Bill Overview
Title: American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act
Description: This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee. The committee must provide advice to NOAA on an existing program that awards grants for fisheries research and development projects, such as projects concerning fisheries science or recreational fishing. Specifically, the committee must (1) identify the needs of the fishing community, (2) develop the request for proposals for the grant program, (3) review grant applications, and (4) provide NOAA with grant applications for approval. NOAA must establish six regions within the committee. In addition, NOAA must select members that represent the regions as well as at-large members that represent certain sectors of the fishing industry.
Sponsors: Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in or dependent on fishing industries globally
Estimated Size: 1500000
- The bill is focused on establishing the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to advise NOAA.
- The advisory committee will impact the fishing communities by identifying their needs and reviewing grant applications.
- The bill will affect NOAA as it has to establish the advisory committee and six regional divisions.
- The fishing industry as a whole will be impacted by having a structured channel to influence NOAA grant-distributing decisions.
- All sectors within the fishing industry, including commercial and recreational fisheries, are impacted.
- Scientists and researchers working on fisheries research and development are affected because of potential funding changes.
Reasoning
- Population distribution was considered with the focus on individuals in coastal states reliant on fishing industries, such as Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
- Budget constraints were considered to ensure the policy could reasonably provide the necessary support across target regions and sectors.
- Diverse perspectives were included, with interviews from commercial and recreational fishermen, industry leaders, community members, and researchers.
- The impact of accelerated and focused funding opportunities through grant programs was assessed in terms of expected improvements in well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having more structured advice coming from within the fishing community could make a big difference.
- Grant programs could help improve technology and sustainability practices that directly affect my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to better resource allocation for critical research.
- The committee's regional structure could enable more localized solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Recreational Fisherman (Louisiana)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving fish stocks through better management could enhance recreational fishing outcomes.
- Not sure if the policy will directly influence recreational fishermen as much as commercial sectors.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Shrimp Fisheries Manager (Mississippi)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Direct input into the grant processes can ensure needs of shrimp fisheries are not overlooked.
- Grants could help with sustainability efforts and equipment upgrades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Fishing Industry Lobbyist (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The advisory committee could foster more nuanced policy development benefiting various stakeholders.
- Ensuring representation from diverse sectors is crucial.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Washington)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could have a positive impact if research needs align with grant objectives.
- I am hopeful for more collaborative projects.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Fish Processing Plant Supervisor (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide funding for advancing processing techniques.
- The regional setup might leave out larger-scale operators not strictly regional.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Commercial Lobster Fisher (Maine)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy clarity and streamlined processes could affect profitability.
- Committee representation of regional interests is vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Fishing Equipment Supplier (Alaska)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased well-being if more fishing companies can afford sustainable gear due to grants.
- Smooth operation of the committee is crucial for trust-building.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fishing Industry Analyst (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could guide smarter investments by offering transparent funding insights into fisheries.
- Potentially unquantified long-term impacts need evaluation.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- NOAA's current administrative structure will require expansion to accommodate new committee operations.
- Long-term effectiveness of the committee could induce higher productivity in U.S. fisheries, potentially offsetting initial costs.
- Regional focus may ensure better distribution of economic benefits across the U.S.