In a move that baffled and angered national park advocates, the National Park Service has given the go-ahead for an oil company to explore for deposits beneath Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, even though the company's test of its equipment was judged "clearly a failure" by park observers.
“I have honestly never been as disappointed in the Park Service as I am right now. It defies logic, that during the (Park Service) centennial and with (Interior) Secretary (Sally) Jewell just down there, that they would bend over backwards to make it as easy for this oil company to do whatever they want inside a national park," Nick Lund, the National Parks Conservation Association's point man on the issue, said Friday evening during a phone call.
"This is 70,000 acres inside the national preserve. There’s nine threatened and endangered species within the planning area, including the critically endangered Florida panther…I don’t know what NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) exists for if not for this thing.”
Also expressing great disappointment was Matthew Schwartz, executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association.
"NPS has years of experience with off-road vehicles in the preserve. All of their own research indicates that this operation will likely lead to significant impacts to the preserve's natural resources," he said in an email.
Drawing the condemnation was the Park Service's announcement Friday afternoon that it had concluded that allowing Burnett Oil Co. to use seismic testing to search for oil reserves in the preserve's Nobles Grade area would have "no significant impact."
"Considering the field test and also the mitigation requirements that are outlined both in the revised EA (environmental assessment) and the FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact), the decision is that the short-term impacts can be minimized and mitigated for," preserve spokesman Bob DeGross said during a phone call. "Following the mitigation requirements will lessen the long-term impacts.”
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson was so concerned about the testing that in February he called on Interior Secretary Jewell to direct the Park Service to conduct a "comprehensive" review of the proposal.
“If history is any indication, approval of Burnett's request for a massive seismic survey essentially signals a green light for future drilling and fracking,” Sen. Nelson wrote in a letter to the Interior secretary. “That's why I strongly urge you to complete an Environmental Impact Statement for Burnett Oil Company's proposed seismic survey.”
But Park Service staff determined that a more extensive and involved EIS was not merited "based on information and conclusions outlined in an environmental assessment completed for the proposed survey."
At NPCA, Mr. Lund pointed out that this approval applies to 110 square miles of the preserve, and is only the first of four phases the Texas-based oil company hopes to explore.
"It's larger than Shenandoah National Park that would be explored," he said of the total footprint.
When the preserve was created, the Park Service was given the surface rights, while the mineral rights were retained by the previous owners, Mr. DeGross pointed out. "Our role is to evaluate their proposed method of accessing (those mineral rights) and then identify potential impacts and how they can be mitigated or minimized," the park spokesman said.
A year ago Burnett Oil crews tested their equipment in a small section of the preserve, a test that park observers deemed a failure in a document (attached below) that South Florida Wildlands had acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request. One of "thumper" trucks used for the experiment actually got stuck in the wet soils and crews on site had to "call for heavy equipment from a nearby oil and gas production site to come pull the vehicle out."
"One purpose for this test was to inform what the unknown impacts for this new technology may be in the wetland environment. When the environmental impacts of an action are unknown, an EIS is usually required," the park observers wrote in the document. "If the test had shown that the impacts were not significant, an EA would be justified. Since the extrapolated impacts could be significant, an EIS may be warranted."
Mr. DeGross was not familiar with the document that laid out those concerns, but said he was pretty sure that the revised EA had taken the test into consideration and called for smaller vehicles to be used during the testing.
That didn't mollify the conservation groups.
"All of their own research indicates that this operation will likely lead to significant impacts to the preserve's natural resources. Those include rutting and oxidation of fragile soils, hydrological changes due to compaction of soil, destruction of vegetation, and the spread of invasive plant species such as Brazilian pepper into parts of the preserve which may never have seen motor vehicles," Mr. Schwartz said. "We also expect disturbances to federally listed wildlife such as the Florida panther and Eastern indigo snake. Plus direct impacts to the use and enjoyment of this magnificent preserve by the public.
"Much of the land in the target area is wetlands," he added. "A good percentage has also been proposed for or is eligible for inclusion in the Federal Wilderness System. It is almost inconceivable that NPS believes it can go forward with a project of this magnitude without first preparing a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement to examine all possible impacts."
While the preserve is home to the endangered Florida panther, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has never defined critical habitat for the big cat, and so how the testing might impact the panthers was not an overriding factor. Just the same, Mr. DeGross said the area being opened to seismic testing is not heavily used by panthers.
Still, he went on, "there are going to be some areas that can’t be accessed because of resource issues.”
While Mr. DeGross said the preserve's enabling legislation clearly allows for oil exploration in the park, NPCA's Mr. Lund said Big Cypress' General Management Plan allows for the agency to block a project "if it would be detrimental to the purposes of the preserve (for example, the existing regulations could not provide the level of protection necessary) or if the levels of environmental impact resulting from such operations were unacceptable (for example, the 10 percent threshold was exceeded). If the denial was viewed as a potential for the taking of property, funds would be sought from Congress to acquire the affected mineral estate."
Once the seismic testing gets underway, it will be closely monitored by park staff, said Mr. DeGross. The operators will have archaeologists and biologists with them as they’re operating, and the proposed routes that the vehicles will be take will need to be reviewed and approved by the Park Service before they go through those routes," he said.
Burnett Oil’s plan is to use sound waves created by truck-mounted vibrators to create 3-D maps of potential oil and gas reserves.
The environmental assessment only covers the seismic survey. Should Burnett Oil wish to pursue production of resources, they must submit a new plan of operations, which would undergo additional environmental review and public comment periods, the Park Service said.
Both NPCA and South Florida Wildlands officials were reviewing the options for blocking the testing.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
"When the preserve was created, the Park Service was given the surface rights, while the mineral rights were retained by the previous owners,"
And therein lies the problem.
We can also be very certain that this is not the kind of decision a park superintendent may make alone. Directions are coming from above. As for funds from Congress to acquire the affected mineral estate -- good luck on that.
So lee the owner says i will sell the surface rights but not the mineral rights. Do you forego the total preserve and say no or you do accept and preserve the surface? As usuall you make baseless accusations. There is nothing from "above" involved here.
Ah, Esteemed Comrade, try reading the legislative history of the creation of Big Cypress. I'll not waste time trying to point anything out to you because you'll simply sidestep it. In the meantime, just prove that I and others here are wrong. Unless you can do that, your responses are "baseless." In the meantime, why not follow the advice of Follow the Money and see what you find?
It's been fought numerous times in state and federal courts. The mineral owner is allowed access to their "minerals". It can be delayed, but it may be wise to allow them access now and reap the possible benefit, or fight them and pay dearly with enviornmental damages.
What is shocking to me is the fact that an earlier, extremely similar, proposal for seismic surveys was proposed in the 1980's. Everyone from the superintendent, Retional Director and Director Bill Mott, agreed that an EIS would be required. When this became the position of the Department of the Interior, the seismic survey was vastly reduced and conducted solely on publlc roads.
Why is this one, with heavier epuipment and I believe more miles, allowed under an EA? The quantity of sensitive resources that will be impacted has not been reduced - in fact resource impacts will be greated.
All in all, very disappointing.
If you look carefully into the owners and operators of Burnett Oil, and follow their financial records of political contributions, more will become clear.
When I emailed Mr DeGross about the crushing destruction of Gopher Tortoise tunnels he said that "Gopher Tortoises do not live in Big Cypress Preserve ". ...Unbelievable ignorance. ... doesn't he know that FWC has an entire mandate on gopher tortoises protection, stating that they do in fact exists in every County in Florida and throughout every Terrain?
Margo, You are absolutely correct. Gopher Tortoises are found in Collier County. I have seen many of them. That being said they are not found in Big Cypress National Preserve. It is just the wrong habitat and the wrong hydroperiod
What happened to Humanity?
You've made the accusation, Lee, it is up to you to prove it right. Otherwise it is baseless.
I worked in Everglades when Big Cypress was still managed by the Superintendent of Everglades This decision is an environmental tragedy. No amount of mitigation will ever fix what the thumper trucks will do to this beautiful preserve. This is a baffling decision.
What exactly will these thumper trucks do that will be enivronmentally harmful?
This photo, taken from Google Earth, shows tracks left by thumper trucks at Padre Island National Seashore nearly three decades ago, according to NPCA and NPS.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Unnamed+Rd,+Texas/@27.2578375,-97.3776544,2896m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!1m9!4m8!1m3!2m2!1d-97.3811611!2d27.2514511!1m3!2m2!1d-97.3812045!2d27.2514896!3m4!1s0x8668b843efca19f1:0x39fd43cd9ce97e44!8m2!3d27.1915327!4d-97.4615271
Trucks leave temporary tracks in the sand. That's an enivronmental disaster?
Would you like them in your backyard three decades later, EC? Then there's the compaction of the soils and impacts on the underlying vegetation and biology. Environmental disaster? Not on the same scale as Exxon Valdez of Deepwater Horizon, but not sure it's a good fit with the National Park System.
ec--What environmental damage will the thumper trucks not inflict on this fragile ecosystem? Will they scar the wetlands? Crush vegetation? Alter water courses? Create new roads? Disturb wildlife? Render areas unfit for future wilderness designation? BICY is one of the most beautiful, mysterious places I have ever been to. These kinds of decisions render it commonplace. And how the NPS can justify approving it wirh an EA instead of an EIS is beyond me.
Rick, you ask, "And how the NPS can justify approving it wirh an EA instead of an EIS is beyond me."
I'm sure that if we could find a way to dig through the slime and smoke from the backrooms of American politics and power, we'd find a source somewhere far above the pay grade of BICY's superintendent.
I don't see why they would - at least not in any permenant manner and the NPS appears to agree.
Yes, Lee, in the Interior Department itself, aka, the Administration. They're doing the same thing with wind and solar--rewriting the rules by invoking the Federal Register and bypassing Congress entirely. When progressives happen to like the outcome, they praise it. Ah, the president is bypassing those obstructionist Republicans! But what if that "obstructionism" was what the Founding Fathers intended by the separation of powers in the first place? There are good laws and there are poor laws. But how can you tell until you debate them, and why should either be "easy" to pass?
All along, we have known that a preserve was meant to be "weaker" than a national park. Now that we see the result of that, we cry foul. If we wanted Big Cypress preserved, we should have added it to Everglades as a national park. Why wasn't it so added? Because that is difficult. Environmentalists wanted the shortcut, too.
If we want our public lands preserved, we had better learn to be more vigilant, and above all accept the fight and drop the nonsense that one administration is "better" than another. Democrats and Republicans. What difference does it make? Little. Obama is just as scared that he will go down in history having failed the bigger picture. What is that? Jobs and the economy. Environment is way down the list of public priorities.
So yes, "the slime and smoke" of America's political backrooms are winning once again. Unless you happen to be the president of the United States, and realize that your country's true unemployment rate is closer to 20 percent. President Obama has never been interested in a cleaner environment no matter what he says. He thought he could have it both ways by shifting the country to wind and solar, and instead got caught in the vise of physics again. There just aren't as many opportunities in clean energy as there are in oil.
Funny how some people can read minds of others (Dr. Runte and the President).
Mr. Runte says there isn't much difference between republicans and democrats? There is a big difference when you are in land acquisition for the Dept of Interior. When republicans have a president, most land acquisition is not done unless there is a lawsuit, or if it is only an easement, or when Bush was in, an ocean. When democrats are in, they try to preserve some of the best lands around for species and habitats. I know, I have worked for Interior for over 20 years.
Anon--Have you ever seen the scars that swamp buggies leave in the Preserve? Imagine what a vehicle much bigger will do.
-Have you ever seen the scars that swamp buggies leave in the Preserve?
No, I haven't seen any permanant "scars" from swamp buggies and don't think a single pass of a larger vehicle with much larger tires (dissipating the wieght) at much slower speeds would leave any permanant scars either.
There is great danger in making such general statements such as these. ORV impacts directly related to where the use occurs and this is true with the proposed seismic equipment. Previous ORV Impact studies have concluded that there is permanent damage from ORVs, especially but not only in the many sensitive areas already identified within the Preserve. If you haven't seen any permanent scars, then you you need to visit more of that backcountry or look at aerial photos of ORV trails through sensitive resources or read the studies done on ORV impacts.
Oh, come on, EC. What do you mean by "dissipating the weight?" Tell you what. Let's run an experiment. You lie down in the swamp and I get to run a swamp buggy over you. Might your organs still be crushed? Of course they would be. Now try it with a larger vehicle. I doubt anyone would survive. The physics (weight) transfers through the rubber. That's why we tell our children not to stand in the freeway, believing they will be "protected" by rubber tires.
But don't worry. No one is teaching physics these days, and that goes especially for the folks in green energy. The answer, however, is yes. Rubber tires make permanent scars on the land.
Alfred, I wasn't trying to imply that the thumper truck had a lower PSI at impact. I was merely pointing out that the increase in PSI was not proportional to the increase in weight due to larger tires that dissipated the weight over a larger area.
Please tell me where current day "thumper trucks" have created permanent damage. Heck, I like to know where a single pass of a swamp buggy, responsibly driven, created permanent damage.
The key word is responsible. It is now the mantra among every developer I know that, yes, they will be responsible. You say "responsibly driven"; they say "responsibly built." That is what an environmental impact statement is supposed to show. Is the project, building, activity, etc., in compliance with the law? Is the impact indeed "responsible"--within the proper limits? Perhaps just one pass of a thumper truck is within those limits. Unfortunately, most trucks rarely make just a single pass. In the first place, you have to get in--and then get out. That is two passes over the landscape, unless you come out a different way.
We know these things. Then why do we argue them? My interpretation, as a historian, is because these laws are now getting in everyone's way. Even the Obama Administration no longer wants them, except for Big Oil and Big Coal. Big Solar and Big Wind are screaming (and the administration is listening) that they deserve a pass. Their environmental impact is mitigated by their reduction of CO2. Is it any surprise, once you flaunt the law is one area, that all areas of endeavor ask for the same? It then starts with the use of endless strings of adjectives to plead the case of weakened nouns. This is a "responsible' project, "carefully" sited, and "deliberatively" studied in every respect. Translation: The moment the public hears those qualifiers, we should know the project is flawed.
The damage is there. Why do we need the adjective permanent? Because we want to dismiss the fact that even temporary damage has no place in our national parks. By saying permanent, we allow that there is recovery. We are not creating permanent damage, so the damage must be temporary. That's acceptable, right? No, because all damage, even if it were to be called temporary damage, is to be avoided in a national park.
I say avoided because some is unavoidable. You put up a building or construct a road. But where we are headed today--accommodating everyone's so-called wants and needs? Is to invent something to make it legitimate--now ORVs and drones, for example? Again, that is what we should be asking for everything we invent, especially when it comes to our national parks.
I must agree Alfred.
Excellent post, Dr. Runte. Again, the fickle middle finger of politics and money is pointed at our national parks.
Big Cyprus must not be having a very good year. Looks like Thumper Trucks aren't their only challenge this year. I just found this article on the FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE website:
http://www.firehouse.com/news/12206829/firefighter-news-sparkler-caused-...
Several folks commented on the EA versus and EIS and some suggest the EA was prompted by pressures from Interior or higher. This might be true, however, I must note there have been several other decision at Big Cypress where the legislation and legislative history has not being followed: e.g., the use of "multiple use" with planning documents to justify expansion of some uses.
Second, wherever the decision rests, the last time an EA was attempted for such a major seismic survey, the Environmental Groups immediately sued because an EA cannot cover the cummulative impacts of such a survey. I suspect that if someone sued today, the results would be the same, the proposal was scaled back to surveys on public roads.
I worked at Big Cypress on their fire crew. We reduced the vegetation from around their oil pumping plant, and hunters cabins, driving swamp buggies made into fire trucks. In the winter I was there, the ground (limestone) was covered with 2 feet of water. With what has gone on in that area, seismic testing is not a pressing problem. They need to continue to try and get the water going the way it was before the highways and canals replumbed the system.