Bill Overview
Title: Shenandoah Mountain Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, consisting of approximately 92,449 acres of National Forest System land in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia. The bill designates specified lands in the George Washington National Forest as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Sponsors: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
Target Audience
Population: People who use, live near, or are affected by the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area
Estimated Size: 800000
- The bill affects National Forest System land which is part of the public lands managed by the U.S. government.
- Designating land as a National Scenic Area and wilderness can impact conservation efforts, tourism, and infrastructure development.
- Local communities who live near or depend on the George Washington National Forest for economic purposes like tourism, logging, or recreation will be affected.
- Environmental activists and organizations who push for preservation and sustainability will be interested.
- Recreational users and tourists who visit this area for hiking, camping, and nature projects will experience changes in access and regulations.
- State and local governments will be involved due to changes in land status and management policies.
Reasoning
- This policy will primarily impact residents of Virginia, particularly those living near the designated area, and will also affect tourists and organizations interested in conservation or forestry.
- The budget limits mean that extensive development projects or compensation to negatively impacted commercial activities might not be fully covered.
- Benefits might include increased tourism and improved conservation outcomes enhancing wellbeing for locals and nature enthusiasts while potentially reducing it for those reliant on the previously available resources.
- We estimate a varied impact on self-reported wellbeing largely due to disparate individual dependencies on the land and its resources.
Simulated Interviews
Local business owner (Harrisonburg, Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could be beneficial as it probably means more people coming to the area, increasing business opportunities.
- I worry about potential restrictions that might limit my business scope.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Forestry worker (Charlottesville, Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about the future of my job if the forest areas are restricted further.
- There needs to be a balance between conservation and livelihoods.
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 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Environmental advocate (Washington D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a significant step forward in protecting natural resources.
- Designating new scenic areas could have a ripple effect on conservation efforts nationwide.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (West Virginia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad these beautiful areas will be preserved.
- I hope recreational access won't be limited even further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Government official (Roanoke, Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's exciting to see the potential for increased conservation but complicated by managing conflicting interests.
- Resource allocation needs to be carefully planned to achieve policy goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Tourist guide (Virginia Beach, Virginia)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is great potential for increased business if this new scenic area attracts more tourists.
- I am concerned about whether infrastructure will match increased tourism demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Social worker (Richmond, Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is well-intentioned but might miss addressing the real needs of the people dependent on the forest resources.
- I hope there's room for community involvement in future planning.
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 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Outdoor education coordinator (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater access and preserved areas benefit the educational programs tremendously.
- I hope program costs won't increase with tighter regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farmer (Shenandoah, Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that my land will face increased restrictions, affecting my farming operations.
- Conservation is important, but so is supporting local livelihoods.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Policy analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to evaluate the economic outcomes alongside environmental benefits.
- The funding available seems modest given the scope of the land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Year 2: $2800000 (Low: $2300000, High: $3300000)
Year 3: $2600000 (Low: $2100000, High: $3100000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2400000 (Low: $1900000, High: $2900000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- The policy might receive pushback from industries and sectors relying on extractive uses of National Forests.
- Public opinion might play a significant role in the policy's reception, considering the emphasis on environmental conservation.
- Managing increased tourist numbers without damaging local ecosystems will be a key challenge.
- Coordination with local agencies will be necessary to align conservation efforts with regional economic objectives.