Bill Overview
Title: Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act
Description: This bill designates specified Bureau of Land Management land in Oregon as the Rogue Canyon and Molalla Recreation Areas and adds approximately 59,512 acres of federal land to the Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Department of the Interior, for public land, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for National Forest System land, must conduct a wildfire risk assessment that covers the recreation areas, the Wild Rogue Wilderness, and any adjacent federal land. Interior and USDA must develop plans to mitigate wildfire risk to communities located near the land. No new permanent or temporary roads shall be constructed within the recreation areas except as necessary for public safety or to implement the wildfire mitigation plan. USDA may take measures within such wilderness additions as are necessary to control fire, insects, and disease. All federal surface and subsurface land within the recreation areas or the wilderness additions is withdrawn from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, or mineral materials. The bill also withdraws identified federally owned lands and interests within the Hunter Creek, Pistol River Headwaters Withdrawal Proposal, or the Rough and Ready and Baldface Creeks Mineral Withdrawal Proposal in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, and any land or interest in land located within such withdrawal proposals that is acquired by the federal government.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People who engage in recreational activities, work in mining, or live in communities near the designated lands in Oregon
Estimated Size: 4200000
- The bill designates specific land areas for recreation, which will primarily impact individuals who engage in recreational activities in these areas.
- The withdrawal of lands from mining, mineral leasing, and other extractive industries will affect those involved in such industries.
- The designation of these areas involves wildfire risk assessment and mitigation efforts, potentially impacting communities near these lands due to improved safety measures.
- Given the specific land is in Oregon, the primary impacts will be felt by those living in and around the designated areas.
- The general public may experience environmental and recreational benefits from preservation and enhancement of these lands.
Reasoning
- We need to include individuals living close to the designated areas, as they will experience a direct impact from the policy.
- The policy could significantly affect people working in the mining industry as it restricts mineral extraction activities.
- Enhancement of recreation areas will likely influence outdoor enthusiasts and could improve their wellbeing.
- There is a need to consider the impact on local economies due to the withdrawal of land from mining activities, thus affecting those employed in this sector.
- Wildfire mitigation will have an impact on nearby communities, potentially improving safety and wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Photographer (Medford, OR)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy will enhance the beauty and safety of the areas I work in, which is great for my profession.
- Restrictions on new road constructions might make some locations less accessible, posing a challenge for my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Mining Engineer (Grants Pass, OR)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The withdrawal from mining laws is concerning for my job security and the local economy.
- While environmental conservation is important, we need to consider the impact on workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Outdoor Enthusiast and Blogger (Portland, OR)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting these areas is a big win for nature and future generations.
- While I support the policy, more efforts should be made to educate the public about these changes.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Fire Safety Officer (Salem, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is well-thought-out in terms of wildfire management and community safety.
- Coordination between agencies will be crucial for effective implementations.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Eugene, OR)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting these lands benefits future generations and our environment.
- Ensuring accessibility to these areas is important for family activities.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Mining Technician (Cottage Grove, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be a significant impact on my work and local jobs.
- I understand the need for conservation, but it's tough on those in the mining industry.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Finance Analyst (Bend, OR)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see long-term benefits in wildfire management and public safety budgeting.
- Ensuring transparency in resource allocation is key for public trust.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Volunteer Firefighter (Ashland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an opportunity to enhance fire readiness which is critical in our area.
- Community involvement in planning and implementation will drive success.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Albany, OR)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns with the goals of ecosystem preservation and sustainability.
- Continuous scientific monitoring should be incorporated into the policy.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Brookings, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act should boost outdoor tourism, which is vital for my business.
- Promotion and education about the new recreation areas could enhance local commerce.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental enhancements and preservation are in line with national conservation priorities and could mitigate certain climate change impacts.
- Changes in land use policy must account for stakeholders in the mining industries, as their activities will be curtailed.
- The bill may set a precedent for similar legislative initiatives in other states or regions, influencing future land management policies.