzed, and a brief discussion and comparison of the impacts likely
to occur from implementing the alternatives analyzed are included in
the Conveyance and Transfer EIS.
As required by the Act, a report (Combined Data Report) presenting
information regarding the environmental restoration or remediation
required for the subject tracts (including estimated costs and cleanup
durations), and the potential environmental impacts associated
directly, indirectly, and cumulatively with conveyance and transfer of
the subject tracts was submitted to Congress on January 24, 2000. This
report makes recommendations for the conveyance or transfer of each of
the subject tracts, either in whole or in part, with regard to the
likelihood of DOE being able to meet the suitability criteria
established in the Act.
The Incorporated County of Los Alamos and San Ildefonso Pueblo, as
required by the Act, have reached an agreement on the allocation of
parcels between them and submitted their agreement to the Secretary of
Energy on January 7, 2000. Under that agreement, all subject lands are
to be received by the County of Los Alamos except for portions of the
TA-74 Tract, the White Rock Y Tract, and the White Rock Tract.
As required by the Act, DOE must submit a plan outlining how it
will proceed with the actual conveyance or transfer of each of the
subject tracts, in whole or in part, to the two recipients pursuant to
their agreement of allocation. This plan will be submitted to Congress
in April 2000. DOE shall convey or transfer parcels in accordance with
the allocation agreement between the two recipients, subject to the
requirements of the Act for retention of
[[Page 14955]]
lands needed for DOE to meet its national security mission and/or the
requirements for environmental restoration or remediation (providing
these requirements can be met within the 10-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Act, which ends November 26, 2007), and
subject to the decisions in this Record of Decision.
This Record of Decision considers, and the Conveyance and Transfer
Plan will consider: the need for land to support its national security
mission requirements, estimated costs and cleanup durations and the
technical feasibility of achieving restoration and remediation to the
maximum extent practical, as required under the Act, for one of the
three uses established by PL 105-119; the information on environmental
impacts associated with the subject tracts as a result of conveyance
and transfer; and other factors discussed later in this Record of
Decision.
Alternatives Considered
DOE analyzed two alternatives in the Conveyance and Transfer EIS:
the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.
Alternative 1--No Action
The No Action Alternative reflects the conditions that would
prevail if DOE did not convey or transfer the subject tracts of land.
Under this alternative, DOE would continue its administrative control
of each or all of the individual tracts tentatively identified as a
candidate for conveyance and transfer, and conveyance or transfer
actions for each or all of the tracts would not occur. The subject
lands would continue to be used as they are currently. Individual
tracts would continue to be used to either support LANL uses (as
undeveloped programmatic activity buffer zones; historic, cultural, or
environmental preservation areas; or future growth areas) or in support
of ongoing or similar mission support functions. DOE would continue to
lease properties to the County and others for continuance of their
current public relations, recreational, and commercial purposes. Under
this alternative, land might not be restored or remediated in the same
manner or time frame as under the Proposed Action Alternative. LANL ER
Project activities would be conducted on the tracts as they become
funded in accordance with either existing or similar plans. Neither the
County nor San Ildefonso Pueblo would gain additional land to promote
self-sufficiency or diversification of their income basis.
Alternative 2--Proposed Action Alternative
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, each of the 10 tracts of
land identified as potentially suitable in DOE's Land Transfer Report
(April 1998) would individually be either conveyed or transferred, in
whole or in part, to either the County or the Secretary of the
Interior, in trust for San Ildefonso Pueblo. DOE actions associated
with the conveyance and transfer of these land tracts would involve
certain ``paper transactions,'' and some tenant relocation activities.
DOE actions would result in potential direct impacts because of various
resources passing out of the administrative responsibility and
protection of DOE. Additionally, indirect impacts could result from the
development and use of the tracts by the two recipient parties.
Potential cumulative impacts from the actions of other local and
regional past, present, and future reasonably anticipated actions could
also result from conveying and transferring the land tracts and their
subsequent recipient uses.
Environmental restoration or remediation of the subject tracts
potentially identified for conveyance and transfer would be the
responsibility of DOE and are expected to be accomplished as currently
considered by DOE in its plan entitled Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to
Closure (DOE 1998) and similar plans. It is not anticipated that the
cleanup efforts would differ much between the Proposed Action
Alternative and the No Action Alternative, although there could be some
areas of cleanup that may differ between the alternatives. These
possible exceptions include the timing of some activities (cleanup of
some tracts could be completed sooner under the Proposed Action
Alternative than under the No Action Alternative); the decommissioning,
decontamination, and demolition of buildings and structures currently
in use; and some cleanup actions in flood plains. Therefore, most of
the environmental restoration or remediation actions are not unique to
the Proposed Action Alternative.
In considering the full suite of potential impacts that could
result from DOE's action in implementing the conveyance and transfer of
these parcels, DOE considered the planned uses of the land and the
ensuing potential environmental impacts after the conveyance and
transfer. Both the County and San Ildefonso Pueblo have expressed
interest in pursuing uses of the parcels for the purposes established
by the Act in ways that are potentially different from the manner in
which DOE has used the land. Therefore, the Conveyance and Transfer EIS
analysis focuses on subsequent property development and use
contemplated by the County and by San Ildefonso Pueblo (including their
tenants or other third parties) that could only occur if DOE conveys
and transfers the subject land tracts.
Preferred Alternative
In both the draft and the final Conveyance and Transfer EIS, the
Preferred Alternative is identified as a subset of the Proposed Action
Alternative by each tract. The Preferred Alternative would convey or
transfer seven tracts in whole and three (Airport, TA-21, and White
Rock Y) in part. In the Conveyance and Transfer EIS discussion of the
Preferred Alternative, DOE identified the potential partial transfer of
the White Rock Y Tract due to the developing proton radiography
project, and the tract was considered as one of the tracts that would
be conveyed in whole or in part by 2007. In this Record of Decision,
DOE is conveying or transferring only part of the White Rock Y Tract
because of the potential national security mission need. As specified
in PL 105-119, the actual disposition of each tract, or portion of a
tract, would be subject to DOE's need for the individual tract, or a
portion of the tract, to meet a national security mission support
function, which could range from either direct or indirect activity
involvement. Additionally, the disposition of each tract, or portion of
a tract, would be subject to DOE's completion of any necessary
environmental restoration or remediation required.
While both of these suitability criteria were considered in the
formulation of the Preferred Alternative, the national security mission
support criteria has led DOE to the recognition that portions of three
tracts (the White Rock Y, TA-21 Tract and the Airport Tracts) may not
be available for conveyance or transfer within the 10-year period
specified by PL 105-119 because of the operational needs of two
facilities within TA-21 and the need for surrounding areas to be
retained as security, health, and safety buffer areas.
DOE additionally recognizes with regard to five of the tracts
(Rendija Canyon, DOE LAAO, DP Road, TA-74, White Rock) that meeting the
conveyance and transfer criteria within the mandated 10-year time frame
may not be possible for all portions of these tracts. For example, the
current national security mission support functions that
[[Page 14956]]
are conducted on DOE LAAO Tract and the DP Road Tract may require
portions of the tracts to be retained for use beyond the 10-year time
frame established by the Act, although this is considered to be
unlikely. Similarly, there may be newly proposed activities at LANL
facilities that could require the retention of portions of tracts for
national security mission support reasons. One example of this is a
proton radiography project that will be proposed for consideration
through DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request. DOE will evaluate this
project over the next several months to determine whether to propose
that the project should proceed. The project evaluation will include a
NEPA analysis that considers various siting locations and engineering
design controls and features, which will then be used to reach a
project construction decision(s). Engaging in this project could result
in an expanded security, health, and safety buffer area(s) being
required that may intrude upon one or more of the tracts under
consideration for disposal. Because the White Rock Y Tract is the
nearest subject tract to one of the LANL locations that will likely be
evaluated for the proton radiography project, DOE has reduced this
tract to a partial status for disposition. Only essential areas will be
retained, and the remainder of the tract will be conveyed or
transferred. DOE will make every effort to minimize the portions of the
tracts it retains.
In a like vein, some portions of the five tracts that have
associated potential contamination issues may require restoration or
remediation that could require more than the 10-year period established
under the Act for completion of these actions. The LANL ER Project
process, which includes input from stakeholders and approval by the
Administrative Authority(ies), will proceed with the anticipation of
completing the necessary environmental restoration and remediation
actions by November 26, 2007, for all parcels except for TA-21.
However, some tracts that have complex contamination issues will
consume more time and resources, and be more expensive to complete
cleanup because, for example, the cleanup technical strategy could
change from those currently planned by the ER Project. Reaching
agreement on the cleanup approach and conducting the necessary
characterization and remedial action could take more time than
anticipated in ER project plans. Thus, it may not be possible to
complete the necessary actions within the allotted time frame.
The environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative, based on
the EIS, would be expected to be less than those of the Proposed Action
Alternative and greater than those of the No Action Alternative for
each tract.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality, in its ``Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations,'' (46 FR 18026, 2/23/81)
with regard to 40 CFR 1505.2, defined the ``environmentally preferable
alternative'' as the alternative ``that will promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily,
this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the
biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative
which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and
natural resources.'' After considering impacts to each resource area by
alternative, DOE has identified the No Action Alternative as the
environmentally preferable alternative. This Alternative was identified
as having the fewest direct impacts to the physical environment and to
cultural and historic resources. This is because tract disturbances
would be at the lowest levels for the greatest number of acres under
DOE's continued ownership, rather than under either the Proposed Action
Alternative or the Preferred Alternative. Therefore the No Action
Alternative would have the fewest impacts, and the Proposed Action
would have the most.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
DOE analyzed the potential impacts that might occur for land
resources; environmental restoration waste volumes; transportation;
infrastructure requirements; noise; visual resources, socioeconomics;
ecological resources; cultural resources; geological and soil
conditions; water resources; air resources; global climate changes;
human health; and environmental justice for each of the 10 tracts under
the two different alternatives--No Action and Proposed Action. DOE
considered the impacts that might occur from potential accidents
associated with LANL operations on worker and residential populations
that would be brought into closer proximity to LANL facilities. DOE
considered the impacts of each contemplated land use associated with
each alternative for each tract, the irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources, and the relationship between short-term uses
of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity. The EIS shows important differences in potential
environmental impacts among alternatives including: the potential for
damage or degradation to ecological resources, including federally
listed threatened or endangered species potential habitat areas, and to
cultural and historic resources; land use changes; traffic volume
changes; infrastructure requirements, including water use, electrical
use, natural gas use, solid waste generation and disposal requirements
and wastewater sewage generation, treatment and disposal needs, noise
generation; changes to the visual character of the tracts;
socioeconomic changes; surface water quality; air resource degradation;
human health effects; and environmental justice impacts. A comparison
of the impacts of the No Action Alternative and the impacts projected
to result from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative are
discussed below for both direct and indirect impacts.
Direct Impacts
The potential direct impacts of the proposed conveyance and
transfer of the subject tracts include those associated with the
relocation of DOE operations and personnel who currently reside on the
various tracts. DOE could move employees requiring relocation to
existing buildings on other parts of LANL property, or could construct
new buildings. These plans are not ripe for decision. Any decision
regarding construction of new facilities would be preceded by
appropriate NEPA review. There would be no difference in direct impacts
between the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives in
infrastructure, noise, visual resources, socioeconomics, geology and
soils, water resources, or human health. The differences between the
direct impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives in
land use, transportation, ecological resources, cultural resources, and
air resources are discussed by affected resource in the following
paragraphs.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in direct
impacts in land use are anticipated. Completion of environmental
restoration activities, including decontamination, decommissioning, and
possible demolition of DOE facilities may allow possible changes in
future land use. Environmental restoration activities would proceed in
accordance with existing and developing plans pursuant to the RCRA
Corrective Action permit and DOE requirements. Worker impacts
associated with environmental restoration activities cannot be
projected at this time. Environmental restoration activities would be
subject to their own
[[Page 14957]]
DOE NEPA review. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no specific
changes in direct impacts in land use are anticipated. In general,
environmental restoration activities are independent of the conveyance
and transfer process, but the conveyance and transfer scenarios may
influence decisions on the timing, cleanup levels, and the inclusion of
certain buildings in environmental restoration activities. The waste
volume estimates would be approximately the same as for the No Action
Alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in direct
impacts in transportation are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, direct consequences of the conveyance and transfer of the
tracts include small alteration of the overall daily commute. DOE and
contractor personnel relocated from the DOE LAAO, TA-21, and DP Road
Tracts would have to change their commuting routes. Some DOE and
contractor personnel may have a shorter drive to work, such as those
living in White Rock for example; but, most would have farther to
travel.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in direct
impacts to ecological resources are anticipated. Direct impacts of the
Proposed Action Alternative are limited to the changes in
responsibility for resource protection. Environmental review and
protection processes and procedures for future activities could be
different from those that are currently governing the subject tracts
and may not be as rigorous. The LANL Threatened and Endangered Species
Habitat Management Plan would no longer be in effect for those tracts
occupied by or containing suitable habitat for endangered species.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in direct
impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. Direct impacts of the
Proposed Action Alternative are limited to the potential transfer of
known and unidentified cultural resources and historic properties out
of the responsibility and protection of DOE. Under the Criteria of
Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), the transfer, lease, or sale of
resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) is an adverse effect. NRHP eligible resources are present
on nine of the ten tracts, and would be directly impacted by the
Federal action. The disposition of some of the subject tracts also may
affect the protection and accessibility to Native American sacred sites
or sites needed for the practice of traditional religion by removing
them from consideration under the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Executive Order 13007,
``Indian Sacred Sites.'' In addition, the disposition of the tracts
could potentially affect the treatment and disposition of any human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural
patrimony that may be discovered on the tracts, under the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in direct
impacts in air resources or global warming are anticipated. Direct
consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative include small
alteration of the overall daily commute. As noted under the discussion
of transportation, DOE and contractor personnel relocated from the DOE
LAAO, TA-21, and DP Road Tracts would have to change their commuting
routes. Some DOE and contractor personnel may have a shorter drive to
work; but most would have farther to travel. This would result in
slightly greater emissions.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts are anticipated from the subsequent uses
contemplated by the receiving parties for several of the 10 tracts (see
Table S-3 at the end of this section). The receiving parties have
identified a combination of contemplated uses for the tracts after
conveyance or transfer. These uses include development of part or all
of some of these tracts. Estimates of the development acreage reflect
the best available information on the footprint of the contemplated
developments. This acreage may include the redevelopment of disturbed
land as well as the new use of relatively undisturbed areas. The EIS
impact analysis assumes that these footprints represent an
approximation of areas that would be developed but these estimates may
not include all areas that would otherwise be disturbed. Likewise, the
EIS does not quantify acreage estimates for land that may be disturbed
or developed for land uses that include currently undefined
improvements to utilities or recreational areas. These areas were
qualitatively addressed in the impact analysis.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in land use are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, the potential indirect impacts include regional changes in
land use, such as the development of forest, grazing, and open-space
land for residential and commercial uses. Future land use patterns
could change on several tracts. Approximately 826 acres (335 hectares)
of the total acreage proposed for transfer and conveyance could be
developed or redeveloped for other uses. There is the potential for the
introduction of land uses that would be incompatible with adjacent
landowners' resource protection efforts. There may be loss of
recreational opportunities currently enjoyed on some tracts. While
cumulative impacts to land use affect only a small percentage of the
total region, many of the anticipated impacts are concentrated in the
vicinity of Los Alamos, LANL, and White Rock and therefore could appear
substantial.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts related to transportation are anticipated. Under the Proposed
Action Alternative, the conveyance and transfer of the tracts,
commercial, industrial, and residential developments would greatly
increase the number of vehicle trips. Peak-hour traffic entering or
exiting 6 of the 10 tracts could increase by a range of approximately
751 to 3,775 trips. There could be a positive regional traffic impact
in that more LANL employees could live in Los Alamos and reduce overall
commuter traffic from other areas. Potential cumulative impacts related
to regional transportation include substantial increases in overall
regional and local traffic that would require improvements to traffic
controls, new roads, road widening, and bridges. The anticipated
impacts related to transportation would be expected to be concentrated
near the Los Alamos townsite and the immediate LANL area.
Under the No Action Alternative, the electrical infrastructure will
remain the same, which is already at the limits of its capacity, and it
often exceeds system capacity. Under the Proposed Action Alternative,
the total estimated increases in utility usage associated with the
development of the tracts would be as follows: Electricity use--32
gigawatt-hours (gwh); Peak power: 6 megawatts (mw); Natural Gas: 459
million cubic feet (mcf) (13,000 million liters per year [mly]); Water:
382 million gallons per year (mgy) (1,446 mly); Solid Waste: 2,385 tons
per year (tpy) (2,163 metric tons per year [mty]). Increases in
discharges to wastewater treatment plants could be 132 mgy (500 mly)
for the Bayo Wastewater Treatment Plant and 41 mgy (155 mly) for the
White Rock plant. The increase in peak electricity demand is in
addition to the already anticipated exceedance of the capacity of the
electrical power system. Water usage demand is projected to exceed
water rights. The natural gas delivery systems may have to be upgraded
to handle the increased demand. The existing wastewater treatment
capacity is expected to be exceeded. Solid waste production is expected
to reduce the expected life of
[[Page 14958]]
the regional landfill. However, given the conservative assumptions used
in the calculations and the phased approach in the development of the
tracts, the actual utility usage may not reach capacity limits within
the next 10 years.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts from noise are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, ambient noise levels would be expected to increase above
current levels for most of the contemplated land uses. Ambient noise
levels associated with cultural preservation may decrease, and noise
levels associated with natural areas would be expected to remain the
same or increase slightly. Noise associated with transportation and
utility corridors would remain the same or could increase with
additional infrastructure construction and use. Demolition and
construction activities would be expected to temporarily elevate noise
levels on the tracts from the No Action Alternative levels to a range
of 74 to 95 decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale (dBA). Residential
uses typically would result in ambient noise levels between 50 and 70
dBA depending on traffic, density, and location. Commercial and
industrial land uses typically would result in 60 to 70 dBA. Noise
would be present during a greater part of the day than currently on the
tracts that are developed for residential, commercial, and industrial
land uses. Overall noise from vehicular traffic would increase.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts on visual resources are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, most of the tracts would maintain their current level of
visual aesthetic value after conveyance and transfer and any subsequent
development. However, the development of currently undeveloped areas,
such as the Rendija Canyon and White Rock Tracts, would typically
degrade the visual landscape. The reduction in visual quality would not
be substantial on a regional scale, but local diminished viewsheds
could impact resources important to maintaining a positive visitor
experience on adjacent National Park Service lands.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in socioeconomics are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, short-term economic gains would be expected from
employment due to construction activities for new development. Long-
term gains would depend on the intensity and success of the
development. Depending on the scenarios implemented, 320 businesses
could be developed on the tracts, employing up to 6,080 workers and
generating a total of 8,957 jobs within the region of influence (ROI).
As many as 2,360 residences could be placed on the tracts, increasing
White Rock's and Los Alamos' population by 6,620 residents. Overall
impacts to employment, income, population, and housing would be minor
within the ROI, but would be concentrated in the Los Alamos area.
Improvements would be expected in the Los Alamos County tax base but
would probably not offset the loss of assistance payments, according to
information provided by the County.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in ecological resources are anticipated. Under the Proposed
Action Alternative, development footprints for the 10 tracts include
approximately 770 acres (312 hectares) of relatively undisturbed
habitat, primarily ponderosa pine forest and pinyon-juniper woodland.
Contemplated uses also would be expected to degrade large amounts of
adjacent habitat, including preferred habitat for the American
peregrine falcon and the Mexican spotted owl. Highly mobile wildlife
would be forced to relocate to adjacent undeveloped areas. However,
successful relocation may not occur due to increased competition for
limited resources. For less-mobile species, direct mortality could
occur during the actual construction or from habitat alteration.
Habitat modification could affect several Federally-listed threatened
and endangered species. Development in some tracts could result in
direct loss of wetland structure and function with potential increased
downstream and offsite sedimentation. The current lack of a natural
resources management plan by either the County of Los Alamos or the San
Ildefonso Pueblo would impede the development of an integrated,
multiagency approach to short- or long-term natural resource management
strategies. Additionally, transfer of the land tracts may result in a
much less rigorous environmental review and protection review process
for future activities because neither the County of Los Alamos nor the
San Ildefonso Pueblo have regulations that would match the Federal
review and protection process. Cumulatively, the development could
result in fragmentation of habitat and disruption of wildlife migration
corridors.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in cultural resources are anticipated. Under the Proposed
Action Alternative, the development of approximately 826 acres (335
hectares) and use of tracts for recreation could result in physical
destruction, damage, or alteration of cultural resources on the subject
tracts and in adjacent areas and disturbance of traditional religious
practices.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in geology and soils are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, soil would be disturbed by development, new road building,
and utilities. Removal of vegetation and increased runoff from new
impermeable surfaces could increase erosion. The cumulative impacts to
geology and soils would not be substantial.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in water resources are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, supplies of groundwater would be reduced, potentially
accelerating draw down of the main aquifer. Placement of new water
supply wells could impact groundwater quality. New development could
potentially degrade the surface water quality by increasing the
pollutant loads and surface runoff volumes from construction activity,
and by creating additional impermeable surfaces such as roads and
parking lots.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts on air resources are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, there would be increases in criteria pollutants from
mobile sources and homes using natural gas or propane. Slight increases
in emissions of hazardous air pollutants would be expected from the
development of new industrial facilities. The current contributions to
global climate change from the land tracts would increase more than 25-
fold over the No Action Alternative due to motor vehicle traffic and
residential use of fossil fuels. Additional use of artificial lighting
could impact the visibility of the night sky.
Under the No Action Alternative, no specific changes in indirect
impacts in human health are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, as many as 900 new residents could be brought into closer
proximity to LANL facilities at the DOE LAAO and DP Road Tracts, and
another 2,200 residents and lodgers could be brought closer at the
White Rock Tract. Commercial development could bring as many as 6,000
private-sector employees into existing one-half mile radiation site
evaluation circles at the DP Road, TA-21, and Airport Tracts (these
``circles'' are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.12.2, Conveyance
and Transfer EIS). While the maximally exposed individual doses would
not increase, these developments would mean increased total population
exposures to radiological and chemical emissions from normal LANL
[[Page 14959]]
operations and hypothetical accidents due to the closer proximity of
people to emission sources. A substantial increase in the public
collective radiation dose and latent cancer fatalities could result
although the estimates of effects are calculated using very
conservative methods and actual observable effects would be expected to
be less than those estimated. Under normal operating conditions,
development of the subject tracts would not be expected to contribute
substantially to human health impacts in the area. The estimated number
of excess latent cancer fatalities that could result from the
reasonably foreseeable radiologic accidents (events that have an
estimated frequency of less than one in a million per year) could
maximally increase from about 57 to about 98 excess cancer fatalities.
Development of the tracts by the recipients would involve construction
with its attendant risks to workers. Should the development include
industrial activities, these activities would involve commensurately
greater worker risks.
There would be no environmental justice indirect impacts
anticipated under the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, indirect impacts to traditional cultural properties (TCPs)
potentially may cause disproportionately high or adverse effects on
minority or low-income communities, but these effects cannot be
determined at this point in the consultation process. As part of the
comments received in the draft Conveyance and Transfer EIS, the
Homesteaders of the Pajarito Plateau and legal counsel for the San
Ildefonso Pueblo expressed the belief that the conveyance or transfer
and contemplated uses would have additional adverse environmental
justice impacts on their populations.
Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
DOE distributed approximately 300 copies of the final CT EIS to
Congressional members and committees, the State of New Mexico, various
American Indian Tribal governments and organizations, local
governments, other Federal agencies, and the general public. DOE did
not receive comments on the final Conveyance and Transfer EIS.
Decision Factors
DOE's decisions under Public Law 105-119 are based on the lack of
need for the tracts, in whole or in part, to support its national
security mission requirements, and DOE's ability to conduct necessary
environmental restoration and remediation on portions of the tracts
within the time frame established by the Act. There are currently three
tracts (the TA-21 Tract, the LAAO Tract, and the DP Road Tract) that
have structures that are occupied by activities that support DOE's
mission responsibilities at LANL. Additionally, portions of the Airport
Tract and the White Rock Y Tract are or may be needed to serve as
health and safety buffer areas for LANL activities occurring both at
TA-21 and elsewhere. With regard to environmental clean up, the Act
states that the conduct of any needed environmental restoration or
remediation be performed to the maximum extent practicable. DOE
included in its decision the estimated cost of such actions and DOE's
dedication of other resources to pursue these actions. Hence, DOE's
decisions are based primarily in its mission responsibilities and the
ability to perform environmental restoration activities in a timely and
fiscally prudent manner.
Decisions
DOE has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative, which will
allow for the conveyance and transfer of tracts of land, in whole or in
part, in the near term and delay such conveyance and transfer of
portions of tracts that either require environmental restoration or
remediation activities, or that are being used or may be used for
mission support activities before November 2007, the deadline
established by the Act. DOE will pursue restoration and remediation
activities, as well as relocation of workers and DOE mission support
functions from the subject tracts, so that those portions so encumbered
may be conveyed or transferred to the greatest extent practicable
before November 2007. This alternative reflects DOE's efforts to meet
the requirements of Public Law 105-119 to the best of its ability in a
reasonable and prudent manner. It should be noted that the decisions in
this Record of Decision will be reflected in DOE budget requests and
management practices. However, the actual implementation of these
decisions is dependent on DOE funding levels and allocations of the DOE
budget across competing priorities.
For the tracts that are conveyed in part, DOE would continue to
resolve outstanding national security mission support issues and
contamination issues on the remaining portions of the tracts; so that
conveyance or transfer of those portions could occur before the end of
the 2007 deadline stated in the Act. DOE also may include deed
restrictions, notices, and similar land use controls as deemed
appropriate and necessary that are protective of human health and
safety.
For each of the ten tracts analyzed for conveyance and transfer,
DOE's decisions are presented below:
The Rendija Canyon Tract consists of about 910 acres (369
hectares). The canyon is undeveloped except for the shooting range (the
Sportsman's Club) that serves the local community; the shooting range
is currently under lease from DOE to the community. DOE will convey or
transfer the entire tract.
The DOE LAAO Tract consists of about 15 acres (6 hectares) within
the Los Alamos townsite. The DOE LAAO Tract is partially occupied by
the DOE LAAO Building that currently houses about 120 DOE staff and
contractor staff personnel in support of DOE's mission responsibilities
at LANL. DOE will convey or transfer the entire tract upon relocation
of its activities.
The Miscellaneous Site 22 Tract is a small, Los Alamos townsite
parcel located on the edge of the mesa overlooking Los Alamos Canyon.
It consists of less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of disturbed land that
is undeveloped and currently is used as an unsanctioned vehicle parking
area. DOE will convey or transfer the entire tract.
The Miscellaneous Manhattan Monument Tract consists of less than
0.5 acre (0.02 hectare). The Manhattan Monument is a small, rectangular
site located within Los Alamos County land and adjacent to Ashley Pond,
where most of the first Los Alamos laboratory work was conducted. A
small log structure occupies the site. DOE will convey or transfer the
entire tract.
The DP Road Tract consists of about 50 acres (20 hectares). It is
generally undeveloped except for the West section, which is occupied by
two large buildings that support DOE's mission responsibilities at
LANL; one is used for the LANL archive storage and one is used as a
support contractor facility. DOE will convey or transfer the entire
tract upon relocation of its activities.
The TA-21 Tract consists of about 260 acres (105 hectares) and is
located east of the Los Alamos townsite. This occupied site is remote
from the main LANL area; University of California workers occupy
offices at the site, and LANL operations are conducted at facilities
there. Specifically, the DP East section of the TA-21 Tract currently
houses the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tritium Sciences and
Fabrication Facility. These two research facilities are needed for the
national security mission. There is currently no formal plan to
relocate them; however, DOE is the early stages of assessing the
[[Page 14960]]
feasibility of relocating these operations to another facility within
LANL. In any event, relocation of the tritium operations,
decommissioning and decontamination of the buildings, and the necessary
remediation and restoration for the whole tract will not be completed
by 2007. At this time, DOE will only convey or transfer approximately
20 acres in the northwest section of the TA-21 Tract adjacent to the DP
Road Tract.
The Airport Tract consists of about 205 acres (83 hectares), east
of the Los Alamos townsite and near the East Gate Business Park. The
Los Alamos Airport is located on the northern part of the tract, while
other portions of the tract are undeveloped. Portions of the Airport
Tract are needed to serve as health and safety buffer areas for the
tritium activities within TA-21. At this time, DOE will only convey or
transfer part of the tract, approximately 110 acres North of East Road.
Should DOE shutdown its tritium activities at TA-21, DOE will reassess
the need to retain any buffer areas and amend this Record of Decision,
as needed.
The White Rock Y Tract consists of about 540 acres (219 hectares).
It is undeveloped and is associated with the major transportation
routes connecting Los Alamos with northern New Mexico. Portions of the
White Rock Y Tract may be needed to serve as health and safety buffer
areas for proposed LANL activities occurring elsewhere, such as the
proposed proton radiography project, in support of the national
security mission. In the Conveyance and Transfer EIS discussion of the
Preferred Alternative, DOE identified the potential partial transfer of
the White Rock Y Tract due to the developing proton radiography
project, and the tract was considered as one of the tracts that would
be conveyed in whole or in part by 2007. In this Record of Decision,
DOE is only conveying or transferring only part of the White Rock Y
Tract because of the potential national security mission need. At this
time, DOE will only convey or transfer part of the White Rock Y Tract,
approximately 125 (50 hectares) acres including the highway exchange
and areas east of it. Should DOE's siting of the proposed proton
radiography project not require a part of the White Rock Y Tract as a
buffer area, DOE will reassess the need to retain any buffer areas and
amend this Record of Decision, as needed.
The TA-74 Tract consists of about 2,715 acres (1,100 hectares). It
is a large, remote site located east of the Los Alamos townsite and is
largely undeveloped. DOE will convey or transfer the entire tract.
The White Rock Tract consists of about 100 acres (40 hectares). It
is undeveloped except for utility lines, a water pump station, and a
small building in use by the County. DOE will convey or transfer the
entire tract.
Mitigation Measures
The Conveyance and Transfer Environmental Impact Statement included
a discussion of mitigation measures both that are (a) within the scope
of DOE's control and (b) those that DOE could recommend to the
receiving parties. The following discussion outlines the mitigation
measures that DOE will undertake to reduce the impacts of conveying and
transferring the tracts and portions of tracts in accordance with the
Preferred Alternative as outlined in this Record of Decision.
DOE Mitigations Prior to Conveyance or Transfer
Prior to conveyance or transfer of any of the land tracts, DOE will
initiate cultural resource consultations with the affected Pueblos and
tribal nations and the State Historic Preservation Office, and complete
consultation regarding threatened or endangered species or their
habitat with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Consistent
with the provisions of the Act, in the case of conveyance of land
tracts to the County, DOE may include deed restrictions precluding any
development within the 100-year flood plains or wetlands. DOE also may
include other deed restrictions, notices, and similar land use controls
as deemed appropriate and necessary that are protective of human health
and safety. DOE will relocate any environmental monitoring stations
after consultation with State regulators, as appropriate.
Recommended Mitigations With DOE Participation
DOE will engage in discussions, consultations, and similar planning
activities with other organizations and land recipients. DOE will
coordinate consultations with the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
receiving parties, and other interested agencies and parties to ensure
adequate consideration of impacts on cultural resources, as well as
recreational resources (e.g., historic trails), resulting from the
conveyance and transfer of the subject tracts from the responsibility
and protection of DOE. The goal of these consultations would be a
formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) addressing the impacts of the
potential loss of certain cultural resource protections and DOE
responsibilities on the subject tracts and defining specific procedures
and responsibilities for managing cultural resource concerns upon
transfer to the receiving parties. These could include covenants to be
developed for the protection of various cultural resources.
Specific issues to be discussed include, but are not limited to:
minimize impacts to cultural resources in and adjacent to the subject
tracts from the loss of responsibility and protection of DOE by
delegating cultural resources preservation responsibilities and
developing a process that parallels existing protections and
procedures; minimize the adverse effect of the transfer or conveyance
of NRHP-eligible properties out of the responsibility and protections
of DOE by including adequate restrictions or conditions to ensure
preservation of the properties' significant historic features or
collection of appropriate data concerning the properties; minimize
potential impacts to historic buildings from the loss of DOE
responsibility and protection by completing an appropriate
identification and evaluation effort for historic buildings on the
subject tracts; ensuring that NRHP-eligible buildings continue to be
used (to the maximum extent feasible) and maintained in a manner that
preserves their historical value; and exploring the reuse of other
NRHP-eligible buildings for activities that must be relocated; minimize
potential impacts to traditional cultural properties (TCPs) by
completing consultations to identify the presence and importance of
these resources within the subject tracts, identifying any potential
impacts of conveyance or transfer on access to TCPs in adjacent areas,
and exploring methods to avoid disturbance to TCPs and traditional
users; minimize potential impacts from the loss of DOE protections and
guarantees regarding the preservation of Native American sacred sites
and the rights of Native Americans to practice traditional religions on
the subject tracts under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and
Executive Order 13007, ``Indian Sacred Sites,'' by allowing for the
continuation of any traditional religious practices; minimize the
potential impacts from the loss of DOE protection for archeological
sites, the disposition of archeological materials and penalties for
unauthorized excavation, vandalism, and trafficking of archeological
materials; minimize the potential impacts from the loss of DOE
responsibility for the protection and disposition of Native American
sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony,
[[Page 14961]]
and funerary objects under the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act by establishing agreements outlining similar
procedures for addressing the inadvertent discovery of Native American
human remains or funerary objects and their disposition; provide for
the loss of DOE responsibility for the curation of archaeological and
cultural resource collections from these tracts under 36 CFR 79 by
assigning these responsibilities and contracting for curation services;
develop a natural resources management plan that is integrated and
developed with the natural resources management plans of other adjacent
land management agencies; continue involvement in the roles and
responsibilities that have been established with the townsite of Los
Alamos, County of Los Alamos, State of New Mexico, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, for emergency response, including the
notification processes for each of the response groups and mutual aid
in the event of an emergency; explore the establishment of a proactive
means toward developing future use options for transferred properties,
in accordance with State law and the County Charter (participation in a
Future Use Options Logistics and Support Working Group with the U.S.
Forest Service, New Mexico Environment Department, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, Pueblos, and local citizens groups would be encouraged, as
well as public involvement through the Citizens Advisory Board as
instrumental steps in providing interim recommendations on future land
use options); and coordinate with local jurisdictions, Native
Americans, and State officials to explore methods to maintain a
rigorous environmental review process for future development and other
activities.
Potential Resource-Specific Mitigations
DOE outlined a variety of resource-specific mitigation issues in
the Conveyance and Transfer EIS that are not within DOE's control.
These mitigations are presented as recommendations for action by the
recipients with the assistance of DOE as discussed in previous
paragraphs. These recommendations are not discussed further herein.
Mitigation Action Plan
In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.331, DOE is preparing a Mitigation
Action Plan that will identify specific actions needed to implement the
mitigation measures identified that are within DOE's control and
provide schedules for completion. These mitigation measures represent
all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative
selected.
Conclusion
DOE has identified environmental impacts, stakeholder concerns, and
national policy concerns with regard to the actions required of it by
Public Law 105-119, and, to the extent allowed by that Act, have
considered these in its decisions regarding the conveyance and transfer
of the subject land tracts. The analysis contained in the Conveyance
and Transfer EIS is both programmatic and site specific in detail. It
is programmatic from the broad perspective and site specific in the
detailed tract activity analysis in as much as these are known. The
impacts identified in the Conveyance and Transfer EIS were based on
conservative estimates and assumptions. In this regard, the analyses
bound the impacts of the alternatives evaluated in the Conveyance and
Transfer EIS. The Preferred Alternative was defined to include
activities to implement the requirements of the Act inasmuch as they
are known at this time. This Conveyance and Transfer EIS and the
analyses it contains can be used to support future land owner or
administrator decisions.
In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, its implementing
procedures and regulations, and DOE's NEPA regulations, DOE has
considered the information contained within the Conveyance and Transfer
EIS to the extent that this information could be incorporated under the
requirements of Public Law 105-119. Being fully apprised of the
environmental consequences of the alternatives and other decision
factors described above, DOE has decided to convey and transfer all or
parts of the subject tracts as described.
Issued at Washington, DC, March 8, 2000.
Thomas F. Gioconda,
Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 00-6504 Filed 3-16-00; 9:44 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P