A draft backcountry access plan for Big Cypress National Preserve opens for public comment on Friday/Kurt Repanshek file
Two decades after an off-road vehicle management plan was adopted for Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, the National Park Service continues to try to alter it to greatly expand ORV access in the preserve that provides vital habitat for more than two dozen species that carry either "endangered" or "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act.
"It seems like the Park Service is at war with itself," Matthew Schwartz, executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association, said Monday after the park released the Backcountry Access Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. "This is exhausting. We thought they had given up on it.”
Since 2000, when the ORV Management Plan crafted by then-Superintendent John Donahue cut 23,300 miles of dispersed ORV trails in the preserve down to just 400 miles of designated trails, the Park Service has tried a number of times to rewrite that plan. In 2012, after Donahue's successor at Big Cypress, Karen Gustin, had moved to open an additional 44 miles of primary and secondary ORV trails in the sensitive Bear Island Unit of the preserve, which had just 22 miles of primary ORV trails under the 2000 plan, a federal judge overturned her action, saying the superintendent acted without sound reasoning.
In 2014 the Park Service reached a settlement with environmental groups that closed all secondary ORV trails in Big Cypress until a formal Backcountry Access Management Plan could be finalized. A draft of that plan was released Monday. It calls for more than 200 additional miles for off-road vehicles to travel, and another 51 miles of hiking trails. Of the additional 220 miles of ORV access, 154 miles would be for secondary access, which basically allows ORV users to go where they want, said Schwartz.
“The whole point of the off-road vehicle management plan of 2000 was it recognized clearly that off-road vehicle use in the preserve is a high impact recreational activity," he said. "They’re opening up lots of sensitive areas.”
The draft access plan notes that the 2000 Management Plan "substantially" reduced impacts, "such as rutting, channeling, and soil displacement ... with the implementation of the primary ORV trail network and the elimination of dispersed ORV travel that had historically occurred in the preserve." It also pointed to potential impacts from oil and gas exploration, but added that dozens of mitigation measures had been instituted to rehabilitate any damage that exploration created.
The Park Service in the draft Backcountry Access Management Plan acknowledged the ongoing controversy around the 2000 plan.
Controversy surrounding implementation of the 2000 Recreational ORV Management Plan has highlighted a need to clarify the meaning of various provisions, including the definitions of “secondary trail” and “destination.” Likewise, the Bear Island and secondary trails litigation has created a need for NPS to determine which of the preserve’s closed trails should be reopened. The present Plan has been prepared, in part, to re-evaluate the preserve’s trail network, establish a system of secondary ORV trails, and define a set of destinations for the original preserve. It also addresses the management of other backcountry activities in the preserve as a whole, including hiking and camping.
Whether the draft plan fully addresses the controversy remains to be seen. The plan, which is open for public comment from October 30 through December 15, also would open 203 backcountry destinations. Dispersed camping would be allowed in all of the preserve’s management zones, including Bear Island, the draft document states.
Also of concern to conservation and environmental organizations are impacts related to oil exploration by Burnett Oil Co., work that earlier this year prompted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to say the company was not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and had adversely affected the preserve's landscape. But a month later the federal agency reversed itself, with the Jacksonville, Florida, district's commander, Col. Andrew D. Kelly, Jr., rescinding "the conclusions specified in the previous letter and asserts no further action is being taken by Jacksonville District or required of Burnett for its completed seismic survey."
Alison Kelly, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's Lands Nature Program, said she hoped the backcountry access plan wouldn't lessen the National Park Service's oversight of oil companies working in the preserve.
"While backcountry planning is important, it should not be used to expand access for oil and gas companies. Burnett Oil Company has already damaged the preserve by driving 33-ton trucks off-road through its wetlands looking for oil," Kelly said in an email. "The National Park Service must study and disclose to the public the impacts caused by this oil hunt, along with any proposed recreational off-road vehicle use, which could compound that harm. Also, this plan appears to rely on the oil company to mitigate harm to wetlands, but we have seen that this approach does not prevent damage, including to the preserve’s namesake trees."
Back at the South Florida Wildlands Association, Schwartz said the impression the draft access plan left him with was that the Park Service seems to "want to open up as much of the preserve as they want. They don’t seem to understand the Organic Act, the Redwoods Act, or the preserve’s enabling legislation."
The draft document says the preferred alternative, No. 5, was selected because "it provides the greatest amount of public access to the preserve while providing for protection of cultural and natural resources." But it also notes that that option opens more miles of trail to "least resilient to unsuitable substrates" than alternative four, which would open fewer miles of ORV routes (159 miles of ORV routes under No. 4 vs. 220 miles under No. 5) and fewer backcountry destinations (136 vs 203 under No. 5).
The plan says it would improve the experience along the Florida National Scenic Trail by realigning its route through the preserve to separate ORV and non-ORV users.
While the document states the Park Service's intent to provide the "greatest amount of public access," Schwartz worries that access will overwhelm the key habitat Big Cypress preserves for so many species in need of protection.
“The preserve is really becoming a refuge for the remaining wildlife of South Florida," he said. To elevate ORV use over protection of wildlife, “it’s just a horrible way of thinking. We should have been done with this 20 years ago. The plan was written and it was implemented."
When the Park Service finalized the "foundation document" outlining the preserve's place and role in the National Park System, it appreciated the many species that rely on the preserve.
Water is the unifying force of the preserve, connecting its five habitats: hardwood hammocks, pinelands, prairies, cypress swamps, and estuaries. These diverse ecosystems encompass a dynamic mixture of tropical and temperate plant communities and wildlife. The preserve protects 9 federally listed and 31 state listed threatened and endangered or species of special concern animals and 120 state listed threatened and endangered plant species. Visitors can see nearly 200 bird species throughout the year, and large mammals such as the black bear and bobcat make the preserve their home. Federally listed animals that call the preserve home include the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, Everglade snail kite, West Indian manatee, American alligator, American crocodile, eastern indigo snake, and the Florida panther, one of the most endangered mammals in the world. Big Cypress National Preserve protects the flow of freshwater from the Big Cypress Swamp into estuaries of neighboring Everglades National Park and the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
The draft access plan, maintained Schwartz, brings into question the Park Service's dedication to preserving that wildlife at Big Cypress for future generations, as the National Park Service Organic Act directs.
“They seem to be allergic to keeping this preserve as a preserve," he said.
Traveler footnote: You can find the entire backcountry access plan, and comment on it, at this site.
National Parks Traveler is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit media organization that relies on its readers and listeners for support. If you value daily editorial coverage of national parks and protected areas, please donate to the Traveler.
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
People must remember that the reason this preserve exists is due to cooperation of the sportsmen, gladesmen, air boaters, swamp buggy owners, hunters and private land owners who were promised historical use and access. The Johnny come lately crowd need to remember that this preserve wouldn't exist without their cooperation. The reason it's called a national preserve and not a national park is because of promises made and cooperation with sportsmen. Stop going back on your word or set a dangerous president for other private landowners next time you want to expand state and federal lands. I know I will never sell my land to the state or federal government after how the sportsmen and women were treated in Big Cypress and I urge rec land owners to keep the government off your land!!!
Okay, James, let's unpack this cat you've thrown up on our porch. In your comment, you whine about how "sportsmen, gladesmen, air boaters, swamp buggy owners, hunters, and private land owners... were promised historical use and access." But, as the article indicates, this current ruckus is actually about an attempt by you and more of the worst elements of the Trump mafia to "alter" and "greatly expand" the off-road access that you already agreed to and that was already provided many years ago when the existing "off-road vehicle management plan was adopted for Big Cypress National Preserve." You are the ones trying to go back on your word and break "promises made" here!
I can see that you're not going to be able to comprehend any of this. But, the truth is that 1) nobody is trying to take away anybody's "historical use and access" here; 2) the "historical use and access" that were promised when Big Cypress was established was written into the existing "off-road vehicle management plan" for Big Cypress many years ago and those are the access rights that have been in force for years; 3) this current ruckus is actually about whether whiny lowlifes like you will get to break your own "promises made" when Big Cypress was established; 4) the "Johnny come lately crowd" in this case is actually the whiny derelicts like you; 5) it's you who are now trying to go back on your word, set your own dangerous president (the correct word is precedent, unless you really are talking about Trump), and "alter" your own "promises made" when Big Cypress was established; 6) it's lowlifes like you who are the ones who "need to remember" to keep your word; and 7) you can keep your damned "land" in the future as far as I'm concerned. Your association with it would ultimately make it the toxic fruit of the poison tree anyway.
so when I respond to the above lunatic's rant with "where does the hate come from"... My post gets deleted, I assume cancel culture is so pervasive that free speech criticizing hate speech is deleted. Amazing...
Wm, sometimes comments get deleted by mistake, and once deleted, there's no way to bring them back. Sorry for the misconception. It wasn't intentional.
I don't see the necessity for reopening as much of the land as possible for public use. It may be true that many of the most involved and passionate parties on this issue may have the best of intentions with this expanded use, but history will show that if you give people an inch, they will try to take a mile. Furthermor, no matter what the decision ends up being, oil and gas companies should not take the expansion of RECREATIONAL trails as an opportunity to expand their businesses. There is little mention in the NPS preferred plan of how these vulnerabilites will be mitigated, other than that they will do their best to preserve the natural resources of the area. I feel for the true Gladesmen who want to access this land responsibly and consientiously, but the fact of the matter is these proposals are too vague and should not be implemented via sweeping reform. Why not a permit program (not one that gouges those who seek access) that offered access for responsible parties, which could also be revoked should they be found abusing their increased access to areas that the general public and oil and natural gas companies are not permitted to explore?
Follow the money--it will be taken from the public coffers to benefit whom? If it is not the general public, the taxpayers,
who have voiced opposition to this project, then it should NOT be undertaken.
As a Broward Sierra Club member, I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the recreational off-road access trails in the Big Cypress Preserve. Conservation and preservation for future generations is the hallmark of sustainability when it comes to protecting South Florida's remaining wetlands and ecosystems. There is so much to lose by opening up these sensitive ecosystems to expand ORV access. The wetlands and it's flowing waters that contribute to the web of life in the Cypress Preserve ecosystem are a primary source of recharging our aquifer, the lifeline that provides fresh water to South Florida.
These off-road vehicles create havoc by destroying wetlands and negatively impacting the surrounding wildlife. Why must this destruction take place that is so damaging to the sensitive lands within the preserve? Once it's destroyed it will be gone. It's not enough that oil and gas has caused so much damage in the preserve by polluting the water and adversity affecting the preserves landscape? We are so lucky to have so much diverse wildlife in the preserve! The alligators, crocodiles, wading birds, deer, and our beloved namesake, the Florida Panther are not only going to be impacted by this proposed plan, but so will ecotourism.
This proposed draft plan is just another way that poor judgement by the National Park Service is being influenced by money to make this bad decision to open the preserve to ORV off road vehicles. The five habitats which include hardwood hammocks, pinelands, prairies, cypress swamps and estuaries are world class ecosystems that support plant communities and wildlife. What a pity to lose this pristine gift of nature over greed and money.
As the first superintendent to serve at Big Cypress (1981 to 1991) and the superintendent who approved the original 1991 General Management Plan, the document upon which this planning effort is supposed to build, I remain keenly interested in the management of the Preserve and frankly disappointed in the direction the Preferred Alternative proposes and the rationale for the Alternative contained within the Backcountry Access Plan.
I hope that those who commented above with similar concerns also submitted comments to the NPS as I did. I also participated in one of the online Webinars presented by the Preserve and NPS Planners. My comments included here are part of what I shared as public comments to the NPS.
The plan speaks of a need for additional recreational opportunity and access, sustainable recreational backcountry use, providing the greatest amount of public access to the preserve, increased backcountry camping, and maximizes opportunity for public, without ever explaining why such expansions are needed. During the Webinar, there were also comments about the Preserve being "public land" and a need to balance recreational uses with preservation. In fact, the entire document appears to be written based upon an assumption that current circumstances do not provide enough recreational opportunities, especially motorized off-road vehicle (ORV) and hunting opportunities without providing a rationale or justification for that assumption.
In response to my inquiry about the Plan detailing how such an expansion was compatible with the Preserve's enabling legislation and specifically the directive therein that requires consumptive uses to be allowed only to the “extent proven to be compatible with preservation of the resources,” I was told that would be covered in a subsequent document that determines whether the Preferred Alternative can be approved through the Environmental Impact Statement. Those comments conflict with the fact that the Draft Plan contains extensive discussion on the impacts of the Alternatives, their adverse or beneficial impacts, etc.
All of Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences is written, at best, based upon the Redwoods Act and other NPS guidelines that require discussion of adverse impacts. I could find no discussion that spoke to compatibility with protection of the Preserve’s resources. Chapter 4 should be rewritten so that compatibility is discussed and determined for each Alternative.
I would argue that since the document itself begins with a faulty assumption and contains within it no references to the strong mandate within the enabling legislation and legislative history to assure compatibility with preservation of the resources, the Preferred Alternative should not be selected.
Section 1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Preserve should be rewritten to include more of the significant language from the legislation that would in fact conflict with the Preferred Alternative’s acknowledgement that 32 miles of ORV trails would occur in “least resilient to unsuitable substrate,” fill in wetlands would be necessary for trail maintenance, and justifies this based upon the idea that impacts would be a very small percentage of the total Preserve acreage; a justification totally in conflict with the Preserve’s legislation. Without using the faulty term “multiple use” contained in the Draft GMP for the Addition, this Plan and the concept that the Preserve is “public land” still places a high priority on public use and remains my concerns that this document provides less priority to resource protection and higher priority to visitor opportunities and uses.
Big Cypress National Preserve is not “public land,” it is “protected land.” Historically and currently, federal public land is managed for multiple use and generally speaking the public can use those lands as they choose, except to the extent a use is prohibited or restricted by the managing agency. Federal protected lands, on the other hand is managed for preservation of the land and resources (natural and cultural) contained within those lands. The public can only use protected lands to the extent the Agency specifically allow those uses. Any use not specifically authorized is prohibited. The NPS uses the specific park’s enabling legislation and history and the Redwood’s Act to determine compatible and thus authorized uses.
The enabling legislation and legislative history for Big Cypress National Preserve clearly places it in the protected land category and in the case of the Preserve, the NPS must document that any use is and will be compatible with protection of the Preserve’s resources before that use can be allowed.
The 1991 GMP quotes more extensively from the legislative history; House Report 93-502 and Senate Report 93-1128. This Plan should strongly connect its decisions back to these same references or relist them within this document. The following quotations from these Reports convey a stronger mandate for resource protection than what is contained in the draft Backcountry Access Plan:
“Anything that interferes with the natural flow of fresh water will radically alter this sensitive subtropical environment... (any construction activities which divert the water…will ultimately affect all forms of life…since the water level is the most significant factor…”
“Since the area….is largely undeveloped…and because it will be managed in a manner which will assure its return to the true wilderness character which once prevailed….”
“The Committee chose to call the area a preserve rather than a reserve…feeling such a distinction may be important. Reserve refers to stock-a commodity held for future use. Preserve refers…to the keeping or safeguarding of something basically protected and perpetuated…”
“The principal thrust of these areas should be the preservation of the natural values which they contain. They might differ…. from national parks…. insofar as administrative policies are concerned. Hunting…. subject to reasonable regulation…could be permitted to the extent compatible with the purpose for which the area is established…All management activities…should be directed toward maintaining the natural and scientific values…National preserves may accommodate significant…uses…but such…would be limited to activities where, or periods when, such human visitation would not interfere with or disrupt the values which the area is created to preserve.”
As I argued in my Case Study entitled “Big Cypress National Preserve: The Great Compromise;” Stewardship Across Boundaries, Richard L. Knight & Peter B. Landres, 1998, Island Press, the Preserve’s legislative history provides an extraordinary standard not given in other national park enabling legislation. True, the preserve is to be subject to more extensive recreational use than a national park, but other national park and environmental laws direct managers to ensure that resources are protected against degradation. This prompts managers to focus on measuring the extent to which activities are detrimental, and, as a result, they feel unable to act until damage to the resource is shown. For example, the Redwoods Act (Public Law 95-250) directs park managers to ensure resources are not degraded, and the Endangered Species Act requires action when harm to a species is documented (Mantell 1990, Dilsaver 1994).
The Big Cypress legislation clearly sets a stronger standard: human activities could occur to the extent they are shown to be compatible with the protection of the resources. This clarifies two points that bring advantages to management: (1) management does not need to allow an activity until or unless we prove it is detrimental as required by the Redwoods Act, and (2) the NPS does not have to shoulder the burden of proof that it is detrimental. If the NPS does not have the time or resources to show compatibility between an activity and resource protection, the NPS can take a very conservative approach until a level of compatibility is shown. If outside forces believe the activity is compatible, they may wish to collect and present date to the NPS themselves.
I submit that if the Plan approached the issue of Backcountry Access based upon the legislation quoted above, the proposed Preferred Alternative would not be selected. In fact, I argue that the statement found in 2.13 totally conflicts with the Preserve’s legislation and in addition, conflicts with the legislative requirement that all NPS areas determine public use limits. Instead, the section emphasizes the preferred alternative will provide “the greatest amount of public access” and “provide…. access to those parts of the preserve traditionally used by people in the past,” justifications found nowhere in the Preserve’s legislative history or in the original 1991 GMP.
Based upon the information contained in the Draft Backcountry Access Plan, only alternatives 1 and 2 can be honestly stated as being consistent with the legislation and legislative history of Big Cypress. Although I would argue that any alternative that acknowledges impacts to “least resilient to unsuitable substrate” and requires fill in wetlands for trail maintenance represents a derogation to park resources, perhaps other alternatives could be argued as possible based upon their actions not resulting in derogation. As written, the remaining alternatives provide no documentation that they are compatible with protection of the Preserve’s resources and thus unacceptable until such research and proof is available.
I provided the following additional comments specific to pages within the Draft Plan:
The Executive Summary needs to immediately state why there is a need for a secondary motorized trail network that is based upon the legislative mandates of the Preserve, not simply that it is needed for public enjoyment or to return to traditional use.
The last paragraph and last sentence under 1.3.1 Backcountry Access Plan Scope mentions “management of…. trapping.” There is no need to raise trapping in this document since trapping has long been designated as incompatible and excluded from BICY activities.
Section 1.4.2. Again, the need for secondary motorized trails is assumed without any explanation as to the basis.
Section 1.5.1.2. I would argue that the Preferred Alternative as contained in Draft Backcountry Access Plan proposes a return to the very reasons behind the lawsuit and fails to comply with the 1995 settlement agreement.
Section 2.13. Nothing in the Preserve’s legislation mandates or even suggests maximum public access to the Preserve. Rather, public use is to occur only to the extent it is shown (proven) to be compatible with protection of the Preserve’s resources.
Section 4.2 and 4.3. BICY enabling legislation and legislative history makes it clear that the test is not to show adverse or derogation but rather to show compatible or incompatible. Chapter 4 should be rewritten based upon those criteria.