Bill Overview
Title: Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act
Description: This bill revises provisions governing the administration of the Marine Debris Foundation and the Marine Debris Program. Specifically, the bill allows the foundation to use appropriated funds for employee salaries for the two years following the bill's enactment. The bill also allows the foundation to locate its principal office outside of the District of Columbia and encourages the foundation to locate it in a coastal state. In addition, the bill requires the foundation to develop best practices for conducting outreach to Indian tribes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may enter into other agreements, outside of contracts, under the Marine Debris Program. NOAA may also make in-kind contributions for projects under the program.
Sponsors: Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on or involved with marine environments
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act pertains primarily to environmental governance related to marine debris.
- Marine debris can affect anyone who relies on marine environments for their livelihood, recreation, or culture, globally.
- Coastal communities are particularly impacted as they are both recipients of marine debris and active participants in cleanup and prevention efforts.
- By developing best practices for outreach to Indian tribes, the legislation also directly impacts indigenous communities who may be involved in or affected by marine debris initiatives.
- NOAA’s increased role in collaboration and contribution can influence a wide range of marine and coastal projects across the globe.
- The Marine Debris Foundation's role means it impacts multiple global stakeholders involved in marine ecosystem preservation.
Reasoning
- While this policy directly influences indigenous tribes and coastal communities, it also has broader implications for environmental conservation and the well-being of communities that depend on marine environments.
- The budget constraints suggest a highly targeted approach, focusing on key areas most affected by marine debris and those who can contribute significantly to clean-up efforts, including tribal partnerships.
- The policy largely influences long-term changes to community well-being due to environmental improvements, but initial impacts may vary among different community members.
Simulated Interviews
Marine Biologist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for bolstering local efforts against marine debris.
- Having more NOAA collaborations can amplify our impact on marine health.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Fisherman (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The efforts to clean the marine environment could help restore fish populations.
- It's exciting to see more collaboration with indigenous groups.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Lawyer (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Setting up best practices to engage tribes is a step forward.
- Funding away from D.C. will benefit coastal areas directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Surf Shop Owner (San Diego, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner beaches can mean more business for us.
- This policy might strengthen our community involvement.
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 |
Retired (Key West, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital to protect our coastlines for future generations.
- Engaging tribes for marine health is a positive move.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Commercial Shipper (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner oceans will make shipping safer and more efficient.
- Collaboration between NOAA and industry could be beneficial.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Tourism Operator (Nantucket, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Marine debris is a persistent problem, this policy can help.
- Involving tribes might bring new perspectives on conservation.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Government Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a comprehensive approach to tackle marine debris.
- The best practices for tribal outreach is forward-thinking.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Research Scientist (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- NOAA's expanded capabilities will greatly enhance our projects.
- More funding outside D.C. is crucial for direct action.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Tampa, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with long-term sustainability goals.
- Outreach to tribes could improve policy inclusivity.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy is expected to have partial fiscal offset through environmental and economic benefits over time.
- Collaborations with Indian tribes suggest social, cultural, and logistical challenges in implementation.
- The policy helps mitigate marine debris-related issues aligning with international commitments to sustainable ocean management.