Bill Overview
Title: FORESTS Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to designate an area of each national forest for production of material to provide revenue for payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
Sponsors: Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or benefiting from timber sales in US national forests
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill is concerned with the management and economic use of national forests in the United States, specifically through timber sales.
- National forests are located across the United States, impacting citizens involved in forestry, local government employees, and communities participating in and benefiting from forest management.
- The bill is intended to support revenue generation for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, affecting rural communities relying on these funds.
- Rural schools and local governments in forested areas would directly benefit from increased funding due to timber sales.
- The forestry industry, including logging workers, forest managers, and associated businesses, would see changes in employment opportunities and market conditions.
Reasoning
- The policy affects rural communities heavily reliant on the Secure Rural Schools funds, which includes rural schools and local governments in forested areas. These are typically smaller communities with limited access to other revenue sources.
- The forestry industry, including logging workers and forest managers, also stands to see changes and potentially more stability in employment opportunities and market conditions due to a more consistent policy on national forest usage.
- Some individuals and groups will not be directly affected, either due to lack of proximity to national forests or because their industries/utilities will not see changes from timber sales.
- There is a potential divide in opinions: whereas some see the economic benefits and sustainability in managed timber sales, others may be concerned about environmental impact and long-term sustainability of forests.
- The budget allocation indicates a focus on significant but measured investment in rural education and community support from forest resources, but it may not be sufficient for all needs of the impacted communities.
Simulated Interviews
Forest Ranger (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy can provide necessary funding for forest management.
- Increased revenue can lead to potential improvements in our equipment and maintenance capabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
School Principal (Appalachia, West Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our school needs these funds to maintain operations.
- Without this support, our resources and student opportunities would dwindle further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the environmental impact of increased timber sales.
- There must be a balance to ensure these forests are sustainable for generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Logging Operations Manager (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a boon for business stability and growth.
- Consistent policies allow for better planning and employment.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Forest Service Employee (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see policies supporting sustainable forest usage.
- However, I hope the focus remains on long-term forest health.
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 | 7 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Rural Vermont)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This provides an interesting study case on socio-economic and environmental policy impacts.
- Careful monitoring will be crucial to assess the long-term effects.
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 |
Farmer (Northern California)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent forest management could benefit the local ecosystem.
- Concerned about potential over-harvesting affecting biodiversity.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
County Government Employee (Northern Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Forest-based revenue is a critical component of our county's budget.
- This policy provides a needed boost, but sustainability is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Teacher (Forest Park, Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs funded through timber sales make a big difference in local educational opportunities.
- Ensuring continuous benefits is necessary for community growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Urban Environmental Policy Advisor (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Forest management policies have implications for urban areas as well.
- Focus on environmental sustainability should remain a priority.
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 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $85000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental concerns regarding the ecological impact of increased timber harvesting.
- Potential need for revised forest management practices to ensure sustainability.
- Economic benefits weighed against potential environmental and social costs.