Bill Overview
Title: Ruby Mountains Protection Act
Description: This bill withdraws approximately 309,272 acres of federal land and interests in identified land located in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada from operation under the mineral leasing laws; and approximately 39,926.10 acres of federal land and interests in identified land located in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada from operation under the mineral leasing laws, except the withdrawal shall not apply to noncommercial refuge management activities by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially affected by the Ruby Mountains Protection Act
Estimated Size: 800000
- The withdrawal of nearly 350,000 acres from mineral leasing suggests a significant environmental preservation effort, likely aimed at protecting biodiversity and preventing ecological degradation.
- The Ruby Mountains and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge are home to various species, implying the legislation will impact the environment and biodiversity in these areas, thereby affecting people who rely on or value recreational, conservation, and ecological services (tourism, fishing, hunting, etc.).
- Local economies might be impacted by the removal of potential mineral extraction activities, which typically create jobs and economic activity, especially in rural areas like those around the Ruby Mountains.
- The conservation groups would be stakeholders due to the protection of land and wildlife habitats.
- Public interest in renewable energy, tourism, and land recreation could be positively affected by the preservation.
- Extractive industries might experience negative impacts due to reduced access to land for exploration and production.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to protect the natural environment and wildlife, which suggests that the primary beneficiaries will be those who value environmental conservation or rely on the tourism and recreational opportunities it supports.
- Given the restriction on mineral leasing, individuals or businesses involved in extraction are likely to see negative impacts, affecting their wellbeing scores if their livelihoods are impacted.
- The geographical focus on Nevada, particularly around the Ruby Mountains, means local populations will experience more direct changes, whether in job opportunities or access to recreational areas.
- Since the annual budget is limited, the policy's implementation might include strategic investment in local conservation efforts and public awareness campaigns instead of large-scale economic compensation.
- The long-term wellbeing should reflect sustainability gains for the environment, although individuals not directly involved in conservation might not see significant benefits quickly.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Conservationist (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a great step towards protecting our precious wildlife and landscapes.
- The withdrawal from mineral leasing means less risk of habitat destruction and more focus on preserving our ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Tour Guide (Elko, Nevada)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will boost eco-tourism and sustain my business.
- Protecting these areas can help us offer better and more sustainable tours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Mineral Extraction Worker (Carlin, Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean a loss of jobs and opportunities for people like me.
- I worry about the economic impact on our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Student (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move is progressive and aligns with my policy interests.
- Seeing such changes gives me hope for future career opportunities in conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired School Teacher (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see land being protected for future generations.
- It reassures me that my grandchildren will see these natural wonders.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Freelance Photographer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More protected areas imply a greater chance to capture stunning natural landscapes.
- I anticipate an increase in work requests from conservation-focused publications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Ranch Owner (Battle Mountain, Nevada)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restrictions concern me regarding possible grazing limits.
- But I understand the importance of preserving land for environmental reasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Mining Engineer (Winnemucca, Nevada)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy affects my career prospects directly as it limits jobs in my field.
- However, I can see the environmental benefits for the state long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Outdoor Enthusiast (Sacramento, California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More protected land is a win for outdoor enthusiasts like me.
- Ensures I have beautiful places to explore across my lifetime.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Activist (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a victory for conservation and all who fight for environmental protection.
- Keeping these lands out of mineral leasing is crucial for preserving biodiversity.
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 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The legislation emphasizes conservation of lands, impacting potential economic activities like mining but supporting the environment and tourism.
- Collaboration with local communities could enhance economic benefits from increased tourism and recreation.
- The success of maintaining conserved lands may rely on sufficient financing for management and enforcement.