Bill Overview
Title: KELP Act
Description: This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to award grants to carry out projects related to the conservation, restoration, or management of kelp forest ecosystems. NOAA shall award grants for projects that address greatest relative regional declines in kelp forest ecosystems; focus on, among other things, long term ecosystem resilience, kelp forest seeding and connectivity, or urchin removal and other actions to reestablish trophic structure; or are identified by federal or state restoration and management plans as focal areas for recovery of kelp forests and associated species.
Sponsors: Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals relying on coastal and marine ecosystems supported by kelp forests
Estimated Size: 20000000
- Kelp forests are crucial marine ecosystems found along coastlines worldwide, supporting diverse marine species and providing ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and habitat for fisheries.
- The degradation of kelp forests impacts coastal communities that rely on these ecosystems for fishing, tourism, and protection from coastal erosion.
- Conservation, restoration, and management projects funded by this bill will directly benefit these communities and indirectly affect global marine biodiversity and climate by enhancing carbon sequestration and biodiversity.
- Global ocean health is a shared concern; hence, efforts to conserve marine ecosystems can have wide-reaching impacts on global food security and biodiversity, impacting wide human populations connected to these systems.
Reasoning
- The KELP Act targets coastal communities along the Pacific coast of the U.S., specifically in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, which are heavily reliant on kelp forests for economic activities like fishing and tourism.
- Kelp forest degradation affects these communities due to a reduction in fish populations and the loss of natural coastal protection, impacting local jobs and income.
- The act’s budget, while significant, means that the projects must be meticulously selected to maximize impact, especially around areas with significant kelp forest decline.
- The policy’s impact on global food security and biodiversity, while secondary, is still pertinent for the target population, particularly those involved in fishing and marine conservation.
- Given the budget constraint and the number of people affected, not all areas or people directly reliant on kelp forests will see immediate benefits. However, selected projects should demonstrate long-term ecosystem resilience to offset this.
Simulated Interviews
Fisherman (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this act will help restore some of the fish populations we've lost due to declining kelp forests.
- It's crucial for the sustainability of my business and community.
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 | 8 | 3 |
Marine Biologist (Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The KELP Act could provide much-needed funding for projects that I've been advocating for years.
- Restoration projects can restore biodiversity if managed correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tour Guide (Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restored kelp forests could improve marine life visibility on tours, boosting my business.
- Concerned about the implementation and consistency of funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act is a positive step, but requires strict oversight to ensure funds are used effectively.
- It’s crucial for policymakers to incorporate scientific advice in project selection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (California)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve seen the decline in the local fish population firsthand, and I'm glad the government is finally doing something about it.
- It remains to be seen if this policy will bring lasting change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Local Government Official (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The KELP Act aligns with our town’s goals of promoting sustainable tourism and environmental stewardship.
- Securing grants could significantly enhance our local projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Entrepreneur (Washington)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustainable fish stocks are vital for my business's future.
- Restoration of kelp forests seems promising if executed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Research Scientist (Oregon)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act presents a unique opportunity to gather more data and potentially influence broader environmental policies in the future.
- Scientific research is a key to the long-term success of these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Char and Guide Business Owner (Alaska)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been struggling with fewer tourists as the marine environment declines, so this act offers hope.
- Proper restoration could bring back the natural beauty that attracts visitors.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Biologist (California)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s essential to educate younger generations about the importance of kelp forests and their conservation.
- Hopefully, the act will encourage more involvement at local levels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Project success largely depends on local environmental conditions, regional biodiversity, and stakeholder engagement at the community and policy level.
- The bill assumes that NOAA can effectively manage and distribute grants to achieve desired ecological outcomes.
- Potential barriers include unforeseen ecological challenges, project management obstacles, and variability in long-term ecological resilience outcomes.