Bill Overview
Title: Ouachita National Forest Overnight Camping Act
Description: This bill requires the identification and development of campsites and related facilities in the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall (1) identify areas within Albert Pike Recreation Area that may be suitable for overnight camping; (2) review each area identified; and (3) from the areas identified, select and establish campsites and related facilities within the recreation area for public use. USDA must ensure (1) that at least 54 campsites are available, of which not less than 8 shall have electric and water hookups; and (2) that each campsite and related facility identified or established is located outside of the 1% annual exceedance probability flood elevation. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this bill, USDA shall open each campsite within the recreation area that (1) exists on the enactment of this bill, and (2) is located outside of the 1% annual exceedance probability flood elevation.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who camp or engage in outdoor activities in the Ouachita National Forest
Estimated Size: 1300000
- The Ouachita National Forest is a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts who enjoy camping, hiking, and other recreational activities.
- The Ouachita National Forest encompasses 1.8 million acres in central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma, thus it attracts significant visitors annually.
- This bill particularly focuses on the Albert Pike Recreation Area, which is a known destination within the forest for camping.
- Development of new campsites and facilities will improve access for campers and likely increase visitation.
- The population impacted includes past visitors, potential future visitors, and those living near the forest who might use it recreationally.
- Many individuals who camp in national forests do so to enjoy cost-effective outdoor experiences away from urban environments globally and particularly from surrounding regions like the mid-south U.S.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals who camp or visit the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas.
- Both local residents and tourists from nearby states are likely to use the new facilities, impacting their recreation and well-being.
- Given budget constraints, ensuring that the campsites are well-distributed and accessible without significant cost increases is necessary.
- The focus on improving and adding facilities like water and electricity hookup aims to enhance the camping experience.
- Local businesses and community resources may experience increased demand due to higher visitor numbers.
- It's important to include perspectives from people who might not directly benefit from camping but have an interest in forest preservation and recreation.
- The long-term impact on well-being will depend on the quality and maintenance of the facilities and how they enhance the camping experience.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am very excited about the possibility of more well-defined camping spots.
- Having electrical hookups will make it easier for families like mine to camp more comfortably.
- I hope this will also mean better restroom and sanitation facilities.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good move to make the forest more accessible for camping.
- However, I am concerned about maintaining the natural beauty and solitude of the place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retail Manager (Fort Smith, Arkansas)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The upgrades will make visiting the forest with family more practical.
- It could also boost local business if more tourists come through.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Hot Springs, Arkansas)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who used to work in forestry, I see both the benefits and risks.
- I hope the upgrades won't harm the ecosystem.
- I do like the idea of having water and electric sites.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Student (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environmental impact but see potential for better accessibility.
- This policy could make the forest more appealing for group camping and field trips.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Healthcare Worker (Benton, Arkansas)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Upgrading campsites could be beneficial if it's done sustainably.
- Access to nature is important for health and leisure.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Memphis, Tennessee)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With a family, more facilities could make camping easier.
- Our budget is tight, so I'm glad this environment is affordable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Nurse (Shreveport, Louisiana)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome new campsites, especially if they're well-located and safe.
- The availability of services like electric hookups is a plus for my group.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Digital Marketing Manager (Fayetteville, Arkansas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good facilities could draw more interest from people like me, who don't camp often.
- I hope the upgrades won't be intrusive to the natural surroundings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Veteran Activist (Clinton, Oklahoma)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could be great if it makes the parks more accessible to veterans.
- I want these beautiful areas to remain open for all and well-cared for.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2200000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $900000, High: $1200000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $900000, High: $1200000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $900000, High: $1200000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $900000, High: $1200000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with environmental and flood elevation regulations will be crucial.
- Effective visitor management and operational plans will be required to maximize the return on investment.
- Potential environmental impacts of construction and increased traffic must be addressed.
- Coordination with local communities and stakeholders will be essential for successful implementation.