A coalition of groups has announced its intention to sue the National Park Service over the off-road vehicle plan approved for the Addition lands in Big Cypress National Preserve.
The legal move was not unexpected, as several conservation groups last fall had voiced concerns over the plan, which would allow upwards of 130 miles of primary off-road vehicle routes -- and an undetermined number of secondary routes -- to be threaded through the Addition lands.
The Addition parcel is a 147,000-acre tract in the northeastern corner of the preserve. It was given to the Park Service in 1996 in a land swap with the state of Florida. At the time, Congress directed the Park Service to ban off-road vehicles and hunting in the Addition until a management plan could be developed. That plan was released in its final form in November, and officially approved by the Park Service's Southeast regional director in February.
By adopting its preferred alternative, one criticized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, members of Congress, and conservation groups, the Park Service chose to "maximize motorized access, provide the least amount of wilderness, and develop limited new hiking only trails." With this approach, the Park Service apparently was not swayed by moderate, long-term adverse impacts to water flows, to the control of non-native vegetation, or to the Florida panther the plan would deliver.
Cast aside was the "environmentally preferred" alternative, which would "emphasize resource preservation, restoration, and research while providing recreational opportunities with limited facilities and support. This alternative would provide the maximum amount of wilderness, no ORV use, and minimal new facilities for visitor contact along I-75."
On Wednesday a Notice of Intent to Sue (attached below) was filed by the Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the South Florida Wildlands Association, and the Florida Biodiversity Project. Filing the notice on behalf of the groups was the Washington, D.C., law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal. By filing the notice, the groups give the Park Service, Interior Department, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 60 days to correct potential violations of the Endangered Species Act cited by the groups.
Specifically, the groups maintain that the management plan will be detrimental to such endangered species as the Florida panther and red-cockaded woodpecker, as well as to threatened species such as the Eastern indigo snake, that reside in the Addition lands.
“We are asking the federal agencies involved to protect three highly-endangered species: the Florida Panther, the Indigo Snake and the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker,” said Bradley Stark, Esq., representing the Sierra Club. “This letter is intended to provide the agencies with an opportunity to reconsider whether this level of off-road vehicle use is allowable under federal law considering the anticipated impacts to wildlife, habitat, and one of the last pieces of wilderness that remains east of the Rocky Mountains.”
The Notice of Intent argues that the Big Cypress ORV plan would carve up thousands of acres of habitat essential to the survival of the highly endangered Florida panther.
Among the impacts that the agencies failed to even analyze was ORV traffic and motorized hunting that will significantly diminish available prey for the predatory cat, the groups maintain.
“The National Park Service is well aware of the critical importance of these lands for numerous threatened and endangered plants and animals in south Florida,” said Matthew Schwartz of South Florida Wildlands Association. “The agency could and should have chosen a course of action which puts protection of irreplaceable natural resources above motorized recreation.”
In its criticism of the selected alternative, the EPA in January expressed concern about ORVs “fragmenting the landscape into a disorganized and destructive web of trails and roads.” EPA also predicted increased air, soil and water pollution
“These lands represent the largest remaining tract of undesignated wilderness in Florida – a scarce and precious treasure of the American people,” added Brian Scherf of the Florida Biodiversity Project, pointing out that the impacts from parking lots and access points into formerly undisturbed lands were also completely overlooked.
If no measures are taken by the agencies to bring themselves into compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the groups intend to bring their legal concerns under the Endangered Species Act and other statutes that they maintain were overlooked in the decision-making process into federal court.
“Big Cypress is supposed to be a natural preserve, not a motorized recreation area,” said Jeff Ruch of PEER, noting that the Park Service improperly stripped wilderness eligibility from 40,000 acres of Preserve lands that were then re-designated for ORV trails. “This Big Cypress plan represents a new low for the National Park Service.”
Comments
Matt, if you've studied even a little about the founding of the National Park Service you know that public enjoyment of the parks was very high on the founders' list.
As for your claims about the restrictions on your "recreational freedom," you'll be happy to know that I plan to visit Cape Hatteras this summer to see for myself how your ability to move about has been impacted.
Indeed, judging from the approved ORV management plan, your complaints seem tinged with a little hyperbole. As I read it, the plan allows for nearly 28 miles of year-round designated ORV routes on the seashore, and nearly 13 miles of seasonal routes, for a total of roughly 41 miles out of the 67 miles of seashore. Just 26.4 miles are off-limits to ORVs.
Is there not somewhere within those 41 miles that you can enjoy the seashore?
Is there not somewhere within those 41 miles that you can enjoy the seashore?"
This claim always is measured in miles. What it really needs to say in unguarenteed miles open for access. Not one mile is guarenteed open, meaning less than 50 threatened birds or a birds of concern could strut their stuff at each ramp and beach entrance and BOOM no beach. There could be a case where all is open, but you cannot access it. This is the SPIN provided by all who opposed ORV's on the beach.
So in respect to what is open you can keep that for the uniformed tourists to dissappoint them. I know for a fact that one day it says open and the next it can be closed. Once Alt F is in place it will restrict access even further allowing smaller numbers of birds to close larger regions. LOOK AT THE MAPS and find a reason for why and where the VFA's are designated.
Please stop refering to this as only an ORV issue. Pedestrians cannot go there either...
Bring sunblock and a camera when you come and we will see how objective your coverage will be.
"Matt, if you've studied even a little about the founding of the National
Park Service you know that public enjoyment of the parks was very high
on the founders' list."
I have and now it is no where on any agenda. The NPS today lives to ask for more money, pay off lawyers, and look to aquire more land it cannot fund. Kind of reminds me of someone who cries poor while driving a BMW to their trailer filled with maxed out credit cards. My words of advice to the NPS is live wihin your means and stop funding lawyers.
Matt I disagree with your opinion on ORV regulations
at CHNS. Your facts to support your opinions should be true. Attacks
on groups whose opinion differ from yours are unproductive. For example from one of your other comments on a
different article you contend that environmental lawyers choose their cases by
the ones they think they will win, only because of personal financial gain. It
appears you have an axe to grind and it is obvious who that axe is directed
towards.
If you change your mind you will find beautiful places to recreate in CHNS any
time of the year.
If walking in a National Park is elitist, than put me down as one!
I recently visited Ft. Bowie in Arizona. This is a very remote place and access to the visitor center and the fort's ruins are via a 1-1/2 mile foot trail.
But before anyone gets all into a tizzy, the FOBO brochure adds that anyone with access issues may call the visitor center for directions on how to drive to the VC.
The brochure also notes that the hike into the area is "an essential part of your experience." It was. It really brought home to this old man the fortitude of anyone who lived and worked here before transportation moved beyond feet and horses. It was an awesome experience. Had there been a paved highway to the visitor center, I and countless others would have been robbed.
There will always be those who think it is their right to go roaring through and over the world and everything in it with big-tires and powerful engines. There will always be some who will demand their "right" to partake of whatever testosterone fueled machoness they wish to engage in. There will always be some whose age, physical condition, or whatever may limit their ability to access portions of the world. And there will always be some who treasure a place of peace and quiet and unspoiled natural wonder.
There is no way under the sun any agency can accomodate all of the them at the same time or in the same place. The Park Service does a more than wonderful job as they try to balance all these demands against the overiding requirement that we "preserve unimpaired" all these places we all should treasure.
Anyone who cannot, or will not, respect the wishes and needs of others and be willing to make REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION for them, is nothing less than greedy.
But then, greed seems to be the new American Way.
Ryan you do not get it. You cannot walk on the beaches closed for the birds. By elitist I mean people who recreate with a spotting scope. These groups (in my opinion) version of recreation is one step above a video game playing teenager or a peeping tom. Like all who state they wish to access parks I will say I agree there is nothing like being emersed in nature.
That is not the case in Cape Hatteras when they close the beaches to the birds. It is already happening in Cape Cod with closures that prevent ORV access, But the difference in Cape Hatteras is that the closures affect ALL.
When presented with the option to recreate in CAHA I will say I would, but now you are not guarenteed to be able to access any of the beaches as they are on the watch fro these birds. If they land and nest a 2,000 meter long section of beach is closed. Simple math state it would not take much to close the entire island down. This bit of info is true and looking at it any other way is Optimism. Proaccess (NOT PRO ORV if indeed you can understand the difference) optimism is a more concentrated grouping. All others optimism is more birds without regard to access.
When Kurt visits this summer I challenge him to report the facts. I also challenge SS! and others to make themselves available to try and spin their version of why he cannot see all of this beautiful seashore without thousands of signs blocking his view.
Matt, I disagree, I do get it. I have a strong connection to CAHA, I got married on the beach there, and my family has been going there for 40 years! I can always find a place to walk on the beach...if any area is closed, I find another, not a big deal to me.
Agreed but nieve. You simply will not recognize a simple mathmatical fact that these birds can (and will according to the numbers wished for in the recovery listed in the DEIS) shut down the beaches. I too have deep roots within this seashore in terms of multiple yearly visits from 3 to 12 times in fact over the last twenty years (lived in Michigan before that). The facts of the case are vey clea, but unless it happens no one believes it.
So here we are today living under this current situation. cup half full and cup half empty and there is nothing anyone can do about it unless lawyers or the president get involved. I assure you after reading about the history of the Big Cypress and seeing how no matter what happens we are assured in CAHA that there will be another suit from the enviros side because they did not get their way and they will find a way to bend and shape the rules to fit. This knowledge comes from recent history...