Bill Overview
Title: To establish deadlines for the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to complete certain environmental reviews, to establish notification rules for receipt of onshore right-of-way applications, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill establishes deadlines by which the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior must complete certain environmental reviews and environmental impact statements required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It also modifies maximum terms for and other aspects related to certain rights-of-way on federal lands.
Sponsors: Rep. Herrell, Yvette [R-NM-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by changes in environmental review processes for activities on federal lands
Estimated Size: 12000000
- The bill targets the processes of the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture, which manage federal lands.
- Federal lands constitute about 28% of the land area in the United States, affecting various stakeholders including citizens, businesses, and government entities.
- Those directly impacted will include individuals and businesses involved in activities on federal lands, such as mining, agriculture, and infrastructure development.
- The bill's requirement for deadlines in environmental reviews may affect the speed and efficiency of approval processes, impacting economic activities.
- Environmental groups and conservationists will also be impacted as the timelines for environmental reviews could affect environmental protection measures.
- The bill has global ramifications as it involves potential environmental impact assessment which has broader ecological implications.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes those engaged with or affected by projects on federal lands. This encompasses businesses in the mining, agriculture, and infrastructure sectors, individuals living in rural areas near federal lands, and environmental groups concerned with federal land use.
- There are also indirect beneficiaries and those not significantly impacted, such as urban populations far from federal lands who may notice little change unless linked through broader environmental or economic shifts.
- The budget constraints imply a need to prioritize certain projects or areas where federal land use is more intensive, potentially leaving some stakeholders without immediate benefit.
- The policy's long-term effects may extend beyond the budget timeline, especially as the speed and efficiency of environmental reviews can significantly alter how quickly and effectively land-based projects are developed.
- Cost-benefit is also complex given the need to balance economic development with environmental protection, making the response to the policy varied among stakeholders.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on federal lands for grazing, and anything that streamlines the process is welcome.
- However, I worry about environmental impacts being glossed over.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could undermine environmental protections by rushing reviews.
- We need thorough assessments to prevent long-term ecological damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Miner (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps projects start faster, it might save jobs in our industry.
- But I also worry about the environmental consequences if reviews aren't thorough.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Renewable Energy Developer (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy makes it easier to expand renewable energy projects.
- Shorter review times can help us combat climate change more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Lawyer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially weaken necessary review processes.
- We should ensure environmental laws aren't compromised for speed.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Tourism Business Owner (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved if the policy speeds up approvals for tourism permits.
- But rapid changes could affect park conditions negatively over time.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy simplifies processes that have been burdensome for agencies.
- There is a risk of not gathering enough data if reviews are hurried.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Forest Ranger (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the need for efficient reviews but fear what might be overlooked.
- We must ensure protections for natural heritage even with deadlines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that lets more people access federal lands is good for business.
- I hope environmental standards remain high even with faster approvals.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interested to see if this policy strikes a balance between economic and environmental needs.
- I plan to cover stories on both successes and possible environmental concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Administrative and operational efficiencies from the proposed deadlines.
- Potential backlash from environmental groups concerned about rushed reviews.
- Need for potential investments in process innovations and technology upgrades.