Bill Overview
Title: Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge Act
Description: This bill establishes the Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge. On the first acquisition by, or transfer to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of any land, water, or any interest in land or water within the acquisition boundary of the wildlife refuge, the FWS shall establish the wildlife refuge as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The uses of the wildlife refuge shall include providing (1) opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation; and improved access to nature for communities; and (2) engaging communities in fish and wildlife conservation, restoration, education, recreation, and outreach activities through the pursuit of urban partnerships. The wildlife refuge shall be administered as an urban wildlife refuge. No acquisition or transfer of property under this bill shall modify or revoke existing access to or use by affected Indian tribes, except as specified.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by the establishment of Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge
Estimated Size: 1000000
- Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge will create opportunities for local communities to engage in environmental education, recreation, and conservation activities.
- Urban areas surrounding the wildlife refuge will have improved access to nature, fostering community engagement in outdoor activities.
- Stakeholders in scientific research related to wildlife will find opportunities for conducting studies in the refuge.
- Native American tribes with existing access and use rights will be directly affected, but their rights are to be preserved barring specific exceptions.
Reasoning
- The Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge policy impacts a wide range of individuals, from local urban populations and school communities to scientists and indigenous groups. This diversity necessitates interviews capturing distinct perspectives, varying by proximity, economic activities, cultural connections, and recreational interests.
- The policy proposes substantial annual and decadal budgets, implying a phased implementation and maintenance plan for conservation, research, and community engagement infrastructure, directly affecting local socioeconomic conditions.
- The projected population of direct beneficiaries and affected individuals is estimated around one million, balancing access to nature and ecological conservation under budget constraints in an urban setting while ensuring traditional rights for native groups.
- Cost limitations mean the Western Riverside National Wildlife Refuge may initially focus on high-impact areas, possibly segmenting programs geographically or demographically until extended funds are available.
- Educational and recreational benefits are projected to be spread across schools and families while preserving existing tribal access rights, indicating a varied impact scale among different societal segments.
Simulated Interviews
High School Science Teacher (Riverside, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The refuge will provide excellent real-world learning experiences for my students.
- I anticipate using the refuge for field trips and after-school activities.
- It will increase awareness and interest in local ecosystems among students.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Moreno Valley, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This refuge will help address nature deficit in urban communities.
- It presents new opportunities for community-driven environmental initiatives and partnerships.
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 | 6 |
Wildlife Biologist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The creation of an urban wildlife refuge provides a significant boost for urban ecology research.
- It fosters collaboration among scientists studying similar ecosystems.
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 |
Indigenous Tribal Member (Perris, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the potential impact on traditional land use.
- Ensuring our access rights are preserved is crucial.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Recreational Fisherman (Hemet, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the refuge will enhance local fish populations.
- It needs to balance between conservation and recreational access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Park Ranger (Riverside, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The refuge offers more opportunities for public education and increasing environmental stewardship.
- I am concerned about the adequacy of funding for long-term maintenance.
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 |
Environmental Consultant (San Bernardino, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The refuge could stimulate local environmental project work.
- I see business opportunities aligning with conservation efforts.
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 |
Retiree (Riverside, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More trails and bird habitats would enrich my hobby.
- I'm excited about potential guided tours and educational programs for seniors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Urban Planner (Corona, CA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The refuge supports regional green infrastructure planning.
- It helps integrate nature into urban growth strategies.
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 | 6 |
College Student (Riverside, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This refuge will broaden the scope of my fieldwork and research opportunities.
- It encourages engagement and awareness in conservation among peers.
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: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Key Considerations
- The establishment of the refuge will initially require significant federal expenditure but is also expected to be a long-term asset with socio-economic and environmental benefits.
- The involvement of local communities and partnerships is crucial to successful urban wildlife refuge management.
- Ensuring compatibility with tribal rights is a critical legal and administrative aspect.