Bill Overview
Title: Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Modification Act of 2021
Description: This bill modifies the boundary of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Arizona and provides for a study of the feasibility of designating the Don Young Legacy Trail in Alaska. Specifically, with respect to the monument, the bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to acquire private or state land or interest in land by donation, exchange, or purchase from willing sellers in order to expand the boundaries of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Arizona. The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over specified parcels of Bureau of Land Management land to the National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and specifies an exchange of land between the BIA and the NPS. Upon the acquisition of land or an interest in private or state land, and with respect to any transferred land, Interior shall administer the acquired or transferred land as part of the monument, and modify the boundary of the monument to include the acquired or transferred land. Interior may enter into an agreement with Arizona to provide for cooperative management of approximately 200 acres of specified state lands.
Sponsors: Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by modification and expansion of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument
Estimated Size: 2000
- The expansion of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument will directly impact local communities in Arizona, specifically those in the vicinity of the monument, as it involves acquiring state and private lands.
- Residents who live on or near the lands that may be acquired, as well as those with economic interests tied to these lands, might experience changes due to reclassification of land usage and increased tourism potential.
- The state's government and public service sectors in Arizona could be impacted as they get involved in cooperative management agreements for the state lands.
- People interested in historical sites, both nationally and internationally, may be indirectly impacted as the expansion might enhance the appeal and preservation of the monument.
- There is also an indirect impact on tourism industries in Arizona, including lodging, dining, and local services, due to potential increases in visitation.
- The bill mentions a feasibility study in Alaska for the Don Young Legacy Trail which indirectly engages stakeholders related to outdoor recreation and heritage conservation in Alaska.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a rural area in Arizona with certain socio-economic conditions. Many residents might have ties to the land being considered for acquisition and thus may be affected directly through land usage changes or indirectly through economic opportunity shifts.
- Tourism can significantly boost local economies; thus, residents of nearby towns might find new job opportunities, though some might fear over-commercialization of their local area.
- Land acquisition at fair compensation rates can mitigate impact, but it is critical to ensure willing participation of landowners to avoid community discontent.
- Given the policy's targeted nature, a niche group including historians and archaeologists may benefit from improved access to cultural heritage and historical site management.
- The policy has provisions for cooperation with state land management, indicating direct involvement of state agencies that may experience increased responsibilities and resource reallocations.
- Because the policy includes a feasibility study in Alaska unrelated to the Arizona monument, this demarcates distinct direct and indirect stakeholder considerations in crafting its implementation strategy.
Simulated Interviews
retired (Coolidge, Arizona)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will mean more preservation for the ruins, they hold a deep historical and personal value for me.
- With more tourism, I'm optimistic about better local amenities but concerned about over-commercialization.
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 |
tourism coordinator (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as an exciting opportunity to share more about Arizona's culture and history with tourists.
- It might increase job opportunities not just for me but for young people interested in tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
archaeologist (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This expansion could open up new research opportunities and ensure better protection for these historically significant sites.
- I'm concerned about any negative environmental impacts that might arise from increased tourism.
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 |
small business owner (Santa Cruz County, Arizona)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More visitors to the ruins could mean more business for my B&B, which is a great prospect.
- I'm concerned about whether infrastructure improvements will keep pace with visitor numbers.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
private landowner (Pinal County, Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm wary of selling my land even if they are offering fair market value. I need more clarity on future land use and rights.
- It's hard to value my land's worth strictly in dollars given my family's roots here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
state parks manager (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cooperative management could streamline conservation efforts, which is beneficial.
- We may face increased bureaucratic challenges managing land together with federal authorities.
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 |
outdoor recreation guide (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This study can catalyze trail development, diversifying our tourism offerings here in Alaska.
- It's crucial for us to ensure the trail aligns with sustainable practices to benefit community and nature alike.
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 government worker (Scottsdale, Arizona)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might complicate zoning due to the blend of state and federal rules.
- However, clearer guidelines can pave the way for future projects involving land use in heritage sites.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
environmental consultant (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a risk of negatively impacting local ecosystems if construction isn't managed well.
- But, responsible expansion can enhance conservation and education about natural heritage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
history graduate student (New York, New York)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A better-preserved Casa Grande could boost academic and public interest, which is crucial for my studies.
- Access across expanded or newly researched lands would be invaluable for comprehensive research.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental impacts and conservational benefits associated with expanding the monument boundary and land management.
- Local community engagement and cooperation with state governments, particularly regarding land use changes and economic impacts.
- Cost of feasibility study for Don Young Legacy Trail and its potential future legislative and economic implications.