Bill Overview
Title: A bill to require the collection of certain data relating to Bureau of Land Management land acquisitions, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Bureau of Land Management to report certain data on its land acquisitions and to develop guidance to ensure that this data is properly entered and coded in its data system.
Sponsors: Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by Bureau of Land Management land acquisitions
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing public lands in the United States, which includes approximately 245 million acres.
- The BLM's activities can affect various groups, including recreational users, adjacent landowners, indigenous tribes, and environmental conservation groups.
- Land acquisitions can influence local economies, access to resources, and habitat conservation, impacting people who rely on these lands for livelihood, recreation, or cultural purposes.
Reasoning
- The BLM land acquisition reporting policy will primarily affect people involved with public lands, such as recreational users, adjacent landowners, indigenous tribes, and environmental groups. The policy itself involves improving data management rather than direct changes to land use, so the immediate impact on wellbeing may be low, but potential long-term benefits include better land management and preservation, positively affecting those who rely on these lands.
- Considering the policy's budget, its implementation affects data systems rather than direct services to citizens, thus only indirectly affecting large numbers of people. With a budget constraint of $11,000,000 over ten years, the policy should focus on improving data accuracy, which could lead to more informed land management decisions, possibly affecting millions over time.
- The population experiencing indirect effects through improved land management practices includes diverse groups across different states. Changes in data accuracy could eventually influence policy decisions that impact recreational use, conservation efforts, and cultural preservation, but the short-term impacts on individual wellbeing scores will likely be minimal and show clearer benefits in the long-term.
- The simulated interviews include individuals spread across various relevant demographics to capture the mixed impact of this policy. Some individuals may not notice immediate changes in their scores reflecting a minimal policy impact. However, those highly involved in public land usage or neighboring such lands could see a more direct increase in their wellbeing scores over the long term.
Simulated Interviews
Park Ranger (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should improve our understanding of land acquisitions, which can lead to better decision-making.
- Data accuracy is crucial for conservation efforts.
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 |
Hiking Guide (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support clearer reporting on land acquisitions, as it could help preserve the lands I use for work.
- This might eventually affect my business as land use decisions improve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Data Analyst (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect better data will make my job easier and more meaningful.
- I'm optimistic about more informed land use strategies.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Local Landowner (Jackson, Wyoming)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to greater transparency in land use decisions.
- Uncertain how it will directly affect my property but feel positive.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Lawyer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accurate reporting can significantly affect legal outcomes in environmental cases.
- I'm optimistic about improved policy enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Remote Worker (New York, New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in improving systems managing public lands.
- This change seems primarily bureaucratic, but still relevant.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Student (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The values of clear data align with my studies and advocacy.
- Understanding land acquisitions is crucial for future efforts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
IT Specialist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about how tech implementation can improve efficiency.
- This doesn't impact my day-to-day life significantly, but it's positive.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Native American Tribe Leader (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved reporting might enhance protection of cultural lands.
- Data management transparency could strengthen our advocacy efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Realtor (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These reports might provide insights into how property markets will be affected by public land policies.
- Information transparency is crucial for market predictability.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill emphasizes data accuracy and standardization, increasing the effectiveness of land management decisions.
- Initial costs are associated with setting up new systems and processes, but long-term benefits include improved data quality and utility.
- Changes may require coordination with other agencies and stakeholders for effective implementation.