Last semester I taught Natural Resources Law for the first time. Some of the themes we encountered throughout the course included: the federal government's constitutional authority over public lands, the National Park Service's dual mandate to promote conservation and enjoyment of NPS lands, "multiple use" principles, tribal natural resources, wilderness designation, federal energy policy, oil and gas exploration and development, environmental review requirements, and designation of critical habitat for endangered species. As if tailor made as a law school exam hypothetical, controversial management of the Big Cypress national preserve in South Florida invokes each of these themes.
National Parks Traveler has an excellent rundown of the preserve's troubled past. A recent decision from the NPS to forego an Environmental Impact Statement in favor of an Environmental Assessment (or more simply, to forego more rigorous environmental impacts review) will allow Collier Resources (owner of oil and gas rights in the preserve) to study the preserve area to determine if oil and gas development is feasible. The decision is reigniting concerns over many dormant ambiguities in the preserve's enabling legislation and management history. Consider just a few of these ambiguities:
- the Big Cypress National Preserve is part of the National Park System and thus its ecological integrity must be maintained, but its enabling legislation provides for some oil and gas development;
- NPS management of the preserve has, at times, appeared to promote the principle of "multiple use" of public lands (allowing for extensive Off-Road Vehicle use for example), even though the principle does not apply to NPS lands;
- when the federal government acquired the lands that now make up the preserve, subsurface mineral values may have been taken into account when Collier Resources was paid for surface lands;
- Assuming Collier's mineral rights are secure, it is unclear if meaningful energy deposits are located in the preserve, making it difficult to valuate Collier's property interests in advance of a potential buy-out;
- there are several endangered species living in the preserve - such as the Florida panther - but critical habitat has never been designated
- federally recognized tribes retain certain use rights in the natural resources of the preserve
- as a vast wilderness expanse, the preserve is an obvious candidate for designation as a federally protected wilderness area, but park officials disagree on which lands should be designated as wilderness and which lands should not;
If the seismic testing and exploration moves forward as anticipated, at least one of these issues will be cleared up, as Collier and the NPS will have a better sense of how much oil and gas is located in the preserve. Historically Florida has not been an oil-rich state, so there's a good chance the exploration phase comes up empty. If that's the case, a buy-out of the mineral rights would be more feasible. If, on the other hand, Collier finds extraction worthwhile, the company will still face a difficult road. Collier will have to submit an oil and gas development plan to the NPS for approval. At that point, a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement is likely, and the fragility of the preserve's ecological resources might limit the extent of development. The low cost of oil might make such a complex extraction scheme financially impracticable even if the plan is approved and survives third-party litigation. In any case, potential oil and gas development in a national preserve (and potential wilderness area) is something to keep an eye on. If nothing else, it makes for a great case study for students of natural resources law.