Bill Overview
Title: Red River National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Modification Act
Description: This bill modifies the boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana.
Sponsors: Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by wildlife refuge boundary modifications
Estimated Size: 50000
- National Wildlife Refuges are designated areas managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intended to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants.
- A modification of the boundary could affect local ecosystems by either increasing protected area or modifying existing protections availability for habitat.
- Changes may influence land use for those living near the refuge, potentially impacting farmers, landowners, and developers if their land falls within or outside the modified boundaries.
- The modification may facilitate new conservation or development projects in or around the modified boundary, affecting local economic activities either positively or negatively.
- Wildlife recreation proponents such as bird watchers, ecologists, and educators might see changes with either a larger or smaller refuge area.
Reasoning
- We must consider that the policy directly affects a small localized population in Louisiana and indirectly influences ecological and economic conditions.
- The budget constraints imply that immediate large-scale impacts are unlikely, focusing instead on gradual changes within the predefined boundary.
- Those directly affected include landowners and residents in the vicinity of the boundary, as their property might enter or exit the refuge area.
- Broader effects may involve environmental enthusiasts, whose recreational activities might be impacted positively or negatively by changes in the size of protected lands.
- The economic impact could be mixed: some local businesses might benefit from increased tourism, while others could face restrictions on land usage and development.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Shreveport, Louisiana)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that my land might get included in the refuge.
- This could restrict the way I use my land, affecting my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Ecologist (Bossier City, Louisiana)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great opportunity to expand protected habitats.
- Modifying the boundaries could enhance my research and attract funding.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Real Estate Developer (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Boundary changes could limit development opportunities.
- Need to adapt plans based on new regulations if boundary is expanded.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Wildlife Photographer (Monroe, Louisiana)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Modifying the boundaries could open new areas for photography.
- Could impact the diversity of wildlife observed and photographed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Retired Educator (Alexandria, Louisiana)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m excited about potential expansions to the refuge.
- Larger boundaries mean we can educate more visitors about diverse habitats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Local Government Official (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in boundaries require adjustments in local policy.
- We need to focus on sustainable development alongside ecological goals.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Wildlife Conservation Student (Shreveport, Louisiana)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A larger refuge provides more learning opportunities.
- It's beneficial for my studies and future career prospects.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Bird Watcher and Hobbyist (Tyler, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An expanded refuge could bring more bird species to observe.
- This policy could enhance my hobby and encourage more trips.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Oil Industry Worker (Lafayette, Louisiana)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned about any shifts in land regulations.
- Property rights should be respected while supporting conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Policy Consultant (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Boundary modifications can be a double-edged sword.
- It’s important to balance conservation with local needs.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5500000)
Year 5: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The precise boundary change impacts are highly location-dependent; local land values and use will determine financial impacts.
- Balancing conservation goals against development needs will be crucial for managing both costs and benefits effectively.
- Partnering with local communities and stakeholders could mitigate opposition and enhance the value of boundary modifications.
- The broader goal of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service preservation should align with fiscal policies of boundary change.