Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7399

Bill Overview

Title: LBL Recreation and Heritage Act

Description: This bill addresses the administration of the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. The bill decreases from 17 to 13 the number of members who compose the Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board. The bill permits members of the advisory board to serve multiple terms, but not serve consecutive terms. In addition to carrying out its current activities, the advisory board shall develop an annual work plan for recreation and environment education areas in the Recreation Area, including the heritage program, with the nonappropriated amounts in the Land Between the Lakes Management Fund; develop an annual forest management and harvest plan for the Recreation Area; and maintain the balance and status of the fund. The bill requires the advisory board to meet at least twice each year. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall charge (currently may charge) reasonable fees, as determined by the advisory board, for admission to and the use of the designated sites, or for activities, within the recreation area. The bill states that amounts in the fund shall be available to USDA to perform new work or deferred maintenance in the recreation area and shall not be available for the payment of salaries or other expenses. USDA, on request from a qualified resident or relative or a cemetery association, shall grant additional land for the expansion of existing cemeteries within the recreation area to allow for the burial of qualified residents or relatives.

Sponsors: Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1]

Target Audience

Population: Recreation area visitors, local residents, local government contributors

Estimated Size: 3000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Teacher (Paducah, Kentucky)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy could improve access to educational resources in the area if managed properly.
  • Concerned about the increase in fees, it might deter families from visiting as often.

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 8 6

Environmental Scientist (Nashville, Tennessee)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a positive change, as it allows us to sustainably manage the forest areas.
  • The focus on educational resources is critical for future conservation efforts.

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 7
Year 20 9 6

Retired (Murray, Kentucky)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm relieved to know that future cemetery expansions are part of the policy.
  • The thought of having to relocate family graves was distressing.

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 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 3

Park Ranger (Memphis, Tennessee)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This new policy gives us a clearer framework for managing resources efficiently.
  • I hope additional fees are implemented fairly, so they don't discourage tourism.

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

Local Business Owner (Hopkinsville, Kentucky)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increase in fees might reduce the number of tourists which is a concern for my business.
  • Better management could, however, mean more visitors in the long term.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Government Employee (Clarksville, Tennessee)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The structured fund management looks to improve our efficiency and impact.
  • I am concerned about whether the budget is sufficient to meet all needs.

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 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 7

Tourist (Bowling Green, Kentucky)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope the new charges don't make our trips too expensive.
  • I value improved facilities and conservation efforts, so it might be worth it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Graduate Student (Knoxville, Tennessee)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could provide invaluable data for my studies.
  • I'm interested in seeing how it truly affects local governance and management efficiency.

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

Local Politician (Louisville, Kentucky)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The ability to guide the advisory board actions aligns well with our regional strategy.
  • I worry about the balance between development and preservation.

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 7
Year 20 8 7

Retired Engineer (Evansville, Indiana)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate the continuity and historical oversight being retained in our management practices.
  • Concern about the board's abilities and potential narrowing scope with reduced members.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

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

Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Key Considerations