Bill Overview
Title: Deerfield River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2022
Description: This bill designates the Deerfield River in Massachusetts and Vermont for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in and around the Deerfield River Watershed area
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill focuses on the Deerfield River which runs through Massachusetts and Vermont.
- The Wild and Scenic Rivers System aims to protect rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values.
- The designation could impact residents of these states who live near the Deerfield River.
- This designation could affect industries like agriculture, real estate, and tourism in these areas.
- The designation will also impact recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and hiking along the river.
- Environmental organizations and local governments will have an interest in changes to river management.
Reasoning
- The population directly impacted by the Deerfield River Wild and Scenic River Study Act will primarily be those living within and around the river.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Greenfield, Massachusetts)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate efforts to protect the environment, but I worry that new regulations might restrict my access to river water for farming.
- If restrictions are balanced with agricultural needs, it could improve the river and local biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Realtor (Brattleboro, Vermont)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this bill might boost property demand, as people generally like to live near well-protected and scenic natural areas.
- However, if it restricts development, that could dampen property growth.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Holyoke, Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a wonderful opportunity to enhance ecological preservation and maintain biodiversity.
- I'm optimistic about its potential to create more research and employment opportunities in environmental science.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tourism Operator (Northampton, Massachusetts)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Designation as a wild and scenic river could boost tourism, leading to more business for me.
- I'm concerned about any new restrictions that might complicate permits or increase operation costs.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Guilford, Vermont)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen changes over the years, and protection is definitely important.
- My main concern is maintaining access for fishing and other recreational activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Wilmington, Vermont)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see proactive measures for environmental protection.
- This could provide learning opportunities and real-world applications for my studies.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Real Estate Developer (Conway, Massachusetts)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While preserving the river is important, restrictions could hinder property development.
- We need to balance protection with economic growth possibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
River Guide (Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased protection can enhance the quality of tours I offer and attract more nature enthusiasts.
- Ensuring that permits remain affordable and accessible is crucial for my business.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Local Government Official (Sunderland, Massachusetts)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could align state conservation goals with federal support, which is beneficial.
- Monitoring how funds are distributed and used is a critical aspect.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Historian (Florence, Massachusetts)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a historical perspective, protecting the river is vital to preserving cultural landscapes.
- I'm excited about the potential to increase understanding through educational programs.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000 (Low: $250000, High: $500000)
Year 2: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $300000)
Year 3: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $250000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The study is a preliminary step and doesn't guarantee designation as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
- Importance of stakeholder engagement, considering the interests of local residents, businesses, and environmental groups.
- Potential conflicts with industries reliant on river resources, such as agriculture or hydroelectric power, must be addressed.
- Environmental benefits could extend to preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services benefitting wider areas.
- Budget constraints may influence the depth and scope of the study.