SEISMIC SURVEY INSPECTION REPORT BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL ... · Phase I Seismic Survey Inspection...

SEISMIC SURVEY INSPECTION REPORT

BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE

JUNE 2019

Submitted to:

NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL

1152 15TH STREET NW, SUITE 300

WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Prepared by:

Quest Ecology Inc.

735 Lakeview Drive

Wimauma, FL 33598

813.642.0799

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Ground Elevations and Water Depths .......................................................................................... 3

4.2 Vegetation Abundance and Composition ..................................................................................... 4

4.3 Periphyton ..................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 7

4.5 Mapping Observations .................................................................................................................. 7

5.0 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Reclamation of Ground Elevations ............................................................................................... 7

5.2 Vegetation Recruitment ................................................................................................................ 8

5.3 Periphyton ..................................................................................................................................... 9

5.4 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 9

5.5 Mapping ...................................................................................................................................... 10

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 10

7.0 LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................................... 11

FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map with “Snail Trails” provided by the National Park Service Figure 2 Seismic Survey Line B and 6/15/19 Photo Stations Figure 3 Reclamation Zone Status Map as of 6/28/19 provided by the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection APPENDICES Appendix A Photo Documentation of “Seismic Survey Line B” Conditions as of 6/15/19 Appendix B Conservation Groups’ Letter to NPS on Proposed Monitoring and Success Criteria

Phase I Seismic Survey Inspection Report June 2019

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION On June 15, 2019, Quest Ecology, Inc. (“Quest”) visited the Big Cypress National Preserve (hereinafter,

“Big Cypress” or “Preserve”) to assess the damage caused by the Burnett Oil Company, Inc. (hereinafter,

“BOCI”) during its Phase I Nobles Grade 3‐D Geophysical Seismic Survey (“seismic survey”). See Figure 1.

This assessment was preceded by prior inspections conducted in June and July 2017 and April 2018, which

focused on documenting seismic survey impacts and potential violations of conditions of state and federal

permits issued to BOCI by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter, “FDEP”) and

the National Park Service (hereinafter, “NPS”) for the seismic survey activities. These results were

documented in prior reports (Quest, 2017; Quest, 2018). This report documents the existing damage from

the seismic survey that Quest observed, as well as BOCI’s reclamation attempts, as conveyed by FDEP and

NPS. Observations were made along approximately 11‐miles of Seismic Survey Line B. See Figure 2.

2.0 BACKGROUND BOCI’s seismic survey activities within the Preserve initially began in early 2017, and continued through

June 2017, after the summer rains began. BOCI’s seismic survey resumed in early 2018 but was halted in

the spring of 2018 due to the start of the rainy season. According to NPS, reclamation of the impacted

areas began in the spring of 2018, when approximately five (5) miles of the seismic survey source lines

were attempted to be reclaimed before the summer rains returned. According to FDEP, reclamation

activities resumed on or about April 8, 2019, and continued until around June 10, 2019, when NPS

apparently suspended work due to unsuitable soil conditions and water levels associated with the onset

of the rainy season. We presume that NPS and FDEP will require BOCI to resume reclamation activities

after the 2019 rainy season when soil conditions and water levels are suitable for this work to begin.

According to a Reclamation Zone Status Map dated June 28, 2019 provided by FDEP on July 18, 2019, a

total of 101.1 miles [533,926 linear feet (LF)] of impacted seismic survey lines were designated for

reclamation1 within the Preserve, and reclamation was deemed complete by FDEP and NPS on

approximately 90.1% of this total length. See Figure 3. Reclamation in the remaining work zones (12b and

15) shown on Figure 3 had not been completed or approved by FDEP and NPS as of June 28, 2019.

We do not know whether BOCI plans to resume seismic survey activities within the Preserve during the

upcoming dry season. If BOCI intends to continue Phase I of the seismic survey or begin additional phases

of the seismic survey, or drilling activities, it must first apply for and obtain a new permit from FDEP.

BOCI’s current Oil and Gas Geophysical Permit No. G‐173‐17 expires on December 13, 2019. However,

FDEP must first require full reclamation and mitigation of the damage caused by BOCI’s seismic survey to

date, in order to have reasonable assurances that any new permit application submitted by BOCI meets

the conditions for issuance. FDEP also issued an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to BOCI as

authorization for wetland impacts associated with the seismic survey, which expires on July 15, 2020. BOCI

1 Our understanding from NPS and FDEP is that “reclamation” only refers to the re‐grading of seismic lines created by the driving of “vibroseis” and other off‐road vehicles through wetlands and soft soils. Reclamation does not include replanting of damaged or removed vegetation or de‐compaction of damaged soils.


2

received approval of its plan of operations from NPS in May 2016, subject to the implementation of 47

minimization and mitigation measures. However, BOCI does not have a Clean Water Act permit from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

3.0 METHODS On June 15, 2019, Quest entered the Preserve from the Collier County Rest Area near Mile Marker 63

(MM 63) on the south side of Interstate 75 using the Florida National Scenic Trail (hereinafter, “Florida

Trail”) on foot. Quest walked south for approximately 1.3 miles before turning west along Seismic Survey

Line B shown on Figures 1 and 2. Seismic Survey Line B was selected as the target destination because:

(1) seismic survey impacts along approximately 2.5 miles of this line (from Photo Station A to O) were

previously assessed and documented in Quest’s May 2018 report; (2) the eastern portion of Seismic

Survey Line B was allegedly reclaimed during the first half of 2018, and the western portion was allegedly

reclaimed in late 2018 or early 2019, enabling an assessment of disturbance recovery over the greatest

length of time and providing a comparison with BOCI’s more recent reclamation efforts; (3) five vibroseis

vehicles were observed in this location on Google Earth© (Google Earth) imagery dated May 27, 2019,

within a densely‐forested portion of the Preserve (see Photo Station S on Figure 2); and (4) Photo Station

S could reasonably be reached within one day of foot travel from the Rest Area at MM63.

After Quest turned west from the Florida Trail near Photo Station A shown on Figure 2, we continued

walking for approximately 3.7 miles until reaching Photo Station T, which is located approximately 330

feet northwest of Photo Station S, where five (5) “vibroseis” vehicles used for seismic testing were visible

on the May 2019 Google Earth© aerial imagery. Upon reaching Photo Station T shown on Figure 2, Quest

returned to the Rest Area at MM63 south via the same route travelled into the Preserve.

During the site inspection, Quest was equipped with geo‐rectified field aerials uploaded to the Avenza©

application on hand‐held electronic devices to assist with navigation. The aerial imagery dated December

1, 2017 was overlaid with shape files consisting of approximately 169‐miles of “snail trails” provided by

NPS in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to create “field maps.” According to NPS,

the snail trails (see Figure 1) represent the seismic survey routes that were approved by NPS prior to

commencement of seismic survey activities. However, according to NPS, not all of the approved seismic

lines were traversed due to an alleged reduction in the size of the Phase I seismic survey area. Based on

a Reclamation Zone Status Map provided by FDEP dated June 28, 2019, the total length of the seismic

survey lines targeted by FDEP for reclamation is approximately 101 miles (533,926 linear feet). See Figure

3. It is unknown whether this length represents all of the seismic lines created by BOCI, or just a subset.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted a FOIA Request to NPS on August 8, 2018,

requesting information on the seismic survey activities that took place in 2018, including GIS data, shape

files, and draft restoration and compensatory mitigation plans, but has not yet received all of the

requested information.

Quest also overlaid Seismic Survey Line B and Photo Stations A through O, shown on Figures 1 and 2, onto

the field maps. Seismic Survey Line B was mapped by Quest using Google Earth© aerial imagery dated


3

May 27, 2017, and Photo Stations A through O were previously assessed and documented in Quest’s May

2018 report. The location of five (5) vibroseis vehicles observed on Google Earth© aerial imagery dated

May 27, 2017 approximately 0.85 mile west of Photo Station O was also included on field maps as a target

destination for the June 2019 inspection.

During the June 2019 inspection, Quest conducted qualitative assessments of the following variables and

recorded observations: (1) depths of water at each Photo Station within the center of the soil rutting

created by BOCI’s seismic activities that remains after BOCI’s reclamation attempt (hereinafter, “WDR”)

and from representative undisturbed areas located adjacent to (within 5 feet of) Seismic Survey Line B

shown at each Photo Station (hereinafter, “WDA”); (2) vegetation composition and abundance within and

adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B; (3) periphyton cover within and adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B; and

(4) other observations regarding soils and wildlife. Quest also ground‐tested the accuracy of the snail‐trail

locations provided by NPS by comparing them to the actual impacts observed during Quest’s prior site

inspections and impacts visible on aerial imagery dated December 1, 2017 and May 27, 2017.

Photographs were taken from each Photo Station shown on Figure 2, and at other locations where specific

observations warranted. See Appendix A.

4.0 RESULTS Observations from Quest’s June 2019 site inspection are summarized below.

4.1 Ground Elevations and Water Depths

The table below summarizes the depths of water recorded on June 15, 2019 at each Photo Station

established along Seismic Survey Line B shown on Figure 2. Water depths were recorded from the bottom

of the soil rutting created by BOCI’s seismic activities that remains after BOCI’s reclamation attempt (WDR)

and from adjacent, representative undisturbed habitats located within 5 feet of the seismic survey line

edge (WDA). Water depths recorded ranged from 2 to 7 inches and averaged 3.64 inches.

Photo Station

Water Depths in Seismic Line

(inches)

Water Depths Adjacent to Seismic Line (inches)

Differential Between Water Depths Recorded in Seismic Line and Adjacent to Seismic Line (WDR‐WDA)*

A 0 0 0

B 3 0 3

C 3 0 3

D 2.5 0 2.5

E 3 0 3

F 7.5 1 6.5

G 6 2 4


4

H 7 2 5

I 6 1 5

J 4 1.5 2.5

K 6 2.5 3.5

L 5 1.5 3.5

M 3 0 3

N 5 2 3

O 5.5 1.5 4

P 4.5 1 3.5

Q 3.25 1.25 2

R 2 0.5 1.5

S 7.5 0.5 7

Mean Differential (WDR‐WDA) = 3.64 inches

*WDR = Water depths recorded in center of soil ruts created by the seismic survey activities that remain after BOCI’s post‐reclamation attempt *WDA = Water depths recorded in representative undisturbed areas located within 5 feet of seismic survey line edge

4.2 Vegetation Abundance and Composition

A. Observations made in Seismic Survey Line B

Vegetation abundance, composition, and structure within Seismic Survey Line B remains significantly

dissimilar to adjacent habitats that were not directly impacted by seismic survey activities.

Average total groundcover was estimated at 5‐10% within Seismic Survey Line B as opposed to 40‐60% in

adjacent undisturbed habitats. Total groundcover within Seismic Survey Line B appeared slightly higher

on average in the easterly photo stations (A through L) shown on Figure 2 when compared to the westerly

photo stations (M through T), presumably due to the time passed since BOCI’s alleged reclamation

attempt. Naturally recruiting groundcover vegetation was also generally higher in the central ridge

portion of Seismic Survey Line B, which is the area of the seismic line located between the vibroseis vehicle

tires, that, therefore, experienced less severe impacts than the soils and vegetation directly traversed by

the vibroseis vehicle tires.

The dominant groundcover species naturally recruiting within Seismic Survey Line B is Gulf Coast spikerush

(Eleocharis cellulosa). Other naturally recruiting groundcover species observed in trace quantities in

Seismic Survey Line B include: lemon bacopa (Bacopa caroliniana), beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.),

witchgrass (Dichanthelium spp.), common reed (Phragmites australis), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana),

Gulf hairawn muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris var. filipes), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and pond

cypress (Taxodium ascendens) seedlings and stem sprouts. Where naturally recruiting groundcover was

present, Gulf Coast spikerush typically accounted for 95%‐100% of the total vegetation cover present, and


5

none of the other above‐mentioned species accounted for more than 1% of the total vegetation cover

present.

Trees, shrubs, and epiphytes were conspicuously absent within Seismic Survey Line B, though cut pond

cypress stumps, many exceeding two (2) feet in diameter, were locally abundant. No re‐sprouting from

dwarf pond cypress stumps that had been cut with chainsaws by BOCI seismic survey crews was observed.

However, re‐sprouting of smaller‐diameter dwarf pond cypress (1‐2 inches) stems that were broken but

not completely severed was frequently observed in the central ridge area of Seismic Survey Line B that

weren’t directly impacted by the vibroseis vehicle tires and along the edges of Seismic Survey Line B. The

dwarf pond cypress stem sprouts observed typically ranged from one (1) to (5) feet tall. Pond cypress

seedlings were rarely observed within Seismic Survey Line B, although they were frequently observed in

adjacent undisturbed habitats, suggesting that germination conditions are generally unsuitable within

Seismic Survey Line B. A few pond cypress seedlings were observed on top of the cut cypress stumps

within Seismic Survey Line B (see Appendix A, Photo 8), suggesting that the additional elevation provided

by these stumps provided the necessary substrate for cypress germination.

B. Observations made in undisturbed habitats located adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B

Total groundcover vegetation in undisturbed habitats located adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B that were

not directly impacted by seismic survey activities typically ranged from 40% to 60% of the total vegetation

cover and included a more diverse array of graminoids and forbs than the areas directly impacted by the

seismic survey activities. Hairawn muhly or sawgrass were the dominant groundcover species in the

adjacent undisturbed habitats, each typically contributing approximately 50% of the total groundcover.

Other groundcover taxa observed in lesser abundance include: little bluestem (Schizachyrium sp.),

beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.), starrush whitetop (Rhynchospora colorata), yellow bristlegrass (Setaria

parviflora), sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), gulf dune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), bushy

bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), Gulf Coast spike rush, arrowfeather threeawn (Aristida

purpurascens), witchgrass (Dichanthelium sp.), common reed, rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis),

Bartram’s rosegentian (Sabatia decandra), fewflower milkweed (Asclepias lanceolata), Baldwin’s milkwort

(Polygala balduinii), ladies‐tresses (Spiranthes sp.), flax (Linum sp.), blue‐eyed grass (Sisyrinchium sp.), and

narrowleaf yellowtops (Flaveria linearis). Pond cypress and shrub seedlings also contributed minor

amounts to the total percent groundcover.

Trees, shrubs, and epiphytes were abundant in adjacent undisturbed habitats when compared to the

vegetation found within Seismic Survey Line B. Both large (up to 8 inches diameter breast height or “dbh”)

and small (1‐2 inches dbh) dwarf pond cypress were present in adjacent undisturbed habitats, providing

up to approximately 50% canopy cover in places, though considerable variation in canopy cover was

observed along the inspection route. Most of the pond cypress trees observed also supported abundant

epiphytes, primarily consisting of state‐listed and non‐listed bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.) and the Florida

butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Shrubs such as wax‐myrtle (Morella cerifera), corkwood (Stillingia

aquatica), cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), and falsewillow (Baccharis sp.) were also frequently observed

in adjacent undisturbed areas, though they typically represented less than 5% of total vegetation cover.


6

The parasitic love vine (Cassytha filiformis) was also a frequent component of adjacent undisturbed

habitats, typically twining on larger groundcover stems, shrubs, or pond cypress saplings.

C. Nuisance and exotic plant species observed

An extensive population of the invasive exotic plant torpedograss (Panicum repens) was observed within

and adjacent to the Florida Trail along most of its length between the trailhead at Collier County Rest Area

at MM63 South and near its intersection with Seismic Survey Line B, just east of Photo Station A shown

on Figure 2. Though this torpedograss population may have been present prior to the onset of seismic

survey activities, it appeared that the total cover and extent of torpedograss had increased in this area

since the seismic survey began, as observed by Quest in prior inspections. Torpedograss is listed as a

Category I invasive species by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2019). It is a highly‐aggressive

invader of disturbed ecosystems that spreads primarily via rhizomes. It often forms dense monocultures

in or near shallow waters such as Lake Okeechobee, where it is estimated to have displaced approximately

7,000 acres of native marsh (UF‐IFAS, 2008).

Two (2) native, but potentially nuisance species were observed in trace amounts within Seismic Survey

Line B – common reed and Carolina willow. A few stems of common reed were observed near Photo

Station E (see Appendix A, Photo 4). These recruited stems were in the vicinity of a small population of

common reed that was adjacent to Photo Station E, which most likely provided the propagule source via

rhizomes. The vigorous growth of common reed observed within Seismic Survey Line B (stems 3‐4 feet

tall) suggests that conditions are favorable for the continued growth and spread of this nuisance species

once established within the seismic survey lines created. A few Carolina willow seedlings were also

observed on top of cut pond cypress stumps within Seismic Survey Line B (see Appendix A, Photo 12),

though none were observed in adjacent undisturbed habitats. These Carolina willow propagules were

most likely wind‐dispersed, and the elevated platforms of the pond cypress stumps provide suitable

conditions for their germination and establishment.

4.3 Periphyton

Periphyton cover was significantly reduced within Seismic Survey Line B compared to adjacent

undisturbed habitats. Even in the easterly portions of Seismic Survey Line B where reclamation

supposedly occurred more than one (1) year ago, periphyton cover was typically less than 1% of the total

vegetation coverage within the seismic line compared to estimates of up to 75% periphyton cover of

available interstitial space in adjacent undisturbed habitats (see Appendix A, Photo 10). Within Seismic

Survey Line B, the minimal periphyton cover observed was primarily confined to the edges of the impacted

seismic survey line and within the central ridge of the seismic line unimpacted by the vibroseis vehicles

tires where overall soil disturbance was less severe and water depths were shallower.


7

4.4 Soils

It was generally observed that soils within the portions of Seismic Survey Line B that BOCI attempted to

reclaim were looser and less‐consolidated than soils located adjacent to the seismic survey line.

Inundated soils within the reclaimed portions of Seismic Survey Line B were slurry‐like and easily displaced

by the compression of footsteps, resulting in significant turbidity along the inspection route. In

comparison, inundated soils adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B were firm, compact, resistant to

compression, and did not generate significant turbidity in response to pedestrian impacts. One exception

to this observation was at the east end of Seismic Survey Line B, at Photo Station A, which was not

inundated on the day of the site assessment. Reclaimed soils at this photo station were compact and

consolidated, presumably due to the higher percent sand content at this location.

4.5 Mapping Observations

Both field and remote observations of the snail trails provided by NPS indicate that these seismic lines

(total mapped length = approximately 169 miles) do not accurately reflect the actual locations of seismic

survey impacts and appear to consistently underestimate the linear extent of impacts that are visible on

Google Earth© aerial imagery dated May 27, 2017 (see Appendix A, Photos 23 and 24). Although the snail

trails generally correspond with the locations of the seismic survey impacts, they typically do not reflect

the full sinuosity of the seismic survey lines and often do not capture all of the impacted seismic survey

routes. To date, we have not received shape files from FDEP or NPS that depict the seismic lines actually

created. Therefore, it appears that significant seismic survey impacts remain undocumented and

unknown.

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 Reclamation of Ground Elevations

BOCI’s attempted reclamation of ground elevations impacted by vibroseis vehicles along Seismic Survey

Line B has reduced the differential between the depths of seismic lines created by vibroseis vehicles and

adjacent undisturbed ground elevations. However, a differential up to seven (7) inches remains at some

of the locations inspected along Seismic Survey Line B, and the average remaining differential is

approximately 3.64 inches between Photo Stations B and S shown on Figure 2. The differential in ground

elevations along Seismic Survey Line B will have adverse effects on the natural recruitment of appropriate

native vegetation within the impacted seismic survey lines due to the extremely subtle topographic

gradients that drive plant community distribution within the Preserve. As described in Quest’s May 2018

report, the typical topographical gradients within the Preserve have been reported as six (6) inches per

mile and five (5) to ten (10) inches per mile (Duever, 1986).

In an ecosystem with plant communities so significantly influenced by subtle changes in surface water

elevations, the post‐reclamation differential is expected to have a dramatic effect on the composition and

structure of the naturally recruiting vegetation community. The phenology of dominant plant species


8

within the Preserve, such as dwarf pond cypress, has evolved over millennia in response to subtle but

predictable temporal variations in surface water elevations. Seeds from keystone species such as dwarf

pond cypress must be in contact with bare mineral soil to germinate. As a result, the timing of dwarf pond

cypress seed maturation is typically between October – December (Duever, 1986), when surface waters

begin to recede at the end of the summer rainy season, and the necessary substrate for dwarf pond

cypress germination is relatively available. Quest’s observations of limited dwarf pond cypress

germination within Seismic Survey Line B being confined to the surfaces of cut dwarf cypress stumps

suggests that surface waters within the seismic survey lines did not recede sufficiently to expose the bare

mineral soil required for germination.

5.2 Vegetation Recruitment

Although some native vegetation is naturally recruiting within Seismic Survey Line B, the composition,

structure, and abundance of the naturally recruiting vegetation remains significantly dissimilar to adjacent

undisturbed communities that were not directly impacted by seismic survey activities. For example, the

cover and density of dwarf pond cypress, the sole canopy species present within the habitats bisected by

Seismic Survey Line B, was less than 1% within Seismic Survey Line B, whereas this species provides up to

50% cover in the adjacent undisturbed communities. Furthermore, the few dwarf pond cypress that were

present within Seismic Survey Line B consist of either stem sprouts from small diameter (1‐2” dbh) saplings

that survived in the central ridge area of the seismic line not directly impacted by vibroseis vehicle tires,

or the few pond cypress seedlings that germinated on top of cypress stumps cut with chain‐saws and

other microsites within Seismic Survey Line B. In contrast, adjacent undisturbed communities typically

support a wide‐range of pond cypress size classes, including some trees with buttress diameters of 2‐4

feet, and comparatively abundant pond cypress seedlings.

It is anticipated that opportunities for pond cypress seedling establishment within Seismic Survey Line B

will continue to be limited due to the post‐reclamation differential in ground elevations described in

Sections 4.1 and 5.1 herein, and the prolonged inundation of the reclaimed seismic lines compared to

adjacent undisturbed habitats. Pond cypress cones typically mature between October and December

(Duever, 1986). Cypress seeds require contact with bare mineral soil for germination, and seedlings must

rapidly elongate their shoots to exceed rising water elevations associated with the onset of summer rains.

If reclaimed seismic lines remain inundated significantly longer than adjacent undisturbed habitats, it is

expected that this narrow window for cypress seedling establishment will be missed, as it apparently was

in 2018‐2019 along most of Seismic Survey Line B. This is expected to exacerbate the temporal lag

associated with the loss of wetland function within the impacted seismic survey lines, compounding the

already‐extreme temporal lag associated with the loss of hundreds of dwarf pond cypress, a substantial

number of which were greater than 4 inches dbh, that were impacted by BOCI’s seismic survey crews.

Groundcover vegetation within impacted seismic survey lines is also significantly dissimilar to adjacent

undisturbed communities in abundance, composition, and species richness. Although the dominant

species recruiting within Seismic Survey Line B, Gulf Coast spikerush, is a native species that is also present

in adjacent communities, it is not the dominant groundcover species in any of the unimpacted adjacent


9

communities observed by Quest. Adjacent groundcover is typically dominated by sawgrass or Gulf

hairawn muhly and includes a tremendous variety of other graminoids and forbs that are often present in

trace amounts, yet contribute significantly to the unique character, diversity, and beauty of the marl

prairie and cypress strand communities in the Preserve. It is anticipated that percent groundcover and

species richness will gradually increase within the impacted seismic survey lines over time, but, at present,

it is unknown whether these impacted areas will ever achieve significant similarity to the adjacent

undisturbed groundcover communities or how long that may take. The functional loss and unknown

temporal lag associated with full restoration and mitigation of the seismic survey impacts to the

groundcover layer must also be taken into consideration by NPS and FDEP when calculating BOCI’s

compensatory mitigation requirements and assessing reclamation success.

5.3 Periphyton

Periphyton is virtually absent within Seismic Survey Line B, yet remains abundant, often occupying all

interstitial space between established vascular plants, in adjacent undisturbed communities that were not

directly impacted by the seismic survey. This complex assemblage of microalgae (up to 700 taxa),

cyanobacteria, microinvertebrates, and detritus is one of the most distinctive and unique ecological

features of South Florida wetland plant communities underlain by shallow limestone bedrock (Brown and

Wright, 2009). Periphyton is known to be a critical component of the food web as it provides the primary

food source for small consumers such as fish and invertebrates, and also accounts for more than half of

the primary productivity in south Florida marl wetlands (Gaiser, 2008). It also contributes significantly to

many other important ecological variables by contributing dissolved oxygen to the water column,

facilitating nutrient cycling, regulating the diffusion of carbon dioxide, and maintaining water clarity

(Brown and Wright, 2009). In recognition of its vital role to these important processes, the South Florida

Water Management District designed and implemented an approximately 400‐acre Periphyton‐based

Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) in Palm Beach County in 2007, in an effort to reduce phosphorus inputs

to the Everglades. The potential and timeframe for recovery of the periphyton community within the

impacted seismic survey lines is unknown at this time, but observations made in June 2019 demonstrate

that no significant recovery has occurred within the past 1‐2 years since reclamation activities allegedly

commenced. The dissimilarity in periphyton cover between the seismic survey lines and adjacent

undisturbed habitats should be taken into account by NPS and FDEP when assessing the success of BOCI’s

reclamation efforts and in calculating compensatory mitigation requirements for the loss of wetland

function.

5.4 Soils

The physical dissimilarity between soils within and adjacent to Seismic Survey Line B enhances concerns

about the ability of the soils within impacted seismic survey lines to recover, and the length of time that

may be required to do so. The firm and compact nature of adjacent undisturbed soils presumably

developed over many years of soil particle sorting and consolidation as a result of natural processes such

as rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, and gravity. This historic soil profile was initially destroyed by soil

rutting and compaction caused by vibroseis and other off‐road vehicles driving over them and then re‐


10

disturbed by subsequent reclamation attempts. Inundated soils within the rutted portions of Seismic

Survey Line B observed during Quest’s June 2019 inspection resembled a muddy slurry. Although these

soils may have appeared to be at similar elevations and consistencies to adjacent undisturbed soils when

first reclaimed during the dry season, the subsequent occupation of abundant pore space by water and

lack of existing vegetation to help bind soil particles has rendered them quite dissimilar. It is anticipated

that the seismic lines created will be even more visible during ensuing dry seasons when water table

drawdowns reduce the buoyancy and pore space of the reclaimed soils. These fluctuations in soil physical

properties during each wet‐dry cycle within the Preserve are expected to further discourage the re‐

establishment of desirable native vegetation within the impacted seismic survey lines, particularly for non‐

rhizomatous vegetation species that have more specific requirements for germination and are most

vulnerable to ambient changes during their establishment.

5.5 Mapping

A comparison of snail‐trails (i.e., NPS‐approved seismic lines) to actual seismic survey lines created by

BOCI in the Preserve generates significant concerns about the accurate quantification of seismic survey

impacts. Although the snail trails appear to roughly follow seismic survey lines observed on Google

Earth© aerial imagery dated May 27, 2017, and those observed during Quest’s site inspections, most of

the snail trails do not fully encompass the seismic lines actually created in the Preserve. This raises

significant concerns about the accurate quantification of total impacts, which is further highlighted in

Quest’s May 2018 report. The full nature and extent of the impacts created in the Preserve by BOCI’s

seismic survey activities remains unknown due to the lack of availability of post‐seismic survey high‐

resolution aerial imagery and outstanding August 2018 FOIA requests to NPS made by NRDC requesting

this information that remain unfulfilled. In addition to concerns about apparent inaccuracies and

underestimation of linear seismic survey impacts, there is also considerable variation in the width of the

seismic lines, and no indication that FDEP, NPS, or BOCI have attempted to quantify this dimension. Given

the severity of the wetland impacts caused by BOCI’s seismic survey activities, including the significant

temporal lag and risk associated with restoration of the soil compaction, hydrologic impacts, and loss of

species richness and diversity, NPS and FDEP should require BOCI to provide compensatory mitigation

calculated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), pursuant to Chapter 62‐345,

Florida Administrative Code.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Quest’s June 2019 inspection of the Preserve revealed that the most basic features of the wetland systems

impacted by BOCI’s seismic survey activities have not been restored or mitigated, yet FDEP and NPS, to

date, have deemed approximately 90.1% of BOCI’s attempted reclamation as complete. Profound

dissimilarities between seismic lines created, and adjacent undisturbed communities remain in terms of

ground elevations; dwarf pond cypress cover and density; groundcover abundance, composition, species

richness; periphyton cover; and physical soil properties. Recovery of these features does not appear

imminent and may not be possible.


11

NPS’s and FDEP’s ability to deem 90.1% of BOCI’s reclamation attempts complete appears to be based

solely on re‐grading the seismic survey lines. NPS and FDEP also discussed requiring 80% cover of native

facultative or obligate plant species of the total vegetation cover in the seismic lines and no more than

5% cover of exotic and invasive species of the total vegetation cover in the seismic lines, as measured over

at least three (3) years of “long‐term monitoring” of the seismic lines BOCI created and attempted to

reclaim by re‐grading impacted soils. These criteria are woefully inadequate measures of success for the

impacted wetland habitats in many ways, but most significantly because they do not encompass

vegetation composition, but, rather, only abundance, and they do not address other fundamental

components of these habitats, such as periphyton cover and the re‐establishment of dwarf pond cypress

These criteria also allow for a five‐fold increase in invasive species cover in areas such as Seismic Survey

Line B that previously had none and impose no limit on the percent cover of other nuisance and/or exotic

vegetation in areas where such cover was historically minimal to non‐existent. In short, these criteria

provide no incentive or requirement for BOCI to restore the impacted areas to any semblance of the

vegetation communities that were impacted. On the contrary, they allow a significantly altered

community that is not representative or similar to the adjacent, undisturbed communities to remain.

Quest and John Meyer, PWS, provided suggestions for seismic line maintenance and monitoring methods

and more robust wetland restoration success criteria in a letter to the Preserve’s Superintendent, Laura

Perdices, dated March 23, 2019, which is attached hereto as Appendix B. The suggested restoration

success criteria encompassed the fundamental characteristics of the impacted wetland habitats, such as

cypress density, groundcover vegetation composition and abundance, and periphyton cover, as well as

proposed methodology that accounts for the considerable variation in vegetation cover and abundance

that typifies the Preserve. It is recommended that NPS and FDEP re‐consider the wetland restoration

success criteria and compensatory mitigation and require accurate quantification and classification of

impacts before releasing BOCI from reclamation or mitigation requirements.

7.0 LITERATURE CITED Brown, P. and A.L. Wright. 2009. The Role of Periphyton in the Everglades. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, Publication No. SL 310.

Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L.A. Riopelle, T.R. Alexander, R.L.

Myers, and D.P. Spangler. 1986b. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report No. 8 of the

National Audubon Society. New York, New York. 468 pp.

FLEPPC. 2019 List of Invasive Plant Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, available at: www.fleppc.org.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida: 2010 edition.

Tallahassee, Florida. 278 pp.

Gaiser, E. 2008. Periphyton as an indicator of restoration in the Everglades. Ecological Indicators 9:6, Supp.

1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.


12

Google © 2019. Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery of Phase I Seismic Survey Area, Big Cypress National

Preserve ‐ May 27, 2017. Accessed August 9, 2018.

National Park Service (NPS), 2019. Staff comments made during 2/25/19 meeting with NPS, FDEP, Quest

Ecology, NRDC, National Parks Conservation Association, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and

John Meyer, PWS. Big Cypress National Preserve Headquarters. Ochopee, Florida.

Quest Ecology. 2018. Seismic Survey Inspection Report, Big Cypress National Preserve, May 2018.

Quest Ecology. 2017. Technical Review of Wetlands, Wildlife, Vegetation and Habitat Aspects of Phase I

Burnett Oil Company Nobles Grade 3‐D Seismic Survey, Big Cypress National Preserve, August

2017.

University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Circular 1529. Invasive Species Management Plans for Florida (2008),

available at: https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant‐directory/panicum‐repens/.

!(

!(

Path

(E:\M

appin

g\Burn

ett O

il in Bi

g Cyp

ress P

reserv

e\Map

s\Jun

e 201

9 Ins

pecti

on R

eport

\Fig 1

Loca

tion M

ap w

ith FO

IA Sn

ail Tr

ails.m

xd) B

y: AQ

Date

: 9/9/

2019

Figu re 1. Location Map with “Snail Trails” Provided by the National Park ServiceNobles Grade 3-D Seismic Su rvey (Bu rnett Oil Co., Inc.)

Natu ral Resou rces Defense Cou ncilBig Cy press National Preserve, Florida

.0 1Miles

LegendApprox. Phase I Seismic Survey Boundary

!( Collier County Rest Area (MM 63)!( Vibroseis Trucks per Google Earth Imagery 5/27/2017

Oil PadOil Pad RoadSeismic Survey Line BSnail Trail (~169 Miles)Florida National Scenic Trail

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!( R Q

PST ML

KJ

B

IH G

C

F

A

DEO

N

Path

(E:\M

appin

g\Burn

ett O

il in Bi

g Cyp

ress P

reserv

e\Map

s\Jun

e 201

9 Ins

pecti

on R

eport

\Fig 2

Surve

y Line

B Ph

otosta

tions

.mxd

) By:

AQ D

ate: 9

/9/20

19

Figure 2. Seismic Survey Line B and 6/15/19 Photo StationsNobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey (Burnett Oil Co., Inc.)

Natural Resources Defense CouncilBig Cypress National Preserve, Florida

.0 1,000Feet

!( Vibroseis Trucks per Google Earth Imagery 5/27/2017

!( Photostation

!( Collier County Rest Area (MM 63)

Oil Pad RoadOil PadSeismic Survey Line BSnail Trail (~169 Miles)Florida National Scenic Trail

§̈¦75

Path

(E:\M

appin

g\Burn

ett O

il in Bi

g Cyp

ress P

reserv

e\Map

s\Jun

e 201

9 Ins

pecti

on R

eport

\Fig 3

Rec

lamati

on Zo

ne St

atus M

ap.m

xd) B

y: AQ

Date

: 9/9/

2019

Figure 3. Reclamation Zone Status Map as of 6/28/19 Provided by the Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNobles Grade 3-D Seismic Survey (Burnett Oil Co., Inc.)

Natural Resources Defense CouncilBig Cypress National Preserve, Florida .

Appendix A Photodocumentation

Photo Credit: Mary James, Quest Ecology Inc., June 15, 2019

Photo 1: View west near Photo Station A on Seismic Survey Line B, just west of the intersection with the Florida

Trail.

Photo 2: Florida black bear track in Seismic Survey Line B between Photo Stations B and C.



Photo 3: View northwest at Photo Station D.

Photo 4: Nuisance species common reed (Phragmites australis) established in Seismic Survey Line B near Photo Station E.



Photo 5: View west at Photo Station F.

Photo 6: View west at Photo Station G



Photo 7: View northwest near Photo Station K.

Photo 8: Dwarf pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens) seedling established on a cypress stump between Photo Stations L and M.



Photo 9: View west at Photo Station L.

Photo 10: Edge of Seismic Survey Line B showing contrast in periphyton cover between impacted and unimpacted sides of the survey line between Photo Stations L and M.



Photo 11: View west from Photo Station M. Reclamation efforts here and west of here were apparently conducted more recently than easterly portions of Seismic Survey Line B.

Photo 12: Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) established on dwarf cypress (Taxodium ascendens) stump near Photo Station O.



Photo 13: View west from ~350 feet southwest of Photo Station O.

Photo 14: View north of Oil Pad Rd where it intersects with Seismic Survey Line B near Photo Station P.



Photo 15: View west from Photo Station P, just west of intersection of Seismic Survey Line B and Oil Pad Rd.

Photo 16: View west from Photo Station Q.



Photo 17: View east from Photo Station Q.

Photo 18: View west from Photo Station R.



Photo 19: Cut dwarf cypress stump on north edge of Seismic Survey Line B at Photo Station R. The stump base is approximately 2 feet in diameter, and diameter at breast height was approximately 6 inches.

Photo 20: View southeast from Photo Station S, where a convoy of 5 Vibroseis vehicles are visible on 5/27/17 Google Earth imagery.



Photo 21: View northwest from Photo Station S, where a convoy of 5 Vibroseis vehicles are visible on 5/27/17 Google Earth imagery.

Photo 22: View northwest of Photo Station T, where an apparent monitoring transect was established perpendicular the Seismic Survey Line B. An orange-capped stake is visible in the center of the impact area, and 2 others are established in the adjacent un-impacted area, forming a straight line. Four (4) of these apparent transects were encountered between Photo Stations A and T.



Photo 23: Example of ‘snail trail’ mapping (pink lines) and Quest mapping (red line) of a portion of Seismic Survey Line B near Photo Station E overlaid on 5/27/17 Google Earth imagery. This is representative of the low accuracy of snail trail mapping observed along the entire route inspected on 6/15/19. If the ‘snail trails’ are intended to represent actual source line impacts, their total length of 169 miles appears to be significantly underestimated.

Photo 24: Another example of low-level accuracy ‘snail trail’ mapping (pink lines) compared to Quest mapping of Seismic Survey Line B (red line) near Photo Stations I and J. Google Earth aerial imagery dated 5/27/17.

1

Natural Resources Defense Council • Conservancy of Southwest Florida • National Parks Conservation Association • Center for Biological Diversity

March 28, 2019

Superintendent Laura Perdices Big Cypress National Preserve 33100 Tamiami Trail East Ochopee, FL 34141 Via electronic mail to: [email protected]

RE: Burnett Oil Company, Inc.’s Phase I Geophysical Exploration Activities in the Big Cypress National Preserve

Dear Superintendent Perdices,

Thank you for hosting the undersigned Conservation Organizations and representatives from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on February 25, 2019, to discuss Burnett Oil Company, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “Burnett Oil”) Phase I geophysical exploration activities for the Nobles Grade 3-D Geophysical Seismic Survey in the Big Cypress National Preserve (hereinafter, “Preserve” or “Big Cypress”). We really appreciate your time and attention on this important matter and courtesy in escorting us into the Preserve to view the damage together. We write to share ideas from our environmental consultants on the methodologies used to assess the damage and monitoring and maintenance of the reclamation, as well as compensatory mitigation for the loss in wetland function and Florida panther habitat. Our understanding from the meeting is that the total length of source line impacts created by the seismic testing completed thus far in 2017 and 2018 is approximately 106.5 miles. We are unclear whether this calculation includes all impacts, or just those areas that Burnett Oil asserts it does not plan to retraverse. For purposes of this letter, we will assume this calculation includes all impacts caused by the seismic testing, but please let us know if this assumption is incorrect. We would clearly like to see the successful completion of reclamation of all adverse impacts caused by Burnett Oil’s seismic survey activities. If seismic survey line widths are assumed to be 10 to 15 feet, this equates to a minimum of 129 to 194 acres of total direct impacts overall. We also understand from last month’s meeting that the Phase I seismic survey reclamation area has been divided into 20 work zones, each containing approximately 3.15 to 7.95 miles of seismic survey lines. This is part of the information upon which we based the recommendations made herein, so please let us know if this understanding is incorrect. This letter is intended to supplement prior reports and assessments by Quest Ecology that we previously shared with the National Park Service (NPS) and FDEP.

I. Proposed Maintenance and Monitoring Methodology

A. Qualitative

2

To prevent the potential spread of nuisance-exotic vegetative species (N/E’s), the total length of the source lines (i.e., ~106.5 miles) should be qualitatively monitored annually during the dry season via a complete pedestrian survey. Personnel highly-skilled in the identification of N/E’s should be deployed by helicopter (as needed) to each work zone. Helicopter deployment shall be carefully planned in advance to minimize the number of flights and landing sites necessary to access work zones that cannot be reasonably accessed on foot and/or via established ORV trails. The locations of any N/E populations encountered during the pedestrian surveys shall be documented, described (e.g. latitude/longitude, species, approximate area (ft2) of infestation), mapped, and flagged in the field to facilitate re-location by maintenance personnel. N/E’s shall include all species listed as invasive by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (FLEPPC, 2017) most current list,1 any species designated as exotic by the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (Wunderlin et al, 2019),2 and native nuisance species including, but not limited to, cattails (Typha spp.), common reed (Phragmites spp.), and Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana). Small, isolated N/E populations identified by monitoring personnel shall be removed by hand, as feasible, during each monitoring event.

Maps and GPS data documenting the locations of all N/E populations encountered in each work zone should be provided to NPS and FDEP within 7 days of qualitative monitoring completion within each work zone. Burnett Oil should deploy maintenance personnel highly-skilled in the identification of N/E’s to eradicate all N/E populations identified within each work zone within 14 days of receiving the N/E location approvals from NPS and FDEP. All eradication treatments shall be completed within 30 days of initiation and conducted in compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations. Hand-removal of small, isolated N/E populations is recommended. If hand removal is not feasible, the least toxic alternative shall be employed to eradicate N/E populations, based upon consultation with experts in Integrated Pest Management after the targeted species and infestation areas have been determined.

During the performance of qualitative pedestrian surveys, the locations of any remaining debris or equipment leftover from seismic survey activities shall also be documented and reported in writing to NPS and FDEP. Any other areas of concern observed during the qualitative surveys (such as renewed use of source lines by ORVs, additional source lines not documented by current NPS data, incomplete topographic grading or reclamation of ruts, mortality of trees greater than 4 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) not previously documented by NPS, etc.) shall also be documented and reported to NPS and FDEP.

B. Quantitative

Baseline quantitative monitoring shall be conducted as soon as possible in the 2019 dry season according to the protocols described herein. Qualified, independent monitors shall install one pair of permanent, long-term quantitative monitoring plots per 0.5 mile of source line in each

1Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC), List of Invasive Plant Species (2017), https://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. 2 Wunderlin, R. P., B. F. Hansen, A. R. Franck, and F. B. Essig, Atlas of Florida Plants (2019), http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/. [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), USF Water Institute.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa. Accessed 3/8/19.

3

designated work zone (e.g. 6-16 paired plots per work zone, or ~213 paired plots total). Each pair of plots shall consist of one impact plot established entirely within the footprint of a source line created by the seismic testing (hereinafter, “impact plot”), and one adjacent, undisturbed control plot (hereinafter, “control plot”) established 20 feet away at a 90-degree angle (as measured from the center-point of either outer edge of each impact plot). Each pair of plots shall be 10 to 15 ft2, depending on the width of the impacted source line at each paired plot location. If for any reason the tree density and composition in the control plot is determined by independent, professional ecological judgment to be dissimilar or unrepresentative of the tree density and composition in the corresponding impact plot that existed prior to the seismic testing, the 20 feet/90 degree offset protocol shall be adjusted to the minimum degree necessary to locate the control plot in an adjacent area that is most representative of the corresponding impact plot, prior to impact. Any deviations from the 20 feet/90 degree angle plot establishment protocol shall be thoroughly documented and approved by NPS and FDEP prior to subsequent annual monitoring events.

The location of paired plots within each designated work zone shall be selected remotely via aerial photography interpretation by qualified, independent, ecological personnel and approved in advance by NPS and FDEP. Plot locations shall be representative of the range of impacts that occurred within each work zone. For example, paired plots shall be established in areas that appear to have the highest and lowest densities of impacted cypress according to the most recently available aerial imagery (e.g. Google Earth 2017 or later), and the remaining paired plots should be established in an intermediate range of cypress densities that proportionally represent the range of impacts within the work zone. A representative range of hydrologic conditions and equitable spatial distribution should also be considered during the remote plot selection process. Burnett Oil, or its contractors, shall submit all remotely-selected plot locations for each work zone to NPS and FDEP for review and approval prior to commencement of baseline quantitative monitoring.

During the baseline monitoring event, all vascular plant species rooted within each pair of 10 to 15 ft2 plots shall be identified according to Wunderlin et al (2019). The percent of the ground surface (or stump surface, in the case of coppicing cypress in impact plots) occupied by each species identified shall be estimated, and the wetland indicator status assigned for each species according to Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The percent cover of periphyton (if present in the control plot) shall also be estimated in all plots because the presence of periphyton is an indicator of overall ecosystem health.3 However, the presence of periphyton shall not count toward the success criterion requiring a minimum 80 percent coverage of facultative wet and obligate species listed in Chapter 62-340, F.A.C. The depth of water, if present, shall be measured and recorded in both the impact and control plots. Water depths shall be measured in the approximate center of each control plot and in the deepest portion of the reclaimed ruts in the impact plot, and the differential (in inches) shall be documented and reported to NPS and FDEP. If water is not present, the approximate elevation difference between the control plot and the lowest point within the impact plot shall be documented and reported to NPS and FDEP.

3 Gaiser, Evelyn. (2009). Periphyton as an indicator of restoration in the Florida Everglades. Ecological Indicators. 9S. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.08.004.

4

Tree density (presumably, cypress) shall be calculated in all plots. Tree counts shall be limited to those individuals exceeding the Seasonal High Water (SHW) elevation in height, as determined by professional ecological evaluation of adjacent SHW indicators. Stump or stem sprouts from a cut or broken/bent cypress in an impact plot shall be counted as one individual, the intent being to calculate density based on individual root systems.

After the baseline monitoring event, annual dry-season monitoring of the impact plots and comparison to data collected for each adjacent control plot only shall continue, until NPS and FDEP have determined that the success criteria have been achieved for all impact plots in each designated work zone, and NPS and FDEP have determined that no further monitoring or maintenance is required.

II. Proposed Restoration Success Criteria

Burnett Oil, or its contractors, shall quantitatively monitor all impact plots annually for a period of at least five years during the dry season and compare to baseline data in each adjacent control plot, until all success criteria have been continuously met for all impact plots within each work zone for a period of two (2) consecutive years, without intervention in the form of irrigation, N/E treatments, replanting of desirable vegetation, soil re-grading, or soil decompaction:

There shall be 0% coverage of N/E’s (N/E’s include all FLEPPC species in the 2017 or most recent list), all species listed as exotic by the Atlas of Florida Plants (Wunderlin et al, 2019), and native nuisance species, including but not limited to cattails (Typha spp.), common reed (Phragmites spp.), and Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) in each impact plot;

There shall be a minimum of 80% of total vegetative coverage of desirable obligate or facultative wet vegetation, as defined in Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., in each impact plot;

The dominant groundcover species in each impact plot shall be the same dominant groundcover species in each adjacent control plot;

Species richness in each impact plot shall be at least 50% of the species richness in each adjacent control plot;

Cypress density in each impact plot shall be equal to or greater than cypress density in each adjacent control plot; and

Periphyton cover in each impact plot shall be equal to or greater than periphyton cover in each adjacent control plot.

III. Adaptive Management

If, after a period of three years of maintenance and monitoring, any impact plots are not showing a positive trend toward achievement of success criteria, adaptive management shall be required. Adaptive management may include, but is not limited to, supplemental planting of desirable vegetation, re-contouring/decompaction of impacted source lines, and re-evaluation of mitigation requirements. All adaptive management strategies shall be reviewed and approved by NPS and FDEP prior to implementation.

5

IV. Compensatory Mitigation

A. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method

It is a fundamental concept in Florida that the loss of wetland functions due to man-made impacts, despite the best efforts designed to offset such impacts through restoration, require that some portion of those functions be replaced due to risk that pre-impact function will not fully return and the amount of time necessary to achieve full restoration. In general, habitat functions that are lost, either permanently or during the time elapsed from impact to full recovery, must be offset through a mitigation plan that provides similar functions.

Rule 62-345.600, F.A.C., provides the methodology for determining time lag and risk as part of the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). Table 1 of this rule assigns a multiplier for wetland mitigation based on the amount of time necessary for a specific mitigation area and type to attain all wetland functions associated with the wetland habitat type being created, enhanced, or restored. In this situation, the multiplier would be assigned based on habitat types impacted and restored, as determined by an assessment of acres impacted for different habitat types.

For example, for seismic survey lines that impacted dwarf (scrub) cypress habitat now being restored, the multiplier associated with a time lag of 55 years or more would be 3.91. Accordingly, the amount of mitigation conducted just for temporal loss would be equivalent to the number of acres of dwarf (scrub) cypress impacted, multiplied by 3.91. This assumes that the same level of functional gain is derived from mitigation, after applying time lag and risk, as the functional gains derived from restoration of that particular habitat type, after consideration of the risk involved for successful restoration of that habitat type.

Restoration of impacts associated with preexisting ORV trails, oil pads, old agricultural fields, ditches, and ditch berms within the Preserve may serve as mitigation projects worthy of consideration and are preferable to the purchasing of mitigation bank credits. However, the treatment of N/E vegetation would have less functional gain than complete restoration and should, consequently, require a higher multiplier that yields additional mitigation acres to offset functional loss from time lag. Once the amount of mitigation has been determined, using UMAM to increase or decrease amounts of lower-quality or higher-quality mitigation, respectively, a comprehensive mitigation plan should be developed by NPS and FDEP that includes defined success criteria and long-term maintenance and monitoring criteria.

B. Florida Panther Habitat Assessment Method

Additionally, any proposed mitigation plan should include mitigation of adverse impacts to endangered Florida panther habitat caused by Burnett Oil’s seismic activities using the Panther Habitat Assessment Method to determine the amount of compensation required for Panther Focus Area habitat loss.4

4 See Quest Ecology, Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Effects of Seismic Survey for Oil and Gas In and Near the Big Cypress National Preserve on the Florida Panther (October 2018), available at:

6

V. Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work together to ensure the impacts caused by the seismic testing are fully reclaimed and mitigated, and we hope these recommendations are helpful. We understand from our February meeting that Dr. Mark Ford, NPS Regional Wetlands Ecologist, plans to visit the areas of the Preserve impacted by Burnett Oil’s seismic activities to draft a report containing recommendations on reclamation and mitigation. We respectfully request a copy of Dr. Ford’s report once a draft is completed and would welcome the opportunity to meet with him to discuss the report’s recommendations. We again reiterate our concerns with any continued seismic testing until Burnett Oil can demonstrate that it can fully and successfully reclaim and mitigate the existing damage it caused in 2017 and 2018. Therefore, we renew our request for a “time out” on further seismic activities so that NPS and FDEP can fully assess the existing damage and until all minimization and mitigation measures can be satisfied. We also request written notice in the event Burnett Oil seeks permission to resume any seismic testing activities. Finally, we would appreciate an update on NRDC’s two outstanding FOIA requests made in August 2018. We are better able to provide recommendations for reclamation, compensatory mitigation, and maintenance and monitoring, if we have complete information on the nature and extent of the damage caused by the seismic testing. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your consideration and we look forward to continuing to work with you and FDEP to ensure full reclamation and mitigation of the damage caused by Burnett Oil’s seismic testing in Big Cypress. Sincerely, Alison Kelly Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council 1152 15th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 717-8297 [email protected] John Adornato, III Deputy Vice President for Regional Programs National Parks Conservation Association 450 N. Park Road, Suite 301 Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 961-1280 x 400 [email protected]

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/preliminary-evaluation-of-potential-effects-of-seismic-surveying-for-oil-andgas-on-the-endangered-florida-panther_2018-10-16.pdf.

7

Nicole Johnson Director of Environmental Policy Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 (239) 262-0304 [email protected] Jaclyn Lopez Florida Director/Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 2155 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 (727) 490-9190 [email protected] cc: Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks Tony Pernas, Acting Chief of Resource Management, National Park Service Don Hargrove, Regional Minerals Manager, National Park Service Cindy Mulkey, Oil and Gas Program Administrator, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Jon M. Iglehart, South District Director, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Pierre Bruno, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

SEISMIC SURVEY INSPECTION REPORT BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL ... · Phase I Seismic Survey Inspection...

Documents

Transcript of SEISMIC SURVEY INSPECTION REPORT BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL ... · Phase I Seismic Survey Inspection...