Bill Overview
Title: North American Grasslands Conservation Act of 2022
Description: This bill sets forth requirements to establish councils, a conservation strategy, and programs to conserve and restore grasslands in North America, such as a grant program to support voluntary grasslands conservation projects.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People living in North American regions with substantial grasslands areas
Estimated Size: 50000000
- Grasslands conservation will benefit species that inhabit these ecosystems, including plants, animals, and insects.
- Farmers and ranchers who operate on grasslands will be directly impacted due to conservation programs that may affect their land use practices.
- Local communities dependent on grasslands for agriculture or recreation will be affected as changes in land management could alter their economic activities.
- Conservation efforts may improve ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, impacting broader populations indirectly by contributing to climate regulation.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets regions with significant grassland areas, such as the Great Plains, which includes states like Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
- Farmers and ranchers are likely to be directly impacted due to changes in land use practices that may be necessary to comply with conservation goals.
- Recreational users and local communities might experience changes in land access and economic activities related to tourism and agriculture.
- Broader ecological impacts, such as improved carbon sequestration, could have indirect benefits for wider populations, potentially improving overall wellbeing through better climate regulation.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how the conservation requirements will affect my grazing practices, which are essential for my livelihood.
- If the grants are substantial, they could help offset any economic losses and support sustainable practices.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Conservation Biologist (Nebraska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a massive boost for conservation efforts, allowing for more comprehensive and scientifically robust projects.
- It will definitely help in preserving biodiversity and improving ecosystem health.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (South Dakota)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of conservation but worried it might hit my farming income due to potential restrictions.
- However, the long-term sustainability for future generations is a positive aspect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Ecotourism Guide (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grassland conservation is crucial for ecotourism, which is my livelihood; more protection means more clients for my tours.
- It could also diversify the attractions and increase income from birdwatching and other eco-friendly activities.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Park Ranger (Wyoming)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act will ensure the land I worked on is preserved for future generations.
- I'm thrilled that conservation is being prioritized, hoping it will lead to more community involvement and awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Developer (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I enjoy hiking in these areas; the protection ensures access and enjoyment for everyone.
- Though not directly affected, it's comforting to know natural areas are protected.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cattle Rancher (North Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy brings uncertainty; regulatory changes always worry me about increased costs or reduced flexibility.
- If compensated well, could support transitioning to sustainable practices.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
University Student (Montana)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, this policy is exciting as it could present more research opportunities and practical implementation examples.
- It might encourage more young people to enter the conservation field.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Activist (Oklahoma)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grassland conservation is critical for climate action as it improves carbon sequestration.
- I hope it increases public awareness about ecosystem importance.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Wildlife Photographer (Illinois)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More biodiversity due to conservation efforts will enhance my work and could increase my income.
- It's beneficial for sustaining ecosystems I capture in my photography.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $220000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $280000000)
Year 3: $240000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $275000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $350000000)
Year 10: $325000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $400000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness of the councils and conservation strategies in achieving tangible ecosystem improvements.
- Extent to which voluntary participation in grant programs can be secured from stakeholders.
- Impact of conservation efforts on existing agricultural practices and local economies.
- Potential need for creating new policies or modifying existing policies to facilitate grassland conservation.