Bill Overview
Title: Salmon FISH Act
Description: This bill addresses identifying, restoring, and protecting salmon conservation areas and salmon strongholds in the United States. Specifically, the bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to jointly issue guidance on the process and biological criteria required to identify salmon conservation areas and salmon strongholds; and directs the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in collaboration with NOAA to provide grants to certain entities to protect or maintain salmon conservation area or salmon stronghold features and projects that are focused on conservation and restoration within a salmon conservation area or stronghold, including to restore or maintain ecological functions and processes related to salmon productivity and diversity at watershed or subwatershed scales.
Sponsors: Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on the salmon fishing industry globally
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on the conservation of salmon, which is important for ecological reasons and livelihoods dependent on salmon, particularly in the fishing industry.
- The identified conservation and restoration efforts will predominantly impact populations living in regions of the United States where salmon habitats are located.
- The legislation involves federal agencies and national foundations, which suggests impacts at both local (specific conservation sites) and broader (policy/industry) levels.
Reasoning
- The impact of the Salmon FISH Act will vary significantly among different populations. The largest impacts will likely be felt by those directly involved in the salmon fishing industry, including fishermen, fish processors, and associated services primarily located in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
- The policy aims at ecological conservation and economic sustainability, likely benefiting local communities dependent on the health of salmon populations.
- Indirect impacts include enhanced environmental conditions, which could increase recreational opportunities and ecological stability, benefiting wider regional populations.
- The budget constraints ensure that not all regions will benefit equally; focus will be on critical habitats, potentially leaving some areas and smaller, less connected communities with lower benefits.
- Considering the wider context, non-impacted populations may include those in regions without salmon habitats or those not economically linked to salmon fishing. Their wellbeing scores will likely remain unchanged without direct influence from the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a lifeline for our industry.
- Conservation efforts have always led to longer-term stability for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Portland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The systematic approach this bill proposes is promising.
- I believe it will enhance our ecological restoration projects.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining salmon stocks keeps my customers in business.
- More conservation means more long-term business stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Policy Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sets a necessary precedent for environmental focus.
- I am hopeful about its potential national impacts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Biotechnology Researcher (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's always good to see focus on sustainability, even if it doesn't impact my work.
- I hope it succeeds and inspires similar policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Restaurant Owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable salmon supply is essential for my business.
- Protection efforts might stabilize or reduce wholesale costs long-term.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Financial Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I view it as a positive move that might stimulate the economy in related sectors.
- The ripple effects could lead to more sustainable investment opportunities.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tourism Operator (Juneau, AK)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthy salmon populations are a huge draw for tourists.
- Hopefully, this will make our tours even more attractive.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Water Management Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This approach to habitat conservation could serve as a model for other water management issues.
- The direct impact is minimal here, but the broader implications are substantial.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A consistent and sustainable salmon supply is paramount.
- The policy should help maintain my menu's authenticity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $46000000 (Low: $39000000, High: $61000000)
Year 3: $47000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $62000000)
Year 5: $49000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $64000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $45000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $75000000)
Key Considerations
- The successful designation and management of salmon conservation areas is crucial for the project's overall impact.
- Funding consistency and effectiveness of the grant program will determine the long-term success of habitat restoration initiatives.
- Collaboration between federal agencies and local stakeholders is key to maximizing ecological and economic outcomes.
- Potential unforeseen environmental events (e.g., climate change impacts) could alter the anticipated benefits or costs.