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 bill also requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to approve appointments to the foundation's board of directors. 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: Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or affected by marine debris management and conservation initiatives
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects organizations that are involved with the Marine Debris Foundation and Marine Debris Program, potentially impacting their employees and contractors.
- The focus on coastal regions may predominantly affect populations in coastal states, as well as tribal communities who will be part of the outreach efforts within the USA.
- Globally, the amendments may have downstream effects on populations living in coastal areas due to improvements in marine debris management and reductions in marine pollution.
- Any NOAA-related activities have broader implications, potentially influencing international cooperation or agreements on marine debris, thereby affecting managers and stakeholders in similar sectors worldwide.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people in coastal areas, specifically those involved in marine debris management and conservation.
- Since the bill explicitly involves outreach to Indian tribes, Native American communities are directly impacted.
- NOAA's involvement points towards impacts on federal employees and related contractors who work with NOAA.
- Budget considerations restrict the immediate high-impact beneficiary scale, meaning only a fraction of potentially affected individuals will see significant changes.
- The policy's focus on locating the office in coastal states suggests increased job opportunities in these regions, but only marginal changes since the scope of physical office location impacts are limited.
Simulated Interviews
Marine Biologist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems promising as it could streamline collaborations between organizations like mine and NOAA.
- The salaries provision will help my organization retain talent, which is crucial.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Fisheries Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Locating offices in coastal regions could improve collaboration with local industries.
- I hope this leads to better marine debris strategies that benefit our fisheries.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tribal Leader (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Outreach to tribes is crucial and often overlooked.
- I'm hopeful that this policy helps our communities manage debris issues more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy's success depends on proper funding allocation and inter-agency cooperation.
- I see potential but am wary about execution.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a step forward but is limited in scope.
- I'm glad to see tribal outreach included.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
NOAA Contractor (San Diego, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The possibility of partnerships and new projects is exciting.
- I'm hopeful this leads to more robust management strategies.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding for salaries in partner foundations could lead to more stable research collaborations.
- The long-term impacts on ecosystem health are promising if managed well.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Logistics Manager (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New contracts could emerge from this policy, potentially increasing business.
- It remains to be seen how coastal logistics will improve.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Coastal Recreation Business Owner (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Marine debris can severely impact my business, so any policy aiming to reduce this is beneficial.
- The impact will depend heavily on actual debris reduction.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Environmental NGO Coordinator (Ketchikan, AK)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If implemented well, the policy should enhance our conservation efforts.
- It would be advantageous if more funds were available for direct action.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
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
- There are significant indirect and long-term environmental benefits not captured in the direct cost estimates.
- Coordination with Indian tribes requires culturally sensitive methods to ensure effective participation and outcomes.
- Relocation of the Foundation could influence local economy in specific coastal areas.
- This bill could serve as a model for similar international efforts, influencing global policy on marine debris.