Bill Overview
Title: Save Our Sequoias Act
Description: This bill provides for the conservation of giant sequoia trees ( Sequoiadendron giganteum ) in California, including by providing statutory authority for the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition; directing the coalition to submit a Giant Sequoia Health and Resiliency Assessment; declaring an emergency on certain public lands and allowing officials to carry out protection plans during the emergency to respond to the threat of wildfires, insects, and drought; directing the Department of the Interior and the National Forest System to develop and implement a Giant Sequoia Reforestation and Rehabilitation Strategy; and establishing a variety of programs and funds to support the conservation of giant sequoias.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People interested in or affected by the conservation of giant sequoia trees
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Giant sequoia trees are natural resources and have both ecological and socio-cultural significance, primarily to local communities in California.
- Forestry professionals, ecologists, and conservation scientists who work on these trees will be directly involved and impacted.
- The conservation efforts for sequoias will affect local economies, potentially creating jobs and industries related to conservation and tourism.
- Climate change enthusiasts and global environmentalists may take an interest in this conservation model for its sustainably focused practices.
- Wildfire management professionals will be impacted due to the involvement of fire prevention and emergency management strategies.
Reasoning
- The targeted population - those affected by the conservation of giant sequoia trees - may include direct beneficiaries such as forestry workers and residents of local communities near giant sequoias.
- The budget allows for a certain reach, focusing primarily on conservation efforts within California, but it might also include indirect impacts on tourism and ecological education sectors nationwide.
- There is a global interest component in preserving natural resources and due to the climate resilience significance of these trees, related to environmental and educational benefits.
- Forestry and land management professionals will see a distinct impact due to their direct involvement in the policy's execution.
Simulated Interviews
Forestry Technician (Bakersfield, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical to preserving our natural heritage.
- The funds will help us acquire better resources for dealing with threats like fires.
- I am hopeful that this policy will create more job security for those of us in forestry.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Ecology Professor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sets an important precedent for ecological conservation and education.
- Research grants from this initiative will advance our understanding of sequoia ecosystems.
- Involvement in this policy can boost educational outcomes for students.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Wildfire Mitigation Specialist (Fresno, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The proactive management strategies are vital for reducing fire risks.
- This policy aligns with our goals to protect affected communities from fire threats.
- Additional resources will be crucial for increasing safety and effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Lobbyist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding will drive significant improvements in our forests' health.
- This initiative could become a model for other conservation efforts.
- Government action in this area is long overdue.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Park Ranger (Visalia, CA)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am thrilled to see a focus on these beautiful trees.
- My worry has always been the immediate threats to sequoias, and this policy addresses them.
- I hope this act will educate the public on the trees' importance and ensure their survival.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a compelling case study for my thesis on conservation.
- Potential access to federal programs could enhance research outcomes.
- Although not directly impacted, I appreciate the broader ecological benefits.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Tourism Business Owner (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase tourism to the sequoias with better management and less fire risk.
- Expecting improved economic activity in my business with more visitors.
- Conservation and tourism should go hand-in-hand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired School Teacher (Oakland, CA)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's inspiring to see these trees safeguarded for future generations.
- Hoping more communities engage in educational programs about these efforts.
- This policy might invigorate our local environmental initiatives.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Conservation Scientist (Redding, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy anchors our efforts in forest recovery.
- It might provide vital data and funding needed for long-term solutions.
- I'm keen to see new restoration technologies come out of this initiative.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Journalist (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislative effort is a noteworthy step towards sustainable forest management.
- It provides interesting material for future articles on conservation successes.
- I anticipate increased public awareness and engagement due to this policy.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- Rapid response to wildfires and other threats is crucial to the success of the act's conservation efforts.
- Funding consistency is essential to maintain reforestation and research efforts as intended by the act.
- Coordination among federal, state, and local entities alongside private stakeholders is vital for program efficiency.