Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/753

Bill Overview

Title: Highlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2021

Description: This bill extends through FY2028 the Highlands Conservation Act, which provides for land conservation in Highlands states (i.e., Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania). The bill authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to add a municipality to the Highlands region upon the request of a Highlands state. The bill revises the way in which land is identified for conservation to require using the best available science and geographic information systems. The bill allows political subdivisions of states to enter into agreements with the Department of the Interior for land conservation projects. A Highland state that receives funds for a land conservation partnership project may not use more than 5% of the funds to administer that project. The bill extends through FY2028 Forest Service and other Department of Agriculture programs to conserve land and natural resources in the Highlands region.

Sponsors: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]

Target Audience

Population: People residing in or near the Highlands region of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Estimated Size: 5000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Elementary school teacher (Small rural town, Pennsylvania)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful this act will improve our local trails and make our town a more attractive place for hiking enthusiasts.
  • It could provide opportunities for students to learn more about the environment in a hands-on way.

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 9 6
Year 20 9 5

IT professional (Urban suburb, New Jersey)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it will be nice to have better-maintained parks locally.
  • Not sure how much this matters when I'm spending most of my time commuting.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired farmer (Rural, Upstate New York)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Preserving our lands is important, but I hope it doesn't affect my land rights.
  • Could influence my property's value depending on how it's managed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Graduate student (New York City, New York)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is an exciting development for environmental science and provides great research opportunities.
  • I'm concerned about implementation efficiency.

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 6
Year 20 9 6

Small business owner of a local café (Town near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Conserving natural areas should increase tourist activity throughout the year, which could be great for my café.
  • Hope they consider how construction might affect local traffic and my supply deliveries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental consultant (Hartford, Connecticut)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy strengthens my field by encouraging better science-backed conservation efforts.
  • It bodes well for my consulting business as more projects may arise from it.

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 10 7
Year 20 10 6

High school principal (Suburban, Connecticut)

Age: 55 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The act could provide substantial educational opportunities and outdoor classrooms for our students.
  • We aim to collaborate on local conservation projects and enrich our environmental studies program.

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 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

College student (Rural, New Jersey)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Looking forward to new conservation projects which would help in getting practical experience and maybe a job post-graduation.
  • Hope they prioritize areas that have been neglected.

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 10 7
Year 20 10 6

State park ranger (Albany, New York)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Excited about increased funding for better maintenance and management of conservation areas.
  • This will directly benefit my work in improving park services and visitor experiences.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Freelance photographer (Rural, Connecticut)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Conservation means more pristine areas to capture and greater demand for nature photography.
  • Hoping for balanced access so it doesn't become too commercialized.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations