Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/1538

Bill Overview

Title: Smith River National Recreation Area Expansion Act

Description: This bill expands the Smith River National Recreation Area in California into Oregon and designates specified segments of the North Fork Smith River as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). The management emphasis for any portion of the recreation area in Oregon shall be on roadless backcountry and white-water recreation. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shall study the additions to the recreation area, including inventories and assessments of water features (e.g., streams and lakes). USDA shall modify any applicable management plan to protect the resources inventoried. USDA shall seek to enter into a memorandum of understanding with applicable Indian tribes to (1) provide them with access to the portions of the recreation area in Oregon to conduct historical and cultural activities; and (2) develop interpretive information to be provided to the public on the history of, and use of the area by, those tribes. On the adoption of a resolution by the State Land Board of Oregon, USDA shall acquire the 555 acres of land known as the Cedar Creek Parcel in Oregon. A streamside protection zone in which timber harvesting is prohibited (with exceptions) shall be established for each of the designated North Fork Smith River segments.

Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Target Audience

Population: People living in and impacted by the Smith River National Recreation Area Expansion

Estimated Size: 50000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Tour Guide (Brookings, Oregon)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that expanding the Smith River area will bring more tourists who are interested in nature and recreation.
  • It could help my business in the long term if it's managed well.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 6 5

Environmental Scientist (Eugene, Oregon)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This expansion is a strong move for conservation. It's crucial for maintaining biodiversity and water quality.
  • The no-timber-harvest zones are essential for protecting these ecosystems.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Retired (Gasquet, California)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate the preservation of roadless areas; it keeps the region's natural beauty intact.
  • Hopefully, I'll be able to continue enjoying unhindered access for hiking.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Tribal Cultural Liaison (Medford, Oregon)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having official access to these cultural sites is a welcome change.
  • It gives us an opportunity to protect our heritage and educate others.

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 7 4

Timber Industry Executive (Crescent City, California)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The restrictions on timber harvesting will impact our operations significantly.
  • We'll need to find a way to balance conservation and economic needs.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 5 7

Small Business Owner (Grants Pass, Oregon)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There is potential for more business with expanded recreation options.
  • However, the implementation of policies needs to ensure accessibility isn't too restricted.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Retired Park Ranger (Smith River, California)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Expanding the area is a win for conservation, and it's crucial to involve local voices in these decisions.
  • Wild and scenic designations mean future generations can enjoy these landscapes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Outdoor Recreation Enthusiast (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 20/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I’m excited about more places to explore, especially if they get more protection.
  • Conservation is key but so is keeping them open to enthusiasts like me.

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 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Forestry Worker (Reedsport, Oregon)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The prohibition on logging in certain areas is tough for someone in my line of work.
  • We need to find new ways to keep our industry's jobs stable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 5

College Student (Eureka, California)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy acts as a great case study for environmental science students.
  • Knowing we are preserving crucial ecosystems is encouraging for future conservation efforts.

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 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)

Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)

Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)

Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)

Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)

Key Considerations