Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act

Bill Number

H.R. 5745

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Public Lands and Natural Resources

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-13: Subcommittee Hearings Held

Last Updated

2026-06-23T08:05:54Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act (H.R. 5745) aims to boost fish habitats by allowing certain inactive offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines to be converted into artificial reefs. This supports commercial and recreational fishing while providing a cost-effective alternative to full removal during the decommissioning process (the legal shutdown of oil, gas, or sulfur operations on federal offshore leases).

Key Provisions

• Amendments to the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984:
• Introduces detailed definitions for terms like "artificial reef" (a structure placed in U.S. waters to improve fish habitats and fishing opportunities), "inactive structure" (unused oil/gas platforms or pipelines no longer needed for operations), "reefing in place" (leaving or partially modifying the structure underwater to create habitat while ensuring safety), and others such as "eligible structure" (an inactive one approved for reefing) and "applicant" (responsible parties like former leaseholders).
• Establishes a voluntary "Reef in Place" process:
• Applicants submit a Notice of Intent to the Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
• BSEE conducts or oversees an assessment (within 1 year) of the structure's marine life habitat and economic benefits (e.g., comparing reefing costs to building a new reef from scratch).
• If eligible (based on existing or potential reef ecosystems and alignment with national reef plans), BSEE designates a "reef planning area" around the site.
• Approval for reefing occurs within 3 years if conditions are met, including plugging wells, removing hazardous materials, adding navigation markers, and transferring liability to a state agency.
• Allows applicants to withdraw at any time and pursue standard decommissioning.
• Requires annual reports from BSEE to Congress, the Interior Department, and NOAA on reefing activities, including maps.
• Preserves existing options for reefing or other decommissioning methods under prior laws.

• State Involvement:
• States with artificial reef programs can agree to take over maintenance and liability for approved structures after reefing, in exchange for funds (up to 50% of the applicant's cost savings from avoiding full removal, or more if agreed).

• Amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act:
• Prohibits the Interior Secretary from issuing or enforcing removal orders for inactive structures during key reefing stages (e.g., 1 year after notice, during assessments up to 18 months, pending eligibility decisions, or up to 3 years after eligibility).
• Exceptions apply if the structure poses an immediate threat to navigation safety or the marine environment.
• Appeals process: Affected parties can appeal BSEE decisions within 60 days, with a response due in 60 days; final decisions are subject to court review.

• Pipeline Rules: Existing federal regulations for abandoning pipelines remain unchanged; reefing pipelines follows standard processes without extra permits unless specifically designated as reefs.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Expands the 1984 Act by adding a structured, multi-step process for converting inactive structures into reefs, including timelines, assessments, and protections from removal orders—previously, decommissioning focused more on full removal without such incentives for habitat creation.
• Introduces eligibility criteria tied to ecological potential and national reef plans, plus state liability transfers, which were not explicitly outlined before.
• Limits federal enforcement of removals during reefing evaluations (up to 3+ years), shifting from a removal-first approach to one that prioritizes habitat enhancement when safe and beneficial.
• Clarifies that reefing does not alter pipeline abandonment rules, maintaining regulatory consistency.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Increases workload for BSEE (assessments, determinations, reporting), NOAA (habitat consultations), the Interior Department (approvals, removal prohibitions), and the Coast Guard (navigation safety input). Promotes inter-agency coordination but could delay standard decommissioning enforcement.
• Citizens: Enhances fishing opportunities and marine biodiversity in U.S. coastal waters, benefiting recreational fishers, commercial fisheries, and ecosystems. May reduce taxpayer costs for enforcement by encouraging private or state-led maintenance.
• International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as it focuses on U.S. waters (including the Outer Continental Shelf adjacent to states); no provisions affect foreign entities or treaties.
• Broader Effects: Could lower decommissioning costs for the oil/gas sector (by allowing partial or no removal), potentially speeding up site cleanups while creating long-term habitats; however, it risks prolonged structures if processes stall.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Oil and Gas Industry: Applicants (current/former leaseholders) gain options for cheaper decommissioning and liability relief but must meet safety and environmental standards.
• State Governments: Coastal states (e.g., those with reef programs like Louisiana or Texas) can assume control for fees, gaining assets for fisheries while taking on maintenance duties.
• Federal Agencies: BSEE, NOAA, and Interior Department handle new processes; Coast Guard advises on safety.
• Fishermen and Environmental Groups: Commercial/recreational users and conservationists benefit from expanded habitats; however, groups concerned about pollution may monitor liability shifts.
• Marine Life: Indirectly supported through ecosystem enhancements for fish, corals, and other species.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Streamlines voluntary reefing with clear timelines and appeals, reducing litigation over decommissioning by providing alternatives to full removal. Reinforces federal deference to state programs but maintains Interior oversight; exceptions for safety threats preserve emergency powers under existing environmental laws (e.g., Clean Water Act implications for hazards).
• Constitutional: No direct challenges; aligns with federal authority over outer continental shelf resources (Article IV) and property rights for leaseholders, while respecting state interests in coastal management.
• Political: Balances energy sector cost relief with conservation goals, potentially appealing to Gulf Coast representatives (e.g., sponsors from Louisiana and Texas). May spark debate on environmental risks of leaving structures versus habitat gains, influencing future offshore policy amid energy transitions.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

Cosponsors (6)

Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2], Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-13: Subcommittee Hearings Held
• 2026-01-07: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
• 2025-10-14: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
• 2025-10-14: Introduced in House
• 2025-10-14: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act — issued 2025-10-14 — PDF (18 pages)