Bill Overview
Title: Highlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2021
Description: This bill extends through FY2029 the Highlands Conservation Act, which provides for land conservation in Highlands states (i.e., Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania). The bill authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to add a municipality to the Highlands region upon the request of a Highlands state, with the concurrence of the municipality. The bill revises the way in which land is identified for conservation to require using the best available science and geographic information systems. The bill allows political subdivisions of states to enter into agreements with the Department of the Interior for land conservation projects. A Highland state that receives funds for a land conservation partnership project may not use more than 5% of the funds to administer that project. The bill extends through FY2029 Forest Service and other Department of Agriculture programs to conserve land and natural resources in the Highlands region. With respect to an appraisal related to a land acquisition carried out under this bill, a Highlands state shall use an appraisal methodology approved by the Department of the Interior.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Sean Patrick [D-NY-18]
Target Audience
Population: People living in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The Highlands Conservation Reauthorization Act focuses on land conservation in the Highlands states of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
- The states mentioned cover a population of approximately 35 million people.
- Conservation efforts generally impact residents by preserving natural resources, recreational areas, and biodiversity.
- Those directly impacted include local communities living near conservation project sites due to recreational benefits, environmental quality, and potentially altered land use.
- Political subdivisions, such as municipalities, that engage in agreements for conservation projects will be stakeholders.
- Local economies of areas within the conservation regions may be impacted due to changes in land use and tourism.
Reasoning
- The Highlands Conservation Reauthorization Act focuses on states that have a significant population, meaning the budget must carefully be distributed among various projects.
- The long-term impact on local environments must be balanced against local economies that might be affected by changes to land usage.
- Different populations will experience varying impacts; for example, rural communities might benefit more from conservation efforts compared to urban centers.
- Administrative costs are limited to maintain focus on direct conservation efforts.
- The policy may not directly impact those living far from proposed conservation sites.
- The goal is to improve natural resources without significant financial strain on states or municipalities.
- Adjustments to land use can have positive impacts on recreational opportunities and biodiversity, potentially enhancing wellbeing for those near conserved lands.
Simulated Interviews
local government official (rural Pennsylvania)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will greatly help in preserving our lands.
- I think it will improve our environmental quality while providing outdoor recreational opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
real estate developer (urban New York)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this will limit development opportunities.
- It could make some properties less valuable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
environmental scientist (Connecticut)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled by the increased focus on scientific methods and biodiversity!
- This policy could lead to significant gains in regional conservation science.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
software engineer (New Jersey)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support the conservation efforts; they're crucial for our environment.
- Any policy helping outdoor recreational areas is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired teacher (suburban Connecticut)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Conservation efforts are vital for future generations.
- It's good to see structured and scientifically-backed conservation.
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 |
farmer (rural New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating conservation with farming practices is crucial.
- I hope these efforts can support sustainable agriculture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
tourism business owner (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is likely to boost my business by improving park facilities.
- More conservation means more attractions for tourists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
educator (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm on board with this initiative, it won't directly impact my daily life.
- It's more about long-term benefits for the region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
student (New Jersey)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a great case study for my curriculum.
- I already see enthusiastic talks about this in my park ranger job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired nurse (New Haven, Connecticut)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving land is crucial for reducing pollution and improving air quality.
- I hope this leads to improved green spaces for my community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Conservation projects must balance costs with ecological benefits to ensure responsible use of funds.
- The administrative cost cap ensures the majority of funds are used for conservation.
- Integration with Department of the Interior standards promotes consistency in conservation efforts.
- Monitoring and scientific data acquisition costs could vary significantly based on technology advancements.