Overview
Title
To require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to assess certain offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines for potential use as artificial reefs, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to see if old oil and gas platforms in the ocean can be turned into homes for fish and other sea animals, kind of like big underwater playgrounds. Before doing this, it asks experts to check how it might affect the sea and where to put these special playgrounds.
Summary AI
The bill, H.R. 6814, also known as the “Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act,” aims to evaluate offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines to potentially repurpose them as artificial reefs. It proposes amendments to the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 to include definitions and procedures for converting idle structures into reefs and establishes guidelines for partial removal and decommissioning. The bill requires assessments of economic and ecological impacts before removal and designates reef planning areas. Additionally, it mandates the creation of a public database, the Offshore Infrastructure Dashboard, to track decommissioning activities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act," seeks to repurpose decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines to serve as artificial reefs. By transforming these structures into habitats for marine life, the bill aims to enhance fishery resources and improve opportunities for both commercial and recreational fishing. To achieve this, the bill outlines a framework that includes assessing the ecological feasibility of using idle structures as reefs, transferring liability, and designating specific areas for artificial reef planning.
Significant Issues
Several issues have been identified within the text of the bill, which may affect its implementation and overall effectiveness:
Clarity and Consistency: The provisions for the partial removal of offshore structures are described ambiguously, which might lead to inconsistent practices in handling these structures and potential environmental impacts.
Enforcement and Compliance: If certain structures are committed to becoming reefs, the bill lacks enforceable measures to ensure compliance. This absence raises concerns that these structures may remain inadequately maintained.
Subjective Decision-Making: The criteria for determining whether an idle structure can be considered a suitable reef are heavily reliant on subjective judgment by the Secretary of the Interior, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.
Vague Language: Terms such as "attempts to maximize habitat" lack specific, measurable criteria, which could result in inadequate creation of habitats for marine life.
Funding Limitations: The bill caps funding for state programs at 50% of the removal costs, which may not be sufficient for all states, potentially resulting in financial pressure or rushed agreements.
Liability Transfers: The language around liability transfer is unclear, especially regarding timelines and conditions, leading to possible legal ambiguities.
Delays and Timelines: The bill does not specify clear deadlines for the completion of reports and assessments, which could delay the decision-making processes and prolong environmental impact.
Administrative Inaction: The provision that allows for default acceptance of assessments if decisions are not made within 90 days could lead to inadequate evaluations being approved without proper scrutiny.
Impact on the Public
The bill could broadly impact the public by potentially improving marine biodiversity and fishing opportunities, benefiting both environmental and economic interests. However, the effectiveness of these benefits depends highly on the clear and efficient implementation of the bill's provisions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts
Fishermen and Recreational Users: Improved fish habitats could lead to better fishing prospects, supporting livelihoods and recreational activities.
Environmental Advocates: The transformation of idle structures into artificial reefs aligns with efforts to enhance marine ecosystems and biodiversity.
Negative Impacts
State Governments: States could face financial challenges if the allocated funding limits do not cover essential costs, placing additional burdens on local governments to manage these structures.
Oil and Gas Companies: Companies must navigate the unclear and subjective processes for decommissioning structures, which could lead to increased operational and administrative burdens.
In conclusion, while the bill presents an innovative approach to repurposing decommissioned structures, its success hinges on addressing the significant issues outlined, particularly around clarity, consistency, and enforceability of its provisions. The legislation could offer notable benefits to environmental and fishing communities if implemented effectively and transparently.
Issues
The bill allows for 'partial removal' of offshore structures and optional placement of severed portions at the sea floor, which lacks clarity and consistency, leading to potential environmental impacts and inconsistent implementation (Sections 2, 206).
The provision allowing exemption from removal if structures are committed to being entered into the Program lacks clear enforcement or compliance measures, raising concerns about prolonged existence of structures that are not properly maintained (Sections 2, 207).
The determination of whether an 'idle structure' can become a 'reef in place' relies heavily on subjective judgment from the Secretary of the Interior and lacks clear criteria, potentially leading to arbitrariness or favoritism (Sections 206, 207).
The definition of 'reef in place' attempts to maximize habitat using vague language without measurable criteria, risking inadequate habitat creation for marine life (Sections 206, 207).
Funding limitations for States, capped at 50% for removal costs, might not be equitable or sufficient, potentially pressuring states to spend excessive funds or rush agreements to meet costs (Sections 2, 207).
The language on liability transfers lacks clarity regarding timelines and conditions, possibly leading to legal disputes or confusion over responsibility (Sections 2, 207).
The bill's framework could induce delays due to a lack of timelines for report and assessment completions, risking extended environmental impact without proper oversight (Sections 2, 207, 206).
Using references to other laws, like the definition of 'waters covered under this title,' increases complexity and may impede clear understanding of the bill's scope (Section 206).
The allowance for 'default treatment' in case of administrative inaction within 90 days might lead to acceptance of inadequate evaluations and assessments, with significant unexamined impact (Section 207).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section titled "Short title" establishes that the name of this legislation is the “Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act.”
2. Use of certain offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines for artificial reefs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines as artificial reefs, providing definitions and guidelines for their conversion. It outlines responsibilities and requirements for lessees or owners to ensure the structures are safe and environmentally beneficial before being reefed, including liability transfer and working with state programs, while also requiring the development of a public database for tracking these decommissioned structures in the Gulf of Mexico.
206. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides definitions for terms related to artificial reefs and decommissioning activities, describing concepts like "artificial reef," "decommissioning," and different methods of handling structures at sea, such as "partial removal" and "topple in place," while also defining what constitutes a "State" and describing the relevant waters under the title.
207. Reef in place Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines the conditions under which idle offshore structures can be turned into artificial reefs instead of being removed. It allows owners to "reef in place" if they meet certain safety and environmental requirements, lets states assume responsibility for these structures, and requires an assessment of their ecological impact.