Bill Overview
Title: Land Between the Lakes Recreation and Heritage Act
Description: This bill addresses the administration of the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. The bill decreases from 17 to 13 the number of members who compose the Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board. The bill permits members of the advisory board to serve multiple terms, but not serve consecutive terms. In addition to carrying out its current activities, the advisory board shall advise on an annual work plan for recreation and environment education areas in the Recreation Area, including the heritage program, with the nonappropriated amounts in the Land Between the Lakes Management Fund; an annual forest management and harvest plan for the Recreation Area; and the fund. The bill requires the advisory board to meet at least twice each year. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall charge (currently may charge) reasonable fees, as determined by the advisory board, for admission to and the use of the designated sites, or for activities, within the recreation area. The bill states that amounts in the fund shall be available to USDA to perform new work or deferred maintenance in the recreation area and shall not be available for management of the area, including the payment of salaries or other expenses. USDA, on request from a qualified resident or relative or a cemetery association, shall grant additional land for the minor expansion of existing cemeteries within the recreation area to allow for the burial of qualified residents or relatives.
Sponsors: Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
Target Audience
Population: People using or living near the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area
Estimated Size: 800000
- The bill is relevant to the population living in or frequently using the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee.
- This area is primarily used for recreation and environmental education, so it will heavily impact visitors, which may include a large number of tourists and residents of Kentucky and Tennessee.
- The population potentially impacted includes those participating in activities within the recreation area, which could include hiking, camping, educational tours, etc.
- Individuals interested in forest management and wildlife conservation may also be impacted due to changes in the forest management plan.
- The cemeteries within the recreation area would concern local residents with familial ties to the area, indicating a direct impact on those seeking burial sites for relatives.
- The ability of the USDA to charge for admission and use of the recreation area will financially impact visitors.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people using or living near the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, specifically due to changes in fees, forest management, and conservation efforts.
- A significant portion of the affected population may include tourists and local residents engaged in recreational activities such as hiking, camping, and educational tours.
- Forest management plans and potential cemetery expansions could affect local residents more directly, particularly those involved in or affected by agricultural and environmental initiatives.
- USDA's ability to charge fees for recreational area use will also have a direct financial impact on visitors and possibly influence the frequency of their visits.
- Most individuals may experience low to medium impact because the changes are primarily administrative and financial, not directly affecting most typical recreational activities.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Nashville, TN)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy increases focus on maintaining the recreation area, which is good for conservation efforts.
- The increased fees might discourage frequent visits for some but could help manage visitor numbers and preserve the environment better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Murray, KY)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding cemetery land is respectful to families like mine.
- Increased fees for fishing might be troublesome but necessary for maintenance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Clarksville, TN)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stricter forest management plans are a great idea for educational purposes.
- Fee hikes might make it tough for fellow students, but it will improve the area's facilities.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Land Between the Lakes, KY)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps focus on structured environmental planning.
- More meetings for advisory boards might mean better decisions on site management.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Barista (Paducah, KY)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried the fees might add up over time just to visit the lakes for a day.
- However, if it improves the facilities and maintenance, it might be worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
History Teacher (Memphis, TN)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Including heritage programs in work plans is a positive step.
- I'm concerned about the funding balance between recreation and education, and historical preservation.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Hopkinsville, KY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could draw more tourists if the area is better maintained, benefiting my business idea.
- Increased fees might deter budget-conscious tourists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Nurse (Louisville, KY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I don't visit often, changes in fees don't impact me much.
- It's nice to see they are focusing on sustainability and preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Paris, TN)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's provision for cemetery expansion, as familial ties to the land are important.
- Worried about how increased fees might affect access for locals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Event Planner (Lexington, KY)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A well-managed area is beneficial for events, but fee hikes pose budgeting challenges.
- Concerned about regulations possibly complicating event planning.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2100000 (Low: $1600000, High: $2600000)
Year 5: $2150000 (Low: $1650000, High: $2650000)
Year 10: $2250000 (Low: $1750000, High: $2750000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could result in increased administrative costs, especially in the initial years, due to changes in management and fee collection processes.
- The long-term success and cost-effectiveness of the bill depend heavily on the advisory board's management of the Recreation Area's natural and financial resources.