Bill Overview
Title: To establish programs to reduce the impacts of vessel traffic and underwater noise on marine mammals, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill establishes programs to mitigate the impact of marine traffic on marine ecosystems and wildlife, with a particular emphasis on underwater noise. The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) must maintain and expand activities to collect and assess underwater sounds in high-priority ocean and coastal locations, award grants to port authorities or related entities for implementing measures to mitigate the impact of port operations and marine traffic on marine mammals, and implement a program to reduce collisions between large whales and marine vessels. In addition, the Maritime Administration must award grants to academic or research institutions, U.S. nationals or corporations, or state or tribal governments for developing and implementing technologies that reduce underwater noise from marine vessels. The administration must also report to Congress about nonclassified naval technologies that reduce underwater noise from marine vessels.
Sponsors: Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]
Target Audience
Population: people whose wellbeing is indirectly impacted by marine mammal conservation efforts
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill focuses on reducing noise pollution and other impacts from vessel traffic, which primarily affects marine mammals.
- Marine mammals such as whales and dolphins rely heavily on sound for navigation, communication, and finding food, making them particularly vulnerable to underwater noise pollution.
- Globally, there are estimated to be over 130 species of marine mammals, including the blue whale, fin whale, and the common dolphin, spread across all oceans.
- Efforts to reduce vessel collisions and noise can benefit other aspects of the marine ecosystem and improve the overall marine environment.
- The programs included in the bill are likely to have a global reach, as marine mammals are found in international waters and across different national jurisdictions.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects coastal communities and individuals or businesses involved in marine operations.
- People involved in tourism, conservation, and marine research would likely see indirect benefits due to healthier marine ecosystems.
- Fishermen might be impacted both negatively (more restrictions) and positively (healthier fish stocks).
- People living far inland with less connection to marine environments may feel no direct impact.
- Budget constraints suggest moderate programs in priority areas, impacting these regions more.
Simulated Interviews
Fisherman (New Bedford, Massachusetts)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential new restrictions due to policy.
- Hopeful that fish stock health might improve with less ship noise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy will create more opportunities for research.
- Optimistic about improvements in marine mammal health.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Port Authority Manager (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes grants will help fund necessary upgrades for quieter operations.
- Uncertain about how this will impact port revenues.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Tourism Operator (Miami, Florida)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about possibilities of increased whale populations.
- Concerned about potential limits on tourist vessels.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (San Diego, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports the policy as a step in the right direction for marine conservation.
- Worries it might not be enough without more international cooperation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Navy Officer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recognizes the need for reduced underwater noise.
- Skeptical about potential impacts on naval operations.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Shipbuilder (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Eager to see what new technologies will emerge from the grants.
- Worried about increased costs for shipbuilders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Acknowledges the importance of marine conservation but I don't see personal impacts.
- Feels disconnected from marine protection issues.
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 |
State Government Official (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Thrilled about potential funding and support for local initiatives.
- Sees a direct opportunity to enhance state conservation efforts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes for increased interest in marine wildlife through awareness of policy.
- Concerned about stricter regulations affecting tourism business.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $82000000 (Low: $71000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $84000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $88000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Marine ecosystem preservation is critical for biodiversity.
- Initial fiscal outlay might be high but with potential long-term savings or gains.
- The bill addresses a globally relevant environmental concern, enhancing the U.S.'s reputation in marine conservation.