Coastal Zone Management: Federal Consistency Appeal by Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. From an Objection by the State of Florida

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Coastal Zone Management: Federal Consistency Appeal by Mobil

Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. From an Objection by the State of

Florida

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 20, 1995, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) issued a

decision in the consistency appeal of Mobil Exploration & Producing

U.S. Inc. (Mobil). Mobil is the operator of Outer Continental Leases

OCS-G 10401, 10406, 10407, 10411, and 10412. The lease area, described

as Pensacola Area Blocks 845, 846, 889, 890, 933 and 934 (Pensacola

Blocks), is located in the northeast Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental

Shelf, approximately 10-20 miles from Pensacola, Florida, and

approximately 64 miles south-southeast of Theodore, Alabama. The

Secretary decided to override the State of Florida's (State) objections

to Mobil's Supplemental Plan of Exploration (SPOE).

In 1989, Mobil submitted a proposed Plan of Exploration (POE) to

the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior (MMS)

together with a certification that the proposed POE was consistent with

the State's federally approved Coastal Management Program (CMP), as

required under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451

et seq. Mobil proposed drilling six exploratory wells to evaluate the

hydrocarbon potential of the Pensacola Area Blocks. MMS approved

Mobil's POE and the State concurred with Mobil's consistency

certification on April 17, 1990.

Subsequently, on September 6, 1991, Mobil submitted to the MMS a

proposed SPOE to drill one additional exploratory well at Pensacola

Block 889. The well site is located approximately 74 miles from

Theodore, Alabama, and 13.5 miles from Pensacola, Florida. MMS approved

Mobil's SPOE subject to the State'a review under the CZMA.

The State objected to Mobil's SPOE, finding the proposal for

drilling the additional exploratory well is inconsistent with the

State's policies of protecting its marine and coastal resources. Under

section 307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA, and 15 CFR 930.121 and 930.122, the

State's objections preclude MMS from issuing a permit or license for

Mobil's proposed activity, unless the Secretary finds that the activity

is either consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA

(Ground I) or necessary in the interest of national security (Ground

II). If the requirements of either Ground I or Ground II are met, the

Secretary must override the State's objections.

In accordance with section 307(c)(3)(B) of the CZMA, Mobil filed an

appeal with the Secretary arguing both Grounds I and II for a

Secretarial override. Additionally, three threshold issues were raised

by Mobil and the State during the course of the appeal. Upon

consideration of the information submitted by Mobil, the State and

interested Federal agencies, the Secretary made the findings discussed

below.

Regarding the Secretary's findings on the three threshold issues,

the decision determined that the State's objections were properly

lodged, the Secretary will necessarily determine the adequacy of

information for an override rather than summarily dismiss consistency

appeals, and the activity before the Secretary on review in this appeal

is the one additional exploratory well proposed in Mobil's SPOE.

The Secretary made the following findings with regard to Ground I:

Mobil's proposed SPOE activity satisfies the first element of Ground I,

because it furthers one of the objectives or purposes of the CZMA. The

CZMA recognizes a national objective in achieving a greater degree of

energy self-sufficiency. The proposed activity satisfies the second

element of Ground I, since the adverse effects of the additional

proposed exploratory well on the State's coastal resources and uses

will not outweigh the benefit to the national interest.

Mobil's proposed SPOE also satisfies the third element of Ground I,

because the activity will not violate the Clean Air Act or the Clean

Water Act. Finally, Mobil's proposed SPOE satisfies the fourth element

of Ground I, because there is no reasonable alternative

[[Page 41874]]

available to Mobil that would allow its proposed activity to be carried

out in a manner consistent with the State's CMP.

Regarding Ground II, the decision finds that neither Mobil nor any

Federal agency commenting on this ground specifically identified or

explained how Mobil's inability to proceed with its proposed SPOE

activity would significantly impair a national defense or other

national security interest.

Because Mobil's propose SPOE satisfies all four of the requirements

of Ground I, the Secretary's decision overrides the State's objections

to Mobil's proposal for one additional exploratory well. Consequently,

in deciding whether to permit the exploration activity proposed in

Mobil's SPOE, MMS is not constrained by the States' objections under

the CZMA. Copies of the decision may be obtained from the office listed

below.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael I. Weiss, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Assistant General

Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway,

Suite 6110, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-2967.

.Dated: August 7, 1995.

Terry D. Garcia,

General Counsel.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone

Management Program Assistance.)

[FR Doc. 95-19987 Filed 8-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-08-M