Bill Overview
Title: Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act
Description: This bill withdraws certain federal lands and waters in Minnesota from mining and related activities. Specifically, the bill withdraws approximately 234,328 acres of federal land and waters in a specified area in the Rainy River Watershed of Superior National Forest from entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. The area is adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mining Protection Area. Land or interest in land within such area that is acquired by the United States shall be immediately withdrawn in accordance with this bill. The Forest Service is authorized to permit the removal of sand, granite, iron ore, and taconite from national forest system lands within such area if the removal is not detrimental to the water quality, air quality, and health of forest habitat within the Rainy River Watershed.
Sponsors: Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]
Target Audience
Population: People who might benefit or be affected by mining restrictions in the Boundary Waters
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a popular public destination known for its outdoor recreational opportunities, indicating it could impact outdoor enthusiasts, including visitors and local outdoor adventure businesses.
- The bill withdraws 234,328 acres of federal land in the Rainy River Watershed from mining and related activities, which can impact the local industry, particularly mining and its associated workforce.
- The local ecosystem will be safeguarded from mining, potentially preserving the biodiversity and natural resources of the area which supports wildlife species.
- Residents of Minnesota, particularly those living in the proximity to the Boundary Waters, might be affected by potential changes to economic opportunities and local environmental conditions.
- Environmental NGOs and advocacy groups focused on protecting wilderness areas would be stakeholders in supporting this bill, influencing global conservation efforts.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those in or near Minnesota, particularly those involved with or reliant on mining, tourism, or environmental protection. Interviews aim to cover individuals varied in proximity and involvement with these industries. The budget constraints suggest a limit on substantial direct economic supports, hence the impact analysis focuses on environmental and employment shifts rather than monetary compensation.
Simulated Interviews
Mining Worker (Ely, Minnesota)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy threatens my job stability as it restricts mining activities, my main source of income.
- I'm worried about finding a new job with comparable pay in my area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential to preserve the water quality and biodiversity in the Superior National Forest.
- Long-term environmental protection is more important than short-term economic benefits from mining.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Outdoor Enthusiast, Retired Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting the Boundary Waters ensures future generations can enjoy them as I have.
- The policy may restrict some activities, but preserving nature is worth it.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Politician (Duluth, Minnesota)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy addresses environmental concerns but creates tension with economic needs.
- Balancing these interests is challenging but necessary for sustainable development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental NGO Worker (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact extends globally as it sends a strong message about prioritizing conservation over extraction.
- This policy is a win for environmental advocacy and sets a precedent.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Cloquet, Minnesota)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater protection of Boundary Waters could boost tourism which is good for my business.
- However, restrictions on land use might affect related local businesses negatively.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired, Former Geologist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mining restrictions are overdue to protect critical ecosystems for future generations.
- Economic transitions might be difficult but necessary for ecological survival.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student, Environmental Studies Major (New York, New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is inspiring and aligns with what I hope to achieve in my career.
- It's reassuring to see actual policies that value conservation.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Mining Equipment Sales (St. Paul, Minnesota)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business relies on a robust local mining industry.
- This policy could harm my sales unless I can pivot to new markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Tour Guide (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring the environment remains intact for future tours is crucial.
- The policy might reduce costs associated with environmental damages.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential impacts on local communities reliant on mining for employment need evaluation.
- Future economic benefits of environmental preservation and recreation could be substantial.
- Balancing current economic impacts with long-term environmental goals is crucial for sustainable development.