Summary#
The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act would amend the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Its stated goal is to promote fish habitat by allowing certain inactive offshore oil and gas structures to be converted into artificial reefs. The supplied text is the introduced version; the status information says a substitute was ordered reported, so the text being considered may differ. The bill is not law.
- An applicant responsible for decommissioning an inactive structure could choose to seek approval to leave it in place, topple it, or partly remove it for reefing.
- The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s Director would assess or arrange an assessment, decide whether a structure is eligible, and designate a reef planning area. The Interior Secretary would approve the final structure, after required safety and cleanup conditions are met.
- During specified periods of the process, the bill would restrict removal orders. The restriction would not apply if the Interior Secretary finds a substantial and imminent threat to navigation safety or the marine environment.
- A state with an artificial reef program could agree to take responsibility and liability for an approved structure. The applicant would pay an amount set by the state, capped at 50% of the applicant’s cost savings unless the applicant agrees to more.
- The bill preserves other decommissioning options. For pipelines, it says existing abandonment and decommissioning rules would continue to apply; extra permitting would be required only if a pipeline is specifically designated for conversion to an artificial reef.
What it means for you#
- Oil and gas companies and other applicants: An applicant is generally a current or former lease or rights holder, or another party legally responsible for decommissioning. It could start the reefing process, but would still have to meet requirements such as plugging and abandoning wells, removing hydrocarbons and hazardous liquids, and arranging liability transfer to a state. It could withdraw and use another lawful decommissioning method.
- States with reef programs: A state could choose to take responsibility and liability for an approved structure in return for payment from the applicant. If it accepts the structure, the state would be solely responsible for its continued maintenance and identifying markers, and exclusively responsible and liable for it, unless it agrees otherwise with the applicant.
- Federal agencies: The Director would have to arrange or conduct assessments, make eligibility decisions, designate planning areas, and report annually to federal officials and Congress. The Interior Secretary would have to decide whether the structure meets final approval conditions.
- Fishers and the public: The bill aims to support fish habitat and commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, but does not guarantee more fish, fishing access, or a particular reef outcome.
Money#
The bill requires agency assessments and staff work, but no cost estimate is available in the supplied material.
- The Director may conduct an assessment, appoint a state or qualified third party, or allow the applicant to arrange one. The bill does not say who pays when the Director arranges the assessment.
- A state may charge the applicant up to 50% of the applicant’s cost savings from reefing, unless the applicant agrees to a higher amount.
- No public appropriation, fee schedule, or estimate of government or state costs is provided.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the current versions of the two Acts being amended, so the existing legal process and the bill’s full effect compared with current law could not be verified.
- The bill does not set out how the assessment’s economic comparison or the applicant’s cost savings must be calculated.
- The terms “potential for a reef ecosystem” and “reasonably sound and secure” are not defined in the supplied text.
- The bill does not explain how states would fund long-term maintenance or what happens if a state does not accept liability.
- The introduced text sets several deadlines, but it is unclear how long the full process could take when assessments or appeals are involved.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to let some structures that already support marine life remain as reefs instead of requiring their full removal.
- Requiring an assessment of marine life and economic benefits could help decision-makers weigh reefing against replacing the structure with artificial material.
- The approval conditions address hazards and navigation, and the state would take responsibility only after the structure is approved and reefing is completed.
- Applicants would retain the option to withdraw or use another decommissioning method.
Case against#
- One concern is that restrictions on removal orders could delay decommissioning while the reefing process proceeds, including when an application does not result in an approved reef. The bill provides an exception for a substantial and imminent threat, but does not define that phrase.
- The bill allows liability and ongoing maintenance duties to shift to a state. The state may decline an agreement, but the text does not explain how long-term costs would be covered if it accepts one.
- The Director and Interior Secretary would make important eligibility and safety decisions, but the bill does not give detailed decision rules beyond its stated criteria.
- It is unclear how the introduced text compares with current law, and the reported substitute may change the proposal.