Bill Overview
Title: Land Restoration and Resiliency Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to establish the Community Resilience and Restoration Fund at the foundation, for purposes including to improve community safety in the face of climactic extremes through conservation and protection of restoration and resilience lands; protect, conserve, and restore restoration and resilience lands in order to help communities respond and adapt to natural threats, including wildfire, drought, extreme heat, and other threats posed or exacerbated by the impacts of global climate; and protect and enhance the biodiversity of wildlife populations across restoration and resilience lands. The bill defines restoration and resilience lands as fish, wildlife, and plant habitats, and other important natural areas in the United States, on public lands, private land (after obtaining proper consent from the landowner), or land of Indian tribes, including grasslands, shrublands, prairies, chaparral lands, forest lands, deserts, and riparian or wetland areas within or adjacent to these ecosystems. To the extent amounts are available in the fund, the foundation shall award grants to eligible entities (e.g., a federal agency, a unit of local government, an Indian tribe, or a nonprofit organization) through a competitive grant process to carry out eligible projects and activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living in or reliant on natural lands and biodiversity, especially impacted by climatic threats
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill targets improvements in community safety through conservation efforts on a variety of natural lands in the U.S., meaning any populations living in or near these lands may be impacted.
- The act aims to help communities respond and adapt to natural threats like wildfire, drought, and extreme heat. Given the increasing impact of climate change, these threats are relevant globally, but the bill focuses on lands in the U.S.
- Biodiversity efforts will directly impact local wildlife populations but indirectly affect people who rely on these ecosystems for resources or livelihood, such as some indigenous and rural communities.
- Restoration and resilience lands include an array of ecosystems such as grasslands, forests, deserts, etc. This includes vast areas where many people live or which are important for local economies.
Reasoning
- The policy will mainly impact those living in rural areas, near natural lands or those involved in occupations depending on these ecosystems. However, some urban populations might also face indirect impacts due to changes in ecological balance.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores before and after the policy are estimated based on expected improvements in environmental conditions, safety, and economic opportunities due to restoration projects.
- Not everyone in the US will be affected by the policy, as it targets specific regions, especially those prone to climate-induced threats like wildfires or droughts.
- Direct financial costs to the policy are limited to the allocated budget, aiming at sustaining projects with potentially high returns in terms of environmental and social wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Firefighter (Northern California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really help with wildfire management in our area.
- It's crucial that more funds are given to expanding our current environmental resilience efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Farmer (Midwest)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need less talk and more action. Hopefully, this bill means real change.
- Drought has hurt us for years; restoration might just be our saving grace.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Marine Biologist (Southern Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is overdue; coastal resilience funds could protect crucial habitats.
- Our marine ecosystems are at severe risk without such proactive measures.
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 | 4 |
Tribal Land Manager (Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal support for our lands is crucial for preserving our way of life.
- It's a continuous battle against expanding desert and diminishing water resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Advocate (Urban Midwest)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Urban areas might see indirect benefits from this policy.
- Integrating urban and rural sustainability efforts is crucial for comprehensive planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy provides long-term benefits for land management, I'm all for it.
- There's hope it could stabilize some of the unpredictabilities we face.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Pacific Northwest)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could boost tourism if it safeguards our natural attractions.
- We need to see the environmental tides turn in favor of preservation.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Park Ranger (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- National parks need these funds to sustain biodiversity amidst changing climates.
- This could really uplift conservation efforts around the state.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fisherman (Louisiana)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wetland restoration could be a game-changer for the future of our work.
- This policy could counterbalance years of environmental degradation.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental Lawyer (New York City)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this need strong legal backing to ensure compliance and effectiveness.
- Though indirect, such acts reflect a positive shift towards climate resilience.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 3: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental variability may affect the success and thus the realized benefits of the funded projects.
- Decisions on grant allocations and selection of eligible projects may influence the effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the targets of the bill.
- Long-term sustainability and maintenance of restored lands must be considered to prevent future costs.