Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/3540

Bill Overview

Title: Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2021

Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2025 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake Bay Office and revises requirements concerning the office and its activities. It also authorizes the office to establish a Chesapeake Bay watershed education and training program as well as a program to support coordinated management, protection, characterization, and restoration of priority habitats and living resources.

Sponsors: Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3]

Target Audience

Population: people in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area

Estimated Size: 18000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Environmental Scientist (Annapolis, Maryland)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will likely enhance our efforts in preserving the Bay.
  • Increased funding for education will help spread awareness, which is crucial.

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 7
Year 20 9 7

High School Teacher (Richmond, Virginia)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It'll be great to receive more resources for educational programs.
  • Students will directly benefit from learning about their local environment.

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 8 6

Fisherman (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy has potential to improve fish stocks through better habitat management.
  • Stronger education initiatives might ensure sustainable practices.

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 7 3
Year 20 8 3

Graduate Student (Baltimore, Maryland)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic that the policy will support scientific research efforts.
  • Educational support is crucial for building public understanding about ecosystems.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Retired (Dover, Delaware)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy might improve conditions for recreational activities around the Bay.
  • Community education programs might see growth, which is welcome.

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 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Office Manager (Charleston, West Virginia)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I might not feel much difference immediately since my work isn't connected to the Bay.
  • Indirect benefits, like cleaner water, could happen in the long term.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

University Professor (State College, Pennsylvania)

Age: 40 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Funding expansion will help research and training programs, facilitating practical learning experiences 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 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Barista (Yorktown, Virginia)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the Bay's condition improves, my recreation experiences could be better.
  • Direct benefits for my job likely won't occur, but personal enjoyment matters.

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 6 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Restaurant Owner (Syracuse, New York)

Age: 49 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhanced Bay ecosystems might improve seafood supply quality.
  • My business might benefit indirectly through a better supply chain.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Government Employee (Vienna, Virginia)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with steps needed to restore balance to the Bay.
  • It could boost our team’s work on outreach and management initiatives.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)

Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)

Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations