![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.6243055555555556in"
height="0.8125in"}National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Big Cypress National Preserve

Florida

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Fire Management Plan

May 2005

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.433333333333334in"
height="3.4902777777777776in"}

**Environmental Assessment**

**May 2005**

**Fire Management Plan**

**Big Cypress National Preserve**

**United States Department of the Interior**

**National Park Service**

**CONTENTS**

[INTRODUCTION 1](#introduction)

[PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 1](#purpose-and-need-for-the-action)

[OBJECTIVES OF FIRE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
3](#objectives-of-fire-management-and-planning)

[Issues AND IMPACT TOPICS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT
4](#issues-and-impact-topics-included-in-this-document)

[Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis
6](#impact-topics-dismissed-from-further-analysis)

[DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 8](#description-of-alternatives)

[ALTERNATIVE A - PRESCRIBED FIRE, WILDLAND FIRE USE, AND WILDLAND FIRE
SUPPRESSION (PREFERRED AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE)
8](#alternative-a---prescribed-fire-wildland-fire-use-and-wildland-fire-suppression-preferred-and-no-action-alternative)

[ALTERNATIVE B - FULL SUPPRESSION 9](#alternative-b---full-suppression)

[ALTERNATIVE C - PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CONFINE/CONTAINMENT WILDLAND FIRE
SUPPRESSION
10](#alternative-c---prescribed-fire-and-confinecontainment-wildland-fire-suppression)

[MITIGATING MEASURES 10](#mitigating-measures)

[ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
11](#environmentally-preferred-alternative)

[AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 13](#affected-environment)

[AIR 14](#air-1)

[WATER 14](#water-1)

[CULTURAL RESOURCES 15](#cultural-resources-1)

[SOILS 15](#soils-1)

[VEGETATION 16](#vegetation-1)

[WILDLIFE 17](#wildlife-1)

[SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 17](#special-status-species-1)

[VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 18](#visitor-use-and-experience-1)

[HEALTH AND SAFETY 18](#health-and-safety-1)

[TRANSPORTATION 18](#transportation-1)

[ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 19](#environmental-consequences)

[Methodology for Impact Analysis 19](#methodology-for-impact-analysis)

[Definitions for ANALYSIS OF Natural Resources
19](#definitions-for-analysis-of-natural-resources)

[definitions for analysis of cultural resources
20](#definitions-for-analysis-of-cultural-resources)

[Definitions for analysis of visitor use
21](#definitions-for-analysis-of-visitor-use)

[DEFINITIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF Health and safety
21](#definitions-for-analysis-of-health-and-safety)

[DEFINITIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF transportation
21](#definitions-for-analysis-of-transportation)

[Cumulative Impacts 22](#cumulative-impacts)

[IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES OR VALUES
24](#impairment-of-park-resources-or-values)

[IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE; CONTINUE
CURRENT MANAGEMENT)
25](#impacts-of-alternative-a---no-action-preferred-alternative-continue-current-management)

[IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B -- FULL SUPPRESSION
31](#impacts-of-alternative-b-full-suppression)

[IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C -- PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CONFINE/CONTAINMENT
WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION
39](#impacts-of-alternative-c-prescribed-fire-and-confinecontainment-wildland-fire-suppression)

[CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 45](#consultation-and-coordination)

[PREPARERS 46](#preparers)

[REFERENCES CITED 46](#references-cited)

[ACRONYMS 47](#acronyms)

**Table**

[Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives and Summary of Environmental
Impacts 12](#__RefHeading___Toc98575129)

**Figure**

Figure 1. Big Cypress National
Preserve...................................................................
4

# **INTRODUCTION**

Big Cypress National Preserve (Figure 1) was established by Public Law
(P.L.) 93-440 in 1974 out of a desire by outdoorsmen, environmentalists,
and others to protect this ecologically sensitive area of south Florida
from encroaching development. Big Cypress was to be administered by the
National Park Service (NPS) as the nation's first National Preserve. The
National Preserve designation was chosen in order to allow the
continuance of activities, such as oil and gas production, hunting,
grazing, and off-road vehicle (ORV) use, which are not normally allowed
in national parks. The name Big Cypress comes not from the size of the
cypress trees, but their extent. Although these trees comprise a large
portion of the Preserve's acreage, there are also large tracts of open
prairies, forested swamps, pinelands, and numerous hardwood hammocks and
tree islands. In April 1988, P.L. 93-440 was amended by P.L. 100-301,
the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition Act. The Preserve addition
was comprised of 147,000 acres and designated as the "Big Cypress
National Preserve Addition." The total Preserve acreage was thus
increased to 729,000, making it one of the largest national park units
east of the Rockies.

The purpose of the Preserve, as stated in P.L. 93-440, is "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 Preserve contains vestiges of primitive southwest Florida. It is
significant as a unit of the national park system because it:

-   Is a large wetland mosaic that supports a vast remnant of vegetation
    types found only in this mix of upland and wetland environments;

-   Contains the largest stands of dwarf cypress in North America;

-   Is habitat for the Florida panther and other animal and plant
    species that receive special protection or are recognized by the
    State of Florida, the U.S. government, or the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species;

-   Provides opportunities for the public to pursue recreational
    activities in a subtropical environment;

-   Is home to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and Seminole
    Tribe of Florida and sustains resources that are important to their
    cultures; and

-   Is a watershed that is an important component to the survival of the
    greater Everglades ecosystem.

## PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

## 

NPS Director's Order #18, *Wildland Fire Management* (NPS 2003), states,
"Every park area with burnable vegetation must have a fire management
plan approved by the superintendent." The current Fire Management Plan
(FMP) for the Preserve was written in 1994 and is required by NPS policy
to be reviewed and revised every five years. There have also been fire
management terminology changes over the past several years from the
direction of the National Fire Plan, adopted by all Federal land
management agencies. These and other changes will be

![](media/image4.wmf){width="7.692361111111111in"
height="9.943055555555556in"}

incorporated into an updated FMP, the implementation of which is the
subject of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

The preferred alternative as described in this EA is to implement an
integrated program of wildland fire suppression, prescribed fire, and
wildland fire used for resource benefits (WFURB). WFURB is the
management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific,
pre-stated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas
outlined in the FMP. In addition to this preferred or no action
alternative, two other fire management alternatives are described for
analysis.

Prescribed fire activities are described in the Preserve's *General
Management Plan* (NPS 1991), which states that fire is an integral part
of the ecology of south Florida and that most plant communities are not
only susceptible to fire but in fact depend on periodic burning for
their survival. The historic fire-return interval of the fire-dependent
ecosystems in the Preserve was approximately three to seven years. Fire
suppression and other human activities likely combined to reduce both
fire frequency and size. Since fire in the Preserve is recognized as an
ecological process necessary for maintenance and health of this unique
ecosystem, management of this ecological process is essential. The
proposed FMP would satisfy this need and provide a framework for the
Preserve's fire management program for the next five years.

Because fire can have significant impacts on natural and cultural
resources as well as health and safety, visitor experience, and
transportation, this EA is necessary to assess these impacts and to
determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The EA also
discusses mitigation measures to reduce possible adverse impacts.
Requirements found in the 1916 NPS Organic Act and other laws such as
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
guided the development of this EA.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
implementing regulations for NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508), Department of the Interior
Departmental Manual 516 (USDOI 2003), and NPS Director's Order #12 and
Handbook, *Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and
Decision-making* (NPS 2001a).

## OBJECTIVES OF FIRE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

The *General Management Plan* (NPS 1991) states, "In accordance with the
Preserve's establishing legislation, the National Park Service envisions
the Preserve as a nationally significant ecological resource -- a
primitive area where ecological processes are restored and maintained
and where cultural sites are protected from unlawful disturbance." The
*Resource Management Plan* of 2001 (NPS 2001c) identified fire ecology
as one of the seven key processes integral to maintaining the long-term
viability of the natural system, improving wildlife habitat, and
reducing hazardous fuel loadings.

Objectives of the proposed action include the following:

-   Protect human life and property both within and adjacent to the
    Preserve;

-   Assure firefighter and public safety are the first priority in all
    fire management activities;

-   Employ strategies to suppress or manage all wildland fires to
    minimize resource damage and associated costs,

-   Protect natural and cultural resources and intrinsic values from
    unacceptable impacts attributed to fire and fire management
    activities;

-   Perpetuate, restore, replace, or replicate natural processes to the
    greatest extent practicable;

-   Prevent unplanned, human-caused ignitions and suppress all
    man-caused wildland fires;

-   Encourage and support research to advance the understanding of local
    fire behavior, effects, and ecology;

-   Promote a local interagency approach to all aspects of fire
    management;

-   Promote public understanding of fire management programs and
    objectives; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use wildland and prescribed fire where and when appropriate as a
    tool to meet resource objectives.

## Issues AND IMPACT TOPICS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT

## 

Issues and concerns affecting this proposal were identified from past
NPS planning efforts and public input (see "Consultation and
Coordination"). The issues identified are:

-   Fire must be used to improve habitat for endangered and threatened
    species;

-   Fire must be used in conjunction with mechanical methods to reduce
    hazard fuel accumulations around facilities, residences, and the
    Preserve boundary;

-   Use of prescribed fire not only by the Preserve but by nearby public
    and tribal agencies can cumulatively deteriorate the Preserve's air
    quality and affect transportation routes; and

-   Fire must be suppressed whenever it threatens public safety,
    property, or sensitive resources.

Specific impact topics were developed for discussion focus and to allow
comparison of the environmental consequences of each alternative. These
impact topics were identified based on Federal laws, regulations, and
executive orders; 2001 NPS *Management Policies* (NPS 2001b); and NPS
knowledge of limited or easily impacted resources. A brief rationale for
the selection of each impact topic is given below.

### **Air**

Smoke can degrade air quality in the immediate area of the burn and
adjacent areas, depending on weather conditions. For this reason, air
quality is addressed in this EA.

### **Water**

Water quality in the Preserve could be affected by ash deposition and
turbidity caused by fire suppression activities and fire effects. For
this reason, water quality is an impact topic that is analyzed in this
document.

### **Cultural Resources**

### 

The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 USC 470 et seq.),
the 1916 NPS Organic Act, and NPS planning and cultural resource
guidelines call for the consideration and protection of historic
properties (i.e., all cultural resources, including prehistoric
archeological sites, cultural landscapes, ethnographic sites, and
historic sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places). The evaluation of potential impacts of proposed
actions on significant historic properties is required by NEPA and NHPA,
as is attention to the provisions of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act for sites where human remains or burials
may be present.

Over 450 cultural sites have been identified within the Preserve. In
addition, there are several Indian residences, villages, and ceremonial
sites, all of which could be affected by fire management activities.
Cultural resources are therefore included for analysis in this EA.

### **Soils**

Because fire can alter soil composition and characteristics, soils are
included as an impact topic in this document.

### **Vegetation**

Effects on vegetation are analyzed in this document, because fire can
remove vegetation and extensively alter plant communities.

### **Wildlife**

All of the alternatives could potentially affect the quality of the
wildlife habitat or directly disturb individual animals located in the
Preserve, so this topic is included for analysis.

### **Special Status Species**

Nine federally endangered or threatened species and seven state-listed
species have been documented in the Preserve. Fire management activities
may affect one or more of these species or their habitats, so this topic
is included for analysis.

### 

### **Visitor Use and Experience**

Visitor use could be affected by implementation of any of the
alternatives, so this topic is included for analysis. Factors affecting
visitor experience include safety, scenery, quality of experience,
educational and cultural resources, and traffic.

### **Health and Safety**

All of the alternatives could have effects on health and safety of
visitors, employees, residents, and private property owners within and
outside the Preserve boundary. This topic is thus included for analysis.

### **Transportation**

Depending on weather conditions, smoke can cause temporary disruptions
to transportation in the area. These effects may include decreased
visibility, lane closures, traffic channeling, detours, and diversions
to flight paths. For these reasons, transportation will be analyzed as
an impact topic.

## Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis

Several potential impacts were dismissed because they would not be
affected or the potential for impacts under all alternatives would be
negligible. These topics are listed below with an explanation of why
they were not considered in detail.

### **Socioeconomic Environment**

### 

The alternatives would result in little or no effects to the
socioeconomic environment, to include employment, occupation, income
changes, tax base, and infrastructure. An extensive wildland fire could
involve the temporary mobilization of firefighting personnel into the
area and resulting needs for lodging, services, equipment, and supplies,
but this is expected to be a rare occurrence. The proposal is not
expected to affect the economy of the area. This topic, therefore, was
dismissed from further analysis.

### **Floodplains**

Although a portion of the Preserve is within the 100-year floodplain
according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed
action would not involve floodplain development. For this reason,
floodplains will not be analyzed further in this document.

### **Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers**

These are congressionally designated areas and do not exist in the area
of concern of this EA. Although there is designated wilderness in
neighboring Everglades National Park, the effects of the proposed
action, if any, are expected to be negligible. This topic was thus
dismissed from further consideration.

### **Prime or Unique Farmlands**

The Farmland Protection Policy Act and the U.S. Department of the
Interior require an evaluation of impacts on prime or unique
agricultural lands. These lands require certain soil types and water
availability. There are no prime or unique farmlands within the areas of
the proposed action; therefore, this topic will not be considered.

### **Soundscapes**

Analysis of potential impacts to natural soundscapes is required by NPS
*Management Policies*. Although local soundscapes may be temporarily
affected by vehicles, equipment, and aircraft during fire management
activities, these effects are expected to be minimal, and thus this
topic was dismissed from further consideration.

### **Night Sky**

It is NPS policy to preserve opportunities for visitors to have an
unobstructed view of the night sky. Artificial light pollution can
affect this opportunity. As the proposed activity would not generate any
appreciable artificial lighting, this topic will not be analyzed
further.

### **Mineral Resources**

Although some areas of the Preserve support active oil and gas
operations, the implementation of any of the alternatives is not
expected to significantly affect such activities. This topic is
therefore dismissed from further consideration.

### **Indian Trust Lands**

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian
trust resources from a proposed project or action by Department of
Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents.
The Federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable
fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal
lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to
carry out the mandates of Federal law with respect to American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes. There are no Indian trust resources in the
Preserve. The lands comprising the Preserve are not held in trust by the
Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the Indians due to their
status as Indians. Therefore, Indian trust resources were dismissed as
an impact topic.

### **Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment**

Consideration of this topic is required by 40 CFR 1502.16. Because the
proposed action does not involve construction of buildings, this topic
was dismissed from further consideration.

### **Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential**

The alternatives would not have appreciable effects on energy
availability or costs in the region. Because there would not be
appreciable energy effects, this topic was dismissed from further
consideration.

### **Environmental Justice**

Executive Order 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 or low-income populations or communities. The
proposed action is not expected to cause adverse health or environmental
impacts to minorities, low-income populations, or communities, and thus
this topic will not be considered further.

### **Coastal Zone Management**

In accordance with the Coastal Zone management Act, Federal projects in
Florida must be consistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management
Program. This EA will be forwarded to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Florida State Clearinghouse for consistency
determination. Consistency is anticipated, and thus coastal zone
management was dismissed as an impact from further analysis.

# **DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES**

This section describes three alternatives---a no-action and two action
alternatives. The no-action alternative is required by NEPA and serves
as a baseline for comparison. This alternative is the preferred
alternative and would continue to implement provisions of the 1994 FMP.
The two action alternatives describe fire management programs with
differing emphases on wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, and
prescribed fire.

## ALTERNATIVE A - PRESCRIBED FIRE, WILDLAND FIRE USE, AND WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION (PREFERRED AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE)

This alternative would continue the current fire management program in
the Preserve as described in the 1994 FMP, with the revised terminology
and current technology and national direction adopted.

All unplanned human ignitions would be designated wildland fires and
appropriate suppression action taken. Prescribed fires would be employed
to mimic as nearly as possible the timing, extent, and effects of
natural fire in portions of the Preserve where natural fire regimes are
interrupted. Prescribed fire would be used to supplement WFURB when
analysis shows that human alteration or safety concerns have reduced
fire frequency, including reduced frequency resulting from wildland fire
suppression necessitated by smoke management or other safety concerns.
Prescribed fire would be used to reduce hazard fuel accumulations along
the boundary and to prevent wildland fires from entering the Preserve or
WFURB from leaving designated units. WFURB would be permitted under
prescribed conditions when criteria for designation are met. Prescribed
fire would continue to be the option applied most often, but wildland
fire use would be available as a management option over a wide area of
the Preserve.

Prescribed fire would be used to reduce hazard fuels along the boundary
and around improvements and to meet resource management objectives.
Prescribed fire would also be used to duplicate the effects of lightning
fires where the natural regimes are interrupted and cannot be restored.
This burning would contain large lightning fires to the interior of the
Preserve and would prevent human-caused wildland fires from entering
from outside. Prescriptions for lightning fires would allow some large
lightning fires to burn but would exclude those fires ignited under the
most severe conditions, such as occurred in 1981, 1989, and 2001.

Mechanical fuel reduction would be used where needed to protect
sensitive habitat areas. Mechanical reduction would also be used to
remove vegetation, native or otherwise, which has invaded prairies and
other areas because of previous disturbance and/or human activities.
Such areas would be restored to pre-disturbance conditions and
maintained through fire use.

Because of the large size of the Preserve, facilities to aid in fire
suppression, such as water dip sites for helicopter use, would be
constructed as necessary to ensure timely response and protection of
life, property, and resources. Locations for such sites would be few and
restricted to previously disturbed areas, such as fill pads.

## ALTERNATIVE B - FULL SUPPRESSION

All wildland fires in the Preserve, both human-caused and naturally
ignited, would be declared wildland fires and appropriate suppression
action taken. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) would be
incorporated into all fire management activities to the greatest extent
feasible and appropriate. These tactics would include but not be limited
to:

-   Use of existing barriers (both natural and human-made) for
    containment;

-   Prohibited use of dozers or tractor plows for line construction;

-   Prohibited use of fire line explosives;

-   Restriction of engines to existing roads and trails to the greatest
    extent practical and safe;

-   Prohibited use of fire retardant;

-   Line construction and tree felling only as necessary to control fire
    spread; and

-   Flush-cutting of any stumps level with ground.

Additional MIST policy direction is outlined in NPS Reference Manual 18,
*Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy* (NPS 1999).
Preserve-specific restrictions such as prohibiting ORV access may also
apply to fire suppression tactics. In areas such as prairies where no
vehicles are permitted, hand line construction or possibly large-acreage
burnouts from existing barriers would be considered.

Hazard fuel removal would be accomplished by mechanical means. This
could include chainsaws, front-end loaders, and other heavy equipment,
as appropriate.

Because of the large size of the Preserve, facilities to aid in fire
suppression, such as water dip sites for helicopter use, would be
constructed as necessary to ensure timely response and protection of
life, property, and resources. Locations for such sites would be few and
restricted to previously disturbed areas, such as fill pads.

The most appropriate suppression alternative would be taken to minimize
the impacts of fire suppression damage to Preserve resources and to
protect the wilderness values of the Preserve. In the absence of hazard
fuel reduction along the boundary, an aggressive control effort would be
frequently necessary to protect life and property and to prevent fires
from exiting the Preserve. Fuel reduction needed to return communities
to a more natural condition, the restoration of natural fire regimes, or
other resource management uses of fire would not be available to
managers under this option.

## ALTERNATIVE C - PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CONFINE/CONTAINMENT WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

All unplanned ignitions would be designated wildland fires and
appropriate suppression action would be taken. Prescribed fires would be
employed, by use of the best current knowledge of fire regimes, to mimic
the timing, frequency, and effects of natural fire regimes. The best
information available would be employed to adjust burning regimes to
compensate for alterations in hydrologic regimes in the Preserve.
Efforts would be made to duplicate the full range of fires that would
have burned both inside the Preserve and entered from outside the
Preserve prior to drainage and development of south Florida, the
Everglades, and the Big Cypress swamp systems. Prescribed fire would
also be used to modify fuels along the boundary to prevent wildland
fires from entering the Preserve. Prescribed fire would be used to
reduce hazard fuel accumulations around private residences and
inholdings, private businesses, Indian sites, visitor facilities, and
other improvements inside the Preserve.

Wildland fires would be managed under a confine/containment strategy.
Contain strategies would be used where natural and human-made barriers
exist and where there would be no threats to resources or the public.
Control strategies would be used when sensitive resources, property, or
the public would be threatened and when the other suppression strategies
would not meet Preserve objectives to protect these values.

Mechanical fuel reduction would be used where needed to protect
sensitive habitat areas. Mechanical reduction would also be used to
remove vegetation, native or otherwise, which has invaded prairies and
other areas because of previous disturbance and/or human activities.
Such areas would be restored to pre-disturbance conditions and
maintained through fire use.

Because of the large size of the Preserve, facilities to aid in fire
suppression, such as water dip sites for helicopter use, would be
constructed as necessary to ensure timely response and protection of
life, property, and resources. Locations for such sites would be few and
restricted to previously disturbed areas, such as fill pads.

## MITIGATING MEASURES

Mitigation would tend to reduce the negative impacts of a particular
action. The CEQ regulations call for a discussion of the
"appropriateness" of mitigation, and NPS 2001a requires an analysis of
the effectiveness of mitigation.

Mitigation for NEPA purposes in this EA is based on the avoidance of
adverse effects or application of one or more standard mitigation
measures. These measures and the alternatives to which they apply are
listed below.

-   Preserve staff would not use prescribed or wildland fire in any
    situation where such use would exacerbate already deteriorated air
    quality (A and C).

-   Confine/containment strategy would be adjusted during periods of
    poor dispersion and deteriorated air quality to minimize smoke
    emissions (C).

-   Preserve fire management personnel would routinely review prescribed
    and wildland fire activities against the risk of adverse effects to
    cultural resources (A and C).

-   MIST would confine the movement of personnel and equipment during
    fire suppression to previously disturbed areas as much as possible
    (A, B, and C).

-   Prescribed fire in the Cape Sable seaside sparrow areas would be
    seasonally restricted to the non-nesting seasons to avoid any
    mortality. Smaller blocks would be treated to provide the mosaic of
    habitat diversity (A and C).

-   Wildland fire use could be in conflict with Cape Sable seaside
    sparrow management, and thus in the southern areas of the Preserve
    where sparrow habitat is located in the Ten-Mile Corner and Ochopee
    Prairie, WFURB would not be applicable during the nesting season
    (A).

-   Prescribed burning would be carefully planned to avoid adverse
    effects on the Florida panther. Prior to any burn, the affected area
    would be checked against all available sources for panther denning
    activity. Burn plans would be modified or cancelled as necessary to
    avoid impacting any activity (A and C).

-   To reduce driving hazards associated with smoke drifting over
    roadways, appropriate warning signage and/or full or partial road
    closures would be employed as necessary (A, B, and C).

## 

## ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

NPS policy requires the identification of an environmentally preferred
alternative to aid NPS decision-makers in choosing among the
alternatives. The environmentally preferred alternative is the
alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as
expressed by NEPA section 101(b). This includes alternatives that:

-   Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations;

-   Assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and
    aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

-   Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
    and unintended consequences;

-   Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
    national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
    that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

-   Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities; and

-   Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources.

### The preferred or no-action alternative (Alternative A) is the environmentally preferred alternative, since it best meets the above environmental goals. This is the alternative that "causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment...and protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (NPS 2001a). Alternative C also meets the goals, but is not as environmentally preferable since it does not utilize WFURB.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc98575129 .anchor}Table 1. Comparison of
Alternatives and Summary of Environmental Impacts

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Impact      | [Alternative A: | [Alternative B: | [Alternative C: |
| Topic]       | Prescribed Fire | Full            | Prescribed Fire |
| {.smallcaps} | , Wildland Fire | Suppressi       | and             |
|              | Use, and        | on]{.smallcaps} | Conf            |
|              | Wildland Fire   |                 | ine/containment |
|              | Suppressi       |                 | Wildland Fire   |
|              | on]{.smallcaps} |                 | Suppressi       |
|              |                 |                 | on]{.smallcaps} |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Air          | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, |
|              |     minor,      |     minor to    |     minor,      |
|              |     adverse     |     moderate,   |     adverse     |
|              |     impacts     |     adverse     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
|              | -   Short-term, |                 | -   Short-term, |
|              |     minor,      | -   Short-term, |     minor,      |
|              |     adverse     |     moderate,   |     adverse     |
|              |     cumulative  |     adverse     |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |     cumulative  |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
|              | -   No          |                 | -   No          |
|              |     impairment  | -   No          |     impairment  |
|              |     of Preserve |     impairment  |     of Preserve |
|              |     resources   |     of Preserve |     resources   |
|              |     or values   |     resources   |     or values   |
|              |                 |     or values   |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Water        | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, |
|              |     negligible, |     minor,      |     negligible, |
|              |     adverse     |     adverse     |     adverse     |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |                 |                 |
|              | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     moderate to |     moderate to |     moderate to |
|              |     major,      |     major,      |     major,      |
|              |     beneficial  |     beneficial  |     beneficial  |
|              |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |                 |                 |
|              | -   No          | -   No          | -   No          |
|              |     impairment  |     impairment  |     impairment  |
|              |     of Preserve |     of Preserve |     of Preserve |
|              |     resources   |     resources   |     resources   |
|              |     or values   |     or values   |     or values   |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Cultural     | -   No adverse  | -   Adverse     | -   No adverse  |
| Resources    |     effects     |     effects     |     effects     |
|              |                 |                 |                 |
|              | -   No adverse  | -   Adverse     | -   No adverse  |
|              |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |
|              |     effects     |     effects     |     effects     |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Soils        | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     negligible, |     moderate,   |     negligible, |
|              |     adverse     |     adverse     |     adverse     |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |                 |                 |
|              | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     moderate,   |     moderate,   |     moderate,   |
|              |     beneficial  |     adverse     |     beneficial  |
|              |     cumulative  |     impacts     |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |                 |     impacts     |
|              |                 | -   No          |                 |
|              | -   No          |     impairment  | -   No          |
|              |     impairment  |     of Preserve |     impairment  |
|              |     of Preserve |     resources   |     of Preserve |
|              |     resources   |     or values   |     resources   |
|              |     or values   |                 |     or values   |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Vegetation   | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     major,      |     major,      |     moderate to |
|              |     beneficial  |     adverse     |     major,      |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     beneficial  |
|              |                 |                 |     impacts     |
|              | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |                 |
|              |     major,      |     moderate to | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     beneficial  |     major,      |     moderate to |
|              |     cumulative  |     adverse     |     major,      |
|              |     impacts     |     cumulative  |     beneficial  |
|              |                 |     impacts     |     cumulative  |
|              | -   No          |                 |     impacts     |
|              |     impairment  | -   Impairment  |                 |
|              |     of Preserve |     of Preserve | -   No          |
|              |     resources   |     resources   |     impairment  |
|              |     or values   |                 |     of Preserve |
|              |                 |                 |     resources   |
|              |                 |                 |     or values   |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Wildlife     | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     major,      |     major,      |     moderate to |
|              |     beneficial  |     adverse     |     major,      |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     beneficial  |
|              |                 |                 |     impacts     |
|              | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |                 |
|              |     major,      |     moderate to | -   Long-term,  |
|              |     beneficial  |     major,      |     moderate to |
|              |     cumulative  |     adverse     |     major,      |
|              |     impacts     |     cumulative  |     beneficial  |
|              |                 |     impacts     |     cumulative  |
|              | -   No          |                 |     impacts     |
|              |     impairment  | -   Impairment  |                 |
|              |     of Preserve |     of Preserve | -   No          |
|              |     resources   |     resources   |     impairment  |
|              |     or values   |                 |     of Preserve |
|              |                 |                 |     resources   |
|              |                 |                 |     or values   |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Special      | -   May affect, | -   Likely to   | -   May affect, |
| Status       |     not likely  |     adversely   |     not likely  |
| Species      |     to          |     affect      |     to          |
|              |     adversely   |                 |     adversely   |
|              |     affect      | -   Moderate to |     affect      |
|              |                 |     major,      |                 |
|              | -   Minor to    |     adverse     | -   Minor to    |
|              |     moderate,   |     cumulative  |     moderate,   |
|              |     beneficial  |     impacts     |     beneficial  |
|              |     cumulative  |                 |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     | -   Impairment  |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     of Preserve |                 |
|              | -   No          |     resources   | -   No          |
|              |     impairment  |                 |     impairment  |
|              |     of Preserve |                 |     of Preserve |
|              |     resources   |                 |     resources   |
|              |     or values   |                 |     or values   |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Visitor Use  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
| and          |     minor,      |     minor to    |     minor,      |
| Experience   |     beneficial  |     moderate,   |     beneficial  |
|              |     impacts     |     adverse     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
|              | -   No          |                 | -   No          |
|              |     cumulative  | -   No          |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |     cumulative  |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Health and   | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  | -   Long-term,  |
| Safety       |     minor,      |     moderate to |     minor,      |
|              |     beneficial  |     major,      |     beneficial  |
|              |     impacts     |     adverse     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
|              | -   No          |                 | -   No          |
|              |     cumulative  | -   Long-term,  |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |     moderate to |     impacts     |
|              |                 |     major,      |                 |
|              |                 |     adverse     |                 |
|              |                 |     cumulative  |                 |
|              |                 |     impacts     |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Tr           | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, | -   Short-term, |
| ansportation |     minor,      |     moderate,   |     minor,      |
|              |     adverse     |     adverse     |     adverse     |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     impacts     |
|              |                 |                 |                 |
|              | -   No          | -   No          | -   No          |
|              |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |     cumulative  |
|              |     impacts     |     impacts     |     impacts     |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|              |                 |                 |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Degree To    | The objectives  | The objectives  | The objectives  |
| Which        | are met         | are not all met | are met         |
| Project      |                 |                 |                 |
| Objectives   |                 |                 |                 |
| Are Met      |                 |                 |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

# 

# **AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

This section describes the characteristics of the existing environmental
components specifically identified as impact topics that could be
affected by the alternatives. Analysis of impacts in the Environmental
Consequences section assesses the effects that alternatives may have on
the affected environment.

The *General Management Plan* (NPS 1991) included a comprehensive
description of the natural and cultural resources of the original
Preserve. This EA tiers to that document, in conformance with the CEQ
(1983) guidelines for implementing NEPA. Therefore, the "Affected
Environment" section of the *General Management Plan* is incorporated by
reference to define most of the affected environment for this document.

The Preserve consists of 729,000 acres of mainly prairies, forested
lands, and wetlands located in south Florida on the northern boundary of
Everglades National Park (Figure 1). The northern boundary of the
Preserve runs east to west seven miles north of Interstate 75 or
"Alligator Alley," the western boundary is State Highway 29, and the
eastern boundary is shared with the Miccosukee Indian Reservation. In
addition to Everglades National Park, the Preserve is bounded by State
Water Conservation Area 3A, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge,
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, Big Cypress Seminole Indian
Reservation, and private properties. Within the Preserve are over 200
single family dwellings and backcountry camps registered and permitted
to remain under the restrictions of the Preserve's enabling legislation.
Eleven American Indian villages and two important religious sites are
located in the Preserve. The largest single inholding is the
Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, whose initial construction
was a major impetus for creating the Preserve.

## AIR

The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.), requires
Federal land managers to protect air quality, while the 2001 NPS
*Management Policies* (NPS 2001b) address the need to analyze air
quality during park planning. The Preserve is a Class II area under the
Clean Air Act, and the adjoining Everglades National Park is Class I.
The Preserve is currently within a designated attainment area, meaning
that concentrations of criteria pollutants are within standards.

The behavior of smoke in the mostly subtropical weather patterns of
south Florida and the Preserve's proximity to the metropolitan
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Naples areas create a potential for air pollution
and public health and safety problems. In particular, Interstate 75 and
U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail) are two major transportation routes that
are of concern with every ignition within or adjacent to the Preserve.
State Highway 29 along the western boundary is also considered when
evaluating wildland fire response or impacts from prescribed fire.

## WATER

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.

The waters of the Preserve are currently designated as Outstanding
Florida Waters. This is a state designation delegated by 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 could result in relatively
large adverse effects. Potential external sources of non-point source
pollution primarily include nutrient-enriched runoff from upstream
agricultural activities, especially along the northern boundary of the
Preserve. Potential internal contaminant sources include leakage and
ancillary activities associated with oil and gas exploration and
development, operation of vehicles along roads, and oil and fuel leakage
and soil disturbance caused by the operation of ORVs.

An extensive, shallow, surficial aquifer underlies the Preserve. It lies
in a porous limestone formation that is primarily 50-100 feet thick on
the Preserve's western boundary and generally diminishes in thickness to
the east. This aquifer is the main source of fresh water in Collier
County.

The elevation of the land areas varies from sea level to 19 feet above
sea level. The hydrologic regime of the Big Cypress physiographic
province largely determines the patterns in which vegetative communities
and their related wildlife species occur. During the summer and fall wet
season, when heavy rains lead to widespread surface inundation, the
almost imperceptible slope of the land creates a slowly moving, overland
sheet flow. During the winter and spring dry season, natural surface
water flows are confined to the lower elevations of strands, swamps, and
sloughs. During extremely dry periods, even these lower elevations may
have no surface flow, with only pockets of standing water. The Preserve
is essentially a self-contained hydrologic unit recharged primarily by
local rainfall. Except for a few canals, the waters are relatively
unpolluted and are a primary reason for the high productivity of the Ten
Thousand Islands estuary of Everglades National Park, into which the
waters flow.

## CULTURAL RESOURCES

## 

A total of 455 archaeological sites have been located within the
original Preserve, many of which are multi-component, containing more
than one cultural occupation. Sites have been generally located on the
drier hammocks along deep sloughs and marshes. Currently 9 sites are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and 14 are
potentially eligible.

Members of the recognized tribes of Florida and the unaffiliated and
unorganized Trail Miccosukees occupy several traditional villages
primarily along U.S. Highway 41. These villages and the associated
ceremonial grounds require special protection in all fire management
actions.

## SOILS

The soils of the Preserve are not true soils in the textbook sense --
layers of mixed mineral and organic materials with characteristic
profiles -- but are instead simple biological and geological products
which have not had sufficient time or proper environmental conditions
for evolution of true soils. Basically, there are four substrate types
in the Preserve: rock, marl, sand, and organic soils. Carbonate marls
are the most widespread unconsolidated soil type, occurring as thick
lenses in lakes and sloughs and as thin sheets over prairies. Sheets and
lenses of sands are abundant throughout the area. In terms of volume,
organic soils are the least important substrates in the Preserve, but
they are probably the most significant environmentally. Peat and mucks
have a great water storage capacity and serve as a reservoir for
nutrients. Peats are valuable sources of ecological information in that
they yield data on climatic patterns, sea level changes, fire
periodicity, and evolution of plant communities. Studies of charcoal
concentrations in peats have revealed that sawgrass habitats have had a
high incidence of fire for thousands of years. Peat oxidizes rapidly
when exposed to the air and, during droughts or when drained, can burn
away in smoldering fires that are difficult to control.

## VEGETATION

The Preserve hosts a variety of plant communities, including pinelands,
prairies, marshes, hammocks, cypress savannas, and mixed swamp forests.
The variability within the Big Cypress ecosystem results from elevation,
water, fire, and soil conditions.

Several exotic plant species have been documented in the Preserve,
including melaleuca (*Melaleuca quinquenervia*), Australian pine
(*Casuarina* spp.), Brazilian pepper (*Schinus terebinthifolius*), and
Old World climbing fern (*Lygodium microphyllum*). The Preserve has an
aggressive exotic plant management program, which has greatly reduced
the occurrences of melaleuca and Australian pine. However, monitoring
and treatment of infestations is an ongoing process.

Within the limited range of elevation within the Preserve, minor changes
in elevation bring about vastly different plant communities. Marshes,
cypress strands, and cypress savannas cover the lowest elevations.
Prairies typically cover the middle elevations, while the higher
elevations are covered with pinelands and hammocks.

Freshwater marshes are generally wetlands with an open expanse of
grasses, sedges, rushes, and other herbaceous plants and where standing
water occurs most of the year. Marshes generally contain few, if any,
trees and shrubs. Cypress is the dominant vegetation type, covering
approximately 43% of the Preserve. Cypress strands are dominated by bald
cypress (*Taxodium distichum*) as well as other mixed hardwoods such as
red maple (*Acer rubrum*), pop ash (*Fraxinus caroliniana*), willow
(*Salix* spp.), and myrsine (*Rapanea punctata*). Dwarf cypress
(*Taxodium distichum* var. *imbricarium*) is dominant in cypress
savannas, with a sparse understory of mixed grasses and sedges. The
dwarf cypress in this community type rarely grows taller than 10 m, with
a maximum diameter at breast height of 15 cm.

Hardwood hammocks are localized, thick stands of hardwood trees that can
grow on natural rises of only a few inches and rarely flood because of
their slight elevation. They may contain overstory trees of temperate or
tropical climate origin such as live oak (*Quercus virginiana*), laurel
oak (*Q. laurifolia*), red maple, gumbo limbo (*Bursera simaruba*),
tamarind (*Tamarindus indica*), and mahogany (*Swietenia mahogani*). The
diverse flora found in hammocks also includes many additional tree
species, bromeliads, orchids, ferns, and other humidity- and
shade-tolerant plants. Hardwood hammocks are considered to be the
successional climax community for south Florida.

The dominant species in prairies include a variety of grasses and
sedges, such as *Muhlenbergia filipes, Cladium jamaicense, Eragrostis
elliottii, Rhynchospora* spp., *Andropogon* spp., *Dichromena colorata,*
and *Aristida purpurascens.* Other common herbaceous species include
*Coreposis* spp., *Polygala* spp., *Liatris* spp., and *Hypericum* spp.
Some areas may have low shrubs such as wax myrtle (*Myrica cerifera*),
*Lyonia fruticosa*, and saw palmetto (*Serenoa repens*). However, in the
absence of fire, these shrubs can form a complete canopy within 5-10
years and become the dominant vegetation type.

Pinelands occur on nearly level land composed of coarse, poorly drained
soil. Slash pine (*Pinus elliottii* var. *densa*) is the dominant
overstory species. Cabbage palm (*Sabal palmetto*) is usually common in
pine forests, growing intermediately underneath the slash pine canopy or
suppressed as part of the shrub understory. Generally, there are two
types of pine forest, one with an understory of mixed grasses and other
herbaceous species, and another with an understory dominated by saw
palmetto. Usually a palmetto understory will include other shrub species
such as wax myrtle*, Lyonia fruticosa,* and winged sumac (*Rhus
copallina*). The pineland community with an understory of mixed grasses
(*Muhlenbergia* spp., *Paspalum* spp., and *Andropogon* spp.), along
with showy flowering herbs such as *Sabatia* spp. and *Polygala* spp.,
is the most species-rich community in the Preserve, with as many as 361
species occurring there.

Species of greatest concern for fire management are those found in
fire-prone habitats and listed by Loope and Avery (1979) as fire
intolerant. These are largely orchids, bromeliads, and ferns. Due to
their current low numbers from collecting, populations of these
sensitive plants could be extirpated by a single fire event. Conversely,
Walker (1993) described many herbaceous plants of long-leaf communities
like slash pine that are rare in today's landscape, and most of them
were adapted to growing-season fire.

## WILDLIFE

The Preserve is home to many native and introduced species of birds,
reptiles, fish, invertebrates, and mammals, 13 of which are game
species. The two most important hunted animals are white-tailed deer and
feral hogs, both of which serve as prey for the endangered Florida
panther. The 1991 *General Management Plan* (NPS 1991) contains a
detailed description of wildlife, and several species lists are
available at the Preserve's website, www.nps.gov/bicy.

## SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Nine species in the Preserve are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as threatened or endangered, and an additional 14 species are
listed by the state of Florida as threatened, endangered, or of special
concern. The four species that would be most affected by fire management
activities are described below.

One of the nation's most endangered mammals, the Florida panther (*Puma
concolor coryi*), is the subject of an intensive recovery effort
throughout the region, including the Preserve. The panther travels
through all habitats in the Preserve, with a home range of 80-200 square
miles. The females den in dense saw palmetto or scrub. Panthers also
utilize dry uplands with cover for resting sites throughout their home
range.

The red-cockaded woodpecker (*Picoides borealis*) is appropriately
termed an umbrella or keystone species, because it is an indicator of
the pine woodland ecosystem health. Throughout its range there are over
120 species of plants and 56 animal species on the regional U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service list of proposed, threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species associated with red-cockaded woodpecker habitats.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are dependent on open woodlands for nesting and
roosting cavities. Understory invasion of hardwoods and scrub can result
in abandonment of the site over time in the absence of fire. There are
more than 50 known active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters throughout
the Preserve, located in mature and old-growth pines.

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow (*Ammospiza maritima mirabilis*) nests in
grass clumps about four inches above ground. Wildland and prescribed
fires in this sparrow's habitat would be difficult to manage. Like the
red-cockaded woodpecker, the sparrow is also dependent on frequent
fire-return intervals. Researchers have found that population densities
reach their peak three years after fire treatment. In the absence of
fire, densities decline after three years. As is the case with many
wildlife species, a mosaic of burned and unburned habitats in various
stages, which provide a diversity of forage and cover, is an important
condition for healthy populations.

The eastern indigo snake (*Drymarchon corais couperi*), the longest
snake in North America, is extremely secretive and has only occasionally
been recorded in the Preserve. It inhabits a variety of habitats,
including pinelands, hammocks, and mangroves.

## VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

The Preserve has approximately one-half million visitor use days per
year. Most of these visits are brief stops between the Florida west and
east coasts. The Visitor Center at Oasis on U.S. 41 receives about
150,000 people per year on average. Other forms of use include
educational trips, wildlife and plant viewing, hunting, camping,
recreational vehicle trips, fishing, boating, bicycling, and hiking.
Rest stops along I-75 and U.S. 41 are close to areas where viewing of
prescribed fires often occurs.

## HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Fire, whether naturally or human-caused, can pose a health and safety
risk. Because of the number of visitors, NPS employees, contractors,
residents, and landowners within the Preserve, fire must be managed to
ensure that life and property are not endangered. The health and safety
effects of fire stem not only from the fire itself, but from the smoke
produced, which under certain conditions can affect individuals and
activities many miles outside the Preserve boundary. Smoke on the
highways poses a significant threat to health and safety, not only to
drivers, but to the numerous occupied camps and residences north of I-75
and along highways 41 and 29.

## TRANSPORTATION

Two major highways, Interstate 75 and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), cross the
Preserve from west to east, and State Route 29 runs north-south along
the western boundary. In addition, within the Preserve are several
county- and NPS-maintained roads used by the public. Within the Preserve
boundary is the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, airstrips,
and landing pads for private and governmental aircraft. Other aviation
facilities are located within varying distances of the Preserve, most
notably in Everglades City, Naples, Marco Island, Immokalee, and Broward
and Miami-Dade counties.

# **ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

# 

## Methodology for Impact Analysis

The NPS based the analysis of impacts on the review of existing
literature and Preserve studies, information provided by staff within
the NPS, and consultation with tribal, Federal, state, and local
entities.

The following definitions have been used to describe the impacts
associated with the alternatives. Definitions relating to intensity of
impact are described for natural and cultural resources, visitor use and
experience, health and safety, and transportation.

*Intensity* is a measure of the severity of an impact.

*Context* is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as
society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests, and/or
a locality. In this assessment the intensity of impacts is evaluated
within a local context, whereas intensity of the contribution of effects
to cumulative impacts is evaluated in a regional context.

*Duration* is a measure of the time period over which the effects of an
impact persist. The duration of an impact may be:

> Short-term, meaning impacts would be less than two years in duration.
> Two years was selected as the difference between the short and long
> term due to the length of revegetation and post treatment.
>
> Long-term, meaning impacts would be two years or more in duration.

*Type* - impacts are considered to be either adverse or beneficial when
analyzed under NEPA.

*Direct effects* are caused by the action and occur at the same time and
place.

*Indirect effects* are caused by the action, but occur later in time or
are further removed in distance but must be reasonably foreseeable.

## Definitions for ANALYSIS OF Natural Resources

## 

The following definitions were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts
associated with the plan alternatives on natural resources.

The intensity of impact on air, water, and soils may be:

> Negligible, meaning the impact is at the lower levels of detection or
> not measurable. Natural processes would not be affected.
>
> Minor, meaning the impact is detectable and natural processes may be
> affected in a localized area.
>
> Moderate, meaning the impact is clearly detectable and could have
> appreciable effect on natural processes.
>
> Major, meaning the impact results in highly noticeable changes and
> would substantially alter natural processes.

The intensity of an impact for vegetation and wildlife may be:

> Negligible, meaning the impact is detectable, but would have no
> principal effect on biological resources.
>
> Minor, meaning the impact is detectable but not expected to have an
> overall effect on natural community structure.
>
> Moderate, meaning the impact is clearly detectable and could have an
> appreciable effect on individual species or natural processes.
>
> Major, meaning the impact results in substantial and highly noticeable
> influences on individual species or natural processes.

For special status species the following impact intensities were used.
These terms are used to comply with Section 7 of ESA.

> No effect - the alternative would have no effect on special status
> species, including listed species.
>
> May affect, not likely to adversely affect - the alternative would be
> expected to have an insignificant, discountable, or beneficial effect
> on special status species, including listed species.
>
> Likely to adversely affect - the alternative would be expected to
> directly or indirectly have an adverse effect on special status
> species, including listed species. Actions that could be likely to
> adversely affect species would include direct or indirect mortality of
> individuals; the removal or damage of nesting, breeding, foraging, or
> roosting habitats; activities affecting food sources; and disturbance
> of nests during the breeding season. For wildlife, removal of
> vegetation could adversely affect species if it increased their
> susceptibility to predation.

## definitions for analysis of cultural resources

The following definitions were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts
associated with the plan alternatives on cultural resources. The
following impact intensities were used to comply with Section 106 of
NHPA:

> No effect - The action would result in no effect, either harmful or
> beneficial, on any historic property listed in or eligible for
> inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
>
> No adverse effect - The action could result in an effect, but the
> effect would not be harmful to those characteristics that qualify the
> property for inclusion in the National Register.
>
> Adverse effect - The action could result in an effect that would
> diminish the integrity of those characteristics that qualify the
> property for inclusion in the National Register.

## 

## Definitions for analysis of visitor use

## 

The following definitions were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts
associated with the plan alternatives on visitor use associated with the
alternatives:

> Negligible - a change that would not be perceptible or would be barely
> perceptible by most visitors.
>
> Minor - a slight change in a few visitors' experiences, which would be
> noticeable but which would result in little detraction or improvement
> in the quality of the experience.
>
> Moderate - a change in a large number of visitors' experiences that
> would result in a noticeable decrease or improvement in the quality of
> the experience. This would be indicated by a change in frustration
> level or inconvenience for a period of time.
>
> Major - a substantial improvement in many visitors' experience or a
> severe drop in the quality of many peoples' experience, such as the
> addition or elimination of a recreational opportunity or a permanent
> change in access to a popular area.

## DEFINITIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF Health and safety

The following levels were used to assess the intensity of impacts of the
alternatives on health and safety:

> Negligible - a change that would have little or no effect on the
> health and safety of most individuals.
>
> Minor - a slight increase or decrease in the risk to health and safety
> of a few individuals.
>
> Moderate - a noticeable increase or decrease in the risk to health and
> safety affecting a large number of individuals.
>
> Major - a substantial increase or decrease in health and safety risk
> affecting many individuals.

## DEFINITIONS FOR ANALYSIS OF transportation

The following definitions were used to evaluate the intensity and
cumulative nature of impacts on transportation associated with the plan
alternatives.

The intensity of impact on transportation may be:

> Negligible, meaning the impact could change transportation patterns,
> but the change would be so small that it would not be of any
> measurable or perceptible consequence.
>
> Minor, meaning the impact could change transportation patterns, but
> the change would be slight and localized, with few measurable
> consequences.
>
> Moderate, meaning the impact would result in readily apparent changes
> to transportation patterns with measurable consequences.
>
> Major, meaning the impact would result in severely adverse changes in
> transportation patterns.

## Cumulative Impacts 

## 

Cumulative impacts are described in regulations developed by the CEQ at
40 CFR 1508.7. A 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 who undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually insignificant but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.

Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the impact of the
project alternatives with potential impacts of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to
identify other ongoing or foreseeable future projects and activities
within the surrounding region. The following projects and activities
identified include:

-   Fire management programs in adjacent public and tribal lands,
    including Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee
    Strand Preserve State Park, Collier-Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay
    National Estuarine Research Reserve, Everglades National Park, state
    water conservation areas, and the Miccosukee and Seminole
    reservations. Most if not all of these entities use prescribed fire
    for resource benefit and fuels reduction.

-   Over the next 50 years a number of major water management projects
    are anticipated to have major consequences on the hydrology and
    water quality of the greater Everglades ecosystem, including the
    Preserve. Most of these projects fall under the auspices of either
    the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) or the
    Everglades Forever Act (EFA). Implementation of CERP is expected to
    either partially or fully modify the system of levees and canals
    along the eastern extent of the Preserve in the next 20 years. The
    purpose of these projects is to restore the surface water flow
    regime between the eastern Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades. A
    CERP-sponsored study is also under way to evaluate ecosystem
    restoration options in southwest Florida that may result in similar
    actions in the western half of the Preserve. Implementation of the
    EFA is expected to reduce water pollution upstream within the
    Everglades Agricultural Area. These are waters that do not enter the
    Preserve under current conditions, but may do so in the future as
    CERP and other projects are completed. The Big Cypress Seminole
    Indian Reservation Water Conservation Plan currently underway will
    result in major changes to water volume, distribution, and quality
    within the reservation, which will affect downstream areas in the
    Preserve. Water management practices from citrus expansion north of
    the Preserve may influence hydrology and water quality in the
    Preserve as well.

-   An Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Critical Project to construct 87
    additional culverts under Tamiami Trail is underway. In conjunction
    with the added culverts, a total of 29 blocking plugs would be
    constructed in the existing highway borrow canal. Blocking the
    east-west flow of the borrow canal will balance runoff conveyed by
    the proposed culverts. The success of this project will rely on the
    location of the culverts, placed to provide maximum benefits for
    hydrology as well as achieving the habitat modifications intended.
    When fully funded, this project will improve the natural sheet flow
    of surface water within the watersheds of Ten Thousand Islands
    National Wildlife Refuge and Aquatic Preserve, Picayune Strand State
    Forest, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, the Preserve, and
    Everglades National Park. By creating greater flow beneath the
    Tamiami Trail, a more natural hydropattern will be established on
    either side of the highway. The objective of this project is to
    improve natural hydrology, which will improve biological restoration
    for this region. Currently, only the portion of the project west of
    the Preserve has been funded.

-   The Preserve has two active oil wellfields within its boundary with
    ten active oil wells producing approximately 775,000 barrels of oil
    annually. Other facilities include one active pipeline three miles
    in length carrying crude oil from one wellfield to a tanker truck
    loading facility outside the Preserve. One inoperative pipeline
    originating outside the Preserve has been used in the past to carry
    crude oil 25 miles through the Preserve and on to Port Everglades in
    Fort Lauderdale. With improvements, this line could once again
    become active. Since 1997 the NPS has received 26 plans of
    operations from Collier Resources Company to seek permits for 61
    exploration undertakings involving well drilling and concentrated
    seismic surveys over most of the Preserve.

-   A *Recreational Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan* (NPS 2000) for the
    Preserve prescribes designating ORV trails and establishing
    parking/staging areas for ORV users. Implementation of this plan
    will concentrate ORVs onto the designated trails. This will result
    in beneficial impacts by reducing the estimated 22,000 miles of ORV
    trails to no more than 400 miles, thus reducing the widespread
    impacts now associated with dispersed ORV use. This project is
    anticipated to have long-term, moderate to major benefits to
    wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife.

-   The NPS has recently completed construction of ten visitor safety
    highway improvements along U.S. 41 and Loop Road in the Preserve.
    These improvements are anticipated to result in long-term, moderate
    to major benefits to visitor use by providing safe locations to
    leave the highway and providing visitors information about the
    Preserve and its resources. The construction will result in
    long-term impacts to vegetation and wetlands; however, the impacts
    are anticipated to be minor to moderate, since the improvements were
    located to maximize the use of previously disturbed lands.

-   The construction of a Tamiami Trail Welcome Center just west of the
    Preserve headquarters on disturbed land south of U.S. Highway 41 is
    planned for FY 2005. This facility will provide visitors with an
    orientation to the visitor services and amenities of the public
    lands of south Florida, including opportunities within the Preserve
    as well as Everglades National Park, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve
    State Park, and other regional destinations. The Welcome Center will
    consist of an orientation/information building, a
    multipurpose/audiovisual building, a comfort station, a surfaced
    parking lot, a footbridge over a canal, and picnic tables.

-   The Seminole Tribe of Florida plans to construct six traditional
    home sites on NPS lands along U.S. 41 in the eastern portion of the
    Preserve. Each site will occupy approximately three acres and will
    be located on mostly previously filled wetlands; however,
    approximately six acres of wetlands will have to be filled to
    accommodate drain fields and local setback requirements. The loss of
    wetlands will be compensated by wetlands restoration within the
    Preserve and appropriate payment by the Tribe into a regional
    mitigation bank.

## IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES OR VALUES

## 

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the
preferred and other alternatives, NPS *Management Policie*s (NPS 2001)
and Director's Order #12 (NPS 2001a) require analysis of potential
effects to determine if actions would impair park resources.

The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the
Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended,
begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. NPS
managers must always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest
degree practicable adverse impacts on park resources and values.
However, the laws do give the NPS management discretion to allow impacts
to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill
the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute
impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has
given the NPS management discretion to allow certain impacts within
parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the
NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular
law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited
impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the
responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or
values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the
enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park resource
or value may constitute impairment. However, an impact would more likely
constitute impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose
conservation is

-   necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
    establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;

-   key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to
    opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

-   identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
    relevant NPS planning documents.

Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor
activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors,
and others operating in the park. A determination of impairment is made
within each conclusion statement for the impact topic under natural
resources.

## IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE; CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT)

### **Air**

The direct effect of fire would be smoke generation and thus degradation
of ambient air quality. There would also be emissions from equipment
used in fire management, such as vehicles and aircraft. These effects
would last through the duration of the fire event and would cease
shortly afterward. This alternative would thus result in short-term,
minor, adverse effects on air quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The presence of smoke from prescribed fire or
wildland fires in areas adjacent to the Preserve could result in
short-term, minor to moderate, adverse effects on air quality, depending
on weather, magnitude of the burn, and location. The implementation of
this alternative, combined with the cumulative impacts of other nearby
activities, would therefore result in short-term, minor, adverse effects
on air quality.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, minor,
adverse effects on air quality. The implementation of this alternative
would not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

### **Water**

Fire could result in deteriorated water quality due to deposition of ash
and other combustion products into surface waters. Increased turbidity
and pollution from runoff could result from fires that destroy most or
all of the local vegetation, due to the decrease in soil stabilization,
filtering, and uptake provided by plants. During the wet season,
turbidity could also temporarily increase in areas affected by movement
of personnel and equipment. All such effects would be temporary and
localized; therefore, this alternative would result in short-term,
negligible, adverse effects on water quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The implementation of CERP and the Tamiami Trail
Culvert Project are anticipated to make major long-term improvements to
water quality in the region. The program establishes water treatment
areas that mitigate impacts to water quality from agricultural and urban
development. The construction of the Tamiami Trail highway improvements
has the potential to impact water quality by increasing the areas of
impervious surfaces within the Preserve. These areas are anticipated to
accumulate oil and grease relating to vehicles. However, the impacts of
these areas would be minimized by the construction of stormwater
management systems in accordance with state law at these locations.

The cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative A with the other
projects are anticipated to be long-term, moderate to major, and
beneficial. Although Alternative A would have a short-term, negligible,
adverse impact, this increment is not anticipated to reduce the
anticipated beneficial cumulative impacts.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, negligible,
adverse effects to water quality. The implementation of this alternative
would not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

### **Cultural Resources**

Fire has not significantly harmed the Preserve's cultural resources,
because cultural sites are generally located on hammocks surrounded by
wetlands. As fuel loads are reduced, so is the threat of serious damage.
Very hot fires could damage prehistoric sites containing concentrations
of organic matter such as wood, particularly if organic soils are
ignited. This could have a severe impact on a site's strata, causing
compaction and loss or alteration of carbonized plant material.
Alternative A would decrease the risk of hot fires by reducing fuel
loads. Prescribed fire would exclude the use of hot fires or fires which
could intrude into hammocks and portions of tree islands where cultural
resources are most frequently found.

Members of the recognized tribes of Florida and the unaffiliated and
unorganized Trail Miccosukees occupy several traditional villages
primarily along U.S. 41. These villages and the associated ceremonial
grounds would require special protection in all fire management actions.

Implementation of Alternative A would result, therefore, in no adverse
effects on cultural resources.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Construction activities associated with CERP
projects within the Preserve, as well as expansion of oil and gas
activity, could potentially affect cultural sites in the immediate area;
however, it is expected that the NHPA Section 106 process would be
followed and project plans would be modified as necessary to minimize or
avoid adverse effects. The ORV trails, visitor safety highway
improvements, Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and Seminole home site
projects have all been sited to avoid adversely affecting cultural
resources. The effects of Alternative A on cultural resources combined
with those of other ongoing and planned projects would therefore not be
adverse.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in no adverse effects to
cultural resources.

### **Soils**

Fire can alter soil composition and characteristics; however, under
Alternative A there would be a low probability of organic soils impacted
due to the use of prescribed fire reducing fuels in areas adjacent to
hammocks and strands. Alternative A would have minimal impact on
substrate conditions, as prescribed fire and WFURB would restore and
maintain the largest acreage of all the alternatives. By removal of
hazardous fuel accumulations, this alternative would reduce the
frequency of hot fires and thus the chances of organic soil ignitions.
Soils would be disturbed by the movement of personnel and equipment
during fire suppression, but MIST would confine such activities to
previously disturbed areas as much as possible. The impact to soils
under this alternative would therefore be expected to be long-term,
negligible, and adverse.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The NPS plans to restore some areas impacted by
ORV trails as part of implementing the *ORV Management Plan* (NPS 2000).
Hydrologic restoration improvements from the installation of culverts
under the Tamiami Trail are expected to result in restoration of the
hydrology to vast areas of wetlands and benefit hydric soils.

The implementation of this alternative coupled with these additional
projects is anticipated to result in long-term, moderate, beneficial
cumulative impacts through the restoration of wetland and thus hydric
soil functions.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in long-term, negligible,
adverse effects to soils. The implementation of this alternative would
not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Vegetation**

This alternative would result in reduced disturbance of vegetation from
suppression activities, due to management of some lightning fires as
wildland fire used to improve resource conditions. The use of prescribed
fire to create defensible boundaries would also give managers more
flexibility in selection of alternatives for management of wildland
fires burning under favorable conditions.

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A would produce effects closest to
those of a natural fire regime. However, natural fire applied to a
hydrologic and spatially altered system would result in an incomplete
natural fire regime. The implementation of this alternative would allow
continued research of the effects on vegetation by large,
lightning-caused fires and continued use of prescribed fire that would
produce optimum fire effects for the biological systems in the Preserve.
South Florida slash pine is described as being "extremely well adapted
to fires of high frequency and low intensity" (Landers, 1991). Fire also
enhances seed germination and seedling establishment. Diversity of
herbaceous plants in longleaf pine systems is maintained by frequent
fire (Platt et al. 1988, Walker 1993).

Because this alternative would most closely approximate natural fire
effects on vegetation, the impacts would be expected to be long-term,
major, and beneficial.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Impacts to the region\'s vegetation are
occurring on lands managed by the NPS, State of Florida, and private
landowners. The construction of the Tamiami Trail and Loop Road visitor
safety improvements, the Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and the Seminole
home sites will result in adverse impacts to vegetation through the
long-term loss of vegetation. These impacts will be minimized through
the siting of the locations on mostly previously disturbed lands.
However, native vegetation will be impacted. The implementation of the
ORV Management Plan (NPS 2000) is anticipated to have major, long-term
benefits to the vegetation of the Preserve by eliminating ORVs from
sensitive resources such as prairies and the restoration of numerous
miles of trails. Implementation of fire management activities on
adjacent public lands results in positive effects on vegetation.

These projects, coupled with the impacts associated with Alternative A,
are expected to result in long-term, major, beneficial cumulative
impacts on vegetation.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, major, beneficial impacts to vegetation. The impacts would
therefore not result in impairment of the resources or values of the
Preserve.

**Wildlife**

A direct effect of Alternative A would be short-term displacement of
some animals from their home range and possible mortality of nestlings
and ground-dwelling animals. However, Alternative A would also produce
the most natural distribution of fire-prone habitats for wildlife. This
alternative would result in management of selected lightning fires as
wildland fire uses. The wide use of prescribed fire to restore and
maintain the fire-dependent ecosystem and create defensible boundaries
on the edge of the Big Cypress systems would also give managers more
flexibility in selection of alternatives for management of wildland
fires. The direct impact would be less disturbance of wildlife from
suppression activities.

Game species, including bear, deer, turkey, and quail, would lose forage
immediately following any managed fires. The abundance and palatability
of food items would be substantially enhanced the following growing
season. Of critical importance would be planning and prescribing the
managed fires to result in post-burn mosaic conditions, which would
enable escape cover from the burn as well as future cover structure to
be retained adjacent to treated sites. Within burn units on the
Preserve, a percentage range of treated versus untreated in a given year
would provide for diversity of habitat structure and prey species. Deer
would select open areas for foraging, as would other large game.

Because of the expected improvement in quality and diversity of wildlife
habitat resulting from the use of prescribed and wildland fire,
implementation of this alternative would have long-term, major,
beneficial impacts to wildlife.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The construction of the visitor safety highway
improvements, the Welcome Center, and the Seminole home sites have
resulted or could result in impacts to wildlife. These projects would
displace wildlife, due to noise and human activity during construction.
The highway improvement construction would result in the permanent loss
of wildlife habitat. However, due to the small scale of these projects
relative to the available wildlife habitat, the adverse impact to
wildlife would be negligible.

Fire management activities in adjacent public and tribal lands and
implementation of CERP projects are anticipated to result in long-term,
major benefits to wildlife through the restoration of large areas of
wildlife habitat. These projects are expected to have a major cumulative
benefit to wildlife. The implementation of Alternative A would
contribute an additional long-term, major, beneficial impact to the
cumulative impacts to wildlife.

**Conclusion.** This alternative is expected to result in long-term,
major, beneficial impacts to wildlife, and thus no impairment to the
resources or values of the Preserve.

**Special Status Species**

A direct effect of Alternative A would be short-term displacement of
some special status animal species from their home range and possible
mortality of nestlings and ground-dwelling animals. There might be some
short-term, negative impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers, including
mortality at nest cavities, but the long-term benefits to the habitat
and species would be substantially more important to maintain viable
populations and would far outweigh the occasional loss of nests. The
open pine stands that provide essential nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat would be maintained through a frequent fire return interval of
every 1-5 years. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use would control
invasion of hardwoods and woody shrubs into the slash pine habitat
preferred by woodpeckers.

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow must have burns every three years on the
average to reduce brush and maintain nesting habitat. Prescribed fire
would be seasonally restricted to the non-nesting seasons to avoid any
mortality. Smaller blocks would be treated to provide the mosaic of
habitat diversity. Wildland fire use could be in conflict with sparrow
management, and thus in the southern areas of the Preserve where sparrow
habitat is located in the Ten-mile Corner and Ochopee Prairie, WFURB
would not be applicable during the nesting season.

Prescribed burning would be carefully planned to avoid adverse effects
on the Florida panther. Prior to any burn, the affected area would be
checked against all available sources for panther denning activity. Burn
plans would be modified or cancelled as necessary to avoid impacting any
activity. Non-denning panthers in the area of a prescribed burn would
move out of the vicinity and would thus be negligibly affected. The
habitat for deer, a prey species for the Florida panther, would be
improved, thus enhancing the panther's survival.

Prescribed burning and WFURB would have a beneficial effect on the
eastern indigo snake by improving overgrown pinelands and increasing
habitat diversity. Because of the apparently low population density of
indigo snakes in the Preserve and the availability of solution holes and
hollow stumps where the animals can seek shelter, the probability of
snakes being both present at a burn site and harmed by the burn is
insignificant and discountable.

Most of the other special status species in the Preserve occur in or are
closely associated with areas, such as sloughs, hammocks, and aquatic
habitats, that would be negligibly affected by fire activities. Because
of the expected improvement in quality and diversity of habitat
resulting from the use of prescribed and wildland fire, implementation
of this alternative may affect but would not likely adversely affect
special status species.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The use of fire management in adjacent public
and tribal lands results in habitat enhancement for several special
status species, including the Florida panther and red-cockaded
woodpecker. Similarly, the restoration of wetlands and sheet flow
hydrology through the implementation of CERP projects and Tamiami Trail
culverts will have beneficial effects. Other ongoing and planned
Preserve and regional projects involve mostly already disturbed lands
and are expected to have minimal impacts. The impacts of these projects,
coupled with the impacts of Alternative A, are therefore expected to
result in minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts on special
status species.

**Conclusion.** Implementation of this alternative may affect but would
not likely adversely affect special status species, to include the
Florida panther, red-cockaded woodpecker, Cape Sable seaside sparrow,
and eastern indigo snake. The impacts would therefore not result in
impairment of the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Visitor Use and Experience**

Alternative A would impact visitor use and experience directly by
restricting visitor access to areas being burned or affected by smoke.
However, such impacts on visitors and travelers in the Preserve and on
surrounding communities would be minimal, because all visitor facilities
and roads would be protected by hazard fuel reduction burning and could
remain open. Vistas could be affected in and near burned areas, and
visitors might be subjected to irritating smoke or unpleasant odors in
unrestricted areas. An indirect beneficial effect would be improvements
in viewscapes and visitor experiences as vegetation and wildlife
representative of more natural conditions eventually return to improved
habitat at burned sites.

This alternative would also provide frequent opportunities to present to
the public information and education regarding fire ecology of south
Florida. This would especially apply to prescribed fire projects during
the planning stages and just prior to implementation, when news releases
and media presentations could be provided.

The implementation of this alternative would result in long-term, minor,
beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience in the Preserve.

**Cumulative Impacts.** This alternative is not expected to cause a
significant change in total visitor numbers or type of use in the region
and therefore would contribute a negligible amount to cumulative effects
on the region's visitation patterns.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience in
the Preserve.

**Health and Safety**

Under Alternative A, all prescribed burning and wildland fire use
activities would be planned in advance, either through the prescribed
burn plan or the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis. This would reduce the
hazard to employees involved in managing the fires. The use of
prescribed fire to create defensible boundaries and to protect
improvements would reduce risks to all involved and decrease the need
for direct holding actions. This alternative would reduce wildland fire
incidence to a low level and decrease exposure of visitors and employees
to severe wildland fire under drought conditions.

The implementation of this alternative would therefore result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to health and safety.

**Cumulative Impacts.** When evaluated in the context of other planned
and ongoing projects in the region, the health and safety impacts of
this alternative are expected to be negligible.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to health and safety.

**Transportation**

Smoke produced by wildland or prescribed fire under this alternative
would have the potential to reduce visibility on roads and highways in
the Preserve. Depending on smoke density, traffic volume, roadway
condition, and other factors, appropriate warning signage and/or full or
partial road closures may be necessary. Smoke could also impact aviation
at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and other public and
private aviation facilities in and near the Preserve. Such impacts could
range from flight delays or cancellations to airspace restrictions.
Because smoke-related impacts would be localized and persist only for
the duration of the fire, this alternative is expected to result in
short-term, minor, adverse impacts to transportation.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Transportation patterns adversely affected by
prescribed or wildland fire activities could be further impacted if such
activities are carried out simultaneously with similar activities in
neighboring public and tribal lands. The probability of such impacts
occurring would be very low, because fire events would have to occur
synchronously, and not all fire events would result in transportation
impacts. The implementation of other regional projects would either
result in negligible impacts or slightly increased traffic, e.g., the
scenic corridor visitor highway safety improvements. When considered
within the context of these projects, the impacts of Alternative A would
be negligible.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
short-term, minor, adverse impacts to transportation. This alternative
would not contribute to the cumulative impacts on transportation in the
Preserve or adjacent areas.

## IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B -- FULL SUPPRESSION

Under this alternative, the total number of acres burned in a normal
year would be lower than in alternatives A or B. A higher percentage of
acres burned would occur outside the lightning fire season, since the
ignition sources would include human ignitions during the dry season.
Wildland fires originating from human- and lightning-caused ignitions
would be suppressed when burning under low to moderate conditions. A
higher percentage of acres burned would occur during extreme burning
conditions, when control of new ignitions would be difficult. These
fires would result in greater fuel consumption. With full suppression
there would be fewer acres burned in small fires during most years, with
an increased potential for infrequent large fires like the "Turner Ten"
and "Bear Island," which burned over 150,000 and 24,000 acres in single
events, respectively. Fuel consumption would increase for fuel types
that burn only under severe conditions: peat soils, hardwood hammocks,
cypress strands, and swamp forests. More dead and down fuels would
result in higher fuel loadings in the large size classes due to
overstory mortality in pinelands and hammocks. Acreage burned has
historically been greatest in drought years, and most acres have burned
in March, April, and May, prior to the start of the rainy season, making
fuels unavailable for lightning fires.

### **Air**

Under the full suppression alternative, smoke episodes would be
concentrated during periods of drought and very high or extreme fire
danger. Fire events would occur independently of smoke management and
air quality prescription guidelines, resulting in increased likelihood
of air quality degradation during times when such conditions are less
desirable, such as during periods of stagnant air. The number of days
when smoke is produced would be less than for Alternative A; however,
the potential for severe air quality degradation of both the Class I
airshed in Everglades National Park and the air quality in Miami-Dade
County and the Naples area would be greater. In addition, the potential
for long-duration smoke production from smoldering combustion of organic
soils and large fuels would also be increased due to the shift towards
fires under severe conditions and during the winter dry season. This
alternative would thus result in short-term, minor to moderate, adverse
impacts to air quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The presence of smoke from prescribed fire or
wildland fires in areas adjacent to the Preserve could result in
short-term, minor to moderate, adverse effects on air quality, depending
on weather, magnitude of the burn, and location. The implementation of
this alternative, combined with the cumulative impacts of other nearby
activities, would therefore result in short-term, moderate, adverse
effects on air quality.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, minor to
moderate, adverse impacts on air quality. The implementation of this
alternative would not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Water**

The full suppression alternative in the absence of prescribed fire
treatments would result initially in fewer acres affected by fire. Over
time, larger and more destructive unplanned fires could result in high
levels of water quality deterioration due to increased amounts of ash
and other materials from these higher-intensity fires. Areas in the
Preserve that have a much longer fire-return interval such as hammocks
and cypress strands would be less resistant to fire and therefore
increased amounts of vegetation would be consumed closer to water
sources. After these less frequent, high-intensity fire events,
increased turbidity and runoff deposition would be expected. The
effects, though temporary, might be high enough to reduce levels of
oxygen for aquatic life. Submergent vegetation could also be reduced.
However, as the wet season progresses, rising water levels would
eliminate these temporary impacts, resulting in short-term, minor,
adverse impacts on water quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The implementation of CERP and the Tamiami Trail
Culvert Project are anticipated to make major long-term improvements to
water quality in the region. The program establishes water treatment
areas that mitigate impacts to water quality from agricultural and urban
development. The construction of the Tamiami Trail highway improvements
has the potential to impact water quality by increasing the areas of
impervious surfaces within the Preserve. These areas are anticipated to
accumulate oil and grease relating to vehicles. However, the impacts of
these areas would be minimized by the construction of stormwater
management systems in accordance with state law at these locations.

The cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative B with the other
projects are anticipated to be long-term, moderate to major, beneficial.
Although Alternative B would have a short-term, minor, adverse impact,
this increment is not anticipated to reduce the projected beneficial
cumulative impacts.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, minor,
adverse effects to water quality. The implementation of this alternative
would not impair the values or resources of the Preserve.

**Cultural Resources**

Alternative B would increase the risk of high-intensity fires due to
increased fuel loads as a result of fire exclusion over time. Cultural
sites would be more vulnerable to negative impacts from high-intensity
fires on the surface as well as the upper soil strata, where most
prehistoric and other artifacts are located. This alternative could also
impact cultural sites located on the hammocks, especially during periods
of drought, when these high-intensity fires would burn more actively
into the hammocks from the adjacent prairies and pinelands.

The traditional Indian villages along U.S. 41 would be at greater risk
from wildland fires due to the level of fuels built up in the absence of
fire. The resulting suppression responses to protect these villages
could result in greater surface and artifact disturbance from mechanical
activities.

Implementation of Alternative B would result in adverse effects on
cultural resources.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Construction activities associated with CERP
projects within the Preserve, as well as expansion of oil and gas
activity, could potentially affect cultural sites in the immediate area;
however, it is expected that the NHPA Section 106 process would be
followed and project plans would be modified as necessary to minimize or
avoid adverse effects. The ORV trails, visitor safety highway
improvements, Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and Seminole home site
projects have all been sited to avoid adversely affecting cultural
resources.

Due to the nature of unplanned ignitions, without prescribed fire to
reduce fuel loading, suppression activities could be less effective at
preventing the spread of a wildland fire. Safety of firefighters would
be reduced during response to these infrequent, high-intensity fires.
Therefore, regardless of the cultural protection processes for ongoing
and planned projects, unplanned ignitions could result in adverse
impacts to cultural resources.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in adverse effects to
cultural resources.

**Soils**

Under Alternative B, soil composition and characteristics would be at
greater risk of negative impacts due to the effects of high-intensity
fires. In comparison with soils in vegetation types that have frequent
fires occurring at low intensity and short duration, disruption of the
historic fire return interval would cause fuel loads to increase. When
fires occur under these conditions, soils would be super-heated due to
the intensity of the sustained burning periods. Organic soil ignitions
would be likely.

The implementation of this alternative would result in long-term,
moderate, adverse impacts to soils.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The NPS plans to restore some areas impacted by
ORV trails as part of implementing the *ORV Management Plan* (NPS 2000).
Hydrologic restoration improvements from the installation of culverts
under the Tamiami Trail are expected to result in restoration of the
hydrology to vast areas of wetlands and benefit hydric soils.

Regardless of the positive effects of current activities and future
projects, infrequent, high-intensity fires would damage soils. The
degree of negative impacts would be determined by the amount of fuel
load accumulated over time. The implementation of this alternative is
anticipated to result in long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts
to soils and hydric soil functions.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in long-term, moderate,
adverse effects to soils. The implementation of this alternative would
not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Vegetation**

The full suppression alternative would result in long-term changes to
vegetation and plant communities. Species composition and vegetation
structure would be changed in the absence of fire. This would be
apparent most notably in ecosystems that historically had a fire-return
interval of less than ten years. More than half of the Preserve is
categorized as adapted to high frequency, low-intensity fire regime.
Removing one or more episodes of fire from this interval would allow for
fuel loading to exceed historic levels. When unplanned ignitions occur,
the fire behavior would be more extreme, resulting in plant mortality
higher than if burned frequently and at low intensity.

The understory in pinelands would become overdeveloped, allowing fires
to climb into the canopies of slash pine. Prairies would become less
diverse, as years of dead vegetation would accumulate, similar to pine
needles covering the forest floor.

Absence of fire could also lead to increased exotic plant invasion by
allowing seedling plants to establish. When fire returns after
successful suppression for years, the effects can be extraordinary.
Vegetation adapted to frequent, low-intensity fire could not survive
under extreme burning conditions. Hammocks and cypress strands, once
protected by adjacent vegetation types periodically burned under low
intensity, would be impacted as the fires burned actively into these
sites.

Because this alternative would deviate from the historic fire regime,
the impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Impacts to the region\'s vegetation are
occurring on lands managed by the NPS, State of Florida, and private
landowners. The construction of the Tamiami Trail and Loop Road visitor
safety improvements, the Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and the Seminole
home sites will result in adverse impacts to vegetation through the
long-term loss of vegetation. These impacts will be minimized through
the siting of the locations on mostly previously disturbed lands.
However, native vegetation will be impacted. The implementation of the
*ORV Management Plan* (NPS 2000) is anticipated to have major, long-term
benefits to the vegetation of the Preserve by eliminating ORVs from
sensitive resources such as prairies and the restoration of numerous
miles of trails. Implementation of fire management activities on
adjacent public lands results in positive effects on vegetation.

Although these projects are expected to result in beneficial cumulative
impacts on vegetation, the impacts would be more than offset by the
adverse impacts of implementing this alternative. Alternative B would
thus result in long-term, moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts
on vegetation.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, major, adverse impacts to vegetation. A high-intensity fire
could harm the integrity of the Preserve's vegetation; therefore, the
impacts would result in impairment of this resource.

**Wildlife**

Full suppression would likely directly impact some wildlife species,
especially the more sedentary reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals.
This alternative would cause the highest level of mortality, due to
infrequent but extreme fires. Entrapment would be higher under extreme
conditions than during prescribed fires and fires managed for resource
benefit. Rapidly spreading ground and crown fires could entrap even the
most mobile species, including large game and birds.

This alternative would have the greatest impact on wildlife habitat.
Wildlife inhabiting fire-prone vegetation types would be influenced
indirectly by impacts on the vegetation. Large wildland fires under
severe conditions would consume all fuel within the fire perimeter and
leave few islands of unburned habitat. Large mammals already
experiencing habitat loss outside the Preserve could be negatively
impacted if most of their habitat burned in a single fire event. This
alternative would result in short-term benefit to many species by
protecting nest sites and foraging habitat; however, long-term impacts
to the habitat due to modifications to stand structure and plant species
composition could result in reduced wildlife species diversity.
Vegetation structural changes in the absence of fire and the aftermath
of a high-intensity fire would combine to reduce species abundance and
diversity.

Fire suppression activities could impact wildlife, particularly when
life and property are threatened. It would be unlikely that
fire-dependent ecosystems would benefit from fire exclusion except on a
small scale from unplanned ignitions. The benefits would be minimized by
the required aggressive fire suppression under this alternative.

Due to the expected decline in wildlife quantity and diversity and
quality and diversity of wildlife habitat resulting from the suppression
of all fires and the damaging effects of high-intensity wildland fires
in these habitats, implementation of this alternative would have
long-term, major, adverse impacts to wildlife.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The construction of the visitor safety highway
improvements, the Welcome Center, and the Seminole home sites have
resulted or could result in impacts to wildlife. These projects would
displace wildlife, due to noise and human activity during construction.
The highway improvement construction would result in the permanent loss
of wildlife habitat. However, due to the small scale of these projects
relative to the available wildlife habitat, the adverse impact to
wildlife would be negligible.

Fire management activities in adjacent public and tribal lands would
benefit wildlife in the areas managed but would have the negative effect
of reducing even further the occurrence of fires in the Preserve. While
the Preserve's wildlife may be positively impacted during droughts, at
other times when fires occurred historically in fire-dependent
ecosystems, lightning fires adjacent to the Preserve might not spread
under a low-intensity behavior. In addition, fire suppression efforts
would reduce the likelihood of spread onto the Preserve.

Implementation of CERP projects are anticipated to result in long-term,
major benefits to wildlife through the restoration of large areas of
wildlife habitat. These projects are expected to have a major cumulative
benefit to wildlife. The implementation of Alternative B, however, would
offset these benefits.

The implementation of Alternative B would result in long-term, moderate
to major, adverse impacts to the cumulative impacts to wildlife.

**Conclusion.** This alternative is expected to result in long-term,
major, adverse impacts to wildlife. Because a high-intensity fire could
harm the integrity of the Preserve's wildlife, the impacts would result
in impairment of this resource.

**Special Status Species**

The short-term impacts to special status species would be beneficial if
Alternative B were implemented, due to the absence of prescribed fire.
There would be less displacement of animal species from their home range
and less mortality of nestlings and ground-dwelling animals. There would
be short-term, beneficial impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers; however,
the long-term impacts would be adverse, due to displacement of the
woodpeckers when entire stands of pine could be removed as a result of
high-intensity fires. Extreme fire behavior would also result in higher
mortality during the event. The exclusion of fire would promote the
development of dense stands of pine, palmetto, hardwoods, and other
understory plants, including exotics, into the slash pine habitat
preferred by woodpeckers.

Habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would likely disappear over
time in the absence of fire. Although the sparrows would be protected
during the nesting season, fire exclusion would allow brush invasion to
the detriment of the species habitat under Alternative B.

Florida panther denning habitat would be protected. However, the species
would gradually decline due to the loss of available forage for
white-tailed deer; a key prey species. Although short-term displacement
would be reduced without frequent, low-intensity fires, mortality may
increase, as extreme fire behavior would not as readily allow animals to
escape. Integrity of den sites would also be reduced after the
vegetation structure is modified around the den.

The eastern indigo snake would also be negatively impacted to the loss
of habitat diversity in the absence of frequent, low-intensity fires.
Refugia such as hollow stumps may not be as protective during the
high-intensity fires expected under this alternative.

Any special status species associated with sloughs, hammocks, and
cypress strands could also be negatively impacted by displacement,
habitat loss, loss of food sources, or direct mortality when
high-intensity fires burn into these areas.

Because Alternative B would result in increased frequency of extreme
fires resulting in significant habitat and food source loss,
implementation of this alternative would be likely to adversely affect
special status species.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The use of fire management in adjacent public
and tribal lands results in habitat enhancement for several special
status species, including the Florida panther and red-cockaded
woodpecker. Similarly, the restoration of wetlands and sheet flow
hydrology through the implementation of CERP projects and Tamiami Trail
culverts will have beneficial effects. Other ongoing and planned
Preserve and regional projects involve mostly already disturbed lands
and are expected to have minimal impacts. Regardless of the beneficial
effects resulting from these projects, infrequent, high-intensity fires
in the Preserve would adversely affect special status species.
Therefore, Alternative B is expected to result in moderate to major,
adverse cumulative impacts on special status species.

**Conclusion.** Implementation of this alternative is likely to
adversely affect special status species, to include the red-cockaded
woodpecker, Florida panther, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and eastern
indigo snake. Because a high-intensity fire could harm the integrity of
the Preserve's special status species, the impacts would therefore
result in impairment of this resource.

**Visitor Use and Experience**

Alternative B would impact visitor use and experience directly by
restricting visitor access to areas being burned or affected by smoke.
Although such events would be fewer than in a prescribed fire management
system, the impacts on visitors and experience would be longer and more
severe. Because hazard fuel accumulations would result in high-intensity
fires requiring aggressive suppression techniques, larger areas would be
burned by hotter fires, resulting in more closures of visitor
facilities. Vistas could be significantly affected in and near burned
areas, and visitors might be subjected to irritating smoke or unpleasant
odors in large areas within and adjacent to the Preserve. In the long
term, natural vistas and wildlife viewing would be replaced by
viewscapes comprised of vegetation and wildlife representative of
fire-altered habitats.

Educational opportunities for the public regarding fire ecology would be
eliminated, along with the prescribed fire and frequent lightning fire
suppression. Fire prevention efforts would increase as unplanned
ignitions would become more difficult to control.

The implementation of this alternative would result in long-term, minor
to moderate, adverse impacts on visitor use and experience in the
Preserve.

**Cumulative Impacts.** This alternative is not expected to cause a
significant change in total visitor numbers or type of use in the region
and therefore would contribute a negligible amount to cumulative effects
on the region's visitation pattern.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on visitor use and
experience in the Preserve.

**Health and Safety**

The potential for injury to members of the public and to firefighters
would be greatest under this alternative. Wildland fire events would be
unplanned. Lack of prescribed burning around housing, private
improvements, recreation sites and along U.S. 41 and I-75 would place
visitors, employees, residents, and improvements at risk. The need to
evacuate residents and visitors from the path of wildland fires would
endanger them as well as those involved in evacuations. Firefighters
would be required to use aggressive control measures to protect these
areas and would be exposed to hazards inherent in wildland fire
suppression. In addition, the majority of acres burned would occur in
drought years under severe conditions, exposing firefighters to threats
from extreme fire behavior such as extreme rates of spread, high
intensities and spot fires. The need for large numbers of resources to
fight fires under such conditions would expose more individuals to
hazards such as pinnacle rock, poisonous snakes and plants, and heat
exhaustion. The amount of smoke and particulates generated from these
infrequent fire events would further negatively impact the health of
adjacent communities.

The implementation of this alternative would therefore result in
long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts to health and safety.

**Cumulative Impacts.** When evaluated in the context of other planned
and ongoing projects in the region, the health and safety impacts of
this alternative are expected to be long-term, moderate to major, and
adverse.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts to health and safety.

**Transportation**

Alternative B would reduce the occurrence of smoke along transportation
routes, as no prescribed fire projects would be allowed. All unplanned
ignitions would be suppressed and therefore emissions from wildland
fires would be reduced. As fuels accumulate over time, fires would get
larger and consume more vegetation, resulting in more smoke along
roadways, and major transportation corridors could be closed. Depending
on smoke density, traffic volume, roadway condition, and other factors,
appropriate warning signage and/or full or partial road closures may be
necessary. Smoke could also impact aviation at the Dade-Collier Training
and Transition Airport and other public and private aviation facilities
in and near the Preserve. Such impacts could range from flight delays or
cancellations to airspace restrictions. Because smoke-related impacts
would be more extensive than under Alternative A and persist only for
the duration of the fire, this alternative is expected to result in
short-term, moderate, adverse impacts to transportation.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Transportation patterns adversely affected by
wildland fire activities could be further impacted if such activities
occur simultaneously with similar activities in neighboring public and
tribal lands. The probability of such impacts occurring would be very
low, because fire events would have to occur synchronously, and not all
fire events would result in transportation impacts. The implementation
of other regional projects would either result in negligible impacts or
slightly increased traffic, e.g., the scenic corridor visitor highway
safety improvements. When considered within the context of these
projects, the impacts of Alternative A would be negligible.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
short-term, moderate, adverse impacts to transportation.

## IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C -- PRESCRIBED FIRE AND CONFINE/CONTAINMENT WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

**Air**

The direct effect of fire would be smoke generation and thus degradation
of ambient air quality. There would also be emissions from equipment
used in fire management, such as vehicles and aircraft. These effects
would last through the duration of the fire event and would cease
shortly afterward. This alternative would thus result in short-term,
minor, adverse effects on air quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The presence of smoke from prescribed fire or
wildland fires in areas adjacent to the Preserve could result in
short-term, minor to moderate, adverse effects on air quality, depending
on weather, magnitude of the burn, and location. Confine/containment
strategy would be adjusted during periods of poor dispersion and
deteriorated air quality to minimize smoke emissions. The implementation
of this alternative, combined with the cumulative impacts of other
nearby activities, would therefore result in short-term, minor, adverse
effects on air quality.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, minor,
adverse effects on air quality. The implementation of this alternative
would not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Water**

Fire could result in deteriorated water quality due to deposition of ash
and other combustion products into surface waters. Increased turbidity
and pollution from runoff could result from fires that destroy most or
all of the local vegetation, due to the decrease in soil stabilization,
filtering, and uptake provided by plants. During the wet season,
turbidity could also temporarily increase in areas affected by movement
of personnel and equipment. All such effects would be temporary and
localized; therefore, this alternative would result in short-term,
negligible, adverse effects on water quality.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The implementation of CERP and the Tamiami Trail
Culvert Project are anticipated to make major long-term improvements to
water quality in the region. The program establishes water treatment
areas that mitigate impacts to water quality from agricultural and urban
development. The construction of the Tamiami Trail highway improvements
has the potential to impact water quality by increasing the areas of
impervious surfaces within the Preserve. These areas are anticipated to
accumulate oil and grease relating to vehicles. However, the impacts of
these areas will be minimized by the construction of stormwater
management systems in accordance with state law at these locations.

The cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative C with the other
projects are anticipated to be long-term, moderate to major, and
beneficial. Although Alternative C would have a short-term, negligible,
adverse impact, this increment is not anticipated to reduce the
anticipated beneficial cumulative impacts.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in short-term, negligible,
adverse impacts to water quality. The implementation of this alternative
would not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Cultural Resources**

Alternative C would decrease the risk of hot fires by reducing fuel
loads. Prescribed fire would exclude the use of hot fires or fires which
could intrude into hammocks and portions of tree islands where cultural
resources are most frequently found.

Members of the federally recognized tribes of Florida and the
unaffiliated and unorganized Trail Miccosukees occupy several
traditional villages primarily along U.S. 41. These villages and the
associated ceremonial grounds would require special protection in all
fire management actions.

Preserve fire management personnel would routinely review prescribed and
wildland fire activities against the risk of adverse effects to cultural
resources. Implementation of Alternative C would result, therefore, in
no adverse effects on cultural resources.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Construction activities associated with CERP
projects within the Preserve, as well as expansion of oil and gas
activity, could potentially affect cultural sites in the immediate area;
however, it is expected that the NHPA Section 106 process would be
followed and project plans would be modified as necessary to minimize or
avoid adverse effects. The ORV trails, visitor safety highway
improvements, Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and Seminole home site
projects have all been sited to avoid adversely affecting any cultural
resources. The effects of Alternative C on cultural resources combined
with those of other ongoing and planned projects would therefore not be
adverse.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in no adverse effects to
cultural resources.

**Soils**

Fire can alter soil composition and characteristics; however, under
Alternative C there would be a low probability of organic soils impacted
due to the use of prescribed fire reducing fuels in areas adjacent to
hammocks and strands. Alternative C would have minimal impact on
substrate conditions, as prescribed fire and confine/containment
strategies would restore and maintain soils through planned and
strategically applied fire. An example would be backing fire to
strengthen holding lines under a confine/contain-managed wildland fire.
By removal of hazardous fuel accumulations, this alternative would
reduce the frequency of hot fires and thus the chances of organic soil
ignitions. Soils would be disturbed by the movement of personnel and
equipment during fire suppression activities, but MIST would confine
such activities to previously disturbed areas as much as possible as
well as prohibit access into sensitive areas unless life and/or property
were threatened. The confine/contain suppression strategy would further
minimize personnel and equipment impacts by utilizing existing barriers
as holding lines. The impact to soils under this alternative would
therefore be expected to be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The NPS plans to restore some areas impacted by
ORV trails as part of implementing the *ORV Management Plan* (NPS 2000).
Hydrologic restoration improvements from the installation of culverts
under the Tamiami Trail are expected to result in restoration of the
hydrology to vast areas of wetlands and benefit hydric soils.

The implementation of this alternative coupled with these additional
projects is anticipated to result in long-term, moderate, beneficial
cumulative impacts through the restoration of wetland and thus hydric
soil functions.

**Conclusion.** This alternative would result in long-term, negligible,
adverse effects to soils. The implementation of this alternative would
not impair the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Vegetation**

This alternative would result in management of some lightning fires as
wildland fire used to improve resource conditions. The use of prescribed
fire to create defensible boundaries would also give managers more
flexibility in selection of alternatives for management of wildland
fires burning under favorable conditions. The result would be reduced
disturbance of vegetation from suppression activities.

Alternative C would suppress natural ignitions under the
confine/containment strategy. The implementation of this alternative
would allow continued research of the effects on vegetation by continued
use of prescribed fire that would produce optimum fire effects for the
biological systems in the Preserve. South Florida slash pine is
described as being "extremely well adapted to fires of high frequency
and low intensity" (Landers, 1991). Fire also enhances seed germination
and seedling establishment. Diversity of herbaceous plants in longleaf
pine systems is maintained by frequent fire (Platt et al. 1988, Walker
1993). Confine/containment strategies, although more adaptable and
flexible than full suppression under Alternative B, would not
approximate natural fire effects on vegetation as closely as Alternative
A.

Because this alternative would closely approximate natural fire effects
on vegetation, the impacts would be expected to be long-term, moderate
to major, and beneficial.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Impacts to the region\'s vegetation are
occurring on lands managed by the NPS, State of Florida, and private
landowners. The construction of the Tamiami Trail and Loop Road visitor
safety improvements, the Tamiami Trail Welcome Center, and the Seminole
home sites will result in adverse impacts to vegetation through the
long-term loss of vegetation. These impacts were minimized through the
siting of the locations on mostly previously disturbed lands. However,
native vegetation will be impacted. The implementation of the *ORV
Management Plan* (NPS 2000) is anticipated to have major, long-term
benefits to the vegetation of the Preserve by eliminating ORVs from
sensitive resources such as prairies and the restoration of numerous
miles of trails. Implementation of fire management activities on
adjacent public lands results in positive effects on vegetation.

These projects, coupled with the impacts associated with Alternative C,
are expected to result in long-term, moderate to major, beneficial
cumulative impacts on vegetation.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impacts to vegetation. The
impacts would therefore not result in impairment of the resources or
values of the Preserve.

**Wildlife**

A direct effect of Alternative C would be short-term displacement of
some animals from their home range and possible mortality of nestling
and ground-dwelling animals. However, Alternative C would also produce
enhanced natural distribution of fire-prone habitats for wildlife. The
wide use of prescribed fire to restore and maintain the fire-dependent
ecosystem and create defensible boundaries on the edge of the Big
Cypress systems would also give managers more flexibility and improved
safety and successful suppression of wildland fires. Like Alternative A,
the direct impact would be less disturbance of wildlife from suppression
activities, especially compared to Alternative B.

Game species, including bear, deer, turkey, and quail, would lose forage
immediately following any prescribed or wildland fires. The abundance
and palatability of food items would be substantially enhanced the
following growing season. Of critical importance would be planning for
prescribed fires to result in mosaic conditions, post-burn. This would
enable escape cover from the burn as well as future cover structure to
be retained adjacent to treated sites. Within burn units on the
Preserve, a percentage range of treated versus untreated in a given year
would provide for diversity of habitat structure and prey species. Deer
would select open areas for foraging, as would other large game.

Because of the expected improvement in quality and diversity of wildlife
habitat resulting from the use of prescribed and confine/containment
suppression of wildland fire, implementation of this alternative would
have long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impacts to wildlife.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The construction of the visitor safety highway
improvements, the Welcome Center, and the Seminole home sites have
resulted or could result in impacts to wildlife. These projects would
displace wildlife, due to noise and human activity during construction.
The highway improvement construction would result in the permanent loss
of wildlife habitat. However, due to the small scale of these projects
relative to the available wildlife habitat, the adverse impact to
wildlife would be negligible.

Fire management activities in adjacent public and tribal lands and
implementation of CERP projects are anticipated to result in long-term,
major benefits to wildlife through the restoration of large areas of
wildlife habitat. These projects are expected to have a major cumulative
benefit to wildlife. The implementation of Alternative C would
contribute an additional long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impact
to the cumulative impacts to wildlife.

**Conclusion.** This alternative is expected to result in long-term,
moderate to major, beneficial impacts to wildlife, and thus no
impairment to the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Special Status Species**

A direct effect of Alternative C would be short-term displacement of
some special status animal species from their home range and possible
mortality of nestling and ground-dwelling animals. There might be some
short-term, negative impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers, including
mortality at nest cavities, but the long-term benefits to the habitat
and species would be substantially more important to maintain viable
populations and would far outweigh the occasional loss of nests. The
open pine stands that provide essential nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat would be maintained through a frequent fire return interval of
every 1-5 years. Prescribed fire and, to a lesser degree, wildland fires
would control invasion of hardwoods and woody shrubs into the slash pine
habitat preferred by woodpeckers.

The Cape Sable seaside sparrow must have burns every three years on the
average to reduce brush and maintain nesting habitat. Prescribed fire
would be seasonally restricted to the non-nesting seasons to avoid any
mortality. Smaller blocks would be treated to provide the mosaic of
habitat diversity.

Prescribed burning would be carefully planned to avoid adverse effects
on the Florida panther. Prior to any burn, the affected area would be
checked against all available sources for panther denning activity. Burn
plans would be modified or cancelled as necessary to avoid impacting any
activity. Non-denning panthers in the area of a prescribed burn would
move out of the vicinity and would thus be negligibly affected. The
habitat for deer, a prey species for the Florida panther, would be
improved, thus enhancing the panther's survival.

Prescribed burning would have a beneficial effect on the eastern indigo
snake by improving overgrown pinelands and increasing habitat diversity.
Because of the apparently low population density of indigo snakes in the
Preserve and the availability of solution holes and hollow stumps where
the animals can seek shelter, the probability of snakes being both
present at a burn site and harmed by the burn is insignificant and
discountable.

Most of the other special status species in the Preserve occur in or are
closely tied to areas, such as sloughs, hammocks, and aquatic habitats,
that would be negligibly affected by fire activities. Because of the
expected improvement in quality and diversity of habitat resulting from
the use of prescribed and wildland fires suppressed with the
confine/containment strategy, implementation of this alternative may
affect but would not likely adversely affect special status species.

**Cumulative Impacts.** The use of fire management in adjacent public
and tribal lands results in habitat enhancement for several special
status species, including the Florida panther and red-cockaded
woodpecker. Similarly, the restoration of wetlands and sheet flow
hydrology through the implementation of CERP projects and Tamiami Trail
culverts will have beneficial effects. Other ongoing and planned
Preserve and regional projects involve mostly already disturbed lands
and are expected to have minimal impacts. The impacts of these projects,
coupled with the impacts of Alternative C, are therefore expected to
result in minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts on special
status species.

**Conclusion.** Implementation of this alternative may affect but would
not likely adversely affect special status species, to include the
Florida panther, red-cockaded woodpecker, Cape Sable seaside sparrow,
and eastern indigo snake. The impacts would therefore not result in
impairment of the resources or values of the Preserve.

**Visitor Use and Experience**

Alternative C would impact visitor use and experience directly by
restricting visitor access to areas being burned or affected by smoke.
However, such impacts on visitors and travelers in the Preserve and on
surrounding communities would be minimal, because all visitor facilities
and roads would be protected by hazard fuel reduction burning and could
remain open. Vistas could be affected in and near burned areas, and
visitors might be subjected to irritating smoke or unpleasant odors in
unrestricted areas. An indirect beneficial effect would be improvements
in viewscapes and visitor experiences as vegetation and wildlife
representative of more natural conditions eventually return to improved
habitat at burned sites.

This alternative would also provide some opportunities to present to the
public information and education regarding fire ecology of south
Florida. This would especially apply to prescribed fire projects during
the planning stages and just prior to implementation, when news releases
and media presentations could be provided.

The implementation of this alternative would result in long-term, minor,
beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience in the Preserve.

**Cumulative Impacts.** This alternative is not expected to cause a
significant change in total visitor numbers or type of use in the region
and therefore would contribute a negligible amount to cumulative effects
on the region's visitation patterns.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on visitor use and experience in
the Preserve.

**Health and Safety**

Under Alternative C, all prescribed burning use activities would be
planned in advance through the prescribed burn plan, which would reduce
the hazard to employees involved in managing the fires. The use of
prescribed fire to create defensible boundaries and to protect
improvements would reduce risks to all involved and decrease the need
for direct holding actions. This alternative would reduce wildland fire
incidence to a low level and decrease exposure of visitors and employees
to severe wildland fire under drought conditions.

The implementation of this alternative would therefore result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to health and safety.

**Cumulative Impacts.** When evaluated in the context of other planned
and ongoing projects in the region, the health and safety impacts of
this alternative are expected to be negligible.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to health and safety.

**Transportation**

Smoke produced by wildland or prescribed fire under this alternative
would have the potential to reduce visibility on highways in the
Preserve. Depending on smoke density, traffic volume, roadway condition,
and other factors, appropriate warning signage and or full or partial
road closures may be necessary. Smoke could also impact aviation at the
Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and other public and
private aviation facilities in and near the Preserve. Such impacts could
range from flight delays or cancellations to airspace restrictions.
Because smoke-related impacts would be localized and persist only for
the duration of the fire, this alternative is expected to result in
short-term, minor, adverse impacts to transportation.

**Cumulative Impacts.** Transportation patterns adversely affected by
prescribed or wildland fire activities could be further impacted if such
activities are carried out simultaneously with similar activities in
neighboring public and tribal lands. The probability of such impacts
occurring would be very low, because fire events would have to occur
synchronously, and not all fire events would result in transportation
impacts. The implementation of other regional projects would either
result in negligible impacts or slightly increased traffic, e.g., the
scenic corridor visitor highway safety improvements. When considered
within the context of these projects, the impacts of Alternative C would
be negligible.

**Conclusion.** The implementation of this alternative would result in
short-term, minor, adverse impacts to transportation. This alternative
would not contribute to the cumulative impacts on transportation in the
Preserve or adjacent areas.

# **CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION**

Requests for scoping comments were distributed to agencies, tribes,
organizations, and individuals in May 2004. A similar request for
scoping comments was posted on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC) website. Comments were solicited during external scoping
until September 2004. Responses were received from Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Collier-Seminole State Park, Florida State Clearinghouse, and two
individuals. All were generally supportive of the preferred alternative
and offered suggestions for items to be addressed in this EA.

In accordance with Section 7 of ESA, the NPS will forward a copy of this
EA to the South Florida Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The NPS has determined that the preferred alternative may
affect but would not adversely affect federally listed species and will
request concurrence with that determination.

To comply with Section 106 of NHPA, the NPS has determined that the
preferred alternative would not adversely affect historic properties and
will send a copy of this EA to the Florida State Historic Preservation
Officer with a request for their concurrence.

This EA will be posted on the PEPC website and letters and a press
release will be distributed notifying the public that the document will
be available for a 30-day public review.

# **PREPARERS**

Damon Doumlele, Environmental Protection Specialist, Big Cypress
National Preserve

George Sheppard, Suppression Specialist, Big Cypress National Preserve

# **REFERENCES CITED**

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

> 1983 *Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations,* memorandum to Federal
> agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.

Landers, J.L.

> 1991 *Disturbance Influences on Pine Traits in the Southeastern United
> States,* Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall
> Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 61-98.

Loope, L.L. and G.N. Avery.

> 1979 *A Preliminary Report on Rare Plant Species in the Flora of the
> National Park Service Areas of South Florida,* Report M-548, South
> Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. 42
> p.

National Park Service (NPS)

> 1991 *General Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
> Statement,* Big Cypress National Preserve, Ochopee, FL.
>
> 1999 Reference Manual 18, *Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management
> Policy,* National Park Service, Washington, DC.
>
> 2000 *Final Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan/Supplemental
> Environmental Impact Statement,* National Park Service, Big Cypress
> National Preserve, Ochopee, FL.
>
> 2001a Director's Order No. 12 and Handbook, *Conservation Planning,
> Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making,* National Park
> Service, Washington, DC.
>
> 2001b *Management Policies, 2001,* National Park Service, Washington,
> DC.
>
> 2001c *Resource Management Plan,* National Park Service, Big Cypress
> National Preserve, Ochopee, FL.
>
> 2003 Director's Order No. 18, *Wildland Fire Management,* Office of
> Policy and Regulations, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Platt, W.J., G.W. Evans, and S.L. Rathbun

> 1988 *The Population Dynamics of a Long-lived Conifer* (Pinus
> palustris), The American Naturalist 131(4):491-525.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)

> 2003 Departmental Manual Part 516, Office of Environmental Policy and
> Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Walker, J.

> 1993 *Rare Vascular Plant Taxa Associated with the Longleaf Pine
> Ecosystems: Patterns in Taxonomy and Ecology*, in S. M. Hermann (ed),
> *Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference*, No. 18, The
> Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration, and Management, Tall
> Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL, pp. 105-126.

# **ACRONYMS**

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality

CERP - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

EA - Environmental Assessment

EFA - Everglades Forever Act

ESA - Endangered Species Act

FMP - Fire Management Plan

FY - Fiscal year

P.L. - Public Law

MIST - Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act

NPS - National Park Service

ORV - Off-road vehicle

PEPC - Planning, Environment and Public Comment

USC - United States Code

WFURB - Wildland Fire Used for Resource Benefits