Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8456

Bill Overview

Title: Ocean Acidification Research Partnerships Act

Description: This bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide grants for collaborative research projects on ocean acidification developed and conducted through partnerships between the seafood industry and the academic community. NOAA must prioritize projects that (1) address ecosystems and communities vulnerable to the impacts of ocean acidification, (2) demonstrate support from local stakeholders, or (3) utilize seafood industry assets as research and monitoring platforms. NOAA may provide grants to a partnership in which a marine-dependent industry is substituted for the seafood industry.

Sponsors: Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

Target Audience

Population: People whose livelihoods depend on the seafood industry and related ecosystems

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Marine Scientist (Southeast Alaska)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is great for facilitating collaboration between academia and industry, which is essential for impactful research.
  • It could significantly advance our understanding of ocean acidification and help mitigate its impacts.

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 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Shrimp Boat Captain (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this research can help maintain shrimp populations, it would be worth supporting.
  • We need better data and this policy seems to promote that.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Tour Guide (San Diego, California)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a positive step towards preserving marine biodiversity.
  • I hope it results in tangible actions that our tours can highlight.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Marine Policy Analyst (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill could enable strategic use of industry platforms for research.
  • Long-term, it might inform better policy decisions at higher levels.

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 6
Year 20 9 6

Aquaculture Technician (Miami, Florida)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having funds for collaborative research on acidification could significantly impact coral restoration efforts.
  • This policy acknowledges the importance of industry support.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Retired Seafood Processing Plant Manager (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I wish this kind of support existed during my working years.
  • It's better late than never but should have broader industry reach.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Marine Biologist (Gulf of Mexico, Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This funding will enhance our projects and foster impactful collaborations.
  • I believe this can lead to meaningful advancements in ocean health.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Graduate Student in Marine Sciences (Backbay, Maine)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • An exciting development that would support my research.
  • Looking forward to potential new data sources from industry partners.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Restauranteur (Seafood Cuisine) (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy may help ensure sustainable seafood, vital for my business.
  • Consumer awareness of sustainable practices is growing; this reinforces that.

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 7
Year 20 8 7

High School Science Teacher (Midwest, US)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Educational programs could use policy developments as case studies.
  • Good to see practical investment in science, but direct impact on my life is limited.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)

Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)

Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)

Year 5: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)

Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 100: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)

Key Considerations