Bill Overview
Title: Root and Stem Project Authorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to conduct certain forest restoration projects. Specifically, the Forest Service or BLM may enter into an agreement for a project on federal land that was developed through a collaborative process that meets local and rural community needs if the party with whom it enters into an agreement initially provides the Forest Service or BLM with a portion of the funding necessary to complete any analysis deemed necessary under federal law for consideration of the proposed project; the Forest Service or BLM uses the funding to pay a contractor included on a list of contractors that it maintains to conduct the analysis; upon completion of the analysis, the Forest Service or BLM solicits bids to carry out the project and enters into a contract or agreement under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to carry out the project; and using certain receipts from the project, the Forest Service or BLM repays the initially provided funding. For purposes of a civil action relating to such a project, any person that participated in the collaborative process to develop the proposal for the project shall be (1) entitled to intervene, as of right, in any subsequent civil action; and (2) considered to be a full participant in any settlement negotiation relating to the project. The authority to enter into an agreement and the requirement to maintain a list of contractors shall expire on January 1, 2033.
Sponsors: Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on or affected by federal land management for employment or resources
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill impacts federal lands, which constitute about 640 million acres in the United States, managed by agencies like the Forest Service and BLM.
- Communities surrounding these federal lands, often rural, rely on land management for their wellbeing, including employment and environmental stability.
- The forestry sector, including contractors who bid for forest restoration projects, will be directly impacted by this legislation.
- Collaborative groups that participate in the development proposals will have increased involvement and legal intervention rights.
- The Healthy Forests Restoration Act beneficiaries will see changes that align with community and environmental goals.
Reasoning
- Approximately 640 million acres of federal land are under management which does not evenly touch the lives of most Americans, but intensely impacts specific communities.
- Federal lands often support rural economies through natural resources and local employment; changes in policy affect these income streams.
- People directly employed in forestry or related fields are most obviously impacted.
- A larger group concerns those who enjoy and depend on the recreational and environmental benefits offered by federal lands.
- Estimating impacts involves both direct employment outcomes and secondary effects on local economies and wellbeing from increased forest health and biodiversity.
Simulated Interviews
Forest Ranger (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help streamline our projects, allowing us to address the backlog of restoration needs.
- The community may benefit from improved environmental conditions which could boost tourism.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a seat at the table legally means our environmental concerns are finally validated.
- Increased projects mean more conservation work aligns with ecological science.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Outdoor Recreation Business Owner (Bend, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Forest restoration is crucial for my business, as healthier forests attract more visitors.
- I'm hopeful, but concerned about potential mismanagement or delays.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Administrator (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Collaboration with local agencies improves project outcomes.
- However, initial funding requirements might limit smaller bids.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Contractor (Aspen, Colorado)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More projects lead to more work and growth for my business.
- The selection process could become competitive, but it is fair.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired (Rural Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but I hope the changes support the community's long-term environment.
- Would like to see more engagement with older citizens.
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 |
Non-profit Environmental Advocate (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The intervention rights these changes provide are critical for ensuring projects remain eco-friendly.
- Concern with transparency and the scope of collaborative processes.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
University Researcher (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Crucial to have research-backed solutions integrated into restoration efforts.
- Excited about the increased research potential and collaboration opportunities.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Public Policy Consultant (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced involvement rights for local entities could improve policy outcomes on a community level.
- Worried about potential underfunding or misalignment of objectives.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthy forests near developments increase property value.
- Policy could present both challenges and opportunities depending on project efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $24000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy heavily involves collaborative efforts among various stakeholders, which may slow initiation but improves outcomes.
- Environmental and legally necessary analysis can be a financial burden but is key to maintaining project viability and acceptance.
- The project has the potential to create jobs and positively impact GDP, but costs must be closely managed to ensure net benefits.