Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6751

Bill Overview

Title: Avi Kwa Ame National Monument Establishment Act of 2022

Description: This bill establishes the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada, consisting of approximately 445,000 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is the purpose of the monument to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the cultural, ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, dark sky, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the monument. The Department of the Interior shall manage the monument as a component of the National Landscape Conservation System. Interior shall ensure access to the monument by members of Indian tribes for traditional cultural purposes. Interior shall develop a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the monument. The bill withdraws federal land located in the monument from entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. Any land or interest in land within the boundary of the monument that is acquired by the United States shall become part of the monument and be withdrawn as specified above. Interior shall establish the Avi Kwa Ame National Monument Advisory Council to advise Interior on the preparation and implementation of the management plan, including budgetary matters related to the monument. Interior shall transfer administrative jurisdiction of any Bureau of Reclamation land within the monument to the BLM.

Sponsors: Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Target Audience

Population: People interested in national conservation and monument designation

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Tour guide (Las Vegas, NV)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The creation of the monument is likely to increase tourism in the area, which will be great for business.
  • I am concerned about the logistics of managing increased tourist volume to ensure environmental preservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Mining engineer (Denver, CO)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy limits our current projects and restricts future mining operations in significant areas.
  • It could cause job losses in our industry, but I understand the need for conservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 7
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Small business owner (Laughlin, NV)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could bring more tourists to the area, potentially increasing my customer base.
  • I'm concerned about whether my business plans align with new regulations from the monument.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Tribal member and cultural advisor (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This designation is important for preserving my cultural heritage and allows for traditional practices to continue.
  • I hope that management includes ongoing input from tribal leaders.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Retired Park Ranger (Carson City, NV)

Age: 63 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support this policy as it protects ecological and historical values important for future generations.
  • I hope the budget allows for adequate management and preservation efforts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Environmental scientist (Reno, NV)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a victory for conservation and can enhance biodiversity in the region.
  • Effective management is key to ensuring the protection of these sensitive habitats.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Ecotourist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I look forward to visiting the new monument as it aligns with my interests in natural landscapes and wildlife.
  • I am curious about the conservation success in this new area.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Geothermal energy advocate (Henderson, NV)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The restrictions on geothermal leasing are a setback for renewable energy projects.
  • However, the conservation of land is also essential, balancing both interests seems challenging.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Retired Educator (Flagstaff, AZ)

Age: 70 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Protecting cultural heritage is vital and should be a high priority.
  • I support initiatives that allow educational opportunities in historically significant areas.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Graduate Student (Salt Lake City, UT)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The designation creates great opportunities for academic research and enhances learning scopes for students.
  • I'm eager to study how this area evolves and contributes to 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 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)

Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)

Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)

Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Key Considerations