Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require congressional approval of certain actions, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires congressional approval to list, remove from a list, or change the status of any endangered species or threatened species.
Sponsors: Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes to the Endangered Species Act
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill impacts the processes that determine which species are classified as endangered or threatened.
- Changes in species classification can affect conservation efforts, habitat protection, and funding for environmental causes.
- The wellbeing of people reliant on ecosystem services provided by endangered species may be impacted.
- Those involved in environmental policy and advocacy will be directly affected by changes to the Endangered Species Act.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals engaged in environmental advocacy, conservation, and ecological research, as it changes how species are listed or delisted from protective categorization, thus directly impacting their work.
- Communities dependent on ecosystem services provided by endangered species or residing in areas affected by species habitat protection efforts are indirectly impacted by the policy.
- The policy budget and reach imply a moderate capacity to influence major legislation processes, but not everyone in the target group will experience significant impact.
- People in other sectors or isolated geographic locations with minimal interaction with endangered species are less likely to feel a significant impact from this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could hinder timely decisions on species needing protection.
- Increased congressional oversight may slow down critical conservation actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Ranch Owner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less regulation could mean more flexibility in land use.
- Concerned about loss of ecosystem services if species are delisted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (New York, New York)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy complicates advocacy efforts for species protection.
- May increase challenges in passing protective measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Wildlife Biologist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned that the policy will delay crucial habitat restoration efforts.
- Believes scientific data should drive species protection decisions, not just congressional approvals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Marine Biologist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces more uncertainty into marine conservation status changes.
- Could lead to slower responses in protecting marine ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Urban Planner (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy likely won't directly affect my work.
- Indirect effects on green planning but negligible at personal level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Fisheries Manager (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerns about potential loss in fish species protections.
- Policy oversight might affect sustainable fishing practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Congressional Staffer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased workload with bills related to species listings.
- Potential political leverage in negotiations around environmental topics.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could complicate local initiatives to protect species.
- Might lead to conflicts with federal regulations and interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might ease restrictions slightly for land development.
- Awaiting specific impacts but generally favorable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $32000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $34000000)
Year 5: $24000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $38000000)
Year 10: $27000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $43000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential increase in bureaucratic processes could delay timely responses to conservation needs.
- Congress may be influenced by political and economic factors rather than purely scientific data when approving species actions.
- Environmental groups and activists may face new challenges in lobbying and advocacy efforts.