Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to allow the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2026 and revises the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. For example, the bill modifies the name of the program to the Coastal Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program. It also revises goals of the program to include (1) climate change mitigation; and (2) restoring developed property in vulnerable coastal and estuarine areas to a natural state to restore ecological function, allow for shoreline migration, and protect coastal communities. Additionally, the bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to designate at least five new national estuarine reserves.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
Target Audience
Population: People living in or depending on coastal and estuarine areas worldwide
Estimated Size: 126000000
- The Coastal Zone Management Act impacts individuals living in or near coastal and estuarine areas in the United States.
- Revisions to the program to include climate change mitigation and restoration of natural states aim to affect those communities vulnerable to climate impacts like sea level rise, hurricanes, and coastal erosion.
- Increased resilience and restoration efforts would primarily impact communities dependent on coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods, such as fishing or tourism sectors.
- The introduction of new national estuarine reserves may affect those living in these designated reserve areas, potentially involving interventions like land use changes or restrictions.
Reasoning
- The target population is primarily those living in coastal and estuarine areas, making coastal states like Florida, Texas, California, and Louisiana key areas of impact.
- The budget constraints imply that not all areas may see immediate or equal levels of intervention; focus might be on highly vulnerable or impactful areas first.
- The policy’s ecological restoration and climate mitigation aspects may benefit ecosystems, potentially improving livelihoods and resilience for those dependent on the health of these environments.
- Individuals in non-coastal areas or those not primarily relying on coastal economies will likely experience no direct impact, reflected in the varied simulated Cantril scores.
- The creation of new reserves can lead to stricter environmental regulations, which might initially challenge local economic activities, explaining variance in medium and longer-term well-being scores.
Simulated Interviews
Local Fisherman (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the impact of rising sea levels on my fishing business.
- I think restoring natural habitats could help the fish population, which is good for my work.
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 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
Environmental Scientist (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program is much needed to combat the effects of climate change.
- I'm excited about the research opportunities at the new reserves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 2 |
Hotel Manager (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoration could help stabilize the tourism industry here.
- I hope this means fewer hurricanes disrupting business.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure how this affects me directly, but it sounds beneficial overall.
- I support environmental initiatives even if I don't see direct impacts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired (Portland, ME)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe these efforts will improve our local environment.
- I'm all for preserving natural beauty for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (Galveston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program aligns with my work to protect coastal habitats.
- More reserves mean better data and conservation chances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any initiative that addresses climate change.
- As someone who enjoys the coast, I want it protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an essential step in the right direction for climate action.
- I'm eager to see the impact of new reserves on education and policies.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Mobile, AL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm wary of how these changes might affect building projects.
- Hopefully, it means more jobs in long-term resilient infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Tour Guide (Charleston, SC)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving our wetlands will hopefully protect the historical areas too.
- I'd like to see how this policy benefits the community at large.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $145000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Year 100: $160000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The program's effectiveness in climate change mitigation could significantly influence future coastal economies and habitats.
- Stakeholder engagement and community input are crucial for successful implementation, particularly for new reserve designations.
- Balancing the economic activities with environmental objectives will be key in ensuring sustainable policy outcomes.
- Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will be necessary to track progress and adjust strategies as needed.