Bill Overview
Title: Wildlife Refuge Conservation and Recreation for the Community Act
Description: This bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to establish as a national wildlife refuge the lands, waters, and interests therein acquired pursuant to this bill, to be known as the Western Riverside County National Wildlife Refuge. The FWS shall publish notice of the establishment of the wildlife refuge in the Federal Register. The FWS shall establish the acquisition boundaries of the wildlife refuge as the lands and waters within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.
Sponsors: Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-42]
Target Audience
Population: Local residents and visitors of Western Riverside County area
Estimated Size: 180000
- The establishment of a new national wildlife refuge will directly impact those living in and around Western Riverside County, primarily through changes in land use, conservation efforts, and recreational opportunities.
- Local residents could benefit from increased recreational activities, such as hiking and bird-watching, that the refuge may provide.
- The conservation efforts will aim to protect multiple species of wildlife within the habitat area, indirectly affecting citizens who benefit from local ecosystems.
- Wildlife enthusiasts, including both local and non-local visitors, may be drawn to the new refuge, potentially increasing tourism to the area.
Reasoning
- The budget for the policy indicates significant resources allocated for land acquisition and conservation, suggesting that local residents, especially those with strong connections to the land or economy, will experience notable changes.
- Recreational benefits might be more dispersed among visitors from nearby areas and potentially broader audiences, translating into a mid-to-long-term influence on wellbeing.
- Factors such as increased tourism should also be considered, but may not reflect an immediate increase in local economic wellbeing.
- Individuals engaged in or benefiting from conservation efforts will likely report a positive shift in wellbeing, given the value placed on environmental health.
- Depending on their views and engagement with the policy, some individuals may compare the perceived benefits against perceived costs, such as potential restrictions on land use.
- Past experiences with similar policies show a mix of excitement over conservation and frustration over development constraints, guiding expectations here.
- I have included individuals not directly impacted to highlight general impressions of policies like these in the population.
Simulated Interviews
environmental scientist (Riverside, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is great for our local environment.
- Securing habitats for species is crucial in today's changing climate.
- It might attract visitors to our city, boosting local businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
real estate agent (Corona, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am a bit worried about how land values might be affected.
- If restrictions increase, it could 'cool down' the area for new developments.
- On the bright side, the area might become more attractive for those interested in living near nature.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
small business owner (Murrieta, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a mixed bag. More visitors could mean more customers.
- I'm supportive of preserving the natural beauty around us.
- Eco-tourism is becoming a big draw, including bird watching and hiking.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
photographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A new refuge is exciting for photographers like me!
- I'll definitely visit once it opens.
- Preserving these places is essential for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
retired teacher (Perris, CA)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see efforts towards nature conservation locally.
- I hope our community benefits, especially our children.
- Maybe we'll see more local wildlife thanks to this policy.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
urban planner (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A new wildlife refuge could serve as a great case study for sustainable land use.
- I hope the policy is well-managed and involves local communities.
- Balancing ecology and urban development is key.
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 | 10 | 6 |
construction worker (Temecula, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More conservation efforts could slow down local construction projects.
- I see the good it can do for the environment, but I worry about job stability in construction.
- Hopefully, new projects related to the refuge might offer different job opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
nurse (Moreno Valley, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The creation of a wildlife refuge could promote both physical and mental health in our community.
- It offers new venues for community events and outreach programs.
- I hope it encourages people to explore and appreciate the outdoors more.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
park ranger (Santa Ana, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving natural habitats always tops my list of priorities.
- Training and jobs could expand with the new refuge.
- Local ecosystems being preserved are a real win.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
legal advisor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The legal setup of such policies is crucial for effective conservation.
- I see this as a positive move towards sustainable environmental protection.
- Ensuring proper legal frameworks will be critical in its success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initial cost of land acquisition is critical and could vary significantly depending on market conditions and negotiations.
- Operational management and staffing for the refuge represent ongoing costs essential for its success.
- Potential environmental benefits due to conservation of multiple species in the area.
- Likelihood of success in attracting tourists and outdoor enthusiasts can alter economic and tax revenue impacts.