Bill Overview
Title: Lake Winnibigoshish Land Exchange Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the exchange of certain federal lands in the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota. The bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA), if Big Winnie Land and Timber, LLC, (BWLT) offers to convey identified nonfederal land to the United States, to (1) accept the offer and convey to BWLT all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the federal land; and (2) accept from BWLT all right, title, and interest of BWLT in and to the nonfederal land. The exchange shall be for equal value or the values shall be equalized by a cash payment, subject to an exception. The land acquired by USDA shall be added to and managed as part of Chippewa National Forest.
Sponsors: Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
Target Audience
Population: People living in and around Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota
Estimated Size: 1000
- The legislation involves a land exchange in the Chippewa National Forest area, indicating it primarily impacts the region in Minnesota.
- Local populations, including residents of areas around Lake Winnibigoshish, may experience changes in land use or access, affecting their daily lives.
- The bill involves both federal and private landowners (Big Winnie Land and Timber, LLC), impacting stakeholders directly involved in the exchange.
- Conservationists and environmental groups interested in the management of national forest lands might be impacted by the way the new lands will be managed under USDA.
- The bill may affect recreational users of the forest by potentially changing areas they can access.
Reasoning
- The target population for this simulation mainly consists of people who live in and around the Chippewa National Forest area in Minnesota, as they would be the most immediately affected by the land exchange due to potential changes in land use and accessibility.
- In addition, stakeholders such as private landowners, local government officials, environmentalists, and recreational users will likely be impacted differently by the policy.
- Given the budget constraints, it's reasonable to focus on a relatively small number of individuals initially (e.g., within 1,000 to 2,000 people) who will be substantially affected rather than trying to reach the entire Minnesota population.
- The policy concerns land use, so individuals whose livelihoods or quality of life directly depend on the land, like certain businesses, residents, and frequent recreational users, will perceive varying impacts.
- Not everyone will experience the change as significantly; thus, some interviewees should reflect 'low' or 'none' impacts, ensuring a realistic representation of the population's distribution.
Simulated Interviews
Local Business Owner (Squaw Lake, Minnesota)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially bring more visitors and boost my business if the land swap increases recreational opportunities.
- I'm concerned about the management of new lands affecting access points and visitor flow.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Forest Ranger (Deer River, Minnesota)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Land swaps can be beneficial if they preserve the ecosystem and improve access.
- I worry about disturbing existing wildlife habitats and the integrity of the forest's natural state.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Duluth, Minnesota)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic that this exchange will lead to better forest management practices.
- It's crucial that land management prioritizes conservation and ecological benefits.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Recreational Fisher (Walker, Minnesota)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Depending on how the land is managed, the policy might affect my access to fishing areas.
- I'm hopeful it could improve access and conservation of fish populations.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
University Student (Grand Rapids, Minnesota)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might offer some interesting research opportunities.
- My concern lies in ensuring that academic interest doesn't override conservation 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 |
Private Landowner (Habitat Township, Minnesota)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The swap might affect property values and privacy of my land.
- I'm hopeful for cooperative management between federal and private landowners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Cass Lake, Minnesota)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This exchange needs to prioritize wildlife corridors to be effective.
- Ensuring habitats are not disrupted is a top priority.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Forestry Worker (Bemidji, Minnesota)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might alter job stability based on land management decisions.
- Any changes that facilitate sustainable logging practices could be positive for long-term employment.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Grand Rapids, Minnesota)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy presents an opportunity for local growth through eco-friendly tourism.
- Collaboration with the federal government is crucial for the development post exchange.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Adventure Tour Guide (Squaw Lake, Minnesota)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the potential for new trails and attractions the policy could support.
- There's a risk of over-managed lands losing their natural appeal which worries me.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring equivalent value in land exchange to minimize fiscal impact.
- Evaluating the administrative costs incurred by the USDA during the transaction process.
- Potential long-term benefits of improved land management under the Chippewa National Forest.
- Stakeholder collaboration is essential to manage local economic and recreational impacts.