Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66609

1 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508.

2 10 CFR Part 1021.

Abstract: This collection of

information will provide baseline data

on the level of knowledge concerning

college costs and college admission

requirements among parents of middle

school children. The data will help the

U.S. Department of Education to

evaluate and refine its early awareness

initiative.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Report of Financial Need and

Certification Report for the Jacob K.

Javits Fellowship Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit;

Not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Hour Burden: Responses: 100, Burden

Hours: 400.

Abstract: These instructions and

forms provide the means to collect data

in order to make funding determinations

for fellows selected under the Jacob K.

Javits Fellowship Program.

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: State Plan for Independent

Living, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

Amended (Act), Title VII, Chapter 1.

Frequency: Every three years.

Affected Public: State, local or Tribal

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Hour Burden: Responses: 56, Burden

Hours: 4,480.

Abstract: The purpose of Chapter 1 of

Title VII of the Act (Ch.1) is to promote

a philosophy of independent living

which includes control, peer support,

self-help, self-determination, equal

access and individual and system

advocacy, in order to maximize the

leadership, empowerment,

independence, and productivity of

individuals with disabilities, and the

integration and full inclusion of

individuals with disabilities into the

mainstream of American society. To

implement this purpose, Ch.1

authorizes financial assistance to States

for providing, expanding and improving

the provisions of State independent

living services (SILS), to develop and

support statewide networks of centers

for independent living (CILs), to

improve working relationships among

State IL services programs (SILS), CILs,

Statewide Independent Living Councils

(SILCs), programs funded under other

titles of the Act, and other programs that

address issues relevant to duals with

disabilities funded by Federal and nonFederal authorities.

Section 704 of the Act requires the

designated State unit(s) (DSU), jointly

with the SILC to develop and sign an

approvable SPIL in each State to receive

financial assistance under Ch. 1.

[FR Doc. 97–33151 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision: Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement/

Program Environmental Impact Report

for the Sale of Naval Petroleum

Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County,

California

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) is issuing this Record of Decision

to proceed, subject to review by

Congress, with the sale to Occidental

Petroleum Corporation (Occidental) of

all right, title, and interest of the United

States in Naval Petroleum Reserve No.

1 (NPR–1) located in Kern County,

California, in accordance with Title

XXXIV of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996,

Public Law 104–106 (hereinafter the

‘‘Elk Hills Sales Statute’’ or ‘‘Act’’).

The Act requires that DOE undertake

a process to sell NPR–1 in a manner

consistent with commercial practices

and in a manner that maximizes the

proceeds to the Federal government.

Furthermore, the Act requires DOE to

complete the sale of NPR–1 by February

10, 1998, unless DOE and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) jointly

determine that (i) the sale is proceeding

in a manner inconsistent with

achievement of a sale price that reflects

full value, or (ii) another course of

action is in the best interests of the

United States. The Act also specifies a

process for determining the minimum

acceptable price for the sale of NPR–1.

Based on the analyses in the

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement/Program Environmental

Impact Report (SEIS/PEIR) titled, ‘‘Sale

of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk

Hills) Kern County, California,’’

consideration of the Congressional

direction contained in the Elk Hills

Sales Statute, and an offer submitted by

Occidental that exceeded the minimum

acceptable sale price as determined

pursuant to section 3412(d) of the Act

and exceeded all other offers received

following a competitive sales process,

DOE has determined that

implementation of the Proposed Action

and Preferred Alternative in the SEIS/

PEIR (i.e., the sale of all right, title and

interest in NPR–1 in accordance with

the Act to Occidental) is in the best

interests of the United States.

Accordingly, DOE is publishing this

Record of Decision (ROD) under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to proceed

with the sale of NPR–1 to Occidental

and to document the basis for this

decision.

ADDRESSES: For further information on

the sale of NPR–1 (Elk Hills), contact

Anthony J. Como, NEPA Document

Manager, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

D.C. 20585, (202) 586–5935 or 1–888–

NPR–EIS1. For further information on

the NEPA process, contact Carol

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue

SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586–

4600 or leave a message at 1–800–472–

2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE is

issuing a ROD pursuant to the

regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality implementing

the procedural provisions of NEPA 1 and

DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations.2

Background

The Elk Hills Sales Statute, signed by

President Clinton on February 10, 1996,

authorized and directed the Secretary of

Energy (the ‘‘Secretary’’) to enter into

one or more contracts for the sale of

NPR–1 by February 10, 1998, unless the

Secretary and the Director of OMB

jointly determine that (i) the sale is

proceeding in a manner inconsistent

with achievement of a sale price that

reflects full value, or (ii) another course

of action is in the best interests of the

United States. The Act further directed

that the sales process be conducted ‘‘in

a manner consistent with commercial

practices and in a manner that

maximizes sale proceeds to the

Government.’’

The Act directed the Secretary to take

certain measures which were designed

to assure that the sale of NPR–1 would

result in the maximum return to the

government and that the full value of

the reserve would be realized. These

measures included:

(1) The retention of an investment

banker to independently administer the

sale in a manner that maximizes sale

proceeds to the government;

(2) The hiring of an independent

petroleum engineer to prepare a reserve

report in a manner consistent with

commercial practices;

(3) The finalization of equity interests

of known oil and gas zones;
66610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

3The authority for Federal agencies to

incidentally ‘‘take’’ (i.e., kill, harm, hunt, wound,

trap, etc.) endangered species is granted by the FWS

through a consultation process. Such consultation

results in the issuance of a Biological Opinion,

which includes an incidental take statement. As

used in this Record of Decision, the term

‘‘incidental take permit’’ or ‘‘permit’’ refers

collectively to the Biological Opinion and the

incidental take statement contained therein.

(4) Conducting a competitive sale that

was fair and open to all interested and

qualified parties;

(5) The establishment of a process for

setting the minimum acceptable sales

price; and

(6) The authority to transfer to the

purchaser(s) of NPR–1 the otherwise

nontransferable incidental take permit 3

issued to the Secretary by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) under

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA).

The Act also requires that DOE submit

a written notification to Congress of the

conditions of the proposed sale at least

31 days before DOE enters into any

contract(s).

Minimum Acceptable Sales Price

Section 3412(d) of the Act prescribes

a process for the Secretary of Energy, in

consultation with the Director of OMB,

to set the minimum acceptable price for

the sale of NPR–1. As required by this

section of the Act, the Secretary retained

the services of five independent experts

in the valuation of oil and gas fields to

conduct separate assessments, in a

manner consistent with commercial

practices, of the value of NPR–1 to the

United States under continued

government ownership and operation.

Section 3412(d) specifies that in making

their assessments, the independent

experts shall consider, among other

factors, the net present value of the

anticipated revenue stream that the

Secretary and the Director of OMB

jointly determine the Treasury would

receive from NPR–1 if it were not sold,

adjusted for any anticipated increases in

tax revenues that would result if NPR–

1 were sold. This net present value

determination was prepared jointly by

DOE and OMB and was provided to the

five independent experts for

consideration in making their

assessments.

Section 3412(d)(3) of the Act specifies

that the Secretary may not set the

minimum acceptable sale price below

the higher of: (a) The average of the five

independent assessments; and (b) the

average of three assessments after

excluding the high and low

assessments. The five independent

assessments were submitted to DOE on

September 15, 1997. After reviewing

these assessments, on September 26,

1997, the Secretary and the Director of

OMB jointly established the minimum

acceptable price for the sale of NPR–1

as the average of the five assessments,

which average was higher than the

average of the middle three assessments.

The best and final offer submitted by

Occidental on October 3, 1997,

exceeded the minimum acceptable sale

price established by the above process,

as well as all other offers, and

combinations of other offers, submitted

by qualified offerors.

Transfer of Incidental Take Permit

Section 3413(d) of the Elk Hills Sales

Statute permits the Secretary to transfer

to the purchaser(s) of NPR–1 the

incidental take permit issued to the

Secretary by the FWS and in effect on

February 10, 1996, ‘‘if the Secretary

determines that transfer of the permit is

necessary to expedite the sale of the

reserve in a manner that maximizes the

value of the sale to the United States.’’

At the beginning of the commercial

sales process, DOE decided that

transferring to the purchaser(s) of NPR–

1 the Biological Opinion (and incidental

take statement contained therein) issued

to DOE by the FWS on November 8,

1995, should help maximize the

proceeds from the sale of NPR–1.

However, in the event that not all

potential purchasers of NPR–1 would be

willing to accept the transferred

Biological Opinion and its terms and

conditions, DOE determined to make

the transfer optional on the part of the

prospective operators in the draft

Purchase and Sale Agreement

distributed to potential purchasers

during the sales process.

In its offer to purchase NPR–1,

Occidental agreed to accept DOE’s

Biological Opinion and incidental take

statement. Accordingly, under the terms

of the Purchase and Sale Agreement,

Occidental will assume and agree to be

bound by and perform all of DOE’s

obligations (terms, conditions, and

mitigation measures) under the

Biological Opinion, including the ongoing monitoring requirements and the

obligation to establish a 7,075-acre

conservation area.

NEPA Process

The continued operation of NPR–1 by

DOE has been analyzed in two

previously-issued environmental impact

statements (EISs): the 1979 EIS titled

‘‘Petroleum Production at Maximum

Efficient Rate, Naval Petroleum Reserve

No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County,

California’’ (DOE/EIS-0012) and a 1993

supplement to the 1979 EIS titled

‘‘Petroleum Production at Maximum

Efficient Rate, Naval Petroleum Reserve

No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County,

California’’ (DOE/EIS–0158). However,

neither of those documents addressed

the possible divestiture of NPR–1.

Therefore, subsequent to the enactment

of the Elk Hills Sales Statute, DOE

determined that the sale of NPR–1

would constitute a major Federal action

that may have a significant impact upon

the environment within the meaning of

NEPA. Accordingly, on March 21, 1996,

DOE published a notice in the Federal

Register (61 FR 11617) announcing its

intention to prepare a supplement to the

1993 Supplemental EIS to address

foreseeable impacts from the sale of

NPR–1 and reasonable alternatives. On

April 16, 1996, DOE conducted two

public scoping meetings in Bakersfield,

California, to identify major issues and

concerns that should be addressed in

the SEIS.

After consultation with the Kern

County (California) Planning

Department, Kern County determined

that the proposed sale was a project

within the meaning of the California

Environmental Quality Act of 1970

(CEQA) requiring the preparation of a

environmental impact report (EIR). Kern

County also determined that, because of

the unknown future development

decisions of the potential new owners,

the EIR should be a program EIR (PEIR)

with future additional analyses to be

conducted under CEQA as required.

Then the determination was made by

DOE and Kern County to prepare a joint

SEIS/PEIR as allowed by the NEPA and

CEQA regulations.

In July 1997, the DOE and Kern

County published a Draft SEIS/PEIR on

the proposed divestiture of NPR–1 titled

‘‘Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement/Program

Environmental Impact Report for the

Sale of NPR–1, Kern County, California

(DOE/SEIS/PEIR–0158–S2). This

document addressed the environmental

impacts associated with the Proposed

Action (sale of all right, title, and

interest of the United States in NPR–1

as required by the Elk Hills Sales

Statute) and two possible alternatives.

DOE and Kern County distributed

approximately 300 copies of the Draft

SEIS/PEIR to members of Congress,

Federal, state and local agencies, Native

American organizations, environmental

groups, businesses, and interested

individuals. On July 25, 1997, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

published a notice in the Federal

Register (62 FR 40074) announcing the

availability of the Draft SEIS/PEIR and

the start of a 45-day public comment

period, which ended on September 8,

1997. As part of the public comment

process, DOE and Kern County held two
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66611

4 The final Purchase and Sale Agreement

negotiated with Occidental contained a provision in

which Occidental agreed ‘‘to deliver a list of

mitigation measures to be implemented by Buyer

[Occidental] after Closing.’’ In compliance with this

provision, on November 7, 1997, Occidental

submitted a list of thirty-three (33) mitigation

measures that it intends to implement. In this letter,

Occidental also identified the appropriate State,

local, or Federal agency which is expected to

monitor compliance with each of the measures.

public hearings on August 26, 1997, in

Bakersfield, California.

In preparing the Final SEIS/PEIR,

DOE and Kern County considered all

public comments received, including

comments received after the September

8, 1997, comment closing date as well

as the oral comments made during the

public hearings. Over 300 comments

were received from 29 written comment

letters and 7 oral statements made at the

public hearings. The Final SEIS/PEIR

was distributed on October 17, 1997.

This Final SEIS/PEIR consisted of the

Draft SEIS/PEIR and a commentresponse document that included public

comments received on the Draft SEIS/

PEIR, responses to those comments, and

changes in the Draft SEIS/PEIR in

response to public comments. The Final

SEIS/PEIR identified the Proposed

Action as DOE’s Preferred Alternative.

DOE and Kern County distributed

approximately 300 copies of the Final

SEIS/PEIR to members of Congress,

Federal, state and local agencies, Native

American organizations, environmental

groups, businesses, and interested

individuals. On October 24, 1997, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

published a notice in the Federal

Register (62 FR 55399) announcing the

availability of the Final SEIS/PEIR.

Sales Process

In order to meet the February 10,

1998, statutory deadline contained in

the Elk Hills Sales Statute for the

completion of the sale, DOE conducted

its sales process concurrently with the

NEPA and CEQA processes. On May 21,

1997, DOE announced the start of the

sales process, which culminated on

October 1, 1997, with the submission of

bids for the purchase of NPR–1.

To comply with the provisions of the

Act, DOE implemented a sales strategy

designed to maximize the proceeds to

the Federal government. To comply

with DOE’s further obligations under

NEPA to identify all practicable means

of mitigating adverse impacts, DOE

structured the sales process to

incorporate mitigation in a manner that

would not impair the ability of DOE to

maximize the proceeds from the sale of

NPR–1. To meet DOE’s obligations

under the Elk Hills Sales Statute and

NEPA, the Purchase and Sale

Agreement provided to prospective

offerors during the sales process (May

21, 1997, through October 1, 1997)

contained three optional provisions

designed to incorporate mitigation into

the sale of NPR–1 in a manner that did

not impair DOE’s ability to maximize

proceeds from the sale. These optional

provisions were:

(1) Acceptance of the Biological

Opinion (including incidental take

statement) issued to DOE by the FWS;

(2) Identification of mitigation

measures (contained in the SEIS/PEIR)

that would be committed to, without

reducing the offering price; and

(3) A guarantee that small and

independent refiners in the region

would have access to 25% of the new

operator’s NPR–1 oil production for

three years following the sale.

During the sales process, prospective

purchasers were notified that, even after

offers were submitted and the ‘‘highest

offer(s)’’ identified, DOE could not enter

into a sales contract until:

(1) The NEPA process is completed

and DOE publishes a Record of

Decision;

(2) The Justice Department completes

an antitrust review of the sale; and

(3) A 31-day Congressional review

period expires with no adverse

Congressional action.

On October 1, 1997, DOE received

twenty-two (22) offers from fifteen (15)

entities. After a preliminary evaluation

of these offers, DOE requested

submission of ‘‘best and final’’ offers

from all offerors whose initial offer

exceeded the minimum acceptable

price. After review of the ‘‘best and

final’’ offers, DOE identified Occidental

as the firm submitting the highest offer

for the purchase of NPR–1. In the final

Purchase and Sale Agreement to

purchase NPR–1, Occidental proposed

to accept the transfer of DOE’s

Biological Opinion and to submit to

DOE, within ten (10) business days

following the publication of the Final

SEIS/PEIR, a list of mitigation measures

Occidental would implement after the

closing date of the sale, which is

scheduled to occur no later than

February 10, 1998. This list of

mitigation measures 4 is described in

this Record of Decision.

Description of Alternatives

Three alternative actions were

analyzed in the SEIS/PEIR: (1) Sale of

all right, title, and interest of the Federal

government in NPR–1 in accordance

with the Act (the Proposed Action); (2)

continued DOE ownership and

operation of NPR–1 (the No-Action

Alternative); and (3) withdrawal of DOE

from direct petroleum production

activities at NPR–1 but continued

Federal ownership (Alternative to the

Proposed Action).

Comments received during the

scoping process suggested that,

depending upon how NPR–1 was

offered for sale and the type of

entity(ies) to whom NPR–1 was sold,

different types and levels of

environmental impacts could result.

Based on these scoping comments, DOE

and Kern County developed and

analyzed three different divestiture

scenarios under the Proposed Action

and two different divestiture scenarios

under the Alternative to the Proposed

Action. In each case, the analyses in the

SEIS/PEIR were based upon either a

government approach to field

development or a commercial approach,

depending upon the type of entity(ies)

assumed to be the eventual owner(s) of

NPR–1. The three alternatives, five

divestiture scenarios, and the two field

development approaches combine to

produce varying types and levels of

environmental impacts that are

identified in the SEIS/PEIR. These

differences in types and levels of

impacts result from differences in the

rate and level of intensity of oil field

development among the three

alternatives.

The No Action Alternative assumes

continued government ownership and

operation of NPR–1 and is based upon

the lowest rate and level of intensity of

field development activities among the

three alternatives. Because the Proposed

Action and the Alternative to the

Proposed Action both assume operation

of NPR–1 by a private entity, these two

alternatives are based upon the same

rate and level of intensity of field

development activities, which is above

that assumed in the No Action

Alternative.

In order to provide a development

baseline against which to analyze the

environmental impacts resulting from

each alternative, the SEIS/PEIR also

included a Reference Case. The

Reference Case is based on continued

production of NPR–1 at maximum

efficient rate (MER) in compliance with

the Naval Petroleum Reserves

Production Act of 1976, 10 U.S.C. 7420

et seq. The 1976 Production Act defines

MER as ‘‘the maximum sustainable

daily oil and gas rate from a reservoir

which will permit economic

development and depletion of that

reservoir without detriment to the

ultimate recovery’’ (10 U.S.C. 7420).

Such a case formed the basis of the

Proposed Action in the 1993 SEIS. The

Reference Case in the SEIS/PEIR is
66612 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

based upon NPR–1’s 1995 Long Range

Plan.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action and DOE’s

Preferred Alternative is the sale of all

the Federal government’s right, title,

and interest in NPR–1 as directed by the

Elk Hills Sales Statute. Under the

Proposed Action, one or more private

entities would purchase NPR–1 and

continue to develop and operate it as a

commercial oil and gas field for at least

the next 40 years. This alternative

would result in a higher rate and level

of intensity of development for NPR–1

than would be the case under continued

government ownership and operation

(the No Action Alternative). This higher

rate and level of intensity of

development would result in the

construction and operation of more oil

field infrastructure (wells, pipelines, gas

processing facilities) than under

government operation with a resulting

increase in the level of environmental

impacts.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative assumes

continued Federal ownership of NPR–1

with ongoing responsibility for the field

continuing to be assumed by DOE. This

could occur if the Secretary exercises

his authority under section 3414(b) of

the Act to suspend the sale. If such a

recommendation were made, new and

separate Congressional action would be

required before further action with

respect to the disposition of NPR–1

could take place.

However, section 3412(h) of the Act

specifies that, until sale, production at

NPR–1 is to continue at ‘‘the maximum

daily oil or gas rate from a reservoir,

which will permit maximum economic

development of the reservoir consistent

with sound oil field engineering

practices.’’ Therefore, under the No

Action Alternative, continued

ownership and operation by DOE would

result in a higher rate and level of

intensity of development and associated

environmental impacts than those that

formed the basis of the Proposed Action

in the 1993 SEIS and that are above

those characterized by the Reference

Case in the SEIS/PEIR.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the Federal

government would take some action

other than that required by the Act to

sell part, but not all, of its interest in

NPR–1, with the same objective of

maximizing the value of the reserve to

the government. Under this alternative,

some level of Federal ownership and

control over NPR–1 would be retained.

Future oil and gas development of NPR–

1 would be at the same rate and level

of intensity as the Proposed Action but

at a higher rate and level of intensity

than under the No Action Alternative.

However, the continued Federal role in

the overall management of the property

would result in a lower level of

environmental impacts than under the

Proposed Action. Implementation of

this alternative would require additional

legislation.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Environmentally Preferable

Alternative is the No Action Alternative:

continued ownership and operation of

NPR–1 by DOE. This alternative would

result in a continuation of the present

level of Federal protection for the

threatened and endangered species that

are found on NPR–1. Also, under this

alternative, the Federal government

would develop NPR–1 at a lower rate

and level of intensity than would a

private entity under the Proposed

Action or the Alternative to the

Proposed Action. This lower rate and

level of intensity of development would

produce proportionately lower levels of

impacts across the full spectrum of

environmental resources. Finally, under

the No Action Alternative, NPR–1 likely

would revert to some form of

conservation area after the completion

of oil and gas operations. The

environmentally preferable alternative

was not selected as DOE’s preferred

alternative because it would not permit

DOE to comply with the Congressional

direction contained in the Act of

divesting the Federal government of all

right, title, and interest in NPR–1.

Major Environmental Impacts and

Mitigation Measures

NPR–1 is expected to remain

exclusively an oil field for about the

next half century. The differences in

environmental impacts among

alternatives are driven by the rate and

level of intensity of development.

Development by a private entity under

the Proposed Action or the Alternative

to the Proposed Action would occur at

a higher rate and level of intensity than

development by the Federal government

under the No Action Alternative.

The two most import resource areas

expected to be impacted by the

Proposed Action (as well as the No

Action Alternative and the Alternative

to the Proposed Action) are biological

and cultural resources. The SEIS/PEIR

also identified two other potentially

significant resource areas for the three

alternatives. These include air resources

and water resources. Other potential

resource areas and impacts analyzed in

the SEIS/PEIR include geology and

soils, hazardous waste, land use, noise,

socioeconomic, energy conservation,

and environmental justice. However,

none of the impacts occurring in these

areas were considered likely to be

significant. The SEIS/PEIR concludes

that all of the impacts resulting from the

three alternatives could be mitigated to

levels that are less than significant.

Proposed Action

Because the proposed sale of NPR–1

to Occidental would involve the sale of

all of the Federal government’s right,

title, and interest, implementation of

mitigation measures under the Proposed

Action would be accomplished, for the

most part (except for the completion of

certain mitigation measures related to

cultural resources), by the proposed

purchaser of NPR–1, Occidental, with

enforcement by the Federal, state and

local agencies that have regulatory

responsibility for the activities

occurring at NPR–1.

Biological Resources

Impacts: The most significant impacts

from the Proposed Action and the

attendant future development of NPR–1

would be on biological resources. NPR–

1 serves as an important habitat for a

number of threatened and endangered

species, including the San Joaquin kit

fox, the blunt nose leopard lizard, the

giant kangaroo rat, the Tipton kangaroo

rat, the antelope squirrel, and Hoover’s

woolly-star (a flowering plant).

Oil and gas development on NPR–1

would continue to alter habitat and

destroy or injure individuals of

threatened and endangered species

under the Proposed Action.

Development under private ownership

of NPR–1 would be at a higher rate and

level of intensity and, consequently,

have a greater impact on plant and

animal communities in general and on

threatened and endangered species in

particular. Under the Proposed Action,

potentially significant impacts include:

(1) loss of the affirmative Federal

obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the

ESA to protect, conserve and help

recover threatened and endangered

species and their habitats, because the

degree of mitigation required of private

entities by the ESA is lower than that

required of the Federal government; (2)

the potential lack of funds for protection

and management of the habitat

conservation area required to be created

by the 1995 Biological Opinion; (3)

reduced potential for recovery of listed

species and increased potential for

listing additional species; and (4)

increase in habitat loss and mortality,

injury or displacement of plant and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66613

5This is the section of the ESA which contains

requirements applicable to private landowners.

animal communities, including

threatened and endangered species.

The impacts under private ownership

from future development following the

depletion of the reserves and the end of

oil and gas production are too

speculative to be predicted with any

specificity. However, it is possible that

additional stress to biological resources

could occur, depending on how the

owners use the land.

Mitigation: The principal mitigation

for the potentially significant impacts

on biological resources is Occidental’s

decision to accept transfer of and

agreement to be bound by all the terms

and conditions of the Biological

Opinion and incidental take statement

issued to DOE by the FWS on November

8, 1995. Those terms and conditions,

including the mitigation commitments

made by DOE, will be in effect until

Occidental applies for and receives a

new incidental take permit from the

FWS under section 10 of the ESA.5 A

new section 10 permit would contain

appropriate terms and conditions agreed

to by the FWS and Occidental. The

principal mitigation measures contained

in the 1995 Biological Opinion include:

(1) Creation of a 7,075-acre

conservation area and habitat

management program;

(2) Conducting research, monitoring,

and biological survey programs;

(3) Incorporation of a variety of

measures to limit disturbance or

destruction of individuals of threatened

and endangered species during

operation and construction activities;

(4) Prohibitions of public access,

hunting, and livestock grazing within

NPR–1; and

(5) Restrictions on the use of

pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides.

In addition to accepting the terms and

conditions of the 1995 Biological

Opinion, Occidental will enter into and

implement an Interim Memorandum of

Understanding with the California

Department of Fish and Game pursuant

to Section 2081 of California’s

Endangered Species Act. The terms,

conditions, and mitigation measures

that would be contained in this

Memorandum of Understanding will

mitigate potentially significant impacts

on those plant and animal species listed

as threatened or endangered by the State

of California.

Cultural Resources

Impacts: The second major resource

area impacted by the Proposed Action is

cultural resources. Approximately 60

percent of the area of NPR–1 has been

subject to archaeological survey and

inventory. There are two historic

archaeological sites at NPR–1 that the

California State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) has determined are

eligible for inclusion on the National

Register of Historic Places (discussed

below). There are also four prehistoric

sites that are eligible for the National

Register. Additional inventory efforts

are underway and more prehistoric sites

are likely to be found (discussed below).

The documented prehistoric sites are

represented by accumulations of flaked

and ground stone, shell and bone

artifacts, features, faunal dietary

remains and human remains (at two

known sites), all of which may be

relevant to the prehistory of the area.

Although many potentially significant

individual historic archaeological sites

or buildings at NPR–1 have been so

disturbed that their archaeological

values have been destroyed, DOE

recommended to the SHPO that NPR–1

be eligible for inclusion on the National

Register as an historic landscape. The

SHPO concluded, however, that NPR–1

was not an historic landscape but found

that three early production wells (the

Hay No. 1 Discovery Well, the Hay No.

5 well, and the Hay No. 7 natural gas

well) appear to be eligible for the

National Register.

Discussions with the SHPO on

prehistoric sites indicate that NPR–1

development may disturb the four

individual prehistoric sites eligible for

the National Register. In September

1997, DOE completed a survey of 3,000

acres previously unsurveyed but

predicted to be sensitive for prehistoric

archeological resources, and by the end

of November 1997, archeological testing

at the most promising sites within the

3,000-acre survey area had been

completed. Data recovery on significant

prehistoric archeological resources will

be completed prior to the conclusion of

the sales process which is presently

scheduled for early February 1998.

Mitigation: Pursuant to sections 106

and 110 of the National Historic

Preservation Act, DOE is in the process

of finalizing a Programmatic Agreement

with the California SHPO and the

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation concerning surveys,

research, data recordation,

documentation and other preservation

activities, as appropriate, to mitigate the

impacts of the Proposed Action. A set of

prehistoric resources representative of

the types found on NPR–1 would be

treated by a combination of surface

mapping, collection, subsurface

excavations and analysis to recover data

and to address important scientific

research questions. A Cultural

Resources Management Plan (CRMP)

will address the appropriate mitigation

required to recover important data from

these resources and preserve them

through appropriate documentation and

publication. The CRMP will be made a

part of the Programmatic Agreement.

The Programmatic Agreement will

also include mitigation measures

specifically designed to address the

impacts on resources of particular

concern to Native Americans. The

mitigation measures will be performed

under appropriate archeological

protection permits with notice to Native

Americans in accordance with Native

American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the

Archeological Resources Protection Act.

As one of the mitigation measures, DOE

will inform Occidental and the

California Department of Conservation,

Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal

Resources that sites of this type are

known to exist in particular areas of the

Reserve, although without providing

specific locations so as to protect Native

American values.

The SHPO has indicated to DOE that

the Programmatic Agreement must also

address the concerns related to

NAGPRA. As DOE develops the

Programmatic Agreement with the

SHPO, DOE will provide for

involvement and comment by Native

Americans, both from tribes on the

NAGPRA list and from others with

traditional ties to Elk Hills. In addition,

DOE will work closely with the FWS

and with Occidental in determining the

location of the land to be included in

the conservation set aside area required

under the terms of the 1995 Biological

Opinion, in order to maximize the

inclusion of areas that archaeologists

and Native Americans have identified as

known or likely to contain human

remains.

With respect to the two historic oil

and gas wells that the SHPO has

determined are eligible for the National

Register, the Programmatic Agreement

will provide for a treatment plan to

describe the historic context of these

wells, as well as to publish the

descriptions and distribute the

descriptions to public libraries.

In addition to DOE’s mitigation, the

mitigation measures Occidental intends

to implement include:

(1) Evaluate inclusion of the two

locations of suspected human remains

identified by DOE within the

conservation area to be established

pursuant to the 1995 Biological

Opinion;

(2) Implement a cultural resources

training plan supervised by an

archaeologist; and
66614 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

(3) Implement a plan to address the

discovery of suspected human remains,

other than human remains addressed by

the Programmatic Agreement between

DOE and the SHPO, which may be

unexpectedly encountered during

construction activities. The plan may

include consulting with the County

Coroner, an archaeologist and/or a local

Native American Representative to

avoid disturbing suspected human

remains.

Other Potentially Significant Impacts

Impacts: The two other potentially

significant resource areas impacted by

the Proposed Action are air quality and

water resources. Future development of

NPR–1 under the proposed action

would likely result in higher levels of

air emissions. Modeling of projected

emissions for the year 2001, the highest

expected emission year, shows the

potential that the state ambient air

quality standards for PM10 (particulate

matter 10 microns or larger) could be

exceeded off-site. In addition, on-site

Federal ambient air quality standards

for NO2 (Nitrous Oxide) and state

ambient air quality standards for PM10

and SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) might be

exceeded. However, these results are

conservatively based on maximum

permitted emission rates rather than

likely lower actual emission rates, so the

actual future emissions are expected to

be within the National and state

standards.

The last potential significant impact

area from the Proposed Action is the

potential impact on water resources.

The higher rate and level of intensity of

development under the Proposed Action

would increase water use in the

enhanced oil recovery technique knows

as ‘‘water flooding’’ and increase in

treatment and disposal requirements for

‘‘produced waters.’’

Mitigation: The impacts to these

resources would be roughly

proportional to oil production levels

and can be mitigated through

compliance with applicable National

and state air emission standards and a

continuation of the ongoing NPR–1

program to use treated produced waters

in ‘‘water flood’’ projects. Occidental

intends to implement two mitigation

measures with respect to air quality and

fifteen (15) water resource mitigation

measures. These mitigation measures by

Occidental would continue existing

DOE practices.

Other Resources

Impacts: Additional areas of potential

concern are geology and soils,

hazardous waste management and

disposal, land use, noise,

socioeconomic, energy conservation,

and environmental justice. Impacts in

these areas are not likely to be

significant.

Comments received during scoping

and comments received on the Draft

SEIS/PEIR expressed concern that the

possible loss of access to NPR–1 oil for

use in local refineries and as a diluent

for pipeline transmission could lead to

a premature loss of local refinery

production and/or the inability of local

crude oil producers to deliver their

products to market. Some local small

and independent refiners and/or

producers of heavy crude oil are

dependent on continued access to the

lighter NPR–1 oil, and concern was

expressed that the proposed sale could

limit their access to the oil. Although

the proposed purchaser of NPR–1,

Occidental, did not accept the optional

sales provision to guarantee access to

small and independent refiners,

Occidental does not refine oil in

California and is expected to put its

share of the production from NPR–1 on

the market. Therefore, small and

independent refiners in the region

should have access to NPR–1 crude oil

under the Proposed Action (sale of

NPR–1 to Occidental).

Mitigation: Occidental intends to

implement 10 additional mitigation

measures (see Footnote 4) with respect

to these other impact areas. In addition,

all known hazardous waste sites at

NPR–1 have been or will be remediated

by DOE using appropriate remediation

technology. However, remediated sites

have, as yet, not received

determinations that no further actions

are needed from the relevant regulatory

agencies. DOE will continue to work

with these agencies to achieve final

closure on the sites, including any

additional mitigation work if required.

In the unlikely event that any

previously undiscovered reportable

hazardous waste sites are encountered

prior to the sale, DOE will characterize

the contamination and disclose it to

Occidental.

No Action Alternative

Government development of NPR–1

under the No Action Alternative would

likely be at a lower rate and level of

intensity than under the Proposed

Action or the Alternative to the

Proposed Action. Further, DOE would

retain the affirmative Federal obligation

to mitigate the environmental

consequences of its actions. However,

the affected environment and the types

of impacts to the affected environment

would be the same under both the

Proposed Action and the No Action

Alternative. In addition, the SEIS/PEIR

recognizes the possibility (although an

unlikely one) of a higher rate and level

of intensity of development under

government operation than might occur

under commercial operation.

For biological resources, there would

be less destruction, disturbance and

fragmentation of endangered species

habitat under the No Action Alternative

compared to the Proposed Action

because it is expected that fewer wells

would be drilled under the No Action

Alternative. In addition, the level of

mitigation required of Federal agencies

under the ESA is greater than that for

private industry. Furthermore, although

future development cannot be

predicted, at the end of NPR–1’s useful

life as an oil and gas field, it is more

likely to be converted to wildlife habitat

under government ownership than

under private ownership.

For cultural resources, again there

would be less disturbance of surface

areas under the No Action Alternative

than under the Proposed Action.

Further, the requirements placed on

Federal agencies by the National

Historic Preservation Act to protect

historic properties would continue

under this alternative.

For air resources and water resources,

the lower rate and level of intensity of

development under the No Action

Alternative would mean fewer impacts

to these affected environments than

under the Proposed Action or the

Alternative to the Proposed Action.

However, the difference in impacts

between the No Action Alternative and

the Proposed Action is not expected to

be significant. The additional areas of

potential concern of geology and soils,

hazardous waste management and

disposal, land use, noise,

socioeconomic, energy conservation,

and environmental justice would not

involve significant differences in level

of impacts between the No Action

Alternative and the Proposed Action.

However, the implementation of

mitigation measures in each of the

resource areas would reduce potential

impacts to levels that are less than

significant.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Development of NPR–1 by a private

entity under the Alternative to the

Proposed Action would likely occur at

the same rate and level of intensity as

the Proposed Action. However, the

continuing government interest in NPR–

1, although not direct operation, would

mean that development would continue

to be subject to the affirmative Federal

obligation to mitigate the environmental

consequences of its actions, especially

for biological and cultural resources.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices 66615

6The other Naval Petroleum Reserves include

NPR–2 located adjacent to NPR–1 in Kern County,

California; NPR–3 located in Natrona County,

Wyoming; Naval Oil Shale Reserve Nos. 1 and 3

located in Garfield County, Colorado; and Naval Oil

Shale Reserve No. 2 located in Uintah and Carbon

Counties, Utah.

Again, the affected environment and the

types of impacts to the affected

environment would be the same under

both the Proposed Action and the

Alternative to the Proposed Action.

For biological resources, there would

be the same destruction, disturbance

and fragmentation of endangered

species habitat under the Alternative to

the Proposed Action as for the Proposed

Action because it is expected that the

same number of wells would be drilled.

However, the higher levels of mitigation

required of government agencies would

continue to apply and although future

development cannot be predicted, at the

end of the field’s life, it is more likely

to be converted to wildlife habitat under

this limited amount of government

ownership than under complete private

ownership.

For cultural resources, again there

would be the same disturbance of

surface under the Alternative to the

Proposed Action as the Proposed

Action. Further, the requirements

placed on Federal agencies by the

National Historic Preservation Act to

protect historic properties would

continue under this alternative.

For air resources and water resources,

the similarity of the rate and level of

intensity of development likely for this

alternative compared to the Proposed

Action would mean similar impacts to

these affected environments as in the

Proposed Action. The impacts to

additional areas of potential concern of

geology and soils, hazardous waste

management and disposal, land use,

noise, socioeconomic, energy

conservation, and environmental justice

would not be significantly different

from the impacts in these areas under

the Proposed Action. However, the

implementation of mitigation measures

in each of the resource areas would

reduce potential impacts to levels that

are less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Section 3416 of the Elk Hills Sales

Statute directed the Secretary to study

four options for the disposition of the

other Naval Petroleum Reserves (other

than NPR–1) 6 and to recommend to

Congress which option or combination

of options would maximize the value of

the reserves to the United States. These

options included:

(1) Retention and continued operation

by DOE;

(2) Transfer to the Department of the

Interior (DOI) for leasing;

(3) Transfer of all or part of the other

reserves to another Federal agency; and

(4) Sale of the interest of the United

States in the other reserves.

Included in these other reserves is

NPR–2, which consists of approximately

30,181 acres located immediately

adjacent to NPR–1. The Federal

government owns approximately 35

percent of the acreage of NPR–2, with

the mineral rights associated with 9,224

of these acres leased to seven oil

companies under 15 active leases. DOE

administers these leases but has no

active role in the day-to-day operation

of NPR–2.

The SEIS/PEIR examined the

cumulative impacts of the Proposed

Action for NPR–1 in conjunction with

three possible actions for NPR–2:

transfer to DOI; a No Action Alternative;

and a sales alternative. The analysis in

the SEIS/PEIR indicated that the sales

alternative for NPR–2 coupled with the

Proposed Action for NPR–1 could result

in significant adverse impacts to

biological and cultural resources

because of the loss of the affirmative

Federal obligation to protect sensitive

environmental resources on the

additional land comprising NPR–2.

However, the SEIS/PEIR concluded that

there would be no significant adverse

impact resulting from either transfer to

DOI or the No Action Alternative for

NPR–2 because both actions would

continue Federal ownership of the land

and the attendant protections for critical

environmental resources.

Based on the results of the study of

options for the other Naval Petroleum

Reserves directed by the Act, in March

1997 DOE recommended to Congress

that NPR–2 be transferred to the

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) for

management of the surface rights under

the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act and for possible

leasing of currently unleased acreage

under the Mineral Leasing Act. As

discussed in the SEIS/PEIR, the

combination of the Proposed Action for

NPR–1 and the recommended action for

NPR–2 would produce no increased

stresses on the critical biological and

cultural resources in the region and

result in no significant adverse

cumulative impacts.

Congress has not yet authorized DOE

to take any action with respect to the

future disposition of NPR–2.

Response to Comments Received After

the Final SEIS/PEIR

Following publication of the Final

SEIS/PEIR, DOE received a letter dated

November 26, 1997, from the Pacific

Environmental Advocacy Center (PEAC)

notifying DOE that the Southwest

Center for Biological Diversity intends

to file suit against DOE for failure to

reinitiate consultation with the FWS

under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA before

selling NPR–1. PEAC asserted that DOE

is required to reinitiate consultation

with the FWS independent of the

authority contained in the Elk Hills

Sales Statute, to transfer DOE’s

incidental take permit to the purchaser

of NPR–1.

The issue of reconsultation was

discussed extensively in the Final SEIS/

PEIR in response to several comments

received (Final SEIS/PEIR, pages 1–5

and 1–6). DOE explained in that

discussion the basis for concluding that

a new consultation was not required.

DOE’s conclusion is supported by an

interpretation of the pertinent

provisions of the Elk Hills Sales Statute

provided by the DOI Regional Solicitor.

DOE believes that PEAC has not

provided any new information that

would change the conclusions

contained in the Final SEIS/PEIR or in

this Record of Decision.

Decision

DOE has decided to proceed with the

sale of all right, title, and interest of the

United States in the NPR–1 to

Occidental, subject to other

requirements of law, including

completion of a 31-day Congressional

review period with no adverse

legislative action by Congress. This

action will allow compliance with the

Congressional direction contained in the

Elk Hills Sales Statute of removing the

Federal government from the inherently

non-Federal role of operating a

commercial oil and gas field and also

maximizing the value of NPR–1 to the

United States. This decision also is

based in part on the offer submitted by

Occidental being the highest offer

received by DOE at the conclusion of

the bidding process in 1997, and the fact

that the Occidental offer exceeds the

minimum acceptable sale price set by

DOE in consultation with OMB

consistent with the provisions of section

3412(d) of the Act.

DOE has considered the information

contained within the SEIS/PEIR and

comments received in response to the

Draft SEIS/PEIR. In making this

decision, DOE has considered in

particular: any potential adverse

impacts to threatened and endangered

plant and animal species which are

found within NPR–1, as analyzed in the

SEIS/PEIR; the decision by Occidental

to accept the transfer of and to be bound

by the terms and conditions of the
66616 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Notices

Biological Opinion issued to DOE by the

FWS on November 8, 1995; the

intention of Occidental to implement

thirty-three (33) mitigation measures

identified in a letter submitted to DOE

on November 7, 1997, and which are

generally described above; and the

mitigation of potential adverse impacts

to cultural resources through the

implementation of mitigation measures

by DOE pursuant to a Programmatic

Agreement to be executed among DOE,

the California SHPO, and the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation.

Mitigation Action Plan

Section 1201.331(a) of the DOE

regulations implementing NEPA (10

CFR Part 1021) states that DOE shall

prepare a Mitigation Action Plan that

addresses mitigation commitments

expressed in the ROD. A Mitigation

Action Plan regarding DOE’s

commitments for the divestiture of

NPR–1 is being developed to ensure

implementation of all mitigation

commitments. Copies of the Plan may

be obtained from Mr. Anthony Como at

the above address.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 12th day

of December 1997.

Patricia Fry Godley,

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–33208 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Aluminum Partnerships Solicitation

AGENCY: Idaho Operations Office, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation for

Financial Assistance Number DE–PS07–

98ID13599 Aluminum Partnerships

Solicitation.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), Idaho Operations Office

(ID) is seeking applications for costshared research and development of

technologies which will enhance

economic competitiveness, and reduce

energy consumption and environmental

impacts for the aluminum industry. The

research is to address research priorities

identified by the aluminum industry in

the ‘‘Aluminum Industry Technology

Roadmap’’ (November 1997) for the

aluminum sector areas of Primary

Aluminum Production, Semi-Fabricated

Products, and Finished Products.

Approximately $4,000,000 in federal

funds ($2,000,000 in fiscal year 1998

funds and $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1999

funds) is available to totally fund the

first year of selected research efforts.

DOE anticipates making five to six

cooperative agreement awards for

projects with durations of four years or

less. A minimum 30% non-federal cost

share is required for research and

development projects. Collaborations

between industry, national laboratory,

and university participants are

encouraged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Wade Hillebrant, Contract Specialist;

Procurement Services Division; U.S.

DOE, Idaho Operations Office, 850

Energy Drive, MS 1221, Idaho Falls, ID

83401–1563; telephone (208) 526–0547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

statutory authority for the program is

the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy

Research and Development Act of 1974

(Pub. L. 93–577). The Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number

for this program is 81.086. The

solicitation text is expected to be posted

on the ID Procurement Services Division

home page on or about December 20,

1997, and may be accessed using

Universal Resource Locator address

http://www.inel.gov/doeid/solicit.html.

Application package forms will not be

included on the home page and should

be requested from the contract

specialist. Requests for application

packages must be written. Include

company name, mailing address, point

of contact, telephone number, and fax

number. Write to the contract specialist

at the address above, via fax number

(208) 526–5548, or via email to

hillebtw@inel.gov.

Issued in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on December

5, 1997.

Michael Adams,

Acting Director, Procurement Services

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33206 Filed 12–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Financial Assistance Award (Grant)

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Solicitation of Applications for

Grant Awards for High-Energy-Density

and Laser-Matter Interaction Studies.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 10 CFR 600.8, the

Department of Energy (DOE) announces

that it plans to conduct a technically

competitive solicitation for basic

research experiments in high-energydensity and laser-matter interaction

studies at the National Laser Users’

Facility (NLUF) located at the

University of Rochester Laboratory for

Laser Energetics (UR/LLE). Grant

Solicitation No. DE–PS03–98SF21535.

Universities or other higher education

institutions, private sector not-for-profit

organizations, or other entities are

invited to submit grant applications.

The total amount of funding expected to

be available for the Fiscal Year 1999

(FY99) program cycle is $700,000.

Multiple awards are anticipated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Solomon, Contracting Officer,

DOE Oakland Operations Office, 1301

Clay Street, Room 700N, Oakland, CA

94612–5208, Telephone No.: (510) 637–

1865, Facsimile No.: (510) 637–2074, E

Mail: james.solomon@oak.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

solicitation document contains all the

information relative to this action for

prospective applicants. The solicitation

is targeted for release on or about

January 9, 1998. The actual work to be

accomplished will be determined by the

experiments and diagnostic techniques

that are selected for award. Proposed

experiments and diagnostic techniques

will be evaluated through scientific peer

review against predetermined,

published and available criteria. Final

selection will be made by the DOE. It is

anticipated that multiple grants will be

awarded within the available funding.

The unique resources of the NLUF are

available, on a no-fee basis, to scientists

for state-of-the art experiments

primarily in the area of inertial

confinement fusion (ICF) and related

plasma physics. Other areas such as

spectroscopy of high ionized atoms,

laboratory astrophysics, fundamental

physics, materials science and biology

and chemistry will be considered on a

secondary basis.

The LLE was established in 1970 to

investigate the interaction of high-power

lasers with matter. Available at the LLE

for NLUF researchers is the upgraded

Omega Laser, a 30–40 kJ UV, 60-beam

laser system (at 0.35 um) suitable for

direct-drive ICF implosions and other

experimental configurations. This

system is suitable for a variety of

experiments including laser-plasma

interactions and atomic spectroscopy.

The NLUF program for FY99 will

support experiments that can be done

with the Omega Laser at the University

of Rochester and development of

diagnostic techniques suitable for the

Omega Laser system. Measurements of

the laser coupling, laser-plasma

interactions, core temperature, and core

density are needed to determine the

characteristics of target implosions.

Diagnostic techniques could include

either new instrumentation,

development of analysis tools, or

development of targets that are

applicable for 30–40 kJ implosions.

Additional technical information about

the available facilities and potential

collaboration at the NLUF can be