** **

**Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan\
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**BIG CYPRESS**

**National Preserve • Florida**

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

**Final**

**Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan\
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement**

**Big Cypress\
National Preserve**

Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties, Florida

The National Park Service developed this plan to provide guidance on the
management of off-road vehicle (ORV) use within Big Cypress National
Preserve. This plan is called for and directed by the *General
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Big Cypress
National Preserve, Florida* (NPS 1991), and is required as part of a
litigation settlement.

The plan presents and analyzes two alternatives for managing ORV use
within the 582,000 acres in the original boundary of the preserve. The
no action alternative analyzes the effects of continuing to apply the
current management program. The proposed action would adopt a new
program that focuses on the resource protection mandates of the National
Park Service while providing reasonable recreational access.

The analysis evaluated the effects of the alternatives on natural
resource and visitor experience impact topics. Compared to the no action
alternative (continue current management), the analysis found that
implementing the proposed action would result in substantial beneficial
effects to surface water flow, soils, and vegetation. These beneficial
effects would result from limiting ORVs to designated roads and trails,
which would produce a major reduction in the spatial extent of the
preserve affected by ORVs. The visitor experience for ORV users would be
affected by the limitations on their ability to access certain places by
vehicle, and by the need to conform with new rules and permit
requirements. Many visitors who do not use ORVs would perceive a benefit
from reduced impacts to the scenic quality of the preserve.

For more information concerning this plan contact:

> John J. Donahue, Superintendent
>
> Big Cypress National Preserve
>
> HCR 61 Box 110
>
> Ochopee Florida 34141
>
> \(941\) 695-2000, ext. 310
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

 

 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176968 .anchor}**Executive Summary**

**Introduction**

The Final Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement addresses the management of recreational
off-road vehicle use within the original 582,000 acres of Big Cypress
National Preserve. The preserve's general management plan (NPS, 1991)
provided overall guidance for ORV management, but recommended the
preparation of a more detailed ORV management plan. This off-road
vehicle management plan was prepared in response to that recommendation.
This planning effort is tiered off of the general management plan and
incorporates new information gathered and new issues raised by the
public since 1991. The purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) is to analyze the alternatives presented in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

In addition, the off-road vehicle management plan is being prepared in
accordance with the 1995 settlement agreement negotiated between the
Florida Biodiversity Project (FBP) and several agencies and bureaus.
These include the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The settlement agreement was a result of a lawsuit filed by FBP,
concerning the management of ORVs within the preserve.

Big Cypress National Preserve was established on October 11, 1974 (16
USC 698) \"in order to assure the preservation, conservation, and
protection of the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, and
recreational values of the Big Cypress Watershed in the State of Florida
and to provide for the enhancement and public enjoyment thereof.\" The
boundary of the preserve was expanded by 147,000 acres in 1988, with
administration of this addition by the National Park Service beginning
in 1996. Management guidance for the Addition Lands was not included in
the general management plan (NPS 1991) and will be addressed in a
separate general management plan. ORV management guidance in the
Addition Lands will be prepared as part of this future planning effort.

The enabling legislation states that the preserve, as a unit of the
national park system, is to be managed in a manner that will ensure its
\"natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity.\" The legislation
further states the management of the area should be in accordance \"with
the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916\" (NPS Organic Act). The
enabling act allows for the use of off-road vehicles, but stipulates
that this use will be controlled in a manner that does not impair the
resources of the preserve. The legislative history of the preserve
states that \"While the use of all-terrain vehicles must be carefully
regulated by the secretary (of the interior) to protect the natural
wildlife and wilderness values of the preserve, the bill does not
prohibit their use along designated roads and trails\" (U.S. House of
Representatives, 1973; U.S. Senate, 1974).

The management plan and supplemental environmental impact statement
consists of five chapters. The first chapter details the purpose and
need for the plan, legislative mandates and special commitments,
management objectives, and planning issues. The second chapter describes
the two alternatives considered, and the alternatives considered but
dismissed from further analysis, and summarizes the key differences
between the alternatives and associated impacts. Chapter three discusses
the aspects of the environment that would be affected by implementing
the management plan. The environmental consequences of implementing the
alternatives are presented in the fourth chapter. Finally, chapter five
summarizes the public involvement in this planning process and
consultation and coordination with federal, state, local and tribal
governments.

The 1991 general management plan and environmental impact statement
evaluated four alternatives, all of which included management of ORV use
within the preserve. Three of these alternatives were considered but
dismissed from further analysis in this plan. Only the general
management plan proposed action was further considered. In compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act regulations that require a
no-action alternative be evaluated in order to provide a baseline for
comparison among the alternatives, the general management plan proposed
action alternative represents this no action alternative.

The no action alternative, which reflects the current management
strategy, and the proposed action are the two alternatives developed and
evaluated in this document. These alternatives were based on the
National Park Service legal mandates, the general management
plan/environmental impact statement, and issues identified during the
scoping process for the plan.

**Proposed Action**

The proposed action applies the precautionary principle in managing
recreational ORV use within the preserve. Although the National Park
Service has used the best available scientific information available to
prepare this plan, this database is not complete. The research section
of the proposed action outlines where more information is needed. Where
the effects of an action are unknown, the proposed management actions
would favor the protection of the preserve's natural and cultural
resources. The proposed action would be a model for sustainable
management of a high-impact recreational activity in a sensitive area.

The key features of the proposed action include the following.

> ORVs would be allowed only on designated trails and would depart only
> from designated access points.
>
> Sensitive areas would be closed immediately to all ORV traffic,
> including all marl prairies, specific Bear Island Unit trails, zone 1
> of the Stairsteps Unit, and Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat in the
> Stairsteps unit.
>
> Temporal closures would be instituted including restriction of ORV
> traffic between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., a 60-day
> seasonal closure, as well as closures triggered by high or low water
> levels.
>
> Three permits would be required to operate an ORV in the preserve
> including a vehicle permit (\$50.00), an ORV operator's permit (free),
> and a daily use backcountry permit (free).
>
> Up to 2,000 annual permits would be issued by random draw.
>
> A mandatory education course would be required to obtain an ORV
> operator's permit.
>
> Vehicles must meet specifications.
>
> Impacts of ORV use would be monitored and management actions would be
> taken as necessary, based on monitoring results.
>
> Areas impacted by ORV use would be restored.
>
> Research would be conducted to support ORV management within the
> preserve.

Fifteen access points would be designated. ORVs would travel only on
designated trails throughout the preserve. The Deep Lake Unit and Loop
Unit would both remain closed to all ORV traffic, as they are in the no
action alternative (continue current management).

Guidance for the types of ORVs allowed in each management unit is given
in the proposed action. These designations are based on the type of
terrain found in the various areas of the preserve and to provide for
resource protection. The Corn Dance Unit and Turner River Unit would be
opened to swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles (ATCs). Bear Island Unit
would be opened to swamp buggies, ATCs, and street-legal four-wheel
drive vehicles. In the Stairsteps Unit, Zone 2 would be opened to swamp
buggies and ATCs; Zone 3 would be opened to swamp buggies, ATCs and
airboats; and Zone 4 would be opened only to airboats.

The number of annual vehicle permits that would be issued would be
reduced from 2500 to 2000, in accordance with the 1990 biological
opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the general
management plan.

The proposed action is based on the concept of adaptive management,
which is a dynamic process. As the proposed action is implemented,
additional information would be obtained through monitoring, research
and experience. As the knowledge base expands, the National Park Service
would respond by adapting management actions that assure the highest
protection of the preserve's resources.

All aspects of the proposed action would be implemented within ten
years. Closure of sensitive resource areas would be implemented
immediately. Some dispersed use of ORVs would initially be allowed
outside of marked sensitive areas until the designated trail system is
in place, and only if monitoring results indicate that no further
resource impacts are occurring.

Limiting ORV use to designated trails would substantially reduce the
spatial extent of the preserve impacted by ORVs. Implementing the
proposed action would result in long-term benefits to water resources,
soils and vegetation. The plan may also benefit endangered and
threatened species, including the Cape Sable seaside sparrow and the
Florida panther. Some ORV users may experience adverse impacts due to a
slight increase in permit costs, and the time required to complete the
education course. Restricting travel to designated routes may alter the
use patterns of some ORV users. Other visitors (non-ORV users) would
experience beneficial impacts by reducing the visual impacts of ORV use
and lessening the potential for user conflicts in the backcountry of the
preserve. The development of the trail system may eventually create
greater access to the backcountry of the preserve for all visitors.

**No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management)**

The no action alternative continues the current management strategy.
Under this alternative the National Park Service would adopt a strategy
combining opened areas and designated trails for ORV use. ORV users
would continue to have unlimited access from approximately 70 informal
locations. ORVs would be required to travel on designated trails within
the Bear Island Unit and a small portion of the Stairsteps Unit. ORVs
would be allowed to disperse within the Turner River Unit, Corn Dance
Unit and portions of the Stairsteps Unit. Deep Lake Unit and Loop Unit
would remain closed to all ORVs. Prairies and other sensitive areas
would continue to be open to dispersed ORV use.

This alternative does include limitations on the types of vehicles
allowed within management units or portions of these units. Zone 1 of
the Stairsteps Unit has been closed to airboats and Zone 4 in this unit
has been designated for airboats only, except for some limited trails
within the Lostmans Pine area. The Corn Dance Unit and Turner River Unit
are opened to all permitted vehicle types. Bear Island Unit is closed to
airboats.

The National Park Service would continue to permit 2,500 vehicles
annually for use within the preserve. However, further consultation with
the USFWS would be required, since the biological opinion prepared for
the 1991 general management plan was based on 2,000 annual permits. To
obtain an annual permit (\$35.00), all vehicles would be required to
meet certain specifications.

The current management under this strategy has been primarily reactive
to unacceptable conditions. ORV impacts monitoring would be ad-hoc and
would rely primarily on staff observations. In recent years, the
National Park Service has made several closures of all or portions of
the preserve in response to water levels. These closures were intended
to reduce stress to wildlife during high water conditions, and to reduce
impacts to soils and vegetation under low-water conditions.

During this planning effort, it has been revealed that this alternative
would not meet the NPS legal mandates or comply with policy for managing
the preserve.

The implementation of this alternative would result in long-term adverse
impacts to water resources, soils, and vegetation. The spatial extent of
impacts is expected to increase under this alternative, with major
impacts to soils, prairies and marshes. The Cape Sable seaside sparrow
may experience long-term adverse impacts by the alteration of the
vegetation structure it needs for nesting, foraging and roosting. The
alternative may impact the Florida panther by increasing the potential
for human disturbance and the degradation of habitat. This alternative
restricts backcountry access in the preserve to a limited number of
individuals who possess specialized motorized equipment.

** **

**contents**

Executive Summary [v](#__RefHeading___Toc489176968)

**Purpose of and Need for the Plan**

Introduction [3](#__RefHeading___Toc489176973)

Legislative Mandates and Special Commitments
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc489176974)

> National Park System Mandates [9](#__RefHeading___Toc489176975)
>
> Big Cypress Legislative Background and the Purpose of the Preserve
> [11](#__RefHeading___Toc489176976)
>
> Federal regulations, Executive Orders, and NPS Policies Related to ORV
> Use [12](#__RefHeading___Toc489176977)
>
> Federal Statutes, Executive Orders, and NPS Policies Related to Water
> Resources [13](#__RefHeading___Toc489176978)
>
> Federal Statues and NPS Policies Related to Biological Resources
> [14](#__RefHeading___Toc489176979)
>
> 1995 Settlement Agreement [16](#__RefHeading___Toc489176980)
>
> Ability to Meet Legislative Mandates and Special Commitments
> [17](#__RefHeading___Toc489176981)

Management Objectives [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176982)

> Natural Resources [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176983)
>
> Water Resources [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176984)
>
> Soils [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176985)
>
> Vegetation [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176986)
>
> Wildlife [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176987)
>
> Cultural Resources [18](#__RefHeading___Toc489176988)
>
> Visitor Experience [19](#__RefHeading___Toc489176989)

Planning Issues [20](#__RefHeading___Toc489176990)

> Natural Resource Impact Topics [20](#__RefHeading___Toc489176991)
>
> Cultural Resource Impact Topics [21](#__RefHeading___Toc489176992)
>
> Visitor Experience Impact Topics [21](#__RefHeading___Toc489176993)

Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
[23](#__RefHeading___Toc489176994)

> Other Wildlife Species [23](#__RefHeading___Toc489176995)
>
> Preserve Use by Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes
> [23](#__RefHeading___Toc489176996)
>
> Air Quality [23](#__RefHeading___Toc489176997)
>
> Mineral Interests [24](#__RefHeading___Toc489176998)
>
> Cultural Resources [24](#__RefHeading___Toc489176999)
>
> Environmental Justice [24](#__RefHeading___Toc489177000)
>
> Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands [24](#__RefHeading___Toc489177001)

**Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action**

Introduction [28](#__RefHeading___Toc489177003)

Proposed Action [29](#__RefHeading___Toc489177004)

> Introduction [29](#__RefHeading___Toc489177005)
>
> Trails and Access Points [30](#__RefHeading___Toc489177006)
>
> Criteria for Developing the Trail System and Access Points
> [32](#__RefHeading___Toc489177007)
>
> Resource Protection. [32](#__RefHeading___Toc489177008)
>
> Visitor Experience. [33](#__RefHeading___Toc489177009)
>
> Methodology [33](#__RefHeading___Toc489177010)
>
> Proposed System of Trails and Access Points
> [34](#__RefHeading___Toc489177011)
>
> Designated Trails. [35](#__RefHeading___Toc489177012)
>
> Access Points. [37](#__RefHeading___Toc489177013)
>
> Carrying Capacities [39](#__RefHeading___Toc489177014)
>
> Monitoring [40](#__RefHeading___Toc489177015)
>
> Trail Use Indicators and Standards [40](#__RefHeading___Toc489177016)
>
> Methods of Monitoring [41](#__RefHeading___Toc489177017)
>
> Management Actions [43](#__RefHeading___Toc489177018)
>
> Closure of Areas [44](#__RefHeading___Toc489177019)
>
> Nightly Closures [44](#__RefHeading___Toc489177020)
>
> Seasonal Closures [44](#__RefHeading___Toc489177021)
>
> Spatial Closures [45](#__RefHeading___Toc489177022)
>
> Criteria for Closures [46](#__RefHeading___Toc489177023)
>
> Permit Program [47](#__RefHeading___Toc489177024)
>
> Fees [48](#__RefHeading___Toc489177025)
>
> Off-Road Vehicle Permit [48](#__RefHeading___Toc489177026)
>
> Number of Vehicle Permits. [48](#__RefHeading___Toc489177027)
>
> Vehicle Inspection Program. [49](#__RefHeading___Toc489177028)
>
> Allocation of Vehicle Permits. [50](#__RefHeading___Toc489177029)
>
> ORV Operator Permit [50](#__RefHeading___Toc489177030)
>
> Special Use Permit for Private Property Owners
> [51](#__RefHeading___Toc489177031)
>
> Education and Communication [52](#__RefHeading___Toc489177032)
>
> Vehicle Specifications [52](#__RefHeading___Toc489177033)
>
> Rules and Enforcement [54](#__RefHeading___Toc489177034)
>
> Restoration [55](#__RefHeading___Toc489177035)
>
> Implementation [58](#__RefHeading___Toc489177036)
>
> Resource Recovery Monitoring [58](#__RefHeading___Toc489177037)
>
> Indicators [59](#__RefHeading___Toc489177038)
>
> Methods [59](#__RefHeading___Toc489177039)
>
> Frequency and Timing [60](#__RefHeading___Toc489177040)
>
> Information Needs [60](#__RefHeading___Toc489177041)
>
> Research [60](#__RefHeading___Toc489177042)
>
> Implementation Strategy and Schedule
> [60](#__RefHeading___Toc489177043)
>
> Cost [66](#__RefHeading___Toc489177044)

No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management)
[68](#__RefHeading___Toc489177045)

> Introduction [68](#__RefHeading___Toc489177046)
>
> Trails, Areas, and Access Points [70](#__RefHeading___Toc489177047)
>
> Trails and Areas [70](#__RefHeading___Toc489177048)
>
> Access Points [71](#__RefHeading___Toc489177049)
>
> Monitoring [71](#__RefHeading___Toc489177050)
>
> Management Actions [72](#__RefHeading___Toc489177051)
>
> Closure of Areas [72](#__RefHeading___Toc489177052)
>
> Permit Program [72](#__RefHeading___Toc489177053)
>
> Education and Communication [72](#__RefHeading___Toc489177054)
>
> Vehicle Specifications [73](#__RefHeading___Toc489177055)
>
> Rules and enforcement [73](#__RefHeading___Toc489177056)
>
> Restoration [74](#__RefHeading___Toc489177057)
>
> Research [74](#__RefHeading___Toc489177058)
>
> Implementation Strategy [75](#__RefHeading___Toc489177059)
>
> Cost [75](#__RefHeading___Toc489177060)

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis
[76](#__RefHeading___Toc489177061)

Summary of Alternatives [77](#__RefHeading___Toc489177062)

**Affected Environment**

Natural Resource Issues [86](#__RefHeading___Toc489177064)

> Surface Water Flows [86](#__RefHeading___Toc489177065)
>
> Water Quality [89](#__RefHeading___Toc489177066)
>
> Soils [90](#__RefHeading___Toc489177067)
>
> Vegetation [91](#__RefHeading___Toc489177068)
>
> Prairies [91](#__RefHeading___Toc489177069)
>
> Marshes [98](#__RefHeading___Toc489177070)
>
> Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs
> [99](#__RefHeading___Toc489177071)
>
> Mangroves [100](#__RefHeading___Toc489177072)
>
> Hardwood Hammocks [100](#__RefHeading___Toc489177073)
>
> Pinelands [100](#__RefHeading___Toc489177074)
>
> Wildlife [101](#__RefHeading___Toc489177075)
>
> American Alligator [101](#__RefHeading___Toc489177076)
>
> Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow [103](#__RefHeading___Toc489177078)
>
> Bald Eagle [103](#__RefHeading___Toc489177079)
>
> Wood Stork [104](#__RefHeading___Toc489177080)
>
> Red-cockaded Woodpecker [104](#__RefHeading___Toc489177081)
>
> Everglade Snail Kite [104](#__RefHeading___Toc489177082)
>
> Florida Panther [105](#__RefHeading___Toc489177083)
>
> West Indian Manatee [108](#__RefHeading___Toc489177084)
>
> Other Wildlife Species [108](#__RefHeading___Toc489177085)

Visitor Experience Issues [109](#__RefHeading___Toc489177086)

> General Preserve Visitation [109](#__RefHeading___Toc489177087)
>
> Visits [109](#__RefHeading___Toc489177088)
>
> ORV Use [110](#__RefHeading___Toc489177089)
>
> ORV Trail Mapping [111](#__RefHeading___Toc489177090)
>
> Characteristics of ORVs [113](#__RefHeading___Toc489177091)
>
> Characteristics of ORV Users and Visitation
> [115](#__RefHeading___Toc489177092)
>
> Hunting [120](#__RefHeading___Toc489177093)
>
> Other Visitation [121](#__RefHeading___Toc489177094)
>
> Nonfederal Property Owners [122](#__RefHeading___Toc489177095)

**Environmental Consequences**

Introduction [126](#__RefHeading___Toc489177097)

Methodology [126](#__RefHeading___Toc489177098)

> Intensity [126](#__RefHeading___Toc489177099)
>
> Duration [127](#__RefHeading___Toc489177100)
>
> Direct versus Indirect Impacts [127](#__RefHeading___Toc489177101)
>
> Cumulative Impacts [127](#__RefHeading___Toc489177102)

Impacts on Natural Resources [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177103)

> Water Resources [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177104)
>
> Surface Water Flows [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177105)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177106)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177107)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [129](#__RefHeading___Toc489177108)
>
> Conclusion. [130](#__RefHeading___Toc489177109)
>
> Water Quality [130](#__RefHeading___Toc489177110)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [130](#__RefHeading___Toc489177111)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [131](#__RefHeading___Toc489177112)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [131](#__RefHeading___Toc489177113)
>
> Conclusion. [131](#__RefHeading___Toc489177114)
>
> Soils [131](#__RefHeading___Toc489177115)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [131](#__RefHeading___Toc489177116)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177117)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177118)
>
> Conclusion. [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177119)
>
> Vegetation [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177120)
>
> Prairies and Marshes [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177121)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177122)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [132](#__RefHeading___Toc489177123)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [133](#__RefHeading___Toc489177124)
>
> Conclusion. [133](#__RefHeading___Toc489177125)
>
> Cypress Strands and Domes, Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs
> [133](#__RefHeading___Toc489177126)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [133](#__RefHeading___Toc489177127)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177128)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177129)
>
> Conclusion. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177130)
>
> Mangroves [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177131)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177132)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177133)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177134)
>
> Conclusion. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177135)
>
> Hardwood Hammocks [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177136)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [134](#__RefHeading___Toc489177137)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177138)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177139)
>
> Conclusion. [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177140)
>
> Pinelands [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177141)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177142)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177143)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177144)
>
> Conclusion. [135](#__RefHeading___Toc489177145)
>
> Protected Species [136](#__RefHeading___Toc489177146)
>
> Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow [136](#__RefHeading___Toc489177147)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [136](#__RefHeading___Toc489177148)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [136](#__RefHeading___Toc489177149)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [136](#__RefHeading___Toc489177150)
>
> Conclusion. [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177151)
>
> Bald Eagle [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177152)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177153)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177154)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177155)
>
> Conclusion. [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177156)
>
> Wood Stork [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177157)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [137](#__RefHeading___Toc489177158)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [138](#__RefHeading___Toc489177159)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [138](#__RefHeading___Toc489177160)
>
> Conclusion. [138](#__RefHeading___Toc489177161)
>
> Red-Cockaded Woodpecker [138](#__RefHeading___Toc489177162)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [138](#__RefHeading___Toc489177163)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177164)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177165)
>
> Conclusion. [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177166)
>
> Everglade Snail Kite [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177167)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177168)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177169)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177170)
>
> Conclusion. [139](#__RefHeading___Toc489177171)
>
> Florida Panther [140](#__RefHeading___Toc489177172)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [140](#__RefHeading___Toc489177173)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [140](#__RefHeading___Toc489177174)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [140](#__RefHeading___Toc489177175)
>
> Conclusion. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177176)
>
> West Indian Manatee [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177177)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177178)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177179)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177180)
>
> Conclusion. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177181)
>
> White-Tailed Deer and Feral Hogs [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177182)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177183)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177184)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [141](#__RefHeading___Toc489177185)
>
> Conclusion. [142](#__RefHeading___Toc489177186)

Impacts on Visitation [143](#__RefHeading___Toc489177187)

> ORV Use [143](#__RefHeading___Toc489177188)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [143](#__RefHeading___Toc489177189)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management)
> [143](#__RefHeading___Toc489177190)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [143](#__RefHeading___Toc489177191)
>
> Conclusion. [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177192)
>
> Hunting [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177193)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177194)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177195)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177196)
>
> Conclusion. [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177197)
>
> Other Visitation [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177198)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [144](#__RefHeading___Toc489177199)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177200)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177201)
>
> Conclusion. [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177202)
>
> Nonfederal Property Owners [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177203)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action. [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177204)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management).
> [145](#__RefHeading___Toc489177205)
>
> Cumulative Impacts. [146](#__RefHeading___Toc489177206)
>
> Conclusion. [146](#__RefHeading___Toc489177207)

Sustainability and Long-term Management
[147](#__RefHeading___Toc489177208)

> Any Adverse Impacts that Cannot Be Avoided Should the Action Be
> Implemented [147](#__RefHeading___Toc489177209)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action [147](#__RefHeading___Toc489177210)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management)
> [\*](#__RefHeading___Toc489177211)
>
> The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and
> the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
> [147](#__RefHeading___Toc489177212)
>
> Analysis of the Proposed Action [147](#__RefHeading___Toc489177213)
>
> Analysis of No Action (Continue Current Management)
> [148](#__RefHeading___Toc489177214)
>
> Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources that Would
> Be Involved Should the Alternative Be Implemented
> [148](#__RefHeading___Toc489177215)

**Consultation and Coordination**

History of Public Involvement [152](#__RefHeading___Toc489177217)

> Public Information [152](#__RefHeading___Toc489177218)
>
> Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> [153](#__RefHeading___Toc489177219)
>
> Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes
> [153](#__RefHeading___Toc489177220)
>
> Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer
> [154](#__RefHeading___Toc489177221)

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Who Received the Draft
ORV Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
[154](#__RefHeading___Toc489177222)

> Federal Agencies [154](#__RefHeading___Toc489177223)
>
> Native American Tribes [154](#__RefHeading___Toc489177224)
>
> State of Florida [154](#__RefHeading___Toc489177225)
>
> Organizations [155](#__RefHeading___Toc489177226)
>
> Companies [155](#__RefHeading___Toc489177227)
>
> Media [155](#__RefHeading___Toc489177228)
>
> Libraries [155](#__RefHeading___Toc489177229)
>
> Individuals [155](#__RefHeading___Toc489177230)
>
> Preparers and Contributors [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177231)
>
> Department of the Interior [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177232)
>
> Office of the Secretary [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177233)
>
> Office of the Solicitor [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177234)
>
> National Park Service [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177235)
>
> Big Cypress National Preserve [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177236)
>
> Denver Service Center [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177237)
>
> Everglades National Park [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177238)
>
> Southeast Regional Support Office [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177239)
>
> Washington Office, Park Planning and Special Studies Division
> [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177240)
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [156](#__RefHeading___Toc489177241)
>
> Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. [157](#__RefHeading___Toc489177242)
>
> Virginia Tech University, Department of Forestry, Cooperative Park
> Studies Unit (CPSU) [157](#__RefHeading___Toc489177243)
>
> Utah State University [157](#__RefHeading___Toc489177244)
>
> Columbia University [157](#__RefHeading___Toc489177245)
>
> University of Georgia [157](#__RefHeading___Toc489177246)

Response to Comments [158](#__RefHeading___Toc489177247)

> Introduction [158](#__RefHeading___Toc489177248)
>
> Response to Comments [162](#__RefHeading___Toc489177249)
>
> Analysis and Utilization of Scientific Data and Supporting Information
> [162](#__RefHeading___Toc489177250)
>
> Opening and Closing of Management Units
> [164](#__RefHeading___Toc489177251)
>
> Compliance with Legal Mandates and the Settlement Agreement
> [165](#__RefHeading___Toc489177252)
>
> Visitor Experience [167](#__RefHeading___Toc489177253)
>
> Cumulative Impacts [168](#__RefHeading___Toc489177254)
>
> Education and Communications [169](#__RefHeading___Toc489177255)
>
> Protected Species [169](#__RefHeading___Toc489177256)
>
> Enforcement [170](#__RefHeading___Toc489177257)
>
> Management Objectives and Funding [170](#__RefHeading___Toc489177258)
>
> Hunting [171](#__RefHeading___Toc489177259)
>
> Surface Water Flow and Water Quality
> [171](#__RefHeading___Toc489177260)
>
> Monitoring, Restoration, and Research
> [171](#__RefHeading___Toc489177261)
>
> ORV Types and Specifications [172](#__RefHeading___Toc489177262)
>
> ORV Permits, Fees, Regulations, and Operating Standards
> [174](#__RefHeading___Toc489177263)
>
> Soils [175](#__RefHeading___Toc489177264)
>
> Trails and Access Points [176](#__RefHeading___Toc489177265)
>
> University of Georgia Database and Miles of Trails
> [178](#__RefHeading___Toc489177266)
>
> Vegetation [178](#__RefHeading___Toc489177267)
>
> Wildlife and Habitat [179](#__RefHeading___Toc489177268)
>
> Scope of the Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
> [180](#__RefHeading___Toc489177269)
>
> Comment Letters 181

**Appendices, Glossary, Bibliography, and Index**

Appendix A: Draft -- Proposed Application of Temporal Restrictions to
Airboat Operations in the Southeast Corner of Big Cypress National
Preserve [529](#__RefHeading___Toc489177271)

Appendix B: Preliminary Report -- Off-road Vehicle Trail Accuracy
Assessment [538](#__RefHeading___Toc489177281)

Appendix C: Biological Opinion for the Final Recreational Off-Road
Vehicle Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement:
Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida
[545](#__RefHeading___Toc489177282)

Glossary [591](#__RefHeading___Toc489177283)

Bibliography [595](#__RefHeading___Toc489177284)

Index [598](#__RefHeading___Toc489177285)

** **

**Tables**

> 1: Substrate Suitability and Resource Sensitivity
> [34](#__RefHeading___Toc486319121)
>
> 2: Candidate Indicators and Standards for Assessing Trail Conditions
> [40](#__RefHeading___Toc486319122)
>
> 3: Research Needs for Implementation of the Proposed Action
> [60](#__RefHeading___Toc486319123)
>
> 4: Implementation Schedule for the Proposed Action
> [65](#__RefHeading___Toc486319124)
>
> 5: Implementation Cost Estimate for the Proposed Action
> [67](#__RefHeading___Toc486319125)
>
> 6: Summary of Key Differences between the Alternatives
> [77](#__RefHeading___Toc486319127)
>
> 7: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives
> [80](#__RefHeading___Toc486319128)
>
> 8: Listed Wildlife Species in Big Cypress National Preserve
> [101](#__RefHeading___Toc486319129)
>
> 9: Visitation at Big Cypress National Preserve, 1995 to 1999
> [109](#__RefHeading___Toc486319130)
>
> 10: Numbers of ORVs Registered for Use in Big Cypress National
> Preserve, 1980 to 1999 [109](#__RefHeading___Toc486319131)
>
> 11: Activities Participated in by ORV Permit Holders during a 1-Year
> Period [116](#__RefHeading___Toc486319132)
>
> 12: Role and Importance of the ORV in Recreational Experiences
> [118](#__RefHeading___Toc486319133)
>
> 13: Agreement with Statements Describing the Importance of Specific
> Places, Vehicle Types, and Routes Used within the Preserve
>
> 14: Numbers of Hunters in the Field per Day per Season at Big Cypress
> National Preserve, 1996 to 1999 [104](#__RefHeading___Toc486319135)
>
> 15: Identification of Commentors [159](#__RefHeading___Toc486319136)

**Figures**

**L-28 Canal Map [88](#__RefHeading___Toc486319245)**

** **

[**Figure - South Florida Region**](../finlsite.jpg)

[**Figure - Management Planning Units**](../finalmgmt.htm)

[**Figure -- Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary
Trails**](../finlconc.jpg)

[**Figure -- ORV Management - Proposed Action**](../finlprop.htm)

[**Figure -- ORV Management - No Action Alternative (Continue Current
Management)**](../finalnoac.htm)

[**Figure - Vegetation Classes**](../finalveg.htm)

[**Figure - ORV Use Areas**](../ORV%20Use%20Areas.htm)

[**Figure - Panther Locations, 1981-1999**](../finalpant.htm)

[**Figure - GMP ORV Trails**](../finlgmp.jpg)

[**Figure - University of Georgia Trails
Interpretation**](../finluga.jpg)

[**Figure - Off-Road Vehicle Photographs**](../BCORVfotos.jpg)

**Purpose of and Need for the Plan**

** **

** **

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176973 .anchor}**Introduction**

The purpose of this Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (plan)
is to guide the National Park Service (NPS) in its management of
recreational off-road vehicle (ORV) use in Big Cypress National
Preserve, the location of which is shown on the South Florida Region
map. This plan implements the direction established in the *General
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Big Cypress
National Preserve, Florida* (NPS 1991). The general management plan and
environmental impact statement was finalized with a record of decision,
and recognized the need for an ORV management plan.

The general management plan provided broad direction for management of
the preserve and stated that more detailed actions concerning ORV
management would be included in an ORV management plan, which would be
developed after approval of the general management plan. This plan tiers
off the general management plan and the environmental impact statement,
in conformance with the Council on Environmental Quality (1978)
guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. It
also reflects federal laws, regulations, and executive orders, and
Florida laws, regulations, and policies that have been enacted or
modified since the release of the general management plan.

This plan and supplemental environmental impact statement were also
prepared in response to a settlement agreement negotiated in 1995
between the Florida Biodiversity Project and several federal agencies
and bureaus. The agencies and bureaus named in the lawsuit included the
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S.
Department of the Army, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This agreement
and its relevance to ORV management in the preserve are described later
in this section.

The purpose of this plan and the associated supplemental environmental
impact statement is to analyze the specific actions for ORV management,
incorporate new information gathered and policies developed since the
1991 general management plan and environmental impact statement, and
address new issues raised by the public. The plan and supplemental
environmental impact statement jointly address ORV use in Big Cypress
National Preserve.

ORV activities in Big Cypress must be managed and regulated to conserve
preserve resources and values in accordance with the NPS Organic Act of
1916, as amended; the preserve's enabling legislation; and other legal
mandates. To comply with these mandates, the plan addresses

> an ORV permit program, including vehicle specifications
>
> a system of designated access points and trails
>
> rules governing the operation of vehicles and enforcement of those
> rules
>
> methods for monitoring
>
> strategies for restoring areas impacted by ORVs
>
> education needs
>
> research needs
>
> other management strategies, such as number limits for access points
>
> the adaptive management approach to ensure that the plan remains
> current and effective

Soil disturbance is the most direct, visible, and lasting impact of ORV
use in the preserve. When the soils of Big Cypress are saturated or
inundated with water, they become especially susceptible to disturbance
(including compaction, rutting, deformation, and ridging) from vehicle
traffic. The factors that influence the degree of impact have changed
over the years, including wetter hydrologic conditions, improved vehicle
capabilities, and the long-term accumulation of effects, as summarized
below.

> [Wetter hydrologic conditions of the 1990s.]{.underline} The dryer
> conditions that prevailed during the establishment of the preserve
> meant that operation of ORVs resulted in less damage to the landscape
> than has been observed in the 1990s. The wetter conditions of the
> 1990s increased the level of soil impacts because soils are saturated
> for a longer time each year. This means that ORVs are more likely to
> be in operation when soils are most sensitive. Potential sources of
> wetter conditions in the 1990s included greater rainfall, modification
> to upstream water management practices, and landscape alterations
> within the preserve. The dry conditions of the 1960s and 1970s may
> also have been influenced by upstream water management practices.
> Major modification to the landscape and water management practices
> over the next 40 years as a result of region-wide ecosystem
> restoration efforts are anticipated to alter the hydrologic regime in
> the future.
>
> [Improved Vehicle Capabilities.]{.underline} Vehicle capabilities,
> including increased vehicle reliability, power, and maneuverability,
> have increasingly opened up areas of the preserve that were not
> accessible in the past. Increased accessibility is also related to
> improved maps and greater availability of remote communication and
> navigation devices.
>
> [Accumulation of effects over time.]{.underline} The persistence of
> disturbed soils suggests that ORV impacts are occurring at a faster
> rate than soils are naturally recovering, and that impacts are
> accumulating over time. There are no known processes that restore the
> soils once disturbed. Farm field furrows that existed prior to the
> preserve's establishment are still clearly visible from the air and on
> the ground decades later. Soil impacts from ORVs appear to be having
> similar persistence over time, with associated hydrological and
> biological impacts.

Ground-level observations, either at roadside entry locations or along
trails, provide a limited view of ORV impacts. An aerial inspection of
the ORV trails and travel corridors provides a greater appreciation of
the levels of impacts that have occurred. The networks of tire ruts and
airboat paths from dispersed used of ORVs influence the hydrological,
vegetative, and wildlife conditions of the preserve.

Unlike many plans prepared by the National Park Service, the need for
this plan was not prompted by increased demand for a particular type of
recreation in the preserve. The 1991 general management plan limited the
number of recreational ORV permits to 2000. The record of decision
changed this number to 2,500 (NPS 1992). In 1999, 2,271 recreational ORV
permits were issued. Therefore, the number of recreational ORVs in use
in Big Cypress National Preserve

 

[**Figure - South Florida Region**](../finlsite.jpg)

 

 

could increase by only 10 percent. Instead, the plan is needed to enable
the National Park Service to comply with its legislative mandates and
special commitments. Those mandates and commitments as they relate to
recreational ORV use in the preserve are described below.

The scope and complexity of the plan would require a phased
implementation over a 10-year period. However, many of the plan's key
components would be initiated in the first year. A schedule for
implementation is provided in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action\" section of this plan. Implementation would begin promptly after
the record of decision for this ORV management plan was signed.

The National Park Service would use an adaptive management approach that
would include continual review and modification of the plan as needed to
ensure its effectiveness and to confirm that management of ORVs was in
compliance with NPS mandates and policies. If modifications to the plan
were needed, the National Park Service would comply with all appropriate
laws and regulations, including but not limited to, the National
Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, including
appropriate public involvement.

The scope of this plan is limited to recreational ORV use within the
original preserve boundary. It does not address oil and gas development
in the preserve, commercial operations of ORVs, or tribal rights.

This plan also does not address any management issues in the Addition
Lands (see Management Planning Units map). The management of the
Addition Lands will be addressed in a future general management plan and
environmental impact statement. The Big Cypress Addition Act (Public Law
100-301) requires these lands be evaluated for wilderness suitability
pursuant to the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891: 16 U.S. Code (USC) 1132
(c) and (d)). Until the wilderness suitability study and the general
management plan addendum are completed, the Addition Lands will remain
closed to recreational ORV use.

** **

[**Figure - Management Planning Units**](../finalmgmt.htm)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176974 .anchor}**Legislative Mandates and
Special Commitments**

This ORV management plan has been developed consistent with NPS legal
mandates, NPS management policies, the Big Cypress National Preserve
general management plan, other approved preserve planning documents, and
the 1995 settlement agreement. A review of these mandates and
commitments as they relate to the use of recreational ORVs in Big
Cypress National Preserve is provided in this section.

Legislative mandates and special commitments include those measures that
apply to the entire National Park Service, plus preserve-specific
requirements. In addition, ORV use in Big Cypress National Preserve must
comply with all federal statutes, executive orders, and NPS policies.

The intent of all of the mandates and commitments is to establish
sustainable conservation and to avoid impairment of NPS lands. As a
result, ORV use can occur only to the extent that it does not
significantly adversely affect the preserve and its natural and cultural
resources. Appropriate use of ORVs within this context, and the means
for achieving that use, are provided in this plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176975 .anchor}**National Park System
Mandates**

The National Park Service and its mandates are authorized under the NPS
Organic Act (16 USC 1, 2-4) and the General Authorities Act (16 USC
1a-8). These acts direct the agency to conserve the scenery, the natural
and historic objects, and the wildlife, and to provide for the enjoyment
of those resources in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired for
future generations.

Amending the NPS Organic Act of 1916, the Redwood Act (March 27, 1978,
16 USC 1a-1) was passed shortly after Big Cypress National Preserve was
established, with complete knowledge of how the act would affect such
units as Big Cypress. In this act, Congress reaffirmed the mandates of
the Organic Act and provided additional guidance on national park system
management:

> The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,
> management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in
> light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
> System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and
> purposes for which these various areas have been established.

According to Senate Report No. 95-528, page 7, the restatement of these
principles of park management in the Redwoods Act intended to serve as
the basis for any judicial resolution of competing private and public
values and interests in the national park system (U.S. Senate 1976). If
a conflict occurs between visitor use and protection of resources, this
act confirms the intent of Congress to favor resource protection.

The National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391), Title
II, National Park System Resource Inventory and Management, supports the
integration of scientific study results into management. This act
directs the secretary of the interior to take necessary steps to ensure
the full and proper utilization of the results of scientific studies in
the management decisions. In conformance with the 1998 act and the
National Environmental Policy Act, this plan has used the best available
scientific information to develop the ORV management measures of the
proposed action. As additional information becomes available from such
sources as the studies outlined in the

\"Research\" section, the National Park Service will use adaptive
management principles to integrate the results into the ORV management
plan to continuously improve its effectiveness.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176976 .anchor}**Big Cypress Legislative
Background and the Purpose of the Preserve**

Big Cypress National Preserve was established in 1974 (16 USC 698), with
the purpose being \"to assure the preservation, conservation, and
protection of the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, and
recreational values of the Big Cypress Watershed in the State of Florida
and to provide for the enhancement and public enjoyment thereof.\"

The enabling legislation states that the preserve, as a unit of the
national park system, is to be managed in a manner that will ensure its
\"natural and ecological integrity in perpetuity.\" The legislation
further states the management of the area should be in accordance \"with
the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916\" (NPS Organic Act). Thus,
the natural and ecological integrity of the preserve is the fundamental
value that Congress directed the National Park Service to protect.

In the enabling legislation for Big Cypress Natural Preserve, Congress
directs the National Park Service to limit and control the use of
federal lands and waters with respect to motorized vehicles and certain
other activities. The enabling legislation directs the secretary of the
interior to develop appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the
purpose of the act, protecting the natural and ecological integrity of
the watershed. This provision allows, but does not mandate, ORV use in
the preserve, and directs the National Park Service to manage ORV use so
that it does not impair the natural or cultural resources of the
preserve.

The Senate and House reports that comprise part of the preserve's
legislative history both contained identical language discussing the
management of the preserve (U.S. House of Representatives 1973; U.S.
Senate 1974).

> The area included in the preserve is largely undeveloped at the
> present time and . . . it will be managed in a manner which will
> assure its return to the true wilderness character which once
> prevailed

These reports indicate an intent to limit and control uses authorized at
the time the preserve was created to allow the wilderness character of
the area to be restored.

The congressional reports also discuss the management of ORVs, stating
that \"While the use of all-terrain vehicles must be carefully regulated
by the secretary \[of the interior\] to protect the natural wildlife and
wilderness values of the preserve, the bill does not prohibit their use
along designated roads and trails.\"

The reports recognize that preserves \"differ in some respects, from
national parks and monuments insofar as administrative policies are
concerned. Hunting for example, subject to reasonable regulation by the
Secretary, could be permitted to the extent compatible with the purposes
for which the area is established.\" However the reports state that
\"All management activities within these areas should be directed toward
maintaining the natural and scientific values of the area, including
preservation of the flora and fauna and establishment of the indigenous
plant and animal life, if possible.\" The report further states
\"National preserves may accommodate significant recreational uses
without impairing the natural values, but such public use and enjoyment
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.\"

The act provides management guidance on \"usual and customary use and
occupancy\" of the preserve by members of the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Nothing in the
alternatives considered would interfere with the right to usual and
customary use and occupancy by members of the tribes. The act provides
the following:

> Members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Seminole
> Tribe of Florida shall be permitted, subject to reasonable regulations
> established by the Secretary, to continue their usual and customary
> use and occupancy of Federal or federally acquired lands and waters
> within the preserve.

In addition, the act provides the following guidance regarding improved
properties and oil and gas rights.

> No improved property, as defined by this Act, nor oil and gas rights,
> shall be acquired without consent of the owner unless the Secretary,
> in his judgement, determines that such property is subject to, or
> threatened with, uses which are, or would be detrimental to the
> purpose of the preserve.

The National Park Service has worked with improved property owners to
allow reasonable passage across federal lands to access their
properties. Both alternatives considered would allow for reasonable
access to improved properties within the preserve boundaries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176977 .anchor}**Federal regulations, Executive
Orders, and NPS Policies Related to ORV Use**

Under existing regulations published in 36 CFR 1.5, the superintendent
has the authority to limit public use based on the determination that
such action is necessary to maintain public safety and health, protect
the environmental or scenic values, protect natural or cultural
resources, aid scientific research, implement management
responsibilities, provide equitable allocation and use of facilities, or
avoid conflict among visitor use activities. The superintendent may
limit public use through closures, by restricting times and areas of
use, or by imposing conditions on the use.

ORV management regulations for Big Cypress National Preserve are
published in the *Code of Federal Regulations* (36 CFR 7.86). These are
modified as necessary to address management issues and concerns as they
arise. These regulations prohibit the operation of ORVs in a manner that
could cause significant damage to or disturbance of the preserve's
resources, including soils, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and cultural
resources. As provided by 36 CFR 7.86, the superintendent has
discretionary authority to temporarily or permanently close portions of
the preserve to ORV use if the use represents a threat to resources.

Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (as amended by E.O. 11989 and E.O. 12608),
\"Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,\" directs agencies to
designate trails and areas where ORVs would be permitted. In designating
these trails and areas, the agency must base these decisions on \"the
protection of the resources of the public lands.\" The executive order
states that in permitting ORV use, the agency must manage this activity
to

> minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources
>
> minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife
> habitats
>
> minimize conflicts between ORV use and other recreational uses
>
> ensure compatibility of uses in populated areas, taking into account
> noise and other factors
>
> avoid adverse effects to natural, aesthetic, or scenic values

E.O. 11644 further requires federal agencies to immediately close areas
or trails under their jurisdiction, or to discontinue certain vehicle
types, whenever it is determined that ORV use will cause considerable
adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or
cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails. Closed
areas and trails may be reopened after such adverse effects have been
eliminated and future recurrence prevented with mitigation.

The order also calls for federal agencies to monitor the effects of ORV
use on lands under their jurisdiction. On the basis of the information
gathered, they shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of
areas or other actions as required. The order also calls for federal
agencies to develop operating conditions, establish enforcement
procedures, and publish and distribute ORV use information to the
public.

The National Park Service management policies on ORV use (NPS 1988) are
based on E.O. 11644 and amendments described above. The policies
emphasize that ORV routes and areas may only be designated in locations
where there will be no significant adverse impacts on the area's
natural, cultural, and scenic resources and values and in consideration
of other visitors.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176978 .anchor}**Federal Statutes, Executive
Orders, and NPS Policies Related to Water Resources**

The NPS (1988) *Management Policies* require protection of water quality
consistent with the Clean Water Act (33 USC Section 1251 *et seq*.) and
other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and an
examination of impacts during planning. The *Water Resources Management
Plan: Big Cypress National Preserve* (NPS 1996) provides guidance for
protecting water resources in the preserve. Special consideration of
impacts on wetlands and floodplains is required by E.O. 11990,
\"Protection of Wetlands,\" and E.O. 11988, \"Floodplain Management.\"

The primary goal of the Clean Water Act (33 USC Section 1251(a)) is to
\"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's water.\" The act directs the individual states to set
and enforce water quality standards that meet U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) minimum guidelines. Section 404 of the act and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to prohibit or regulate, through a permit process, discharges
of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including
wetlands.

Some of the ORV-related facilities that would affect wetlands would
require a Section 404 permit. Most of these would consist of canal
crossings at access points. To help protect wetlands, the National Park
Service would obtain permits before affecting wetlands with
construction. A Section 404 permit would not be required for other
proposed management activities such as routing unimproved trails through
wet areas, because they would not result in the dredging or filling of
wetlands. However, the great majority of this plan revolves around
restoration of the environment.

Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water
segments that are impaired by pollution, even after application of
pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality
standards can be attained. If a state does not do this, the EPA is
required under Section 303 (d) to develop a priority list and make its
own TMDL determination. Section 319 requires states to voluntarily
develop and implement programs to control non-point pollution sources.

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has delegated to the state of Florida
the authority to identify high-quality waters. It is then the
responsibility of the state to protect the quality of such waters to
ensure that they are not degraded. Under this authority, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) established rules for
protecting certain special waters to prevent any degradation from
existing conditions. Designated waters are to be preserved in perpetuity
for the benefit of the public. The waters of Big Cypress National
Preserve are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters under these rules
(Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.700 (2)(g)). Before
construction of ORV-related facilities, the National Park Service would
obtain all of the required permits to ensure protection of the
preserve's waters.

The National Park Service will continue to work with the state and EPA
to meet Clean Water Act provisions, including those under Sections 303
(d) and 319, and the Outstanding Florida Waters designation. The
proposed action includes measures specifically designed to assist the
National Park Service in meeting these requirements. The National Park
Service would have considerably less ability to meet Clean Water Act
requirements in association with ORV activities under the no action
alternative (continue current management).

E.O. 11990 for protecting wetlands directs federal agencies to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. NPS Director's Order
#77-1 (NPS 1998a) and Procedural Manual #77-1 (NPS 1998b) provide the
guidelines for implementing this order. If a proposed action would
result in new adverse impacts on wetlands, a statement of findings
documenting compliance with this director's order and procedure manual
would be required.

E.O. 11988 on floodplain management directs federal agencies to reduce
the risk of flood loss; minimize the impacts on human safety, health,
and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains. The *National Park Service Floodplain Management
Guideline* (NPS 1993) provides the procedures for implementing this
order. A floodplain statement of findings is required for certain
actions that occur in regulatory floodplains.

A wetland and floodplain statement of findings was prepared for Big
Cypress National Preserve in the general management plan and
environmental impact statement (NPS 1991). The National Park Service
concluded that there were no practicable alternatives to the general
management plan for avoiding impacts on wetlands and floodplains.
However, the proposed action would include development of a sustainable
system that would incorporate wetland restoration.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176979 .anchor}**Federal Statues and NPS
Policies Related to Biological Resources**

The Endangered Species Act and *Management Policies* (NPS 1988) provide
guidance for protecting biological resources and require the examination
of impacts during planning. Additionally, one of the primary goals in
the overall mission statement of the Department of the Interior is to
protect plant and animal diversity (biodiversity) on public lands.

The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, in consultation
with the secretary of the interior, to utilize their authorities in the
furtherance of the purposes of the act and to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed endangered and threatened species (16 USC 1535
Section 7(a)(1)). The National Park Service interprets Section 7(a)(1)
as an affirmative restoration mandate and will comply through positive
habitat protection and restoration programs that are integral to the
proposed action.

The act also directs federal agencies, in consultation with the
secretary of the interior, to ensure that any action authorized, funded,
or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (16
USC 1535 Section 7(a)(2)). Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) is required if the action may affect such a species to
ensure that it does not jeopardize the species' continued existence.

NPS policies involve managing biological resources through the use of
management areas. The management areas for Big Cypress Natural Preserve
are described in detail in the general management plan and environmental
impact statement (NPS 1991). Within the preserve, development and
special use zones are managed and maintained for intensive visitor use.
Within those zones, the natural aspects might be altered. The primary
objective in natural zones, which constitute the majority of the
preserve, is the protection of natural resources and values for
appropriate types of enjoyment but only if that enjoyment occurs in a
manner that leaves the resources unimpaired for future generations. In
natural zones, the goal of the National Park Service is to maintain the
natural components and processes of naturally evolving ecosystems,
including the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of
the plants and animals. However, ORV use under the no action alternative
(continue current management) challenges and limits the ability of the
National Park Service to maintain natural components and processes.

NPS (1988) policies for implementing the Endangered Species Act call for
the National Park Service to \"identify and promote the conservation of
all federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species . . .
and their critical habitat\" within the preserve. The National Park
Service also must control access to critical habitats and conduct
management programs that perpetuate the natural distribution and
abundance of these species and the ecosystems on which they depend. The
no action alternative (continue current management) violates these
policies, since it limits the ability of the preserve's staff to control
access to critical habitats. A key feature of the proposed action
alternative is the protection and affirmative restoration of threatened
and endangered species habitats.

The National Park Service consulted with the USFWS during the
development of the 1991 general management plan and environmental impact
statement. The USFWS issued a biological opinion that the general
management plan would adversely affect the Florida panther, but was not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species (USFWS
1991). The USFWS concurred with the determination of the National Park
Service that the general management plan would not adversely affect
eight other federally listed species that occur in the vicinity of the
preserve. To reduce the potential adverse impacts, the USFWS recommended
that the National Park Service

> develop a recreational ORV management plan
>
> provide details in the plan on how ORV use would be managed to protect
> Florida panthers
>
> provide the draft plan to the Florida Panther Interagency Committee
> for review and comment
>
> prohibit ORV use in areas regularly used by panthers, except where ORV
> use was determined essential for the preserve to comply with its
> mandates
>
> apply adaptive management principles, such as changing ORV access
> points, designated trails and areas, or number of permits issued,
> based on continued monitoring of the Florida panther and any
> difficulties in controlling ORV activities.

Conditions have changed since the preparation of the biological opinion
in association with the Big Cypress National Preserve general management
plan. Therefore, the National Park Service will consult with the USFWS
in association with preparing the ORV management plan, and a new
biological opinion will be issued. The new biological opinion will
update the recommendations presented in the earlier opinion and will
supercede that document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176980 .anchor}**1995 Settlement Agreement**

The Florida Biodiversity Project filed suit alleging failures by several
federal agencies and bureaus in connection with the use and/or
management of ORVs in Big Cypress National Preserve. The agencies and
bureaus named in the suit included the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Army, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The suit alleged failure to comply with federal
statutes, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

On October 25, 1995, the National Park Service settled the suit. As part
of the settlement, the National Park Service agreed to prepare an ORV
management plan and supplemental environmental impact statement in
consultation with the EPA and other appropriate state and federal
agencies. The plan builds on the analyses of issues and impacts
previously set forth in the Big Cypress National Preserve general
management plan and final environmental impact statement (NPS 1991).

The agreement specified that the overall objective of the ORV management
plan would be to establish a comprehensive system for management of ORV
use in the preserve. The goal would be assuring the natural and
ecological integrity of resources in accordance with the enabling
legislation establishing Big Cypress National Preserve. The settlement
agreement specified that, at a minimum, the plan would address the
following items:

> Current ORV policies and practices within the preserve and each
> management unit
>
> Methods for limiting and controlling ORV use to minimize impacts to
> resources in the preserve
>
> Methods of avoiding adverse impacts to wetlands and sensitive
> resources from ORVs, and alternative methods of minimizing unavoidable
> adverse impacts
>
> Best management practices (BMPs) designed to avoid and/or minimize
> impacts from ORV use on preserve resources
>
> Criteria for the development of a comprehensive designated trail
> system and/or use areas
>
> Management practices for particular vehicle types to avoid and/or
> minimize impacts to preserve resources
>
> Methods for monitoring impacts of ORV use and mechanisms for taking
> remedial action based on the results of monitoring
>
> Procedures and considerations (including but not limited to ecology
> and recreational factors) for closing, opening, and reopening areas
> and closing, relocating, opening, and reopening trails to ORV use

It was also stipulated that the National Park Service would involve the
public and various state and federal agencies, and would use public and
agency input to help prepare the plan and supplemental environmental
impact statement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176981 .anchor}**Ability to Meet Legislative
Mandates and Special Commitments**

The National Park Service would not be able to meet some of its
legislative mandates and special commitments for Big Cypress National
Preserve under the no action alternative (continue current management).
This situation is unacceptable to the National Park Service. Therefore,
an ORV management plan is needed that will enable the National Park
Service to conform with the

> statutes and executive orders that apply to federal facilities
> throughout the nation
>
> measures that apply to the entire National Park Service
>
> preserve-specific requirements

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176982 .anchor}**Management Objectives**

Objectives for management of recreational ORVs in Big Cypress National
Preserve are presented below. These management objectives are based on
the intent of the enabling legislation. They were further defined based
on the preserve's general management plan (NPS 1991). This plan
discusses how recreational ORVs would be managed under the proposed
action and no action alternative (continue current management) to
fulfill these objectives.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176983 .anchor}**Natural Resources**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176984 .anchor}**Water Resources**

Maintain natural water flows within Big Cypress National Preserve and
outflows to Everglades National Park.

Maintain the water quality within the preserve.

Restore areas where natural water flows have been disrupted.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176985 .anchor}**Soils**

Maintain natural elevation, composition, and integrity of soils.

Restore areas where soils have been disturbed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176986 .anchor}**Vegetation**

Protect vegetation from disturbance outside of access points and
designated trails.

Maintain and affirmatively restore habitat for rare and federally and
state-listed species.

Control and reduce the spread of invasive plants.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176987 .anchor}**Wildlife**

Maintain the natural abundance of wildlife populations.

Protect and affirmatively restore federally listed threatened and
endangered species and state special-concern species and their habitat.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176988 .anchor}**Cultural Resources**

Protect all known cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. Prior to their evaluation, protect
all known cultural resources to the same level that listed resources are
protected.

Protect Indian sacred sites within the preserve.

Cooperate with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and Seminole
Tribe of Florida to continue usual and customary use and occupancy of
preserve lands.

Ensure that the plan does not conflict with the provisions of the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176989 .anchor}**Visitor Experience**

Provide all visitors with the opportunity to explore Big Cypress
National Preserve.

Provide opportunities for diverse groups to use the preserve.

Maintain the scenic quality of Big Cypress National Preserve.

Provide appropriate resource--related recreational opportunities.

Manage and reduce adverse impacts of ORV use to natural and cultural
resources.

Provide for public safety.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176990 .anchor}**Planning Issues**

Impact topics are potential environmental concerns that may result from
federal action, if it is taken. Impact topics were identified by
specialists in the National Park Service and in other state and federal
agencies, and by the public during scoping for this project.

Two notices related to this planning effort were published in the
*Federal Register*.

> A notice of the intent to prepare the ORV management plan was
> published in the January 22, 1996 issue (61 FR (14):1599-1600)
>
> A notice of intent to prepare the ORV management plan and supplemental
> environmental impact statement was published in the March 17, 1999
> issue (64 FR (85):13233)

The general public and stakeholders have been kept informed of the
progress of this planning effort through a series of newsletters,
visitor surveys, and meetings with individuals, organizations, and
agencies. Meetings were held between September 1995 and March 1996. Two
newsletters were mailed to about 1,600 people during August 1996 and
June 1997. The newsletters and other information about ORV use and
management in the preserve were also made available on the Internet.
Additional information on the public information program is provided in
the \"History of Public Involvement\" section.

Once impact topics were identified, they were used to help formulate the
alternatives. Impact topics in the general management plan and
environmental impact statement (NPS 1991) were also reviewed for
applicability to the ORV management plan. Impact topics were then
selected for detailed analysis based on substance, the settlement
agreement, environmental statutes, regulations, executive orders, and
NPS management policies. A summary of specific impact topics and the
rationale for their selection is given below.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176991 .anchor}**Natural Resource Impact
Topics**

[Water Resources.]{.underline} ORV use may displace soils in such a way
so that natural mechanisms are unable to restore the natural topography
over periods of years or even decades (Duever *et al*. 1986b). This
could change water flow patterns and directions. Preliminary studies
also suggest that airboat trails may alter both direction and velocity
of local surface water flow (Pernas *et al*. 1995). ORV use may increase
turbidity or result in some discharges, leaks, or spills of petroleum
products in localized areas. Construction of ORV access points could
affect water flow and quality. For these reasons, surface water flows
and water quality are two of the impact topics analyzed in this
document.

[Soils.]{.underline} ORV use causes soil rutting, displacement, and
compaction. This causes soil loss or reduced productivity. Therefore,
soils are included as an impact topic addressed in this document.

[Vegetation.]{.underline} ORVs can directly impact vegetation by
crushing plants, scarring trees, and exposing roots. Sites disturbed by
ORVs may be susceptible to invasive plants. ORV ruts may act as
firebreaks, which could alter fire behavior affecting vegetation. All of
these could result in changes in plant composition. In addition, the
construction of ORV access points would cause the loss of vegetation.
The vegetation types that were identified in the general management plan
and environ

mental impact statement as \"important resources\" included cypress
strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, sloughs, marshes, mangrove
forests, pinelands, and hardwood hammocks. All of these types are
analyzed in this document. Prairies have been added as an impact topic
because of their high susceptibility to ORV impacts.

[Protected Species.]{.underline} A total of 30 animal species that
receive special protection or are recognized by the state of Florida,
the federal government, or the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species may occur within the preserve (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 1997; USFWS 1999a). The endangered
Florida panther, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and red-cockaded
woodpecker, and the threatened bald eagle, were analyzed in the general
management plan and final environmental impact statement (NPS 1991).
These four species, plus the endangered Everglade snail kite, West
Indian manatee, and wood stork are analyzed in this supplemental
environmental impact statement because ORV use and management activities
could reduce the quality of habitat preferred by these species, directly
disturb individual animals, or reduce foraging opportunities.

[White-Tailed Deer and Feral Hogs.]{.underline} White-tailed deer and
European feral hogs are preyed on by panthers and sought by hunters.
Public comment indicated concern that ORV use facilitates hunting
activities in remote areas and could reduce prey numbers, thus
potentially affecting the panther's foraging opportunities in the
preserve.

Other wildlife were dismissed from detailed analysis for the reasons
given below under \"Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis.\"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176992 .anchor}**Cultural Resource Impact
Topics**

The preserve has approximately 400 known archeological sites. These
sites contain valuable information on past occupations of the area. All
of these sites are protected under the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and the Archeological Resource Protection Act
of 1979.

The preserve has three known sacred sites for the Miccosukee and
Seminole people. Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996),
directs federal agencies, to the extent practicable, to accommodate
access and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites and avoid adversely
affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. The executive
order also states that where appropriate, locations of sacred sites
should be confidential. Therefore, these locations are not included in
any of the maps in this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176993 .anchor}**Visitor Experience Impact
Topics**

[ORV Use.]{.underline} ORV restrictions would affect the recreational
opportunities for some ORV users. The ORV permitting process and limited
access in some areas may also inconvenience some recreational ORV users.
For these reasons, ORV use was included as an impact topic analyzed in
this document.

[Hunting.]{.underline} Many hunters use ORVs to access hunting areas and
to transport camping and hunting gear and game. Restricting ORV use in
some areas would challenge some hunters' mobility. Conversely, limiting
ORV use may enhance the hunting experience for those who prefer to walk.
For these reasons, hunting was included as an impact topic analyzed in
this document.

[Other Visitation.]{.underline} Approximately 450,000 people who visit
the preserve each year engage in activities other than those associated
with ORV use. There is concern that noise and visual intrusions
resulting from ORV use may adversely affect these non-ORV preserve
visitors. ORV use and its impact on vegetation and soils could impact
the scenic quality of the preserve, especially in areas frequently used
by other visitors such as near roads, hiking trails, and campgrounds.
ORV use could also affect natural sounds, and viewing opportunities for
wildlife.

[Nonfederal Property Owners.]{.underline} The recreational activities of
property owners may be affected by recreational ORV use restrictions.
Reasonable access to their properties would continue to be permitted by
the National Park Service.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176994 .anchor}**Topics Dismissed from Detailed
Analysis**

Several topics were eliminated from further analysis because they were
considered to be outside the scope of this supplemental environmental
impact statement, the best available information indicated that impacts
would be negligible, or scoping did not indicate public or regulatory
concerns in association with ORV use. The topics considered but not
evaluated further in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section of this
document include the following.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176995 .anchor}**Other Wildlife Species**

Other federally protected species, such as the eastern indigo snake,
were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis. These species
typically are not found in the affected areas and/or their preferred
habitat would not be physically disturbed by ORV use and management
under either alternative. Therefore, specific ORV management measures to
protect these species are not needed, other than general protection
afforded by the national preserve (NPS 1991).

The American alligator is federally listed because of the similarity of
its appearance to the endangered American crocodile. Because the
crocodile does not occur in the preserve, effects to the alligator were
not considered.

The seven federally listed species analyzed, plus the white-tailed deer
and feral hog, are suitable indicators for the status of other wildlife
species that occur in the preserve. Together, these species reflect
ecosystem health for wildlife in general. As such, the beneficial or
adverse effects that would accrue to these species from the ORV
management alternatives would probably indicate similar effects to state
special-concern wildlife, other game species, and other non-game
species. Therefore, effects to other wildlife were not included as an
impact topic.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176996 .anchor}**Preserve Use by Miccosukee and
Seminole Tribes**

The preserve's enabling legislation provides for the usual and customary
use and occupancy of the preserve by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. This plan only addresses
recreational ORV use. Customary use and occupancy must be addressed in a
different venue.

The National Park Service has consulted with the tribes during
preparation of this plan and environmental impact statement. Nothing in
the alternatives considered would interfere with these tribes' abilities
to exercise their rights. Therefore, this topic was not considered in
detail in this evaluation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176997 .anchor}**Air Quality**

Big Cypress National Preserve has been designated a Class II area under
the Clean Air Act. The preserve is currently within a designated
attainment area (i.e., concentrations below standards) for criteria
pollutants. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions would be produced by ORV
use but would not cause national ambient air quality standards to be
exceeded.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176998 .anchor}**Mineral Interests**

The proposed action would not affect mineral exploration or extraction
operations in the preserve. Mineral operations are beyond the scope of
this plan. The Big Cypress National Preserve mineral management plan,
which is an appendix to the general management plan (NPS 1991), provides
details on management of mineral-related activities. Thus, mineral
interests were dismissed from detailed analysis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489176999 .anchor}**Cultural Resources**

Cultural resources were dismissed from further detailed analysis.
Nonstructural and other significant cultural resources will continue to
be protected through management zoning and monitoring. Measures to
protect sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places as described in the general management plan and final
environmental impact statement (NPS 1991) would be carried out to ensure
that these sites were protected from ORV use.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177000 .anchor}**Environmental Justice**

E.O. 12898 requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental
justice into their missions by identifying and addressing
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minorities and low-income populations and communities. The
proposed action is not expected to result in significant changes in the
socioeconomic environment of the affected area, and therefore would not
impact minorities or low-income populations or communities. Therefore,
environmental justice was eliminated from detailed analysis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177001 .anchor}**Prime and Unique Agricultural
Lands**

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 *et seq.*) and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Environmental Statement Memorandum No.
ESM94-7 -- Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands) require an evaluation of
impacts on prime or unique agricultural lands. No prime or unique
agricultural lands exist in the preserve. Therefore, this topic was
dismissed from further consideration.

 

**Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action**

 

 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177003 .anchor}**introduction**

Two alternatives were considered for the management of ORVs in Big
Cypress National Preserve.

The proposed action would focus on meeting the legislative mandates and
special commitments of the preserve through a sustainable management
system of this high-impact recreational activity. It would include

> provisions to restrict ORVs to designated trails and access points
>
> an integral research component to determine such items as the best
> areas through which to route ORVs and the most effective trail
> construction and maintenance techniques
>
> a restoration program to address conditions that have resulted in the
> preserve from past ORV use
>
> an education and communication program to convey the importance and
> results of management plan implementation to ORV users and other
> stakeholders
>
> application of the precautionary principle, which would favor resource
> protection over resource use
>
> use of adaptive management techniques, which would apply lessons
> learned from research and field experience to improving ORV management
> and to improving the visitor experience of both ORV users and other
> preserve visitors

The no action alternative (continue current management) would continue
current NPS programs for ORV use and natural resource management in the
preserve. As described in the \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\"
section, the National Park Service would not meet several of its legal
obligations for resource protection with implementation of the no action
alternative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177004 .anchor}**Proposed Action**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177005 .anchor}**Introduction**

This alternative emphasizes protection of natural and cultural resources
in a manner that would leave the resources unimpaired for future users,
while allowing ORV access for resource-related recreational
opportunities. Key features of the proposed action include the
following.

> All ORVs would be required to depart from designated access points and
> travel only on designated trails within the preserve.
>
> Sensitive areas, such as marl prairies and Cape Sable seaside sparrow
> habitat, would be closed.
>
> The Loop Unit and Deep Lake Unit would remain closed to ORV use.
>
> ORV users wanting to enter the preserve would be required to meet
> vehicle specifications and to obtain a vehicle permit.
>
> Vehicle permits would be issued through a random drawing.
>
> All vehicle operators would be required to attend an education course
> and obtain an operator's permit.
>
> All recreationists in the preserve would be required to have
> backcountry permits for each trip into the preserve.
>
> Temporal and spatial closures, such as nighttime and seasonal
> closures, would be implemented for all backcountry use.
>
> Monitoring, restoration, and research activities would be implemented.
>
> Adaptive management based on increased knowledge gained through
> implementation of the plan would be used to optimize all of the plan
> components.

This alternative focuses on the mandate of the NPS Organic Act, which is
resource preservation. This and other legal mandates direct the National
Park Service to manage the preserve's resources such that they are not
impaired.

In developing this alternative, the National Park Service has used the
best available information. However, to help ensure the effectiveness of
the plan, the National Park Service would adaptively manage ORVs. This
means that the plan would not be a static document but instead would
evolve as additional information became available. Sources of
information would include existing data, new information from scientific
research and monitoring, and input from NPS staff and other individuals
who are familiar with the preserve. These data would be entered into a
geographic information system. As additional information was gathered
and analyzed, it would be incorporated into the plan. For example, as
the National Park Service learned through experience the most and

least effective techniques to solve a particular problem, both the plan
and on-ground conditions (such as a trail alignment) may be modified to
improve the protection of preserve resources.

The proposed action would also apply the precautionary principle to
resources management. In all situations involving conflicts between
resource protection and resource use, the National Park Service would
decide in favor of resources protection.

Under the proposed action, the National Park Service would establish an
advisory committee of concerned citizens to examine issues and make
recommendations regarding the management of ORVs in the preserve. The
establishment of the committee would meet the legal requirements of the
1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (P.L. 92-463, 1972, as
amended). The committee is envisioned to be a subcommittee of the
National Park Advisory Board and would be chaired by a member of that
board. The advisory committee would provide access to the extensive
knowledge available in the public arena and would offer advice to the
National Park Service in the decision-making process in a manner
consistent with FACA. This committee would be an element of the adaptive
management approach that would be used to develop best management
practices for ORV use.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177006 .anchor}**Trails and Access Points**

Under the proposed action, ORVs could enter the preserve only from
specified access points. Within the preserve, ORVs would be restricted
to designated trails. No off-trail or cross-county use of ORVs would be
permitted.

The Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map shows
the current configuration of the ORV network within Big Cypress National
Preserve. The ORV network would include 15 access points, described
later in this section, and no more than 400 miles of designated primary
trails.

It should be recognized that the Conceptual Framework of Access Points
and Primary Trails map represents only preliminary alignments for
trails. As described below, a detailed analysis using such tools as
geographic information system, staff knowledge, and ground-truthing
would be used to refine the most appropriate route for each trail. Even
after the ORV management plan went into effect, trail alignments could
be modified by the National Park Service as part of the adaptive
management approach, based on experience, environmental and resource
conditions, and improved information.

A system of access points and designated trails is consistent with the
intent of the enabling legislation for the preserve, as documented in
its legislative history. Specifically, U.S. Senate Report 1128 (1974)
and U.S. House of Representatives Report 502 (1973) state that \" . . .
the use of all-terrain vehicles must be carefully regulated by the
Secretary \[of the Interior\] to protect the natural, wildlife and
wilderness values of the preserve,\" but recognize that \" . . . the
bill does not prohibit their use *along designated roads and trails*\"
(emphasis added). This statement is interpreted by the National Park
Service to authorize, but not mandate, the use of ORVs in the preserve,
and to indicate the intent of Congress to restrict ORVs to designated
roads and trails.

Private landowners within the preserve boundaries would be issued a
special use permit to allow reasonable access to and from their private
property. Their access routes would be determined by

 

[**Figure -- Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary
Trails**](../finlconc.jpg)

 

 

the National Park Service, based on resource protection criteria and
discussions with the property owner. This permit would not allow for
recreational ORV use of the preserve. Recreational ORV use by landowners
would require participation in the recreational ORV permit program.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177007 .anchor}**Criteria for Developing the
Trail System and Access Points**

The designated trail system and access points would continue to be
developed based on resource protection and visitor experience criteria.
These criteria were derived using recommendations from preserve staff,
ORV users, and other individuals and groups interested in the protection
of Big Cypress resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177008 .anchor}**Resource Protection.**

Resource criteria were developed to protect important environmental and
cultural areas, restore heavily impacted and environmentally sensitive
areas, and direct use to areas of suitable substrate. The first three
criteria were designed to avoid or minimize placement of trails and
access points in vulnerable plant communities and wildlife habitats, and
to entirely avoid archeological sites, Native American sacred sites, and
areas that are currently heavily impacted and cannot sustain ORV use.
The last two criteria target locations that are more suitable for
placement of trails and access points.

> [Avoid or minimize trails through vegetation communities most
> susceptible to impacts.]{.underline} Some plant communities are highly
> sensitive to impacts from ORV use because of their soil and vegetative
> composition, hydroperiod, and/or the manner in which ORVs are operated
> in them. For instance, marl prairies have been identified as the
> vegetation community most sensitive to disturbance by ORVs. The soils
> in marl prairies are extremely soft when wet. Woody vegetation
> typically is absent in these areas, which promotes dispersal of ORVs
> to avoid heavily rutted areas. As a result, there has been extensive
> soil and vegetative disturbance throughout entire prairie systems.
> Adverse effects include widespread soil and vegetation disturbance and
> modification of water flow. These areas may require complete exclusion
> of ORV use to accommodate restoration.
>
> [Avoid or minimize trails in areas where ORVs may have a detrimental
> effect on threatened and endangered species.]{.underline} These areas
> include Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat, red-cockaded woodpecker
> clusters, areas frequented by the Florida panther, bald eagle nest
> sites, Everglade snail kite nests, West Indian manatee critical
> habitat, and wood stork rookeries.
>
> [Avoid archeological and sacred sites.]{.underline} There are three
> known Indian sacred sites, and approximately 400 known archeological
> sites within the preserve.
>
> [Designate trails and access points in areas that offer the most
> suitable substrate.]{.underline} These areas primarily include
> semi-upland terrain, such as areas within and adjacent to pinelands,
> that are flooded less frequently and for shorter periods. Previously
> disturbed areas would be considered for use.
>
> [Locate access points and designate trails to maximize use of existing
> disturbed areas.]{.underline} These corridors include existing filled
> roadways, trams (raised or filled railroad beds constructed in the
> 1930s and 1940s for lumbering operations), and existing trails. Use of
> these corridors takes advantage of already affected areas and
> minimizes impacts to more sensitive soils. This criterion would not
> apply to areas that are thought to be too heavily impacted and require
> complete exclusion to accommodate restoration.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177009 .anchor}**Visitor Experience.**

Visitor experience criteria were developed to provide recreational ORV
users with access to a variety of locations, and to avoid or minimize
visual impacts, safety hazards, and conflicts with other types of
preserve visitors. The first criterion would help identify trails to
specific destinations. The other two criteria are designed to avoid or
minimize placing ORV trails and access points where they would adversely
affect other visitors, safety, or aesthetics.

> [Designate trails to provide access.]{.underline} Trails would be
> selected to provide access to a variety of recreation destinations,
> and would be used to provide access for property owners. However, they
> would not provide unlimited access to all open areas of the preserve
> as would occur with the no action alternative (continue current
> management).
>
> [Avoid or minimize user conflicts.]{.underline} Preferred locations
> for ORV trails and access points would avoid hiking trails, canoe
> trails, and viewing areas where possible. Access points would be
> located to minimize mixing ORV use with campgrounds, roadside day use
> areas, and proposed locations for improvements, such as pullouts and
> scenic viewing parking areas that will be developed as part of the
> U.S. Highway 41 enhancements project.
>
> [Avoid or minimize safety hazards.]{.underline} Much of the existing
> access requires parking ORV transport vehicles and trailers along a
> highway or county road. In other areas, the ORV user must leave a
> developed parking site and drive along the road shoulder to the access
> point. Sometimes, ORVs must cross a major highway to enter the
> preserve. Preferred locations for ORV trails and access points would
> attempt to avoid safety conflicts with roadway traffic and unlawful
> practices.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177010 .anchor}**Methodology**

Using the criteria described above, a computerized geographic
information system (GIS) suitability analysis would be refined to
develop the trail alignments and access points shown on the Conceptual
Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map. The GIS analysis to
date has used data layers for vegetation communities, threatened and
endangered wildlife species, archeological sites, and sacred sites.
Other data included roadways, trams, and trails; existing park service
personnel and ORV users' knowledge of the preserve; and preliminary
field surveys.

Data layer categories were given a value by preserve staff for substrate
suitability and resource sensitivity.

> Substrate suitability is the capacity of an area to sustain ORV
> traffic, and was inferred from vegetation type and the availability of
> existing roads and trails.
>
> Resource sensitivity is an area's susceptibility to ORV impacts and
> the importance of preventing these impacts or restoring past effects.

The values for each of the major categories are shown in Table 1. These
data, along with locations of heavily impacted areas, were then used in
the GIS analysis to reflect the resource protection criteria and produce
a suitability map. Visitor experience criteria, including trail
destinations and best locations for access points, were applied using
input from NPS staff and the public. The GIS was then used to plot the
best trail routes and access sites.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319121 .anchor}**Table 1: Substrate Suitability
and Resource Sensitivity**

  ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------
  **Category**                    **Substrate         **Resource
                                  Suitability**       Sensitivity**

  Pines                           High                High

  Hardwood hammocks               High                High

  Cypress strands                 Moderate            Moderate

  Mixed swamp forest              Moderate            Moderate

  Prairies                        Low                 High

  Marshes                         Low                 High

  Cape sable seaside sparrow      NA ^a/^             High
  habitat                                             

  Red-cockaded woodpecker         NA                  Moderate
  clusters                                            

  Bald eagle nest sites           NA                  High

  West Indian manatee critical    NA                  High
  habitat                                             

  Archeological sites             NA                  High

  Indian sacred sites             NA                  High

  Canoe trails                    NA                  High

  Existing ORV trails             NA                  High

  Florida Trail                   NA                  High

  Existing roads and trams        High                Low
  ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------

a/ NA = not applicable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177011 .anchor}**Proposed System of Trails and
Access Points**

The conceptual system of designated trails and access points is shown on
the Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map. It
consists of 15 access points and up to 400 miles of designated primary
trails. This map depicts the general placement and overall distribution
of designated primary trails and access points. The approach for
implementing this ORV network is described in the \"Implementation
Strategy and Schedule\" section.

Under the proposed action, more detailed GIS analyses would be performed
to select optimal alignments for each component of the access points and
trails network. Field inspections would be undertaken to ground-truth
precise locations for ORV travel routes and boundaries of areas that are
environmentally sensitive or heavily impacted by ORV activity.
Designated trail routes would then be verified and more accurately
located. An appropriate buffer guideline would be developed in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for trail
placement and maintenance in the vicinity of habitat of endangered or
threatened species. As part of the adaptive management approach,
individual trails and access sites would be periodically reevaluated as
to how well they were meeting management goals and achieving acceptable
conditions. If necessary, trail segments or access points would be
relocated. Areas where the National Park Service was unable to maintain
trails or trail marking due to vandalism would be closed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177012 .anchor}**Designated Trails.**

The Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map
includes only the designated primary trails within the preserve. Primary
trails would be those trails emanating from the designated access points
and providing recreational access within the preserve. These trails
would be the principal ORV routes.

Secondary trails would be identified to provide access to private
property or specific destinations such as campsites. Like the primary
network, secondary trail alignments would be based on field surveys and
GIS analyses. Secondary trails would branch off of the primary trails
and would receive less use. Trails accessing a private property would be
limited to use by that landowner if no other destination existed along
that route. Secondary trails for public recreational use accessing
features such as designated campsites would extend for a short distance
from the primary trail.

The management units for the proposed action are shown in the ORV
Management -- Proposed Action map. The types of vehicles that would be
allowed within each management unit of the preserve are described below.
The description also includes the total miles of designated primary
trails available in each management unit, based on the alignments in the
Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map. These
lengths could change as better data become available.

> [Bear Island Unit.]{.underline} Permitted ORV use would include swamp
> buggies, all-terrain cycles, and street-legal, four-wheel-drive
> vehicles. This unit would have approximately 30 miles of designated
> primary trails.
>
> [Turner River Unit.]{.underline} Permitted ORV use would include swamp
> buggies and all-terrain cycles. This unit would have approximately 140
> miles of designated primary trails.
>
> [Corn Dance Unit.]{.underline} Permitted ORV use would include swamp
> buggies and all-terrain cycles. This unit would have approximately 60
> miles of designated primary trails.
>
> [Stairsteps Unit.]{.underline} Permitted ORV use would vary by zone,
> as follows. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently is reviewing
> a petition for the designation of critical habitat for the Cape Sable
> seaside sparrow. Changes to ORV management could occur if the USFWS
> designates critical habitat within the preserve. The proposed
> management for each zone is as follows.
>
> Zone 1 -- closed to all ORV use.
>
> Zone 2 -- only swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles would be allowed
> on the approximately 10 miles of designated primary trails, after they
> were designated.
>
> Zone 3 -- swamp buggies, all-terrain cycles, and airboats would be
> allowed on approximately 25 miles of designated primary trails, after
> they were designated.
>
> Zone 4 -- only airboats would be allowed, and then only on designated
> primary trails. The lengths of these trails have not yet been
> determined.
>
> [Loop Unit.]{.underline} No change -- this unit would remain closed to
> ORV use.
>
> [Deep Lake Unit.]{.underline} No change -- this unit would remain
> closed to ORV use.
>
> ** **

[**Figure -- ORV Management - Proposed Action**](../finlprop.htm)

 

 

 

ORV use would be limited within a strip 1 mile wide on either side of
U.S. Highway 41 following issuance of the record of decision for the ORV
management plan. In this area, which would serve as a visual buffer,
access points and designated ORV trails would be established. Creation
of this visual buffer is consistent with the general management plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177013 .anchor}**Access Points.**

There would be 15 designated access points within the preserve. Their
locations are shown on the Conceptual Framework of Access Points and
Primary Trails map. In addition, Monument Lake Campground would continue
to be an access point until January 31, 2001, after which it would be
closed. The locations, parking, types of vehicles allowed, and
facilities that would be available at each access point are described
below.

> 1\. [Bear Island.]{.underline} This access point would be located near
> the existing Bear Island Campground. ORV users would park in the
> existing portion of Turner River Road north of the campground
> entrance. Campers could park their vehicles at their campsite. Swamp
> buggies, all-terrain cycles, and street-legal vehicles would be
> allowed to access the preserve from this point.
>
> During peak-use periods, the National Park Service would have portable
> toilet and trash collection facilities near the trailhead. A bulletin
> board would be maintained to provide information and a backcountry
> permit dispenser would be established. Closures and restrictions to
> protect the Florida panther and its habitat would be implemented as
> required.
>
> 2\. [Turner River Road North.]{.underline} This access point would be
> located approximately 15 miles north of U.S. Highway 41 on the east
> side of Turner River Road. Parking would be along Turner River Road.
> Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles would be allowed to enter the
> backcountry from this point. A bulletin board would be maintained to
> provide information, and a backcountry permit station would be
> established.
>
> 3\. [Concho Billie.]{.underline} This access point would use the
> existing road located on the east side of Turner River Road
> approximately 7 miles north of U.S. Highway 41. Parking at this site
> would be along Turner River Road. Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles
> would be allowed to enter the backcountry from this point.
>
> This road formerly was used for oil and gas exploration and has an
> elevated road bed. The road bed would be repaired and water conveyance
> structures would be added. A bulletin board would be maintained to
> provide information and a backcountry permit station would be
> established.
>
> 4\. [Windmill Tram.]{.underline} This access point would use the
> existing tram located on the east side of Turner River Road
> approximately 4 miles north of U.S. Highway 41. Parking at this site
> would be along Turner River Road. Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles
> would be allowed to access the preserve from this point.
>
> The tram would be repaired and water conveyance structures would be
> added, if necessary. A bulletin board would be maintained to provide
> information and a backcountry permit station would be established.
>
> 5\. [Burns Lake.]{.underline} ORV parking would be provided at Burns
> Lake Campground. The access point would be located at the end of Burns
> Lake Road, about 1.5 miles away. Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles
> would be allowed to enter the preserve from this area. A bulletin
> board would be maintained to provide information and a backcountry
> permit station would be established.
>
> 6\. [Skillet Strand North.]{.underline} This access point would be
> developed on the north side of U.S. Highway 41. Swamp buggies and
> all-terrain cycles would be allowed to enter the preserve from this
> point. A bulletin board would be maintained to provide information and
> a backcountry permit station would be established.
>
> 7\. [Skillet Strand South.]{.underline} This access point would be
> developed on the south side of U.S. Highway 41. Swamp buggies and
> all-terrain cycles would be allowed to enter the preserve from this
> point. A bulletin board would be maintained to provide information and
> a backcountry permit station would be established.
>
> 8\. [Oasis.]{.underline} Oasis is located approximately in the middle
> of the preserve on the north side of U.S. Highway 41. The Big Cypress
> National Preserve Visitor Center parking lot at Oasis is being
> redesigned to make the area safer and more efficient. The redesign
> would include ORV parking spaces. Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles
> would be allowed to access the backcountry from this point.
>
> The designated trail would be constructed on the east side of the
> facility and would provide access to the north. A bulletin board would
> be maintained to provide information and a backcountry permit station
> would be established.
>
> 9\. [Jetport.]{.underline} The Dade-Collier Jetport is located on the
> eastern side of the preserve north of U.S. Highway 41. Although the
> jetport is within the preserve boundary, the National Park Service
> does not have management authority over the jetport. Users wanting to
> access the preserve from jetport lands must continue to obtain
> permission from the Miami-Dade County Port Authority.
>
> The National Park Service would designate an access point for users of
> the jetport to enter preserve lands. Swamp buggies and all-terrain
> cycles would be allowed into the backcountry from this point. The
> National Park Service would work with the Miami-Dade County Port
> Authority in determining the best location for this access point. A
> bulletin board and backcountry permit station for this access point
> may be established at a convenient location.
>
> 10\. [Monroe Station North.]{.underline} Monroe Station is located
> about halfway through the preserve on the south side of U.S. Highway
> 41. Swamp buggies and all-terrain cycles would be allowed access north
> into the Turner River Unit.
>
> Portable toilets and trash facilities would be provided at Monroe
> Station at peak times of use. A bulletin board would be maintained to
> provide information and a backcountry permit station would be
> established.
>
> 11\. [Monroe Station South.]{.underline} Swamp buggies and all-terrain
> cycles would be allowed access west into Zone 2 of the Stairsteps
> Unit. Portable toilets and trash facilities would be provided at
> Monroe Station at peak times of use. A bulletin board would be
> maintained to provide information and a backcountry permit station
> would be established. Private storage of ORVs would be eliminated at
> Monroe Station, in order to provide for adequate public parking for
> backcountry use at this access point.
>
> 12\. [Sig Walker Strand.]{.underline} This access point would be
> located on Loop Road approximately 4 miles south of the western
> intersection of Loop Road and U.S. Highway 41. Parking at this site
> would be along Loop Road. This access point would be for airboats
> only. A bulletin board would be maintained to provide information and
> a backcountry permit station would be established.
>
> 13\. [Pace's Dike.]{.underline} Parking at this site, which would be
> located on the east end of Pace's Dike and the intersection of Loop
> Road, would be along Loop Road. This access point would be for swamp
> buggies and all-terrain cycles. A bulletin board would be maintained
> to provide information and a backcountry permit station would be
> established.
>
> 14\. [Red Bird Lane (Mitchell's Landing).]{.underline} This access
> point would be located on the south side of Loop Road at Mitchell's
> Campground where the existing fill road extends approximately a
> half-mile south of Loop Road. Parking would be on the existing filled
> area at the campground. The existing boat ramp would provide access
> for airboats only. A bulletin board would be maintained to provide
> information and a backcountry permit station would be established.
>
> 15\. [Boundary Line.]{.underline} This access point would be located
> on the south side of Loop Road, with parking along Loop Road. The
> existing boat ramp would provide access for airboats only. A bulletin
> board would be maintained to provide information and a backcountry
> permit station would be established.
>
> The designated trail leaving from this area would be routed to avoid
> Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat. If data indicated that additional
> protection for this species was required, this area could be closed in
> the future.

Current plans include installing bulletin boards and backcountry permit
stations at each access point along Loop Road. However, this may be
modified to provide bulletin boards and permit stations just at the east
and west entrances to Loop Road.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177014 .anchor}**Carrying Capacities**

As described below in the \"Monitoring\" section, the National Park
Service would continually monitor effects to the preserve's resources
along designated trails and at access points. One of the goals of this
monitoring would be to provide data to support the establishment of
carrying capacities, as part of the adaptive management approach. The
development of carrying capacities would be performed within a framework
such as the visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) approach
(NPS 1997b). ORV use could then be managed to stay within carrying
capacities through such measures as adjusting the number of available
parking slots at access points.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177015 .anchor}**Monitoring**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177016 .anchor}**Trail Use Indicators and
Standards**

The National Park Service would develop a system of indicators and
standards to assess trail conditions and to support the need for
management action. The indicators and standards would be developed in
conformance with such guidance as the visitor experience and resource
protection handbook (NPS 1997b). Indicators would measure specific
physical and ecological parameters that reflect the overall condition of
an area. Standards would define the minimum acceptable condition of each
indicator.

A preliminary list of indicators is provided in Table 2. Indicators were
selected based on their ease of measurement, ability to provide useful
data, cost effectiveness, and ability to provide useful results any time
of day or any time of the year. Additions and improvements to these
indicators would be made based on experience gained in implementing this
plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319122 .anchor}Table 2: Candidate Indicators
and Standards for Assessing Trail Conditions

  --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------
  **\             **\               **What Does\      **What Exceeds\
  Indicator**     Measurement**     It Indicate?**    Standard?**

  Trail width     Width in feet.    Sufficient        Expressed as a
                                    traction,         percent increase.
                                    suitable          The threshold would
                                    substrate.        vary, based on the
                                                      setting.

  Trail depth     Depth in inches   Suitable          The threshold would
                  of the deepest    substrate.        vary, based on the
                  sets of ruts.                       setting.

  Water flow      Flow in cubic     Hydrologic        Flows greater than
                  feet per second   change.           background.
                  or minute.                          

  Turbidity       Turbidity greater Water quality     Turbidity
                  than standard     change.           measurements greater
                  when measured                       than background.
                  outside of the                      
                  acceptable zone                     
                  of influence.                       

  Oily sheen      Visual            Presence of       Oily sheen observed
                  observation.      petroleum         at the sampling
                                    product.          location.

  Soils           Difference from   Change in soil    The threshold would
                  ambient           chemistry or      vary, based on the
                  conditions.       structure.        setting.

  Invasive plants Spread of         Potential         Any new invasive
                  invasive plants   distribution of   plants adjacent to
                  or identification seed by ORVs.     designated trails.
                  of newly                            
                  established                         
                  growth along a                      
                  trail.                              
  --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------

The assessment of conditions would recognize that conditions such as
removal of vegetation and localized, short-duration turbidity are
inherent to ORV use and would occur within trail alignments. Therefore,
some of the indicators such as turbidity would define an acceptable zone
of influence within which exceedences of standards are expected. For
these indicators, the standards would only be applied outside of the
acceptable zone of influence.

The National Park Service would continue to consult with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and conduct research regarding
water quality impacts from ORVs.

> [Trail Width.]{.underline} Trail width is often an indicator of the
> degree of suitable substrate within a trail. As trails become rutted,
> ORV operators travel parallel to the rutted area in order for the
> vehicle to have traction to cross the area. This practice often
> increases the width of the trail.
>
> [Trail Depth.]{.underline} The trail depth is related to the rutting
> caused by vehicles traveling through moist soils. The displacement of
> soils by vehicles deepens trails over time.
>
> [Water Flow.]{.underline} Repeated passes of ORVs will result in the
> loss of the vegetation in the trail and rutting. The loss of
> vegetation and change in the topography have been shown to increase
> the rate of water movement (Pernas *et al.* 1995).
>
> [Water Quality.]{.underline} The use of ORVs could result in the
> changes in water quality by increasing turbidity, re-suspending
> nutrients and metals from soils, or discharging petroleum products.
>
> [Soils.]{.underline} Repeated disturbance by ORV use can displace
> soils. This produces topographic changes in and adjacent to ORV
> trails. Soil displacement and associated mixing can change soil
> hydrology and chemistry, which could alter the soil's ability to
> sustain plants or the type of plant community the soil can support.
>
> [Invasive Plants.]{.underline} There are indications that ORVs have
> resulted in the spread of invasive plants, such as *Schinus
> terebinthefolius* (Brazilian pepper), *Melaleuca quinquenervia, Typha*
> (cattail), and *Lygodium microphyllum* (old world climbing fern)
> within Big Cypress National Preserve. ORVs can collect seed in their
> tire tread and beds and distribute it in currently unaffected areas of
> the preserve as they travel (Pernas 1999).

Examples of candidate standards for some of the indicators are provided
in Table 2. After the adoption of the proposed action, standards for
each indicator would be developed in conformance with such guidance as
the visitor experience and resource protection handbook (NPS 1997b).
Like the indicators, the standards would be periodically reevaluated as
the National Park Service collected additional data.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177017 .anchor}**Methods of Monitoring**

This section describes the strategy for monitoring the effects that
would result from the recreational use of ORVs in Big Cypress National
Preserve under the proposed action. Much of the monitoring would be
performed along the trails and access points designated for use by ORVs
and would be designed to determine whether management actions were
needed. However, monitoring also would be conducted to define the
acceptable zones of influence of ORV use, to determine the effectiveness
of restoration, and to support enforcement.

The monitoring program would periodically survey the designated trails
and access areas for impacts. The optimal frequency of monitoring would
be determined as part of the adaptive management approach.

A goal of monitoring would be to provide information that would help NPS
staff understand problems and select the most appropriate actions with a
sound, scientific basis. After management actions were implemented,
monitoring would reveal their effectiveness over time. This information
would support development of a management action guideline or table, as
discussed in the \"Management Actions\" section.

Another goal of monitoring would be to ensure that trails remained
passable without causing adverse resource effects beyond the acceptable
zone of influence. Monitoring would focus on direct impacts of ORV use
and would employ the indicators and standards presented in Table 2.
Indirect effects of ORV use on wildlife, vegetation, or hydrology would
be considered based on a combination of scientific research and
professional judgment.

Monitoring techniques primarily would include on-the-ground observations
and measurements. Trail condition and compliance monitoring would occur
during routine field activities by NPS staff, which would allow for
early identification of problems. The staff assigned to this activity
would be familiar with the indicators and standards, which they would
apply on a daily basis.

In addition, regularly scheduled monitoring at permanent sampling
locations would be conducted. Regularly scheduled monitoring could occur
both to detect the development of problems and to determine the
effectiveness of restoration efforts. The most appropriate approach for
monitoring to meet each of these objectives would be developed as part
of the adaptive management aspect of the proposed action.

NPS staff would select sites in response to concerns about a particular
area of the trail system. Sites would be selected through the use of
aerial photography, field observations, and comments from preserve
visitors. Because the goal of regularly scheduled monitoring would be to
provide long-term records from which trends could be established, strong
justification would be required before a regularly scheduled monitoring
site could be deleted or moved.

Typically, a transect perpendicular to the trail would be established at
a monitoring site. The transect would establish benchmarks on both sides
of the trail and would serve as the point of measuring trail widths. The
established benchmarks would serve as the reference points for
elevation. Using a basic survey transit, trail depth would be measured
at 1-foot intervals across the trail to create a trail cross-sectional
profile. This type of information would indicate the degree of rutting
and could be used for trend analysis of trail conditions and to
determine the need for management action. Photo points would be
established to visually document conditions over time.

Water flow measurement would be taken in the trails and compared to
background reference points in similar habitat in the vicinity of and
upgradient from the trail. Trail and background measurements would be
compared to determine if the standards were being exceeded.

Monitoring also would include the use of aerial photography. In
conformance with adaptive management principles, the National Park
Service periodically would determine the best source of photographs.
Sources could include contracted fly-over, commercially available
photography, or satellite imagery. The most appropriate photographic
scale and schedule for obtaining new images would be identified as part
of proposed action implementation. Aerial photographs would be examined
for:

> trail widths
>
> the locations and extent of invasive vegetation
>
> areas that should be targeted for on-the-ground evaluation
>
> violations of the use of designated trails, potentially indicating the
> need for enforcement or other management actions

As described in the \"Research\" section, monitoring research needs
already have been identified. Additional research needs would be
identified with plan implementation. One need is to determine the areal
extent of soil displacement and compaction along the trail system. This
information could potentially be used as a threshold indicator for
management decisions. The effectiveness of other trail condition
monitoring techniques also would be explored.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177018 .anchor}**Management Actions**

If monitoring indicated that standards had been exceeded in a trail,
based on the indicators and standards described in Table 2, the National
Park Service would implement management actions. The management actions
could include, but would not be limited to, trail closures, trail
relocation, trail maintenance, and altering the level or type of use on
the trail. The course of action would be based on such factors as the
degree of the problem, the location of the trail, experience at other
similar sites, consultation with experts, and the professional judgment
of NPS staff. The ultimate decision would be the protection of preserve
resources.

> [Trail Closures.]{.underline} Could be implemented immediately if a
> trail exceeded the standards for any of the trail condition indicators
> in Table 2. The National Park Service would use a process such as that
> outlined in the visitor experience and resource protection handbook
> (NPS 1997b) to evaluate the situation and to determine if problems
> could be corrected to allow recreational use to continue. If the trail
> problem could not be corrected, the closure would be made permanent
> and the area would be restored.
>
> [Trail Relocation.]{.underline} Would be utilized when trail
> degradation was occurring and more suitable routes were available that
> would resolve unsuitable conditions. When trails were relocated, the
> original trail would be restored. The new trail locations would be
> based on the geographic information system suitability model and
> professional judgment of NPS staff.
>
> [Trail Maintenance.]{.underline} Would be used to stabilize or improve
> trails that were degrading. Maintenance would be conducted in such a
> way that any improvements did not cause further impact to resources
> (for example, impede sheet flow). Maintenance activities would use
> methods and materials that were compatible with the surroundings.
>
> [Alter Levels or Types of Trail Use.]{.underline} Would be used if the
> National Park Service determined that trail degradation was being
> caused by a particular type of ORV or by excessive use. As part of
> this action, the National Park Service may implement a program to
> limit use at access points for resource protection and/or visitor
> safety.

It would not be necessary or desirable to bring rough routes up to a
filled-roadway standard. Stabilization and improvement methods would be
chosen based on their ability to reverse existing impacts and prevent
additional deterioration.

> Existing filled roads or trams would be maintained as roads, were
> appropriate. Where existing filled trams or roads were used for
> designated trails, water conveyance structures would be maintained to
> allow water flow.
>
> Trails would be improved at the natural grade so that water flow was
> not compromised. Trails would not be improved to such a standard as to
> make a trail \"easy\" or to encourage a higher level of ORV use than
> would occur in the absence of such improvements.

A variety of techniques would be used to stabilize trails in the early
stages of proposed action implementation. To date, the National Park
Service has conducted limited testing of techniques using geotextiles
and wood boards, both of which produced mixed results. It is anticipated
that the effectiveness of trail stabilization techniques will vary based
on site conditions. Therefore, the goal would be to determine the most
appropriate methods of stabilization at each type of site, and to
produce a management action guideline or table that NPS staff could use
to select the most appropriate treatment, based on defining site
characteristics. Consistent with the adaptive management approach for
the plan, the recommendations for management actions would be
continually updated as better information became available.

Whenever management actions involved dredging or filling of wetlands,
the National Park Service would consult with the agencies involved in
regulating activities in wetlands. Appropriate permits, such as Section
404 permits under the Clean Water Act, would be obtained as necessary.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177019 .anchor}**Closure of Areas**

This section describes temporal and spatial closures of all or parts of
the preserve to recreational ORV use, including criteria for closures.
The closures discussed in this section are for broad areas, not
management of specific trails. Management of specific trails was
discussed previously under \"Management Actions.\" All of these closures
would be subject to modification based on research and feedback from
implementation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177020 .anchor}**Nightly Closures**

Recreational ORV use would be prohibited throughout the preserve between
10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177021 .anchor}**Seasonal Closures**

A hydrologic trigger, described below under \"Criteria for Closures\"
and in Appendix A, has been developed for Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit.
This trigger to temporarily close this zone was developed and applied on
an emergency basis during low-water conditions in 1999. Based on its
success, it would be refined and incorporated as a standard operating
practice.

High-water conditions place greater than normal demands on the
preserve's terrestrial wildlife (Jansen 1996). Therefore, the National
Park Service would develop high-water triggers for wildlife protection
and would temporarily close areas when those triggers were met.

A seasonal 60-day period would be established to allow resources a time
free from any pressures related to ORV use. This moratorium on ORV use
would not apply to landowners who held special use permits to access
their private properties via a designated route through the preserve.
The optimal time for the seasonal rest period would be determined by
research.

Safety closures would be implemented in all or portions of the preserve
to ensure the protection of visitors. Safety closures primarily would be
related to environmental conditions such as high fire danger or threats
from hurricanes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177022 .anchor}**Spatial Closures**

The following areas, shown on the ORV Management -- Proposed Action map,
would be closed under the authority of 36 CFR. Because of their
environmental and wildlife sensitivity to ORV use, no ORV trails or
access points would be located in these areas. Under adaptive
management, additional closures may be implemented where monitoring
showed adverse environmental impacts.

> Area south of Upper and Lower Wagonwheel Road and west of Turner River
> Road
>
> Stairsteps Unit Zone 1
>
> Stairsteps Unit Zone 2 and Zone 3 (initially closed until trails are
> designated)
>
> Airplane Prairie
>
> Windmill Prairie
>
> Grimy Gulch Prairie
>
> Lost Dog and Buckskin Prairie
>
> Selected Bear Island trails
>
> Mullet Slough complex
>
> Cape Sable seaside sparrow nesting area in Stairsteps Unit Zone 4

Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service has an
obligation to protect federally listed threatened and endangered
species. If the National Park Service, in consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, determines that ORV use may result in adverse
effects to listed species, area closures may be implemented. Such
closures could be seasonal or permanent, depending on the nature of the
adverse effects.

The identified Cape Sable seaside sparrow nesting areas in Zone 4 of the
Stairsteps Unit would be among the areas closed to ORV use. There is no
evidence that airboat use in Zone 4 has caused a decline in this
endangered species. However, because the population is so low, the
precautionary principle dictates that any action and/or disturbance that
could potentially cause harm to the species or its habitat should be
avoided. If future research results demonstrate that the sparrow is not
adversely affected by ORV use, all or portions of this area could be
re-opened to ORV use on designated trails.

Other areas would be closed as needed to protect threatened or
endangered species. In addition to the Cape Sable seaside sparrow,
closures initially would be imposed for at least the bald eagle, wood
stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, snail kite, and Florida panther.
Criteria for closures are provided in the next section. Many of these
closures would be imposed to protect parents and young during the
vulnerable nesting or denning period. The closure could then be lifted
after the young left the area.

High fire danger is another condition that may result in a closure to
ORV uses. Public use in the backcountry during periods of drought
present both a safety issue for ORV users and a fire threat to natural
resources. Fire reports maintained by the preserve demonstrate that
multiple wildfires have been started by ORVs. Therefore, when drought
conditions exist, the superintendent may implement restrictions on ORV
use in individual units or throughout the preserve.

During hurricane season, the superintendent may close the preserve to
public use, including ORV use. The National Park Service continually
monitors the tropical storm situation. When hurricanes are threatening,
the preserve moves into a state of readiness at 100 hours from landfall.
Decisions involving public use, including closure of the backcountry to
ORV use, typically would be imposed between 48 to 72 hours from
estimated landfall.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177023 .anchor}**Criteria for Closures**

Since 1999, the National Park Service has been evaluating airboat use in
relation to water levels, particularly in Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit.
Based on this evaluation, the National Park Service has developed a
\"hydrologic trigger\" that would allow zone-wide decisions on airboat
use. A draft description of the hydrologic trigger, including the
development of closure criteria, is provided in Appendix A. Field work
on this process is continuing, and in accordance with adaptive
management principles, the results would be used to refine this tool.

Decisions regarding closure to airboats would be based on surface water
depths. The hydrologic trigger would rely on water-level data collected
at water gauging stations and a series of additional data gathering
points. This monitoring system would establish both high- and low-water
levels when airboat use would be prohibited.

Gauging stations can have different responses to rising or falling water
levels. Thus, different low-water levels have been established for the
summer-fall (June through December) and winter-spring (January through
May) seasons. Initially, airboat use in Zone 4 would be allowed

> during the summer-fall season only when water levels at the P34
> gauging station were above 2.2 feet above sea level (asl) and below
> 4.0 feet asl
>
> during the winter-spring season only when water levels at the P34
> gauging station were above 3.0 asl and below 4.0 feet asl

In accordance with the principles of adaptive management, these trigger
levels for resource protection might be changed as additional data were
collected. This could include changing the trigger levels at the P34
gauging station, and/or establishing additional trigger sites within
Zone 4.

The National Park Service currently has established water levels for
airboat use only in Zone 4. Under the proposed action, additional data
would be gathered to establish similar hydrologic triggers for airboat
use in Zone 3 of the Stairsteps Unit.

The use of wheeled ORVs during periods of high waters could adversely
affect wildlife. High-water conditions impede movement by wildlife such
as deer, raccoon, and bobcat. Disturbance associated with ORV use during
these periods may result in additional stress (Jansen 1996). Under the
proposed action, the National Park Service would establish sufficient
data-gathering stations to develop a high-water-level trigger for each
unit, above which ORV use within that unit would be restricted to
protect wildlife. The procedures for establishing the water-level
triggers would be similar to those describe in Appendix A.

Criteria for closing areas to protect threatened and endangered wildlife
would include the following.

> [Cape Sable seaside sparrow.]{.underline} Determination that a
> designated trail was within 0.5 miles of a territory, as determined by
> annual surveys.
>
> [Bald eagle.]{.underline} Determination that a designated trail was
> within 1,500 feet of an active bald eagle territory, as determined by
> annual surveys (USFWS 1987).
>
> [Wood stork.]{.underline} Determination that a designated trail was
> within the distance stated in the revised guidelines currently being
> prepared by Rodgers (citation not yet available).
>
> [Red-cockaded woodpecker.]{.underline} Determination that a designated
> trail was within 200 feet of an active cavity tree (Hendry 1989).
>
> [Everglade snail kite.]{.underline} Determination that a designated
> trail was within the distance stated in the revised guidelines
> currently being prepared by Rodgers (citation not yet available). The
> current guidelines are an 88-meter buffer.
>
> [Florida panther.]{.underline} Determination that a designated trail
> was within 0.5 miles of a den.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177024 .anchor}**Permit Program**

A revised permit program would be implemented to educate users, ensure
that equipment and safety standards were met, monitor ORV use, and
reduce resource impacts. All three of the following permits would be
required to operate an ORV in the backcountry:

> an off-road vehicle permit
>
> an ORV operator's permit
>
> a backcountry use permit

An off-road vehicle permit would be issued for vehicles meeting the
specifications and permitting process requirements described in this
plan. The vehicle permit would be issued through a random drawing, as
described below.

An ORV operator's permit would be required for all individuals who
operated any ORV in the preserve. The permit would be issued only after
the operator met the requirements described in the \"ORV Operator
Permit\" section. The ORV operator's permit would be required both for
recreational ORV users and for private property owners who hold special
use permits to access their property using an ORV.

All backcountry users, including ORV users, hikers, and boaters, would
be required to obtain a free backcountry use permit for each trip. These
permits would be available from rangers and from dispensers at major
access points, trailheads, check stations, and visitor facilities. A
comprehensive assessment of backcountry use would be made based on data
collected from this permit. The results would be incorporated, on an
ongoing basis as part of the adaptive management approach, into the
recreational management of the preserve to ensure the quality of the
visitor experience.

Private landowners would be issued a free special use permit to allow
reasonable access to and from their private property. A description of
this permit is provided below in the section entitled \"Special Use
Permit for Private Property Owners.\"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177025 .anchor}**Fees**

The recreational off-road vehicle permit would cost \$50.00 per year.
ORV inspections, ORV operator's permits, and backcountry use permits
would be free.

Funds generated from the vehicle permits would be applied toward such
costs as permit printing, administration of the drawing, education
program materials, and operating the ORV permit system. While the cost
of the permit is supposed to offset the cost of the ORV management
program, the fee would actually pay only a small portion of the program
costs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177026 .anchor}**Off-Road Vehicle Permit**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177027 .anchor}**Number of Vehicle Permits.**

The National Park Service would issue no more then 2,000 recreational
off-road vehicle permits per year. This number was established in the
Big Cypress National Preserve general management plan and environmental
impact statement preferred alternative (NPS 1991), and was the basis for
formal consultation and the biological opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. The record of decision for the general management plan and
environmental impact statement modified the permit ceiling to 2,500
permits annually, but consultation with the USFWS was never reinitiated
on this issue. This oversight was pointed out by public comment on the
draft ORV management plan and environmental impact statement. Therefore,
the proposed action would return the permit ceiling to 2,000, which
would comply with the USFWS biological opinion.

As the proposed action was implemented, the vehicle permit program could
be revised. The bases for changes could include research results,
practical knowledge gained from the implementation of the plan, and
safety concerns. Changes could include, but would not be limited to

> reducing the number of permits issued annually, if monitoring
> demonstrated that recreational ORV use was causing unacceptable
> adverse effects on the preserve's resources
>
> limiting the number of permits issued for specific management units
>
> limiting the number of ORVs that were allowed to enter the backcountry
> from each access point

When reevaluating the permit ceiling, the National Park Service would
comply with appropriate laws and regulations, including the Endangered
Species Act, and would provide public involvement when appropriate.

Vehicle permits would not be transferable to other vehicles owned by the
same person or family, or to other vehicle owners. Off-road vehicles
would be registered to only one person with a valid state driver's
license and only that person would be able to renew the permit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177028 .anchor}**Vehicle Inspection Program.**

Vehicles would be required to meet specifications for that particular
type of vehicle (all-terrain cycle, airboat, swamp buggy, or
street-legal four-wheel-drive vehicle) before being eligible for a
permit. Each vehicle would have to pass an inspection conducted by the
National Park Service.

Vehicle inspections would result in a sticker that designated the
vehicle as having met vehicle specification and safety requirements.
This sticker would identify the vehicle over time. The inspection number
would be included in a computer database and would stay with the vehicle
for the entire time it was under the same ownership. Possession of an
inspection sticker would mean only that the vehicle was eligible for the
vehicle permit drawing and would not, by itself, allow for use of the
vehicle in the preserve.

ORV owners would be encouraged to have their vehicles inspected prior to
the drawing, during the period between October 1 and November 30. This
would allow the ORV owner to be ready to participate in the drawing.

National Park Service staff would affix inspection stickers as follows:

> airboat -- steering bar (joystick)
>
> swamp buggy -- steering column
>
> street legal -- inside the driver's door
>
> all-terrain cycle -- center of steering mechanism

The free inspection sticker would be valid for a 3-year period, at the
end of which the vehicle would need to be re-inspected and a
re-validated sticker would be obtained. All vehicles would be inspected
in the first year of this new permit program, regardless of their
inspection dates under the previous system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177029 .anchor}**Allocation of Vehicle
Permits.**

The vehicle permit system under the proposed action would begin with
vehicle inspections and entry into a random drawing, which would be held
for the opportunity to obtain a permit. The permit drawing would be held
each December.

Permits would be valid from January 1 of each year through January 31 of
the following year. This 13-month permit would allow for a month grace
period to obtain a new permit, should the owner be successful in the
drawing.

Announcement of the drawing would be sent out each October by letter to
all previous permit holders and by press release. Cards for the drawing
would be sent with announcement letters and would also be available at
the preserve. Cards would also be given to those who had their vehicles
inspected during the October 1 to November 30 period. During the first
year of implementation, drawing cards would be filled out at the time of
inspection. Drawing cards would be due into the permit station or
postmarked by November 30.

The system would be designed to provide an opportunity for each vehicle
owner, regardless of how many vehicles they may own, to receive at least
one ORV permit unless the total number of individual owners exceeded
2,000. More than one permit per person would be available if the initial
drawing resulted in fewer than 2,000 permit requests. A maximum of five
permits would be allowed per individual. A waiting list would be
developed to reassign permits not claimed by January 31.

Successful drawing participants would be notified immediately after the
drawing and would be required to purchase their permit by mail or in
person before January 31. If the individual failed to purchase the
permit by that date, the permit would go to the next person on the
waiting list.

The owner would have the option of placing the purchased permit on any
of the vehicles that were entered in the drawing. However, because the
vehicle inspection number would be on the permit, the owner would have
to specify the vehicle at the time of permit purchase.

Permits would be permanently fixed to the vehicle and would be
non-transferable. The vehicle permit would be valid for 13 months. In
each subsequent year, the vehicle owner would be required to reapply for
the drawing, but could do so by mail unless an inspection was due.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177030 .anchor}**ORV Operator Permit**

Each person operating an ORV within the boundaries of the preserve would
be required to obtain an ORV operator's permit. This requirement would
apply both to recreational ORV users and to landowners who were issued
special use permits to access their private properties. The permit would
be a picture identification and would be carried by the operator while
using an ORV in the preserve.

All ORV operators would have to possess a valid state driver's license,
or possess a valid learner's permit and be accompanied by a licensed
adult 18 years or older who also possessed a Big Cypress National
Preserve ORV operator's permit.

Completion of a vehicle operator course would be required for each
person who applied for an ORV operator permit. Information on this
course is provided in the \"Education and Communication\" section. The
National Park Service would offer this course in conjunction with the
vehicle inspections at convenient times to reasonably accommodate those
who wished to obtain a permit.

During implementation of the ORV management plan, research results are
expected to produce greater knowledge of the best ways to operate and
manage ORV use within the preserve. Therefore, operators would be
required to attend the education course every year to stay current with
rules and recommended techniques. As the program evolved and the need
for updates diminished, the education program may be required less
often.

The application for the operator's permit would include a section
stating the responsibilities of the operator while using the preserve.
In signing the application, the permit holder would acknowledge that
they understood and would conform with the rules and regulations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177031 .anchor}**Special Use Permit for Private
Property Owners**

Unless an exempt property owner has legal right of way or pre-existing
access rights, legislation, laws, and regulations do not provide right
of access via ORV.

Owners of improved private property within the preserve boundaries would
be issued a free special use permit that would allow them reasonable
access to and from their private property. The special use permit would
authorize them to cross federal lands to access their property via a
reasonably direct route. In most cases, the property access trail would
be limited to use by the landowner only. The property access route would
be

> resource-protection based
>
> described in detail on the permit
>
> determined by the National Park Service in consultation with the
> landowner

The special use permit would not be included in the 2,000 recreational
ORV permits allocated annually. However, it also would not allow for
recreational ORV use in the preserve. If landowners wanted to recreate
with an ORV within the preserve, they would have to participate in the
annual drawing for vehicle permits. If they did not draw vehicle
permits, landowners would be restricted to using their ORVs on their
private property and on the access route specified on their special use
permit. This special use permit would not allow use of ORVs for any
recreational activity in the preserve.

Owners of private frontcountry properties would not be allowed to enter
the preserve on ORVs from any point along their property boundary. They
would have to use a designated access point. Backcountry property owners
also would be required to enter the preserve via designated access
points.

The designated access points shown on the Conceptual Framework of Access
Points and Primary Trails map currently do not include entry into the
Corn Dance Unit from the east side. The National Park Service may
consider allowing access into this unit for property owners who have
permission from adjacent landowners.

Special use permit holders would have to meet all of the other
requirements for ORV use in Big Cypress National Preserve. This would
include, but not be limited to, holding a valid ORV operator permit for
the preserve, meeting all vehicle specifications, completing the
education course annually, and complying with all rules and regulations
relating to recreational ORV use in the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177032 .anchor}**Education and Communication**

It is critical that all ORV operators understand the intent, purpose,
and requirements of the ORV management program. Only with knowledge of
the rules and regulations can the ORV user appreciate and understand the
potential impacts of ORV use and the consequences of misuse. Therefore,
the following types of information would be given to ORV users:

> an orientation to the preserve, the mission of the National Park
> Service, and the geography of the preserve
>
> a review of the rules and regulations governing ORV use in the
> preserve
>
> safety procedures for operating an ORV in the preserve
>
> introduction to the designated access points and trails
>
> resource sensitivity, including staying on designated trails,
> low-impact camping techniques, and wildlife awareness
>
> details of the permit process, including how to apply, and the
> privileges and responsibilities of the permit holder
>
> awareness of previous adverse effects, how they occurred, ways the new
> ORV management system mitigates past effects, and what is being done
> to restore areas

This information would be provided through any or all of the following:

> an ORV user's guide, with map
>
> an operator's orientation that would be required as a prerequisite to
> obtaining an ORV operator's permit
>
> an Internet page specifically for ORV users
>
> posting on the bulletin boards at each access point

All materials would be designed to be easily understood. They would be
easily adapted to changing management strategies and flexible enough to
incorporate new materials as research revealed additional information on
operating techniques. NPS staff, subject matter experts, and local
recreational ORV users would be sources of information for the
materials.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177033 .anchor}**Vehicle Specifications**

It is the intent of the National Park Service to establish vehicle
specifications that protect the preserve's resources while providing for
reasonable recreational access. The criteria established below are based
on the best available information and the *Code of Federal Regulations*
(CFR). Vehicle types are defined in 36 CFR 7.

Preserve staff would continuously evaluate ORV equipment and its effects
on resources and the visitor experience. If it was determined that
certain ORV equipment was causing unacceptable impacts, ORV equipment
specifications would be modified.

Under the proposed action, Big Cypress National Preserve would initiate
additional research to refine the vehicle specifications. Based on
research results, limits could be established in the future for a number
of vehicle characteristics, such as overall weight, tire size, tire
type, noise, and ground-bearing pressure (measured in weight per unit
area, such as pounds per square inch).

Initially, the proposed action would not include any requirements for
ground-bearing pressure. However, under the adaptive management
provisions of the plan, ground-bearing pressure requirements may be
added if research indicates that they would help to reduce soil
displacement and rutting by ORVs in the preserve. Using wider,
high-flotation tires and reducing vehicle weight may help reduce soil
displacement, rut depths, and root damage. This could allow for greater
use of trails that might otherwise become impassible, and reduce the
tendency of users to expand ORV trails (Smidt and Blinn 1995).

Under the proposed action, vehicles would be required to meet the
following specifications.

> Vehicle width and length:
>
> Wheeled vehicles could not exceed 8.0 feet in total width, including
> tires.
>
> Airboat total width could not exceed 8.0 feet.
>
> Airboat length could not exceed 14.0 feet (total length, including the
> grass rake).
>
> Noise control:
>
> All wheeled vehicles would be required to have a muffler in good
> working condition and in constant operation.
>
> All airboats would be required to have one or more exhaust headers or
> manifolds attached to a flex pipe and routed to the rear of the boat.
>
> Airboat requirements:
>
> Airboats would have to meet all Florida and U.S. Coast Guard rules and
> regulations for vessels, including lighting and registration.
>
> A solid, orange-colored safety flag, 10 inches by 12 inches or larger,
> flown at a minimum of 10 feet above the bottom of the airboat, would
> be required (36 CFR 7).
>
> Vessel registration numbers, with a minimum size of 3 inches, would
> have to be displayed on each side of the bow, or on both sides of the
> rudder, or outside of the dual rudders. The numbers would have to be a
> contrasting color from the underlying hull or rudder.
>
> Other ORV equipment:
>
> All ORV mechanical systems important for safe operation must be in
> good operating condition.
>
> Tires on all buggies and street legal ORVs must have a minimum of 9
> inches of tread face.
>
> On all-terrain cycles, the minimum tire tread face requirement would
> be 7 inches in the front and 9 inches in the rear.
>
> Any device used to push aside, shear off, or otherwise damage
> vegetation would be prohibited.
>
> Any tire chain, bar grip, or other device affixed to a tire in any way
> would be prohibited.
>
> All tracked vehicles would continue to be prohibited.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177034 .anchor}**Rules and Enforcement**

The secretary of the interior is authorized to designate, pursuant to
standards prescribed in regulations by the secretary, \"certain officers
or employees of the Department of the Interior whom shall maintain law
and order and protect persons and property within areas of the national
park system. The secretary of the interior shall make and publish such
rules and regulations, as he may deem necessary or proper for the use
and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the
jurisdiction of the national park system\" (16 USC).

ORV rules would include the provisions contained throughout this
description of the proposed action. These rules would include, but not
be limited to,

> using only designated access points and trails
>
> staying out of closed areas
>
> having all three required permits
>
> meeting all applicable vehicle specifications and training
> requirements

To facilitate compliance with regulations, the National Park Service
would publish and distribute an ORV user's handbook, which would be
updated as needed.

Some of the other rules that would apply to the use of ORVs in the
preserve are listed below. With the adoption of the proposed action,
rules for ORV management would be codified in the *Code of Federal
Regulations* (36 CFR 7.86).

To enforce ORV rules, NPS rangers would regularly conduct ground and
aerial patrols of the preserve. This would include visiting the access
points and traveling the designated trails to determine compliance.

As provided by law, a person convicted of violating a provision of the
regulations within Big Cypress National Preserve could be punished by a
fine, by imprisonment, or both, and could be adjudged to pay all costs
of the proceedings (36 CFR 1.3). ORV operators who did not comply with
preserve rules or permit requirements could also have their permits
suspended or revoked, could be required to pay restitution for damages
caused to the resources, could be subject to seizure of their vehicle
and other property used during the offense, and could be banned from
applying for an ORV permit for a specified period.

Some of the rules that currently apply to the operation of ORVs in Big
Cypress National Preserve are listed in the \"Rules and Enforcement\"
section of the no action alternative (continue current management). All
of those rules would continue to be enforced under the proposed action.
In addition, new rules would be established for ORV use under the
proposed action. Some of the new requirements, which are based on Title
36 of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, are identified below. Adaptive
management would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ORV use rules
under the proposed action, and changes would be made as appropriate.

> All ORV operators would have to have in their possession a valid state
> driver's license or possess a learner's permit and be accompanied by a
> licensed adult 18 years or older. The operator with the learner's
> permit would have to stay within 100 feet of the licensed adult during
> operation of the vehicle. Operators would be required to have in their
> possession a Big Cypress National Preserve ORV operator's permit.
>
> Operating ORVs off of designated trails or roads would be prohibited.
>
> Vehicles would have to enter the preserve at designated access points.
>
> ORVs would not be allowed to travel or operate between 10:00 p.m. and
> 5:00 a.m.
>
> Speed limits would be 30 miles per hour for airboats and 15 miles per
> hour for wheeled vehicles.
>
> \"Power loading,\" or running the engine to move the airboat onto the
> trailer, would be prohibited.

It would continue to be the responsibility of the user to know and
follow all rules and regulations that apply to Big Cypress National
Preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177035 .anchor}**Restoration**

This section outlines the process the preserve would use to return areas
impacted by ORV traffic to a more desirable condition and monitor the
success of those recovery activities.

To focus restoration efforts most effectively, it is important to first
understand the extent and severity of the adverse effects to the
preserve ecosystem caused by the use of ORVs. The extent of degradation
would, on a gross spatial scale, be answered by ground-truthing aerial
photographs taken of the preserve. The National Park Service is
currently working with the University of Georgia to ground-truth ORV
trail maps (Welch and Madden 1998; Welch *et al*. 1999).

It is vital to also determine what ecosystem processes or functions are
not working. For example, has the diversity of the ecosystem been
altered? Are the soils providing needed substrate for vegetation? Unless
the problems are well understood, restoration can not be achieved.
Secondly, restoration techniques for the degraded ecosystems must be
determined. What are the most effective techniques and methods to return
the ecosystem to a desired state? Lastly, after restoration techniques
are determined and implemented, what are the environmental indicators
that mark success?

To begin to set goals for restoration, a definition of \"restoration\"
needs to be established. The National Research Council (1992) defines
restoration as the \"return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of
its condition prior to disturbance.\" This report also suggests that
restoration is by nature holistic and that recreating the form of an
ecosystem but not restoring the functions of that system is not
restoration. Applying this to the preserve, restoration is not
necessarily achieved when ORV use has been removed from an area for a
period of time and the area \"turns green\" again. Questions that need
to be asked include: Is this area re-vegetated with those species that
would naturally occur here and in the same proportions? Is the habitat
that was once (before disturbance) supported by this area available
again? Restoration can include one or more of the following:
reconstruction of physical conditions such as topography or grade;
chemical changes to the soils and water; and biological components such
as the re-introduction of native plant species.

Long-range goals for restoring ORV disturbed sites in the preserve are
to:

> remove the scars caused by vehicles and recover a sustainable,
> self-regulating, self-organizing ecosystem, by restoring to the extent
> possible the biological, physical, and chemical characteristic of the
> system
>
> meet biological, physical, and chemical targets defined by performance
> measures

To provide a gauge against which to measure restoration success there
must be a baseline or reference condition. Specific restoration project
goals should state which impacted condition(s) (for example, vegetation)
is chosen for improvement. As restoration efforts proceed, the existing
resource condition should begin to more closely resemble the reference
condition. Restoration objectives defined in measurable ecosystem
conditions (for example, vegetative community composition and richness)
would define the basis for tracking restoration success.

A key factor in successful resource restoration is to, if possible,
remove the source of the adverse effects to the resources. Implementing
the proposed action would allow ORV use only on designated trails.
Removal of dispersed ORV use would help sustain restoration efforts.
Areas to be restored must be ranked. These priorities would be
determined based on the relative importance of the area to the
preserve's overall management goals. Attributes that would be considered
for prioritization include visual or scenic values, and the status of
the biological, physical, and chemical ecosystem components or habitat
health.

After the source of the resource impacts was removed, the best approach
to restoring those areas would then be determined. Two approaches are to
allow the area to recover on its own (passive restoration), or to in
some way manipulate the area (active restoration). To let natural, or
passive, restoration take place, the ecosystem's self-organizational
qualities must be sufficient to correct the pathology and restore the
original optimal operating point.

The self-organizing quality of an ecosystem relates to the overall
integrity of the ecosystem. The following flow chart will assist in
deciding which of these pathways to choose. This process is based on
current understanding of the preserve's resources and would be modified
as more was learned about the ecosystem functions and recovery.

The restoration plans for identified areas would provide specific
guidance for the earthwork, revegetation methods, invasive plant
control, monitoring, and restoration at each site. As part of each
reclamation plan, the National Park Service would develop a planting
plan based on the desired plant community to be established, site
elevations, water table elevations, and soil conditions. The planting
plan would recognize which native plant species from nearby reference
sites could live and reproduce within the range of environmental
conditions that exist at each restoration site and could be used for
revegetation.

+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
| **IF:**               |   | **THEN:**      |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
| 1.  Surface near      |   |                |   |                     |
|     natural grade     |   |                |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|  Absence of invasive |   |                |   |                     |
| plants                |   |                |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|  Natural             | * | Allow natural  |   |                     |
| revegetation would    | * | revegetation   |   |                     |
| occur over a short    |  |                |   |                     |
| period                | * |                |   |                     |
|                       | * |                |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|  Surface water flow  |   |                |   |                     |
| patterns are near     |   |                |   |                     |
| natural conditions    |   |                |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|                       |   |                |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
| 1.  Unnatural         | * |                | * | Upland areas:       |
|     contours          | * |                | * | grading, planting,  |
|                       | \ |                | \ | seeding, invasives  |
| 2.  Natural           | \ |                | \ | control             |
|     revegetation      |  |                |  |                     |
|     would occur over  | * |                | * |                     |
|     a long period     | * |                | * |                     |
|                       |   |                |   |                     |
| 3.  Presence of       |   |                | * |                     |
|     invasive plants   |   |                | * |                     |
|                       |   |                |  |                     |
|                       |   |                | * |                     |
|                       |   |                | * |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|                       |   | Actively       |   |                     |
|                       |   | implement      |   |                     |
|                       |   | restoration    |   |                     |
|                       |   | measures       |   |                     |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+
|                       |   |                |   | Wetland areas:      |
|                       |   |                |   | grading during dry  |
|                       |   |                |   | season, natural     |
|                       |   |                |   | revegetation,       |
|                       |   |                |   | control invasive    |
|                       |   |                |   | plants              |
+-----------------------+---+----------------+---+---------------------+

For upland areas with unnatural contours, invasive plant species, and/or
where natural revegetation was a slow process, the National Park Service
would actively implement restoration measures. Grading, planting, and/or
seeding would begin after closure. Native species found in nearby
reference sites that were suited for upland conditions and that could
compete with invasive plants would be selected for revegetation whenever
possible. Plants would be propagated from seeds and cuttings gathered in
the preserve at nearby reference sites. If available, indigenous
material from commercial sources might be used.

> For disturbed wet areas, the primary restoration method would be
> grading during dry periods to restore natural surface elevations and
> contours, and to create more natural surface water flow patterns. In
> some cases, disturbed areas would be reshaped or water conveyance
> structures installed to restore water flow directions and velocities.
> After grading was completed, natural regeneration of wetland
> vegetation would be allowed to occur without planting or seeding.
>
> In some cases, natural regeneration of vegetation without grading,
> planting, or seeding would be allowed to occur. This passive
> restoration would be the preferred method in areas where the surface
> was near natural grades, invasive plants were not a problem, natural
> revegetation would occur over a short period, and surface water flow
> patterns were near natural conditions.
>
> Although the above discussion outlines certain actions that would be
> taken -- grading, planting, seeding -- the specific techniques to use
> have yet to be determined. Because information on restoring areas
> disturbed by ORV use in south Florida is limited, research would be
> conducted that would apply various techniques to test areas. The
> results from these studies would be applied to determine the most
> effective means to restore habitat in impacted areas. Factors that
> would be considered when selecting the most feasible restoration
> techniques for a given area include the spatial scale, cost, and
> environmental impacts or risk associated with the technique.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177036 .anchor}**Implementation**
>
> Under the proposed action, restoration would be a long-term activity.
> Execution of on-the-ground techniques to meet restoration goals would
> require detailed planning. The key components of restoration
> implementation, which would be applied to those areas that were
> identified for active restoration would include the following:
>
> determining site-specific restoration goals
>
> securing adequate funding
>
> organizing and sequencing implementation activities
>
> determining roles and responsibilities
>
> developing a schedule
>
> obtaining necessary permits
>
> applying adaptive management to the process
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177037 .anchor}**Resource Recovery
> Monitoring**
>
> The goal of resource recovery monitoring would to determine the
> effectiveness of both active and passive restoration efforts, and to
> use this information to make adjustments to the restoration program as
> needed. Resource recovery monitoring would be conducted on areas that
> were closed to ORV use.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177038 .anchor}**Indicators**
>
> The impacts of ORVs are most apparent on soils and plant communities.
> Therefore, these would be the most obvious choices for monitoring
> recovery of areas where ORV use had been restricted. More information
> is needed to determine which, if any, water quality monitoring
> parameters would yield useful recovery information. The response of
> wildlife to ORV traffic would be examined through research projects.
> Specific indicators would be chosen to reflect the restoration goals.
> For example, where the goal was to re-establish the natural grade of a
> prairie that had been extensively rutted by ORV traffic, topographic
> measurements may be taken. Measurements of the vegetation would be the
> appropriate indicators where re-establishment of the native plant
> community was the restoration goal.
>
> Plants are convenient biological elements available for measure. They
> are valuable as measures of communities, as they reflect much of the
> physical nature of the community, particularly hydrologic and edaphic
> characters. Disturbances in the plant community may originate as a
> physical change, such as mechanical movement of soils in the
> substrate, or chemical change, such as a difference in local
> hydrology. Physical disturbances to substrates often result in soils
> that support greater numbers of ruderal plants (weeds), and lower
> species diversities. Measures of plant communities in affected areas
> may be conducted as comparisons with areas with little or no
> human-caused alteration.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177039 .anchor}**Methods**
>
> Both aerial photography and on-the-ground measurements would be used
> for monitoring resource recovery. Aerial photographs would provide
> information on the overall recovery of preserve resources once the ORV
> management program was implemented. More intensive, on-the-ground
> measurements would yield information about the recovery of biological
> and physical attributes of specific areas.
>
> Reference sites would be selected to compare targeted recovery areas
> with areas undisturbed by ORV traffic. Areas for comparison would be
> selected based on such features as community type, soil type, and
> hydrology. Replicate reference sites would be used to measure natural
> variation in similar communities and would be located in separate
> community systems. Considerations for field quantification of these
> sites should be the same as those for affected sites. Areas that are
> recovering from disturbances would be more similar to undisturbed
> areas as recovery progressed, and this would be reflected in diversity
> and similarity measures. Similarly, differences in areas that may have
> occurred with ORV use, may be demonstrated with these comparisons.
>
> Requirements to monitor changes in biological communities may be
> partly addressed with diversity measures. At least two types of
> comparison can be used :
>
> Identifying and comparing areas that differ can help to demonstrate
> changes in amounts of area affected over time.
>
> Comparing amounts of difference between altered areas with areas
> identified as undisturbed, over time, can help identify whether
> recovery by the natural system is occurring.
>
> If remediation or restoration is taking place, the effectiveness of
> these activities may be considered as change in altered areas becoming
> more similar to unaffected areas.
>
> Acceptable alterations to natural areas (and habitat recovery
> programs) should be derived from standards applied to other national
> area, and refined to reflect the resources at Big Cypress. If these
> standards are not available, or clearly are not applicable to this
> area, standards derived from opinions of experts, public input, or
> preserve management and staff would be required. These standards
> should be flexible, to allow change as more information became
> available, but restrictive enough to adequately protect the biological
> community's resources.
>
> Differences between sites of investigation always will exist, so that
> measures will be needed to determine the naturally occurring variation
> in the communities studied. When this variation is known, measures of
> communities can be compared to determine differences of sample areas.
> Variables may include biotic and abiotic community elements.
> Considerable differences may occur with these communities, so that
> many measures may be necessary to obtain reliable comparisons.
> Following this, an acceptable level of difference between altered
> sites and naturally occurring habitat sites would be established for
> management decisions.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177040 .anchor}**Frequency and Timing**
>
> The frequency and timing of resource recovery monitoring would be
> determined by the specific restoration project goals and the
> restoration techniques that were implemented.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177041 .anchor}**Information Needs**
>
> How to best apply aerial data gathering techniques for monitoring ORV
> impacts and resource recovery trends would need to be established.
> Although vegetation and soils information is generally thought to be
> the most direct indicators of resource recovery, the specific
> attributes of these parameters which yield the best information would
> need to be refined.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177042 .anchor}**Research**
>
> Research needs have been identified throughout this description of the
> proposed action. As an integral part of the proposed action, research
> that focused on the outstanding questions related to managing ORV use
> in the preserve would be implemented. The results from this research
> would be used to make continuous improvements to the ORV management
> program.
>
> Table 3 summarizes studies that would be useful in supporting
> management of ORVs in Big Cypress National Preserve. Although all of
> these research topics are important, budgets and staffing constraints
> would require that priorities be set. Therefore, the table includes an
> indication of the priority of each study and its justification.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177043 .anchor}**Implementation Strategy and
> Schedule**
>
> Because of the comprehensive nature of the proposed action,
> implementing all aspects of the plan could take up to 10 years. The
> proposed action is conceptual in that not all of the information that
> is needed is currently available. More information would be gathered
> as a part of implementation, especially for restoration. This
> characteristic of the plan would provide for an iterative process that
> relied on feedback from the implementation of other parts of the plan.
> For example, the proposed action would result in the adoption of a
> designated trail system. However, it currently is not possible to
> identify exactly where all of these trails would be or how they would
> be maintained.
>
> Table 3: Research Needs

  ---------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Project\       **\                     **Priority and\          **Estimated\
  Name**           Description**           Justification**          Cost**

  **Research goal:                                                  
  support the                                                       
  siting,                                                           
  construction,                                                     
  maintenance, and                                                  
  monitoring of                                                     
  the designated                                                    
  trail system.**                                                   

  Ground-truth     Verify the trail and    HIGH. Continue to        \$115,000
  University of    ORV use area database   improve the accuracy of  
  Georgia mapping  developed from aerial   information on trails.   
  data             photographs.                                     

  Evaluate trail   Identify best           HIGH. Need to construct  \$200,000
  stabilization    techniques, methods,    trails and access points 
  techniques       and materials to harden with materials           
                   and maintain trails and appropriate for          
                   access points.          environmental conditions 
                                           and use, and to          
                                           continually maintain     
                                           these features.          

  Improve          Current topographic     HIGH. Applications of    \$210,000
  topographic      mapping is at 5-foot    more precise topographic 
  mapping          intervals. Because the  information include      
                   topographic relief in   mapping soil rutting,    
                   the preserve has less   identifying vegetation   
                   than 20 feet of         changes, and determining 
                   variance, this level of trail locations to       
                   detail is minimally     reduce surface water     
                   useful in defining      flow impacts.            
                   surface water flows                              
                   across the preserve.                             

  Determine how to Establish a technique   HIGH. Aerial techniques  \$30,000
  apply aerial     to evaluate ORV use     will be necessary to     
  mapping for      impacts, trends, and    effectively monitor the  
  monitoring ORV   resource recovery.      entire preserve trail    
  impacts                                  system and resource      
                                           recovery efforts.        

  **Research goal:                                                  
  determine                                                         
  existing levels                                                   
  of recreational                                                   
  use and the                                                       
  types of                                                          
  vehicles best                                                     
  suited for use                                                    
  in the Big                                                        
  Cypress                                                           
  environment.**                                                    

  Determine        Refine current          HIGH. Need to establish  \$220,000
  impacts of a     understanding of the    the effects of such      
  range of vehicle types of ORVs that      factors as vehicle       
  specifications   reduce impacts to the   weight, ground pressure  
  on natural       preserve's soils,       (psi), tire type, and    
  resources        vegetation, and         vehicle noise to help    
                   wildlife.               profile the optimal      
                                           \"environmentally        
                                           friendly\" ORV. This     
                                           would support future     
                                           management decisions on  
                                           vehicle specifications.  

  Determine ORV    Establish the numbers   MEDIUM. This information \$50,000
  carrying         and types of ORVs that  needs to be sequenced    
  capacity of      can be sustained in the after the new designated 
  management units management units        trail system is in       
                   without causing         place.                   
                   resource degradation.                            
  ---------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> ** **
>
> Table 3: Research Needs (Continued)

  --------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Project\      **\                     **Priority and\          **Estimated\
  Name**          Description**           Justification**          Cost**

  **Research                                                       
  goal: initially                                                  
  conduct or                                                       
  update                                                           
  inventories of                                                   
  the preserve's                                                   
  flora, fauna,                                                    
  and soils. The                                                   
  results would                                                    
  be used to                                                       
  establish a                                                      
  baseline to                                                      
  determine                                                        
  future trends                                                    
  in resource                                                      
  condition,                                                       
  identify                                                         
  ecosystem                                                        
  stresses and                                                     
  associated                                                       
  environmental                                                    
  indicators, and                                                  
  determine if                                                     
  sensitive                                                        
  resources were                                                   
  or had the                                                       
  potential to be                                                  
  adversely                                                        
  affected by the                                                  
  designated                                                       
  trail system.**                                                  

  Update natural  Establish baseline,     MEDIUM. Inventories      \$300,000
  resources       identify stresses and   previously have been     
  inventory and   indicators, and         done for many natural    
  analysis        determine levels of     resource categories, but 
                  concern for sensitive   updates are needed to    
                  resources.              account for changes from 
                                          ORV use and other        
                                          factors within the       
                                          dynamic ecosystem.       

  Inventory and   Same as above.          HIGH. Soils provide the  \$150,000
  map soils                               base for the preserve's  
                                          ecosystem.               

  Inventory       Same as above.          MEDIUM. Need to          \$180,000
  reptiles and                            understand dynamics of   
  amphibians                              fauna and habitat needs. 

  Inventory small Same as above.          MEDIUM. Same as above.   \$150,000
  mammals                                                          

  Inventory birds Same as above.          MEDIUM. Same as above.   \$90,000

  Inventory       Same as above.          MEDIUM. Same as above.   \$180,000
  invertebrates                                                    

  Inventory fish  Same as above.          MEDIUM. Same as above.   \$120,000

  Update plant    Same as above.          LOW. Need to document    \$120,000
  inventory,                              changes in dynamic plant 
  abundance, and                          communities.             
  distribution                                                     

  Determine       Establish baseline on   LOW. Need a baseline     \$100,000
  sensitive noise the \"natural quiet\"   against which to compare 
  receptors and   of the preserve and     the noise generated by   
  the natural     determine levels of     ORVs and sensitivity     
  sound-scape of  concern for sensitive   values for receptors to  
  the preserve    noise receptors.        established acceptable   
                                          levels of noise.         
  --------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> ** **
>
> Table 3: Research Needs (Continued)

  -------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Project\     **\                     **Priority and\          **Estimated\
  Name**         Description**           Justification**          Cost**

  **Research                                                      
  goal:                                                           
  determine the                                                   
  effects of ORV                                                  
  use under the                                                   
  proposed                                                        
  action on the                                                   
  preserve's                                                      
  flora, fauna,                                                   
  and soils.**                                                    

  Identify and   Evaluate the impacts of HIGH. Need to comply     \$400,000
  analyze        ORV use over time.      with NPS mandate to      
  cumulative                             protect resources in     
  effects of ORV                         perpetuity.              
  use                                                             

  Determine the  The Stairsteps Unit has HIGH. The Cape Sable     \$300,000
  response of    known Cape Sable        seaside sparrow is a     
  the Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat federally listed species 
  seaside        and additional          under the Endangered     
  sparrow to     potential habitat.      Species Act. The USFWS   
  airboat use    Direct and indirect     has been petitioned to   
                 effects of the use of   revise the critical      
                 airboats on this        habitat designated for   
                 species would be        this species.            
                 analyzed.                                        

  Analyze        Early studies have      HIGH. The Florida        \$150,000
  Florida        suggested that ORVs     panther is a federally   
  panther        affect the behavior of  listed species under the 
  response to    panthers. Further       Endangered Species Act.  
  ORV use        studies would help                               
                 determine the accuracy                           
                 of these findings.                               

  Determine the  Analyze soil            HIGH. Soils are an       \$50,000
  effects of ORV compaction, soil        integral environmental   
  use on soils   moisture effects,       component of the         
                 oxidation, and other    preserve's ecosystem.    
                 properties in reference                          
                 to ORV effects.                                  

  Determine      Analyze the effects of  HIGH. Vegetative         \$210,000
  effects of ORV spread of invasive      community response to    
  use on         plant species via ORVs  ORV use is needed to     
  vegetative     and changes in          most effectively site    
  communities    vegetative community    trails and to determine  
                 composition along ORV   the most effective       
                 trail areas.            restoration techniques.  

  Determine the  Analysis of sheet flow  HIGH. Study is needed to \$50,000
  effects of ORV patterns across the     refine understanding of  
  use on surface preserve in reference   the effects of rutting   
  flow           to ORV use.             on hydrologic regime of  
                                         the preserve.            

  Evaluate       Evaluate parameters     LOW. Other habitat       \$50,000
  impacts of ORV such as spatially       components such as soils 
  traffic on     cumulative aspects of   and vegetation are       
  water quality  turbidity, and          believed to be more      
                 re-suspension of        direct indicators of     
                 nutrients and metals    environmental integrity  
                 from soil disturbance.  in relation to ORV use.  

  Determine      This would include      LOW. Basic inventories   \$210,000
  disturbance to impacts of noise from   of other wildlife        
  wildlife from  ORVs on wildlife.       species are needed       
  ORV use                                before this study.       
  -------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> ** **
>
> Table 3: Research Needs (Continued)

  --------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Project\      **\                     **Priority and\          **Estimated\
  Name**          Description**           Justification**          Cost**

  **Research                                                       
  goal: examine                                                    
  recreational                                                     
  interactions to                                                  
  ensure that all                                                  
  visitors to the                                                  
  preserve have                                                    
  an enjoyable                                                     
  and educational                                                  
  experience.**                                                    

  Determine       Evaluate the            HIGH. Need to respond to \$300,000
  recreational    experiences all         numerous public comments 
  interactions    visitors have and       regarding user conflicts 
  and effects on  determine any           between ORV and other    
  visitor         incompatibilities       preserve visitors.       
  experiences     between different user                           
                  groups.                                          

  **Research                                                       
  goal: determine                                                  
  the most                                                         
  efficient and                                                    
  effective means                                                  
  of mitigating                                                    
  effects caused                                                   
  by ORVs and                                                      
  establish best                                                   
  management                                                       
  practices for                                                    
  use in the                                                       
  preserve.**                                                      

  Develop         Determine the efficacy  HIGH. Need to know the   \$260,000
  mitigation and  of restoration          most appropriate means   
  restoration     techniques applied to   to restore natural       
  techniques      areas that have been    resources impacted by    
                  impacted by ORV use.    ORVs.                    
  --------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> Three scenarios have been suggested for implementing the designated
> trail system:
>
> complete closure of the preserve to ORVs until the trail system was
> established
>
> complete access to areas of the preserve that currently are open to
> ORV use until the trail system was established
>
> phasing of actions to provide a transition to a designated trail
> system
>
> The National Park Service currently is planning a three-phased
> implementation throughout a 10-year period. Actions would include:
>
> immediately eliminating ORV access from areas that are heavily
> impacted and that are highly sensitive to impacts, such as prairies
>
> requiring use of the designated trails where they have been
> established, and allowing dispersed use (outside of designated closed
> areas) until trails are in place throughout the preserve.
>
> immediately establishing management rules and actions that do not
> depend on sequencing
>
> determining carrying capacity of ORV use for each management unit
>
> incorporating new information in the trail designation process as it
> becomes available
>
> Table 4 outlines the proposed implementation schedule. Adaptive
> management, relying on feedback from all aspects of the plan, would be
> applied throughout implementation.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc486319124 .anchor}Table 4: Implementation
> Schedule for the Proposed Action

+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| **Activity**                                 | **P  | **P  | *      |
|                                              | hase | hase | *Phase |
|                                              | I**  | II** | III**  |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Trail system                                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Design plan for trail designation and      | X    |      |        |
| > construction                               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Ground-truth and mark trails               | X    | X    |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Establish temporary trails around          | X    |      |        |
| > designated sensitive areas                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Stabilize existing trails selected for     | X    | X    | X      |
| > designation                                |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Maintain trail system                      | X    | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Access points                                |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Designate                                  | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Develop                                    | X    | X    |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Maintain                                   | X    | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Eliminate vehicle storage at Monroe        | X    | X    |        |
| > Station                                    |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Implement spatial closures. Refine the       | X    | X    | X      |
| boundaries of sensitive areas and endangered |      |      |        |
| species nesting areas closed under the       |      |      |        |
| authority of 36 CFR.                         |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Implement temporal closures                  | X    | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Hydrologic triggers for resource           |      |      |        |
| > protection                                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Seasonal closure to provide rest period    |      |      |        |
| > for resources (optimal season to be        |      |      |        |
| > determined as part of the program's        |      |      |        |
| > adaptive management)                       |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Prohibit recreational ORV operation        |      |      |        |
| > between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.           |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| ORV user map                                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Develop                                    | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Revise as needed                           |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Permit program                               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Renew existing permits until January 2001  | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Define vehicle specifications              | X    | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate vehicle inspection program        | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Issue up to 2,000 annual recreational ORV  | X    |      |        |
| > permits beginning January 2001             |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate ORV operator permit program and   | X    |      |        |
| > education requirement                      |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate permit system for all backcountry | X    |      |        |
| > use                                        |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > On-going implementation                    |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Research                                     |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate highest priority research         | X    |      |        |
| > projects                                   |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > On-going                                   |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+

> ** **
>
> Table 4: Implementation Schedule for the Proposed Action (Continued)

+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| **Activity**                                 | **P  | **P  | *      |
|                                              | hase | hase | *Phase |
|                                              | I**  | II** | III**  |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Initiate environmental permitting,           | X    |      |        |
| compliance, and mitigation required for      |      |      |        |
| various ORV program components               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Establish advisory committee                 | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Restoration                                  |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Establish interdisciplinary team           | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate implementation                    | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Continue implementation                    |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Education program                            |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Initiate ORV operators course              | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Refine course and other materials          |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Trail condition monitoring                   |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Develop trail standards                    | X    |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Establish techniques for determining       | X    |      |        |
| > baseline conditions                        |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Monitor trail conditions                   |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Resource recovery monitoring                 |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > Establish and refine monitoring techniques | X    | X    |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| > On-going monitoring                        |      | X    | X      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Enforce all NPS legal mandates related to    | X    | X    | X      |
| ORV program management                       |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+
| Apply adaptive management to ORV program     | X    | X    | X      |
| based on research and feedback from          |      |      |        |
| implementation                               |      |      |        |
+----------------------------------------------+------+------+--------+

> Phase I would start in the first year of implementation. It would
> include actions that could be completed or initiated immediately, or
> would be necessary for completion of subsequent actions.
>
> Phase II generally would be started in years 2 through 5 of the
> program. It would include a continuation of some of the actions
> started in Phase I and the initiation of actions dependent on Phase I
> completion.
>
> Phase III would include long-term and on-going efforts, including
> monitoring, research, restoration, maintenance, and enforcement. All
> of these activities would be started before the end of year 10.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177044 .anchor}**Cost**
>
> The preliminary cost estimate for implementing the proposed action is
> outlined in Table 5. This estimate includes
>
> initial and recurring costs for staffing, equipment, and materials
> needed for operating the permit and education programs
>
> designating, marking, constructing, and maintaining the trail system
> and access points
>
> trail condition and resource recovery monitoring
>
> restoring impacted areas
>
> conducting research to support management decisions
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc486319125 .anchor}Table 5: Implementation Cost
> Estimate for the Proposed Action

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  **Activity**                       **Estimated** **Cost**

  Permit program administration      \$100,000 annually

  Enforcement                        \$250,000 annually

  Education program                  \$35,000 in year 1;\
                                     \$20,000 annually thereafter

  Trail and access point design,\    \$1,000,000 annually\
  marking, and maintenance           (estimated for the first 5 years)

  Trail condition monitoring         \$50,000 annually

  Restoration                        To be determined

  Research                           \$5,000,000 total, based on\
                                     research needs identified in Table 3

  Environmental                      \$200,000 (total)
  permitting/compliance              
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

> Because of the adaptive nature of this plan, cost estimates for each
> of these activities would be refined as more information was gathered
> through the implementation process. Cost for restoration would be
> determined through research results on the most effective restoration
> techniques. It is anticipated that significant funding for restoration
> would be needed in the future.
>
> Funding sources for additional staffing and equipment would include
> requests for increases in the preserve's operating budget, which is
> determined annually through Congressional funding processes and by
> priorities set by the Department of the Interior and the National Park
> Service. Funding for research projects would be sought through several
> sources, including the National Park Service Natural Resources
> Protection Program (NRPP), the Cultural Resources Protection Program
> (CRPP), the Operating Financial System (OFS), and the Critical
> Ecosystems Study Initiative (CESI). Cooperative research programs with
> universities would be considered. Congressional line-item funding also
> would be sought for construction, maintenance, and restoration. To
> date, approximately \$12,000,000 in funding has been requested for
> implementation.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177045 .anchor}**No Action Alternative
> (Continue Current Management)**
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177046 .anchor}**Introduction**
>
> The no action alternative (continue current management) would continue
> the current NPS programs for ORV management and natural resources
> management within the preserve. The ORV Management -- No Action
> Alternative map provides a graphic representation of this alternative.
> Under this alternative:
>
> the Bear Island Unit would be open to ORV use on designated trails
>
> the Corn Dance Unit and Turner River Unit would allow for dispersed
> ORV use
>
> the Stairsteps Unit would be managed under the four-zone strategy
>
> the Deep Lake Unit and Loop Unit would remain closed to ORV use
>
> The National Park Service would require an annual permit for each
> off-road vehicle. The permit would be obtained if the vehicle met the
> specification and safety equipment requirements.
>
> Access to the preserve would continue to occur from approximately 70
> informal access points. Many of these do not have parking or involve
> the unsafe and illegal practice of driving on the road shoulder from
> an area where parking is available.
>
> The National Park Service would respond to needs and problems, but no
> major change in management direction would be initiated under the no
> action alternative. Methods to avoid or reduce adverse ORV impacts
> would include regulation of ORV use and mitigation of impacts.
>
> This alternative would not meet the legislative mandates and NPS
> policies for resource protection, or comply with the 1995 settlement
> agreement. This concern is described in the sections entitled
> \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\" and \"Environmental
> Consequences.\"
>
> Continuing current management under this alternative would not be
> consistent with the goals and concepts of ORV management established
> in the preserve's general management plan. The primary focus of the
> general management plan, as directed by federal law and executive
> orders, is that preserve lands would be \"closed to ORV use except for
> those areas or trails that are suitable and specifically designated as
> open to such use\" (NPS 1991).
>
> Only a few of the general management plan's proposed actions have been
> implemented. These include restricting ORV use to designated trails in
> the Bear Island Unit, closure of the Deep Lake Unit, and prohibiting
> the use of tracked vehicles in the preserve. However, no trails,
> areas, or access points have been designated in the Turner River Unit
> and Corn Dance Unit, and there have been only limited area closures
> and trail designations in the Stairsteps Unit. Continuing current
> management under this alternative would allow continued, virtually
> unrestricted ORV access and use in the Turner River Unit and Corn
> Dance Unit, and much of the Stairsteps Unit, in variance with the
> general management plan.
>
> ** **
>
> [**Figure -- ORV Management - No Action Alternative (Continue Current
> Management)**](../finalnoac.htm)
>
>  
>
> The Big Cypress National Preserve general management plan and
> environmental impact statement included a limit of 2,000 vehicle
> permits per year (NPS 1991). This limit was not only the basis of the
> environmental analysis, but also was cited in the formal consultation
> between the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service under the Endangered Species Act. However, the record of
> decision for the plan and environmental impact statement issued the
> following January (NPS 1992) increased the total number of vehicle
> permits to 2,500 per year without reinitiating formal consultation as
> required by the Endangered Species Act. As a result, approval of this
> no action alternative would require formal consultation with the U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service to reinstate the 2,500 vehicle permits per
> year limit.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177047 .anchor}**Trails, Areas, and Access
> Points**
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177048 .anchor}**Trails and Areas**
>
> Under this alternative, the National Park Service would continue to
> manage ORV use in the general framework established in the general
> management plan and environmental impact statement. This framework
> used a management unit approach, shown in the ORV Management - No
> Action Alternative map. The six units would be managed as follows.
>
> [Bear Island Unit**.**]{.underline} Within the Bear Island Unit,
> wheeled ORVs would be restricted to approximately 55 miles of
> designated trails, 16 miles of which are above-grade roads constructed
> prior to the establishment of the preserve for agriculture, logging,
> and mineral exploration. This unit contains a relatively high density
> of Florida panthers. Therefore, ORV use restrictions were initiated in
> 1989 to reduce potential disturbance to panthers, control hunting
> pressure on panther prey, and protect important resource areas. In
> 1991, designated trails were established in this unit and travel off
> designated trails was prohibited. Most of the area is within 1 mile of
> an ORV trail, with no area farther than 2 miles from a trail.
>
> [Turner River Unit.]{.underline} This management unit currently is
> designated as open to dispersed traffic for all types of ORVs. ORVs
> are prohibited on the Florida National Scenic Trail, except for
> required crossings. ORV use would not be permitted on any new mineral
> access roads (NPS 1991).
>
> [Corn Dance Unit.]{.underline} The Corn Dance Unit currently is open
> to dispersed traffic for all types of ORVs. ORVs are prohibited on the
> Florida National Scenic Trail, except for required crossings. ORVs
> also are prohibited on the existing mineral access roads, including
> Eleven-Mile Road. Under the no action alternative, ORV use would not
> be permitted on any new mineral access roads (NPS 1991).
>
> [Stairsteps Unit**.**]{.underline} Special management zones and
> restrictions were defined for the Stairsteps Unit in 1990 to allow
> area-specific ORV management. This unit is the wettest area of the
> preserve, and is often referred to as \"airboat country.\" There are
> designated trails in Lostmans Pines.
>
> The Stairsteps Unit contains four special management zones (see ORV
> Management -- No Action Alternative map).
>
> Zone 1: This zone includes the Ochopee Prairie. Airboats have been
> prohibited in this zone since 1994 because concentrated commercial
> airboat traffic caused considerable adverse effects to its natural
> resources. Dispersed use by wheeled ORVs is allowed in this zone.
>
> Zones 2 and 3: These zones are open to dispersed used by all permitted
> ORVs.
>
> Zone 4: This zone is restricted to airboats, except in the Lostmans
> Pines area, part of which is open to all ORVs and part of which is
> open only to all-terrain cycles and airboats.
>
> [Deep Lake Unit**.**]{.underline} With implementation of the no action
> alternative (continue current management), ORVs would be prohibited
> within the Deep Lake Unit. This unit was closed to ORVs in 1989
> because of the unit's important resource areas and concern about
> illegal and unchecked hunting, which was difficult to control because
> of the unit's accessibility from surrounding roads (NPS 1991). This
> closure was also expected to reduce hunting pressure on panther prey
> and potential disturbance from ORV use of panther habitat.
>
> [Loop Unit.]{.underline} ORVs would continue to be prohibited within
> the Loop Unit. The Loop Unit was closed to maintain the primitive
> character of the area. The unit would be used as a control zone for
> comparing the extent of ORV impacts in other areas of the preserve.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177049 .anchor}**Access Points**
>
> Currently, ORV access to the preserve is largely uncontrolled.
> Approximately 70 undesignated access points are used on a regular
> basis, and would continue to be used under the no action alternative.
> ORV users would be allowed to continue accessing the backcountry at
> any location.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177050 .anchor}**Monitoring**
>
> As funding allows, Big Cypress National Preserve would continue to
> provide mitigation measures for the historical, current, and future
> environmental impacts that accrue as a result of the continued use of
> ORVs. Measures would be limited, but could include monitoring,
> research on trail improvement, and reclaiming or restoring impacted
> areas.
>
> Limited resource monitoring to evaluate ORV effects has been conducted
> at the preserve. As funds were made available, resource monitoring
> would systematically collect and compare standardized resource
> measurements from different times to predict or detect natural and
> human-induced changes. Monitoring would provide managers with
> information necessary for establishing and evaluating resource
> protection policies, strategies, and actions. A monitoring program
> would help detect and evaluate trends. It may detect deteriorating
> conditions before severe or irreversible changes occur, allowing time
> to implement corrective actions. Analysis of monitoring data may
> assist in the selection of appropriate management actions and reveal
> their effectiveness over time.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177051 .anchor}**Management Actions**
>
> The preserve superintendent has the authority to close units or areas
> of the preserve. The superintendent could also place limitations on
> the types of vehicles accessing areas. Designated trails and areas
> could be altered if such action were deemed necessary.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177052 .anchor}**Closure of Areas**
>
> The preserve superintendent has the authority to close units or areas
> of the preserve if field observations indicate that adverse impacts
> due to ORV use are occurring. The criteria for closure would rely on
> the professional judgement of the NPS staff.
>
> Low-water-level closures in Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit were
> instituted on an emergency basis in 1999. This type of action would
> continue under the no action alternative.
>
> Closures for the protection of threatened and endangered species, and
> closures for threats associated with adverse environmental conditions
> such as high fire danger and hurricanes would be identical to those
> described for the proposed action.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177053 .anchor}**Permit Program**
>
> ORV users would continue to be required to obtain a permit for each
> ORV operated within the preserve. Obtaining a permit would involve
> providing weight information and complying with tire size rules. Under
> this alternative, the cost of the annual permit would be \$35.00. The
> permit would be a sticker that would be attached to the vehicle.
>
> This alternative would allow for the issuance of no more than 2,500
> permits annually, which conforms to the number of permits identified
> in the record of decision (NPS 1992). However, as pointed out by
> public comment on the draft ORV management plan, the biological
> opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the general
> management plan was for no more than 2,000 permits annually.
> Therefore, with implementation of the no action alternative (continue
> current management), the National Park Service would conduct further
> consultation with the USFWS to change the permit limit to 2,500 per
> year.
>
> To obtain a permit, the owner would have to bring the vehicle to the
> Oasis Visitor Center for inspection at least once every 5 years.
> During inspections, preserve staff would check the vehicle to ensure
> compliance with ORV specifications such as safety features and tire
> width.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177054 .anchor}**Education and
> Communication**
>
> The preserve would continue to prepare and distribute an annual ORV
> brochure. The brochure would provide detailed information on the rules
> and regulations governing ORVs and maps showing areas accessible and
> closed to ORVs.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177055 .anchor}**Vehicle Specifications**
>
> Consistent with current practices, the National Park Service would
> only issue permits for ORVs that met the following vehicle
> specifications. The purpose of these specifications would be to help
> protect resources and ensure visitor safety.
>
> Tire Sizes
>
> Swamp buggy and 4 x 4 street-legal tires must have a minimum of 9
> inches of tread face on both the front and rear tires. This would be
> measured as the flat or rounded surface of the tire contacting the
> ground during normal use.
>
> All-terrain cycle tires must provide a minimum of 7 inches of tread
> face for front tires and a minimum of 9 inches of tread face for rear
> tires.
>
> Noise Control
>
> All ORVs must have a muffler in good working condition and in constant
> operation.
>
> Wheeled ORVs must not cause noise levels that exceed 60 decibels
> measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet, except pursuant to the
> terms and conditions of the ORV permit (36 CFR 2.12).
>
> Other ORV Equipment
>
> All ORV mechanical systems important for safe operation, such as the
> braking or throttle systems, must be in good operating condition.
>
> Tracked vehicles would continue to be prohibited to help protect soil
> and vegetation. Tracked vehicles were banned in 1988 after they were
> found to be causing substantially greater impacts to the vegetation
> than the other ORV types (Duever *et al.* 1981).
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177056 .anchor}**Rules and enforcement**
>
> General ORV management rules are derived from the resource protection,
> and public use and recreation sections of the *Code of Federal
> Regulations* (36 CFR 1.5, 2, 10, and 7.86). They are modified as
> necessary to address management issues and concerns as they arise.
> Some of the rules currently in effect that would continue to be
> enforced under the no action alternative (continue current management)
> include the following:
>
> All accidents must be reported as soon as possible to a preserve
> ranger in person or by phone (36 CFR 4.4).
>
> The permit holder is prohibited from giving false information. To do
> so is considered a breach of condition and could be grounds for permit
> revocation and/or fines (36 CFR 2.32 (4)).
>
> No motor vehicle shall operate/travel on any part of the preserve that
> is designated as closed because of inclement weather, poor driving
> conditions, potential for environmental damage or disturbance to
> wildlife, construction, management activities, or wildlife surveys (36
> CFR 7.86).
>
> It is prohibited to operate an ORV without due care or at a speed
> greater than that which is reasonable or prudent, considering
> wildlife, traffic, weather, trail, road, area, and light conditions
> (36 CFR 4.22).
>
> Operating an airboat in or upon inland waters so as to exceed a noise
> level of 82 decibels measured at a distance of 82 feet is prohibited
> (36 CFR 3.7).
>
> Airboats must be equipped with one type I, II, III, IV, or V U.S.
> Coast Guard-approved personal flotation device (PFD) for each person
> aboard. Children 6 years old and under must wear a PFD while riding in
> an airboat at all times.
>
> Operating an ORV under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited
> (36 CFR 4.23).
>
> Open containers of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on all ORVs (36
> CFR 4.14).
>
> Preserve rules prohibit the operation of ORVs in a manner that could
> adversely affect the preserve's resources. Damaging or irresponsible
> practices, such as \"mudding,\" racing, and tug-of-war contests with
> ORVs would continue to be prohibited. Cutting vegetation, ditching,
> filling, or other activities to build new trails or improve existing
> trails also would continue to be prohibited.
>
> As provided by 36 CFR 7.86, the superintendent has authority to close
> portions of the preserve to ORV use if the use represents a threat to
> resources. Executive Order 11989 requires immediate closure of areas
> or trails, or the discontinuation of certain vehicle types, whenever
> it is determined that ORV use \"will cause or is causing considerable
> adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or
> cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails\" of the
> preserve. The public would be notified before any area or trail was
> closed, or a vehicle type was discontinued, under such conditions (NPS
> 1991).
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177057 .anchor}**Restoration**
>
> The National Park Service has permanently closed the Loop Unit and
> Deep Lake Unit to allow these areas to recover from previous ORV
> activity. These closures would continue under the no action
> alternative (continue current management). However, there would be no
> active program to restore the hydrology in areas that are heavily
> rutted or to encourage the recovery of the native vegetation. There
> also would be no provisions to monitor the success of recovery at
> disturbed sites.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177058 .anchor}**Research**
>
> The National Park Service would continue to pursue funding for
> research relating to ORV use. The priority would focus on trail
> maintenance.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177059 .anchor}**Implementation Strategy**
>
> The National Park Service would continue to implement the program as
> it currently does. Permit fees would cover portions of the cost of
> managing the program.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177060 .anchor}**Cost**
>
> The cost estimate for administration, processing permit applications,
> educating visitors, enforcing ORV rules and regulations, monitoring,
> and reclamation would be \$200,000 per year. ORV permit fees would
> only partially offset ORV management costs.
>
> It should be recognized that the costs presented for the no action
> alternative (continue current management) represent only the
> expenditure of monies. This alternative also is accruing environmental
> costs associated with adverse effects to the preserve's resources and
> the inability to meet the mandates and commitments of the National
> Park Service. An accounting for these environmental costs will occur
> at some future date, either in higher expenditures for restoration or
> in the acceptance of a lower quality in the preserve's resources.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177061 .anchor}**Alternatives Considered but
> Dismissed from Further Analysis**
>
> The range of alternatives evaluated in this plan is based on the
> general management plan and final environmental impact statement (NPS
> 1991). The general management plan described four potential
> alternatives, including the proposed action, an alternative that
> emphasized recreational use, an alternative that emphasized resource
> protection, and a no action alternative (continue current management).
> This reasonable range of ORV management actions was analyzed in the
> general management plan*.* The record of decision (NPS 1992) documents
> the decision of the National Park Service and the rationale for
> implementing the proposed action.
>
> This recreational ORV management plan refines the ORV management
> actions that were established in the general management plan proposed
> action. All other alternatives, except for the required no action
> alternative, were dismissed from further consideration because they
> would not fulfill the direction set by the general management plan and
> record of decision.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177062 .anchor}**Summary of Alternatives**
>
> Table 6 provides an overview of the key differences between the
> alternatives for ORV management in Big Cypress National Preserve. More
> detailed descriptions of the alternatives can be found throughout this
> \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.
>
> []{#__RefHeading___Toc486319127 .anchor}Table 7 summarizes the impacts
> of the alternatives. Detailed information on the impacts evaluation is
> provided in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.
>
> Table 6: Summary of Key Differences between the Alternatives

+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **\          | **\                        | **No Action Alternative\ |
| Feature**    | Proposed Action**          | (Continue Current        |
|              |                            | Management)**            |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Management   | Restrict ORVs within the   | Dispersed ORV use in the |
| strategy     | preserve to no more than   | Corn Dance Unit and      |
|              | 400 miles of designated    | Turner River Unit, and   |
|              | primary trails. No         | portions of the          |
|              | dispersed use would be     | Stairsteps Unit.         |
|              | permitted.                 | Approximately 55 miles   |
|              |                            | of designated trails in  |
|              |                            | Bear Island Unit.        |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Management   |  Deep Lake Unit.          |  Deep Lake Unit.        |
| units closed |                            |                          |
| to all ORVs  | -   Loop Unit.             |  Loop Unit.             |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Zone 1 of Stairsteps   |                          |
|              |     Units.                 |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Access       | 15 designated access       | Unlimited access from    |
| points       | points, potentially with   | approximately 70         |
|              | limits on numbers of       | informal locations.      |
|              | users.                     |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Dispersed    | None.                      | Turner River, Corn       |
| use areas    |                            | Dance, and portions of   |
|              |                            | the Stairsteps Unit      |
|              |                            | would be open to         |
|              |                            | dispersed use by ORVs.   |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Bear Island  | Swamp buggies, ATCs, and   | Wheeled ORVs would be    |
| Unit         | street-legal 4 x 4s would  | allowed on approximately |
|              | be allowed on              | 55 miles of designated   |
|              | approximately 30 miles of  | trails.                  |
|              | designated primary trails. |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Turner River | Swamp buggies and ATCs     | Open to all ORVs for     |
| Unit         | would be allowed on        | dispersed use.           |
|              | approximately 140 miles of |                          |
|              | designated primary trails. |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Corn Dance   | Swamp buggies and ATCs     | Open to all ORVs for     |
| Unit         | would be allowed on        | dispersed use.           |
|              | approximately 60 miles of  |                          |
|              | designated primary trails. |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Stairsteps   | Managed in four zones:     | Managed in four zones:   |
| Unit         |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
|              | -   Zone 1: Closed to all  |  Zone 1: Closed to      |
|              |     ORVs.                  | airboats; wheeled        |
|              |                            | vehicles allowed.        |
|              | -   Zone 2: Swamp buggies  |                          |
|              |     and ATCs allowed on    |  Zone 2: Dispersed use  |
|              |     approximately 10 miles | of all ORVs.             |
|              |     of designated primary  |                          |
|              |     trails.                |  Zone 3: Dispersed use  |
|              |                            | of all ORVs.             |
|              | -   Zone 3: Swamp buggies, |                          |
|              |     ATCs, and airboats     |  Zone 4: Closed to      |
|              |     allowed on             | wheeled vehicles except  |
|              |     approximately 25 miles | for designated trails in |
|              |     of designated primary  | Lostmans Pines and       |
|              |     trails.                | dispersed use of         |
|              |                            | airboats in remainder of |
|              | -   Zone 4: Airboats       | the zone.                |
|              |     allowed on designated  |                          |
|              |     primary trails.        |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Loop Unit    | Closed to all ORV use.     | Closed to all ORV use.   |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+

> Table 6: Summary of Key Differences between the Alternatives
> (Continued)

+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **\          | **\                        | **No Action Alternative\ |
| Feature**    | Proposed Action**          | (Continue Current        |
|              |                            | Management)**            |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Deep Lake    | Closed to all ORV use.     | Closed to all ORV use.   |
| Unit         |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Monitoring   | Monitoring program based   | No monitoring program.   |
|              | on indicators and          |                          |
|              | standards.                 |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Temporal     | -   A 60-day seasonal      | When National Park       |
| closures     |     closure.               | Service determines       |
|              |                            | closures are needed.     |
|              | -   Closure of preserve to |                          |
|              |     ORV use from 10 p.m.   |                          |
|              |     to 5 a.m. daily.       |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Closures of  | -   Use of hydrologic      |  When National Park     |
| areas        |     triggers to close      | Service determines water |
|              |     areas when water       | levels are too high or   |
|              |     levels are not         | to low.                  |
|              |     appropriate.           |                          |
|              |                            |  Closures during high   |
|              | -   Closures for           | fire danger.             |
|              |     environmental and      |                          |
|              |     wildlife sensitivity   |  Closures due to threat |
|              |     to ORV use.            | of hurricanes.           |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Closures during high   |                          |
|              |     fire danger.           |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Closures due to threat |                          |
|              |     of hurricanes.         |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Permit       | A three-permit program     | An annual vehicle permit |
| program      | requiring:                 | program.                 |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
|              | -   An annual vehicle      |                          |
|              |     permit,                |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   An annual operator's   |                          |
|              |     permit, and            |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   A trip-specific        |                          |
|              |     backcountry permit.    |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Permit fee   | \$50 annual vehicle        | \$35 annual vehicle      |
|              | permit.                    | permit.                  |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Number of    | 2,000 issued annually by a | 2,500 issued annually on |
| vehicle      | random draw.               | a first-come,            |
| permits      |                            | first-serve basis.       |
| annually     |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Vehicle      | Same as currently          | Same as currently        |
| sp           | required, plus the         | required.                |
| ecifications | following.                 |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
|              | -   Wheeled vehicles could |                          |
|              |     not exceed 8.0 feet in |                          |
|              |     width, including       |                          |
|              |     tires.                 |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Airboats could not     |                          |
|              |     exceed 8.0 feet in     |                          |
|              |     width or 14.0 feet in  |                          |
|              |     length.                |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Any device used to     |                          |
|              |     push aside, shear off, |                          |
|              |     or otherwise damage    |                          |
|              |     vegetation would be    |                          |
|              |     prohibited.            |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Any tire chain, bar    |                          |
|              |     grip, or other device  |                          |
|              |     affixed to a tire in   |                          |
|              |     any way would be       |                          |
|              |     prohibited.            |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   All airboats would     |                          |
|              |     have one or more       |                          |
|              |     exhaust headers or     |                          |
|              |     manifolds attached to  |                          |
|              |     a flex pipe and routed |                          |
|              |     to rear of the boat.   |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   ORVs would have to     |                          |
|              |     meet all current       |                          |
|              |     requirements for       |                          |
|              |     obtaining a vehicle    |                          |
|              |     permit.                |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Rules and    | Same as currently          | Same as currently        |
|              | required, plus the         | required.                |
|              | following.                 |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+

** **

Table 6: Summary of Key Differences between the Alternatives (Continued)

+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **\          | **\                        | **No Action Alternative\ |
| Feature**    | Proposed Action**          | (Continue Current        |
|              |                            | Management)**            |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| enforcement  | -   ORV operators would    |                          |
|              |     have to possess a      |                          |
|              |     valid state driver's   |                          |
|              |     license.               |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Vehicles would have to |                          |
|              |     enter the preserve at  |                          |
|              |     a designated access    |                          |
|              |     point and stay on      |                          |
|              |     designated trails.     |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Speed limits would be  |                          |
|              |     30 mph for airboats    |                          |
|              |     and 15 mph for wheeled |                          |
|              |     vehicles.              |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   \"Powerloading\" or    |                          |
|              |     running the engine to  |                          |
|              |     load an airboat onto a |                          |
|              |     trailer would be       |                          |
|              |     prohibited.            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Education    | -   Mandatory annual       | An annual ORV brochure.  |
| and\         |     educational course for |                          |
| c            |     all ORV operators.     |                          |
| ommunication |                            |                          |
|              | -   Bulletin boards at all |                          |
|              |     access points.         |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | -   Annual ORV brochure.   |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Restoration  | -   An active restoration  | No active restoration    |
|              |     program.               | program.                 |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Research     | -   Integral research      | No formal research       |
|              |     component.             | effort on ORV            |
|              |                            | management.              |
|              | -   Research needs have    |                          |
|              |     been identified.       |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Total        | \$1.3 million annually,    | \$200,000 annually.      |
| im           | plus \$5.3 million over 10 |                          |
| plementation | years for education        |                          |
| cost         | startup, research, and     |                          |
|              | environmental permitting   |                          |
|              | and compliance.            |                          |
|              | Restoration costs are yet  |                          |
|              | to be determined.          |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Im           | A three-phased approach    | Continue current         |
| plementation | implemented over           | management.              |
| strategy and | approximately 10 years.    |                          |
| schedule     |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+

 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319128 .anchor}Table 7: Summary of Impacts of
the Alternatives

+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **\          | **\                        | **No Action Alternative\ |
| Impact       | Proposed Action**          | (Continue Current        |
| Topic**      |                            | Management)**            |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Water        |                            |                          |
| Resources    |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Surface      | Minor to moderate,         | Continuation of          |
| water flows  | long-term, beneficial      | dispersed use throughout |
|              | effects would result from  | much of the preserve     |
|              | restricting ORVs to trails | would produce long-term, |
|              | and restoring previously   | moderate, adverse        |
|              | affected areas.            | impacts by allowing      |
|              |                            | increases in the area    |
|              | Minor, short-term, adverse | altered by ORVs.         |
|              | effects would occur in the |                          |
|              | vicinity of designated     |                          |
|              | trails until the           |                          |
|              | monitoring and maintenance |                          |
|              | components were completely |                          |
|              | implemented.               |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Water        | Moderate, beneficial       | Minor, adverse effects   |
| quality      | improvements in water      | would occur because the  |
|              | quality would result from  | area impacted by         |
|              | limiting the spatial       | turbidity and            |
|              | extent of the area subject | sedimentation caused by  |
|              | to localized impacts from  | ORVs would increase.     |
|              | ORV use.                   |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | Minor, adverse, localized  |                          |
|              | water quality impacts      |                          |
|              | would occur within         |                          |
|              | designated trails.         |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Soils        | Long-term, major,          | Long-term, major,        |
|              | beneficial effects would   | adverse impacts to soils |
|              | result from limiting ORVs  | would result from        |
|              | to designated trails and   | increases in the area of |
|              | restoring other areas.     | affected soils and       |
|              |                            | worsening conditions in  |
|              | Soils within trails would  | problem sites.           |
|              | be adversely affected.     |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Vegetation   |                            |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Prairies and | Long-term, major,          | Long-term, major,        |
| marshes      | beneficial impacts would   | adverse impacts would    |
|              | result from the reduced    | result from the          |
|              | area of impact and from    | increased area of impact |
|              | the restoration of         | and the inability of     |
|              | previously affected areas. | sites to recover,        |
|              |                            | compounding the          |
|              |                            | situation over time.     |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Cypress      | Negligible to minor        | Negligible to minor      |
| strands and  | beneficial impact. Because | adverse impact.          |
| domes, mixed | of deep water or unstable  | Continued dispersed use  |
| hardwood     | substrate, these areas are | of ORVs would pose a     |
| swamps, and  | little used by ORVs and    | continued threat to the  |
| sloughs      | have experienced           | soils and vegetation of  |
|              | relatively few adverse     | shallower areas.         |
|              | effects from past use.     |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Mangrove     | Negligible impacts would   | Negligible impacts would |
| forest       | occur.                     | occur.                   |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Hardwood     | Long-term, minor,          | Minor, long-term,        |
| hammocks     | beneficial impacts would   | adverse effects would    |
|              | result from routing trails | occur from increases in  |
|              | outside of these areas to  | widths of trails in      |
|              | protect the archaeological | hammocks.                |
|              | resources they often       |                          |
|              | contain, and from          |                          |
|              | restoring closed trails.   |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Pinelands    | Long-term, moderate        | The widening of existing |
|              | benefits to pinelands      | trails and establishment |
|              | would result from the      | of new trails through    |
|              | reduced trail mileage and  | pinelands would produce  |
|              | from restoration.          | long-term, minor,        |
|              |                            | adverse impacts.         |
|              | Minor, localized adverse   |                          |
|              | effects would occur from   |                          |
|              | the widening of some       |                          |
|              | trails over time.          |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+

** **

Table 7: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives (Continued)

  -------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------
  **\            **\                           **No Action Alternative\
  Impact Topic** Proposed Action**             (Continue Current
                                               Management)**

  Protected                                     
  species                                      

  Cape Sable     Sparrows may experience       Sparrows may experience
  seaside        long-term benefits from       long-term adverse impacts
  sparrow        closures, which may eliminate by alteration of
                 impacts to vegetation         vegetation structure
                 structure used for nesting,   needed for nesting,
                 foraging, and roosting.       foraging, and roosting.

  Bald eagle     Potential for beneficial      Potential for adverse
                 effect, because designated    effect, because protective
                 trails would be located a     buffer areas have not been
                 least 1,500 feet from eagle   established around all
                 nests in accordance with      known nest sites.
                 USFWS guidelines.             

  Wood stork     Stork foraging would benefit  Negligible impacts,
                 from the confinement of ORVs  because no change to stork
                 to designated trails, which   habitat or disturbance
                 would reduce disturbances,    levels would occur with a
                 and from the restoration of   continuation of current
                 prairie and marsh habitats.   management.

  Red-cockaded   Negligible impacts. Benefits  Negligible impacts,
  woodpecker     associated with habitat       because no change to
                 restoration and routing of    red-cockaded woodpecker
                 trails around cluster areas   habitat or disturbance
                 could be offset by the        levels would occur with a
                 preferential routing of ORV   continuation of current
                 trails through pinelands.     management.

  Everglade      Negligible impacts, because   Negligible impacts,
  snail kite     there is no evidence that     because no change to snail
                 snail kites in the preserve   kite habitat or
                 are sensitive to or           disturbance levels would
                 threatened by ORV use.        occur with a continuation
                                               of current management.

  Florida        Long-term, beneficial effects Long-term, adverse effects
  panther        may occur because the         may occur because
                 potential for human           degradation of panther
                 disturbance to panthers and   habitat and potential for
                 adverse impacts to panther    human disturbance to
                 habitat would be reduced.     panther would continue.

  West Indian    Negligible effect. Critical   Negligible effect.
  manatee        habitat would be protected by Critical habitat would be
                 closing Zone 1 of the         protected by closing Zone
                 Stairsteps Unit to all ORVs.  1 of the Stairsteps Unit
                                               to airboats.

  White-tailed   Negligible to minor           Negligible impacts to deer
  deer and feral beneficial impacts to deer    and hogs.
  hogs           and hogs.                     

  Visitor                                       
  experience                                   

  ORV use        Long-term, moderate, adverse  Negligible impacts.
                 impacts due to increased      
                 cost, increased time          
                 requirements, and additional  
                 restrictions on use.          
  -------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------

** **

Table 7: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives (Continued)

+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **\          | **\                        | **No Action Alternative\ |
| Impact       | Proposed Action**          | (Continue Current        |
| Topic**      |                            | Management)**            |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Hunting      | No direct impacts to       | Negligible impacts.      |
|              | hunting.                   |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | No reduction in the number |                          |
|              | of permits available to    |                          |
|              | hunt in the preserve,      |                          |
|              | availability of areas open |                          |
|              | to hunting, or number of   |                          |
|              | game animals.              |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | Many hunters who use ORVs  |                          |
|              | would have to walk         |                          |
|              | further. Hunting on foot   |                          |
|              | may be improved. These     |                          |
|              | would be indirect impacts. |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Other        | Some visitors would        | Some visitors would      |
| visitation   | perceive improved scenic   | perceive reduced scenic  |
|              | and aesthetic quality in   | and aesthetic quality in |
|              | the preserve associated    | the preserve because of  |
|              | with reducing the spatial  | increases in noise,      |
|              | extent of the area         | rutting, and vegetation  |
|              | impacted by ORVs.          | disturbances caused by   |
|              |                            | ORVs.                    |
|              | Decreases in noise from    |                          |
|              | ORVs would be perceived as |                          |
|              | beneficial by some         |                          |
|              | visitors.                  |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
| Non-federal  | No impact to property      | Negligible impacts.      |
| property     | owners' ability to         |                          |
| owners       | reasonably access their    |                          |
|              | property.                  |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | Property owners would be   |                          |
|              | required to obtain a free  |                          |
|              | special use permit to      |                          |
|              | access their property.     |                          |
|              |                            |                          |
|              | Unless they drew and       |                          |
|              | purchased a recreational   |                          |
|              | ORV permit, private        |                          |
|              | property owners could not  |                          |
|              | recreate with an ORV       |                          |
|              | within the preserve.       |                          |
+--------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+

 

**Affected Environment**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177064 .anchor}**Natural Resource Issues**

This section describes the characteristics of the existing natural
environment that could be affected by the proposed action and the no
action alternative (continue current management). In compliance with the
guidelines contained in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Section 1502.15 of the regulations for implementing NEPA developed by
the Council on Environmental Quality (1978), the description of the
affected environment focuses on only those environmental aspects
potentially subject to effects from the use of ORVs.

As discussed in \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan,\" the National Park
Service has identified impact topics that may be affected by the
proposed action or the no action alternative (continue current
management). This section establishes the basis for the \"Environmental
Consequences\" section, which assesses the effects the alternatives may
have on the impact topics within the affected environment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177065 .anchor}**Surface Water Flows**

The preserve is exceptionally flat, with a typical gradient of only 5 to
10 inches per mile. Surface water hydrology of Big Cypress National
Preserve is typically characterized as a \"sheetflow\" flooding regime.
During the wet season, the landscape becomes covered with a shallow,
continuous expanse of water that flows slowly toward the coast. Water
movement is almost imperceptible in the interior of the preserve, where
the terrain slopes an average of less than a foot per mile. However,
flows are easily observable where the expanse of sheetflow is
constricted to pass under a roadway or is channelized into a canal.

Surface water flows across the entire area during high-water conditions.
It is most pronounced and is retained the longest in the forested
cypress strands and marshy sloughs.

Wet-season conditions typically prevail from early summer to early
winter. The quantity of water varies depending on the amount of summer
rains, frequency of tropical depressions, occurrence of winter rain, and
upstream water management practices. Typically, marsh, prairie, and
cypress areas will have water depths of 1 to 3 feet, while areas of
pines and hammock habitats will experience little or no inundation.

After surface flows have ceased, water losses continue through
evapotranspiration and groundwater seepage. The preserve typically
experiences an almost full drydown condition during the late spring,
prior to the onset of summer rainfall. During drydown condition,
standing water is retained only in the deepest depressions and canals.

The original boundary of the preserve was largely a self-contained,
rain-driven watershed. However, surface flows in the original boundary
are influenced by upstream management practices and internal barriers to
flow. Major physical alterations of the landscape and associated water
management practices have greatly modified the volume, timing,
distribution, and quality of surface water in south Florida. These
actions have included canal and levee building, road construction,
agriculture, residential and commercial development, and operation of
pumps and flood gates. Such disturbances have been especially pronounced
in the greater Everglades east of the preserve and in the failed attempt
to develop Southern Golden Gates Estates west of the preserve.

Investigators have documented that surface water in the Big Cypress
vicinity preferentially flows in channels rather than in adjacent
wetlands (Duever *et al.* 1981; Pernas *et al.* 1995). However, Duever
*et al.* (1986a) also observed that topographic irregularities
interrupted excessive drainage. Channelization is of particular concern
at the southern boundary of the preserve where mixing of fresh water and
salt water occurs, and where changes in salinity can change the
vegetation composition.

A recent review of historical water-level information by preserve staff
showed an increase in the duration of surface water inundation in the
1990s relative to the two previous decades (Sobczak and Pernas 2000). It
is thought that the wetter condition in the 1990s was caused by
increased rainfall amounts, but upstream water releases, gate operations
in adjacent areas, and features within the preserve that block and
channelize flow also contributed to the condition. Because the
relatively dry conditions that prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s also
were influenced by water management practices, there is uncertainty
regarding future hydrologic conditions, both in terms of the weather
patterns and the Central and South Florida Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP or Restudy) review study (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1999).

Major physical and operational alterations that will directly impact the
preserve over the next 50 years include removal of part or all of the
L-28 canal and levee, partial modification of the L-28 tieback,
alteration of flows at the northern boundary of the preserve, and
changes in the operational rules for regulating flows in adjacent and
upstream areas. As shown in the L-28 Canal map, the L-28 canal system is
directly east of the preserve boundary and interrupts the generally
northeast to southwest flow of water across the area. Water management
practices from upstream citrus expansion may influence high-water
conditions along the northeast portion of the preserve, but the extent
of this impact (if any) is unclear.

Flattened vegetation and tire tracks at roadside entry points are
generally the extent of ORV effects seen by most observers. However,
aerial views of the preserve show a vast network of ORV trails and
travel corridors. This network of tire ruts and ridges could be
influencing the volume, timing, and distribution of surface water flows.

The extent, occurrence, and severity of effects that ORVs have had on
surface water flows of the preserve are largely unknown. However, ORV
ruts, which can be 2 or more feet deep, can channel water and
potentially alter natural water flow patterns and timing. Two studies
have documented greater water flow rates within ORV ruts than in
adjacent undisturbed areas. Duever *et al.* (1981) found that over wet
and dry seasons, water flows accelerated from two to four times in
trails oriented parallel to the direction of water flows. Flows in some
trails continued after water had ceased flowing in surrounding areas,
possibly leading to a shortened natural hydroperiod in a localized area.
Pernas *et al.* (1995) found that surface water flow always followed
airboat trails, regardless of the trail orientation. Within the study
area, these flow rates were accelerated approximately five times faster
within the airboat trails than in adjacent undisturbed areas.

Duever *et al.* (1986a) hypothesized that trails that were extensively
rutted and oriented parallel to flow could drain surface water from an
adjacent wetland, particularly in low-lying areas. Such channel
formation would be of particular concern at the southern boundary of the
preserve because it could increase saltwater intrusion into freshwater
wetland habitat. However, they also observed that topographic
irregularities interrupted excessive drainage effects, so that impacts
tended to be localized.

** **

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319245 .anchor}**L-28 Canal Map**

** **

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177066 .anchor}**Water Quality**

The original boundary of the preserve was established at the perimeter
of a predominantly self-contained, rain-driven watershed that lies
upgradient of Everglades National Park. Major cypress strands were
logged in the early 1900s and areas of the watershed were used as
farmland in the decades prior to the preserve's establishment. However,
the area's remoteness limited it to only sparse development, much of
which has been reclaimed since the preserve's establishment in 1974. As
a result, the quality of the water within the preserve is high.

An extensive, shallow, surficial aquifer underlies the preserve. The
formation is several tens of feet thick under the preserve, but
diminishes completely near the preserve's eastern boundary. This
limestone aquifer is the main source of fresh water supplies in Collier
County.

The waters of Big Cypress National Preserve are currently designated as
Outstanding Florida Waters. This is a state designation, delegated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water
Act, and is intended to protect existing, high-quality waters.

The low-nutrient, high-quality water in the preserve is vulnerable to
degradation from contaminants. Because the water is of such high
quality, even small amounts of contaminants can result in relatively
large adverse effects. External sources of pollution primarily include
nutrient-enriched runoff from upstream agricultural activities,
especially along the northern boundary of the preserve. Internal
contaminant sources include leakage and ancillary activities associated
with oil and gas exploration and development, operation of vehicles
along roads in the preserve, and oil and gas leakage and soil
disturbance caused by the operation of ORVs in the preserve.

Big Cypress National Preserve established a long-term water monitoring
program for measuring surface water stage and quality in 1988. Water
quality samples currently are collected every other month at 10 stations
located throughout the preserve.

The intent of this water monitoring program is to provide a long-term
record for assessing ambient water quality conditions and contamination
threats. Turbidity is among the parameters tested. The National Park
Service currently is analyzing water quality data, and will use the
results in making management decisions.

Water quality standards for evaluating ORV impacts have not been
developed for the preserve. There is an on-going debate regarding the
degree of water quality impacts, whether they are localized or regional
in nature, and how other components of the ecosystem may be affected.

The use of ORVs in the preserve generates visible, localized turbidity
in the overlying water column. This effect is most pronounced in areas
where ruts are deepest and vegetation has thinned. However, a study by
Duever *et al*. (1986b) determined that the effects of ORV use on water
quality were negligible, localized, and produced no threat to regional
water quality. Localized impacts included hydroperiod alteration,
temperature variation, introduction of sediment into the water column,
chemical pollution, and salinity changes. The turbidity that resulted
from ORV operation was found to decrease sunlight penetration, thereby
decreasing primary productivity of plants.

According to Beardsley (1995), extensive vegetation impacts from ORV use
may inhibit nutrient uptake, causing greater levels of nutrients to
remain in the water. Beardsley also stated that loss of vegetation cover
reduces water filtration and removes frictional forces that reduce
retention of water in the wetland. In some cases, subtle modification to
water quality can impact other biological, vegetative, and wildlife
components of the environment, and the existence of many localized
impacts can translate into regional-scale and long-term impacts if the
processes that cause them occur regularly and are permanent. Regional
water quality effects would be most likely during times of heavy ORV
use, and when ORV trails are heavily rutted and oriented in the
direction of sheetflow.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177067 .anchor}**Soils**

According to Duever *et al.* (1986a), most of the soils at Big Cypress
National Preserve are simple geological and biological products that
have not had sufficient time or environmental conditions for evolution
into true soils. Marl, sand, organic matter, and rock are the four
substrate types in the preserve.

Carbonate marls are the most widespread unconsolidated soil type of the
preserve. Marls are mixtures of calcareous clays with calcite particles,
sand, and/or shell fragments, and may have periphyton precipitates at
the surface. Marl soils support few trees and provide poor traction when
wet. Therefore, ORV use tends to spread out in these areas, causing
numerous parallel routes.

A hard limestone substrate, commonly called cap rock, is typically
located 10 inches to 40 inches below the soil surface. The limestone
also outcrops at the land surface, particularly within hardwood
hammocks. The shallow limestone rock is typically pitted with solution
holes of all sizes. In some areas, ORV use has displaced overlying soils
and the limestone cap rock is exposed.

Cypress domes indicate areas of thicker soil deposition. Typically,
these sites were caused by advanced dissolution and subsequent collapse
of the limestone rock.

Sand deposits within the preserve are thin, infrequent, and likely
derived from old shoreline deposits. Peats derived from partially
decayed plant material are also present in the preserve and are
identified by their major plant components that include mangroves and
sawgrass.

The extent to which ORV operation affects soils within the preserve
varies based on soil depth, soil composition, plant cover, and frequency
of use. The controlling factor often is the moisture content of the
soil. The calcium carbonate-rich organic soils that occur throughout
most of the preserve (less so in the north) are extremely pliable when
saturated and are susceptible to deformation by vehicle tires. Localized
impacts include complete loss of the soil (bedrock exposure), rutting
and ridging of soil, and water channelization. In addition, lateral
expansion of the trail network (development of new trails and widening
of existing trails) occurs as operators avoid areas that are excessively
muddy or rutted.

Duever *et al.* (1981) found that water elevation was the most important
environmental factor influencing the severity of ORV impacts on soils.
In areas where the water table was at the surface at the time ORV
impacts occurred, the degree of impact and time required for recovery
increased.

As described in the \"Surface Water Flows\" section, the annual surface
water inundation periods during the 1990s were longer than they had been
during the preceding two decades (Sobczak and Pernas 2000). As a result,
surface organic sediments were saturated longer and dry less. This
condition increased soil deformation from ORV activity, both from
repeated passes and widening existing trails to avoid heavily rutted
areas. This is believed to have increased the degree and spatial
coverage of ORV impacts in the preserve.

ORV-induced deformation of soil structure and level causes an overall
depletion of the soil resource through such processes as oxidation and
erosion (Yamataki 1994). ORVs also affect processes that are influenced
by soils, such as surface flows, evaporation, and the abundance and
distribution of plants and wildlife.

Duever *et al.* (1986b), in a study of old trails in Big Cypress
National Preserve, stated that once soils have been displaced, there are
few natural mechanisms of restoring ground contour, and the ruts remain
indefinitely. Therefore, it is likely that soil impacts are cumulative
and worsen over time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177068 .anchor}**Vegetation**

The Big Cypress National Preserve general management plan and
environmental impact statement (NPS 1991) included a comprehensive
description of the vegetation resources. Since then, vegetation has been
re-classified by Welch *et al*. (1999) to provide consistency with the
mapping of other public lands in the south Florida region. The largest
changes were that some areas formerly classified as marsh, such as those
in the Stairsteps Unit, are now defined as prairie. The current
classifications of vegetation within the preserve are shown in the
Vegetation Classes map. Areas used by ORVs are shown in the ORV Use
Areas figure.

This ORV management plan and supplemental environmental impact statement
tiers to the 1991 document. The ecological importance of the vegetation
communities in the preserve has changed little since the publication of
the general management plan. Therefore, except for ORV effects, the
\"Affected Environment\" section of the general management plan is
incorporated by reference to define the affected environment for
vegetation in this ORV management plan.

There are indications that ORVs have resulted in the spread of invasive
plants, such as *Schinus terebinthefolius* (Brazilian pepper),
*Melaleuca quinquenervia*, and *Lygodium microphyllum* (old world
climbing fern), within Big Cypress National Preserve. ORVs transport
seed in their tire treads and vehicle beds, and distribute it in
currently unaffected areas of the preserve as they travel. Evidence of
the spread of invasive plants along ORV trails has particularly been
documented around the Monroe Station trailhead (Pernas 1999).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177069 .anchor}**Prairies**

Prairies appear to be the vegetation community in the preserve most
impacted by ORV use. ORV trails within this community are easily
distinguished on aerial photography. The tracks made by ORVs persist and
are even visible on large-scale aerial images.

Impacts of ORV traffic in prairies include vegetation loss and exposed
soils. During the ORV trail analysis performed by the University of
Georgia (Welch and Madden 1998), many of the prairie areas were so
heavily trafficked that mapping of individual trails was impossible.
These areas are represented by shaded polygons in the University of
Georgia Trails Interpretation map that is presented later in this
\"Affected Environment\" section under \"Visitor Experience Issues.\"

[**Figure - Vegetation Classes**](../finalveg.htm)

 

 

 

** **

[**Figure - ORV Use Areas**](../ORV%20Use%20Areas.htm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Duever *et al.* (1981) and Duever *et al.* (1986b) described effects of
ORV traffic in marl marshes and sand marshes. Based on the species
composition of these areas, these now appear to be classified as
prairies. Duever *et al.* (1986b) observed that sand marshes that were
not inundated were less likely to sustain heavy impacts from ORV use.
This suggests that seasonal variation in hydrology may be an important
factor in determining ORV effects, and that ORV use in prairies during
the wet season should be minimized.

ORV uses have been shown to alter plant community structure. After 1
year of recovery, Duever *et al*. (1981) found that *Cladium jamaicense*
(sawgrass) and *Muhlenbergia capillaris* (muhly grass) were reduced in
the tire lanes. *Bacopa* sp.(hyssop) and *Utricularia* sp. (bladderwort)
were common in the rutted areas; this was attributed to an increased
hydroperiod in the tire ruts and increased sunlight from tree or shrub
canopy removal within ORV use areas. After 7 years, Duever *et al*.
(1986b) found that four graminoids (grasses, sedges, and rushes) were
more common in ORV trails than in comparison areas. *Cladium jamaicense*
(sawgrass) was less common in the trails used by ORVs than in the
undisturbed comparison areas.

Duever *et al.* (1981) and Duever *et al.* (1986b) also evaluated
effects in \"small cypress\" communities. Descriptions of these areas in
Duever *et al.* (1981) suggest that they may be ecotones between cypress
domes and prairies or dwarf cypress prairies, where scattered small
cypress occur in a prairie community. These areas are closely aligned
ecologically with marl prairies.

Duever *et al.* (1981) indicated that, of all five types of sites tested
with wheeled vehicles, the small cypress communities required the lowest
amount of use by wheeled ORVs to create \"a significant impact.\" Duever
*et al.* (1986b) indicated recovery of small cypress communities was
lower than other communities 7 years after intermediate and heavy
impacts from wheeled ORVs.

Duever *et al.* (1981) found that small (less than 3 feet tall) cypress
trees suffered minor damage in areas used by ORVs, but that cypress
trees between 3 feet and 10 feet tall had severe damage. Damage to these
trees and associated mortality increased with ORV use. This indicates
that cypress trees between 3 and 10 feet tall can be adversely affected
in areas used by ORVs, but that after limited ORV use, recovery of very
small trees can occur quickly.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177070 .anchor}**Marshes**

Since the preparation of the general management plan in 1991, the
classification of marshes in the preserve has been changed to be
consistent with vegetation classification throughout the south Florida
region. Under the new classification of Welch *et al*. (1999), marshes
now include many of the areas identified as prairies in 1991.

Marshes in Big Cypress National Preserve include fresh water and salt
water wetlands. Aerial photography indicates that, along with prairies,
the marsh community has incurred the greatest impact from ORV use (Welch
and Madden 1998; Welch *et al.* 1999). Marshes in the preserve have
extensive, braided networks of trails. Rutting from ORVs in marshes is
easily visible on aerial photography, and in many areas is quite
extensive.

Duever *et al.* (1981) and Duever *et al.* (1986b) described effects of
ORV traffic in inundated sand marshes and peat marshes, although wheeled
vehicles were not tested in peat marshes. These communities appear to
include much of the \"marshes\" category used in this plan. They consist
of open communities with few trees or shrubs and a ground cover that is
dominated by emergent herbs. Inundation is year-round or nearly
year-round.

Duever *et al.* (1981) indicated that, with the same amount of ORV use,
ORVs produced heavy impacts in inundated areas of marshes, but less
impact in non-inundated areas. Continuously inundated marl marshes were
not tested with wheeled vehicles, but appeared to be more affected when
they were inundated than when the water table was below the ground
surface. This suggests that marl marshes with extended hydroperiods may
be quickly impacted by ORV use.

ORV use has been shown to alter marsh plant composition and structure.
In marl marsh communities, Duever *et al.* (1981) found that *Panicum*
sp. (panic grass), *Cladium jamaicense* (sawgrass) and *Muhlenbergia
capillaris* (muhly grass) decreased with increased ORV use.
*Utricularia* sp. (bladderwort), often a floating aquatic plant, was
common in the rutted areas; this was attributed to an increased
hydroperiod in the tire ruts. Sand marsh communities showed little
difference in plant diversities with comparison areas after 1 year.
After 7 years, *Centella asiatica* (coinwort) was more common in marl
marsh areas used by ORVs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177071 .anchor}**Cypress Strands and Domes,
Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs**

Cypress strands, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs form irregular bands
trending northeast to southwest along the major drainages of the
preserve. These communities, along with the scattered cypress domes, are
the wettest of all vegetation types in the preserve. The interiors of
these types are important refuges and concentration points for
water-dependent wildlife during the annual dry season. The general
management plan contains more detailed descriptions of each of these
vegetation types (NPS 1991).

Generally, strands, swamps, sloughs, and domes are natural barriers to
ORVs. Because these wetlands depend on topographic depressions, water
depth increases substantially from their edges to the center. Most of
the areas covered by these wetlands have water too deep to support ORV
use, and ORVs must either skirt the shallowest margins or cross at the
narrowest and shallowest places.

The forested wetlands, including cypress strands, cypress domes, and
mixed hardwood swamps, typically have sandy, mineral soils that are less
sensitive to ORVs than adjoining marl prairies. However, deep water and
large, closely spaced trees confine ORVs to established, previously cut
trails threading along the margins where mineral soil or bedrock
provides sufficient traction and water depth is relatively shallow. ORV
tracks usually encircle or skirt cypress domes along their outermost
perimeter for the same reasons.

There are relatively few ORV trails perpendicular to the forested
drainages. ORV trails crossing strands and swamps are normally on
well-established, deeply entrenched routes where the forest narrows and
water levels are shallower. Duever *et al*. (1981) found that
established ORV trails through strands and swamps had the deepest ruts
of all vegetation types, and that typically trails were worn down to
bedrock and filled with standing water.

Sloughs, which are located primarily in the marshes of the Stairsteps
Unit, typically contain deep water and deposits of muck or peat, all of
which discourage the use of wheeled ORVs. Dense thickets of willows
along sloughs deter airboats. As a result, ORV trails usually cross
sloughs at established, narrow passages where wheeled vehicle drivers
are reasonably confident of not being mired and airboats can avoid
willows.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177072 .anchor}**Mangroves**

The mangrove communities in Big Cypress National Preserve are found
primarily in Zone 1 of the Stairsteps Unit. Zone 1 is currently open
only to wheeled vehicles, which primarily use the northern portion of
the area, which does not contain mangrove forest.

Zone 2 of the Stairsteps Unit contains mangrove forest along its
southern edge. Currently, airboats are allowed to travel in this area
when water levels are adequate.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177073 .anchor}**Hardwood Hammocks**

Hammocks are scattered throughout the preserve. These areas are located
on higher sand islands, and because of their raised position, they often
appear as islands of trees. These areas function as refuges for wildlife
during periods of high water. A large proportion of the known
archeological sites within the preserve have been found in hardwood
hammocks.

Hammocks are a successional stage that occurs after pinelands, when
hardwoods dominate the community and exclude pines. In south Florida,
this typically occurs when a pineland is insulated from fire for a long
period, so that hardwoods are able to survive and replace pines. Trees
that dominate these communities are often large, such as *Quercus* spp.
(oaks), *Sabal palmetto* (sabal palms), or *Lysiloma latisiliquum* (wild
tamarind). As a result, the hardwood hammocks usually are avoided by
vehicle trails, and experience little ORV use. Occasionally, smaller
trees and shrubs in the understory may be subject to damage, as they can
be bent or broken by vehicles.

Duever *et al.* (1986b) stated that abandoned trails in the Loop Unit
were vegetated by *Baccharis* spp. (saltbush) after 7 years. Saltbush
species are opportunistic in disturbed areas. Duever *et al.* (1986b)
speculated that the abandoned trails would eventually succeed to the
native understory species, but no further assessment has been conducted
to determine if this is occurring.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177074 .anchor}**Pinelands**

Pinelands occur extensively within the preserve, primarily throughout
the northeastern portions. An estimated 23,500 acres of pinelands in the
preserve have never been cut. Old-growth pinelands within the preserve
are one of the largest examples of this vegetation type remaining in
south Florida.

Of all the plant communities tested for ORV impacts by Duever *et al.*
(1981), pinelands were the most resistant to adverse effects. Wetter
pine communities were more heavily affected. Duever *et al.* (1986b)
found that two of three pineland areas affected by ORVs had recovered
after 7 years, but that the third, and wettest, pineland had not fully
recovered. Amounts of ground cover did not appear to be substantially
altered by ORV use. Heights of plants in areas of ORV use were
decreased, but recovered in one growing season.

Within the pineland understory, Duever *et al.* (1981) found few
differences in plant communities compared with undisturbed areas after 1
year. However, they did note slight increases in *Cladium jamaicense*
(sawgrass*)*, *Centella asiatica* (coinwort*)*, and *Hyptis* sp.
compared with undisturbed comparison sites, while *Panicum* sp. (panic
grass) and *Aristida* sp. (three-awn grass) decreased with increased ORV
use. After 7 years, Duever *et al.* (1986b) indicated that *Hypericum*
sp., *Ludwigia* sp., and *Xyris* sp. (yellow-eyed grass) were more
common in ORV trails than in comparison areas, while *Pluchea* sp.
(fleabane) was less common. *Cladium jamaicense* (sawgrass) was less
common in the trails used by ORVs than in the undisturbed comparison
areas.

Pinelands are fire-dependent, and prescribed fires by NPS staff maintain
the habitat viability by preventing hardwood succession. The trails
through these communities could act as firebreaks, isolating portions of
the pinelands from the benefits of fire. However, the firebreak effect
of trails is usually taken into account in management fires, and
multiple ignition points are used. While the effect of trails on the
behavior of natural fires has not been studied, it is likely that
low-intensity fires are more affected than high-intensity fire patterns.

Pinelands provide habitat for the federally listed red-cockaded
woodpecker. Red-cockaded woodpeckers form clusters of cavity trees
within pinelands. NPS annual surveys of red-cockaded woodpecker clusters
have not documented the loss of pines because of ORV traffic.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177075 .anchor}**Wildlife**

The general management plan and environmental impact statement (NPS
1991) included a comprehensive description of the wildlife resources of
the preserve. This ORV management plan and supplemental environmental
impact statement tiers to that document, in conformance with the Council
on Environmental Quality (1978) guidelines for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the \"Affected Environment\"
section of the general management plan is incorporated by reference to
define most of the affected environment for wildlife in this ORV
management plan.

As shown in Table 8, ten species of wildlife that are federally listed
as either endangered or threatened reside in Big Cypress National
Preserve. All of these species occupy portions of the preserve where ORV
activity occurs. The state of Florida lists an additional seven species
that occur in the preserve as threatened or endangered. Of these 17
species, two are reptiles, nine are birds, and six are mammals.

The state lists an additional 13 species of special concern (SSC). These
species warrant attention because they have experienced long-term
population declines and are vulnerable to exploitation or environmental
changes.

Table 8 displays the status of all 30 special status wildlife species
that occur in Big Cypress National Preserve. Brief descriptions of the
federally listed species as they relate to ORV use are provided below.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177076 .anchor}**American Alligator**

The American alligator is listed as threatened because of its similarity
of appearance to the American crocodile, which is endangered. The
alligator is common in the vast wetland communities of the preserve.
Encounters with ORVs occur most often during the dry season when
alligators travel overland seeking permanent bodies of water.

**^Table\ 8:\ Listed\ Wildlife\ Species\ in\ Big\ Cypress\ National\ Preserve^**
a/

  ------------------- --------- --------------------- -------------- ------------
  **\                 **\       **\                   **Designated   
  Common Name**       Type**    Scientific Name**     Status** ^b/^  

                                                      **Federal**    **State**

  Florida tree snail  Mollusk   *Liguus fasciatus*                   SSC

  Common snook        Fish      *Centropomus                         SSC
                                undecimalis*                         

  American alligator  Reptile   *Alligator            T (S/A)        SSC
                                mississippiensis*                    

  Eastern indigo      Reptile   *Drymarchon corais    T              T
  snake                         couperi*                             

  Roseate spoonbill   Bird      *Ajaia ajaja*                        SSC

  Cape Sable seaside\ Bird      *Ammodramus           E              E
  sparrow                       maritimus\                           
                                mirabilis*                           

  Limpkin             Bird      *Aramus guarauna*                    SSC

  White-crowned       Bird      *Columba                             T
  pigeon                        leucocephala*                        

  Little blue heron   Bird      *Egretta caerulea*                   SSC

  Reddish egret       Bird      *Egretta rufescens*                  SSC

  Snowy egret         Bird      *Egretta thula*                      SSC

  Tri-colored heron   Bird      *Egretta tricolor*                   SSC

  White ibis          Bird      *Eudocimus albus*                    SSC

  Arctic peregrine    Bird      *Falco peregrinus                    E
  falcon                        tundrius*                            

  Florida sandhill    Bird      *Grus canadensis                     T
  crane                         pratensis*                           

  American            Bird      *Haematopus                          SSC
  oystercatcher                 palliatus*                           

  Bald eagle          Bird      *Haliaeetus           T              T
                                leucocephalus*                       

  Wood stork          Bird      *Mycteria americana*  E              E

  Osprey              Bird      *Pandion haliaetus*                  SSC

  Brown pelican       Bird      *Pelecanus                           SSC
                                occidentalis*                        

  Red-cockaded\       Bird      *Picoides borealis*   E              T
  woodpecker                                                         

  Everglade snail     Bird      *Rostrhamus           E              E
  kite                          sociabilis*                          

  Black skimmer       Bird      *Rynchops niger*                     SSC

  Least tern          Bird      *Sterna antillarum*                  T

  Everglades mink     Mammal    *Mustela vison                       T
                                evergladensis*                       

  Mountain lion       Mammal    *Puma concolor*       T (S/A)         

  Florida panther     Mammal    *Puma concolor coryi* E              E

  Big Cypress fox     Mammal    *Sciurus niger                       T
  squirrel                      avicennia*                           

  West Indian manatee Mammal    *Trichechus manatus*  E              E

  Florida black bear  Mammal    *Ursus americanus                    T
                                floridanus*                          
  ------------------- --------- --------------------- -------------- ------------

  ---- -------------- ----------------- ----- ---------------------------------------
  a/   Sources: USFWS                         
       1999a and                              
       Florida Fish                           
       and Wildlife                           
       Conservation                           
       Commission                             
       1997.                                  

  b/   E =            endangered.       S/A = similarity of appearance to a
                                              threatened or endangered species.

       SSC =          species of        T =   threatened.
                      special concern.        
  ---- -------------- ----------------- ----- ---------------------------------------

 

 

The American crocodile does not occur within Big Cypress National
Preserve. Therefore, effects of ORV management on the American alligator
were not considered in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177078 .anchor}**Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow**

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow is endemic to south Florida. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been petitioned to revise the
critical habitat designated for this species, which could include the
Stairsteps Unit in Big Cypress National Preserve.

Two of the six subpopulations described by Curnutt and Pimm (1993)
occurred in the preserve. The Ochopee Prairie subpopulation (Zone 1 of
the Stairsteps Unit) was extirpated by 1979, with its demise attributed
to fires and salinity changes associated with altered hydrology (USFWS
1983). The subpopulation of the sparrow west of Shark River Slough, half
of which is within the preserve's boundaries, experienced a 90 percent
decline in the 1990s (USFWS 1999c). This was attributed to water
management practices that had extended the hydroperiod into the breeding
season, which has resulted in sparrows shifting from mixed marl prairie
vegetation suitable for breeding to sawgrass-dominated vegetation that
sparrows do not use for nesting (Curnett *et al.* 1998).

Wheeled vehicles currently are not allowed within known sparrow habitat
and administrative actions in recent years have prohibited airboats when
and where water levels are at a stage in which their use may cause soil
displacement. These management actions have limited airboat use during
the nesting season. The long-term effects of airboats on sparrow habitat
and their behavior outside the nesting season have not been examined.
ORVs may affect the vegetative structure required by sparrows for
foraging, nesting, and roosting.

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow is critically endangered. The remaining
birds that inhabit the preserve are vulnerable to further losses by
either natural or man-caused impacts. Precautions must be taken to
minimize disturbance to this species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177079 .anchor}**Bald Eagle**

Three bald eagle territories have been documented in the preserve along
the southern boundary, one each in Zones 1, 3, and 4 of the Stairsteps
Unit. Based on annual eagle surveys by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (1980-1999), their productivity has varied.

> When commercial airboat activity was allowed in Zone 1, a buffer was
> established to prevent ORVs from disrupting nesting activity. This
> 1,500-foot buffer conforms with USFWS (1987) guidelines for protection
> of eagle nests.
>
> The eagle nest in Zone 3 is located in the center of a cypress strand,
> which serves as a natural buffer to ORV traffic. Therefore, the
> National Park Service determined that posting a 1,500-foot buffer was
> not necessary.
>
> In 1995 and 1996, adults eagles were observed in the area of the nest
> in Zone 4, but no young were observed in the nest. Since 1997, no
> eagle activity has been observed in the territory. A buffer is not
> posted at this location.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177080 .anchor}**Wood Stork**

The wood stork forages annually in the preserve when water levels
provide concentrations of fish. Documented nesting in the preserve was
rare until 1996 when 45 colonies were reported (Jansen and Brooks 1996).
The previous two consecutive years of high water and subsequent buildup
of the prey base apparently provided ideal conditions in which to raise
young. Wood stork nests have been found only sporadically in the
preserve after 1996.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177081 .anchor}**Red-cockaded Woodpecker**

The red-cockaded woodpecker is federally listed as an endangered
species. Habitat fragmentation and/or loss is the primary threat to this
species, which nests in cavities in mature, living pines. Other
range-wide threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker include cluster
abandonment due to mid-story encroachment and invasive plants.

Management actions for this species within the preserve include
mechanical removal of fuel loads under cavity trees and midstory control
through prescribed fire. Annual work includes determining cluster
status, observing nesting activity, and banding nestlings.

Fifty-three red-cockaded woodpecker clusters, of which 42 are active,
have been documented in the pinelands of the preserve. This represents
the fifth largest red-cockaded woodpecker population in Florida.

The red-cockaded woodpecker population within the preserve is stable
overall. However, the southernmost group of clusters located in Zone 4
of the Stairsteps Unit was impacted by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The
hurricane destroyed approximately 80 percent of the cavity trees and
probably killed individual birds.

The habitat surrounding the clusters in Zone 4 continues to show impacts
from environmental events such as wildfires and inundation by water for
extended periods. The high-water years of 1994 and 1995 resulted in tree
mortality at the periphery of the Zone 4 pinelands, demonstrating that
extended inundation may adversely affect red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat. Reproduction in this area is low and may be the result of a
sparse understory in some areas. This area warrants special attention to
ensure protection and survival of this species.

There has been no documentation of the loss of trees used by the
red-cockaded woodpecker due to compaction or injury along ORV trails.
Abandonment of clusters due to disturbance by ORVs also has not been
observed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177082 .anchor}**Everglade Snail Kite**

Everglade snail kite habitat consists of freshwater marshes that support
apple snails and provide perching and nesting substrate in the form of
scattered shrubs or small trees. Snail kites have been documented in the
preserve in Lostmans Slough in Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit, in the
Ochopee Prairie in Zone 1 of the Stairsteps Unit, in the eastern Loop
Unit, in the eastern Corn Dance Unit, and in East Hinson Marsh and
Okaloacoochee Slough in the Bear Island Unit. On rare occasions, snail
kites have been observed along the Birdon Road and Turner River Road
canals.

Since nest survey work began in 1995, Everglade snail kite nesting has
been documented annually in Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit. Annual nest
success in 1998 and 1999 was 60 percent, which is relatively high
compared to other wetlands surveyed and is above the average range of 32
percent to 50 percent reported by previous studies (Dreitz *et al.*
1999).

Two studies addressed the impacts of human disturbance on snail kites in
the water conservation areas of south Florida. Over a 10-year study
period, Sykes (1987) reported two nest failures resulting from airboats.
Bennetts *et al*. (1988) stated that snail kite nests usually were in
denser vegetation than is normally traveled by airboats, but often were
in proximity to travel routes. They did not find any evidence of nest
damage by airboats.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177083 .anchor}**Florida Panther**

The Florida panther was listed as endangered in 1967. In 1995, eight
female mountain lions were released into the Florida panther population,
including four introduced into the preserve, to offset the negative
effects of inbreeding documented in panthers. The mountain lion,
therefore, is federally listed, based on its \"similarity of
appearance\" to the panther.

The Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan *et al*. 1993)
identified about 926,000 acres of habitat considered essential to
maintaining a minimum viable population of panthers in south Florida.
About 582,000 of these acres are within Big Cypress National Preserve,
representing approximately 63 percent of the essential habitat.

The most recent verifiable population estimate is 60 panthers, including
adults and subadults (McBride 2000). Of the 35 panthers currently
monitored via radio-telemetry, 19 inhabit the preserve. The Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) monitors six panthers that
reside north of I-75 and the National Park Service monitors 13 panthers
south of I-75 and north of U.S. Highway 41.

The Panther Locations, 1981-1999 map shows panther locations obtained by
radio telemetry three times per week. No panthers currently are known to
inhabit the Loop Unit or Stairsteps Unit, although past use has
confirmed that these areas can support them. The greater numbers of
locations north of I-75 are the result of a longer monitoring period and
a denser population in the 1980s.

A study entitled *The Effects of Recreational Deer and Hog Hunting on
the Behavior of Florida Panthers* was conducted between 1994 and 1998
(Janis and Clark 1999). It centered on the panther population north of
I-75, including the Bear Island Unit. The study results indicated that
panthers avoided the system of trails designated for ORV use. Panthers
also reduced their use of the unit during the hunting season. It is not
known whether this was in response to an impacted prey base or to an
increase in disturbance by ORV users or other preserve visitors.

 

[**Figure - Panther Locations, 1981-1999**](../finalpant.htm)

 

 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177084 .anchor}**West Indian Manatee**

The West Indian manatee uses the open-water creeks and canals of the
southwest portion of the preserve. This area has been designated by the
USFWS as critical habitat for the manatee. Recreational airboats
currently are prohibited in Zone 1.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177085 .anchor}**Other Wildlife Species**

The diverse habitats of the preserve support numerous species that are
not federally listed as endangered or threatened, yet are important
components of a healthy and balanced ecosystem. Duever *et al*. (1986a)
provided a partial list of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals that
use the habitats of the preserve. A list of the fish and invertebrates
has not been compiled.

The marl prairie habitat in the preserve has been the most impacted by
ORVs, which have altered both soil and vegetative structure in some
areas. Prairies support a biotic community that includes invertebrates,
amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and small mammals. It is expected
that soil disturbance, vegetative loss, and altered water quality and
quantity associated with ORV use have locally affected populations, but
the extent of the effect has not been quantified.

Since the 1991 general management plan was written, the deer population
in many areas of the preserve has increased. Factors influencing this
increase include area closures, favorable environmental conditions, and
changes in hunting regulations. The feral hog population in Big Cypress
National Preserve appears to be stable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177086 .anchor}**Visitor Experience Issues**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177087 .anchor}**General Preserve Visitation**

Visitation statistics maintained at the visitor center report a trend of
increasing visitation to the preserve. Table 9 shows the last 5 years of
visitation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319130 .anchor}Table 9: Visitation at Big
Cypress National Preserve, 1995 to 1999

  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
  **Year**                             []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177088
                                       .anchor}**Visits**

  1995                                 365,463

  1996                                 424,920

  1997                                 462,553

  1998                                 474,895

  1999                                 503,110
  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

The Big Cypress National Preserve visitor study conducted in the winter
of 1999 by the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho
(Meehan 1999) identified general visitor demographics as follows. These
findings are based on 857 questionnaires that were distributed January 2
through 10, 1999 at nine locations; 582 surveys were returned for a 68
percent response rate. Surveys were distributed at many locations,
including ORV access sites and hunter check stations.

> Twenty-five percent of total visitors surveyed were Florida residents.
> New York, Indiana, and California followed with 4 percent each.
> International visitors from 21 countries comprised 21 percent of the
> visitors surveyed. Germany, Canada, and England were the most
> frequently cited countries of origin.
>
> Twenty-two percent of those surveyed had used an ORV during their
> visit to the preserve. Of those, 70 percent had been on a commercial
> airboat tour, 15 percent used a street-legal 4 x 4, 11 percent used an
> all-terrain cycle, 10 percent used a swamp buggy, and 2 percent used a
> privately owned airboat. This totals more than 100 percent because a
> few individuals had used more than one type of ORV.
>
> Birdwatching, viewing wildlife, sightseeing, experiencing wilderness,
> and experiencing solitude were rated as the most important activities
> by those surveyed.
>
> To the question, \"What did you like least about your visit to Big
> Cypress National Preserve?\" the most frequent answers included lack
> of information, poor quality of roads, too much litter, hunting and
> fishing, people driving too fast, ORVs and ATC's, lack of animals,
> lack of time, and too many bugs.
>
> Another question was \"If you were a park manager planning for the
> future of Big Cypress National Preserve, what would you propose?\"
> Frequent responses included better signage; more guided foot and bike
> tours; need to promote the area; boardwalks into wet areas; increased
> number of trails; more overlooks and roadside parking areas; improved
> quality of roads; discontinue ORV, airboat, and ATC usage; prohibit
> hunting and fishing;
>
> discontinue mining and drilling; no further development; expand
> preserve boundary; provide careful preservation of area; and restore
> water quality.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177089 .anchor}**ORV Use**

The use of ORVs is a popular recreational activity within Big Cypress
National Preserve. Several types of ORVs are used to access the
preserve's swampy backcountry. These include street-legal
four-wheel-drive vehicles (4 x 4s); light-weight, all-terrain cycles
(ATCs); swamp buggies; and airboats. Recreational activities that can
involve the use of ORVs in the preserve include hunting, fishing,
trapping, birdwatching, and exploring.

No data on ORV numbers could be located for years prior to 1980, when
the National Park Service implemented a mandatory registration for all
ORVs operated in the preserve. NPS ORV permit data since 1980 are
presented in Table 10 and are presented graphically in the figure
entitled ORV Permits by Type by Year. Tracked vehicles were banned in
1988 based on research that showed they produced more adverse impacts
than other ORV types (Duever *et al.* 1981).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319131 .anchor}Table 10: Numbers of ORVs
Registered for Use in\
Big Cypress National Preserve, 1980 to 1999

  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- --------- ----------
  **\      **\        **Swamp\   **Street   **\         **Half\    **Full\   **\
  Year**   ATC**      Buggy**    Legal**    Airboat**   Track**    Track**   Totals**

  1980     361        180        176        130         10         14        871

  1981     1,154      508        347        195         22         26        2,252

  1982     1,042      162        464        166         5          14        1,853

  1983     1,012      174        404        133         10         4         1,737

  1984     1,020      155        410        115         4          2         1,706

  1985     300        143        345        96          2          5         891

  1986     300        586        165        238         14         21        1,324

  1987     456        794        348        328         17         37        1,980

  1988     507        810        393        371         0          1         2,082

  1989     512        756        398        323         0          0         1,989

  1990     580        733        334        261         0          0         1,908

  1991     812        773        315        274         0          0         2,174

  1992     872        773        314        296         0          0         2,255

  1993     842        735        270        331         0          0         2,178

  1994     584        559        193        250         0          0         1,586

  1995     303        135        108        87          0          0         633

  1996     682        586        205        234         0          0         1,707

  1997     967        625        202        277         0          0         2,071

  1998     1,053      667        219        255         0          0         2,194

  1999     1,131      670        220        250         0          0         2,271
  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- --------- ----------

Notes: ^a/^ Tracked vehicles were banned in 1988.

^b/^ Year 2000 data not available at printing.

ORV permit numbers have ranged from 633 in 1995 to 2,271 in 1999.
Fluctuations in the number of ORV permits issued each year primarily
reflect water levels within the preserve, with fewer registered vehicles
in the wetter years (e.g., 1995) when portions of the preserve were
closed to hunting. Overall, ORV numbers have been slightly increasing.

ORV use is heaviest during the fall, winter, and spring hunting seasons.
Opening weekends of hunting seasons and holidays receive the greatest
usage.

Accurate data on ORV-related visitation are unavailable, although
several efforts have been made to gather such information. Duever *et
al.* (1986a) attributed the substantial increase in ORV trails visible
in aerial photographs from 1953 to 1973 to increased recreational ORV
use, primarily associated with hunting. They further estimated that
approximately 2,540 to 4,000 ORV-related hunters may be present in the
preserve at peak use times (weekends) during the hunting season. A 1970
study estimated 40,000 person-days of use per year in the entire Big
Cypress region (Everglades Jetport Advisory Board 1970).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177090 .anchor}**ORV Trail Mapping**

In 1985, during preparation of the general management plan and
environmental impact statement, the National Park Service mapped ORV
trails, defined at the time as corridors and routes consistently used by
ORVs. Trails were mapped from 1:63,000 color infrared photography flown
in March 1984. The results are shown in the GMP ORV Trails map. Only
those routes that were

 

[**Figure - GMP ORV Trails**](../finlgmp.jpg)

 

 

clearly visible in the aerial photography were mapped, and major trails
through forests were estimated. Based on this method, the total mileage
for ORV trails in the preserve was conservatively estimated at 1,240
miles (NPS 1991). This effort did not attempt to map all existing
trails.

The Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science, University of
Georgia, mapped linear features for the National Park Service. The
results are shown in the University of Georgia Trails Interpretation
map. This map was prepared from 1:40,000 infrared aerial photographs
flown in 1994 and 1995 that were enlarged to 1:10,000 scale (Welch *et
al*. 1999). Rather than mapping only consistently used routes as in the
earlier estimate, ORV trails for this effort were defined as any
discernible linear feature.

This map shows a fine network of linear features totaling approximately
29,000 miles. Many of the prairie areas were so heavily trafficked that
mapping of individual trails was impossible. These areas are represented
on the map by shaded polygons. The mapping technique was quite
sensitive, even indicating residual linear features in the Loop Unit,
which has been closed to vehicles for more than 20 years. Because of the
absence of ground-truthing, the researchers cautioned that linear
features other than ORV trails may have been included in the map and
that active and abandoned ORV trails were indistinguishable (Welch *et
al.* 1999).

Ground-truthing in selected areas was performed in the year 2000. The
preliminary findings of this activity are presented in Appendix B.

A comparison of the maps appears to show an exponential increase in ORV
use since 1984. The difference in the map estimates, however, primarily
reflects the difference between mapping known, primary ORV trails and
mapping all linear features. To more accurately assess ORV impacts since
1984, the recently mapped linear features are currently being
ground-truthed to separate ORV tracks from other linear features such as
wildlife trails.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177091 .anchor}**Characteristics of ORVs**

The following paragraphs describe the typical types of ORVs that
currently are being used in the preserve. Photographs of example
vehicles are provided in the Off-Road Vehicles figure.

> [Street Legal 4 x 4s.]{.underline} Street-legal four-wheel drive ORVs
> and trucks that are commercially manufactured and sold are very
> restricted in the extent of their access within the preserve. These
> vehicles require the driest driving conditions and rarely venture very
> far into the preserve's backcountry. As a group, this ORV type is the
> heaviest, with a mean weight of 4,431 pounds (based on 1996/97 permit
> data from the preserve). On average, they comprise approximately 18
> percent of the ORV permits registered with the National Park Service,
> although this varies from year to year.
>
> [All-Terrain Cycles (ATCs).]{.underline} Small, commercially
> manufactured ATCs tend to be restricted to drier terrain, as they lack
> the clearance required for deeper water and mud. They are also limited
> in their ability to carry camping gear and supplies on extended
> overnight backcountry trips. However, they are less expensive to
> purchase and maintain, easier to transport, and can penetrate wooded
> areas more easily than other ORV types. These vehicles are the
> smallest and lightest ORVs used in the preserve; current four-wheel
> drive models range in weight from 400 to 600 pounds. On average, ATCs
> comprise approximately 39 percent of the Big Cypress National Preserve
> ORV permits.
>
> ** **

[**Figure - University of Georgia Trails
Interpretation**](../finluga.jpg)

 

 

 

> [Swamp Buggies.]{.underline} Swamp buggies include a wide variety of
> custom-designed and -built vehicles. These vehicles have a wide range
> of configurations based on the frames, engines, number of axles, and
> wheel sizes used. Their weights range up to 7,160 pounds with an
> average of 3,629 pounds. These vehicles are less restricted in their
> access than street-legal vehicles and ATCs, and can carry several
> individuals and supplies deep into the backcountry on extended trips.
> However, they are more expensive to build and maintain, less reliable,
> and require substantially larger trailers to transport to and from the
> area. Swamp buggies annually comprise approximately 30 percent of ORV
> permits.
>
> [Airboats.]{.underline} Airboats can be commercially manufactured or
> custom-designed and -built. Airboats consist of a shallow,
> rectangular, aluminum hull powered by an aircraft or automobile engine
> that drives a large aircraft propeller. This ORV type is generally
> restricted to areas covered by deeper water, as their hulls are easily
> damaged by rock outcrops or obstructed by trees. An advantage is their
> speed of transport; while wheeled ORVs travel very slowly, airboats
> are operated at 20 to 60 mph. On average, airboats comprise about 13
> percent of ORV permits.

Use patterns within the management zones are directly influenced by
terrain characteristics. Airboats can most easily negotiate the marshes
and wet prairies south of U.S. Highway 41 and Loop Road. Wheeled
vehicles are used more frequently in shallow marl soils, sandy soils,
and the drier upland areas north of U.S. Highway 41. Swamp buggies are
less restricted, although in forested areas they are constrained by the
width of the corridor through the trees, size of the vehicle, and tire
size. ATCs are less confined to trails and can move faster but cannot
traverse the marl or mucky soils as well as the swamp buggies. Street
legal four-wheel-drive vehicles require mostly dry conditions and
infrequently travel very far into the preserve backcountry (NPS 1991).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177092 .anchor}**Characteristics of ORV Users
and Visitation**

Information about ORV users was obtained from a survey conducted as part
of this planning effort (Farrell *et al.* 1998). Eight hundred of the
1,660 ORV permit holders registered by spring of 1997 were sent a
mail-back questionnaire in April 1997. A stratified random sampling
approach was used to obtain representative subsamples for permit holders
for the four vehicle types. The survey had a response rate of 69 percent
(552 respondents). Of these, 10 were unusable and were not included in
the analysis.

Nearly all of the respondents were male (98 percent) and white (78
percent); other significant ethnicities were Native American (11
percent) and Hispanic (11 percent). Eighteen percent of the respondents
reported that they owned land within the preserve, and 7 percent lived
within the preserve. The respondent's ORV types were swamp buggy (48
percent), all-terrain cycle (25 percent), airboat (14 percent), and
street-legal 4 x 4 (13 percent).

ORVs were used predominantly for hunting-related activities, although as
shown in Table 11, the survey revealed participation in a wide variety
of non-hunting activities. Most respondents visit the preserve
frequently, and 67 percent estimated they have made more than 100 trips
to the area. Over the previous 12 months, 61 percent of the respondents
reported they had visited the preserve 10 or more times, while 16
percent visited 30 or more times. Most respondents spent 2 or 3 days per
trip.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319132 .anchor}**Figure - Off-Road Vehicles**

1 page long

 

 

Table 11: Activities Participated in by ORV Permit Holders\
during a 1-Year Period

  ------------------------ ------------ ------------------------- ------------
  **\                      **Percent\   **Activity**              **Percent\
  Activity**               (N=542)**                              (N=542)**

  Camping                  81           Visiting with members of  52
                                        my group                  

  General gun hunting      81           Photography               51
  (deer or hog)                                                   

  Pleasure of driving an   77           Visiting others           50
  ORV                                   (residents/campers)       

  Prehunting season        69           Picnicking                48
  scouting                                                        

  Fishing                  68           Small game hunting        38

  Sightseeing              64           Frogging                  34

  Animal/bird watching     54           Swimming                  20

  Archery hunting          52           Migratory game bird       14
                                        hunting                   

  Spring turkey hunting    52           Other                     10
  ------------------------ ------------ ------------------------- ------------

ORV riding is a social activity. Most (61 percent) of the respondents
said they visit the preserve with family and friends, 21 percent visit
most often with just friends, 11 percent with just family, and only 5
percent visit the area alone.

Respondents were asked about the role and importance of the ORV to their
enjoyment of the preserve. As shown in Table 12, seeing wildlife, the
ability to reach a favorite destination, sharing activities with friends
and family, and reaching a favorite hunting spot were the most highly
rated items.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319133 .anchor}Table 12: Role and Importance of
the ORV in Recreational Experiences

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
  **Role of ORV**                               **Mean Scale Rating
                                                ^a/^**

  See wildlife                                  3.8

  Reach a favorite destination                  3.7

  Share an activity with friends or family      3.6

  Reach my favorite hunting spot                3.4

  Explore places where few others go            3.4

  Scout new hunting places                      3.2

  Experience the simple joy of riding           3.2

  Travel off the beaten path                    3.2

  Bring in equipment and supplies               3.0

  Visit friends in other camps                  2.6
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

a/ Scale: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Respondents also were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with
statements describing the importance of specific places, vehicle types,
and routes used within the preserve. The results, shown in Table 13,
reveal a remarkably clear delineation and substantial agreement among
ORV users. Strong agreement was voiced for the statements \"I like to
explore new places in Big Cypress\" and \"I am very attached to a
special place in Big Cypress.\" Such statements indicate that while ORV
visitors are deeply attached to certain places such as hunting camps or
favored hunting spots, they also assign considerable importance to the
opportunity provided by their ORVs to roam and explore the preserve's
backcountry. The most strongly rated statement was \"I am very attached
to the ORV I use in Big Cypress,\" likely reflecting the substantial
work involved with constructing and maintaining ORVs such as swamp
buggies and airboats.

Table 13: Agreement with Statements Describing the Importance of
Specific Places, Vehicle Types, and Routes Used within the Preserve

  -------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------
  **Statements**                               **Mean     **Percent   **Percent\
                                               Scale      Agree**     Disagree**
                                               Rating                 
                                               ^a/^**                 

  I am very attached to the ORV I use in Big   4.5        89          4
  Cypress                                                             

  I like to explore new places in Big Cypress  4.3        87          2

  I am very attached to a special place in Big 4.1        73          5
  Cypress                                                             

  I couldn't do what I do in Big Cypress with  3.9        67          18
  any other type of ORV                                               

  I keep going back again and again to the     3.7        63          20
  same place                                                          

  I generally take the same travel route       3.1        44          37
  through Big Cypress                                                 

  If amount of time needed to reach my         2.4        25          58
  destination in Big Cypress stays about the                          
  same, one travel route is as good as another                        

  One management unit is as good as another    2.1        15          65
  for what I like to do                                               

  One type of ORV is as good as another for    2.0        15          75
  what I do in Big Cypress                                            
  -------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------

a/ Scale: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Many recreation outings are reported to produce long-lasting benefits
and valued experiences. As part of the planning effort, selected
preserve ORV visitors were asked to describe and explain the experiences
and benefits they received from their recreation. These people provided
detailed, passionate descriptions of numerous ways in which recreational
use of the preserve improved their lives (Hull 1998). An analysis of
information from these focus group discussions suggests that preserve
ORV users are similar to ORV users in other parts of the country.
Specifically, they:

> travel in groups
>
> prefer little managerial intervention
>
> see themselves as skilled risk takers and identify with others like
> themselves
>
> say the ORV experience is a way to release stress, revitalize spirits,
> and gain a sense of purpose
>
> want to protect the natural environment
>
> enjoy opportunities for social bonding
>
> value the ORV as a means to achieve solitude and immersion in nature

Preserve ORV users experience a high intensity of benefits and
attachment to ORV riding in the preserve. Based on information from the
larger survey of ORV permit holders, many of the most significant
benefits depend on their specific activities and/or on specific places.
The type and intensity of place- and activity-dependent benefits create
connections between users, activities, and places that must be taken
into consideration when selecting ORV management actions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177093 .anchor}**Hunting**

Hunting is a popular recreational activity in the preserve. Hunting
seasons run from September through April. Table 14 summarizes the
average number of hunters in the field per day per season at Big Cypress
National Preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319135 .anchor}Table 14: Numbers of Hunters in
the Field per Day per Season at\
Big Cypress National Preserve, 1996 to 1999

  ----------------- --------------------- --------------------------------
  **Season**        **Season Length in    **Average Number of Hunters per
                    Days**                Day**

  Archery           30                    67

  Muzzle-loading    16                    131

  General gun       51                    220

  Small game        35                    9

  Turkey            37                    33
  ----------------- --------------------- --------------------------------

Deer, turkey, and feral hogs are the principal species hunted. The
primary weapons include rifles, shotguns, bows, and muzzle-loading guns.
Bird dogs and waterfowl retrievers are the only dogs permitted for
hunting. While many hunters use ORVs to get to hunting areas, many other
hunters access the preserve on foot.

The general management plan and final environmental impact statement
(NPS 1991) describes the types of hunting, different hunting
opportunities, general regulations, and permit program. Hunting and
fishing are permitted in the preserve in accordance with state laws and
regulations, and the preserve is designated as a wildlife management
area by the state of Florida. The National Park Service has authority to
manage wildlife within the preserve and has delegated the management of
the hunt to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC).

In a 1984 FFWCC hunter survey reported in Jansen (1986), approximately
82 percent of Big Cypress National Preserve hunters owned and used ORVs
for hunting, 9 percent used someone else's ORV, and 9 percent did not
own or use an ORV. The vehicle with the highest ownership was the
all-terrain cycle, but the vehicle of highest use was the swamp buggy,
which was also the preferred vehicle for 39 percent of the respondents.
In this survey, the typical hunter had been going to the preserve for 14
years and used the area 29 days per year, of which 19 were spent
hunting. The typical hunter hunted with a group of five family members
and friends and stayed at an established camp for 3 days. Hunters used a
vehicle for hunting more in 1984 than in the past and supported vehicle
use during muzzle-loading, general gun, and small game seasons, but were
undecided about their use during archery or spring gobbler seasons.

Jansen (1986) also reported results of a vehicle survey within the
preserve. The mean number of hunting-related vehicles counted on
Saturday surveys was 178, while weekday surveys recorded an average of
27 vehicles. No visitor estimates were derived from these vehicle
counts.

FFWCC records show 19,122 hunter-days of use for the preserve in the
1998-1999 season. The average for the past 5 years in which hunting was
not limited by closures was 16,945 hunter-days of use.

Hunters stay at frontcountry campgrounds and at backcountry camps in
structures that range from primitive to elaborate. Approximately 100
private, backcountry camps currently exist on private lands within the
preserve. While most hunters access hunting camps by ORV, some walk in,
and a few fly in to one of the preserve's three active, private,
backcountry airstrips.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177094 .anchor}**Other Visitation**

Big Cypress National Preserve visitors participate in a variety of
non-motorized recreational activities, including camping, hunting,
hiking, canoeing, wildlife observation, photography, fishing,
sightseeing, bicycling, and picnicking. Hiking opportunities include
Fire Prairie Trail and a section of the Florida National Scenic Trail.
The National Park Service collects limited information on visitor
statistics for various categories of recreational use.

> Camping occurs in both frontcountry and backcountry sites. In 1999,
> there were 16,301 tent and recreational vehicle (RV, not ORV) camping
> overnight stays. Backcountry camping statistics were collected only
> for hikers using Florida Trail campsites and totaled 10,158 overnight
> stays.
>
> Walk-in hunting particularly occurs in the Loop Unit and Deep Lake
> Unit.
>
> Visitors drive Turner River Road and Loop Road to view birds,
> alligators, and other wildlife in the roadside canals.
>
> People commonly fish in roadside canals.
>
> Biking is gaining in popularity, particularly in the Bear Island area
> and along the Loop Road and Turner River Road/Birdon Road corridor.
>
> Canoeing occurs primarily on the Turner River and Halfway Creek, with
> commercial tours taking frequent trips from U.S. Highway 41 to the
> Everglades City area.
>
> Hiking the Florida National Scenic Trail is increasing. Many hikers
> use the first 5 to 10 miles north of Oasis and return there rather
> than hiking all the way through to I-75 or points further north.

Interpretive activities offered to visitors in the Oasis, Concho Billie,
Bear Island, and Turner River areas sometimes use ORV trails as access
into the preserve. Guided bicycle trips, canoe tours, and environmental
education activities, as well as swamp walks and hikes up the Florida
Trail, are offered each winter season from mid-December through early
April.

The Florida Trail received national designation in 1983. The trail is
currently incomplete but is planned to extend approximately 1,300 miles
from Big Cypress National Preserve to the Gulf Islands National Seashore
in Florida's western panhandle. The trail, which is the only designated
hiking trail longer than 2.5 miles in the preserve, provides backcountry
hiking experiences to preserve visitors. Section 1 of this trail (Oasis
to I-75) was established by the Florida Trail Association in the early
1970s. Section 1 begins at the visitor center trailhead and extends
about 35 miles to a rest area along I-75. Several informal campsites are
located along the trail.

To improve non-motorized recreational opportunities, improvements are
gradually being made to campgrounds, access points, and picnic areas.
Safety and visitor amenity improvements associated with the U.S. Highway
41 project will provide further opportunities by providing easy walking
on boardwalks, interpretive and educational panels, and safe parking off
of the main highway.

Facilities presently available include one visitor center, two picnic
areas, a developed campground, five primitive campgrounds, and an
interpretive trail on Loop Road. Future projects will add interpretive
trails, a canoe landing, a welcome center, and improved parking in many
areas.

Frontcountry visitors primarily witness ORV use or its environmental
effects at ORV access points along preserve roads. Trails across
prairies adjacent to the main highway are particularly noticeable to
these visitors, as the trails interrupt the viewshed of wild lands.
Walk-in hunters, Florida Trail hikers, mountain bikers, canoeists, and
campground visitors are more likely to notice ORV impacts in the
preserve than are frontcountry visitors.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177095 .anchor}**Nonfederal Property Owners**

The legislation establishing the preserve permitted continuation of
private ownership of \"improved properties.\" There are numerous types
of non-federal landowners within the boundaries of Big Cypress National
Preserve. These include approximately 100 owners of frontcountry
properties that can be accessed from improved roads, and another 100
owners of backcountry properties that are customarily accessed by ORVs.
In addition, the Miami-Dade County Port Authority owns the 23,481-acre
Jetport, and the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida
owns 12,561 acres.

Both residential and commercial frontcountry private property owners
have access to their properties from improved roads. Many of these
owners use ORVs to enter the preserve from any point along their
property boundary.

**Environmental Consequences**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177097 .anchor}**introduction**

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that environmental
documents disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed federal
action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse
environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action
be implemented. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the
two alternatives for managing ORV use in Big Cypress National Preserve
on water resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visitors. This
analysis provides the basis for comparing the effects of the
alternatives. The consideration of impacts included the intensity and
duration of effects, mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts.

This supplemental environmental impact statement tiers from the Big
Cypress National Preserve general management plan and environmental
impact statement (NPS 1991), in conformance with the Council on
Environmental Quality guidelines for implementing NEPA. As such, this
supplemental environmental impact statement includes by reference the
impacts determined in the 1991 study, and only evaluates the additional
effects of implementing this ORV management plan.

The geographical area included in this supplemental environmental impact
statement includes the original boundaries of Big Cypress National
Preserve. It does not include the Addition Lands.

Activities included in this analysis include only recreational ORV use
and the use of ORVs to access private property. It does not include
commercial ORV use or any other type of recreation within Big Cypress
National Preserve.

This evaluation used the best available information. It is anticipated
that additional information would be available in the future, especially
if the proposed action, which includes an integral research component,
were implemented. In accordance with the principles of adaptive
management, the National Park Service would modify the ORV management
program based on the experience gained from implementing the proposed
action. To comply with NEPA, the National Park Service would prepare
environmental assessments (EAs) as appropriate to determine the
potential for significance of major changes to this plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177098 .anchor}**Methodology**

The National Park Service based these impact analyses and conclusions on
the review of existing literature and park studies, information provided
by experts within the National Park Service and other agencies,
professional judgments and preserve staff insights, and public input.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177099 .anchor}**Intensity**

For this analysis, intensity or severity of the impact is defined as
follows:

> *Negligible* -- impact to the resource or discipline is barely
> perceptible and not measurable and confined to a small area.
>
> *Minor* -- impact to the resource or discipline is perceptible and
> measurable and is localized.
>
> *Moderate* -- impact is clearly detectable and could have an
> appreciable effect on the resource or discipline.
>
> *Major* -- impact would have a substantial, highly noticeable
> influence on the resource or discipline on a regional scale.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177100 .anchor}**Duration**

The duration of the impacts in this analysis is defined as follows:

> *Short term* -- impacts that last less than 1 year.
>
> *Long term* -- impacts that last longer than 1 year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177101 .anchor}**Direct versus Indirect
Impacts**

The following definitions of direct and indirect impacts were used in
this evaluation:

> *Direct* -- an effect that is caused by an action and occurs at the
> same time and place.
>
> *Indirect* -- an effect that is caused by an action but is later in
> time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177102 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts**

A cumulative impact is described in regulations developed by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1508.7, as follows:

> Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from
> the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
> present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
> agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
> actions. Cumulative impacts can result from indi
>
> vidually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over
> a period of time.

Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the impact of
implementing this plan with potential impacts of other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary
to identify other ongoing or foreseeable future projects within Big
Cypress National Preserve and the surrounding region. The projects
identified include:

[The U.S. Highway 41 Scenic Corridor Visitor Safety Highway Improvement
Project.]{.underline} This project involves work at several locations
along U.S. Highway 41, Turner River Road, and Loop Road. These projects
include improving entrance roads to three existing campgrounds and
constructing new parking facilities and boardwalks.

[Collier Resources Company Oil and Gas Plans of Operations.]{.underline}
The Collier Resources Company has submitted 24 plans of operation for
the exploration for oil and gas. The plans include conducting
geophysical surveys and drilling exploratory wells. Implementation of
the plans would use specialized off-road equipment that would travel
cross-country. In addition, the plans call for constructing a series of
roads and pads to provide access for exploratory well drilling. None of
the plans has received approval from the National Park Service. An
environmental analysis of these proposals and their potential cumulative
impact has not been finalized.

[South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.]{.underline} The south Florida
ecosystem stretches south from Orlando through the Chain of Lakes, the
Kissimmee Valley, Lake Okeechobee, and the remaining Everglades to the
waters of Florida Bay and coral reefs. The ecosystem encompasses
approximately 18,000 square miles within 16 counties. This region
supports 68 federally listed plant and animal threatened and endangered
species. There is an intense, cooperative effort among federal, state,
and local government agencies, tribes, environmental organizations,
universities, businesses, and local citizens to preserve and restore the
greater Everglades ecosystem. More than 200 restoration projects within
this region have been identified. Listed below are projects that would
have the most influence on the preserve.

> Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), commonly known as
> the Restudy. This is a multi-billion-dollar water system improvement
> plan led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It will reconfigure the
> artificially created drainage patterns of south Florida back to more
> natural conditions. Several projects under the umbrella of CERP that
> will have direct effects on the Big Cypress ecosystem include the
> removal of all or part of the L-28 levee, the modified waters project,
> and the U.S. Highway 41 Tamiami Trail culvert project. These projects
> will alter the regional hydrology, including the timing, distribution,
> and quantity of water. Implementation of this complex plan will
> continue for at least the next 20 years.
>
> Southwest Florida (Feasibility) Study. This Corps of
> Engineers-initiated project will focus on ecosystem restoration needs
> specific to the southwest Florida region. This 4-year effort (through
> 2004) will result in a plan of action similar to the CERP, which
> emphasizes the eastern portion of south Florida.

[Regional Growth and Development.]{.underline} Based on the most recent
data from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, southwest
Florida is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the nation. For
example, yearly gross and taxable sales nearly doubled from 1990 to
1999. In 1999, more than 12,000 new single-family-unit building permits
and more than 8,000 multi-family-unit building permits were issued. This
rapid growth is expected to continue, and the population of the
southwest Florida region is projected to expand from 1,161,000 in 2000
to 1,652,300 in 2020. This represents a 42 percent increase. As this
growth occurs, increasing demand will occur on all of the region's
resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177103 .anchor}**Impacts on Natural Resources**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177104 .anchor}**Water Resources**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177105 .anchor}**Surface Water Flows**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177106 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The proposed action would result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts
to surface water flows in the areas of the designated trails. In the
long term, there would be minor to moderate, beneficial effects to
surface water flows throughout areas of the preserve that currently are
subject to dispersed ORV use. Closing prairies to ORV use and restoring
the natural grades that have been heavily rutted by ORV activity,
thereby re-establishing natural surface water flows to the prairies,
would have localized, moderate to major, beneficial effects to surface
water flow.

In the short term, the concentration of wheeled ORVs along designated
trails would result in rutting within those trails. However, following
complete implementation of the proposed action, the designated trails
would not alter water flows because they would be continuously monitored
and maintained whenever adverse alterations occurred. The restriction of
ORV use to designated trails would substantially reduce the total
affected area.

The hydrologic trigger would limit airboat use to times when surface
water depths provided sufficient separation between the boat hulls and
land surface. This would reduce the trail entrenching (channelization)
that currently occurs with the operation of boats during low-water
conditions.

Designating trails in areas that are more resilient to ORV traffic would
reduce the amount of rutting, and should help control the increases in
water flow that were observed by researchers (see the \"Affected
Environment\" section). Maintenance of trails would further reduce the
impacts on water flow. Monitoring water flow would be critical. When
monitoring indicated that trails were deteriorating, appropriate
management actions would be taken, based on the individual situation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177107 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

The no action alternative would result in long-term, moderate, adverse
impacts to surface water flow in areas used by ORVs. With no restriction
on where ORV use could occur in the Turner River Unit, Corn Dance Unit,
and portions of the Stairsteps Unit, impacts would increase. Increases
in impacts would be anticipated in terms of the total area affected
(number and width of trails), magnitude of impact on high-use trails,
and magnitude of impact in areas susceptible to rutting. Duever *et al*.
(1986a) state that once soils are displaced, there are few natural
mechanisms of restoring ground contour, and the ruts remain
indefinitely. They also found that trails and ruts created by ORVs could
act as drainage channels and alter natural hydrologic patterns on a
localized basis. Therefore, since the no action alternative does not
include a restoration component, the hydrologic changes resulting from
ORV use would be expected to compound over time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177108 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The South Florida ecosystem restoration project includes several
proposals for restoration of water flow within the region. Projects
involving the preserve include the removal of the L-28 canal

levee, modification of the L-28 Tieback canal, and operational changes
to various water control structures. These efforts are expected to
result in major, long-term benefits to the hydrology of the preserve.

The Collier Resources Company plans to explore for oil and gas could
adversely impact water flow. Collier proposes to construct roads and
pads, which would have the potential to alter local hydrology. However,
because approval of the operation plans would require mitigative
measures to eliminate or reduce the impact of activities on water flow,
the long-term effect of exploration could be minor to negligible. In
addition, oil companies are required to restore any resources adversely
impacted by their operation.

The construction of visitors amenities along U.S. Highway 41 could
adversely affect water flow. These impacts are anticipated to be
negligible to minor because of their close proximity to U.S. Highway 41,
which has already altered flows in the area.

Cumulatively, beneficial effects to surface water flows would accrue
from the proposed action and from the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration project, while negligible to minor adverse effect would
result from oil and gas exploration and from construction along U.S.
Highway 41. The overall effect is expected to involve long-term benefits
to water flows within the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177109 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Implementing the proposed action would have minor to moderate,
long-term, beneficial effects on surface water flows, by limiting ORV
travel to no more than 400 miles of designated primary trails and
restoring areas previously affected by ORV use. There would be minor,
short-term, adverse effects to surface water flows until the monitoring,
maintenance, and restoration components of the proposed action were
completely implemented. The no action alternative would result in
long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to surface water flow by allowing
increases in the area altered by ORVs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177110 .anchor}**Water Quality**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177111 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Limiting ORV use to designated trails would produce moderate, beneficial
improvements in water quality by limiting the spatial extent of the area
subject to the localized impacts from ORV use. This would reduce areas
subject to localized effects of turbidity and the potential for spills
or leaks of fuels and oils associated with ORV use. Locating designated
trails in areas that can sustain ORV use also would reduce impacts to
water quality.

Monitoring of water quality associated with ORV trails would provide
needed information to correct unacceptable conditions. The National Park
Service would respond with appropriate management actions, based on the
results of monitoring. These actions could range from maintenance to
closures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177112 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

While the turbidity caused by ORVs has been described as localized
(Duever *et al.* 1986a), the existing network of trails occurs in much
of the preserve. The expected increase in the spatial extent of ORV use
throughout the preserve would increase turbidity and sedimentation,
producing minor, adverse impacts to water quality. The potential for
spills of petroleum products would be similar to current conditions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177113 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The south Florida ecosystem restoration effort is working on improving
water quality throughout the area. Implementation of these efforts is
expected to produce long-term, major benefits to the water quality of
the region.

Collier's oil and gas proposals have the potential to degrade water
quality through the release of contaminants and turbidity. However,
their implementation of best management practices, the stipulations in
the mineral management plan, and the obligation of operators to restore
any detrimental effects should prevent any long-term adverse water
quality effects.

The U.S. Highway 41 safety improvement project would result in a small
loss of wetlands and the water quality benefits associated with
wetlands. These activities would also result in short-term, adverse
impacts to water quality due to elevated turbidity levels during
construction.

Cumulatively, these projects and the preserve's ORV management strategy
would result in negligible to minor, short-term, adverse impacts to
water quality during construction. However, in the long term, the water
quality of the preserve is expected to benefit, particularly from the
south Florida ecosystem restoration effort.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177114 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Water quality would improve with the implementation of the proposed
action by limiting the spatial extent of the area experiencing adverse
water quality impacts. The no action alternative would result in minor,
adverse effects associated with more widespread and repeated turbidity
and sedimentation due to the anticipated increase in the area impacted
by ORVs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177115 .anchor}**Soils**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177116 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The proposed action would limit ORV travel to no more than 400 miles of
designated primary trails. This would result in long-term, major,
beneficial effects to soils by

> restoring areas where extensive rutting has displaced soils
>
> preventing new areas of soil impacts
>
> locating designated trails in areas that can sustain use, which would
> limit the severity of the impacts to the soils within the trails

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177117 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

This alternative is expected to result in long-term, major, adverse
impacts to soils. Under this alternative, dispersed use by ORVs would be
allowed in portions of the preserve. The area of adversely impacted
soils would increase under this alternative, and problem sites would
continue to get worse.

Duever *et al*. (1986b) state that once soils are displaced, there are
few natural mechanisms of restoring ground contour, and the ruts remain
indefinitely. Therefore, since the no action alternative does not
include a restoration component, the soils effects resulting from ORV
use would compound over time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177118 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The proposed oil and gas exploration and construction activities along
U.S. Highway 41 are expected to result in minor, long-term, adverse
impacts to soils. They would result in the placement of fill over native
soils. The implementation of the proposed action would result in
long-term benefits to soils that could exceed the adverse effects from
the other two projects mentioned above, providing a net beneficial
effect. Adverse effects from the no action alternative would be additive
with the adverse effects from oil and gas development and from
construction, producing a cumulative adverse effect.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177119 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would produce long-term, major, beneficial effects
by promoting the recovery and restoration of heavily impacted soils in
the preserve, and decreasing the area affected by ORVs. The no action
alternative would have long-term, major, adverse impacts to soils.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177120 .anchor}**Vegetation**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177121 .anchor}**Prairies and Marshes**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177122 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The proposed action would have a long-term, major, beneficial effect on
marshes and prairies. Contributing factors include the following.

> The spatial extent of prairies and marshes subjected to ORV use would
> be substantially reduced.
>
> Crossings of these areas, which have a low suitability for and high
> sensitivity to ORV use, would be limited to small segments of trails
> and would involve the use of trail maintenance strategies such as
> corduroy or geotextiles.
>
> Restoration and recovery of prairies and marshes using both active and
> passive techniques would be implemented.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177123 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Implementing the no action alternative would result in long-term, major,
adverse impacts to prairies and marshes. Contributing factors include
the following.

> Dispersed use allows ORV operators to drive through areas of prairies
> and marshes that currently do not have trails, increasing the affected
> area.
>
> The poor traction in prairies and marshes causes ORV operators to run
> parallel to existing tracks, which widens ORV trails.
>
> Repeated passes through areas with poor suitability would continue to
> enlarge and deepen ruts.
>
> The no action alternative does not include a restoration component,
> the so effects in these areas would compound over time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177124 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The general management plan and final environmental impact statement
(NPS 1991) states that several hundred thousand acres of prairies and
marshes south of Lake Okeechobee and north of I-75 have been lost to
agriculture and, to a lesser extent, urban development. The anticipated
increase in human population in south Florida would result in more
development, causing additional losses of prairie and marsh communities
on private lands outside of the preserve. However, efforts to restore
the south Florida ecosystem would have major, long-term, beneficial
effects on the remaining prairies and marshes throughout the region.

Locally, construction activities associated with the U.S. Highway 41
project that placed fill material within prairies and marshes would
produce long-term, adverse impacts. However, these impacts would be
minor because of their small areal extent.

Oil and gas exploration activities also would produce adverse effects
associated with the placement of fill. If mitigation measures were not
implemented, the large number of plans (24) could result in moderate
effects. However, environmental protection and restoration provisions
that would be included in the permit requirements would limit the
adverse effects to prairies.

Cumulatively, the preceding two projects plus the no action alternative
would have long-term, major, adverse impacts to prairies and marshes
within the preserve. The long-term, major, beneficial impacts to
prairies and marshes associated with the proposed action would offset
the adverse effects of the other developments.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177125 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Implementation of the proposed action would result in long-term, major
benefits to prairies and marshes. Long-term, major, adverse effects
would be produced by the no action alternative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177126 .anchor}**Cypress Strands and Domes,
Mixed Hardwood Swamps, and Sloughs**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177127 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

As described in the \"Affected Environment\" section, deep water,
closely spaced trees, and/or deposits of muck or peat have discouraged
ORV use in all but the shallow margins of these areas. Because these
areas have been only slightly affected by ORV use, they would have only
minor to negligible effects from a change in ORV management. This change
would be beneficial, as the proposed action would prevent the
establishment of new trails through these areas and could result in the
restoration of some routes previously used by ORVs.

ORV trails crossing strands and swamps are normally on well-established,
deeply entrenched routes where the forest narrows and water levels are
shallower. Some of these crossings probably would be incorporated into
the designated trail system. Monitoring and management actions would
ensure that only minor adverse effects would occur at these crossings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177128 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

The no action alternative would produce negligible to minor adverse
impacts to cypress strands and domes, and mixed hardwood swamps, and
sloughs. The hydrologic, soils, and vegetative conditions that have
discouraged ORV use in these areas in the past would continue to limit
ORV use. However, the dispersed use of ORVs would pose an ongoing threat
to the soils and vegetation of shallower areas.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177129 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Throughout south Florida, state and federal regulations are targeted at
preventing the loss of cypress strands, domes, and hardwood swamps. The
southwest Florida feasibility study will help identify opportunities to
reduce effects to these communities. However, the continued trend of
increased urbanization and more intensive agriculture may locally alter
the hydrologic conditions that support these communities. Over time, a
net loss in this vegetation type is expected.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177130 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Either management approach would have only minor to negligible effects
on cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs. For
the proposed action, that small effect would be beneficial. The no
action alternative would produce a small adverse effect.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177131 .anchor}**Mangroves**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177132 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Mangrove forests are found only in Zone 1 of the Stairsteps Unit. Under
this alternative, Zone 1 would be closed to all ORV use. Therefore,
implementing this alternative would result in negligible effects on
mangrove forests.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177133 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

The current management has closed Zone 1 to airboats, due to resource
impacts associated with previous commercial activities. Although Zone 1
is open to wheeled vehicles, these vehicles operate primarily within the
northern portion of the area which does not contain mangrove forest.
Therefore, implementing this alternative would result in negligible
effects on mangrove forests.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177134 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Throughout the region, mangrove forests have been adversely affected by
past waterfront development, agriculture, boating, and pollution of
coastal waters. As a result, mangroves in south Florida are protected by
state law. The remaining populations of mangroves are expected to
proliferate. Neither alternative is expected to contribute to the
cumulative impacts on mangroves.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177135 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect
the mangrove forest.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177136 .anchor}**Hardwood Hammocks**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177137 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Large numbers of the known archeological sites within the preserve are
located in hardwood hammocks. It is anticipated that there also are many
undiscovered archaeological sites on the hammocks. To avoid these
resources, most designated trails would be routed outside of hardwood
hammocks, despite their high substrate suitability. This would reduce
the miles of trails with this vegetation community and would allow for
the restoration of closed trails. The result would be a long-term,
minor, beneficial effect to this vegetation community.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177138 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts to hammocks are expected under this
alternative. Few new trails in hammocks are anticipated under this
alternative, but existing trails would probably increase in width over
time. Hammocks would be subject to the introduction of invasive
vegetation along trails.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177139 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Hardwood hammocks on private lands throughout the region are being
reduced in number by increasing urbanization and more intensive
agriculture associated with a growing human population. ORV management
practices within the preserve would have little effect on regional,
development-related decreases of hammocks. Locally, the U.S. Highway 41
project could involve the placement of fill material within hammocks,
which would produce long-term, minor, adverse impacts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177140 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Either management approach would have only minor effects on hardwood
hammocks. For the proposed action, that small effect would be
beneficial. The no action alternative would produce a small adverse
effect.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177141 .anchor}**Pinelands**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177142 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Because of their suitable substrate, pinelands are preferentially used
by ORVs under the dispersed-use approach. This ability to tolerate ORV
use would also result in the routing of designated trails through
pinelands under the proposed action. This use would produce widening of
some trails through pinelands. However, the total mileage of trails
through pinelands would decrease, compared to the no action alternative,
and closed trails would be restored. This would result in a long-term,
moderate benefit to pinelands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177143 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Under the no action alternative, dispersed ORV use would produce the
widening of some trails through pinelands. Some new trails through
pinelands also may be established. These actions would result in
long-term, minor, adverse impacts to pinelands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177144 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

An analysis of vegetation types most impacted by human land conversion
indicates that statewide, only 36 percent of pinelands remain (64
percent loss). According to the USFWS (1999c) south Florida pinelands
are among the habitats least protected by current public lands.
Residential and commercial development will continue to eliminate
pinelands in private lands surrounding the preserve. ORV management
practices within the preserve would have little effect on regional,
development-related decreases of pinelands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177145 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

With the proposed action, long-term, moderate benefits to pinelands
would result from the reduced trail mileage and from restoration. The no
action alternative would produce long-term, minor, adverse impacts as a
result of widening existing trails and establishing new trails through
pinelands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177146 .anchor}**Protected Species**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177147 .anchor}**Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177148 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Implementing this alternative may result in long-term, beneficial
effects to the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Within the preserve, sparrows
are currently found only within Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit. Since
1992, this population has experienced drastic declines caused by water
management practices (USFWS 1999c). Therefore, precautionary measures
are warranted.

Most of the area where sparrows were observed during the 1992 survey
would be closed under the proposed action. This includes the eastern
portion of Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit. The proposed action would also
close Zone 1, another area historically occupied by sparrows, to all ORV
use. This action may benefit the sparrow by allowing vegetative recovery
in an area where natural re-population or translocation is possible.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177149 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

The implementation of this alternative may result in both short- and
long-term adverse impacts to the sparrow and its habitat through the
continued dispersed use of airboats within the Stairsteps Unit. Airboat
use in areas having low water levels during the nesting period (late
February through early August) may have a detrimental impact on nesting
occurrence, success, and productivity. Airboat activity that includes
\"mashing\" of vegetation to enhance the harvest of frogs may negatively
impact the vegetative structure required for sparrow nesting, foraging,
and roosting.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177150 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The changes in habitat that have occurred as a result of changes in the
distribution, timing, and quantity of water flows into the western side
of Shark River Slough have reduced the population of sparrows by 90
percent between 1992 and 1997. Although it is not known if ORV use has
contributed to that decline, a precautionary approach is warranted. It
is biologically more sound to promote the expansion of an existing
population than resort to translocations after the loss of all of the
birds in the area.

The south Florida ecosystem restoration efforts are addressing issues
concerning the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. These efforts include water
deliveries that will enhance sparrow productivity.

The U.S. Highway 41 project and oil exploration proposals do not include
activities within sparrow habitat.

Both the proposed action and the south Florida ecosystem restoration
efforts would have beneficial effects on the Cape Sable seaside sparrow,
while the U.S. Highway 41 project and oil exploration would have no
effect. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the projects in the vicinity
of the preserve would be beneficial.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177151 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action may benefit the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. The no
action alternative may result in adverse impacts on habitat and nesting
activity.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177152 .anchor}**Bald Eagle**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177153 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

There are three known active bald eagle nests in the preserve, in Zones
1, 3, and 4 of the Stairsteps Unit near the southern boundary of the
unit. The proposed action would close Zone 1 to ORV use. Zones 3 and 4
would allow ORVs on designated trails, but in conformance with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines for protection of eagle nests
(USFWS 1987), trails would be routed at least 1,500 feet away from nest
trees. The establishment of buffers around known nest sites could have a
beneficial effect on bald eagle nesting.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177154 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Under this alternative, ORV use would continue within 1,500 feet of some
of the known bald eagle nest sites in the preserve. As a result,
implementation of this alternative could have an adverse effect on bald
eagles.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177155 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The bald eagle currently is listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. It also is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 USC 668 *et seq*., as amended) and the Migratory Bird
Act of 1918 (16 USC 715 *et seq*.). This wide-ranging bird will continue
to be adversely affected by habitat loss, human disturbance near nests,
and poisoning by pollutants such as mercury, pesticides, and lead.

Locally, the South Florida restoration project and U.S. Highway 41
culvert projects may have minor beneficial effects on the bald eagle
through hydrologic restoration, which could improve habitat and increase
the prey base. Because proposed oil and gas development activities would
be prohibited within 1.25 miles of active bald eagle nests during
nesting season, they would have negligible effects on this species.
Collectively, these projects and ORV management in the preserve would
have a negligible to minor beneficial impact on bald eagles.

An active nest occurs within 1.3 miles of the U.S. Highway 41 visitor
safety project. Impacts from this project will be addressed in the
project's environmental assessment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177156 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action could have a beneficial effect on bald eagles. The
no action alternative could result in adverse effects to this species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177157 .anchor}**Wood Stork**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177158 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Wood storks nest in the fringe of cypress trees surrounding open water
within the larger domes of the preserve. These domes typically are not
traversed by ORVs because of the density of trees and deep water levels.
Therefore, wood stork nests are little affected by ORVs and a change in
ORV management would have negligible effects on wood stork nesting.

Foraging habitat consists of drying prairies and marshes. Designated
trails may have a minor, beneficial, long-term benefit to storks by
confining ORV use to limited areas and reducing disturbance within
foraging habitat. Storks also may benefit from the restoration of
prairies and marshes that would be a component of the proposed action.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177159 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Wood stork use of the preserve is dictated primarily by water levels and
drying conditions. These conditions would not change from the current
situation with a continuation of current ORV management procedures.
Therefore, the no action alternative would have negligible effects on
wood storks.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177160 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Range-wide threats to the wood stork include loss or degradation of
wetlands, improper regulation of water stages, and toxic effects from
environmental contaminants such as mercury and pesticides. In addition,
the decline of the wood stork is caused by poor reproduction associated
with an inadequate food supply, which is attributed to water management
practices that have disrupted the natural hydrology of Florida. Ongoing
efforts to restore the south Florida ecosystem are expected to improve
water quality and hydrological conditions, thus improving wood stork
habitat conditions (USFWS 1999c). Despite these efforts, continuing
development pressures throughout the region will have a long-term
adverse effect on the wood stork, regardless of ORV management efforts
within the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177161 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action may provide a long-term, minor benefit to wood
storks. The no action alternative would result in negligible effects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177162 .anchor}**Red-Cockaded Woodpecker**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177163 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Under the proposed action, ORV activities within the preserve would be
limited to designated trails. These trails would not traverse active
clusters, and a 200-foot buffer would be established around the
aggregate of cavity trees in accordance with USFWS guidelines (Hendry
1989). The proposed action also includes a restoration element that
could improve woodpecker habitat. These actions may have a minor,
long-term, beneficial effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Many trails currently traversing pineland habitat would be eliminated.
However, ORV trails would be preferentially routed through pinelands,
which generally provide a suitable substrate for ORV use. Routing trails
through pinelands may produce a minor, long-term, adverse impact on the
red-cockaded woodpecker.

While the buffer zone and restoration components of the proposed action
may produce minor beneficial effects to the red-cockaded woodpecker,
routing of ORV trails through pinelands could be slightly detrimental.
The net effect to this species is expected to be negligible. However,
consistent with the adaptive management component of the proposed
action, monitoring would be conducted, and modifications would be made
if a net adverse effect was detected.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177164 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

There is no documentation that ORVs have a negative impact on
red-cockaded woodpeckers in the preserve. However, continued ORV use in
Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit may further stress a population that
already is stressed by environmental factors. If this occurs, the
superintendent has the authority under current management practices to
close this area to ORV use. Therefore, implementation of the no action
alternative would have a negligible effect on this species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177165 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Range-wide threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker include habitat
fragmentation and/or loss, cluster abandonment due to mid-story
encroachment, and exotic plant invasion. Locally, the U.S. Highway 41
project would not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker because it does not
include construction near known woodpecker clusters. Oil and gas
development proposals would not affect this species because of the
500-foot buffer imposed by the preserve's mineral management plan
(1991), which is more stringent than the 200-foot buffer discussed
earlier. Despite these efforts, continuing development pressures
throughout the region will have a long-term adverse effect on the
red-cockaded woodpecker, regardless of ORV management efforts within the
preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177166 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Either ORV management alternative would have a negligible effect on the
red-cockaded woodpecker.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177167 .anchor}**Everglade Snail Kite**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177168 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The implementation of this alternative is expected to result in
negligible impacts to snail kites. Snail kites use the preserve for both
foraging and nesting, especially in Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit. There
are no reports or studies that document snail kites as being sensitive
to or threatened by ORV use. Studies in several wetland environments in
Florida have shown that the snail kite is fairly tolerant of airboat
activity (Sykes 1987, Bennetts *et al*. 1988).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177169 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

There is no documentation that snail kites are negatively affected by
the current level of ORV use in the preserve. Therefore, the no action
alternative is expected to result in negligible impacts to snail kites.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177170 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The decline of snail kites has been attributed to the loss of habitat to
agriculture and to reductions in their primary food source, the apple
snail, that have resulted from water pollution. However, recent water
quality and habitat restoration projects in the region have increased
their numbers. Most of the current impacts to the population are caused
by climate-related stresses, manipulation of water levels, and the
spread of nuisance aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth, water
lettuce, torpedo grass and hydrilla (Rodgers *et al*. 1996). Ongoing
efforts to restore the south Florida ecosystem are expected to improve
water quality and hydrological conditions, thus improving snail kite
habitat.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177171 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Either alternative would result in negligible impacts to snail kites.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177172 .anchor}**Florida Panther**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177173 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Under the proposed action, ORV activities within the preserve would be
eliminated in some areas occupied by panthers and limited to designated
trails in others. No studies thus far have shown that ORV use alone
causes changes in panther behavior. However, Janis and Clark (1999)
studied the effects of human activity on panthers in the preserve and
found home range shifts and avoidance of designated trails by panthers
during periods of higher levels of human activity associated with
hunting. The study focused on the Bear Island Unit, which has one of the
higher levels of hunting activity in the preserve during the deer and
feral hog hunting seasons between October and January. The study used
radio-telemetry data on 21 panthers over a 4-year period, as well as
data collected since 1982 by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC). The study examined eight variables in panther
behavior, including morning activity rates, movement rates, predator
success, home range size, home range shifts, distance from panther
location to trails, frequency of use of the Bear Island management unit,
and habitat selection.

The proposed action would limit the extent of the ORV trail system in
Bear Island. It would also establish a system of designated trails
throughout the preserve, thus reducing disturbances by humans and
minimizing the area of panther habitat impacted by ORV traffic.
Implementing the proposed action may result in long-term beneficial
impacts on the panther.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177174 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Janis and Clark (1999) reported that the level of human disturbance in
the Bear Island Unit between 1995 and 1998 resulted in a significant
response by Florida panthers. They reported that panthers avoided trails
and departed the Bear Island Unit during periods of highest human
activity. The no action alternative would result in the continuation of
these types of effects on the panther.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177175 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The decline of this large, secretive predator is largely attributed to
habitat loss and human disturbance. In addition, panthers range over
large areas both inside and outside of the preserve, and experience
mortality from such sources as being struck by automobiles on highways.
Continuing development pressures throughout the region will continue to
adversely affect the panther.

The U.S. Highway 41 project and the oil exploration proposals would
result in construction activities within panther habitat. Alteration of
habitat and highway improvements are expected to result in adverse
impacts to panthers. Panthers and their habitat will be factors
considered in the review and decision on approval of Collier's oil
exploration plans.

The U.S. Highway 41 Scenic Corridor Visitor Safety Highway Improvement
Project also would be constructed in panther habitat and may impact
panther use of the preserve. These impacts will be addressed in the
project's environmental assessment.

Cumulatively, development in the region is expected to have a
substantial, long-term, adverse impact on the panther. This trend makes
it increasingly important to implement incremental beneficial actions
within the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177176 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would result in long-term benefits to the Florida
panther and its habitat. The no action alternative would adversely
affect the panther through its continued habitat degradation and
potential for human disturbance.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177177 .anchor}**West Indian Manatee**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177178 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Manatees only occur in the estuarine portions of Zone 1 of the
Stairsteps Unit. The tidal creeks and bays of this area have been
designated critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because the National Park Service already manages this area to protect
manatees, the proposed action would have negligible effects on this
species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177179 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Under the no action alternative, the National Park Service would
continue to protect manatee critical habitat. Therefore the effects of
this alternative to the manatee would be negligible.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177180 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The largest known human-related causes of manatee mortality are
collisions with hulls and/or propellers of boats and ships (USFWS 1996).
Mortality from collisions with watercraft has been increasing, including
deaths of dependent calves (USFWS 1999b). Other factors in the decline
of the manatee population have been entrapment in floodgates and
navigation locks (USFWS 1996), and the loss of suitable habitat through
incompatible coastal development, particularly destruction of seagrass
beds by boating facilities (USFWS 1999b). The combination of high
mortality and low reproduction has led to serious doubts about the
species' ability to survive in the United States (USFWS 1999b). The
south Florida restoration project and U.S. Highway 41 culvert project
will likely benefit the manatee through improved freshwater quality and
quantity into the estuarine system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177181 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Both alternatives prohibit airboat use in Zone 1. Therefore,
implementing either alternative would result in negligible impacts on
manatees.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177182 .anchor}**White-tailed Deer and Feral
Hogs**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177183 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The general management plan and final environmental impact statement
(NPS 1991) states that the reduction in noise and other disturbances
associated with ORV use would likely result in an increase in the
populations of the white-tailed deer and feral hogs. However, studies
conducted in two areas of the preserve reported that white-tailed deer
did not leave their home ranges in response to hunting (Land 1991;
Sargent and Labisky 1995). This indicates that disturbances associated
with hunting, including ORV use, have little adverse effect on
individual deer or the overall deer population. Therefore, the proposed
action would result in negligible to minor beneficial effects on
populations of deer and feral hogs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177184 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

The no action alternative would result in negligible change to deer and
feral hog populations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177185 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

The white-tailed deer and feral hog are widespread, resilient species
that are adaptable to human disturbances. Therefore, individual projects
such as the U.S. Highway 41 project and oil exploration would have
negligible effects on their populations. However, like all wildlife in
south Florida, increasing urbanization and more intensive agricultural
practices are decreasing the available habitat and will continue to do
so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, long-term declines in the
numbers of both of these species in areas subject to development are
anticipated, regardless of the ORV management alternative implemented at
the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177186 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would result in negligible to minor beneficial
effects. The no action alternative would result in negligible impacts to
deer and hog populations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177187 .anchor}**Impacts on Visitation**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177188 .anchor}**ORV Use**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177189 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The proposed action would result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts
to ORV users. Effects to ORV use would include the following.

> ORV users would have to commit time to obtaining permits. This would
> include spending time getting their vehicles inspected, taking the ORV
> educational course, and filling out the vehicle permit application.
>
> The cap of 2,000 permits would involve a lottery that would require
> ORV owners to plan ahead in order to obtain a permit for the upcoming
> season.
>
> An ORV owner might not be successful in the drawing and might not be
> able to purchase a permit.
>
> An increase in purchase price of the permit, from \$35.00 to \$50.00
> per year, would increase the cost of recreating in the preserve for
> ORV users.
>
> The restriction of ORVs to designated trails would reduce the freedom
> of driving to nearly any location within open areas, a privilege that
> ORV users previously experienced.
>
> Access to many locations would require users to walk from the nearest
> designated trail.
>
> The designated trail system may require longer travel times and
> distances to reach locations once directly accessible.
>
> Potential restrictions at access points may limit the ability of some
> ORV users to enter their preferred areas during periods of heavy use.
>
> Closures of some areas formerly open to ORVs would move ORV users into
> areas that are unfamiliar and perhaps less desirable to them.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177190 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).** This alternative could result in
negligible effects to ORV users. Eventually, some would be denied
permits as demand exceeded the 2,500-permit limit.

Most ORV users are satisfied with the current level of regulations,
permit fee, and restrictions. Those who have commented on impacts of
increasing usage in some areas would be disappointed to see no action to
mitigate adverse effects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177191 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

As the population increases, and privately owned land is developed,
competition for use of public land in south Florida will increase. As a
result, the demand for areas to recreate using an ORV is expected to
increase. Another result of increased development of open space is more
restriction on the types of uses considered acceptable on public lands.
Fewer places with open access for ORV use will bring more pressure on
those areas that do allow such use.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177192 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would increase costs and time and add new
restrictions that would result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts
to ORV users. The no action alternative would have negligible impacts on
ORV users.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177193 .anchor}**Hunting**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177194 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The proposed action would not have any direct effects on hunting in the
preserve. There would be no changes in the number of permits available
to hunt within the preserve, the availability of open areas, or the
number of animals available to be hunted.

Depending on personal perspective, the designated trail system could be
considered either an adverse or a beneficial impact. Hunters who prefer
hunting away from ORV traffic would benefit from ORVs being restricted
to designated trails. The proposed action may improve the hunter success
for walk-in hunters because of reductions in disturbances from ORVs.
However, individuals who use ORVs to access hunting areas could be
required to walk longer distances to reach many locations. As a result,
there would be moderate indirect impact to hunting.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177195 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

No change would occur as a result of the no action alternative. Hunting
activities would remain the same as current conditions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177196 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Continued urbanization and the application of more intensive
agricultural practices around the preserve will increase demands on the
habitats of game species. As development increases, lands outside of the
preserve that are available for hunting will be reduced. With either
alternative, the preserve would continue to provide habitat for game
species and would continue to provide hunting opportunities for the
public.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177197 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

Hunting in Big Cypress National Preserve would not be directly impacted
by the implementation of the proposed action or by the no action
alternative. The proposed action could increase the distances that some
hunters walk, which would be an indirect effect.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177198 .anchor}**Other Visitation**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177199 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

Some visitors would perceive an improved recreational and/or aesthetic
experience in the preserve with the implementation of the proposed
action. According to Meehan (1999), some visitors indicated that the
rutted tracks and impacted vegetation caused by ORV uses detract from
the natural beauty of the preserve, and that the visual experience would
improve if ORV uses were restricted and former trails were revegetated.
The access points may have negligible to minor adverse visual effects,
but these would be offset by visual improvements associated with
restoration.

Bird calls and other wildlife sounds would be more noticeable if the
noise of ORVs was restricted to certain areas and buffered from
non-motorized users. Designated trails routed away from primary visitor
corridors like boardwalks, trails, and campgrounds would reduce the
potential for conflict between user groups. Areas closed to ORV travel
would increase the opportunity for backcountry experiences, including
solitude and adventure, for non-motorized recreationists.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177200 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

Implementation of the no action alternative would result in little
change in the expectations of the non-motorized visitors. Potential for
conflicts between ORV users and other visitors to the preserve would
continue. Visually obvious rutting and vegetation disturbance would
continue to increase, and noise would increase as ORV numbers increased
to the permit limit of 2,500.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177201 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

As the population of south Florida grows, increasing pressure will be
placed on public lands to serve all types of recreationists. The
conflicts or potential conflicts identified now will increase. South
Florida will also continue to be a very popular vacation destination for
visitors from all over the world. These visitors have expectations of
NPS sites to provide a wilderness or near-wilderness experience and to
be preserved in their natural state. These expectations will grow as
more awareness is drawn to our natural lands and their increasing
rarity.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177202 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would reduce impacts to other visitors' enjoyment of
the preserve. The no action alternative would allow the potential for
conflicts between user groups to continue and increase.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177203 .anchor}**Nonfederal Property Owners**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177204 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action.**

The implementation of this alternative would produce minor adverse
impacts to non-federal property owners. Unless an exempt property owner
has legal right of way or pre-existing access rights, legislation, laws,
and regulations do not provide right of access via ORV. The National
Park Service would continue to provide landowners with reasonable access
to their properties. However, landowners would experience the following
new restrictions.

> Property owners could not recreate with an ORV in the preserve unless
> they successfully drew and purchased an annual vehicle permit. If they
> did not draw vehicle permits, landowners would be restricted to using
> their ORVs on their private property and on the access route specified
> on their special use permit.
>
> Like all other ORV users, property owners would be restricted to using
> designated access points and trails on federal lands. This would limit
> the free-ranging opportunities that private property owners now
> experience, just as it would for all other ORV users.
>
> The route identified in the special use permit, or the designated
> access point, might not be the most convenient route or the route that
> the landowner has routinely used.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177205 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management).**

There would be negligible impacts on non-federal property owners in the
preserve under the no action alternative. Private property owners would
continue to access their property at their discretion and use the
preserve for recreation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177206 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts.**

Like all other ORV users, private property owners would be restricted
from using construction zones within the preserve, such as those
associated with the U.S. Highway 41 scenic corridor project, or areas
that were actively being explored for oil and gas, such as those
proposed by the Collier Resources Company. These would produce
short-term, minor, adverse effects to private property owners who use
ORVs in the preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177207 .anchor}**Conclusion.**

The proposed action would have minor adverse impacts on the free-ranging
opportunities private property owners now experience in the preserve.
The no action alternative would not impact non-federal property owners.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177208 .anchor}**Sustainability and Long-term
Management**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177209 .anchor}**Any Adverse Impacts that
Cannot Be Avoided Should the Action Be Implemented**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177210 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action**

The proposed action is a model for sustainable management of high-impact
recreation in a natural area of national significance. However,
implementing the proposed action would result in unavoidable adverse
effects to vegetation and soils within the designated trails. Plan
implementation would result in the removal of vegetation within the
trails. Soils would be increasingly displaced in some trails, although
siting trails on suitable substrate or within previously disturbed areas
would limit additional soil displacement and compaction.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177211 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management)**

Implementing the no action alternative (continue current management)
would result in unavoidable adverse effects to surface water flows,
water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife, including threatened and
endangered species.

> Localized disruption of surface water flows would occur because of
> rutting caused by wheeled ORVs and airboat trails.
>
> Adverse water quality effects would include an increase in the area
> impacted by turbidity caused by ORVs.
>
> Soils would become increasingly rutted and compacted, and would be
> subject to erosion. In some heavily used areas, soils could be
> completely displaced and the limestone cap rock would be exposed.
> Soils disturbances would become more widespread over time.
>
> Crushing and removal of vegetation, particularly in prairies and
> marshes, would continue and would compound over time.
>
> Degradation of protected species habitat would continue, and the
> potential for human disturbance of protected species would increase.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177212 .anchor}**The Relationship between Local
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-Term Productivity**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177213 .anchor}**Analysis of the Proposed
Action**

Activities associated with the proposed action would be consistent with
a long-term management strategy for ensuring the protection and
restoration of natural and cultural resources.

Restricting ORVs to designated roads and trails would enhance long-term
ecological health. This alternative would reduce the spatial extent of
soils and vegetation that would be affected by ORV

use in the preserve. Endangered species, including the Florida panther
and Cape Sable seaside sparrow, may benefit by reductions in the area of
their habitat impacted by ORVs and reductions in the potential for human
disturbance.

The proposed action includes a component to restore areas that
previously had been adversely impacted by ORV use. This restoration
would result in long-term benefits to the ecological health of the
preserve.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177214 .anchor}**Analysis of No Action
(Continue Current Management)**

This alternative would not meet legislative mandates, nor would it be
consistent with NPS policies for resource protection. In addition, it
would violate the 1995 settlement agreement and would not meet the
intent of the preserve's general management plan.

Implementing the no action alternative would result in adverse impacts
to the long-term ecological health of the preserve. This would occur
from the increased spatial extent of the impacts related to ORV use.
Vegetation and soils are expected to experience the greatest spatial
increase in impacts from the continuation of current ORV management
practices.

The ability of the preserve to provide suitable habitat to support the
endangered Florida panther and Cape Sable seaside sparrow may also be
adversely affected. Because of the endangered status of both of these
species, any adverse effects could put their continued existence in the
preserve at risk.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177215 .anchor}**Any Irreversible or
Irretrievable Commitments of Resources that Would Be Involved Should the
Alternative Be Implemented**

None of the natural resource or visitor experience changes associated
with the proposed action would be considered irreversible or
irretrievable commitments. However, the effort required to reverse some
resource commitments and decisions, once implemented, may require
substantial planning and implementation efforts.

The energy and materials expended during any access point or trail
establishment or maintenance project would be an irretrievable resource
commitment. Access point and trail construction would employ methods
encouraging energy conservation and recycling when possible.

The no action alternative may include irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of the preserve's soil and vegetation resources.

**Consultation and Coordination**

** **

** **

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177217 .anchor}**History of Public
Involvement**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177218 .anchor}**Public Information**

Two notices related to this planning effort were published in the
*Federal Register*.

> A notice of the intent to prepare the ORV management plan was
> published in the January 22, 1996 issue (61 FR (14):1599-1600).
>
> A notice of intent to prepare the ORV management plan and supplemental
> environmental impact statement was published in the March 17, 1999
> issue (64 FR (85):13233).

The general public and stakeholders have been kept informed of the
progress of this planning effort through a series of newsletters,
visitor surveys, and meetings with individuals, organizations, and
agencies. Meetings were held between September 1995 and March 1996. Two
newsletters were mailed to about 1,600 people during August 1996 and
June 1997. The newsletters and other information about ORV use and
management in the preserve were also made available on the Internet.

The National Park Service published in the *Federal Register* on August
16, 1999 (64 FR (157):44532) a notice of availability for the draft
off-road vehicle management plan and supplemental environmental impact
statement. This notice announced that the public review period for the
draft document would be from August 13, 1999 until November 15, 1999,
and that public meetings would be held in the preserve vicinity at times
to be published in local newspapers.

Announcements for two public meetings were placed in the *Naples Daily
News* and the *Miami Herald* prior to the meetings that initially were
scheduled in Miami on September 14, 1999 and in Naples on September 15,
1999. Due to hurricane threats, the public meetings were re-advertised
and re-scheduled for November 1, 1999 in Miami and November 3, 1999 in
Naples. Because of this delay, the public comment period was extended to
December 13, 1999, which was announced in the *Federal Register* on
November 16, 1999 (64 FR (220):62218).

At the public meetings, a brief overview of the draft plan was presented
and oral comments were received from 83 speakers. More than 1,400
written comments were received during the public comment period. These
comments were reviewed, responded to, and incorporated into the final
document where appropriate (see \"Response to Comments\" section).

Representatives from the National Park Service and the Department of the
Interior met with ORV user group and environmental organization
representatives and individuals during 2 days in February 2000 to
discuss ORV issues and concerns in the preserve. In addition, NPS staff
participated in two meetings hosted by the Florida Wildlife Federation
to discuss ORV management options with representatives from a wide range
of user and environmental groups.

The National Park Service consulted with the following agencies by
direct personal communications, by providing ORV management planning
information for review and comments, and/or by requesting assistance or
information:

> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
>
> Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
>
> Seminole Tribe of Florida
>
> Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
>
> Florida Department of Environmental Protection
>
> State Historic Preservation Officer
>
> South Florida Water Management District

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177219 .anchor}**Consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service**

Informal consultation with the USFWS began in January 2000.
Representatives of the USFWS were an integral part of the planning team
for preparation of this document. The USFWS received a copy of the draft
plan and submitted comments, which are included as B1 in the \"Response
to Comments\" section.

Formal consultation was initiated on July 8, 2000. The USFWS has
prepared a biological opinion on this ORV management plan. The
biological opinion is included as Appendix C of this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177220 .anchor}**Consultation with Federally
Recognized Tribes**

The National Park Service provided copies of the draft document to
federally recognized tribes, including the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Miccosukee Tribe
submitted written comments on the plan. A copy of their comments is
included as G1 in the \"Response to Comments\" section. The
superintendent addressed the Tribe's written comments on June 14, 2000
and invited further consultation at the Tribe's discretion and
convenience.

Although the Seminole Tribe did not provide written comments on the
draft plan, the superintendent offered to consult with the Seminole
Tribe in a memorandum dated June 28, 2000.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177221 .anchor}**Consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer**

As stipulated by the October 1995 programmatic agreement among the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Park
Service, consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was initiated
in August 1999. On November 30, 1999 the preserve received a response
from the State Historic Preservation Officer. The response stated that
in accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR, part 800
(\"Protection of Historic Properties\"), the proposed project will have
no effect on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register, or otherwise of historical or architectural value.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177222 .anchor}**List of Agencies,
Organizations, and Individuals Who Received the Draft ORV Management
Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement**

Copies of the draft plan were distributed to the following agencies and
organizations. In addition, approximately 400 copies were sent to
individual citizens upon request. The draft document was also available
on the preserve's Internet site at www.nps.gov/bicy/draftorvplan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177223 .anchor}**Federal Agencies**

Department of Agriculture

> Forest Service
>
> Natural Resources Conservation Service

Department of Commerce

> National Marine Fisheries Service
>
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of Defense

> Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Interior

> Bureau of Indian Affairs
>
> Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> Geological Survey
>
> National Park Service
>
> Biscayne National Park
>
> Everglades National Park
>
> Dry Tortugas National Park
>
> Southeastern Archeological Center

Department of Justice

Environmental Protection Agency

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177224 .anchor}**Native American Tribes**

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

Seminole Tribe of Florida

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177225 .anchor}**State of Florida**

Office of the Governor

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida State Clearinghouse

South Florida Water Management District

State Historic Preservation Office

**Florida Congressional Delegation**

U.S. House of Representatives

> Peter Deutsch
>
> Mark Foley
>
> Porter Goss

U.S. Senate

> Bob Graham
>
> Connie Mack

**Florida State Legislature**

Florida House of Representatives

> J. Dudley Goodlette
>
> Carole Green
>
> Luis Rojas
>
> J.R. Spratt

Florida Senate

> Steven A. Geller
>
> Burt Saunders

**County/Local Government**

Collier County

> Manager
>
> Commission
>
> Sheriff

Miami-Dade County

> Manager
>
> Commission

Hendry County

> Manager
>
> Commission

Monroe County

> Manager
>
> Commission

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177226 .anchor}**Organizations**

Airboat Association of Florida

Biodiversity Legal Foundation

Collier County Historical Society

Collier County Sportsman Association

Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary

Everglades Area Chamber of Commerce

Everglades Conservation and Sportsman Club, Inc.

Everglades Coordinating Council

Florida Audubon Society

Florida Biodiversity Project

Florida Panther Technical Advisory Committee

Florida Trail Association, Inc.

Florida Wildlife Federation

Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

Greater Homestead/Florida City Chamber of Commerce

Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of Florida

Izaak Walton League

Marco Island Chamber of Commerce

Naples Chamber of Commerce

National Audubon Society

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Wildlife Federation

Sierra Club--Florida Chapter

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

Tropical Audubon Society

World Wildlife Fund

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177227 .anchor}**Companies**

Calumet Florida, Inc.

Collier Resources Company

Everglades National Park Boat Tours

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177228 .anchor}**Media**

*Everglades Echo*

*Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel*

*Fort Myers News Press*

*Miami Herald*

*Naples Daily News*

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177229 .anchor}**Libraries**

Barron (Hendry County) Public Library

Broward County Public Library

Collier County Public Library

Glades County Public Library

Hendry County Public Library

Miami-Dade County Public Library

Monroe County Public Library

Palm Beach County Public Library

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177230 .anchor}**Individuals**

Approximately 400

 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177231 .anchor}**Preparers AND CONTRIBUTORS**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177232 .anchor}**Department of the Interior**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177233 .anchor}**Office of the Secretary**

Donald J. Barry, former Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks

T. Destry Jarvis, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177234 .anchor}**Office of the Solicitor**

Patricia Hooks, Attorney

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177235 .anchor}**National Park Service**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177236 .anchor}**Big Cypress National
Preserve**

John Donahue, Superintendent

Wallace Hibbard, former Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve,
currently Associate Regional Director for Operations

Carolyn Kriz, Deputy Superintendent (retired)

Larry Belles, Chief of Fire Management Division

Ron Clark, Chief of Resource Management Division

Ellen Hand, former Chief of Administration Division

Terry Saunders, Chief of Maintenance Division

Dan Sholly, Chief of Ranger Activities Division

Christine Bates, Hydrologic Technician

James Burch, Botanist

Tina Collins, Program Assistant

Beth Ann Donahue, Office Automation Assistant

Randy Effert, Contract Specialist

Marlena Horvorka, Fire Effects Specialist

Deborah Jansen, Wildlife Biologist

Kevin Kacer, Management Assistant

Kim Kacer, Budget Analyst

Susan Kaynor, Environmental Protection Specialist

Peg Kohl, Program Assistant

J.D. Lee, Ranger

Wes Leishman, Interpretive Planner

Dusty Olson, Ranger

Frank Partridge, Computer Specialist

Greg Podany, Ranger

Sandra Snell-Dobert, Chief Interpretive Ranger

Bill Snyder, Forestry Technician

Robert Sobczak, Hydrologist

Tom Thatcher, Telecommunications Specialist

G.B. Wangerin, Ranger

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177237 .anchor}**Denver Service Center**

John Hoesterey, Project Manager

Patrick Kenney, Job Captain

Steven Culver, Job Captain (draft)

Mary Magee, Natural Resource Specialist

Elaine Rideout, Natural Resource Specialist

Carol Whipple, Supervisory Leader, Planning

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177238 .anchor}**Everglades National Park**

Sonny Bass, Wildlife Biologist

Troy Mullins, GIS Specialist

Antonio Pernas, Botanist

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177239 .anchor}**Southeast Regional Support
Office**

Tim Bemisderfer, Landscape Architect

Stuart Johnson, Chief of Planning and Compliance Division

John Yancy, Associate Regional Director for Natural and Cultural
Resources Stewardship and Science

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177240 .anchor}**Washington Office, Park
Planning and Special Studies Division**

Nat Kuykendall, Program Analyst

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177241 .anchor}**U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service**

Jay Slack, Project Leader

Jane Tutton, Wildlife Biologist

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177242 .anchor}**Parsons Engineering Science,
Inc.**

Michele Goddard, Geologist

Kathryn Kuhlman, Environmental Scientist

Tauna Murphy, Geologist

Brian Lane, Environmental Scientist

Julia Schulten, Environmental Scientist

Jan Snyder, Editor

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177243 .anchor}**Virginia Tech University,
Department of Forestry, Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU)**

Dr. Jeffrey L. Marion, CPSU unit leader

Tracy Farrell

Dr. Troy Hall

Dr. Bruce Hull

Angelina Kendra

Dr. Joseph Roggenbuck

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177244 .anchor}**Utah State University**

Dr. Dale Blahna

Peter Williams

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177245 .anchor}**Columbia University**

Stuart Pimm

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177246 .anchor}**University of Georgia**

Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177247 .anchor}**Response to Comments**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177248 .anchor}**Introduction**

The National Park Service received approximately 1,400 letters and oral
remarks regarding the Big Cypress National Preserve draft recreational
ORV management plan and supplemental environmental impact statement. A
comment included any of the following:

> An oral statement at a public meeting.
>
> A letter or other written document from an private citizen. This
> included both individually prepared comments and form letters.
>
> A letter or memorandum from a Native American Tribe or from a federal,
> state, regional, or local agency.
>
> A letter or memorandum from a non-government organization.

Photocopies of all of the written comments from agencies, organizations,
and Native American Tribes, and substantive written comments from
individuals are provided at the end of this section. For each of the two
form letters received by the National Park Service, a photocopy of a
single letter is provided to be representative of the entire group of
identical letters. The National Park Service received 775 copies of the
letter represented by F250, and 223 copies of the letter represented by
F251.

Written transcripts from the two public meetings and copies of all of
the written comments are available for public review at Big Cypress
National Preserve.

Each comment was assigned an alpha-numeric code. The letter within the
code describes the affiliation of the commentor (agency, organization,
or private citizen) and is followed by a number, assigned sequentially,
that uniquely identifies the comment. Identification of each substantive
commentor is provided in Table 15.

Written comments varied in length from less than a page to more than 100
pages and ranged in coverage from a single item to many subjects. Many
commentors identified similar concerns. Individually addressing each
concern from each commentor would have resulted in considerable
repetition. Therefore, 20 broad topics that encompassed all of the
comments were identified. Similar comments within each topic were
summarized, with an identification of their sources. A response to each
comment was then provided.

The Council on Environmental Quality (1978) guidelines for implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act require that responses be provided
to \"substantive\" comments. A comment that met any of the following
criteria from *Draft Directors Order 12: Conservation Planning and
Environmental Impact Analysis* (NPS 1999) was judged to be substantive.

> It questioned, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information.
>
> It questioned, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental
> analyses.
>
> It presented reasonable alternatives other than those proposed in the
> plan and supplemental environmental impact statement.
>
> It would cause changes or revisions in the proposal.

Many of the comments that were determined not to meet any of these
criteria expressed an opinion. Many others were outside of the scope of
the Big Cypress National Preserve recreational ORV management plan and
supplemental environmental impact statement. While the National Park
Service values this input, no response is provided to such comments.
Comments that identified errors such as misspelled words were not
included as substantive, but the National Park Service appreciates the
information and has corrected the errors.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc486319136 .anchor}TABLE 15: Identification of
Commentors

  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------
  **\                                    **Commentor\     
  Commentor**                            Identification   
                                         Code**           

  **A -- Oral comments from public                        
  meetings**                                              

  Adams, Franklin                                         A2.13

  Barry, Patrick                                          A1.31

  Beardsley, Gary Lee                                     A2.15

  Billie, Danny                                           A2.32

  Bishop, Patrick                                         A1.40

  Brewer, Bill                                            A2.39

  Buckley, Robert                                         A1.10

  Cain, Shannon                                           A2.23

  Campo, Paul                                             A2.34

  Carpenter, Ken                                          A1.17

  Cartwright, Karen                                       A2.19

  Clark, Todd D.                                          A2.1

  Coffey, Kenneth                                         A1.28

  Cook, Michele                                           A1.29

  Cruz, Luis                                              A1.37

  Cruz, Mark                                              A1.32

  Cunbelo, Robert                                         A1.11

  Del Toro, Ray                                           A1.38

  Denninger, Frank                                        A2.3

  Denninser, Frank                                        A1.6

  DiNunzio, John                                          A2.25

  Easom, James                                            A1.30

  Ednor, Benjamin                                         A1.3

  Fisikelli, Freddy                                       A1.41

  Ford, Michael                                           A2.21

  Furland, Wayne                                          A1.39

  Garrott, John                                           A2.6

  Grant, David W.                                         A2.31

  Green, Mark                                             A1.2

  Greer, Karl                                             A1.5

  Guggenheim, David                                       A2.10

  Hampton, Charles W.                                     A2.2

  Hauser, Sean                                            A2.4

  Howard, Nat                                             A2.27

  Hull, Jerron                                            A2.22

  Jenkins, Wayne                                          A2.33

  Jensen, Hank                                            A2.26

  Jensen, Holly                                           A1.14

  Kimmel, Eric                                            A1.23

  Kimmel, Travis                                          A1.24

  Klein, Helene                                           A1.4

  Larkins, Mary                                           A2.36

  Lee, Mike                                               A2.38

  Leon, Leopoedo                                          A1.26

  Leon, Maritza                                           A1.27

  Marco, Joel                                             A1.8

  Marlin, Dennis T.                                       A2.17

  McCandless, Lyle                                        A2.40

  McDowell, Donnie                                        A2.12

  Mogelvang, Christian, M.D.                              A2.30

  Moller, Jack                                            A1.12

  Myers, William                                          A1.21

  Newell, Norm                                            A1.18

  Peacock, William                                        A1.22

  Pershing, Keith                                         A2.24

  Peterson, Ellen W.                                      A2.18

  Powell, Barbara Jean                                    A1.20

  Powell, Barbara Jean                                    A2.20

  Rodriguez, Clemente                                     A1.1

  Rosewik, Richard                                        A1.9

  Sanders, Eddie                                          A2.5

  Sawyer, Carson and Kit                                  A2.28

  Scherf, Brian                                           A1.16

  Scherf, Brian                                           A2.9

  Scherf, Rosalyn                                         A1.15

  Scherf, Rosalyn                                         A2.8

  Shirley, Tom                                            A1.25

  Smith, Gregory H.                                       A2.11

  Snell, Shane                                            A2.14

  Sorrell, Mike                                           A2.35

  Swingle, John                                           A2.16

  Taylor, Mark                                            A1.33

  Thoemke, Kris                                           A2.29

  Townsend, Robert                                        A2.37

  Van Schaick, Gene                                       A1.42

  Varela, Rick                                            A1.7

  Vatter, Dave                                            A1.34

  Wilsey, Glen                                            A1.19

  Wilson, Chuck                                           A2.7

  Wilson, Dennis                                          A1.13

  Wimmer, Kent                                            A1.36

  Youse, Christopher                                      A1.35

  **B -- Federal agency comments**                         

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                    B2

  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                          B1

  **C -- State of Florida agency                          
  comments**                                              

  Florida Department of Health                            C5

  Florida Department of Community                         C9
  Affairs, Areas of Critical State                        
  Concern                                                 

  Florida Department of Community                         C8
  Affairs, Coastal Management Program                     

  Florida Department of Environmental                     C7
  Protection                                              

  Florida Department of State, Division                   C2
  of Historical Resources                                 

  Florida Department of Transportation                    C6

  Florida Division of Forestry                            C3

  Florida Division of Forestry                            C4

  Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation                  C1
  Commission                                              

  **D -- Regional and local agency                        
  comments**                                              

  Southwest Florida Regional Planning                     D1
  Council                                                 

  Southwest Florida Regional Planning                     D2
  Council                                                 

  **E -- Non-government organization                      
  comments**                                              

  Blue Ribbon Coalition Inc.                              E7

  Collier Sportsmen and Conservation                      E11
  Club                                                    

  Everglades Conservation and Sportsman                   E8
  Club, Inc.                                              

  Everglades Coordinating Council                         E20

  Florida Biodiversity Project                            E1

  Florida Biodiversity Project                            E23

  Florida Trails Association                              E19

  Florida Wildlife Federation                             E2

  Florida Wildlife Federation                             E6

  Florida Wildlife Federation                             E21

  Georgia Cruisers 4WD Club                               E9

  Meyer & Glitzenstein, on behalf of the                  EL1
  Florida Biodiversity Project and                        
  Biodiversity Legal Foundation                           

  National Audubon Society                                E12

  National Parks and Conservation                         E17
  Association, South Florida Field                        
  Office                                                  

  National Rifle Association of America                   E4

  Panther Action Coalition and Friends                    E15
  of Whales                                               

  Predator 4-WD                                           E5

  Responsible Growth Management                           E24
  Coalition, The Environmental                            
  Confederation of Southwest Florida,                     
  and Save the Manatee Club                               

  Ridberg, Press & Sherbill, LLP, on                      E13
  behalf of National Park Trust                           

  Sierra Club, The Florida Chapter                        E14

  Sierra Club, The Florida Chapter                        E22

  Southern Appalachian Biodiversity                       E16
  Project                                                 

  SVIA -- Specialty Vehicle Institute of                  E10
  America                                                 

  Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads                   E18

  Wildlife Legislative Fund of America,                   E3
  The                                                     

  **F -- Comments from the general                        
  public**                                                

  Abraham, Eve                                            F65

  Abraham, Eve                                            F68

  Adams, Franklin                                         F252

  Bang, Harold W.                                         F113

  Barnes, William D.                                      F162

  Baxter, Michael                                         F4

  Beardsley, Gary                                         F231

  Beaver, Kris                                            F135

  Botticher, Pamela D.                                    F92

  Brooks, Leigh                                           F189

  Buisson, Justine                                        F171

  Bussing, Thomas D., Ph.D.                               F218

  Camaraa, Tom                                            F227

  Cardona, Armando                                        F210

  Cherry, Robert                                          F161

  Christ, Doug                                            F241

  Clark, Todd                                             F149

  Clark, Todd                                             F150

  Counterman, Jesse                                       F138

  Crawford, William J.                                    F156

  Curle, Chris                                            F188

  Dayhoff, Fred E.                                        F242

  DeGraff, Rob                                            F191

  DeGraff, Rob                                            F192

  DeLine, Steven B.                                       F155

  De Mateo, Eduardo                                       F257

  De Mots, Dennis                                         F186

  Denison, Mr. and Mrs. J.L.                              F253

  Denninger, Frank F.                                     F107

  Dernburg, Ernest A., M.D.                               F119

  Dettmers, Dr. Almut E.                                  F46

  Drivas, Helen                                           F159

  Easom, James A.                                         F148

  Eichholz, Neal F.                                       F35

  Elton, Wallace                                          F230

  Fagergren, Fred J.                                      F83

  Featherly, Roxanne                                      F77

  Fleming, Donald H.                                      F198

  Fontenot, Donald                                        F82

  Fowler, Beverly, O.P.                                   F52

  Gabel, Bunny                                            F185

  Garrott, Joe F.                                         F145

  Garvey, Lydia                                           F194

  Grayson, Lee                                            F32

  Greenfield, Leonard J., Ph.D.                           F124

  Griffin, Tim                                            F142

  Hall, Michele, Ms.                                      F217

  Hampton, Charles W.                                     F240

  Hampton, Charles Wade, Jr.                              F243

  Hampton, Harold                                         F245

  Hampton, Steven K.                                      F244

  Hansen, Mary Lou                                        F42

  Henry, Barbara R.                                       F246

  Henry, Charles R.                                       F246

  Hodges, Dorothy                                         F48

  Horgan, Christopher                                     F146

  Houghton, Richard L.                                    F152

  Hull, Jerron K.                                         F34

  Joyce, Lawrence                                         F147

  Keim, Susan, O.P.                                       F220

  Kent, David A.                                          F254

  Kile, Gary E.                                           F2

  Kimmel, Cody                                            F140

  Kimmel, Eric                                            F140

  Kimmel, Michele                                         F140

  Kimmel, Travis                                          F140

  King, Jean                                              F126

  Knowles, Gary                                           F201

  Lauredo, Rod                                            F39

  Lenz, Dennis J.                                         F129

  Leon, Maritza                                           F153

  Libkind, Marcus                                         F184

  Lohman, Donna                                           F256

  Mathews, Mary                                           F133

  Mayer, William Patrick                                  F5

  McClory, Valerie J.                                     F50

  McDonald, David M.                                      F143

  Mento, Sam A.                                           F204

  Merkel, Robert S.                                       F187

  Metzger, Sherry J.                                      F180

  Michaels, Bob                                           F193

  Millard, Andrew J., Dr.                                 F132

  Moller, Donna                                           F28

  Moller, Jack                                            F29

  Moller, Jack                                            F30

  Moller, L. Jack                                         F25

  Moller, L. Jack                                         F37

  Moller, L. Jack                                         F249

  Morris, Heather                                         F147

  Neufeld, Steven                                         F81

  Nichols, Nick                                           F125

  Nye, Mrs. Dagmar                                        F14

  O'Connell, Dorothy E.                                   F62

  O'Neal, Denny                                           F159

  Patterson, Jeff & Dawn                                  F199

  Rauch, Peter                                            F167

  Rentschler, Dennis S.                                   F215

  Roby, Kinley E.                                         F229

  Rodriguez, Armando, Jr.                                 F164

  Ruscoe, Dean                                            F131

  Rust, Terry                                             F3

  Rutkowski, Robert E., Esq.                              F51

  Rutkowski, Robert E., Esq.                              F128

  Rutkowski, Robert E., Esq.                              F134

  Salmon, Jean L.                                         F63

  Sandberg, Harlan K.                                     F170

  Savett, Adam T.                                         F49

  Scott, Lynwood V.                                       F151

  Sherk, Jerome                                           F116

  Smith, Sean                                             F130

  Snell, Shane                                            F36

  Spotts, Richard                                         F139

  Torres, Lorenzo                                         F1

  Trabulsy, Norman M., Jr.                                F219

  Travis, Lisa A.                                         F137

  Trumbly, Gary L.                                        F258

  Turner, Kathleen Kaeding                                F136

  Tyner, Robin D.                                         F61

  Van Winkle, Charlotte B.                                F64

  Volk, Jeff                                              F169

  Voorhies, Bill & Marilyn                                F47

  Wack, David R.                                          F106

  WDB, Martha                                             F175

  Whidden, David E.                                       F141

  Wilsey, Susan N.                                        F259

  Wilson, Cody                                            F205

  Youse, C. Robin                                         F255

  Zinn, Robert K.                                         F223

  **G -- Native American Tribe                            
  comments**                                              

  Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida                  G1
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177249 .anchor}Response to Comments

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177250 .anchor}**Analysis and Utilization of
  Scientific Data and Supporting Information**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The description of the affected environment does not
analyze global, national, and regional processes that impact the south
Florida ecosystem and Big Cypress National Preserve.* (Source: E1)

**Response:** The National Park Service is participating in the south
Florida ecosystem restoration planning effort, which is providing a
regional analysis of the environment. Consideration of this program is
described in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section under
\"Methodology, Cumulative Impacts.\" The regional effects of each impact
topic are included in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section. In
addition, information on regional processes was included in the 1991 Big
Cypress National Preserve general management plan from which this
document is tiered, in conformance with 40 CFR 1502.20. Global and
national processes are beyond the scope of this management plan and
supplemental environmental impact statement.

**Comment:** *Devise a plan that is based on science, utilizing the best
available data. The methodologies cited do not reflect all of the
relevant environmental documents.* (Sources: A1.1, A2.9, A2.15, A2.22,
E1, E12, E13, E14, E15, E17, E18, F47, F48, F49, F50, F51, F52, F125,
F126, F130, F131, F132, F133, F134, F135, F136, F137, F138, F139, F159,
F161, F199, F215, F218, F220, F223, F231, F242, G1)

**Response:** Additional information has been provided throughout the
ORV management plan and supplemental environmental impact statement.
Readers also should recognize that this plan is tiered to and
incorporates all of the information included in the 1991 general
management plan and environmental impact statement.

**Comment:** *The plan does not contain comprehensive and scientifically
justifiable conservation goals and objectives.* (Sources: A1.14, A1.16,
E1, F1, F2, F49, F148, F149, F250)

**Response**: See the revisions to management objectives in \"Purpose of
and Need for the Plan,\" and \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action.\"

**Comment:** *The plan does not provide any supporting data or analysis
for dispersed ORV use.* (Sources: E1, F143)

**Response:** The proposed action would eliminate all dispersed use of
ORVs. See the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *A 5- to 10-year research program is needed.* (Source:
A1.14)

**Response:** See the modified \"Research\" section in \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action.\"

**Comment:** The *plan needs more input from ORV users and locals.*
(Sources: A1.35, A1.37, A1.38)

**Response:** The \"Consultation and Coordination\" section describes
the public participation program that was conducted as part of preparing
the plan.

**Comment:** *The information in the supplemental environmental impact
statement does not support the \"no unavoidable adverse impacts\" stated
in the conclusion.* (Source: B1)

**Response:** The \"Unavoidable Adverse Impacts\" section has been
revised.

**Comment:** *Geographic information system suitability analysis
principles should be used in rewriting the ORV management plan and
supplemental environmental impact statement.* (Source: E15)

**Response:** Geographic information system suitability analyses have
been included in the proposed action. See the revised text in
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.\"

**Comment:** *Provide analysis of the impacts of current levels of ORV
use.* (Sources: E20, F229)

**Response:** Additional information on the effects of current ORV use
has been provided in the \"Affected Environment\" section.

**Comment** *Provide a projection of the expected increase in ORV use
over the next decade and the effects of the increase.* (Source: F229)

**Response:** Projected ORV use in the preserve is described in the
\"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\" and \"Alternatives, Including the
Proposed Action\" sections.

**Comment:** *Evaluate reductions in impacts that have resulted from
implementing measures included in the general management plan since its
enactment in 1991 to the present.* (Source: E.20)

**Response:** See the description of the no action alternative (continue
current management in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action\" section for a description of the measures from the general
management plan that have been implemented, and their effectiveness.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177251 .anchor}**Opening and Closing of
  Management Units**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan fails to analyze procedures and considerations
for closing and opening trails and areas. Explain the criteria used to
determine whether or not a trail or area should be closed for resource
or visitor protection.* (Sources: A1.14, A1.16, A2.10, A2.23, B1, B2,
C1, E1, E2, E6, E8, E14, E15, E17, E18, E21, E24, F46, F65, F81, F82,
F150, F151, F152, F184, F246, F252)

**Response:** Criteria for opening and closing trails and areas have
been added to \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.\"

**Comment:** *The plan should describe the hydrological criteria that
would be used for management of each unit, particularly including the
Stairsteps Unit.* (Sources: B1, B2, F242)

**Response:** Hydrologic criteria are provided in the \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action\" section and Appendix A.

**Comment:** *Reopen the gate on Cypress Lane at Alligator Alley to
reduce traffic in Airplane Prairie.* (Source: F145)

**Response:** This action was considered and analyzed in the general
management plan and environmental impact statement and the I-75
recreational access plan and environmental assessment (NPS 1990). The
National Park Service does not plan to reconsider opening Cypress Lane.
Under the proposed action, ORVs in the vicinity of Airplane Prairie
would be restricted to designated trails.

**Comment:** *Prohibit ORV use on all lands identified as potential
nesting sites for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow and all waters that are
critical to the endangered West Indian manatee.* (Source: E15)

**Response:** Unit management practices described in the \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action\" section have been developed in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the
protection of these and other threatened and endangered species.

**Comment:** *How will no-drive areas be maintained and regulated?*
(Source: E14)

**Response:** See the revised proposed action description in the
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177252 .anchor}**Compliance with Legal
  Mandates and the Settlement Agreement**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not clearly explain the relationship of the
no action alternative (continue current management) in the ORV plan
relative to the 1991 general management plan proposed action.* (Source:
E1)

**Response:** See the revised description of the no action alternative.

**Comment:** *The plan does not contain a reasonable range of
alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.*
(Sources: A1.30, A2.15, B1, B2, E1, E14, E16, E20, F230, G1)

**Response:** The 1991 general management plan examined a wide range of
reasonable alternatives for ORV management. Because this ORV management
plan is tiered to the general management plan in conformance with 40 CFR
1502.20, the requirements and intent of the National Environmental
Policy Act have been satisfied.

**Comment:** *The plan does not set forth the traditional and customary
use rights of the Miccosukee people or how this plan may or may not
affect those rights.* (Source: G1)

**Response:** The National Park Service has further consulted with the
Miccosukee Tribe. Additional information concerning protection of these
rights is included in the \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\" section.

**Comment:** *The plan impacts and discriminates against Native
Americans.* (Source: A2.32)

**Response:** The plan has no effect on Native American Tribes. The
National Park Service has consulted with the Tribes and will continue to
do so to ensure that their rights are protected.

**Comment:** *At least one alternative must consider complete
elimination of ORVs from the preserve.* (Sources: E15, E16)

**Response:** As described in \"Big Cypress Legislative Background and
the Purpose of the Preserve,\" the Senate and House reports on the bill
establishing Big Cypress National Preserve specifically stated that the
bill did not prohibit the use of ORVs along designated roads and trails.
Therefore, there is no basis for requiring such an alternative.

**Comment:** *Provide an interpretation of the phrase in the preserve's
mandate \"subject to regulation\" that allows vehicles in the preserve.*
(Source: F229)

**Response:** See the revised \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\"
section and the description of the proposed action in the
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *The plan does not assure that ORV usage will not supercede
the preserve's mission of resource protection.* (Source: E17)

**Response:** See the revised \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\"
section and the revised description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** *Congressional authorization does not appear to include
basic ORV pleasure use of the preserve. Described how the alternatives
meet the Congressional authorization. If this was discussed in the 1991
general management plan, it should be referenced.* (Sources: B2, F229)

**Response:** This was addressed on page 44 of the Big Cypress National
Preserve general management plan and final environmental impact
statement.

**Comment:** *The term \"no action\" for one of the management
alternatives may be misinterpreted. The National Park Service should use
\"current action\" instead.* (Sources: C1, E2, E6, E20, E21, F252)

**Response:** This alternative is now referred to throughout the plan as
\"no action alternative (continue current management).\"

**Comment:** *The plan should mention that current management, embodied
in the \"no action alternative,\" has resulted in major impacts to the
preserve.* (Source: B2)

**Response:** The \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan\" and \"Affected
Environment\" sections have been revised to include this information.

**Comment:** *The proposed alternative does not adequately account for
past negative impacts when deciding how to manage the resource in the
future.* (Source: E17)

**Response:** The \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\"
section has been revised to provide additional detail on this subject.

**Comment:** *Both the 1990 biological assessment for the general
management plan and the 1991 biological opinion were based on 2,000
vehicle permits per year. However, the NPS record of decision for the
general management plan changed the number of permits to 2,500 and never
reinitiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Therefore, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have violated the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species
Act.* (Source: EL1)

**Response:** The proposed action has been revised to include no more
than 2,000 permits per year, which is consistent with the 1990
biological assessment and the 1991 biological opinion. Selection of the
no action alternative (continue current management), including its
provision to permit 2,500 ORVs per year, would require further
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act.

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze the criteria for the
development of a comprehensive designated trail system and/or use areas
for ensuring the natural and ecological integrity of the preserve's
resources in accordance with the provisions of the Big Cypress National
Preserve enabling act and the 1995 settlement agreement.* (Sources:
A2.9, B2, E1, EL1, E14, E15, F81, F82, F150)

**Response:** As described in the revised text in \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action,\" geographic information system
suitability analyses would be used to select the optimal trail
alignments.

**Comment:** *Under the Endangered Species Act, a Section 7 consultation
is required.* (Sources: E14, E16)

**Response:** The National Park Service has consulted with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in conformance with Section 7 requirements. See the
\"History of Public Involvement\" section.

**Comment:** *The statement on page 73, \"The non-federal property
owners are not regulated with respect to access to or dispersal from
their property\" is not true.* (Sources: F37, F83)

**Response:** The text has been corrected.

**Comment:** *Regarding the text on page 27, the National Park Service
is not required to consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission on ORV use. (Source: F83)*

**Response:** The text has been corrected.

**Comment:** *The plan is not an action-oriented document, but instead
is only a planning tool with an inadequate level of detail on
implementation.* (Sources: B1, B2, E15, G1)

**Response:** The description in the \"Alternatives, Including the
Proposed Action\" section has been revised to address implementation.

**Comment:** *The plan has no timetable, target dates for management, or
specifics for implementing actions.* (Sources: B2, E14, G1).

**Response:** An implementation schedule for the ORV management plan is
provided in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *ORV use is allowed by the enabling act; thus, a large fee
increase is neither required nor legal.* (Sources: F2, F4, F5, F28,
F250, F251)

**Response:** The proposed fee for an off-road vehicle permit has been
revised in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *The plan must include an environmental justice component
because the proposed fee increase and ORV specifications will
deliberately reduce visitation by low-income individuals. Costs of
changes to ORVs under the plan should fall under Executive Order 12898,
Environmental Justice.* (Sources: E20, F25)

**Response:** Environmental justice was not considered in detail for the
reasons provided in the \"Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis\"
section.

**Comment:** *The provisions in the plan could result in landowners not
being able to access their property, which is a taking of their land.
Any reference to non-federal property rights and uses should not be part
of the plan.* (Sources: E20, F25)

**Response:** See the revised description of the proposed action. Exempt
property owners would continue to be provided reasonable access to and
from their property.

**Comment:** *Private property owners have the right to access their
property, but does this mean staying on the designated roads/trails or
creating short cuts for convenience? What about if in environmentally
sensitive area?* (Source: E17)

**Response:** See the revised description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** The *plan gives the misleading impression that ORV use is
mandated under Congressional law.* (Source: E17)

**Response:** The text in the section \"Legislative Mandates and Special
Commitments\" has been revised to clarify the authorization of ORV use
in the preserve.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177253 .anchor}**Visitor Experience**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Provide documentation on conflicts between ORV users and
other visitors. Analyze the effects of these conflicts.* (Sources: C1,
E1, E2, E6, E8, E14, E,17, E20, F107, F148, F256)

**Response:** See the revised \"Affected Environment\" and
\"Environmental Consequences\" sections.

**Comment:** *The proposed action alternative fails to recognize social
issues or issues related to the enjoyment of the area by ORV operators,
including the ability to explore new places and reach favorite
destinations.* (Sources: C1, E2, E6)

**Response:** Recognition of the importance of these activities is
included in the revised \"Affected Environment\" section. In the
\"Environmental Consequences\" section, the text describing impacts to
ORV users has been revised.

**Comment:** *There are no alternative places to hunt and ride for
recreation.* (Source: F32)

**Response:** This ORV management plan would not limit places to hunt.
Additional information on effects to ORV users has been provided in the
\"Environmental Consequences\" section. This issue also was addressed on
page 249 of the 1991 general management plan.

**Comment:** *Do not link scenic highway management and the ORV plan.*
(Source: F107)

**Response:** The revised text does not include scenic highway
management. However, as discussed under legislation mandates, Big
Cypress National Preserve was established in part to protect the scenic
values of the watershed.

**Comment:** *The plan misrepresents the number of walk-ins and hikers
using the preserve.* (Source: A1.34)

**Response:** The \"Affected Environment\" section has been revised to
provide additional information on visitors who do not use ORVs.

**Comment:** *The survey of visitors included no African Americans.*
(Source: E17)

**Response:** The survey was sent to a randomly selected group of
current ORV permit holders and reflects those who responded. The survey
was developed in compliance with Office of Management and Budget
regulations to ensure that it was an objective surveying instrument.

**Comment:** A *buffer on the Florida Trail is impractical to comply
with due to the difficulty in navigating within the preserve.* (Source:
F258)

**Response:** The proposed action has been revised to restrict ORVs to
designated trails throughout the preserve. The designated trails would
be located to minimize crossings of the Florida Trail.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177254 .anchor}**Cumulative Impacts**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan fails to fully consider cumulative impacts.*
(Sources: A2.15, E1, E14, E24, F61, F63, F64, F68, F81, F82, F119, F169,
F171, F175, F184, F185)

**Response:** Cumulative impacts sections have been revised throughout
the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *The cumulative impact statement for the future loss of
habitat section should be changed to \"no cumulative impact,\" as the
preserve is surrounded almost entirely by state and federally owned
property where the loss of habitat through development is not a threat.*
(Sources: C1, E2, E6)

**Response:** Although state and federal lands are protected, privately
owned lands in the region also provide important habitat and are subject
to development. The northern boundary of the preserve has substantial
private ownership, and there also are large, privately owned tracts
throughout the region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed
concern about habitat fragmentation for several species.

**Comment:** *The National Park Service must ensure that the
environmental impact statement and final plan include a comprehensive
analysis of all potential adverse impacts of ORV use, including all
commercial activities and other activities which may produce cumulative
or connected impacts.* (Source: E18)

**Response:** The general management plan and final environmental impact
statement were prepared to fulfill this intent. Commercial activities
are beyond the scope of this recreational ORV management plan.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177255 .anchor}**Education and
  Communications**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not contain an adequate education and
communication plan to avoid and minimize ORV impacts. Elements of such a
plan could include an ORV users manual, videos, and establishing an
educational component to the permitting process.* (Sources: A1.6, A1.32,
A2.3, B1, B2, E1, E2, E6, E8, E14, E17, E20, E21, F37, F81, F82, F107,
F140, F148, F164, F180, F252)

**Response:** The descriptions of the education and communication
programs in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section
have been revised.

**Comment:** *NPS personnel must be trained to manage ORV use.* (Source:
E20)

**Response:** NPS personnel are trained about the regulatory history and
legal authorities relating to the management of ORVs.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177256 .anchor}**Protected Species**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately support the analyses of
impacts on protected species.* (Sources: B2, C1, E1, E2, E6, E14, E18)

**Response:** The \"Environmental Consequences\" section has been
revised based on the best available information and consultations with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts on the Florida panther, its habitat, and its
restoration.* (Sources: A2.14, B1, E1, E2, E6, E7, E13, E14, E16, E17,
F81, F82, F210)

**Response:** The protected species discussions in the \"Affected
Environment\" and \"Environmental Consequences\" sections have been
modified based on recent studies and consultations with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.

**Comment:** *The Janis and Clark (1999) study represents the personal
position of the researchers and is not scientifically valid.* (Sources:
F29, F37)

**Response:** Janis and Clark (1999) is a scientific study that was
successfully defended as part of a major university's masters degree
program and has been accepted by the National Park Service.

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts on the eastern indigo snake, wood stork, or West
Indian manatee.* (Sources: E1, E2, E6)

**Response:** The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the
National Park Service conclusion. See the letter from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that is reproduced in this plan as Source B1.

**Comment:** *Recreational airboating poses no threat to the manatee. In
particular, the Ochopee Prairie and Stairsteps Airboat Trail are too
shallow for the manatee. When water levels are adequate to support
recreational airboating, these areas should not be closed to protect
this species*. (Sources: E2, E6)

**Response:** The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the
proposed management action of the National Park Service for protection
of this species and with the impacts of each alternative that are
presented in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment**: *The plan does not adequately analyze the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts to the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. It also does
not provide adequate protection to sparrow habitat and fails to use the
best available information.* (Sources: B1, B2, E1, E14, E17)

**Response:** The proposed action has been modified to protect this
species. The \"Environmental Consequences\" section has been revised to
reflect this change in the proposed action. Concurrence would be
obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a biological opinion
before the proposed action would be implemented.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177257 .anchor}**Enforcement**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Provide additional information on enforcement, such as how
the National Park Service would establish the level of enforcement that
would be needed, how the appropriate number of rangers would be
determined, and how checkpoints and access points would be monitored.*
(Sources: B1, E1, E14, F36, F229, G1)

**Response:** The description of the enforcement program in
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section has been revised
to provide additional information.

**Comment:** *How can NPS enforcement be maintained after regular
business hours?* (Source: B2)

**Response:** NPS enforcement patrols, dispatch, and emergency response
occur around the clock and are not restricted to regular business hours.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177258 .anchor}**Management Objectives and
  Funding**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not establish a comprehensive system for
management of ORV use. It should be revised to contain clear
conservation goals and objectives, specific management procedures,
criteria that would avoid or minimize ORV impacts, criteria for
implementing the program's provisions, and descriptions of monitoring
and education programs. Goals and objectives should be connected to
specific indicators, threshold levels, and performance measures.
Management provisions must be nondiscretionary and expressed as
enforceable management standards.* (Sources: B2, E1, E14, E15, E17, E18,
E24, F81, F82, F184, F186, F246, G1)

**Response:** Management objectives, which are in \"Purpose of and Need
for the Plan,\" have been revised. The description of the proposed
action alternative has been revised to include a more detailed
description of the comprehensive plan for ORV management.

**Comment:** *How would implementation of the ORV plan be funded?
Without guaranteed funding, what assurances are there that the plan
would be implemented? Implementation costs should (or should not) be
borne by ORV users or ORV manufacturers.* (Sources: E1, E12, E14, E15,
E21, F3, F4, F28, F30, F83, F107, F126, F231, F251, F252, G1)

**Response:** The \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\"
section includes revised cost estimates for both alternatives and
information on funding sources.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177259 .anchor}**Hunting**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The hunting factor should not be considered in the
decision-making process as hunting is a separate and independently
controlled activity.* (Sources: F36)

**Response:** The scope of this plan is the management of recreational
ORVs, not hunting. The effects of ORV management to hunting, as well as
to all other users of Big Cypress National Preserve, are considered in
the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *Traditional hunting activities would be impacted by the
proposed action. Without ORVs, hunting access would be diminished.*
(Sources: E20, F210)

**Response:** The evaluation of effects to hunting has been revised in
the \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *Provide reasons for proposed restrictions of hunting.*
(Source: F162)

**Response:** The proposed action for recreational ORV management does
not contain any proposed restrictions on hunting.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177260 .anchor}**Surface Water Flow and Water
  Quality**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts to surface water flows. This includes
consideration of the effects of designated trails and new parking areas
at access points.* (Sources: B1, C1, C9, E1, E14, F113, F189, F210,
F256)

**Response:** See the revised \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts to water quality.* (Sources: B1, B2, C1, E1, E2,
E6, E14)

**Response:** See the revised \"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *Many other features besides ORV use affect surface water
flows and water quality. Some of these include roads, levees, Corps of
Engineers' ditch digging, and sugar farmers' pollution.* (Sources: A1.8,
A1.9, A1.11, A2.1, A2.4, C1, F188, F201, F210)

**Response:** As stated in the \"Affected Environment\" section, the
National Park Service recognizes that the hydrology and water quality of
the area have been altered by these and other features. However, their
presence does not affect the analysis of the effects of ORVs on surface
water flows and water quality.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177261 .anchor}**Monitoring, Restoration, and
  Research**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Explain how the preserve would manage the problem
corridors.* (Source: E14)

**Response:** Management of problem corridors is addressed in the
monitoring, management actions, and restoration sections of
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.\"

**Comment:** *Develop specific procedures and measures for evaluating
ecological integrity.* (Source: E17)

**Response:** See the revised description of the monitoring program in
the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *The proposed action fails to adequately analyze methods of
monitoring impacts and taking remedial actions based on results of such
monitoring. The research program is vague, speculative, and does not
comply with legal mandates.* (Sources: C9, E1, E17, F81, F82, F161,
F167)

**Response:** See the revised description of the monitoring and research
programs in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *Identify mitigation, on-going or proposed, for ORV
impacts.* (Sources: B1, E17)

**Response:** Many of the individual components of the proposed action
were developed to serve as mitigation for impacts from ORV use in the
preserve.

**Comment:** *Explain how future impacts to restored or reclaimed areas
would be prevented through mitigation.* (Sources: B1, E14)

**Response:** The revised proposed action would restrict ORVs to
designated trails only. Therefore, they would not cause adverse effects
to restored off-trail areas in the future.

**Comment:** *Incorporate evaluating ecological integrity into a
comprehensive monitoring program.* (Source: E17)

**Response:** See the revised description of the monitoring program in
the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *Provide timetables for reclamation of damaged areas.*
(Sources: B2, E14)

**Response:** The implementation schedule is included in the
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section. However,
actions would be implemented based on the availability of funding.

**Comment:** *Cite on-going or previous mitigation areas that offset ORV
impacts.* (Source: E14)

**Response: See the revised description of the alternatives.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177262 .anchor}**ORV Types and
  Specifications**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose the proposed 2 pounds per
square inch tire pressure standard, its justification, and/or its cost
and have provided reasons to buttress this position.* (Sources: A1.5,
A1.7, A1.18, A1.21, A1.22, A1.23, A1.34, A1.42, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4,
A2.10, A2.11, A2.22, A2.23, A2.25, A2.27, A2.30, A2.33, A2.40, B1, B2,
C1, E1, E2, E6, E7, E8, E12, E14, E17, E20, E21, F2, F3, F4, F5, F28,
F34, F35, F36, F37, F81, F82, F141, F143, F145, F147, F148, F150, F156,
F184, F198, F210, F224, F240, F241, F242, F243, F244, F245, F250, F251,
F252)

**Response:** The proposed action has been modified to eliminate any
tire pressure standard.

**Comment:** *Buggies do not need braking systems because they so
low-geared.* (Sources: E2, E6, E8, E20, F37, F142)

**Response:** Agreed. This requirement has been eliminated in the
revised description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** *Street-legal 4 x 4 vehicles must be restricted to
above-grade roads. Clarify proposed specifications for street-legal 4 x
4s. Allow a higher psi limit for 4 x 4 street-legal vehicles, but
restrict them to designated trails.* (Sources: B1, E1, E14, F39, G1)

**Response:** See the revised vehicle specifications in the
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *The 265-horsepower limit on airboat engines to reduce
noise is an unjustified requirement.* (Sources: B2, E20, F2, F3, F5,
F28, F36, F140, F143, F148, F150, F242, F250, F251)

**Response:** This requirement has been eliminated in the revised
description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** *Vehicle specifications should include tire construction
(such as lugs) and tire pressure.* (Sources: A1.18, B2, E1, F140, F142,
F145, F148, F156, F198)

**Response:** No specifications are currently included, but they could
be added in the future under the adaptive management provisions of the
proposed action.

**Comment:** *New ORV specifications are cost prohibitive. This concern
includes, but is not limited to, changing tire diameter, which requires
changing gears and other equipment.* (Sources: A1.23, A1.34, E20, F140,
F140, F142)

**Response:** Many specifications were eliminated from the revised
description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** *Specifications should include limits on size, tires,
equipment, weight, speed, noise, engine revolutions per minute, and
engine size. Also, a timeline to comply with new standards should be
prepared.* (Sources: B2, E2, E6, E8, E17, E18, E20, F42, F47, F48, F48,
F49, F50, F50, F51, F52, F77, F92, F116, F125, F128, F129, F130, F131,
F132, F133, F134, F136, F137, F138, F139, F170, F188, F192, F215, F217,
F220, F223, F230, F242)

**Response:** The proposed action includes research to determine if
additional ORV specifications are required to protect the preserve's
resources. All of the factors identified in this comment were considered
in the preparation of the revised specifications that are included in
the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section. An
implementation schedule for the ORV management plan also is provided in
this section. Vehicles would have to pass an inspection that included
the specifications before the owner could be eligible for the vehicle
permit drawing in the first (and all subsequent) year of program
implementation.

**Comment:** *Document how vehicle standards are justified to help
protect sensitive resources.* (Sources: E20, E24, F35)

**Response:** The rational for vehicle specifications is provided in the
revised \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *Clarify vehicle width restrictions -- does this include
tire width?* (Source: B2)

**Response:** Yes, tire width is included in the total vehicle width.
See the revised vehicle specifications in the \"Alternatives, Including
the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *What types of motorized vehicles are under the umbrella of
\"motorized vehicles\"?* (Source: E17)

**Response:** See \"Characteristics of ORVs\" in the \"Affected
Environment\" section.

**Comment:** *Provide a definition of an ATC and distinguish it from
other ORVs.* (Source: E10)

**Response:** See the \"Characteristics of ORVs\" in the \"Affected
Environment\" section.

**Comment:** *The proposed maximum ORV sound level of 60 decibels must
not apply to airboats and should be measured with ORV engines at idle
speed.* (Sources: F2, F5, F150, F250, F251)

**Response:** See the revised vehicle specifications in \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action.\"

**Comment:** *Provide analysis of the effects that ORV headlights have
on endangered species.* (Source: B2)

**Response:** The ORV management plan was prepared in conjunction with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts from headlights were not
identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other experts as
being of concern to threatened and endangered species.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177263 .anchor}**ORV Permits, Fees,
  Regulations, and Operating Standards**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose the proposed fees and have
provided reasons to buttress their position. They suggest that ORV user
fees should be specifically earmarked for ORV management, should be
better explained, should be consistent with those charged on other
federal lands, should cover program administrative costs only, or should
be levied only after a fee analysis study.* (Sources: A1.9, A1.13,
A1.22, A1.23, A1.29, A1.24, A2.35, B2, E2, E5, E6, E7, E8, E14, E10,
E17, E20, E21, F2, F3, F36, F37, F106, F140, F142, F145, F146, F147,
F148, F150, F155, F199, F201, F204, F205, F240, F241, F243, F244, F245,
F250, F252, G1)

**Response:** See the revised description of fees, described as part of
the permit program for each alternative, in the \"Alternatives,
Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *NPS Director's Order #53 is not applicable for fee
increase*. (Sources: F3, F4, F5, F28, F251)

**Response:** Agreed. The text has been revised.

**Comment:** *Fees discriminate against low incomes and minorities.*
(Sources: A1.1, A1.24, A1.25, A1.27, A2.14, A2.21, A2.33, A2.35, A2.37,
E7, F2, F36, F116, F145, F150, F242, F249, F250, F255)

**Response:** While ORV permit fees might affect *how* some people use
the preserve to recreate, they would not affect any group's ability to
*use* the preserve.

**Comment:** *Some* *statements regarding fees conflict. These include
page 1, line 15; page 17, line 1; and page 111, Tactic 12.1.* (Source:
F107)

**Response:** The tactics presented in Appendix B of the draft plan were
generic options. That appendix has been eliminated from the revised
plan.

**Comment:** *Tactic 10.3-\"restrict use of particular ORV types in
sensitive or problem areas\" -- The National Park Service needs to
develop sound criteria to decide what is acceptable and what is not.*
(Sources: E2, E6)

**Response:** The project description in the \"Alternatives, Including
the Proposed Action\" section has been revised to provide criteria for
defining sensitive or problem areas.

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose a ceiling on the number of
ORV permits issued annually and have provided reasons to buttress their
position.* (Sources: B1, E1, E14, E17, F83)

**Response:** The permit ceiling of 2,000 was established on page 46 of
the final general management plan and environmental impact statement.
The effects of existing ORV use to resources are described in the
\"Affected Environment\" section.

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support, oppose, or request clarification on
restrictions on age limits and the requirement that only licensed
drivers be allowed to operate ORVs in the preserve.* (Sources: A1.23,
A1.24, A1.29, B2, F83, F140)

**Response:** Only persons having a valid drivers license would be
allowed to operate an ORV in Big Cypress National Preserve. See \"Rules
and Enforcement\" in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\"
section.

**Comment:** *To control impacts, limit the number of ORVs using the
preserve or any access point at the same time.* (Sources: B2, F62, F210)

**Response:** The adaptive management approach of the proposed action
potentially could include limiting use at access points. Research would
be conducted to determine the carrying capacity of each area. See the
revised text in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\"
section.

**Comment:** *References in the \"Environmental Consequences\" section
erroneously relate reductions in impacts to a management plan that would
reduce ORV numbers when no such proposal was defined in the proposed
action.* (Source: C1)

**Response:** The revised proposed action would limit the number of
vehicle permits issued annually to 2,000 in compliance with the 1991 Big
Cypress National Preserve general management plan and environmental
impact statement, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991 biological
opinion. The \"Environmental Consequences\" section in this ORV
management plan has been revised to reflect this and other changes in
the regulation of ORVs.

**Comment:** *Regarding text on owners of property within the
backcountry on page 20: Legislation, laws, and regulations do not
provide right of access via an ORV unless an exempt property owner has
legal right-of-way or pre-existing access rights.* (Source: F83)

**Response:** Exempt property owners would be provided reasonable access
to their private property through a special use permit issued by the
National Park Service. See the revised description of the proposed
action.

**Comment:** *The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, a trade
association representing manufacturers and distributors of ATCs,
supports the use of helmets and eye protection for [all]{.underline} ATC
operators, not just children. The institute strongly opposes the
carrying of passengers on ATCs, which are not designed for carrying
passengers and carry warning labels to this effect.* (Source: E10)

**Response:** In the education course described in the proposed action,
the National Park Service would recommend the use of appropriate safety
equipment.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177264 .anchor}**Soils**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The analysis of impacts on soils is insufficient.*
(Sources: C1, E1, E2, E6, F124, F187)

**Response:** The \"Affected Environment\" and \"Environmental
Consequences\" sections have been revised. Identification of additional
soils research has been included in research section.

**Comment:** *The conclusion for impacts to soils should state under the
no action alternative that some areas would be reclaimed to more natural
conditions over time through the current use of temporary trail
closures.* (Sources: C1, E2, E6, F147)

**Response:** The assessment of impacts under the no action alternative
(continue current management) has been revised.

**Comment:** *The statutory and regulatory framework for soil impacts is
misleading.* (Source: E1)

**Response:** See the 1991 general management plan and environmental
impact statement for more complete information on the statutory and
regulatory framework for soils management.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177265 .anchor}**Trails and Access Points**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *Indicate locations of access points, criteria for their
selection, and where users would park. Data on points of entry and exit,
and the destinations of ORV users should be obtained and evaluated
before making decisions on adding, deleting, or improving access
points.* (Sources: A2.30, E1, E14, F3, F4, F28, F36, F150, F251, F254)

**Response:** Access point locations for the proposed action are shown
in the Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary Trails map.
Selection criteria for access points are provided in the revised
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

**Comment:** *The plan does not sufficiently assess the aesthetic
effects of designated parking areas.* (Source: F189)

**Response:** See the evaluation of effects to other visitation in the
\"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *There currently is insufficient information to determine
the amount of parking that would be needed for ORV users at access
points. Access and parking should be provided at least at the level
identified in the general management plan*. (Sources: B1, B2, E14, E20,
F2, F36, F150, F250)

**Response:** Under adaptive management, the National Park Service would
determine parking needs and provide appropriate parking.

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose limiting ORVs to designated
trails and access points, and have provided reasons to buttress their
position.* (Sources: A1.10, A1.34, A1.39, B2, C1, E2, E6, E17, E18, E20,
F34, F140, F141, F143, F149)

**Response:** The legislative history for the establishment of the
preserve recognizes that the use of ORVs must be carefully regulated,
while stating that the establishing legislation \"does not prohibit
their use along designated roads and trails.\" In conformance with this
legislative history, the proposed action has been revised to restrict
ORVs to designated trails.

**Comment:** *The positive benefits created by trails and ruts should be
examined.* (Sources: E2, E6)

**Response:** The mandate of the National Park Service under the
establishing legislation is to manage for natural and ecological
integrity. Artificial ponding, trails, and ruts are not consistent with
this mandate.

**Comment:** *Selection of access points would require review,
permitting, and coordination with other agencies. These could include
the Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Community Affairs, and
South Florida Water Management District.* (Sources: C6, C7, C8, C9)

**Response:** The National Park Service would coordinate with other
agencies as appropriate.

**Comment:** *Information should be provided on trail stabilization
locations, schedules, and techniques.* (Sources: B1, B2, E1, E2, E6,
E21, F252)

**Response:** See the revised \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action\" section. As described there, geographic information
system-based suitability analyses would be used to select the optimal
routes for the designated trails. This would reduce the need for trail
stabilization. As funding was available, the National Park Service would
continue to evaluate methods for trail stabilization as described in the
revised \"Research\" section.

**Comment:** *Visible trails are a cultural and historical resource.*
(Source: F107)

**Response:** Trails have not been identified or designated as a
cultural or historical resource by the National Park Service or the
Florida State Historic Preservation Office.

**Comment:** *Provide recreational and interpretive information at the
parking areas.* (Source: F189)

**Response:** This has been incorporated into the revised description of
the proposed action in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action\" section.

**Comment:** *Why is the access point to the Loop Road Unit being
developed when that unit is closed to ORVs?* (Source: B2)

**Response:** This access point has been eliminated from the revised
description of the proposed action.

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose access into the preserve
from the eastern boundary, including the L-28 levee system, and have
provided reasons to buttress their position.* (Sources: E7, E20, F2, F3,
F4, F5, F28, F37, F140, F150, F242, F250, F251, G1)

**Response:** Recreational access along the eastern boundary would be
excluded because of enforcement and resource protection concerns. The
closure would be implemented in cooperation with landowners along the
preserve's eastern boundary, including the Miccosukee Tribe. The
National Park Service may consider allowing access to private properties
from the eastern boundary via special use permits.

**Comment:** *Commentors* *support or oppose access into the preserve
from the jetport and have provided reasons to buttress their position.
Commentors suggest that such entry points be selected in consultation
with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and ORV users.*
(Sources: E20, F2, F3, F4, F28, F150, F250, F251)

**Response:** The National Park Service would work in cooperation with
the Miami-Dade County Port Authority (the jetport manager) to designate
an access point from the jetport.

**Comment:** *Provide an accurate map of the preserve with acceptable
ORV trails marked.* (Source: F229)

**Response:** The Conceptual Framework of Access Points and Primary
Trails map shows the conceptual map of the trails network. A detailed
map would be prepared during implementation of the first phase of the
proposed action.

**Comment:** T*actic 7.1-\"add fill material in problem areas\" - A test
area should be done and monitored to see how effective this expensive
idea is.* (Sources: E2, E6, E8)

**Response:** The research and monitoring components of the proposed
action would determine the best approaches for maintaining trails.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177266 .anchor}**University of Georgia
  Database and Miles of Trails**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not discuss why the University of Georgia
ORV trail database was not ground truthed or when it will be completed.*
(Sources: A1.16, A1.20, A2.10, B1, B2, C1, E1, E2, E6, E14, E17, E20,
F257, G1)

**Response:** Insufficient funding at the time the draft was released
for public review prevented field verification of the potential trails
shown in the University of Georgia ORV map. Since then, the National
Park Service has engaged the university to provide this service, and
preliminary results are provided in Appendix B.

**Comment:** *The plan fails to note that much of the \"permanent
destruction\" is not related to ORVs but is historical in origin, such
as logging roads, access from trailer parks and houses, and activities
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Division of Forestry.*
(Sources: A1.8, A2.23, A2.26, E2, E6, F2, F150, F250)

**Response:** The intent of the National Park Service is to manage for
the natural and ecological integrity of the preserve, regardless of the
origin of the adverse effect. The mechanisms cited in this comment were
the sources of trails in only a small portion of the total affected
area. In addition, the continued use of these trails by ORVs exacerbates
the condition and prevents recovery.

**Comment:** *Even at 29,000 miles, no more than 1.4 percent of
pre-addition Big Cypress has ever had a tire on it.* (Sources: A2.3,
F107)

**Response:** This calculation was based on the width of a vehicle's
tires and mistakenly assumed that all of the vehicles that have ever
traveled along a particular trail have always traveled in the same pair
of ruts. It did not consider multiple passes and numerous sets of ruts
within a single trail.

**Comment:** *Buggy ruts are beneficial as firebreaks.* (Source: A2.31)

**Response:** Many vegetation types on the preserve are fire dependent.
Therefore, the action of ruts as firebreaks is not necessarily
beneficial.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177267 .anchor}**Vegetation**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze effects to
vegetation.* (Sources: B1, E1, E2, E6, E14, F253)

**Response:** The \"Affected Environment\" and \"Environmental
Consequences\" sections have been revised.

**Comment:** *Because of considerable mangrove damage from commercial
operations in the southwest Addition Lands, the National Park Service is
in violation of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989.* (Source: E1)

**Response:** The Addition Lands are not within the scope of this plan.

**Comment:** *The plan should discuss the effects of ORVs on invasive
vegetation spread and succession.* (Sources: A1.16, F37)

**Response:** See the revised vegetation description in the \"Affected
Environment\" section.

**Comment:** *The analysis of no action impacts for all plant
communities should include \"severely impacted areas would be closed and
reclaimed to more natural conditions over time.\"* (Sources: C1, E2, E6)

**Response:** See the revised description of impacts to vegetation from
the no action alternative (continue current management) in the
\"Environmental Consequences\" section.

**Comment:** *The existing trails in the old-growth pinelands plant
community represent 0.1 percent of this community's area in the
preserve. The impact of trails on ecological function and the ability of
the area to support wildlife is negligible. This type of information
would be useful to better assess the impacts of ORV use on ecological
function.* (Source: C1)

**Response:** See the revised \"Affected Environment\" and
\"Environmental Consequences\" sections.

**Comment:** *Provide a listing of habitats where ORVs should not be
allowed and where ORV use can be sustained while preserving the
integrity of the environment.* (Source: F229)

**Response:** As described in the \"Alternatives, Including the Proposed
Action\" section, a geographic information system suitability analysis
would be used to define trail alignments that could best handle ORV use
on a sustained basis.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177268 .anchor}**Wildlife and Habitat**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan does not adequately analyze effects to wildlife
species that are not designated as protected species.* (Sources: E1,
E15, E17, E18, F46, F242)

**Response:** The \"Affected Environment\" and \"Environmental
Consequences\" sections have been revised. The rationale for the
selection of wildlife impact topics is included in \"Planning
Opportunities and Issues\" within \"Purpose of and Need for the Plan.\"
In addition, a section entitled \"Other Wildlife Species\" has been
added to the discussion of \"Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis.\"

**Comment:** Include reducing or prohibiting traffic in sensitive areas
to the strategies and tactics for managing ORV use. To address this
strategy, sensitive areas should be identified and mapped, and criteria
should be developed to determine the degree of sensitivity. (Sources:
E2, E6)

**Response:** The geographic information system-based suitability
analysis for selecting optimal trail alignments would incorporate maps
of sensitive areas for wildlife, including both protected species and
common regional species. Criteria would be developed within the
suitability analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of each proposed
alignment in protecting both of these wildlife groups.

**Comment:** *Regarding deer movement, more recent studies using
telemetry have been conducted and should be considered in the discussion
of deer movements in response to hunting. In addition, the draft states
that the reductions in noise and other disturbances that would result
from more restrictive ORV management would likely result in population
increases of white-tailed deer and feral hogs. This statement needs
further clarification and documentation.* (Sources: A1.6, C1, E2, E6,
F107, F148)

**Response:** The \"Environmental Consequences\" section has been
revised.

**Comment:** *ORV use and hunting as currently regulated within the
preserve have no known significant impacts to the area's wildlife.*
(Sources: E2, E6, F141, F153)

**Response:** The 1999 study by Janis and Clark demonstrated that human
activities associated with ORVs and hunting affect the Florida panther.
This finding has raised concerns about the potential impacts of these
activities to other wildlife species.

**Comment:** *The sections describing wildlife impacts contain a number
of contradictions and need careful review.* (Sources: A2.29, C1, E2, E6)

**Response:** The \"Environmental Consequences\" section has been
revised.

**Comment:** *There are no empirical data to support the possible
effects on breeding birds from airboat noise.* (Source: F143)

**Response:** The proposed action has been modified to include research
on the effects of airboat noise on breeding birds. Consistent with the
precautionary principle, the proposed action would protect breeding
birds from airboat noise until research demonstrated that protection was
not needed.

**Comment:** *Specify threshold criteria for unacceptable impacts.*
(Sources: E24, F81, F82, F169, F184, F218, F229, F46)

**Response:** Criteria for unacceptable impacts are included in the
\"Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action\" section.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   

  []{#__RefHeading___Toc489177269 .anchor}**Scope of the Plan and
  Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Comment:** *The plan should include commercial vehicle use.* *Include
a comprehensive analysis of past and present commercial ORV use*.
(Sources: E14, E15, E17, E18, E24, F14, F184, F227, F229, F242, F426,
G1)

**Response:** Commercial activities are beyond the scope of this
recreational ORV management plan.

**Comment:** *Include the Addition Lands in the plan and prohibit/allow
ORV use in the Addition Lands.* (Sources: E13, E15, E24, F14, F47, F48,
F49, F50, F51, F52, F65, F81, F82, F125, F129, F130, F131, F132, F133,
F134, F135, F137, F138, F139, F165, F184, F198, F215, F217, F220, F223,
F F227, F229, 230, F246, F240, F242, F246, F259)

**Response:** Management of the Addition Lands is beyond the scope of
this plan. Refer to the section entitled \"Purpose of and Need for the
Plan.\"

Comment: *Address use by hikers, cyclists, canoeists, etc.* (Sources:
F186, F189, F191, F193, F194)

**Response:** Non-ORV recreational activities are beyond the scope of
this ORV management plan, except to the extent that interactions may
occur between user types. Such interactions are addressed under \"Other
Visitation\" in the \"Affected Environment\" and \"Environmental
Consequences\" sections.

**Comment:** *The plan must include all vehicles in the preserve, not
just recreational ORVs.* (Source: E20)

**Response:** Other types of vehicles in the preserve are beyond the
scope of this recreational ORV management plan.

 

 

**Appendices, glossary, bibliography, and Index**

** **

** **

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177271 .anchor}**Appendix A: Draft -- Proposed
Application of Temporal Restrictions to Airboat Operations in the
Southeast Corner of Big Cypress National Preserve**

Bob Sobczak and Bill Snyder

Big Cypress National Preserve

3/29/00

**Abstract:**

Water level thresholds are proposed for applying temporal restrictions
to airboat activity in the southeast corner of Big Cypress National
Preserve (Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit). Our preliminary proposal calls
allowance of airboat operation in designated trails when water depths
are suitable throughout the entire zone, as opposed to recommendation of
trail-specific or landing-specific criteria. Restrictions would be
applied when P34 stage is greater than 4.0 feet above sea level (asl),
when P34 stage in the summer-fall season (June through December) is
below 2.2 ft asl, and when P34 stage in the winter-spring season
(January through May) is below 3.0 ft asl. Application of the proposed
thresholds under 1990 conditions would have resulted in the affected
area being closed 47 percent of the time, in comparison to the estimated
32 percent closure frequency that actually occurred (both NPS-imposed
and self-regulated closure). The proposed restrictions are believed to
offer improved protection of the natural resource, allow reasonable
visitor access during suitable environmental conditions, and provide a
basis for consistent, predictable, and timely decision-making by
resource managers. The criteria may be subject to modification based on
continued field observation and development of new information.

**Study Site:**

Big Cypress National Preserve (est. 1974) comprises the approximate
easternmost third of the Big Cypress Swamp in South Florida (Figure 1).
The enabling legislation of the Preserve specifies that off-road
vehicles (ORVs) may be operated in a manner that does not negatively
impact the natural environment. Under current conditions (May 2000), a
portion of the Preserve is closed to ORV activity, but the majority is
open to permitted wheeled ORVs and airboat use unless special
restrictions are in effect. Airboat activity almost exclusively occurs
in the area south of the Tamiami Trail and Loop Road known as the
Stairsteps Unit (Figure 1). Zone 4 of the Stairsteps Unit is generally
regarded as the premiere airboat country in the Preserve because of its
well-established network of trails and suitable hydrologic environment.

**Airboat Operations:**

Traditional motorboats are useless in the affected environment because
they draft too much water and rely on submerged propellers. Airboats are
a type of boat customized for the shallowly flooded environment of the
sawgrass prairies in south Florida. Instead of a submerged propeller,
they rely on a much larger propeller (2-5 meter width) that is fixed and
caged on the back of the boat. Typically, the propeller and engine that
drives it are taken from airplanes, thus giving the boats their name. In
order to glide across the prairie, the boats have a flat hull that
drafts only a few inches of water. Airboats run best on 6-18 inches of
water in open prairie, but are capable of

 

Figure 1. Overview of south Florida and Big Cypress National Preserve

running directly across the ground in patchy surface water, moist soil,
or even dry conditions and in deeper water (such as canals). Airboat
operators tend to favor a network of well-established trails that
accommodate the fastest travel time from a landing to the desired
destination and also offer minimal exposure to limestone outcrops.
Operators will generally depart from the major trail once they reach
their destination, whether this be for hunting or recreation purposes.

Airboats are generally regarded as the least damaging of the ORVs
allowed in the Preserve. Swamp buggies are thought to cause the greatest
degree and spatial extent of environmental impact because soils are
easily deformed by direct tire contact and operators tend to detour
around or at the edge of existing trails to avoid areas that are heavily
mudded or rutted out. These impacts occur primarily, if not exclusively,
during times when surficial soils are saturated or inundated with water.
Recent management initiatives by the Preserve to lessen impacts caused
by swamp buggies has focused on spatial restrictions, including
establishment of designated trails and closure of areas subject to
longer soil saturation. In comparison, airboats generally do not make
direct contact with the land surface and tend to stay on the main trail
out of preference. Application of a temporal restriction is desirable
for airboat activity because it causes minimal disturbance to the
natural environment so long as environmental conditions are adequate. It
should be pointed out that airboat activity is self-regulating to an
extent under low water conditions because operators tend to avoid dry
trails as they become dry and discontinue use in the area altogether
when the primary trails go dry. However, it is desirable to impose
restrictions prior to the onset of this \"self-regulating\" mode.
Potential impacts of airboat activity in thin and patchy flooding
conditions include formation of shallow channels in the trails, exposure
of bedrock where soil is thin, reduction of vegetation, alteration of
surface water drainage and duration; and also threat of similar
disturbance in the adjacent areas of the prairie that have not been
disturbed.

**Current Management Practices:**

Unusual meteorological circumstances in 1999 resulted in closure of the
affected area due to both periods of extended high and low water
conditions. The low water closure extended from 4/13/99 to 6/18/99. This
closure was prompted by observations of patchy water coverage in primary
airboat trails and the absence of standing water in the adjacent
prairie. The channelization of existing trails gives a perception that
the entire area is still flooded, when in fact the trails may be the
only areas with standing water. The high water closure extended from
10/5/99 to 12/31/99. This closure was prompted by observations that
water depth in the prairies was at or above deer chest heights and that
islands of upland habitat (tropical hardwood hammocks and pinelands)
were inundated with water. This condition is thought to cause excessive
stress on wildlife; including limited mobility and food availability,
elimination of dry refugia, increased exposure to water, and increased
vulnerability to hunting pressure.

Airboat restrictions were lifted in both cases when the area was thought
to be suitable for airboat activity, but the lack of pre-defined
objective thresholds made the restriction periods controversial,
difficult, and time-consuming to defend. Table 1 reports P34 stage on
the day relative to restriction periods that occurred in 1999. The
absence of clearly defined criteria makes application of restriction
periods subject to the ethos, availability, and experience level of
resident resource managers and therefore open to unsubstantiated change
in the future. For example, there is no record of airboat closures in
the early 1990s despite an extended dry condition during this period.

**Table 1. Water levels at P34 during and a week prior to imposing and\
lifting airboat restrictions in the affected area during 1999.**

  ---------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------
  **Date**   **Management Decision**  **Water level at    **Water level
                                      P34 during day of   at P34 1 week
                                      decision**          prior**

  4/13/99    Low water restriction    1.98                2.11
             imposed                                      

  6/18/99    Low water restriction    2.79                2.13
             lifted                                       

  10/5/99    High water restriction   3.98                4.10
             imposed                                      

  12/30/99   High water restriction   3.95                4.10
             lifted                                       

  3/21/00    Low water restriction    2.52                2.60
             imposed                                      
  ---------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------

The previous week is reported because field observations were generally
made on a weekly basis, therefore the environmental condition that
prompted management action generally fell between these two dates.

**Methods:**

Depth of standing water is a major, if not primary, determinant of
airboat suitability in the affected area. Other variables include
wildlife sensitivity, presence of threatened or endangered species, and
visitor use patterns. The size of the affected area makes it impractical
to characterize surface water depth in all areas, but the flat relief of
the landscape means that a limited number of water level observation
point(s) can be used to characterize the hydrologic regime of the entire
area. Water stage is measured continuously at several hydrological
monitoring stations within and adjacent to the affected area (Figure 1).
Preference of this work is given to P34 because it is within the
affected area and can be accessed remotely through telemetry.

A network of 12 surface water gages were installed in the field to
determine P34s suitability as an index well and to provide a hydrologic
basis for designating low and high water thresholds (Figure 1).
Individual gages were located approximately 1 mile apart in a 3 by 4
matrix, and sampled over the course of a half year in order to capture a
range of surface water conditions. Comparisons between water depths at
the 12 stations and water stage at P34 is shown in Figure 2. The
correlation coefficients are generally high, suggesting that P34 serves
as a reasonable indicator for flooding depths in the affected area.

**Proposed Management Practices:**

Our preliminary proposal calls \"zone-wide\" allowance/restriction of
airboat operation in designated trails based on suitability of surface
water depths. Restriction would be applied when water levels at P34 are
greater then 4.0 feet asl, when summer-fall season water levels (June
through December) are below 2.2 ft asl, and when winter-spring water
levels (January through May) are below 3.0 ft asl. Separate summer-fall
and winter-spring threshold levels are recommended because the
relationship between P34 stage and water depths in the affected
environment were observed to be different during wetting (summer-fall)
and drying (winter-spring) periods. This is likely due to P34's
placement at the downgradient end of the affected area. The area was
determined to be hydrologically suitable for airboat activity flooding
when P34s wet-season stage rises above 2.2 ft asl and when P34s
dry-season stage remains above 3.0 ft asl. When surface water levels at
P34 rise above 4.0 feet asl, prairie depth is generally greater than 18
inches and islands of upland habitat are approaching inundation.

Adoption of the proposed thresholds will result in the affected area
being closed to airboat activity an average of 47 percent of the year,
based on water level conditions that have prevailed over the past 10
years (1990s). A monthly summary of anticipated closure frequency is
shown in Table 2. The majority of proposed closure time (69 percent)
would occur in the 6-month period from January to June.

** **

> Figure 2. Regression graphs between water depth measured at 12
> manually-measured gages and water elevation recorded at P34 (plots are
> in identical layout to layout of gauges shown in Figure 1).
>
> ** **
>
> ** **

Table 2. Anticipated Airboat Restriction Frequency in Zone 4 of
Stairsteps\
Based on 1990 hydrologic conditions (in percent)

+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
|            | **P34 \<     | **P34 \<      | **P34 \>     | **Total\ |
|            | 3.0**        | 2.2**         | 4.0**        | res      |
|            |              |               |              | triction |
|            | Low-water    | Low-water     | High-water   | fre      |
|            | threshold    | threshold for | threshold    | quency** |
|            | for          | summer-fall   | for entire   |          |
|            | w            | restriction   | year         |          |
|            | inter-spring |               |              |          |
|            | restriction  |               |              |          |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| January    | 57           | NA            | 10           | 67       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| February   | 63           | NA            | 6            | 69       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| March      | 80           | NA            | 0            | 80       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| April      | 87           | NA            | 0            | 87       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| May        | 90           | NA            | 0            | 90       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| June       | NA           | 37            | 3            | 40       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| July       | NA           | 5             | 1            | 6        |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| August     | NA           | 0             | 4            | 4        |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| September  | NA           | 0             | 14           | 14       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| October    | NA           | 9             | 22           | 31       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| November   | NA           | 10            | 25           | 35       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+
| December   | NA           | 16            | 21           | 37       |
+------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+----------+

A visual comparison between the actual closure conditions that occurred
in the 1990s and the closure condition that would have resulted if the
proposed management rules had been in effect are shown in Figure 3. It
is estimated that airboat activity was restricted from the affected area
for 32 percent time in the 1990s as a result of self-regulating
environmental conditions (severe drydowns) and NPS-imposed restrictions
(Figure 3, top diagram). NPS-imposed restrictions were fairly infrequent
in the 1990s (hatched bars) but the area was subject to
\"self-regulating\" closures during severe drydown conditions (gray
bars). The estimate provided in this analysis assumes that the majority
of airboat operators avoided the area when P34 dropped below 2.2 ft asl,
although it is likely that some airboat use continued under these
conditions and lower. The effect of the proposed high-water (black bars)
and low-water (white bars) closure criteria is shown in the lower
diagram of Figure 3.

Future temporal restrictions are anticipated to fall in line with
seasonal trends observed in the 1990s, with low water closures mostly
occurring in the winter-spring season and high water closures occurring
less frequently in summer-fall season. High water closures are most
likely to conflict with hunting season (general gun runs from November
to early January). Had the proposed thresholds been in place during the
1990s, restrictions would have been in effect 30 percent of the general
gun season (mostly as a result of high water conditions).

**Implementation:**

Establishment of the lower and upper water level thresholds is believed
to offer improved protection of the natural resource, allow reasonable
visitor access during suitable environmental condi

 

> Figure 3. Diagrams displaying airboat restriction periods to Zone 4 of
> the Stairsteps Unit in the 1990s, as they actually occurred (top
> diagram) and how they would have occurred with the proposed management
> criteria (bottom diagram).

tions, and provide a basis for consistent, predictable, and timely
decision-making by resource managers. Water levels at the P34 hydrologic
monitoring station can be accessed both daily and remotely, increasing
the response time to resource protection, decision-making, and
disseminating the decision-making to the affected public. Water levels
are straight-forward to interpret, making them relatively easy to defend
in real time and over time via reference to the historic record. Other
information should be used to complement decision-making, including
other natural resource information, anticipation of future
meteorological conditions, and conditions in adjacent lands, but the
proposed water level rules are thought to provide the best base-line for
imposing and lifting temporal restrictions in the affected area.

**Additional Work:**

The proposed management rules were developed with a year's worth of
monitoring information and observations, therefore they will be subject
to review, modification, and improvement through continued field
observations and development of new information. The spatial variability
of flooding regimes within the affected area needs to be more closely
considered, including mapping and selected surveying of representative
prairie and upland hammock habitats. The threshold criteria proposed in
this work are designed for the entire affected area (Zone 4), and do not
attempt to define landing-specific or trail-specific criteria. It has
been observed that Mitchell's Landing and the trails that directly
connect to it hold water longer into the dry season than the Border Line
landing and trails. Landing and/or trail specific thresholds may be
considered in the future as a designated trail system is formally
adopted in the affected area and additional hydrologic information is
considered. Separate criteria should also be considered for Zone 3 of
the Stairsteps Unit. Differences in water stage response during drying
and wetting periods needs to be more closely considered. Thresholds need
to be established for other nearby continuous recorder(s) in the event
that P34 is malfunctioning or does not adequately represent the entire
affected area. It may be desirable to establish another station more
centrally located in the affected area as an index well, either in
replacement of or to complement P34. Existing trails may need to be
surveyed and monitored to quantify environmental effects and visitor use
patterns. Biological, soil, and hunting-specific information also need
to be considered.

The effect of upstream water management practices and structures need to
be considered relative hydrologic conditions in the affected area. These
upstream effects are thought to have altered the natural hydrologic
regime of the affected area since the establishment of the Preserve.
Major modification of landscape disturbances and water management
practices to occur over the next twenty years as a result of the South
Florida Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) are anticipated to alter
the hydrologic regime in the future.

**Conclusion:**

Temporal restrictions are proposed for limiting airboat activity in the
southeast corner of Big Cypress National Preserve (Stairsteps Unit: Zone
4). A continuous hydrological monitoring station was selected for
imposing and lifting airboat restrictions. Our preliminary proposal
calls allowance of airboat operation in designated trails when water
depths are suitable throughout the entire zone, as opposed to
recommendation of trail- or landing-specific criteria. Restrictions
would be applied when water levels at P34 are greater then 4.0 feet
above sea level (asl), when summer-fall season water levels (June
through December) are below 2.2 ft asl, and when winter-spring water
levels (January through May) are below 3.0 ft asl. Application of the
proposed thresholds under 1990 conditions would have resulted in the
affected area being closed 47 percent of the time, with the majority of
the closures (69 percent) occurring from January to June. The proposed
restrictions are believed to offer improved protection of the natural
resource, allow reasonable visitor access during suitable environmental
conditions, and provide a basis for consistent, predictable, and timely
decision-making by resource managers. The criteria may be subject to
modification based on continued field observation and development of new
information.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177281 .anchor}**Appendix B: Preliminary Report
-- Off-road Vehicle Trail Accuracy Assessment**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177282 .anchor}**Appendix c: biological opinion
for the final recreational off-road vehicle management plan and
supplemental environmental impact statement: big cypress national
preserve, florida**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177283 .anchor}**glossary**

Access points: Designated areas that may be hardened or improved where
ORVs have access to designated ORV trails from established roads.

Adaptive management: A management strategy that relies on feedback from
implementation of activities and new information to make continuous
improvements.

Addition Lands: Approximately 147,000 acres of adjacent lands added to
the preserve in 1988 by PL 100-301.

Backcountry: Primitive, undeveloped portions of the preserve.

Community (also biotic community): Includes all of the biological
populations of an area; a level of organization in the study of ecology.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to 20
times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the
sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20.

Federally-listed species: Species listed by federal agencies as
endangered, threatened, or otherwise categorized as of concern.

Frogging: Hunting and collecting of frogs.

Frontcountry: Areas of the preserve within and adjacent to established
roads.

Habitat: The place where an organism lives.

Management unit: Land divisions within the preserve to facilitate
management of land use and preservation.

Mashing: The matting of vegetation by airboats during frogging
activities.

Precautionary principle: A principle of conservation biology that states
if the effects of an action are unknown, management actions should be
protective of the biological system.

Protected species: Species protected by any local, state, or federal
statutes or regulations.

Rutting: The creation of sunken tracts or grooves by the passage of
ORVs.

Sustainability: Managing natural systems in a manner that leaves them
unimpaired.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177284 .anchor}**bibliography**

Beardsley, G.

> 1995 Affidavit of Gary Beardsley to the U.S. District Court for the
> Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. The Florida
> Biodiversity Project, *et al.*, Plaintiffs, v. Kennedy, *et al.*,
> Defendants, Case No. 95-50-CIV-FTM-24D.

Bennetts, R.E., M.W. Collopy, and S.R. Beissinger

> 1988 *Nesting Ecology of Snail Kites in Water Conservation Area 3A*.
> Gainesville FL: Department of Wildlife and Range Science, University
> of Florida, Gainesville Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
> Unit. Technical Report No. 31.

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President

> 1978 \"Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
> National Environmental Policy Act.\" *Code of Federal Regulations*
> Title 40, Parts 1500-1508. Washington, D.C.

Curnett, J.L. and S.L. Pimm

> 1993 *Status and Ecology of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow*. Vero
> Beach, FL: Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service and National Park Service.

Curnutt, J.L., A.L. Mayer, T.M. Brooks, L. Manne, O.L. Bass, D.M.
Fleming, and S.L. Pimm

> 1998 \"Population dynamics of the endangered Cape Sable
> seaside-sparrow.\" *Animal Conservation* 1:11-21.

Dreitz, V.J., J.A. Duberstein, D.L. DeAngelis, and W.M. Kitchens

> 1999 *Breeding Activity of Snail Kites in the \"Stairsteps Unit\" of
> Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve.* USGS
> Annual Report to Big Cypress.

Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle

> 1981 *Off Road Vehicles and Their Impacts in the Big Cypress National
> Preserve*. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Big
> Cypress National Preserve. T-614. National Audubon Society, Ecosystem
> Research Unit.

Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L.
Riopelle, T.R. Alexander, R.L. Myers, and D.P. Spangler

> 1986a *The Big Cypress National Preserve.* U.S. Department of the
> Interior, National Park Service, Big Cypress National Preserve. No. 8.
> National Audubon Society.

Duever, M.J., L.A. Riopelle, and J.M. McCollom

> 1986b *Long Term Recovery of Experimental Off-Road Vehicle Impacts and
> Abandoned Old Trails in the Big Cypress National Preserve.* U.S.
> Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Big Cypress
> National Preserve. SFRC-86/09. National Audubon Society, Ecosystem
> Research Unit.

Everglades Jetport Advisory Board

> 1970 *Alternative Uses of Big Cypress Swamp*. Unpublished report
> quoted in *The Big Cypress National Preserve.* M.J. Duever, J.E.
> Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L. Riopelle, T.R.
> Alexander, R.L. Myers, and D.P. Spangler (Duever *et al.* 1986a).

Farrell, T., A. Kendra, J. Roggenbuck, T. Hall, and J. Marion

> 1998 *Off-road Vehicle Riders in Big Cypress National Preserve:
> Results from a Survey of Permit Holders.* *Draft Research Report*.
> Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
> Department of Forestry.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

  ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
  1980-   *Annual Eagle Survey Report*. Tallahassee FL.

  1999     
  ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------

> 1997 *Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of
> Special Concern.* Tallahassee FL.

Hendry, V.G.

> 1989 *Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and
> Evaluations for Red-cockaded Woodpecker.* Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service.

Hull, R.B.

> 1998 *Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Recreation and
> its Benefits: Final Research Report*. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia
> Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Forestry.

Janis, M.W. and J.D. Clark.

> 1999 *Final Report to the Big Cypress National Preserve, National Park
> Service: The Effects of Recreational Deer and Hog Hunting on the
> Behavior of Florida Panthers.* A thesis presented for the Master of
> Science Degree. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee.

Jansen, D.K.

> 1986 *Final Report: Study E-1-10m, Part of the Florida Endangered
> Wildlife Panther Research and Recovery Plan.* Tallahassee, FL: Florida
> Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
>
> 1996 \"The Effects of High Water on White-tailed Deer Survival and
> Reproduction in Southeastern Big Cypress National Preserve.\" In
> *Ecological Assessment of the 1994-1995 High Water Conditions in the
> Southern Everglades: Proceedings of the Conference*, edited by T. V.
> Armentano, 67-69. Miami, FL.

Jansen, D.K. and J.J. Brooks

> 1996\. *Big Cypress National Preserve in 1996: Late Season Wading Bird
> Nesting Report for South Florida*. West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida
> Water Management District.

Land, E.D.

> 1991 *Big Cypress Deer/Panther Relationships: Deer Mortality*.
> Tallahassee FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Final
> Report. Study No. 7509/Federal No. E-1-11 II-E-5b.

Logan, T.J., A.C. Eller, Jr., R. Morrell, D. Ruffner, and J. Sewell

> 1993 *Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan -- South Florida
> Population*. Prepared for the Florida Panther Interagency Committee

McBride, R.

> 2000 *Current Panther Distribution and Habitat Use: A Review of Field
> Notes, Fall 1999 -Winter 2000.* Report to the Florida Panther Subteam
> of MERIT. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Meehan, M.

> 1999 *Big Cypress National Preserve Visitor Study*. Moscow, ID:
> University of Idaho, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Report 109,
> Visitor Services Project.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

> 1988 *Management Policies*. Washington, D.C.
>
> 1990 *I-75 Recreational Access Plan: Environmental Assessment*.
> Ochopee FL: Big Cypress National Preserve.
>
> 1991 *General Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
> Statement: Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Volume 1*. Ochopee,
> FL: Big Cypress National Preserve.
>
> 1992 *Record of Decision: General Management Plan and Final
> Environmental Impact Statement, Big Cypress National Preserve,
> Florida.* Ochopee, FL: Big Cypress National Preserve.
>
> 1993 *National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline*. Special
> Directive 93-4. Fort Collins CO: Water Resources Division.
>
> 1996 *Water Resources Management Plan: Big Cypress National Preserve*,
> by W. J. Schneider, D.P. Weeks, and D.L. Sharrow. Ochopee, FL: Big
> Cypress National Preserve.
>
> 1997a *Strategic Plan: 1997 -- 2002 and Annual Performance Plan Fiscal
> 1998, Big Cypress National Preserve.* Ochopee, FL: Big Cypress
> National Preserve.
>
> 1997b *VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)
> Framework. A Handbook for Planners and Managers.* Denver, CO: Denver
> Service Center.
>
> 1998a *Director's Order #77-1: Wetland Protection.* Denver CO: Water
> Resources Division.
>
> 1998b *Procedural Manual #77-1: Wetland Protection.* Denver CO: Water
> Resources Division.
>
> 1999 *Draft Directors Order 12: Conservation Planning and
> Environmental Impact Analysis*. Washington, D.C.

National Research Council

> 1992 *Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems*. Washington, D.C.: National
> Academy of Sciences.

Pernas, A.J.

> 1999 Personal communication from A.J. Pernas, resource management
> specialist. Ochopee, FL: Big Cypress National Preserve.

Pernas, A.J., D. Weeks, and C. Bates

> 1995 \"Dye trace field study -- Ochopee Prairie.\" Unpublished data
> from the Ochopee Prairie Monitoring Program on file at Big Cypress
> National Preserve, Ochopee, FL.

Rodgers, J.A. Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith

> 1996 *Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume V: Birds.*
> Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Sargent, R.A. and R.F. Labisky

> 1995 \"Home range of male white-tailed deer in hunted and non-hunted
> populations.\" *Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast
> Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies* 49:389-398.

Smidt, M. and C.R. Blinn

> 1995 *Logging for the 21st Century*: *Protecting the Forest
> Environment.* Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota.
> FO-6518-GO. Available on Internet from
> www.mes.umn.edu/Documents/D/D/DD6518.html.

Sobczak, R.V. and A.J. Pernas

> 2000 \"Increased Off-Road Vehicle Impacts as a Result of Longer
> Flooding Duration in Big Cypress National Preserve.\" Draft NPS short
> paper. Ochopee, FL: Big Cypress National Preserve.

Sykes, P.W., Jr.

> 1987 \"Some Aspects of the Breeding Biology of the Snail Kite in
> Florida.\" *Florida Field Naturalist* 15:57-70.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

> 1999 *Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study:
> Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental
> Impact Statement.* Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District and South
> Florida Water Management District.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

> 1983 *Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Recovery Plan*. Atlanta GA: Southeast
> Region.
>
> 1987 *Habitat Management Guideline For the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
> Region*. Atlanta, GA: Southeast Region.
>
> 1991 \"Biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> regarding the Big Cypress General Management Plan.\" In Appendix I of
> *General Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Big
> Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Volume 1*.
>
> 1996 *Florida Manatee Recovery Plan.* Atlanta, GA: Florida Manatee
> Recovery Team.
>
> 1999a *Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 50 CFR 17.11 and
> 17.2*. Washington, D.C.
>
> 1999b Endangered Species Program. Species Accounts from Endangered and
> Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book)
> Region 4. Available on Internet from http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp.
>
> 1999c *South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan.* Atlanta, GA:
> Southeast Region.

U.S. House of Representatives.

> 1973 House Report 502. 93rd Congress, Washington, D.C., Library of
> Congress.

U.S. Senate

> 1974 Senate Report 1128. 93rd Congress, Washington, D.C., Library of
> Congress.
>
> 1976 Senate Report 528. 95th Congress, Washington, D.C., Library of
> Congress.
>
>  

Welch, R. and M. Madden

> 1998 *Off-Road Vehicle Trail Database for Big Cypress National
> Preserve. Final Research Report.* Athens, GA: The University of
> Georgia, Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science.

Welch. R., M. Madden, and R.F. Doren

> 1999 \"Mapping the Everglades.\" *Photogrammetric Engineering and
> Remote Sensing* 65(2):166-170

Yamataki, H.

> 1994 \"Agency Position Statement: Condition of Soils in ORV Use Areas
> at Big Cypress National Preserve.\" Letter to P. Kenney, Big Cypress
> National Preserve. Fort Myers, FL: USDA Soil Conservation Service, 2
> pp.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc489177285 .anchor}**Index**

> access point(s), vi, vii, 15, 19, 31, 32, 32, 33, 36, 36, 37, 38, 38,
> 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 50, 51, 53, 54, 64, 66, 67, 70, 76, 78, 121, 143,
> 144, 144, 147, 175, 176, 177, 591
>
> adaptive management, vii, 4, 7, 10, 15, 27, 28, 29, 33, 38, 41, 43,
> 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 124, 137, 172, 174, 176, 591
>
> Addition Lands, v, 7, 124, 178, 180, 591
>
> air quality, 22
>
> airboat(s), v, vii, viii, 4, 19, 34, 38, 44, 45, 46, 48, 52, 54, 62,
> 69, 70, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 86, 98, 99, 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 114,
> 118, 128, 133, 135, 138, 140, 146, 154, 169, 172, 173, 179, 529, 530,
> 530, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 591
>
> alligator, American, 22, 100, 101, 120
>
> all-terrain cycle(s) (ATCs), v, vii, 10, 29, 34, 36, 37, 38, 48, 53,
> 70, 72, 76, 108, 109, 112, 114, 119, 173, 175
>
> archeology/archeological resources, 20, 31, 32, 33, 99, 133, 153
>
> backcountry, 28, 36, 37, 38, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 64, 70, 77, 109, 112,
> 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 144, 175, 591
>
> Bear Island Unit, 34, 67, 69, 76, 103, 104, 139
>
> campground(s), 21, 32, 36, 38, 119, 120, 121, 126, 143
>
> camping, 20, 51, 112, 117, 120
>
> Clean Water Act, 12, 13, 15, 43, 88
>
> closure, vi, vii, vi, viii, 11, 28, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 56, 63, 64,
> 67, 70, 71, 73, 77, 80, 107, 119, 129, 142, 175, 177, 529, 530, 531,
> 532, 534, 537
>
> Corn Dance Unit, 34, 50, 69, 76, 103
>
> cost estimate, 65, 74
>
> costs, vii, 47, 54, 66, 74, 78, 143, , 170, 174
>
> criteria, 16, 22, 31, 32, 43, 45, 46, 52, 71, 157, 158, 163, 164, 166,
> 170, 174, 175, 176, 179, 529, 531, 534, 535, 536
>
> cultural resource(s), 9, 10, 11, 17, 17, 18, 20, 23, 23, 28, 66, 155
>
> cypress dome(s), 89, 97, 98
>
> cypress strand(s), 20, 85, 88, 98, 102, 133
>
> Deep Lake Unit, 34, 67, 70, 76, 77
>
> deer, white-tailed, 20, 22, 140, 179, 594, 595
>
> eagle, bald, 20, 31, 33, 45, 46, 80, 101, 102, 136
>
> enabling legislation, v, 3, 10, 15, 17, 22, 29, 529
>
> endangered species, vii, 7, 13, 14, 14, 15, 17, 20, 20, 22, 31, 32,
> 33, 44, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 62, 64, 69, 71, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
> 107, 126, 136, 146, 147, 147, 164, 165, 166, 173, 531, 591, 592, 593,
> 595, 596
>
> Endangered Species Act, 7, 13, 14, 15, 44, 47, 48, 62, 69, 165, 166
>
> enforcement, 3, 12, 40, 42, 53, 54, 65, 66, 78, 169, 169, 174, 177
>
> environmental impact statement, i, iii, v, xv, xvi, 3, 153, 180, 594,
> 596
>
> environmental justice, 23, 166
>
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), v, 3, 12, 13, 15, 88, 152, 153,
> 159
>
> Everglades National Park, 17, 88, 153, 154, 155, 592
>
> executive order(s) (E.O.), 3, 9, 11, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 67,
> 73, 166
>
> fees, 47, 74, 173, 174
>
> hog, feral, 20, 22, 80, 107, 119, 139, 140, 140, 179