Bill Overview
Title: Root and Stem Project Authorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to conduct certain forest restoration projects. Specifically, the Forest Service or BLM may enter into an agreement for a project on federal land that was developed through a collaborative process that meets local and rural community needs if the party with whom it enters into an agreement initially provides the Forest Service or BLM with a portion of the funding necessary to complete any analysis deemed necessary under federal law for consideration of the proposed project; the Forest Service or BLM uses the funding to pay a contractor included on a list of contractors that it maintains to conduct the analysis; upon completion of the analysis, the Forest Service or BLM solicits bids to carry out the project and enters into a contract or agreement under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to carry out the project; and using certain receipts from the project, the Forest Service or BLM repays the initially provided funding. For purposes of a civil action relating to such a project, any person that participated in the collaborative process to develop the proposal for the project shall be (1) entitled to intervene, as of right, in any subsequent civil action; and (2) considered to be a full participant in any settlement negotiation relating to the project. The authority to enter into an agreement and the requirement to maintain a list of contractors shall expire on January 1, 2033.
Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: People involved or interested in federal forest restoration projects globally
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill aims to conduct forest restoration projects on federal lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which suggests it will impact areas with significant federal forests.
- The primary communities impacted are likely rural and local communities near federal forest lands, as the bill emphasizes meeting their needs through a collaborative process.
- People working in industries related to forestry, environmental conservation, and land management will also be affected, as they may participate in or oppose proposed projects.
- The restoration projects will potentially impact stakeholders such as environmental groups and logging companies, who might have interests in federal land use.
- There is an element of civil action entitlements, indicating that people involved in collaborative planning for forest projects will be directly affected.
Reasoning
- The selected interviews should reflect a diverse population that is impacted by the policy, including people living near federal forests, those working in forestry and conservation, stakeholders in related industries, and environmental advocates.
- The interviews should also capture those who may not be directly involved, such as people in urban areas, to understand the broader societal perception and unexpected impacts.
- A mix of perspectives from those expected to benefit or be negatively impacted by the policy should be included to obtain a balanced view.
- The budget limitation means the policy's impact will be primarily felt in areas with significant federal land and forestry activities.
- The expected duration of the policy and its funding suggests that initial impacts might be modest, with potential growth in impact as more projects are completed.
Simulated Interviews
Forest Conservationist (Rural Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will aid in better management of our federal lands.
- It's crucial for our community to have a say in these projects.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Urban California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step forward, but we need to ensure these projects are truly sustainable.
- Involvement of local communities is a positive aspect.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Logging Company Owner (Montana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adds more bureaucracy which could delay projects.
- It's crucial to balance restoration with industry needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy's emphasis on collaboration and sustainability.
- It's critical that the projects adhere to environmental standards.
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 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Federal Land Manager (Alaska)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds significant funding to improve efficiency in forest management.
- Streamlined projects can benefit both nature and community.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Farmer (Southern Appalachia)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to forest resources is important for my livelihood.
- I hope the policy considers the economic implications for farmers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired Educator (New York City)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support federal efforts to manage forests better.
- While I'm not directly involved, I care about long-term environmental health.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems too specific, not sure how it affects urban areas.
- I hope it supports environmental sustainability.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tribal Leader (Northern Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Engagement in decision-making is crucial for preserving our heritage.
- There's potential for the policy to enhance our stewardship efforts.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Journalist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This project is an interesting case of federal-local partnership.
- I'll be watching to see how it impacts various stakeholders.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $77500000 (Low: $52000000, High: $103000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $53000000, High: $105000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $56000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $115000000)
Year 100: $95000000 (Low: $63000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Political factors and environmental litigation could influence project initiation and completion timelines.
- Variations in initial funding and receipts repayment can cause fluctuations in annual expenditure and savings.
- Regional economic conditions and federal land policies might affect project execution and outcomes.