Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7168

Bill Overview

Title: Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act

Description: This bill modifies the boundary of the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument in Arizona to include approximately 97.71 acres of identified Forest Service land. The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over the Forest Service land from the Forest Service to the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS shall administer the added land as part of the monument.

Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]

Target Audience

Population: People impacted by changes to Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

Estimated Size: 50000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Tour Guide (Flagstaff, AZ)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm excited about the boundary adjustment. The inclusion of new land offers potential to introduce more tours and activities.
  • There's a possibility for new employment and community partnerships with the National Park Service's involvement.

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 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired National Park Service Ranger (Sedona, AZ)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The transfer is a positive step for ecological management; NPS generally has more resources to properly manage such lands.
  • I hope the transition does not disrupt current community engagements.

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 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There's potential for increased traffic to the monument with expanded areas to explore, which could boost my business.
  • My concern is whether the NPS policies will restrict access or increase fees that might deter visitors.

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 6
Year 20 7 5

Environmental Scientist (Tucson, AZ)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The change could lead to better conservation efforts due to increased NPS involvement and focus.
  • Skeptical about initial infrastructure funding being adequate for effective changes.

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

Local Activist (Arizona, AZ)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • These changes may open dialogues about indigenous land rights and involvement in management.
  • Concerned about potential cultural disruptions from increased tourism.

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 7 5

Forest Service Employee (Montana, MT)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • For us in the Forest Service, this transfer feels like a loss, but could ultimately benefit land preservation strategies.
  • The collaboration with NPS is crucial and I hope that our contributions are recognized.

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 6
Year 20 7 6

Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Heard about the boundary adjustments; I think it could enhance my future visits to the monument.
  • It's interesting to see how land management policies translate into tangible visitor experiences.

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

Hotel Manager (Flagstaff, AZ)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Incorporating more land could mean greater tourist attractions, boosting business.
  • Concerns remain if conservation could limit visitor activities or increase maintenance costs.

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 6
Year 20 7 6

Travel Blogger (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This change could add fresh content to my travel blog, offering new perspectives on managing and visiting these lands.
  • Hope that ecological integrity remains a priority with the transfer.

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 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Freelance Photographer (Nevada, NV)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Boundary expansion is promising, offering new visuals to capture.
  • My main concern is the access and permissions under new management.

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 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Year 2: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Year 3: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Year 5: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Year 10: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Year 100: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)

Key Considerations