BY MAIRE O’NEILL
maire@losalamosreporter.com
What started out as a “quick update” on Rendija Canyon by Los Alamos Community Development Department Director Paul Andrus during the November 28 County Council meeting ended up with a 55 minute discussion as Councilors expressed their desire to see the transfer of some 800 acres from the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) , which has been in the works since 1997, come to fruition. Councilor Randall Ryti had asked for the agenda item because he felt there had not been much progress on the issue.
As explained to the Los Alamos Reporter in December 2020 by former County Manager Harry Burgess, back in 2002, the County entered into an agreement with NNSA regarding the cleanup and transfer of the land. The agreement laid out the guidelines to be followed because the legislation authorizing the transfer wasn’t very specific. Burgess said the agreement talked about Rendija being cleaned up to “residential” level for transfer.
“In 2006, the community and Council was discussing Rendija and there were some concerns about having residences down there both from the point of view, as I understand it, of having the Sportsmen’s Club there, but also some of those on Barranca Mesa appreciated their views and didn’t want other houses in that canyon,” he said. “For whatever reasons, ultimately the Council at the time made the decision that they would go forward anticipating recreational uses only. That was never contractually altered. That has been stated to me by NNSA however we still have the black and white of the language of the agreement.”
Burgess at that time said he had not had a single conversation about it turning into residential use.
Also in December 2020, then Council Chair Sara Scott wrote to NNSA to say that the County “discussed other options for reuse with NNSA but that those options never included a restriction that does not permit the safe use of the land”.
Scott’s letter said the County had “previously identified to NNSA unmitigated and inadequately addressed public health risks associated with the historic use of the property by the United States”. She said specifically, “the potential for and location of unexploded ordnance (UXO) within the property has not been satisfactorily evaluated”.
“Rather than performing the proper evaluation of this risk, an obligation of NNSA prior to conveyance to the County, NNSA is attempting to impose a broad land use restriction involving ground disturbing activities which, if accepted, compromises our intended future use and poses a possible risk to our constituents,” Scott’s letter stated. “Further, your proposed language would impose on the County the cost and potential liability for any ground disturbing activities. Given the nature of UXO explosive risk, these are not appropriate responsibilities to be imposed on a municipal government.”
Scott referred to an investigation of the property by the Army Corps of Engineers using then available technology to detect metallic objects on and below the surface area.
“Although that technology was capable of detecting metallic objects at a depth of several feet below the surface, data in the Corps’ report was limited to what was detected a few inches below the surface. Whether this limited evaluation was an error in the drafting of the Corps’ scope of work or a failure on the part of the Corps in performance of its contractual obligation is unclear. However, for the County, this level of detection represents an unacceptable risk, and requires substantive corrective action, not merely a limitation on ground penetrating activities; the proposed land use restriction is an acknowledgment of the validity of our concerns,” the letter states.
Scott said the intended County use and public access require confidence in the safety of the site. She said given the defect in the investigation and/or report and the potential risk, the statutorily required deed warranty condition clearly stating “…all action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken” had not been met. She said the County was prepared to accept the conveyance but not on the proposed terms. She wrote, “We look forward to and are prepared to accept the conveyance, but not on the proposed terms and stand ready to work together to identify an appropriate path forward.”
Although the land transfer issue has been brought up during presentations by NNSA management at Council meetings and reportedly discussed at monthly meetings of County and DOE officials there has been little progress indicated. Councilors made it clear at their November 28 meeting that they are anxious to see things move ahead faster than they have done in the last three years.
Andrus noted that a few years ago the Corps of Engineers was brought on by NNSA to do an unexploded ordnance (UXO) survey that resulted in a determination that deed restrictions for any future uses of the Rendija property. He said nothing more than 4” to 6” could be disturbed and that more than that depth on the site would require a clearance prior to ground disturbance, “which is a deal-breaker for the County in accepting any conveyance”. He said at the request of the County, NNSA went back to the Corp of Engineers to see if the deed restriction could be changed or eliminated and at that time it was essentially a negative response.
“NNSA has shown an unwillingness to accept the risk associated with those deed restrictions,” Andrus said.
He said since some of the conversations have been restarted, some questions have been posed by the County and NNSA.
“Really the essence of this is coming to some kind of agreement on those deed restrictions. In the situation where we would acquire the entire area or some areas in Rendija Canyon, is there some additional research or surveying that can be done in the canyon that would give both sides a better idea of where those potential dangers might be. The idea here is that maybe some of the technology has changed to where somebody could get a better idea of what’s around that’s different to when the original survey was done,” Andrus said.
NNSA has asked the County to come back with some ideas to maybe be more specific in terms of the areas that might work and what types of uses the County might have in mind.
“With that we went back to the original Master Plan that was done in 2009. Some folks may be aware of this from way back in the 70s and 80s when Rendija Canyon was originally being looked at for potential housing development and some analysis was done on what that would look like and what the issues in the canyon might be,” Andrus said. “In the 2000s, that Idea was shelved to have more recreational use and this is what the client was recommending. What came out of the Plan was recreation and open space and that the Community Services Department should incorporate it into its open park system and develop operations plans in addition to relevance and accommodating those types of recreational uses that would come into play as well.”
Andrus said the property could be used for RVs and camping in a little more formalized manner. He discussed how the existing road relates to the existing utilities in the area as well as the public safety aspect, which would allow the road to be maintained in good condition.
“There are so many things that come into consideration that can be showstoppers – if we could get more comfortable with the data that we have and see if there’s a process moving forward that might make sense for the County and the community,” Andrus said.
Councilor Melanee Hand indicated that she would like to see some of the items Andrus had mentioned included with some of what was in the Master Plan.
“I don’t know if there’s going to be much of a conflict with some of the other operations of the shooting range down there – if that’s going to be a problem with camping down there,” she said.
Councilor Hand asked if it would be possible to have RV storage down there especially if Council was trying to have RVs away from residences and trying to find another place for them. She was also supportive of improving the road as it was used during two evacuations due to wildfire.
Councilor Randall Ryti noted that some of the figures in the CDD presentation were from the 2021 site tour presentation given by NNSA. He asked it the fire mitigation work in the canyon had been completed. Community Services Director Cory Styron said some progress had been made on the area around the shooting range but that there was still a lot to do on the other side of the road and that would be continued.
“That was another criteria that we discussed that If the County was to have that land conveyed – specifically the area between the road and Barranca Mesa – that we could have some additional fire mitigation. The County would be responsible for maintaining that area, which is another criteria that was built into this thing,” Andrus said.
Councilor Ryti discussed how the road currently goes through the Santa Fe National Forest before going into DOE property, which causes some of the issue with maintenance of the road. He asked Andrus if the County has spoken to SFNF about having an easement there so that at least the road could be maintained. Andrus responded that Deputy County Manager Anne Laurent was heading up that conversation. He said that is an issue not only for the road but for the homes, including his own, that back up to the “no man’s land” between the road and Barranca Mesa.
Councilor Ryti said he endorsed the road transfer down to the boundary with the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. He noted that the Pueblo has been gracious to allow emergency access through there, so it would be highly beneficial to the County.
“To do any road grading, I presume we would have that area screened for UXO prior to that activity occurring. We’ve had ongoing discussions as long as I’ve been on Council. It dates back many, many years and I would hope that we can come up with a fairly definite path forward on this property because we got the land transfer language extended,” he said.
Councilor Ryti noted that if the County was going to take an incremental approach for the canyon, it would take some time.
“It seems like we should have some definitive direction from Council on what we’re going to try to do. If you put people camping down there, logically they’re going on trails and the whole area is now available for people to use. That’s why I was talking about the road done, because that would make sense to me, and then the other areas,” Ryti said. “Do we understand what the limitations are for NNSA? Is it resources? Is it some rationale that it should be done or not be done – that there would be restrictions like the 6 inch restriction on any parcel being transferred to the County.”
Ryti noted that two years ago NNSA was very anxious to transfer the property as is, even with the cultural issues on it.
“So it’s interesting that they are bringing up additional issues plus the question of funding needed. I’d just like to understand if there has been any indication of what the real stumbling block is for NNSA,” he said.
County Manager Steve Lynne said that the initial point of contention had to do with the deed restrictions and the County’s initial position that it wouldn’t accept the transfer at all and NNSA coming back and saying that it’s cost prohibitive to redo the survey of the area that would eliminate all restrictions.
“More recently what we’re exploring is if there is some compromise where some additional work and cost on DOE’s side could occur so some portions would be more usable without restrictions or with more reasonable restrictions and in exchange we’d be willing to accept some portion of this 800-900 acres with some of the existing proposed restrictions,” Lynne said.
He said it’s still relatively early.
“I believe DOE is exploring what those options might be in terms of reevaluation of a limited portion of the site might be and they’re just beginning those conversations internally and with other federal agencies,” Lynne said.
Councilor Ryti said it might be productive to have some discussions about the road being a priority because once camping is added there will be more people down in the canyon than there are now. He discussed the DOE’s Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) on the north side of the road.
“It behooves NNSA to make sure there are no hazards where they are allowing the public to access. I don’t know why there would be such a debate about this at this point since we’re now well over two years since we had these meetings,” Ryti said. “I’m a little frustrated at the pace we’re going at. I wish we could move things on a little bit so that we could have these properties. There’s also the well pads, so you could look at the road and the trails and once you’ve done all that, what’s the delta for doing all the rest? That’s what I’d like to know.”
Council asked the question, “What protects the Los Alamos Sportsmen’s Club from being zoned out” in the event the area is set aside for open space? “Is that kind of recreation allowed?” he asked.
“I believe as part of this process the County would have to look at its base zoning as it relates to open space recreation use. It’s land and if they can retain it as federal land and it’s not zoned it wouldn’t conform to our local laws,” Andrus said. “The transfer of the Sportsmen’s Club is not being proposed at this time for conveyance. They recognize that for them to clean that up – that’s where your costs come into play.”
Andrus said there has been some discussion between DOE and the Sportsmen’s Club about extending an additional buffer around it just for additional safety.
“You’ve probably heard the story. Historically there’s been conflict with people and pets wandering onto that site so there’s sensitivity to trying to maintain a sufficient buffer to prevent that type of interaction. When we were on our tour in 2021, we heard stories of that happening,” Andrus said.
Councilor Suzie Haveman said she supports expediting the project.
“How many decades has this been on the table,” she asked. “I support putting it back on the priority list so we can get some better information and make some better timelines, plans and decisions. For me there’s not enough information about the risks involved with the SWMUs, unexploded ordinance, lead in the ground, and if we have a long-term plan of having camping in there, people will be out exploring . There are already hiking trails out there.”
Council Chair Denise Derkacs noted that on the last two Council trips to Washington, DC, County representatives spoke to NNSA and that they seemed to be receptive with the idea and willing to look into cleanup.
“But then we learned there was some back and forth going on between NNSA and the Army Corps of Engineer. Do we know what the status is now? Are they making any progress coming to any agreement on who’s responsible for cleanup,” Derkacs asked.
County Manager Lynne said the last time the issue was discussed was at the County’s monthly meeting with NNSA. He said NNSA has really just begun exploring that and noted that Paul Holland is NNSA’s point person in the Site Office.
“It does not sound like things have gotten very far into the substance, the specifics, the timing or contract mechanisms or costs, and that was maybe two months ago. So that’s the last we heard about those discussions. We did ask about some of that feedback that was heard from the Washington, DC trip they didn’t seem to have those types of concern that there was any kind of disagreement, just that at this point it was very early in their conversations,” Lynn said.
Paul Andrus said there have been emails from Paul Holland to County staff.
“There haven’t been any developments so far on that issue. They’re working on their side to try to modify some kind of iterations. We have to leverage USACE contracts as well as other tasks like how we would proceed with additional survey work. That was the last exchange I had so it’s still in their corner in terms of some of the specific work. I have not seen anything else other than that,” Andrus sad.
Council Vice Chair Theresa Cull said in her past dealings with DOE, “if we don’t get someone on this and continue to push this, it’s going to be handed off to someone else and we’ll have to start all over again”.
“If we really want this to happen and I feel like we want some portion of the land transfer if not the whole thing we’re going to have to push it. I think we probably need a better plan for moving forward on this. It’s frustrating dealing with DOE; I know it is,” Cull said.
She said she wonders if Pueblo de San Ildefonso accesses their cultural sites from Rendija. She said she also would like to know if the Pueblo might be interested in being part of this land transfer as part of Council’s regional interaction with the Pueblo that it had recently reestablished.
“It seems like DOE is more concerned about lead than about unexploded ordnance. They’ve been doing surveys down there for years,” Cull said.
She asked if there is any available data on where unexploded ordnance has been found.
“They have trails on their property on the other side of the Lab where people hike all the time and they’ve come across unexploded ordnance. Those areas are open to hiking. There are probably signs posted and other things that are done to help people to understand what the hazards might be and to stay on the trails. It seems like this is doable without having to go through a whole lot of work to make this happen,” Cull said. “I’m worried that if we don’t make this happen sooner rather than later that we may lose the opportunity to get some or all of this land.
Cull said she would like to see some proposed action for Council for a future meeting where Councilors could actually take a vote on the direction they want for the parcel.
See recent Los Alamos Reporter stories on the issue below:
County Manager Updates Council On Rendija Land Transfer Proposal
DOE Discusses Proposed Rendija Canyon Land Conveyance At Citizens Advisory Board Meeting