Bill Overview
Title: Keep America’s Refuges Operational Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 (1) the volunteer services, community partnerships, and refuge education programs of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and (2) provisions authorizing the Department of the Interior to accept and use gifts, devises, or bequests of real and personal property for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the performance of its activities and services.
Sponsors: Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individual users and stakeholders of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill impacts the volunteers who contribute services to the National Wildlife Refuge System as the reauthorization ensures the continuation of structured volunteer programs.
- People who are part of or benefit from community partnerships linked to the wildlife refuges will be impacted, given the support for these partnerships through the bill.
- Educational programs related to refuges would impact students, educators, and participants involved in these programs across the regions where the refuges exist.
- Reauthorization of the ability for the Department of the Interior to accept donations or bequests will impact donors and organizations that contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge System's mission.
- The health of ecological systems and wildlife conservation efforts are indirectly supported by this bill, impacting people who rely on the ecosystem services provided by these areas.
Reasoning
- To frame the policy's potential impact, it's crucial to consider both direct and indirect beneficiaries. Direct involvement includes volunteers, educational personnel, and community partnerships connected to wildlife refuges. These individuals are more likely to perceive a high impact due to enhanced opportunities and resources.
- Indirect beneficiaries might include visitors and those valuing conservation efforts for ecological or recreational reasons; however, their personal wellbeing change is possibly less pronounced unless they're engaged deeply in associated activities.
- The well-being scores offer a long-term look at personal value alignment and fulfillment from the policy. Changes in volunteerism and donations can create small but meaningful boosts in life satisfaction as people see tangible outcomes of their contributions.
- Given budget constraints, the policy's structured programs won't significantly broaden in scope but will solidify existing efforts, allowing consistent engagement and modest personal growth in involved populations.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Educator (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having better support for educational programs is critical. It will help raise awareness among students.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Volunteer (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Volunteering gives me a purpose, and ensuring these programs continue is crucial.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmentalist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill can strengthen partnerships, making our projects more sustainable.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any ecological health improvements are beneficial to our ranching and livestock.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Texas)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The educational programs could provide great research opportunities for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Oregon)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to donate directly to these refuges is impactful and aligns with my values.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Biologist (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintained funding means sustained research projects, which is vital.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Wildlife Photographer (Minnesota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More educational programs could bring new people interested in wildlife photography.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (New Mexico)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Refuge education programs help keep our community engaged with nature.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Park Ranger (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continued funding supports both conservation and tourism, vital to our region.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1250000 (Low: $1000000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1300000 (Low: $1050000, High: $1550000)
Year 3: $1350000 (Low: $1100000, High: $1600000)
Year 5: $1450000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1700000)
Year 10: $1600000 (Low: $1350000, High: $1850000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2200000, High: $2800000)
Key Considerations
- The potential fluctuations in volunteer participation and donation values that can impact cost and savings estimates.
- Local economic conditions and state policies that might augment or dampen the expected GDP and tax impacts.
- The need for periodic evaluation of program effectiveness concerning ecological benefits versus costs.