Bill Overview
Title: Forest Service Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Forest Service to (1) fill all vacancies in the Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations organization; and (2) upon filling such vacancies, increase the number of positions available in such organization. The Forest Service must prioritize filling vacancies and increasing the number of positions that (1) are at high or very high risk of wildfires, and (2) are areas of substantial public use.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and users of areas near national forests and public lands
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The primary targets are individuals who live near or use national forests and public lands, especially in high wildfire risk areas, as the enforcement of laws and regulations can affect their safety and conservation efforts.
- The bill affects communities that depend on the tourism and outdoor recreational activities provided by these forest areas, as enhanced law enforcement can ensure safer and more regulated environments.
- Forest Service employees and potential job seekers interested in working in forest law enforcement will also be directly impacted, as there will be increased job opportunities.
Reasoning
- The budget of $30 million in year 1 and $342 million over 10 years indicates this policy can support significant hiring and training efforts for law enforcement personnel. However, this budget should also cover the operational costs associated with increased activities, like vehicles, administrative support, and technology for monitoring.
- Given that 30 million Americans could be affected, this policy has the potential for widespread impact, especially in regions at high risk for wildfires.
- The increase in law enforcement is likely to enhance public safety, potentially attracting more visitors to national forest areas and boosting local economies dependent on tourism and recreation.
- There is also a focus on filling existing vacancies, which suggests immediate effects as these positions are filled and contribute to law enforcement capabilities.
- Population distribution considerations include those living near forested areas in the western U.S., where wildfire risk is highest, and those engaged in recreational activities across national forests.
Simulated Interviews
Forest Ranger (Bozeman, Montana)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing law enforcement will greatly help manage illegal activities like unauthorized campfires which can lead to wildfires.
- This policy could increase job security and provide more resources for our team.
- Filling those vacancies will mean more support during peak season when visitors and risks are at their highest.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more law enforcement can deter illegal activities that harm the environment.
- I'm concerned about how much focus will actually be on environmental crimes versus general public safety.
- There's a potential for positive community relationships with law enforcement if implemented wisely.
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 | 5 |
Recreational Hiker and Blogger (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me feel safer hiking, knowing there will be more law enforcement presence.
- I'll be more likely to recommend these areas to my readers as safer destinations.
- I'm a bit worried about increased regulations that might limit access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Humboldt, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety in numbers—having more law enforcement could deter crime.
- I'm hopeful this leads to better maintenance of trails and facilities.
- Concerned it might become difficult to enjoy the serenity and solitude with increased regulation and lawkeeping.
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 | 7 | 5 |
University Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising to hear about employment opportunities and added safety.
- I'm curious if these efforts will intersect with technology innovations for conservation.
- Concerned about potential limitations on where we can access public lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More park regulations could potentially increase tourist confidence and business.
- Employment opportunities due to this policy can benefit the local economy as more personnel are hired.
- Double-edged sword: strict enforcement might deter some tourists but ensure safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Worker/Remote (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased law enforcement presence could feel intrusive to those seeking solitude.
- I hope this doesn't mean an increase in permits or red tape for accessing the areas.
- On the flip side, increased safety is a boon, ensuring vandals or unlawful gatherings are deterred.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Firefighter (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move can take some pressure off local fire services if law enforcement can help manage fire risks.
- It's essential we coordinate closely with them to maximize effectiveness.
- Increased law enforcement is likely to improve preparedness for wildfire threats.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small-scale Farmer (Eastern Kentucky)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see investments in preventing illegal activities in forests.
- More enforcement might lead to stricter controls which could impact how we traditionally use the land.
- Ensuring responsible use is good for long-term agricultural yields.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could create new markets for safety equipment given increased enforcement presence.
- Concerns about potential restrictions on product testing areas, as we'd need free access to varied environments.
- Overall, better regulated forests may improve product reliability, knowing they're tested in safer settings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $39000000)
Year 10: $38000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $44000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $58000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy aims to enhance safety and security in national forests, which is crucial during high wildfire risk and in populated recreation areas.
- Implementation will depend on the ability to recruit and train sufficient personnel.
- The policy could face delays if funding does not meet the required levels for comprehensive enforcement expansion.