Bill Overview
Title: Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development Act of 2021
Description: This bill allocates ski area permit rental charges for ski area administration, improvements, visitor services, and wildfire preparedness. Such charges are collected by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) from ski area operators on National Forest System land. USDA shall expend 80% of the ski area permit rental charges from a National Forest System unit at that unit in accordance with the following: 75% shall be used at the unit for activities such as administration of the ski area permit program, visitor information, or reducing the likelihood of wildfire in or adjacent to a recreation site; and 25% shall be used at the unit for activities such as repair of a Forest Service-owned facility, habitat restoration, or search and rescue activities. The remaining 20% of ski area permit rental charges shall be expended by USDA for any of the activities specified in this bill at any National Forest System unit.
Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals using or economically benefiting from ski areas and national forests
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on ski areas which are a significant part of the economic ecosystem in mountainous and rural regions globally.
- Ski areas attract tourists and provide recreational activities, so the populations most directly impacted are those in regions with ski resorts which benefit economically from tourism.
- National forests globally serve as tourism hubs which contribute to both local and global economic and recreational activities. This implies a wide range of effectuated individuals who might visit these areas for skiing purposes.
- Given the focus on National Forest System lands in the United States, the primary impact will be on American citizens involved in or serviced by these ski areas.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals living in or near ski areas on National Forest System land. Ski resorts attract tourists and boost local economies. Therefore, people working at ski resorts, local business owners, and frequent visitors would be directly impacted by any improvements in administration, visitor services, and wildfire preparedness.
- Many Americans enjoy skiing and other outdoor activities at these locations. Improvements in services and safety may enhance their recreational experience, potentially increasing their overall wellbeing.
- The policy's focus on habitat restoration, facility repairs, and search and rescue activities indicate broader benefits that may indirectly affect a larger population by ensuring safer and more sustainable recreational environments.
- Considering the substantial number of ski resorts on National Forest System land, the policy could somewhat enhance economic stability in tourism-dependent regions, benefitting businesses and employees reliant on ski-driven tourism.
Simulated Interviews
Ski Instructor (Aspen, Colorado)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will improve the overall experience for both workers and visitors by increasing safety and improving facilities, which can be quite outdated.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Business Owner (Bend, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced facilities and safety measures might lead to more visitors, which is beneficial for my business.
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 | 7 | 5 |
State Park Ranger (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any initiative that enhances safety and preserves natural beauty, even if I won't see direct changes in my work.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that the policy will bolster efforts in habitat restoration and improve local biodiversity.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Hotel Manager (Bozeman, Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved facilities and safety could increase tourism, which is good for local businesses like mine.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Aspiring Ski Champion (Truckee, California)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements in ski area facilities can aid athletes like me by offering better infrastructure for training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Jackson, Wyoming)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes me feel safer when I go skiing, knowing that wildfire preparedness is a priority.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Travel Writer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced services can lead to better experiences and more content for my travel pieces.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Burlington, Vermont)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's beneficial for the environment and local ecology if restoration and preventive measures are prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Ski Resort Visitor (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate any measures that improve visitor services and safety; it makes my trips more enjoyable.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $-1000000, High: $1000000)
Key Considerations
- The allocation scheme does not require new federal funding but repurposes existing revenues.
- The impact on wildfire preparedness is difficult to quantify but potentially significant in cost savings.
- Effects on local economies and employment can be beneficial, particularly in rural areas dependent on tourism.
- Long-term sustainability of the program depends on the consistency of permit fees collected.