Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4835

Bill Overview

Title: Small-diameter Timber and Underutilized Material Act of 2022

Description: This bill addresses the removal of small-diameter trees in fire hazard areas. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior from charging a fee to authorize the removal of a small-diameter tree in a fire hazard area, including a fee for a special use permit; or recovering any processing or monitoring cost of authorizing such removal. The FS or Interior may charge a fee for removal of a small-diameter tree of a particular species of tree in a fire hazard area upon determining that the fee is appropriate and disclosing that determination to the public.

Sponsors: Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

Target Audience

Population: People working in and with timber industries globally, particularly in fire-hazard areas

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Forestry Worker (Oregon)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will make it easier for us to manage the forests and keep our jobs.
  • I'm concerned about over-harvesting but also hopeful about more work opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 3

Environmental Scientist (Northern California)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry about the ecological impact if this leads to aggressive logging.
  • If managed well, it can reduce fire hazards sustainably.

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 6 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

Mill Worker (Washington)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could mean more timber for our mill, keeping us employed.
  • Fire risk in my area is high, so this policy could really help.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 4
Year 2 7 3
Year 3 8 3
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 6 2
Year 20 5 2

Retired (Colorado)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reduced fire hazards will help me feel safer at home.
  • Concerned about local biodiversity and keeping the landscape intact.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Independent Logger (Montana)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could help cut down costs and increase business.
  • I worry whether actual implementation will be smooth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 4

Conservationist (California)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Supportive of reducing fire hazards but keen on ensuring ecological balance.
  • The lack of fees could lead to exploitation if not regulated.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 6 4

Rancher (Idaho)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having fewer fire hazards nearby is reassuring.
  • Could impact local landscape and wildlife negatively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 7 3
Year 20 6 3

State Forestry Official (New Mexico)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with our goals to safeguard communities from fires.
  • The challenge will be implementing it effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 4

Fire Management Specialist (Nevada)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that reduces fire risk is beneficial to my work and community.
  • Must be carefully monitored to prevent misuse.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 4
Year 2 6 3
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 6 2
Year 10 5 2
Year 20 4 2

Tourism Operator (Wyoming)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improving forest safety can attract more tourists.
  • Must balance removal with the overall health of the forest.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Key Considerations