Bill Overview
Title: Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument Expansion Act
Description: This bill modifies the boundary of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument to include the Walker Ridge (Molok Luyuk) Addition, which is approximately 3,925 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Lake County, California. The Department of the Interior shall administer the addition as part of the monument. Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall jointly develop a comprehensive management plan for the monument in accordance with, and in a manner that fulfills the purposes specified in, Presidential Proclamation 9298 of July 10, 2015, relating to the establishment of the monument. The BLM or the Forest Service shall enter into agreements, contracts, and other similarly cooperative and collaborative partnerships if requested by an affected federally recognized Indian tribe regarding management of the monument pursuant to the relevant federal authority.
Sponsors: Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument expansion
Estimated Size: 80000
- The Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument is a federally designated area, and any expansion will impact those who use the area for recreation or derive economic benefits from it.
- The management and preservation of the area involve cooperation with federally recognized Indian tribes, which means these tribes are deeply involved in its administration.
- People living in the area, particularly in Lake County, California, might be directly impacted due to changes in land management, recreational uses, or natural resource controls.
- Tourists and recreational users from around the country visit the Berryessa Snow Mountain area for its natural attractions, and expansions can affect how these groups use the area.
- The expansion might indirectly affect conservationists and environmentalists who advocate for the preservation of natural landscapes in the region.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects a distinct group of individuals within the United States, primarily those involved in recreational activities, federally recognized Native American tribes, environmental groups, and local businesses tied to tourism and conservation efforts within the region. It is essential also to consider those indirectly impacted by the expansion, such as conservationists nationwide.
- Given a budget limit, it is crucial to consider cost-effective management practices that include local community and tribal partnerships. This approach not only adheres to budget constraints but can potentially enhance the well-being of those involved by fostering a sense of cooperation and shared stewardship.
- The population affected by this policy is diverse in interest: from local tribes seeking involvement in land management, recreational users interested in access, to businesses depending on tourism. Hence, it is essential to reflect a broad spectrum of impacts—both positive and negative—within the interviews.
- Due to tangible changes in land use and management practices, the impact spans immediate to long-term effects, where scores for well-being might fluctuate as more stable and sustainable management practices develop over time.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Lake County, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion of the monument could mean more tourists and business.
- I am concerned about restrictions on access during the expansion process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (San Francisco, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This expansion is a win for conservation and biodiversity.
- Collaboration with tribes offers a more holistic management approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Bureau of Land Management Employee (Sacramento, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Handling the expansion will be challenging but fulfilling.
- The partnerships with tribes could be a model for future projects.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (Napa Valley, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the expansion won't limit access to my favorite spots.
- Long term conservation benefits are important for future visitors.
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 |
Travel Blogger (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More areas to explore and write about could be thrilling.
- Interested to see how access changes with new management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Recreational Hiker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preservation is crucial to keeping these trails beautiful.
- Expanded areas might mean more hiking opportunities.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion seems well coordinated with historical precedents.
- Joint management planning with tribes is commendable.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cattle Rancher (Chico, California)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about how land use changes might affect grazing.
- Hope collaborative management keeps ranching in mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Native American Tribal Liaison (Redding, California)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This expansion is a unique opportunity to integrate cultural land management.
- Looking forward to implementing traditional ecological knowledge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
College Student (Davis, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The monument expansion aligns well with what I'm learning about conservation.
- Interested to observe how the partnerships are managed.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Federal land management typically requires alignment between various agencies, which may cause delays or overlap in costs.
- Tribal collaboration is crucial and could affect costs or savings depending on the levels of engagement and shared responsibilities.
- Environmental management involves ongoing costs, particularly in maintaining recreational infrastructure and ecological protection.