Bill Overview
Title: Black Hills Forest Protection and Jobs Preservation Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides for vegetation management projects and timber production projects on certain National Forest System lands in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The bill directs the Forest Service to issue one or more decisions using expedited authorities for compliance with environmental review requirements to carry out vegetation management projects on land in the Black Hills National Forest. Furthermore, the Forest Service shall categorize the Black Hills National Forest and the Bighorn National Forest as being very high priority for ecological restoration that involves vegetation removal. The Forest Service must also use specified amounts made available for forest thinning and timber harvesting for timber production in the Bighorn National Forest, the Custer Gallatin National Forest, and the Black Hills National Forest. In carrying out such timber production, the Forest Service shall use, to the extent practicable, the categorical exclusion for certain forest management activities and specified emergency action authority. A vegetation management or timber production project carried out under this bill shall not be subject to judicial review. Such a project may not be carried out on (1) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, or (2) an inventoried roadless area.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the Black Hills Forest Protection and Jobs Preservation Act
Estimated Size: 52000
- The bill focuses on national forests in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
- Projects involve vegetation management and timber production which primarily impact the forestry sector workers and related industries.
- The ecological aspects will impact local communities around these forests, including potential changes in ecosystem services.
- There is a potential impact on Indigenous communities if they are present in or near these forest areas, given the focus on expedited actions and reduced judicial review.
- Environmental advocacy groups interested in forest conservation will show interest due to impacts on forest management and limited judicial review.
- Tourism and recreation industries like hiking, camping, partaking in activities within national forests may be affected as timber projects might alter forest landscapes.
- Local residents might experience changes in local environment and economy due to these projects.
Reasoning
- The population includes diverse groups such as forestry workers, conservationists, indigenous communities, and local residents in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
- The policy primarily benefits workers in the forestry sector due to increased timber production opportunities.
- Environmentalists may view the lack of judicial review negatively, impacting their wellbeing scores.
- Tourism could face short-term disruptions due to changes in forest accessibility.
- Indigenous communities may be concerned about cultural and ecological impacts.
- Budget constraints mean only a limited number of projects may be implemented each year, affecting the extent of local impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Forestry Worker (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will create more job security for me and my coworkers.
- Environmental concerns might be an issue, but we need more jobs in these areas.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Billings, Montana)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lack of judicial review makes it difficult to contest projects that might harm the environment.
- I'm worried about the long-term ecological effects.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired Park Ranger (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for forest management, but I worry about the scale and speed without proper oversight.
- The views I've enjoyed for decades might change permanently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Tour Guide (Bozeman, Montana)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The projects could alter trails and views that are key selling points of my tours.
- Short-term gain versus long-term sustainability is always a concern.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Local Government Official (Gillette, Wyoming)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional revenue from timber could support local infrastructure projects.
- We need to carefully monitor the ecological impact to maintain public support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community Leader (Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Projects could impinge on cultural territories and sacred sites.
- The community needs a voice in these decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Ecological Researcher (Helena, Montana)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The research opportunities are good, but expedited projects could compromise ecological studies.
- Transparent processes are essential for maintaining trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Hotel Owner (Buffalo, Wyoming)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could affect the influx of tourists and consequently my business.
- Maintaining forest health is critical for long-term business.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
College Student (Hot Springs, South Dakota)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a future policy maker, I'm worried about the bypassing of judicial review processes.
- It's crucial to prioritize sustainable practices in any resource management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Logger (Spearfish, South Dakota)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These initiatives represent a double-edged sword—job opportunities versus the natural balance.
- The industry needs modern approaches to reduce environmental impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $152000000 (Low: $122000000, High: $182000000)
Year 3: $154000000 (Low: $124000000, High: $184000000)
Year 5: $158000000 (Low: $128000000, High: $188000000)
Year 10: $165000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $195000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- The non-judicial review policy reduces the ability for legal challenges which may concern some stakeholders.
- Impact on biodiversity and ecosystem due to increased vegetation removal must be monitored closely.
- Potential changes in forest aesthetic and ecological value affecting tourism and recreational activities.