[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