Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4542

Bill Overview

Title: Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act

Description: This bill establishes the Dolores River National Conservation Area and the Dolores River Special Management Area in Colorado. A management plan must be developed for each area. The bill allows for the continued use of the areas by members of Indian tribes for traditional ceremonies and as a source of traditional plants and other materials. The Department of the Interior shall establish the Dolores River National Conservation Area Advisory Council. The bill releases the areas from further study for designation for potential addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

Target Audience

Population: People who live near, use, or are invested in the Dolores River area in Colorado

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Rancher (Dolores, CO)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about how these changes might affect grazing policies.
  • If the advisory council involves local ranchers, it might help us address our needs too.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Outdoor Recreational Guide (Cortex, CO)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful the management plan will enhance tourism opportunities and protect the river environment.
  • Keeping the area open for recreation is crucial for my business.

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 6

Tribal Elder (Colorado)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm relieved that we can continue our traditional ceremonies without disruption.
  • The establishment of the advisory council may help in preserving our interests.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Scientist (Cortez, CO)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm disappointed the area won't be considered for the Wild and Scenic Rivers System anymore.
  • Our group will closely watch how the conservation and special management designations are implemented.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Hotel Owner (Silverton, CO)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic that the new designations will increase tourism, benefiting my business.
  • We might need to navigate new policies and regulations for tourists.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Teacher (Durango, CO)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about possible limitations on my favorite camping spots.
  • Yet I understand the importance of conservation for future generations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Policy Analyst (Denver, CO)

Age: 41 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The advisory council might offer a new channel for stakeholder influence.
  • Releasing the Wild and Scenic study feels like a missed opportunity.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Tribal Artist (Raymond, CO)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • My concerns are mostly about restricted access, though this bill seems to safeguard traditional practices.
  • I'm glad our cultural activities are respected in the legislation.

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 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Local Government Official (Dolores, CO)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This provides an opportunity to balance conservation with local needs.
  • The economic impact on the community could be beneficial if managed effectively.

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 8 6

Retired Park Ranger (Telluride, CO)

Age: 68 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While protecting the area is important, I'm apprehensive about the release of the Wild and Scenic study.
  • I trust in the management plan to provide appropriate protections.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Key Considerations