Bill Overview
Title: Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This act reauthorizes through FY2028 the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990.
Sponsors: Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on or living near the Great Lakes region
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The Great Lakes basin is home to over 35 million people across the United States and Canada, so environmental and ecological improvements in this region could impact a large population.
- Great Lakes fisheries support both commercial and recreational activities, meaning both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers are part of the target population.
- Individuals involved in tourism and related activities around the Great Lakes would also be impacted as the health of the lakes affects tourist potential.
- Local tribal nations who may rely on fishery resources for subsistence, cultural, or commercial reasons will be impacted.
- Conservationists and researchers focused on these ecosystems will see changes due to renewed funding and projects.
Reasoning
- The policy's primary target will be individuals and communities directly interacting with the Great Lakes, including commercial and recreational fishermen, tourism operators, and indigenous communities depending on these resources culturally and economically.
- Budget limitations mean that only a subset of the population can expect direct benefits, primarily those involved in activities like fishing and tourism or residing close to affected areas.
- The geographic focus is crucial, as impacts will mostly be felt in states bordering the Great Lakes. These regions do house a large portion of the estimated population benefiting from stronger ecological health, translating into potentially better economic prospects.
- Consideration needs to be given to the degree of ecological improvement and its cascading effects on community wellbeing, which are inherently challenging to quantify but can have significant long-term benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Michigan, USA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restoration funds are crucial to maintain the fish population and, therefore, my livelihood.
- I've seen the ups and downs of fish populations affecting my family business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Tourism Operator (Illinois, USA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restorative efforts mean more clear waters and diverse wildlife, which attract more tourists.
- My business rides on the lake's reputation for beauty and clean environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Environmental Researcher (New York, USA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding allows for more comprehensive research, benefiting overall lake health.
- This means a lot in terms of better methodologies and data collection to aid restoration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Recreational Angler (Wisconsin, USA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Now and then better-stocked lakes make fishing more enjoyable for all of us.
- Support for the fish populations means more memorable times and catches.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Government Official (Ontario, Canada)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continued funding signifies increased cooperative projects and shared research insights.
- While Canadian-specific impacts are limited, binational collaboration is necessary.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retiree (Indiana, USA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having the lakes well-maintained enriches my retirement experience, keeping the area beautiful.
- Ecological health is key for a comfortable and peaceful environment to spend my later years.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Conservation Volunteer (Ohio, USA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase volunteer opportunities and engagement projects.
- Seeing concrete actions taken boosts morale and makes our work feel valuable.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Indigenous Community Member (Minnesota, USA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding is a step to mending waters crucial to my community's cultural practices.
- We hope for more recognition of tribal rights in restoration plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Local Business Owner (Pennsylvania, USA)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing tourist numbers from better lake conditions helps our local economy.
- After years of fluctuating sales, stability is much needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Local Historian (Illinois, USA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy like this provides more stories and data for my work, showing active steps being taken.
- It's critical these histories are shared to increase public support for restoration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The focus on wildlife restoration can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services, potentially offering significant non-monetary benefits.
- Continued support under this act can help mitigate risks of invasive species and ecological degradation, significant concerns for the Great Lakes.
- Project approvals and execution might face administrative and logistical challenges due to multi-jurisdictional collaboration.