Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8504

Bill Overview

Title: Deerfield River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2022

Description: This bill designates the Deerfield River in Massachusetts and Vermont for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system.

Sponsors: Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]

Target Audience

Population: People impacted by the Deerfield River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2022

Estimated Size: 150000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Fishing Guide (Greenfield, Massachusetts)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As a fishing guide, I rely heavily on open access to the Deerfield River. The wild and scenic designation might initially tighten regulations, but could lead to better environmental quality and potentially more tourists in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Environmental Scientist (Brattleboro, Vermont)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This legislation is a significant step towards preserving the unique ecological features of the Deerfield River.
  • I believe it will enhance funding for scientific studies and conservation efforts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 10 6
Year 20 10 5

Tourism Agency Owner (Springfield, Massachusetts)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Designation could both help and hinder business. While the potential to draw more tourists is promising, stricter regulations might limit current operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 3

Software Engineer (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I enjoy the river for recreation but don't see how this directly affects me day to day, besides maybe impacting when and how I can kayak.

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

Retired (Hartford, Connecticut)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm thrilled to see the Deerfield River being considered for protection. This act represents a personal achievement as it supports my lifelong advocacy.

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 10 8
Year 10 10 7
Year 20 10 6

Local Government Official (Woodford, Vermont)

Age: 39 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The designation might necessitate adjustments in local development plans, but it can also boost efforts for sustainable growth and community involvement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 5

Logistics Manager (Bennington, Vermont)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about how increased river protection could disrupt business logistics, though I'm supportive of environmental improvements in principle.

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 5 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Graduate Student (North Adams, Massachusetts)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This legislation is a crucial academic case study, providing real-world context to my studies and advocacy work.

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 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Investment Analyst (New York City, New York)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Not directly impacted, but seeing environmental policies like this one encourages confidence in sustainable investments.

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

Teacher (Burlington, Vermont)

Age: 51 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy provides new educational opportunities and experiences for my students to see real-world environmental efforts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 2: $1100000 (Low: $900000, High: $1300000)

Year 3: $1200000 (Low: $1000000, High: $1400000)

Year 5: $1300000 (Low: $1100000, High: $1500000)

Year 10: $1400000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1600000)

Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1300000, High: $1700000)

Key Considerations