Bill Overview
Title: Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act
Description: This bill adjusts the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California as depicted on a specified map to include the Rim of the Valley Unit. The Rim of the Valley Unit, and any lands or interests acquired by the United States and located within its boundaries, shall be administered as part of the recreation area. The addition of the Rim of the Valley Unit to the recreation area shall not affect the operation, maintenance, or modification of water resource facilities or public utilities within the unit.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in and around the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California, including visitors and those with a vested interest.
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill expands the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Unit, which suggests it impacts a local area within California.
- Those affected include individuals who live near or work within the newly designated area as well as potential visitors to the expanded recreation area.
- Park employees might be affected due to potential changes in park administration tasks and responsibilities to include the expanded area.
- There is potential impact on local business owners, particularly those in tourism or associated with park activities.
- Environmental groups and organizations might be affected due to new opportunities for conservation within the Rim of the Valley Unit.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy primarily includes those living in and around the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and the newly included Rim of the Valley Unit. This includes residents, park employees, businesses involved in tourism, and environmental organizations.
- The budget constraints involve a careful allocation of funds to possibly acquire land and manage it as part of the recreation area. The policy funding is distributed over 10 years, which suggests a long-term implementation plan.
- Since the direct impact is limited geographically, the majority of individuals outside this area will experience little to no change in their wellbeing related to this policy.
- A varied selection of stakeholders ensures the diversity of opinions as some people might have economic stakes, whereas others might focus on conservation and recreational benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Park Ranger (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about this expansion. It will mean more area to protect and enjoy, and hopefully more visitors appreciating the natural beauty here.
- I hope the additional funding allows for better resources and programs for park visitors.
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 |
Local Business Owner (Agoura Hills, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this expansion brings more visitors, it could mean more business for my café.
- There might be some challenges with increased traffic, but overall it seems beneficial for us.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Malibu, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a fantastic opportunity for conservation efforts. More lands protected mean more biodiversity security.
- We'll probably have more volunteer opportunities which is exciting.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Santa Clarita, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open up more internship opportunities and projects in the park, which is great for my career.
- Living near the area, I think it's a beautiful place to preserve.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Pasadena, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an outdoor person, I'm thrilled. The expansion would mean more trails to explore and better preservation of our beloved nature paths.
- I just hope it doesn't lead to too much commercialization.
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 |
Public Utility Worker (Burbank, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My concern is how the expansion will affect our work, but as long as we can continue operations smoothly, it's fine.
- It's important that we maintain a balance between nature and necessary infrastructure.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Elementary School Teacher (Glendale, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion might offer more learning opportunities and field trips for my students.
- Ensuring that kids have spaces to connect with nature is important.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Landscape Architect (Calabasas, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is advantageous for my field, opening up new projects focusing on integrating landscape with the expanded park boundaries.
- Increased conservation spaces align with sustainable designs.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Recent Graduate (Newport Beach, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds importance to my field, emphasizing legal protection measures for expanded park areas.
- It can mean more work targeting sustainable development projects.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tour Guide (Ventura, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This expansion means I might offer new tours covering the new sections, potentially attracting more diverse clientele.
- It will be critical to balance visitor interest with environmental preservation.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The expansion may face varying degrees of public and political support given environmental and local interests.
- Acquisition and administration costs are significant variables and can fluctuate based on land values and legal challenges.
- Long-term conservation benefits from increased protection and management of natural resources may outweigh the short-term fiscal costs.
- Coordination with local and state agencies would be crucial to align objectives and maximize the impact of this legislative change.