Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/180

Bill Overview

Title: Buffalo Tract Protection Act

Description: This bill withdraws specified Bureau of Land Management lands in Placitas, New Mexico, from (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (2) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. Any conveyance of the surface estate of such federal land shall require a reservation of the mineral estate to the United States.

Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Target Audience

Population: people whose rights or interests intersect with BLM lands in Placitas, New Mexico

Estimated Size: 10000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Retired (Placitas, New Mexico)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support the Buffalo Tract Protection Act because it preserves our cultural heritage and the environment.
  • This policy will protect sacred lands from destructive mining activities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 9 3

Environmental Scientist (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act aligns with my work in conservation, reducing environmental impacts from mining.
  • Long-term environmental benefits outweigh short-term economic gains.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Small Business Owner (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the policy attracts more eco-tourism, it might benefit my business, but any downturn in local economy is concerning.
  • Cultural heritage could become a tourist attraction, but with economic risks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Mining Executive (Houston, Texas)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy disrupts potential business opportunities in the region, causing financial concerns.
  • Preservation should consider economic impacts on local businesses and job opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 8
Year 2 5 8
Year 3 4 8
Year 5 3 8
Year 10 3 8
Year 20 3 8

Teacher (Rio Rancho, New Mexico)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support the policy for its environmental protection and educational potential.
  • Can use the policy in teaching about environmental and cultural preservation.

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 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Local Artist (Placitas, New Mexico)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Preserving these lands supports my artistic inspiration and cultural identity.
  • The physical beauty and untouched landscapes are crucial to my work.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Federal Government Employee (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act ensures the protection of federal lands, aligning with conservation goals.
  • Balancing economic and environmental needs is always challenging but necessary.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Construction Worker (Los Lunas, New Mexico)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might reduce job opportunities linked to mining and construction.
  • While I value environmental preservation, it could impact my job security.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Tribal Leader (Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The Protection Act is crucial for preserving sacred and cultural lands for future generations.
  • Ensures lands remain undisturbed, vital for our community's heritage.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 6
Year 2 9 5
Year 3 9 4
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 9 3

Environmental Advocate (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am in favor of the act for its contribution to conserving biodiverse areas.
  • Protecting these lands from resource extraction is a win for environmental advocacy.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Key Considerations