Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8601

Bill Overview

Title: Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act

Description: This bill establishes the Dolores River National Conservation Area and the Dolores River Special Management Area in Colorado. A management plan must be developed for each area. The bill allows for the continued use of the areas by members of Indian tribes for traditional ceremonies and as a source of traditional plants and other materials. The Department of the Interior shall establish the Dolores River National Conservation Area Advisory Council. The bill releases the areas from further study for designation for potential addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]

Target Audience

Population: people living in or utilizing the Dolores River area

Estimated Size: 45000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Dolores, Colorado)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm supportive of conservation for the long term, but I'm concerned about how water access might be affected.
  • It would be great if farming activities can be integrated into the management plan.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 9 3

Tour guide (Cortez, Colorado)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The designation might increase tourism to the area, which is good for business.
  • I hope the advisory council includes local input.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 10 5

Conservation scientist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy supports important conservation goals.
  • It'll provide a great opportunity for ongoing research and preservation efforts.

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 7
Year 20 10 7

Outdoor recreation enthusiast (Telluride, Colorado)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Excited about the potential for improved trail maintenance and access due to the policy.
  • Hopeful that recreational activities remain supported.

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 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Tribal cultural advisor (Towaoc, Colorado)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's important that tribal voices are included in the management plan.
  • Protection of sacred lands could be strengthened by this policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 10 5

Real estate developer (Grand Junction, Colorado)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Concerns about land restrictions affecting future projects.
  • Looking at how to adapt business plans with new conservation goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

School teacher (Rico, Colorado)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This represents a great educational opportunity for students.
  • Students can see real-world applications of conservation.

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

Fisherman (Mancos, Colorado)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If water quality gets better, fish populations would benefit.
  • Restrictions could mean less access to familiar fishing spots.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Park ranger (Dolores, Colorado)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This would mean more resources for patrolling and managing the area.
  • Could improve job satisfaction with clearer conservation goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental activist (Durango, Colorado)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with our conservation goals.
  • It strengthens our case for more protective measures.

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 10 8
Year 20 10 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)

Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)

Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)

Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)

Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)

Key Considerations