Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3551

Bill Overview

Title: Gateway Community and Recreation Enhancement Act

Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to carry out a pilot program to make available to the public, either directly or through partner organizations, data on visits to recreation destinations at a federal land management unit; and recreation sites managed by any other federal agency, a state agency, or a local agency located near the federal land management unit. In carrying out the program, Interior and the Forest Service must partner with gateway communities, state and local outdoor recreation and tourism agencies, local and tribal governments, data and technology companies, and other relevant stakeholders. The term gateway community means a community that serves as an entry point or is adjacent to a recreation destination (including a recreation destination on federal land) at which there is consistently high seasonal or year-round visitation. Also, under the pilot program, Interior and the Forest Service shall make available to the public information about lesser-known recreation sites (including recreation sites managed by any other federal agency, a state agency, or a local agency) located near a federal land management unit, in an effort to spread widely visitation among recreational sites. Interior and the Forest Service shall collaborate with state and local governments, tribal governments, housing authorities, applicable trade associations, nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders, to, among other things, improve the understanding of the economic impacts of visits to recreation destinations on gateway communities.

Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in or affected by outdoor recreational activities near federal, state, or local sites

Estimated Size: 30000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Outdoor Recreation Guide (Colorado Springs, CO)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy seems like a positive step. More data could help spread visitors more evenly, reducing crowding at popular sites.
  • As a guide, understanding visitor patterns can help optimize tour plans.
  • I'm hopeful this will reduce environmental stress on popular areas during peak seasons.

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 6

Data Analyst (Bozeman, MT)

Age: 43 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act will likely increase demand for our services.
  • Accuracy in visitor data will improve, benefiting both recreation businesses and conservation efforts.
  • I'm concerned about data privacy and management.

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 9 5

Park Ranger (Orlando, FL)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased visitor awareness about lesser-known sites can alleviate pressure on popular parks.
  • Educational programs might receive more attention, aiding conservation efforts.
  • There needs to be careful monitoring to prevent any unintended harm to sensitive areas.

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 8 7

Retired (Flagstaff, AZ)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The more informed visitors are, the better we can preserve these lands.
  • I'm concerned that too many visitors could spoil less frequented spots.
  • The policy may provide a balance between use and conservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner (Moab, UT)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Visitor data will be crucial for planning inventory and staffing in my business.
  • I see an opportunity in promoting sustainability in tourism as part of community efforts.
  • Keeping the information accessible and transparent is crucial.

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 5

Travel Blogger (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm excited about the potential for discovering and promoting lesser-known sites.
  • Could contribute new content angles and collaborations with parks.
  • It's important that this doesn't lead to the over-commercialization of sensitive areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Conservationist (New York, NY)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Data is vital for conservation as it could inform protective measures, but it must be handled wisely.
  • Partnerships with conservation groups should be prioritized to maintain ecological balance.
  • The challenge will be in managing visitor impacts effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

State Park Worker (Salt Lake City, UT)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhancing site visibility could drive more visitors to state parks, boosting local economies.
  • Maintenance will be critical as increased use might lead to accelerated wear and tear.
  • Resources may need to be allocated efficiently to balance increased demand.

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 5

College Student (Portland, OR)

Age: 21 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Access to comprehensive data can aid in research projects.
  • The promotion of lesser-known sites is appealing for new exploration opportunities.
  • Balancing conservation with increased foot traffic will be key.

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

Tech Startup Founder (Chicago, IL)

Age: 39 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This presents a great opportunity for technological advancements in tourism and recreation apps.
  • The collaboration between the Forest Service and tech companies could yield innovative solutions.
  • Privacy and accurate deployment of data will be essential.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $29000000)

Year 3: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)

Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)

Year 10: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)

Key Considerations