Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/569

Bill Overview

Title: Gilt Edge Mine Conveyance Act

Description: This bill provides for a land conveyance to South Dakota. Specifically, if South Dakota submits an offer to the Forest Service to acquire approximately 266 acres of National Forest System land within the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Boundary for its market value, the Forest Service shall convey such land to South Dakota. Any proceeds received by the Forest Service from the conveyance shall be (1) deposited in a specified fund for the exchange of lands, and (2) available to the Forest Service for the maintenance and improvement of land or administration facilities in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota.

Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]

Target Audience

Population: People living in and around the Black Hills region in South Dakota

Estimated Size: 2000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Park Ranger (Deadwood, SD)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am hopeful that this policy will provide much-needed funds for improving park facilities.
  • If done right, land management improvements can enhance local biodiversity and attract more visitors.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Local Business Owner (Rapid City, SD)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that brings more visitors to the area is good for business.
  • I'm concerned about the environmental impact but optimistic overall.

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 7 6
Year 20 7 5

Environmental Scientist (Spearfish, SD)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The conveyance could either help or hinder local conservation efforts depending on implementation.
  • Hopeful that funds generated will facilitate needed research and maintenance projects.

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 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Teacher (Black Hawk, SD)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that helps educate and improve our environment for future generations is valuable.
  • I want to see clearer commitments to environmental education in conjunction with this policy.

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 6 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

State Government Official (Sioux Falls, SD)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could streamline some bureaucratic processes and fund critical projects.
  • Maintaining transparency and accountability will be crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Retired (Lead, SD)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've seen many policies come and go, but few seem to address the root issues.
  • Skeptical but hopeful that this could be a step in the right direction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Environmental Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Interesting policy with potential lessons for future federal land management strategies.
  • May provide new insights for balancing state and federal interests in public lands.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Tourist Guide (Custer, SD)

Age: 42 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy can improve trails and facilities, which is key for attracting tourists.
  • I hope the developments do not come at the cost of natural beauty.

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 8 6
Year 20 7 6

University Student (Pierre, SD)

Age: 19 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might offer internship or research opportunities in the future.
  • I'm hopeful but unsure about the long-term environmental impacts.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Construction Worker (Sturgis, SD)

Age: 33 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I’m glad there might be more work opportunities, but construction isn't always consistent.
  • If there are more projects, it could mean job stability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Key Considerations