Bill Overview
Title: Keep America’s Refuges Operational Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2026 (1) the volunteer services, community partnerships, and refuge education programs of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and (2) provisions authorizing the Department of the Interior to accept and use gifts, devises, or bequests of real and personal property for the benefit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the performance of its activities and services.
Sponsors: Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]
Target Audience
Population: people worldwide who rely on healthy ecosystems supported by biodiversity conservation
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The National Wildlife Refuge System is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is a network of lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants.
- The Act ensures operational funds and authorizations, potentially impacting organizations, communities, and individuals engaging in volunteer services and partnerships.
- Wildlife conservation efforts support biodiversity, which benefits global ecosystems, affecting populations worldwide through ecosystem services like clean air, water, and pollination.
Reasoning
- The policy provides funding and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which influences people involved in related activities like volunteer work, conservation, education, and partnerships across the U.S.
- The given budget and timeline need careful allocation over the years to maximize the impact while ensuring the policy's longevity.
- Target population includes diverse groups, like conservationists, educators, volunteers, local communities, and industries benefiting from healthy ecosystems.
- Including individuals directly and indirectly affected by the policy gives a broader view of its societal impact.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Conservationist (Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization is crucial for maintaining our refuges.
- Volunteers and community programs greatly benefit from this stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Florida)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding helps provide opportunities for students like me to get involved in conservation work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Teacher (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports educational programs that enhance learning and awareness among students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Ranch Owner (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly involved, the policy helps maintain ecological balance which indirectly benefits my ranching activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Urban Planner (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal policies like these inspire local efforts to integrate natural spaces within urban environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Wildlife Photographer (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Refuge support maintains habitats that are essential for my work and these intact ecosystems inspire people worldwide.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Volunteer Coordinator (Wisconsin)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continued funding ensures consistent volunteer engagement and enhances community impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tourism Operator (Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides assurance to sustain visitor experiences and preserve the natural beauty essential to my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Georgia)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent refuge operation maintains these beloved natural spaces, enriches my retirement activities.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Engineer (Illinois)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could offer more projects aligning with sustainable engineering and conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The Act primarily focuses on maintaining the existing operational framework rather than establishing new expenditures or savings.
- The potential for donations might slightly offset costs but is indeterminate in scale and frequency.
- The ecological benefits from conservation are substantial but difficult to quantify directly in economic terms for cost considerations.