DOCSLIB.ORG

Socioeconomic Assessment of the Carson National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Socioeconomic Assessment of the Carson National Forest Submitted to the United States Forest Service Region 3 Office July 2007 University Of New Mexico Bureau Of Business And Economic Research Acknowledgements BBER would like to thank the Region 3 Office of the USDA Forest Service for permitting us to take on this important project. We hope that the information and analysis provided in this report will contribute to the development of a forest plan that continues to benefit all residents of New Mexico. Specifically, we would like to thank Dr. Richard Periman for his patience, support and willingness to answer an immeasurable number of questions from our staff. He also pointed us to key forest staff that generously shared their expertise. The author of this report is indebted to the collaboration and cooperation of many people, who made this study possible. This work was supported by many people with the National Forest Service. Particular thanks go to Jack Carpenter, the Carson NF Supervisor, for providing information and interpretation regarding forest operations and for putting us in contact with other forest experts. Jack also reviewed earlier drafts of this document and provided detailed comments that were extremely helpful. His attention to detail and accuracy are very much appreciated. Thanks are also due to Tom Dwyer for his insight on access and right-of-way issues and Lucy Aragon for information on the current invasive weeds conditions. BU Socioeconomic Assessment of the Carson National Forest i Credits Principal Author Billy James Ulibarrí, M.A with Jeffrey Mitchell, Ph.D. Principal Investigators Lee A. Reynis, Ph.D. and Jeffrey Mitchell, Ph.D. Chapter 2 (Demographic Patterns and Trends) Richard Zimmerman Chapter 7 (Economic Impacts) Nicholas Potter, MA. Database Development Vicky Morris-Dueer, M.A Jeremy Cook, M.A. Bob Grassberger, Ph.D. Kevin Kargacin Karma Shore Larry Compton Cartography & GIS Michael McDaniel Editing Molly Bleecker, M.A. Joshua Akers. Students Austin Duus Erica Freese Sophie Hammett Ricardo Leo Lucinda Sydow, M.A. Administration Michael Byrnes Betsy Eklund Betty Lujan ii Socioeconomic Assessment of the Carson National Forest Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ i Credits................................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................iii Table of Tables .................................................................................................................. v Table of Figures............................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................viii Executive Summary......................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statement of Purpose .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Sources of Information and Analytical Methods .................................................... 2 1.3 Assessment Area ..................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Carson National Forest Ranger Districts ................................................................ 6 1.5 Organization of the Report.................................................................................... 13 2 Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends.................................................................. 15 2.1 Population Growth................................................................................................ 15 2.2 Racial/Ethnic Composition................................................................................... 17 2.3 Age of Population ................................................................................................. 18 2.4 Income and Poverty .............................................................................................. 20 2.5 Household Composition........................................................................................ 21 2.6 Educational Attainment......................................................................................... 22 2.7 Housing................................................................................................................. 24 2.8 Net Migration........................................................................................................ 26 2.9 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 28 3 Access and Travel Patterns......................................................................................... 31 3.1 Location of Major Transportation Routes............................................................. 31 3.2 Airports ................................................................................................................. 35 3.3 Traffic Flows......................................................................................................... 36 3.4 Forest Roads and Trails......................................................................................... 37 3.5 Right-of-Way and Other Access Issues................................................................. 41 3.6 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 42 4 Land Cover and Ownership........................................................................................ 45 4.1 Land Cover on the Carson National Forest........................................................... 45 4.2 Land Ownership.................................................................................................... 47 4.3 Land Conveyance and Exchanges ........................................................................ 48 4.4 Invasive Species.................................................................................................... 49 4.5 Fire and Fuels........................................................................................................ 51 4.6 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 53 5 Forest Uses and Users.................................................................................................. 55 Socioeconomic Assessment of the Carson National Forest iii Table of Contents 5.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 55 5.2 Grazing.................................................................................................................. 58 5.3 Timber................................................................................................................... 60 5.4 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................... 61 5.5 Special Use Permits .............................................................................................. 62 5.6 Illegal Uses............................................................................................................ 64 5.7 Forest Users .......................................................................................................... 64 5.8 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 66 6 Special Areas ................................................................................................................ 69 6.1 Recreational Sites.................................................................................................. 69 6.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness Areas............................................... 71 6.3 Forest-Specific Issues: The Valle Vidal Unit ........................................................ 73 6.4 Tribal and Ceremonial Areas ................................................................................ 75 6.5 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 76 7 Economic Impacts........................................................................................................ 79 7.1 The Carson National Forest Regional Economy .................................................. 79 7.2 Methodology and Organization of Impact Analysis ............................................. 83 7.3 Direct Impact of Carson National Forest on the Regional Economy ................... 84 7.4 Economic Impacts and Multipliers ....................................................................... 86 7.5 Challenges and Opportunities for Forest Management ........................................ 89 8 Community Relationships........................................................................................... 93 8.1 Grants and Agreements......................................................................................... 94 8.2 Collaborative Forest Rehabilitation Program ....................................................... 94 8.3 Volunteers.............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Middle Rio Grande Basin: Historical Descriptions and Reconstruction

    The Middle Rio Grande Basin: Historical Descriptions and Reconstruction

    CHAPTER 4 THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BASIN: HISTORICAL DESCRIPTIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION This chapter provides an overview of the historical con- The main two basins are flanked by fault-block moun- ditions of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, with emphasis tains, such as the Sandias (Fig. 40), or volcanic uplifts, on the main stem of the river and its major tributaries in such as the Jemez, volcanic flow fields, and gravelly high the study region, including the Santa Fe River, Galisteo terraces of the ancestral Rio Grande, which began to flow Creek, Jemez River, Las Huertas Creek, Rio Puerco, and about 5 million years ago. Besides the mountains, other Rio Salado (Fig. 40). A general reconstruction of hydro- upland landforms include plateaus, mesas, canyons, pied- logical and geomorphological conditions of the Rio monts (regionally known as bajadas), volcanic plugs or Grande and major tributaries, based primarily on first- necks, and calderas (Hawley 1986: 23–26). Major rocks in hand, historical descriptions, is presented. More detailed these uplands include Precambrian granites; Paleozoic data on the historic hydrology-geomorphology of the Rio limestones, sandstones, and shales; and Cenozoic basalts. Grande and major tributaries are presented in Chapter 5. The rift has filled primarily with alluvial and fluvial sedi- Historic plant communities, and their dominant spe- ments weathered from rock formations along the main cies, are also discussed. Fauna present in the late prehis- and tributary watersheds. Much more recently, aeolian toric and historic periods is documented by archeological materials from abused land surfaces have been and are remains of bones from archeological sites, images of being deposited on the floodplain of the river.
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
  • Borrador Preliminar Del Plan De Gestion De Recursos Y De La Tierra Propuesto

    Borrador Preliminar Del Plan De Gestion De Recursos Y De La Tierra Propuesto

    Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos Borrador preliminar del plan de gestión de recursos y de la tierra propuesto para el Bosque Nacional de Carson [Versión 2] Condados de Río Arriba, Taos, Mora y Colfax en Nuevo México Región Sur del Servicio Forestal Publicación Nro. Diciembre de 2017 De acuerdo con la ley federal de los derechos civiles y con los reglamentos y políticas de derechos civiles del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA), el USDA, sus agencias, oficinas y empleados, y las instituciones que participen o administren los programas del USDA tienen prohibido cualquier tipo de discriminación por raza, color, origen nacional, religión, sexo, identidad de género (incluida la expresión de género), orientación sexual, discapacidad, edad, estado civil, estado familiar/parental, ingresos derivados de un programa de asistencia pública, creencias políticas, represalia o acto de venganza por actividad previa a los derechos civiles, en cualquiera de los programas o actividades realizadas o financiadas por el USDA (no todos los fundamentos son aplicables a todos los programas). Los plazos para la presentación de recursos y quejas varían según el programa o el incidente. Las personas con discapacidades que requieran de medios de comunicación alternativos para obtener información sobre el programa (p. ej., Braille, caracteres grandes, cintas de audio, lenguaje estadounidense de señas, etc.) deben contactar a la agencia responsable o al TARGET Center del USDA al (202) 720-2600 (voz y TTY), o ponerse en contacto con el USDA a través del Servicio Federal de Transmisiones al (800) 877-8339. Asimismo, la información de los programas puede estar disponible en otros idiomas además del inglés.
  • Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Southern Taos Valley, Taos County, New Mexico

    Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Southern Taos Valley, Taos County, New Mexico

    NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Southern Taos Valley, Taos County, New Mexico Peggy S. Johnson Paul W. Bauer Brigitte Felix Final Technical Report August 2016 (updated November 2016) Open-File Report 581 New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources A division of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM 87801 (575) 835 5490 Fax (575) 835 6333 geoinfo.nmt.edu Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Southern Taos Valley, Taos County, New Mexico Peggy S. Johnson Paul W. Bauer Brigitte Felix Final Technical Report August 2016 (updated November 2016) Open-File Report 581 New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources PROJECT FUNDING Taos County New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Aquifer Mapping Program Healy Foundation The views and conclusions are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the State of New Mexico. Cover photograph: View north down the Picuris piedmont in an area where Quaternary sand and gravel depos- its cover a complex system of buried Embudo faults and Picuris-Pecos faults. Proterozoic rocks of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains are on the right horizon, and isolated volcanoes of the Taos Plateau volcanic field in the Rio Grande rift are on the left horizon. The water well being drilled in the fall of 2015 penetrated 1200 feet of Santa Fe Group and Picuris Formation sedimentary rocks. Photograph by Paul Bauer NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES SOUTH TAOS VALLEY, TAOS COUNTY CONTENTS Proterozoic rocks ....................................................31 Executive Summary ............................................................
  • Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History

    Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History

    Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History SCENIC TRIPS TO THE GEOLOGIC PAST NO. 8 Scenic Trips to the Geologic Past Series: No. 1—SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO No. 2—TAOS—RED RIVER—EAGLE NEST, NEW MEXICO, CIRCLE DRIVE No. 3—ROSWELL—CAPITAN—RUIDOSO AND BOTTOMLESS LAKES STATE PARK, NEW MEXICO No. 4—SOUTHERN ZUNI MOUNTAINS, NEW MEXICO No. 5—SILVER CITY—SANTA RITA—HURLEY, NEW MEXICO No. 6—TRAIL GUIDE TO THE UPPER PECOS, NEW MEXICO No. 7—HIGH PLAINS NORTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO, RATON- CAPULIN MOUNTAIN—CLAYTON No. 8—MOSlAC OF NEW MEXICO'S SCENERY, ROCKS, AND HISTORY No. 9—ALBUQUERQUE—ITS MOUNTAINS, VALLEYS, WATER, AND VOLCANOES No. 10—SOUTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO No. 11—CUMBRE,S AND TOLTEC SCENIC RAILROAD C O V E R : REDONDO PEAK, FROM JEMEZ CANYON (Forest Service, U.S.D.A., by John Whiteside) Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History (Forest Service, U.S.D.A., by Robert W . Talbott) WHITEWATER CANYON NEAR GLENWOOD SCENIC TRIPS TO THE GEOLOGIC PAST NO. 8 Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, a n d History edited by PAIGE W. CHRISTIANSEN and FRANK E. KOTTLOWSKI NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES 1972 NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING & TECHNOLOGY STIRLING A. COLGATE, President NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES & MINERAL RESOURCES FRANK E. KOTTLOWSKI, Director BOARD OF REGENTS Ex Officio Bruce King, Governor of New Mexico Leonard DeLayo, Superintendent of Public Instruction Appointed William G. Abbott, President, 1961-1979, Hobbs George A. Cowan, 1972-1975, Los Alamos Dave Rice, 1972-1977, Carlsbad Steve Torres, 1967-1979, Socorro James R.
  • Compilation of Precambrian Isotopic Ages

    Compilation of Precambrian Isotopic Ages

    COMPILATION OF PRECAMBRIAN ISOTOPIC AGES IN NEW MEXICO bY Paul W. Bauer and Terry R. Pollock New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 389 January, 1993 New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Socorro, New Mexico 87801 Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Acknowledgments . 4 Figure 1. Map of New Mexico showing exposures of Precambrian rocks, and mountains and physiographic provinces used in database 5 Table A. Geochronology laboratories listed in database, with number of determinations . Table B. Constants used for age recalculations Figure 2. Histograms of isotopic ages . Figure 3. Graph of igneous rocks which have U-Pb zircon plus Rb-Sr, K-Ar, or @ArP9Arage determinations . 8 Part I. List of isotopic age determinations by isotopic method . 9 a. U-Pbages . 9 b.Pb-Pb model ages . 16 c. Rb-Srages . 21 d. K-Arages . 38 e. Ar-Arages . 42 f. Sm-Nd, Fission-track, Pb-alpha, and determinations of uncertain geochronologic significance 45 Part 11. Comprehensive list of all isotopic age determinations withcomplete data listing . 48 Part III. List of isotopic age determinations by mountain range 94 Part IV. List of isotopic age determinations by rock unit . 102 Part V. List of isotopic age determinations by county 114 Part VI. References . 121 Appendix 1. List of areadesignations by county . 127 1 Introduction This compilation contains information on 350 published and unpublished radiometric ages for Precambrian rocks of New Mexico. All data were collected from original references, entered into a REFLEX database, and sorted according to several criteria. Based on author’s descriptions, samples were located as precisely as possible on 7.5’ topographic quadrangle maps, which are on file at the New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources.
  • Fire History in the Taos Valley Watersheds, New Mexico, USA

    Fire History in the Taos Valley Watersheds, New Mexico, USA

    fire Article Surface Fire to Crown Fire: Fire History in the Taos Valley Watersheds, New Mexico, USA Lane B. Johnson 1 and Ellis Q. Margolis 2,* 1 University of Minnesota, Cloquet Forestry Center, 175 University Drive, Cloquet, MN 55720, USA; [email protected] 2 U. S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, New Mexico Landscapes Field Station, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-505-954-2251 Received: 9 February 2019; Accepted: 8 March 2019; Published: 14 March 2019 Abstract: Tree-ring fire scars, tree ages, historical photographs, and historical surveys indicate that, for centuries, fire played different ecological roles across gradients of elevation, forest, and fire regimes in the Taos Valley Watersheds. Historical fire regimes collapsed across the three watersheds by 1899, leaving all sites without fire for at least 119 years. Historical photographs and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) ages indicate that a high-severity fire historically burned at multiple high-elevation subalpine plots in today’s Village of Taos Ski Valley, with large high-severity patches (>640 ha). Low-severity, frequent (9–29-year median interval) surface fires burned on the south aspects in nearby lower elevation dry conifer forests in all watersheds. Fires were associated with drought during the fire year. Widespread fires commonly burned synchronously in multiple watersheds during more severe drought years, preceded by wet years, including fire in all three watersheds in 1664, 1715, and 1842. In contrast, recent local “large” wildfires have only burned within single watersheds and may not be considered large in a historical context.
  • Trashing Our Treasures

    Trashing Our Treasures

    Trashing our Treasures: Congressional Assault on the Best of America 2 Trashing our Treasures: Congressional Assault on the Best of America Kate Dylewsky and Nancy Pyne Environment America July 2012 3 Acknowledgments: Contents: The authors would like to thank Anna Aurilio for her guidance in this project. Introduction…………………………….……………….…...….. 5 Also thank you to Mary Rafferty, Ruth Musgrave, and Bentley Johnson for their support. California: 10 What’s at Stake………….…..……………………………..……. 11 Photographs in this report come from a variety of public domain and creative Legislative Threats……..………..………………..………..…. 13 commons sources, including contributors to Wikipedia and Flickr. Colorado: 14 What’s at Stake……..………..……………………..……..…… 15 Legislative Threats………………..………………………..…. 17 Minnesota: 18 What’s at Stake……………..………...……………….….……. 19 Legislative Threats……………..…………………...……..…. 20 Montana: 22 What’s at Stake………………..…………………….…….…... 23 Legislative Threats………………..………………...……..…. 24 Nevada: 26 What’s at Stake…………………..………………..……….…… 27 Legislative Threats…..……………..………………….…..…. 28 New Mexico: What’s at Stake…………..…………………….…………..…... 30 Legislative Threats………………………….....…………...…. 33 Oregon: 34 What’s at Stake………………....……………..…..……..……. 35 Legislative Threats………….……..……………..………..…. 37 Pennsylvania: 38 What’s at Stake………...…………..……………….…………. 39 Legislative Threats………....…….…………….…………..… 41 Virginia: 42 What’s at Stake………………...…………...…………….……. 43 Legislative Threats………..……………………..………...…. 45 Conclusion……………………….……………………………..… 46 References…………………..……………….…………………..
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State

    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State

    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
  • Pecos Wilderness Backpacking Trip July 3 - July 9, 2012

    Pecos Wilderness Backpacking Trip July 3 - July 9, 2012

    The Dallas Sierra Club invites you for a Pecos Wilderness Backpacking Trip July 3 - July 9, 2012 Trip Coordinator: Mark Stein, [email protected], 214.526.3733 Hike, camp and explore the mountains and meadows of high northern New Mexico on an extended Fourth of July weekend! When do we go? We’ll leave the Walmart parking lot (northeast quadrant of I-635 and Midway Road) at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, July 3. Arrive by 6:30 PM to load your gear. We’ve chartered a sleeper bus that converts from aircraft seating to bunks. Leave a car at Walmart if you wish. Neither the Sierra Club nor Wal-Mart assumes responsibility for your car or its contents, but Walmart is open 24 hours, the lot is lighted and we’ve not experienced a problem with parked vehicles. We’ll returns by 6:00 AM on Monday, July 9. Cost is $295 per person if your check and forms arrive by June 4. The price includes transportation, hike leadership by trained, experienced Sierra Club volunteers, beverages on the bus and Forest Service fees. For Trip 1, add $60 for a night’s lodging at the Santa Fe Sage Inn. Registration after June 4 is $325. Any receipts in excess of actual expenses will be applied to leader training and other Dallas Sierra Club activities. Checks payable to “Dallas Sierra Club” should be mailed with the signed liability waiver, medical information form and trip preferences form to Mark Stein, 3733 Shenandoah, Dallas, TX 75205. If you cancel before June 4, we’ll refund all but $30.
  • Fiscal Impact Reports (Firs) Are Prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for Standing Finance Committees of the NM Legislature

    Fiscal Impact Reports (Firs) Are Prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for Standing Finance Committees of the NM Legislature

    Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they are used for other purposes. Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the NM Legislative Website (www.nmlegis.gov). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North. F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T ORIGINAL DATE 02/07/13 SPONSOR Herrell/Martinez LAST UPDATED 02/18/13 HB 292 SHORT TITLE Transfer of Public Land Act SB ANALYST Weber REVENUE (dollars in thousands) Recurring Estimated Revenue Fund or Affected FY13 FY14 FY15 Nonrecurring (See Narrative) There (See Narrative) There may be additional may be additional Recurring General Fund revenue in future years. revenue in future years. (Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decrease ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands) 3 Year Recurring or Fund FY13 FY14 FY15 Total Cost Nonrecurring Affected General Total $100.0 $100.0 $200.0 Recurring Fund (Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases) Duplicate to SB 404 SOURCES OF INFORMATION LFC Files Responses Received From Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) General Services Department (GSD) Economic Development Department (EDD) Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) State Land Office (SLO) Department of Transportation (DOT) Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) House Bill 292 – Page 2 SUMMARY Synopsis of Bill House Bill 292 (HB 292) is the Transfer of Public Lands Act.
  • Museum of New Mexico a Plan for Data Recovery at Two Archaeologmal Sites Taos County, New Mexico Along Nm 522 Near Jan Cristobal

    Museum of New Mexico a Plan for Data Recovery at Two Archaeologmal Sites Taos County, New Mexico Along Nm 522 Near Jan Cristobal

    MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO A PLAN FOR DATA RECOVERY AT TWO ARCHAEOLOGMAL SITES ALONG NM 522 NEAR JAN CRISTOBAL, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO JEFFREY I,BOYER OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ARCHAEOLOGY NOTES 230 MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO ". .. OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES A PLAN FOR DATA RECOVERY AT TWO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ALONG NM 522 NEAR SAN CRISTOBAL, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO Jeffrey L. Boyer with contributionsby James L. Moore Submitted by Timothy D. Maxwell Principal Investigator ARCHAEOLOGY NOTES 230 SANTA FE 1997 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY During an archaeological survey conducted by the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) along NM 522 in Taos County, New Mexico, sixteen archaeological sites and sixtecn isolated occurrences were recorded.Of the sixteen sites, fifteen are scatters of chipped stone artifacts, including threc basalt quarry sites. The sixteenth site is a historic Hispanic acequia. The NMSHTD proposes to reconstruct this portion of NM 522, including building shoulders and extending culverts. Portions of two sites (LA 115550 [AR-03-02-07-5281 and LA 115544 [AR-03-02-07-523]) extend into proposed project limits and carmot be avoided during construction activities. LA 115550 (AR-03-02-07-528) is a basalt chipped stone artifact scatter, while LA 1 15544 (AK-03-02- 07-523) is a basalt quarry site. TheNMSHTD has requested that the Muscum of New Mexico's Oftice of Archacological Studies prepare a plan for data recovery investigations at these two sites, which are on the Questa Ranger District of the Carson National Forest. The primary focus of data recovery investigations at LA 115550 (AR-03-02-07-528) is to establish "base-line data'' for the site.