Bill Overview
Title: To withdraw certain Federal land in the San Bernardino National Forest in California from location, entry, and patent under mining laws, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill withdraws 3,055 acres of specified land in San Bernardino National Forest in California from (1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
Sponsors: Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-8]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by federal land withdrawal from mining in San Bernardino National Forest
Estimated Size: 45000
- The San Bernardino National Forest is located in California and covers over 800,000 acres. Withdrawing 3,055 acres is a small portion but could have specific local impacts.
- The primary population affected includes individuals and businesses involved in mining activities as this bill restricts access to these federal lands for mining and related industries.
- Environmental protection groups and local communities concerned with land use and conservation will be impacted as these lands will potentially be preserved from mining activities.
- There may be indirect impacts on consumers or industries that rely on minerals extracted from this region, but these effects are typically more diffuse and harder to quantify.
Reasoning
- The target population is relatively small given the specific geographic focus and the particular industries directly affected (mining).
- The budget restrictions suggest that the policy needs to strike a balance between enforcement (e.g., monitoring and compliance checks) and the anticipated compensation or support mechanisms for affected workers and businesses.
- This policy may have concentrated impacts on a few industries but also broader impacts related to conservation and natural preservation efforts.
- Given the budget, the policy may not directly compensate all affected parties but could aim at funding conservation or alternative employment opportunities for significantly impacted individuals.
- The population primarily impacted would include local communities, workers in the mining sector, and indirectly businesses dealing with mineral resources from the area.
Simulated Interviews
Miner (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might put my job at risk as our company depends on these lands for mining.
- I'm worried about job security in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am happy to see measures taken to protect parts of the forest from mining.
- This will help preserve the local ecosystem.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Local Store Owner (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about losing business from the miners.
- Perhaps increased tourism due to conservation could help, but it's uncertain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
State Government Official (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our state goals for environmental preservation.
- There's potential for increased biodiversity conservation.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tourism Guide (Riverside, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will attract more nature tourists, which could benefit my business.
- Concerned about managing increased foot traffic.
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 | 7 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Palm Springs, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If more tourists visit because of conservation, it could increase my customer base.
- But I worry about changes in the local economy.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Geologist (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy restricts some of my work but protects key areas.
- It's a trade-off I can accept for environmental reasons.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see these lands protected for future generations.
- This will help in maintaining our local environment.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Tech Worker Remote (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not directly affected, I support efforts that help preserve nature.
- I hope this encourages others to take conservation seriously.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Mining Equipment Supplier (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could reduce demand for our products.
- We might need to diversify our customer base.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The specific location and mineral value of the land withdrawn need to be considered, although historically these lands have not been heavily used for mining.
- Environmental and conservation benefits to be weighed against the economic costs of mining restriction.
- Potential legal challenges or disputes from stakeholders in mining that could alter enforcement costs.