Bill Overview
Title: Armed Forces Endangered Species Exemption Act
Description: This bill establishes exemptions from the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) for defense-related purposes. Specifically, the bill establishes exemptions from the ESA for (1) operations related to national defense, and (2) military personnel engaged in such operations. For example, the bill allows such personnel to take (e.g., harm or kill) endangered or threatened species. In addition, the bill expands restrictions on the Department of the Interior designating defense-related areas as critical habitat. It also exempts the Department of Defense from certain requirements to consult with Interior about critical habitats.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on healthy ecosystems and biodiversity
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill allows military operations to harm or kill endangered or threatened species, potentially impacting ecosystems globally.
- Military operations are conducted in various locations worldwide, affecting biodiversity and local communities dependent on those ecosystems.
- Globally, people depend on biodiversity for ecosystem services like clean air, water, and resources, which might be affected by this bill.
Reasoning
- The given policy impacts those closely tied to ecosystems and biodiversity, such as workers in agriculture, fisheries, tourism, and people valuing natural spaces for recreation.
- The policy might have minimal immediate personal impact on a significant portion of the U.S. population; however, ecological degradation might gradually affect broader society.
- Budget limitations restrict extensive military operations, thus moderating potential ecological damages within the first decade.
- The population assessing these changes ranges widely in socio-economic status and location, influencing how they perceive and are affected by the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Tourism Operator (Portland, OR)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could severely impact biodiversity in areas where many of my tours operate.
- If habitats are no longer protected, it could reduce the number of tourists interested in visiting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Military Personnel (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make operations smoother by reducing bureaucratic holdups related to environmental regulations.
- I do worry about long-term environmental effects, but I am focused on our immediate operational needs.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Marine Biologist (San Diego, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could undo years of conservation work, particularly in marine ecosystems near military testing grounds.
- I am concerned about the scientific community's ability to mitigate or adapt to these changes without strong protections in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as largely beneficial for business and defense interests, keeping operations streamlined.
- Environmental concerns should be balanced but not at the cost of national security.
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 |
Fisherwoman (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy risks disrupting local ecosystems vital for our fishing economy.
- If endangered species aren't protected, it could lead to overfishing and long-term loss of livelihood.
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 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Environmental Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is regressive concerning environmental protection laws, which are crucial for safeguarding biodiversity.
- It's a challenging blow to legal actions aimed at defending endangered species.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Farmer (Bay City, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about potential pollution impacts from bases not adhering to environmental standards.
- The local ecosystem thrives partly due to stringent protections in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Urban Planner (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand defense needs, our city policies depend on broader environmental protections.
- Urban areas ultimately rely on healthy ecosystems elsewhere for resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired Military (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the military needs to have flexibility, but I also value preserving the natural beauty I've always enjoyed.
- There has to be a balance; complete exemptions may go too far.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
University Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a step backward from essential environmental protections we've been advocating for.
- Education often emphasizes the importance of balancing different needs – this doesn't seem balanced.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term ecological changes could impact sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and tourism.
- Legal and public relations challenges associated with environmental conservation and defense operations.
- The balance between national defense priorities and environmental conservation obligations.