Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out a study relating to projects to restore the Florida Central Gulf Coastal Shellfish and Seagrass habitat, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study and report on the Engineer Research and Development Center's projects and activities to restore the Florida central gulf coastal shellfish and seagrass habitat.
Sponsors: Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on the Florida Central Gulf Coastal shellfish and seagrass habitats
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Florida Central Gulf Coastal region is a specific geographic area where this bill's impact will be felt.
- Local residents who depend on shellfish and seagrass for their livelihood, especially those in fishing and related industries, will be directly impacted.
- The bill focuses on the environmental restoration of shellfish and seagrass habitats, which are crucial for supporting local wildlife and fisheries.
- Tourism in Florida, which often relies on healthy coastlines and marine biodiversity, will be affected.
- The seafood industry that relies on shellfish from this region will feel the impact globally.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on environmental restoration within the Florida Central Gulf Coastal region, meaning its direct impact will be primarily on local populations reliant on the habitat — particularly those in industries like fishing, tourism, and environmental conservation.
- Given the budget constraints of $3,000,000 in the first year and a total of $4,500,000 over ten years, not all areas or individuals will experience major changes. The impact might only reach areas most critically in need or projects that demonstrate direct benefits, like enhancing local fisheries or boosting tourism.
- While the economic benefits could be significant for locals, for many in the population who are not directly reliant on these ecosystems, the policy might have minimal or no perceivable change in daily life or wellbeing.
- Tourism's reliance on healthy ecosystems means that even small improvements in habitat health could have positive ripple effects. However, actual perceived wellbeing might take years to improve as environmental changes do not happen overnight.
- There are both ecological and socio-economic impacts to consider. Improvements in habitat could lead to longer-term economic stability for those dependent on it, but the immediate Cantril scores might not reflect this until results become visible.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisher (Tampa, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me hope for the future of our waters. Healthy habitats mean more prawns and oysters, which is my bread and butter.
- I'm worried about the timeline. Ten years seems long for us seeing a real impact.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Tour Guide (Naples, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think restoring the habitats will bring more tourists interested in nature, which is fantastic as it might increase my business.
- I'm not sure how soon we'll see an impact, though.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I care deeply about these areas, and it's good to see a focus on restoration.
- Not sure how much it will impact people like me who do this mostly for fun, but it's important work.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Restaurant Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps stabilize shellfish supplies, it could mean more consistent pricing for us and better quality.
- I’m not directly involved with Florida habitats, but the seafood industry can benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Clearwater, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding is a positive sign for scientific and environmental work.
- Although the impact might be nominal initially, it's a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Orlando, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving local ecosystems can attract more tourists, impacting us positively.
- I'm concerned about the long timeline but optimistic about the possible benefits.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Charter Boat Captain (Sarasota, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve seen the decline in fish stocks myself, so anything to help the habitat is welcome.
- Hopefully, the changes are scalable and effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Seafood Importer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy means stable sourcing from Florida, it's good for the business.
- Not directly affected, but keeping ecosystems healthy is important industry-wide.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Scientific research opportunities could expand through this initiative, which is great.
- Facilitates both research and actionable environmental improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Supply Chain Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially better consistency in shellfish availability is good for planning.
- Impact on pricing would likely be gradual, not immediate.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The project's success relies heavily on the accuracy and thoroughness of the study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- Environmental variability and unforeseen factors, such as severe weather events, could influence project timelines and costs.
- Potential opposition from stakeholders affected by the project, including local businesses or environmental groups, might influence project execution.