Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide that a land resource management plan or land use plan approved, amended, or revised under those Acts shall not be considered to be a continuing Federal agency action or constitute a discretionary Federal involvement or control for a distinct Federal purpose, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill addresses consultation after approval of certain land and resource management plans and land use plans. Specifically, the bill provides that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under the Endangered Species Act on a completed land resource management plan or a completed land use plan that has no on-the-ground effects when a new species is listed or a new critical habitat is designated under that act, or new information reveals effects of such plan that may affect a species listed or critical habitat designated under that act in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: People directly or indirectly dependent on land managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management for employment, recreation, conservation, and cultural practices.
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill affects how land use plans are managed post-approval, particularly concerning the Endangered Species Act consultations.
- Land resource management plans can significantly impact the environment, particularly endangered species and their habitats, by dictating land use priorities and practices.
- The bill reduces the need for review when new species are listed, or habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act, affecting how promptly new environmental protections are enacted based on updated information.
Reasoning
- The bill affects individuals who are involved or interested in land management plans concerning territory under the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. This includes people from various sectors like resource extraction, conservation, recreational-use, and indigenous tribes among others.
- The wellbeing of individuals and communities directly dependent on protected species or conserved land could be influenced by changes to the consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
- Differences in impact of the policy may arise depending on how individuals' livelihoods or cultural practices are linked to either the conservation of endangered species or land usage rights granted by land-use plans. Thus, simulations include diverse individuals representing various interactions with land governed by these federal bodies.
- Considering the budget constraints of the policy, the implementation may cause varied levels of impact across different states or regions due to their respective dependency on such federal lands.
Simulated Interviews
Forestry Worker (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the impact on conservation efforts without frequent reviews.
- This change might simplify our administrative work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Rancher (New Mexico)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think less oversight is better for us as it means fewer interruptions.
- However, wildlife preservation is also crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Wildlife Biologist (Montana)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's worrying as we might miss crucial updates affecting species.
- I believe long-term impacts might be negative for biodiversity.
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 |
Outdoor Recreation Business Owner (Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt it makes much difference to us immediately.
- If this affects landscapes or species, it could affect tours in future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Environmental Activist (Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very concerned about the implications of less frequent consultations.
- This might set back conservation efforts significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired (Colorado)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t see this affecting me directly in the short term.
- I worry about potential long-term effects on nature.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Mining Engineer (Nevada)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems beneficial to reduce delays in project approvals.
- However, we must balance this with environmental concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Native American Tribe Member (Idaho)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could impact our cultural practices adversely.
- Our land and its species hold sacred value beyond economic or scientific.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Landscape Photographer (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work relies on access to preserved landscapes.
- Policy changes that harm natural beauty worry me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aims to simplify administrative procedures for land use without on-ground effects.
- We need to assess potential implications on species protection more closely.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy change could significantly impact ongoing and future land use management and conservation efforts, potentially altering timelines for projects and conservation plans.
- In assessing the cost, potential legal and administrative challenges should be considered if environmental groups pursue litigation concerning changes to consultation practices.
- This adjustment may act as a precedent for how species and habitat protection policies accommodate federal land use.