Commissioners table Santa Fe County response to LANL site‑wide environmental impact statement, ask staff to attach draft

Santa Fe County commissioners on March 12 voted to table a proposed county response to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site‑wide environmental impact statement and asked staff to include the draft statement in the next meeting packet.

The motion to table — made by Commissioner Adam Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Justin Green — carried unanimously after several commissioners said they wanted more time to add concerns about housing, transportation, tax distribution and off‑site laboratory facilities to the county’s response. Commissioner Green said the letter should better reflect how off‑mesa hiring and lab facilities affect Santa Fe County residents: “I would hope that we would do something as comprehensive and as focused on our constituents as possible,” he said, noting a month remained before the comment deadline.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the letter as the county’s formal opportunity to record local concerns about the LANL project and its off‑site impacts. Commissioners asked staff to attach the draft site‑wide environmental impact statement to the next meeting packet so the full board and the public can review the document before a revised letter is submitted.

Discussion and next steps Commissioner Hank Hughes introduced the draft response, which lists environmental contaminants, water‑rights questions, power‑line upgrades and impacts to habitat. Commissioner Green pressed for additional paragraphs addressing housing displacement, commute and transportation strain, and tax distribution as LANL operations have shifted some functions off the mesa and into the Santa Fe area. Commissioner Adam Johnson asked how those additions fit with language in the draft supporting a “no action” alternative for mission growth.

Chair Camilla Bustamante summarized the compromise: staff will attach the site‑wide environmental impact statement to the packet and the board will revisit the draft at its next meeting after commissioners have time to refine the scope and any additional paragraphs. Commissioners also asked staff to invite representatives from LANL or the National Nuclear Security Administration to appear at a future meeting so the board can hear about lab plans and mitigation proposals directly.

Formal action The board recorded a motion to table the item until the next meeting with the instruction that the revised letter consider transportation, housing and off‑site facilities as environmental impacts. The motion was made by Commissioner Adam Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Justin Green, and carried unanimously.

Context and constraints Commissioners emphasized they were not deciding on policy limits for LANL but were instead seeking to ensure the county’s comment letter accurately reflects the local concerns the EIS should analyze. Commissioner Lisa Kakari Stone asked staff to attach the draft EIS as an exhibit so commissioners and the public can confirm the letter cites the correct passages.

What remains unresolved Commissioners did not finalize the text of any additions; they chose to table the letter so the board can craft a single, comprehensive response at a later meeting. They also did not set a specific date to host LANL or NNSA officials; staff was asked to invite them for a future session.

Ending The board’s procedural vote preserves the county’s ability to comment before the deadline while ensuring the full commission has the draft EIS in hand before submitting a revised letter.