Bill Overview
Title: Pueblo Pintado Protection Act
Description: This bill revises the boundary of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico. Subject to the consent of the Navajo Nation, land removed from the park must be transferred from the National Park Service (NPS) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); land added to the park must be transferred from the BIA and the Bureau of Land Management to the NPS.
Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: People with a cultural, residential, or economic stake in the Chaco Culture National Historical Park region
Estimated Size: 45000
- The Chaco Culture National Historical Park is located in New Mexico and is a key area for cultural heritage, primarily associated with the Ancestral Puebloans.
- The Navajo Nation has historical and cultural ties to this region, making its nearby population particularly affected by any change in land management.
- Revising the boundary of the park impacts how the land is managed, which can affect cultural preservation, land use rights, and tourism.
- Transition from NPS to BIA potentially affects local governance, cultural site management, and resource allocation.
- The legislation targets specific land management agencies: NPS, BIA, and BLM, which have direct interactions with Native American communities and federal land in this region.
Reasoning
- The policy involves land management changes in and around the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, impacting the stakeholders involved, including the Navajo Nation and other local residents.
- A considerable portion of the affected population includes those with cultural, residential, or economic ties to the land managed by the NPS, BIA, and BLM.
- The budget constraints suggest prioritization in actions and gradual implementation over 10 years, implying sustained or delayed impacts.
- Some in the population might not see direct changes immediately but could feel a cultural or psychological impact due to potential changes in governance and land use over time.
- Certain people, particularly those relying on tourism related to the National Park, might see changes in livelihood if land management strategies shift.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Government Worker (Navajo Nation, NM)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good if it truly respects Navajo autonomy over lands.
- The change in land management might favor cultural preservation but needs constant monitoring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tour Guide (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any change in management might impact how many tourists I see.
- If the park boundary shifts, marketing needs to be clear to avoid confusion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Gallup, NM)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will support better research opportunities and preserve the site.
- Maintaining a blend of federal and tribal collaboration is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Farmington, NM)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope more construction projects will come with the change in land management.
- The transfer might open employment in maintenance and new park facilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preservation of cultural heritage is paramount and this policy should be approached delicately.
- Shifts in park boundaries must prioritize preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Teacher (Chinle, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might enhance educational tools for my students.
- Ensuring access is maintained for educational visits is vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It sounds like a significant policy, but I wonder how it will affect job opportunities in land management.
- The opportunity for internships could grow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Rancher (Bisti, NM)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned how the new boundaries might interfere with grazing rights.
- Regulatory changes could either positively or negatively impact my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Archaeologist (Flagstaff, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus should be on preserving the integrity of cultural sites due to any changes.
- Funding and resources should be reallocated to conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Durango, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Revising park boundaries could have a significant impact on area biodiversity.
- Ecological studies should be supported through regulatory changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $4500000, High: $9500000)
Year 10: $6500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $5500000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- Consent from the Navajo Nation is required for land transfers, which may influence timing and implementation cost.
- The efficiency of federal agency coordination in executing land transfers can significantly impact the budget estimates.
- Ensuring no cultural sites are adversely impacted will require diligence and potentially additional funds for preservation efforts.